Minutes-PC 1965/07/07_ ~7 !
~il't,y HBZZ
Anaheim, Californis
July 7, 1965
A P.EGULAR E~ETING OF Tf~ 6NAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
• REGULAR t~EPING - A rogular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission Was called
to order by Chairman Mungall at 2:00 o'olock p.m., a quorum being present.
PRESIIv'T - CHAIRMAN: Mungall.
- COM6~ISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Perry, Rowle,nd.
ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. .
PRESEN'C - Development Services Director: Alan Orsborn
Zoning Supervisor: Robert Miakelson
Deputy City Attorney: F~rman R~1;erts
Office Engineer: Arthur Daw
Associate Planner: Ronald Thomp;son
- Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Kreb~
INVOCAlION - Reverend Hugh 0'Connor, St. Tustin Martyr Church gave the invonation.
PLFIDGE OF - Commissioner Perry led the pledge of allegiance to the Flag.
ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF - The Minutes of the meeting of June 21, 1965 were approved with the
THE MIIQUTES following oorreotion: Page 2637, paragraph 6 should read: ~Lr. n. R.
McDanie~, ....
CONDITIONAL USE - CON'I•INUED PUBLIC HEARING. JAMES T. F'AI~, 1635 South 5tate College Boulevard,
PERMIT N0. 690 Anaheim, Cali£ornie„ Owner; CURTIS A. LENPZ, 739 Van Bibber Avenue, Orange,
CaliPornia, Agent; requesting permission to estabiish a tt,:ee-story office
building, restaurant and cocktail lounge, and an automobile service aenter
on property described as: A"pie-shaped" parael of land of approximatsly 4.9 aares with a
curved frontage of approxime,tely 855 feet on the north side of Katelle Avenue, the northern-
most boundary of approximately 5:17 feet parallels and is ad3acent to the A. T. 6, S. F. Rail-
road right-of-way; the westernmost boundary is approximately 586 feet in length, and its
southern end lies approaimately 7S5 feet easterly from the centerline of South State Col.lege
Boulevard, and further described as 2150 East Kstells Avenue. Property preseni;ly classified
M-1., ISGHT INDUSTRIAI~, ZONE.
Sub,ject petition ~as continued from the meeting of April 26, May 24, and Jun.e 7, 1965, to
&llow time for the Staff to prepare a study of the impact oP the stadium and oommeraial uses
on the southeast industrial area, and for the petitioner to havs sufficient time to submit a
new master plan.
Zoning Supervisor tiobert Mickelson, advised the Commission that a telephone message had ,just
been received requesting that the Commission delay consideration of sub,ject petition until
the last item on the agenda because the representatives were unable to arrive sooner because
of a previous meeting.
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to delay aonsideration of Conditional Use Permit No. 690
until the last item on the agenda. Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. k~0'L'ION CARRIED.
(Continued on Page No. 2646
VAFcIANCr~ N0. 1710 - CONfi2NUED PUBISC HEARING. CHARLES F. d, ELbdA SPAULDING, 1115 West Brodv+ay,
Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting permission to develop an apa,rtment
building with waivers of (1) front yard setback; (2) minimum raquired side
yard; (3) location requiroments of aocessory buildings abutting property line; and (4) minimum
x~equired recreation area, on property described as: A reatangularly shaped parcel of land
Nith a frontage of approsime,tel~ 50 feet on the north side of Broadway and a maximum depth of
approaimately 158 feet, the eastern lioundary of said property being approximately 193 feet
west of the aenterline of YPest Street, and further desaribed as 1115 West Broadway. Property
pres~ntly classified R-3, MULTIPLE••FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
~ _
,~ ~
~ ~
Sub,ject petition was continued from the meeting of June 7, 1965 in order to allow the peti-
tioner time to submit revised plans.
-2640 -
~
MI_NUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, duly 7, 1965 26¢1
' VARIANCE N0. 1710 - Zoning Supervisor Robert Miakelson adv3sed the Co~nission that revised
(Continued) plazis had not been reaeived, and that upon contacting the petitioner, he
indiasted he Was not desirous o4 submitting revised p'.sns, but ~anted the
Commissior. to oonsider the vaiver request With original pians submitted.
Mr. Charles Spaulding, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and stated that
his contraotor had been too busy to draw new plans as requested by the Commission and he ~as
, hoping that the Commission would reoonsider the varianae request as suomitted, sinoe~t,~e
~ apartmeat struature was adjacent to~sub3ect proporty. "'¢~^4-~~~
~ The Commission stated that at the previous hearing conoern ~as eapressed because the peti-
tioner was not providing adequate racreational. area, but that thsre was a possibility that
some of the other waivers requested might be favorably considered.
The petitioner statsd that there would be one esid two-bedroom apartments, and whil.e he aves
the owner of the developmant, no children would be al.lovred; thus he was trying to utilize
'tIie maximum amount of the property, sinoe the ad,jaoent property hed been granted a similar
~ variance.
The Co~ission then advised the petitioner that they vrould be unable to render a daoision
on the plans originally considered, and would consider granting the petitionsr additional
time in order to have revised plans dra~n.
The petitioner then stated that he would need at least 30 days for the svbmissi.on oP revised
plans.
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue the publ.ic hearing oa Petition for Varianae
No. 1710 to the meating of August 16, 1965, in order to allow the petitioner~ suffia:ent time
to submit revised pl.ans inaorporating a larger reareational araa. Commissioner Perry seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIEA.
RECLASSTF`TCATIOSi - PUBLIC HEARING. IN?~IAfiED BY TI~ CIrY' PLANNi'NG CO~SSION, 204 East
N0. 65-66-13 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Cal.ifornis; proposing the reclassification of
property lrnovm as the Northeast No. 3 Anneastion generall.y bounded on the
west by Jefferson Stroet; on the south by the Riverside Fresway; on the
east by Fee Ana Street and the western boundary of Traat No. 4762, ~hich lies north of
Orangethorpe Avenue; and on the north by Orchard Drive from the W.-l, I.IGHT INDUSTRIA;~, R-1,
ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, R-2, MUL•_'~'IpI,E FAMIT.Y RESIDENPIAL, and R-A, AtiRICI,'7~~:IRAI1, ZONES to the
R-A, AGR:fG;'LT'~fiAL, R-1, OTJE FA~dZL~" RF]SIDEN"PIAL and R-~, MUL~IPI~E FAMIL~!" Rr~SIDEN'PIAL, Z02~[ES
which shall esi:ablish permanent zoning on said properties.
Planning Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski reviewed the baakground and history of the Nartheast
No. 3 Anneaation noting that the State required that within one year after interim zoning
was established on neWl.y anneaed property, studies must be prepared and reolassifioation
be initiated for permanent zoning based on said studies; that the time limitation of the
one year would eapire on July 14, 1965, and that Assistant Plar_ner ~ack Christofferson wou.ld
present the proposed zoning as indicated on eahibits on the east wall of the Counail Chamber,
idr. Christofferson appeared before the Commi~sion and reviewed the proposed zoning for those
paroels encompassed by the Northeast No. 3 Axu~eaation, noting that although thoss parcels
formerly identified as M-1, T,ight Industriel, Zone were now being proposad for realassifica-
tion to the R-A, Agriaultural, Zone and vould be inocrporated into the Resolution of :Intent
to inolude the parcels in the properties now oovered by the Northeast Industr3sl Area at the
July 19, 1965 meeting; that the properties whiah inolude the Santa An^. River ~vould remain
in the R-A Zone, that a portion depioted as Area No. 4 was also being proposed for ths R-A
Zone sinae a Resolution of Intent to realassify that property to the R-1, One Femily Resident-
ial Zone ~vas presently pending and was a part of a larger traot being devsloped to the south
and ee,st; that Area No. 5 was being reoo~ended for R-1 because it was an eaisting single
femily traat; and that Area No. 6 was being proposed for R-2, Multiple Family Residential,
Zone beoause it was already so developed.
Deputy City Attorney F~rman Roberts advised the Ca~ission that sub~ect petition was adver-
tised for permanent zoning of the properties 3n the Northesst Anneaetion No. 3, and that
two hearings pould be neoessarp in order to place those properties proposed for industrial
development as pert of the boundaries of properties coversd in the Resolution of Intent of
properties in the Northeast Industrial Ar~s.
~ax
MINU'I'ES, CITY PIANNING COfiE~~I8SI0N, Tu1y 7, 1965 2642
RECLASSIFICATION - Mrs. Stella Danker, 8582 Oceanviea, Olive, apneared bsfore tha Commission
N0. 65-66-13 and stated her property was located easterly of Jefferson Street and south
(Continued) of La Palme, Avenue estended; the,t the property hed been zoned M-1 in the
County and by the Oity on an intarim basis for the past six years; that
taxes had been paid on these properties based on the M-1 classification;
and that if sub3eot propsrties were to be sold to the County water District for water settling
~ purposes with the R-A classificatio:i, this would reduce the potential value of the property,
..,...~5~ e,nd requested that those properties presently zoned M-1 remain in that zone.
' Zoning Supervisor Robsrt Mickels~~n advised Mrs. Danker that at the July 19, 1965 public
hearing, the Commission would c~~nsidar inclusion of those properties now zoned E~-1 and proposai
for R-A as part of the boundaries of the northeast i::•» strial area sncospassed in resoluti.on
of intent approved by the ~it;,~ ~o~~cil in Reclassification No. 6_.-62-69, whir,h meant that upon
completion of oondi+.ions attachad to seid re~olution of iatent, tha CitY would reclassify the
potentiel M-1 properties tc that zone, thus making it possible for industries to develop with-
out the necessity of procassing a recle,~sifiastion petition on those F-A parcels. It was also
noted that the Orange Oounty Water Distriat had informed the Oity that it was their intent to
establish a settling baein east of ~efferson StreSt, south of La Pal.ma Avence ~xtanded, and
west of Richfield RoaZ.
Mr, ~Eickelson furthar noted that the Dapartment of Highways had cons~~l.ted maps and past zoning
actions on proparties in closa proximity in the City or Anaheim to the proposad freaway right-
of ways to determine the fair and equitelsla priae for those propartias ba=sd on their potant-
ial; therefore, it would be assumed thsc the County wou.ld take cognizanaa of the fact that the
propertias being proposed for inci.usion in the :ettlin~ basin wara part of the tiortheast
industrial araa.
~dr. John Gilmore, Ronta 2, L~ox 210, Filmore, appaared before the Cou,mission and ~t,ated that
when the County Board of Supervi~ors had paseed an ~rgency ordine.nc3 covering ;ertain paresls
in subject petiiion reclassifying t~hem te the M-1 Zone, it had been dor.e aftsr a series of
meatings with the property owners and upon tha reaommendatior: o.f tha City of Anaheim; and
that all the property owners k:new the cor.ditions for rsclassifying thair propsrt•ies such as
dedication, street improvements, atc. F1:rthar, thsse property owners. felt with the N!•1 Zone
they would not hava to go throi;gh the 1on~ procedLre of reclassifv;ng t•heir prop=ctie~ !rhen
they were ready to se11; that if the Cit,y's zoning ordinance was a: effecti~,~e as it should be,
these conditions should be included, ann that by ahanging the zoning back to R-A aftar it had
been M-1 for more than six years was retrogressing rather than pregressing,arni tt.er .rg~d the
Commis~ion to retain thosa proparties prasent.ly zoned 6G-1 in tha interim 2oning a~ the perm-
anent zoning for these preperties.
Mr. Williem Lockett, 2530 Poinsettia Street, Santa Ana, appearad before t•he ~ommis~ion and
steted his property adjoined M.r~. Dankar`s property; that since thsy had bean pay.ing taxes
on tl.e proparty with EA-1 Zoning for sis years he wa~ opposed to rev~rting beck to the R-A
Zone because thiG reduced the valua of his property.
Mr. Don Pierotti, ?182. ~efferson Strset, appaared before the Commission erd :.te,ted he was
intereste>d in selling his property since it wa: no longer profitable to farm, and inquired
if the realassification of the property baak to the R-A zona would limit the use~ for the
property.
~r. Micl:elson ti~en stated that there seemed to be som~ confusion or misu~nyr_tac:d.ine rogarding
tha proposed resolutiun of ini-nt, for the Ad-.1 propert.i? " and than e.xpleined to ti~e inSarasted
persons the basi: for proposing the adopt,ion of a re~.olution cf int:,nt for tho:-e prooerties
formerly M-1 in the County. It Was ale:o noted that any usa; not grantNd by righl. in the M-1
Zone might be approved throu~h applic~.tion of a conditional use permit.
The Commission al~o noted that the re;olution of intsnt made it possible for t.he City to
accept dedication of land for public right-of-way of property adjacAnt to any pro~osad M-1
land before con~truction commsnced, and that it would ba a remoi.e possibi.lity thet ?ho Cit;y
would consider any lsssar zona t'or those proportie~. in tha NorthAast Annexation No. 3, sinaa
theso~Nere so indicated on the General Plan and ware adjacent to exir.ting k-1 proparty.
Further the County did not util.iza a resolution of intunt in the manner that the City of
Anaheim did, but rezoned the properties to M-1 aotomatically with st,ated raquiramants nec-
essary for the use of these properties.
Mr. Harold Stern, 602 Haas Auilding, Los Ange:Les, appeared b:~Pora the Oommission and asked
~ for r,larification and information, sincs the propsrty ~mdor his juri_diclion wa_ immediai.e.ly
~ adjacent to those prosently being considered.
~
I~INUPES, CITt' PLAl~RdING COMMISSION, July 7, 1965
2643
RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Stern noted that there seemed to be soma opposition to permitting
N0. 65-66-13 residential. uses in the industrial area; that many of the property owners
(Continued~ had opportunities to sell their properties for residential p:irgose~ but
sinae their properties were potential M-1, they were unable to do so; that
the City should te.ke a more ob,jective viempoint of not ,just 10-20 years from now, but the
present day, since many oP the property owners would not be 'hery to en,joy the profits from
their properties, and presently it was not profitable to utilize their lands for agriaultura-:
purposr~s beaause of the high i•ate of taxes, quick dacline of the orange groves, and the ever
present smog of their potential M-1 properties, and inquirad vhat the properties coul.d be used
for until their ultimate M-1 devvlopment.
Mr. N[iokelson replied that the uses permittad in the R-A Zon.e ~eare residar.tial and agrioult-
ural, provided tha properties were lot sp7.it ir.to no less than one acre pe,rcals and davel.oped
in accordanoe with the R-A Gode provi_ion.s, baoausa one homa per acre did. not aPPect the cir-
oulation elemsnt in the industrial ar9a or add to the a]ready existing tre,ffic probl.am~ but
that if mu:ltipl.e fami.ly development ooaurrsd thi~ would p:l.ace a s:~ch hea~ier density use for
streets whioh wsre projected for industrial use.
Ihe Co~ission stated that tha thaory of planr_ing was not on a dey-tc•~day basis, but was for
long range pro,jects, and that the amortization oP the 13Pe of s structure would diotate the
time the properties ~ould be used for R-A purposa~~. Purther damand for ths land for industriel
davelopment might hasten the change in use of the land Por other than agric<iltural-residential
purposos.
Mr. Stern than stated there should be some method b: whlch these smal.i one sara or more
paraels coul.d be held for peopl.e primarily interested in a~emi-rura:I atsosphsre.
Mr. Pierotti then reviewed the proposed usa for his property by prospsativs buyers, and
inquired if these uses were permitted under tha R-A or potentiel.~d-1. Zones. VPhereupon the
Commission stated that if the uses ~vere not permitted by right, he would have to fi].e a
. conditional use permit petition to request parmission for the usr~ on the prope*~y r•egardl.ess
whether the zone pas R-A or bE-1.; sinae there Wyre about 53 uses p~~rmittHd in ths M-1 Zone~
these aould not be rsviea~ed at the pu3lic hearing.
, THE HEARIiJ'U WA5 CLOSED.
Co~issioner Perry o£fered Resolution t~o. 1681, Series 1965-66, and mw ed for its pa~se.ge
and adoption, seconded by Oomsissioner A11.red, to recommend to the Gity ::ounr,il that Petition
Por Reclassifiaation uo. 65-66-13 bs approved estabii5hing p~rmaneni zoning for propertie~
enoompassed in 'ha Northeast Annexation No. 3 p:l.acing Parcel Nos 1, .7_., 3, and 4 in the R-A,
AGRICLTL'.T`iTRAL ZONE, wit,h Parcal No. 2 being consid9red at public haarin~ on Ji~1.y 1.9, 1965 for
inc:lusion in the R!~solution of Tntant approving the boundarias of Recla~sification No.
61-62-69(Northeast Industrial. Area); Parcel .No. 5 to the R 1, ON_E FA~6:;L~' RES:LDEN°fAL, ZUME;
and Parcel No. 6 to the R-2, M'J:.TIPLE FA~AI'liY AESI.DENTIAL, ZONE as depicted on Exhibit "A"
on fila in the offioe oP the Dirsotor of Development Services(Sae Rs:olutior_ book).
On roll call the forego.ing resol.ution was passad by the following vote:
AYES: CO~SSIONERS; Allred, Camp, Gauer, Perry, ftowland, Munge.ll..
NOES: CO1dMISSIONERS; None.
AfiSIIVT: COM6dISSIONERS: Iierbst.
D.:RECTIVE TO THF; - Co~issioner Perry offered a motion to direct the Co~ission to set for
ZONING DNISION publia hearing consideration for the amendment of the boundaries of
Reclassifioation No. 61-62-69 to include Parcal No. 2 of the Northeast
Annexation No. 3 in its resolution of intent. Commissioner All.red seconded
the motion. MOI'ION CARR'IED.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. GEORGE K 8, CUBA REED, 2058 South Euclid Street, and
N0. 65-66-1 KATHER II~ C. SEATIE, 2074 South Euclid Street, Maheim, California, Oumers;
LAARY F, KLANG, 7814 East Firestone Boul.evard, Downey, California, Agent~
propo~ing that property described as: A rectangularl.y shaped paroel of
land of approximately 2.61 aores located at the northeast corner of Orangewood Avenue and
Euolid Strset, with frontages of approaimately 350 feet on Euclid Street and approximately
325 feet on Oran~a~cood Avenue, and further described as 2058-2074 South Euclid Stree~,be
reclassified from the R-.9, Agrioultural Zone to the C-1., General Commercial., Zone to est.ablish
s small shopping cent•er on sub,ject property.
MINUfiES, C~I•Y PLANNING COMMISSION, July 7, 1965 26¢q
RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Lesry Klang, agent Por the petitioners, appearad before the
N0. 65-66-1 Commission and revieWed the proposed development noting that the property
(Continued) was presently being used for a residence; that it was proposed to establish
an All American - Albertson market only on sub3oct property; that the prop-
erty hed been anneaed into the City in 1956 being a part of a large R-A parcel of land now
devsloped into a traot o£ single family homes and subject property. Exhibits were then prs-
sented for the Commission°s consideration by the agent.
I:t was noted by Mr. Klang that a 6 foot wall eaisted on the east and north property lines,
and if the Commission desired~a 6-foot masonry Wall would be construoted with landscaping
to shield from view the co~ernisl development being proposed from the residences to the
north and east, and that a survey made for his firm indicated e need for a neighborhood
shopping area for that section of the city, since a substantial ahange had iaken place :inae
1960 because of the inarease in traffic.
Fiftsen persons indiaated their presence in the Counoil Chamber in oppo~ition to suhject
petit3on. ti
Mr. Richard Rowan, 2057 Lida Leae, appeared before the Oommiesion in opposition to sub3ect
petition and presented a petition signed by 200 property owners in close prozimity to subjeot
property who were opposed to the proposed super market, stating thst ha was oppo~ed to the
proposed use because of the invasion of the privaoy of the ad,joining residents becausa of
early deliveries, trash pickup, high light standards, neon signs, inareased traffic, and
ganeral noise which wss assooiated with a market operation; that the homes to the north and
east were only three years old and ranged in the $40,000-$50,000 prioe range with recreation
facilities and sl.aeping quarters in their rear yards which would al.so ad,join the proposad
me,rket; further, that he had purchased his nroperty three years ago after having aheck.ed tha
General Plan of the City of Anaheim and noting that low density re~idantia:l usa was indio~ted,
and no indication of a commsrnial aenter for that location, and the propoQad market woul.d be
an enoroaohment of commercisl uses whare none presently esisted, subsequentl.y reducing the
value of these homes, even though taxes had risen 63~. and thai no block wa,l.l sxisted.
Mr. D. L. Biggs, 1674 T~onia Plaae, appeared before the Commission in opposition stating that
his property would adjoin subjeat property to the north; that the proposed super market vas
unneaessary and undesirable since adequate facilities wers available to the north and south
for any proposed market; that the price paid for the homas and taaas should be taken into
nonsideration in aonsideYing subjer.t petition since these homes vcould deprsoiate in value
and beaome less desirabls for living quarters if a market ~vas approved; that at the time the
property compri.sing the subdivision was subdivided, the prospeotive home buyers were essured
the R-A parael would subsequentlp be developed for single fam3ly usa, and since this area was
ene of the few areas remaining in sou.thwest Anaheim whera a batter quel.ity home aould be
purchased, he urged the Co~¢Ission to recommend denisl. of the proposed rec:las::ification.
Letters of opposition from the City of Garden Grove, and other interestsd home owners ~rsra
read to the Commission.
In rebuttal, Mr. Klang ~tated that he uvas unable to obtain property at Chapme.n and Euclid,
that a similar situation eaisted at other aorners ad,jacent to subject property; that although
the General Plan indiaated low density devalopment for ~ubject property, the Plan was Plezible
that he may have made a m:i.stake about the block wall., and that traffia with trucks on Euolid
Straet made more noiae than the loading and unloading of ~upplies at tha loeding dock of the
proposed .:srket; further, the Anaheim Muniaipal Code had adequats sita de~elopmant standards
to provide protection of the adjacent property owners.
Tf~ HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Disaussion was held by the Co~ission relative to the proposed use of sub,ject property noting
that all corners in the City need not be developed with markets or servioe stations; that no
commerciel use was located in the immediate vicinity, although a hospital and medical. aenter
was approved for property to the north; and that Planning Study No. 75-58-1 indicated hor
subject property was devel.opable for single famil.y residential su,bdivision, and the adjaaent
single family home omners should be orotected.
Co~.issioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 1682, Series 1965-66, and movod for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Co~issioner Perry, to reoommend to the City Counoil that Petition
for Reolassifiaation No. 65-66-1 be disapproved based on the fact that the proposed use wou7.d
be inoompatible to the eaisting single family invironment, that approval of the petition woulc
set 8 prscedent for the undeveloped property in close proaimity; and that eubjeot propsrty
was developable for singls family residential subdivision.(Ses Resolution Sook)
- ~..: ~ / • . -._..__".. .._ .T_.._. ..~,.~.~YS'~V
MIN[P['ES, CII7 PI.AHIvZNG COLVd2SSIUN, July 7, 1965 2645
RE~'LASSIE'ICATION - On roll cali the foregoing resolution was pas~ad by tha fol.].oWing vote:
' MOa 65-66-1
(Continued) A'YES: COMtd2SSI0NERS: A11red, Camp, Gauer, Perry, Rowland, Munga.ll.
NOES: CO~EM~:SSIOI~R.S: None.
ABSENT: C0~'SSIONEEtS: Herbst.
RECi,ASS2FTCAT20N - FU9LIC HEA.9.~LNG. PI71L T. AS9YPA, 720 South Heaah Boulevard., Anaheim,
N0. 65-66-11 Californie, Owner; R.OBER.P S'L'EWAR'P, 10611 Leaington Avenua, 5tani;on,
Ca1_i.fornis, Agent; proposing that property described as: An irragularly
shaped peroel of land with a curved frontage of approxime,tely 88 feet on
the south side of Stonybrook Drivs and a maximum depth of approximately 111 fe3t, the veest
boundary of said property being approximately 282 fest es,st of the ceaterline of Beach Blvd.,
and further described as 2966 Stonybrook Drive be realassified frou. the R-A, AGfiT~';;:T~"RAL ZONf
to the R.-3Y M(T: 'TPLE FAMII,~ RESIDEN'.r'IAL•, ZONE to relocate a singl.e family structure on a
parcel of land ].ese than an aore.
~r. Robert Stewart, agent for the potitioner, appeared bsfore ths Commission and rsvie~ed
the proposed uso of sub,jeot property, Purther stating that although subject pro~,erty was to
be used for si:tgl.e family rssidentisl purposes at this time thare might be a po;sibility of
multipls family development in ths P~~ture, sinae the pattern of development for haavier
density already eaisted to the ea_t.
It was noted bp the Commission that the proposad zona was more appropriats, sinae to rezone
to R-1 woul.d plaoe a sme,ll. parael of R-1 Zone in an araa nov! being deve.ioped for mu.ltiple
family residential. and oommerciel zones u~e.
No one appeared in opposition.
'~HE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Zoning Supervlsor Robert ~tlickelson advised the Co~ission that at the time the petitioner
. filed the realassifioation petition ha had rsqnestsd R-1. 2one, but after severa]. conversa-
; tions with the staff decided to request R-3 zoning, but stated he wou:~d be svil.ling to settle
~ for R-1 zoning in order to :•elooate a home presently in Santa Ana.
Co~issioner Allrad offered Resolution No. 1683, Serie~ 1965-66, and moved for its passago
and adoption, seaondsd by Commissioner Camp, to reoommend to the City Counci: that pstition
for Reclassifiostion No. 65-66-11. be approved subject to condition=.(See R.esolution Book~
On roll call the foregoing rasolution vas passed by the fo.l..l.owing vota:
AYES: COM~TSSIOI~fERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Perry, Rowland, Munga.l.:..
NOES: COM~YSSIONER.S: None.
ABSENT~ CO~GMISSIONERSt Herbst.
~tECLASSIFICATION - PUBL:C HEARING. BOB LEAJER:TON PL"u'MPING, :LNOORPORA'P.ED, F~ 0. Box 3:A6,
N0. 65-66-12 and Anaheim, Californis, Owner~ DONALD F, 9PAL•`1'.Eft, 930~ Shannon, Cardan Grove,
California, Agent; property described as: An irrogularly ~haped parcel
VARIANC~ N0~ 171? of land avith a frontage of approximately 151. feet on ths West side of
Ma.nohester Avenue ~,nd maximum depths of Fpproaimate.ly 3:18 feet on •the
nor:hwest boundary and approximately 143 feet on the ~outheast boundarp;
the northern boundary of said property being approaimatel.y 1,458 feet so~.:th oP the canterline
of Katella Avenue, and further desaribed as 1935 South Ms.nchester Avenue. Property presontl.y
alassified R-A, AGRI~ULTURAL ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASS7FIuATION: M-.1, LIGH7.' IND~'SI'RIAL, ZONE
REQUESTED VAR~TANvE; WANER OF M~fIMTiM E~QtiIRED FRON?' SET~?AQS. AREA
Mr. Donald VPalter, agent for the petitioner, appeared bePore the Oommiesion and reviewed the
proposed development noting that development adjacent to sub~ect property had similar sat-
banks or less than the 20-foot setback being proposed.
It vas noted by the Commiss3on that the dewelopmAnt adjacer.t to sub,ject, propert.y ure:ented
a sn aooeptable appeeranoe when viewed from the free~ay, and that tha proposed. setback would
„~. be in aonformence with eaisting setbacks already establ.ished.
,a,,~~R,>,~~_.~,r.._1~:~:.~:~~:..:.~.~~,~,a,..,,.,,...~:,.__~ ~.~~..,.,,"~.~.. ~
.__ ,,,. ..,...~ ...:._..
_.:, ..,...,.,. -- .
a ~......._. ,.,.._:..~,a,.- __.__....,.,~,,..._„~
_ _ _ . _ • :,.:. .
a
I '
~y ~
~~ ~
~
i
i
i
r
E _. .
~ _..
~ZNUTES, CITY PLANN7NG COM~E=SSION, July 7, 1965 2646
RECL6SSIF'ICATION - No one appeared in opposition.
N0. 65-66-12 e,nd
II-~ I~ARTNG WAS CLOSED.
YARIANCE N0. 1717
(Continued) Commi.ssioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 1684, Series 1965-66, and moved
for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to reaom-
mend to the City Counoi.l thet Petition for Reclassification No. 65-66-12.
be approved ~ubject ~o conditicn=.(See Resolution Book)
On ro11 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foll.owing vote:
AYES: CO~LSSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Perry, Roaland, ~dungall.
NOES; COM~IISSIONERS: None.
ABSEN7': COMA~SSIONERS: Herbst.
Commissioner Alired offered Resolution No. 1685, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seaonded by Co~issionar Camp to grant Petition for Varianae No. 1717, based
on the fsat the proposed setbeok was in aonformance with setbsaks already establi~hed in closf
proaimity, and Pu:°ther, sub~eat to conditions.(See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMSSISSIOIVERB: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Perry, A.oaland, Mnngal:~.
NOESt COM~B.ISSIONERi: None.
ABSENT: COMMTSSTOI~tS: Herbst.
;,..
CONDI'IIONAL USE - Mr. 7oseph Erdway, 1355 VYestavood Boulevard, Los Angeles, architeat for
PERMIT N0. 690 the proposed development appreered before the Comsission and =tated that
(Continued from his alisnts hsd already signed a number of lessess for th~ proposed davelop
Page No. 2640) ment sinae the last hearing, and then reviewed the changes made to the
structures which incorporated the requirement of dedication of th= easterly
575 feet elong gatella Avenue in order that the proposed underpass of tha railroad might be
developed in the future. It was further noted that the petitioner proposad to nonstruct the
proposed development and retain it for investment purposes; that the re:-taurant ~xas alr•eady
leased as well as a n•~mber of the o£fices in tha proposed struoture and that a.l.:l. requirement:
of the Anaheim Munioipal. Code were being aomplied with.
In res•~~nse to Co~ission questioning Mr. Erdvray stated that tha proposed ssrvico aenter
would not provide ma,jor overhaul Por automobiles but would act as an smergency osnter for
~~notorists who enoountered ~~ehicular prroblems when visiting the baseball stadium; that his
olients had met with the representatives of the flood control channel and had r~saohed an
agreement relative to the placing of a drainage ditah on the we~terly property line, and
then revieaed and agrsed with all aonditions if subject petition were approved.
Conaern was ezpressed by the Commission beaause the petitioner proposed to have ar aocess
direotly across from the 8-lana entrance to the stadium, and inquired oP Office Engineer
Arthur DaW wnether the traYfic ongineer had reviewed the rsvised plans to determine if the
proposed aoaess on the easterly end of the proporty would interfere with the flaw of traffic
to and from the stadium.
Mr. De,w stated that it was contemplated to have one entranae on Katelle Avenua, two on
Stete College Boulevard and tWO on Ore.ngeWOOd P_venue, and that the traffic eng3neer was on
vacation and had not reviewed the latest plans.
Mr. Erdway stated he had talked with represer.tatives of the Angeles office and Del 7Pebb
Corp., but that he had a very limited tima for discussion and did not get a complete picture
of the traffio problems.
No one appeared in opposition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
~
~ITNIJFES, CIl~' PLANN,IIdG COMkCLSSION, July 7, 1965
LE~4 ~J
CONDITIONAL U3E - Discussion was held by the Co~nission as to the compatibility of the
PER~1T N0, t~90 proposed uses Aith the industrial uses already established, since the
(:ontinuec~) uses proposed were primarily aommerciel in nature; that sub,ject property
aas someWhat isolated by aatural barriers; that the proposed use would
be provided ~sith only aaaess to Katells Avenue because of ths pro,jected
railr•oad underpass; that more information should be reoeived from the traffia engineer as
to problems which might materialize if aaaess xas perm.ittsd i~ediatel.y opposite the 8-lane
stadium entrance; that the petitioner might attempt to obtain a secondary acaess slong the
28-foot roadWe,y adjsaent to the railrcad tracks to the north, and that secondary acaess
would be neoessary beaause of a greater influz of traffic efter the stadium is in operation
and further development ooourred.
Mr. Erdvvay statad that he qould prefer being given the second access until such time as
the underpass was built at Whioh time the property vuould be revsrted baak to the Gity on
the e,coes~ rights area, since it was possible that the underpass might not be built for
four ysars, and that the 28-foot strip aloi.. ';he railroad right-of-way was avaii.abl.e.
Mr. Mickelson stated that if aoness were allowed until the under~ss were built this woul.d
areate an additional trafPic problem, since traffic would have built up at that tima and
tha petitioner would then be faaed with inadequate aacess for hi.s lessaes.
In response to Commission questioning as to the discrepency bstweon tha origina:l num:bar of
feet for acoess rights° dedication, Mr, De,w stated thet originally the figu.re mention was
measured along the property line, but a more true figura was rapresented afier maasuring
from the aenterline of the railroad along tho aurve of the centerline of the atreet.
F~rther, that the traffic engineer would return from vacation on ~uly 12 and wou~d be able
to present additional data relative to traffic problems by the maating of 7u.Ly 1.v~.
In response to Co~ission questioning, Development Servioas Director Alan Orsborn stated
that Bt the joint meeting of the Commisslon and Ci*.y Counail compatible uses were disnussed,
and although he did. not want to be presumptlous to sap that the propossd usa of subjaot
property Was oompatible to tho industrial uses, :i bordered on being compatib]e.
The Co~,ission then stated that sinca the Intsrdepartmental Co~i+,tee had not reviewed the
revised pla.ns, and had not made further recommendations, sub,jeat petition sho~ld be aoniinued
, to the meeting of 7uly 19, 1965, th:s would also give the petitioner and the Staff time to
, determine if a seaondary aaoess ~vould be feasible elongside the railroad tracks.
Commissioner Perry offered a motion to reopen the hearing and cont3nue Petition for Condi-
tional IJse Permit No. 690 to the meeting of Tu1.y 19, 1965, in o:der that the revi~ad plans
might be reviewe~? by the Intprdepartmental Co~ittee, that ths traffic ergineer might submit
a report determining whether a problem ezisted with the proposed use and the acaes~ being
proposed, and that the petitioner and staff determine if seaondarq aocess alongside the
railroad tracks ~e,s feasible. Co~issioner Camp ~econded the motion. MU770N CARR~D.
4, RECE3S - Commissioner Allred offered a motion to reoess the meeting for ten minutes,
Cor~issioner Rowland seoonded tho motion. ~d07`ION CARR~D. 'Phe mesting rece~~ed
~ a2 4:00 p.m.
REO~NVENE - Chairman Mungall reaonvened the meeting at 4:20 p.m., all. Commissionsrs with
the exaeption of Commissioner Herbst being prasent.
TI~+~' FOI.LOYPING I'!'EMS VPERE CONSIDERED AS ONE ITE~d - NO Ol~', 3EING PRESENT IN OPPOSI'TMI'ON.
RECL,ASSIFICATION - PUBLIC f?EARING. IN1fiIATED By 2`f~ CrTy pI,AN7~NG COEdMI:S5I0N, 204 East
N0. 65-66-2 Linaoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; P 7.T,t~rAr,i, pROPER7`TES, INC. , P. 0.
Box No. 7, Anaheim, CaliYornia, Owners; proposing that property desaribed
as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land loasted at the ~uutheast oorner
of Broadway and Manchester Avenue, with froni;ages of approaimately 151 feet on Broaciway and
approaimately 155 feet on Manchester Avenue be realasslfied from the C-3, HEA~'Y COMMERCIAL,
ZONE, deed restriated to a servioe station or any C-2 usee, to the i,-2, GEI~IERAL CO~dERC7AL,
~ONE to establish an eaisting servioe station as a conPorming use in the most appropriate
zone.
No one appeared in opposition.
~ TFi~ HEARING WAS CLOSED.
- Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1686, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
* and adoption, seaonded by Commissioner Camp, to reaommend to the City Council that Petition
~, for Realassi~iaation No. 65-66-2 be approved unoonditionally.(See Resolution Book)
k~T1D~`ES, CI'.CY' P~St~IG COMM~:SSION, Tuly ?9 1965
2648
A~GI,ASSIFICA4`ION - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
N0. 65-66-2
(Oontinued) AYE:.: COMM~:SSIONERS: A1.1red, Camp, Gauer, Perry, Ro~vle.nd~ 9~ungall.
' ~ '~ NOES; CO~SSI01~R..S: None.
AHSEN"2': QOMdlISSIOTIERS; Herbst.
..:.~;.
RECI~A: ~IFICACIOTI - PL~Ii~C I~A' RING. TNRr1'f'1'AmF:n Bv ~+ CT'I':V° Pi~ANN.~~IG COMMiS$.T.O.~~' , 204 East
~~0. 65-66-3 Lincoln Avenue, Anahei.m, California;H~RR:_ d. FERC,L'SON, 3'715 :Landfair
Road, Yasadena, California, Pe,rcel No. 1~ H~Nf~' R.o FR.OSH, et al., 151 North
Se,n'~licente, Beverly Hill~, California, Paroel No. 2., C~oensre: propo~ing
that property desoribed as; Paroel No. :L: A reatangular.ly shapsd parcel oP ]and located at
the northweet corner of Harbor Boul.evard and OrangeWOOd .Avenue, with frontages of approximatel,
135 feet on Harbor Boulsvard e.nd approaimately 135 feet on Orangewood Avenue, an3 Paroel No. 2
An irragularly shaped parael of land lying north and west of Parcel No. 1., with frontages of
approaime,tely 2$4 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard and approximataly 4'2 fset on the
north side of Orangewood Avenue be realassified from the R-A, AGF7~';'1;'":~fil,'~ ZO~; to ths C-1.,
GE1~Ei.AL COM~dEFiCIAL,, ZONE to establ.ish an eaisting servioe station and shopping centar a:
conforming uses in the most appropriate zone.
No one appeared in opposition.
THG HEAIi1NG WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Rovrland offersd Resolution No. 168?, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, ssconded by Gommissioner Gauer, to reaommend to the City Council t.hat Petition
for Reolassifioation No. 65-66-3 be approeed unoonditionslly.(Sea R.esolution Book)
On ro].l aell the foregoing resolution was passed by the foll.owing vote:
Ai'ES: C0:6QMI$SIONERS: All.red, Camp, Gauer, Perry, Rowland, Mungal.:,..
NOES: CGMI~ISS:'ONERS: None.
ABS~NT: CODAuQ58I0NER,S: Herbst.
RECLASSIFI~A2•ION - PITbI.SC HEARI:NG. :IN:LT7A'CED BY ~ Cr [Y P:.ANR!I!1~ QQy]~=gS:IOR~, ~0~ Ee.~t
N0. 65-66-4 Linaoln Avemle, Anaheim, California: RALPA D. SIA'PO?T, 914 South Hsrbor
Boiilevard, Anaheim, California, Owner; proposing that property da~aribsd
as: A rectangularl.y shaped pe,roel of land ~ith a frontage of approaimately
100 feet on tne east side of Ho,rbor Boulevard and a maximum depth of epproximately 12.? fest,
the northern boundary oP said property being approaimats].y 15? feet south of the centerline
of Vermont Avenue be realassified from tha R-1, OIdE FAbETL~ RESTDENI'ZAL, ZOATE to the C-1,
GENERAL COD~~CIAL, ZOAIE to eatablish an eai.sting mark:et, fireplsoe and bar-b-qua acoessory
store as a conforming use in the most apprcpriate zone.
No one appeared in opposition.
THE FiE,ARZNCz -PAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Allred ofYered Resolution No. 1.68B, 3eries 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, ssoonded by Co~issionei Rowland, to recomeend to the City Council that Patitior
for Reolassifiaation No. 65-66-4 be approved unconditionPlly.(See Resolution Book)
i On roll aall the foregoing resolution was pus~e~i by the following vote:
~ ATES: COMMI5SIOIQERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Parry, Ro~vland, Munge,].7.
, I NOES: COI~tISS2f.% ~'FRS: None.
ABSENT: C01~I.ISSIONERS: Herbst.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBI~IC FIEAR1TiG, IKI,fiIATED By T~E CIT'Y PLANNING QON0EI5SION, 204 East
~ N0. 65-66-5 Linaoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; CHR'LSI`Tt~ 0°DONxE1~L, I0304 ~lancey
Avenue, Downey, California, Owner; proposing that prooerty desaribed as:
_ A reatangularly shaped parcel of land located at the south~rest corner
* of Harbor Boulevard e,nd Orangewood Avenue, with frontagss of approaimately :150 feet on
Harbor Boulevard and approsime,tely 150 feet on Orangewood Avenue be realassified from the
~ R-A, AGRICUTURAI~ ZONE to the C-l, r.~7Rnt. COMldII3CIAL, ZONE to establ.ish an eaisting serviae
station as a conPorming use in •~he most appropriate zone.
~
i: }
MINUTES, CITY PLAWNZNG CO~SSION, July 7, 1965 2~9
REGLASSIFICATION - No one appeared in oppositi.on.
N0. 65-66-5
(Continued) TI~ HEARING VPAS CIASED.
Cormnissioner Gauer oPfered Resolution No. 1689, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seoonded by Commissioner Perry, to reoommend to the City Counail that Petition
Yor Reolassifioation No. 65-66-5 be approved unoonditionally.(See Resolution Book)
On roll oell the foregoing resolution ~vas passed by the following vote:
~ AYES: CO~dMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Perry, Rowland, Munga,l.l.
' NOES: COM~dISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT; CO~dbRSS20NERS: Herbst.
RECI~ASSIFTCATION - P~'RLIC HEARING. INITIg~ED gy THE Olfiy pLqNNIlVu COM6SISSION, 204 East
N0. 65-66-6 and Linooln Avenue, Anaheim, Cali£ornia; TTDEdPATER REAL•TY COyPANY, 4201
_, VPilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, Opner; property de~cribod as:
CONDITIONAL• USE A reotangularly shaped parael of land looated at the southwest corner of
PERMIT N0. 717 Anaheim Boulevard and Vermont Avenue, with frontages of approximately
140 feet on Anaheim Boulevard and approaime,tely 117 feet on Yermont Avenue.
Property presently olassified C-3, HEAW_ COMMERCIAL, ZONE restricted to a
servioe station use only.
PADPOSED CLASSIF'ICAZ'ION: C-l, c:F'nr~!RAT, COMdCERCTAL, ZONE
PRJpOSED CONDITIQISAI~ USE: ar!Rt~rr (~ ~yISTING SERVICE STATIO.N -PI7:HIPI 75 FF~.P OF A
RESIDENTIAL ZONE AND NOT AT THE 2~FI`ERSECZ'ION OF 2•1R0
ARTER.TAL STIiEETS.
, No one appeared in opposition.
TI~ HEARa1G -PAS CLOSED.
' Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 1690, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and
adogtion, seoonded by Co~i.ssioner Rowland, to reaommend to the Citp Council that Petition
for RealassiYioation No. 65-66-6 be approved unaonditionally.(See Resol.ution Book)
On roll oall the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AY'ES: COMdCISS20NERS: Allred, Camp, Ge,uer, Perry, Rowland, Mungal.l.
NOES: COM~ISSIONERS: None.
E
l ABSENT: CD3~ISSIONERS: Herbst.
,
{ Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1691, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
I a~d adoption, seoonded by Co~issioner Camp, to ~rant Pvtitior. for Conditior.ai 17sa Parmii.
~ 1~`0. ?i', unconditional.l.y.(See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by tha following vote:
( AYES: COMNIISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Perry, Rowland, Mungall.
i NOES: COM6LISSIONERS: None.
I ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst.
~~, RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING, II~(ITIATED gy THE CTTY PLANNINu COMMISSION, 204 East
N0. 65-66-7 and Linaoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; JA~S 0. CRlJ9~Y, 510 West Ba1:1 Road,
; Anaheim, California, Omner; property described as: A rectangularly shaped
a CONDITIONAL USE parcel of land looated et the southeast corner of Harbor Boulevard and
~ PERMT'P N0. 718 Ball Road, with frontages of approximately 100 feet on Harbor Boul.evard
~ and approximately 110 feet on Ball Road. Property presently classified
~ R-A, AGRICIILTURAL ZONE.
, PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COM9dERCIAL, ZONE
PROPOSED CONDITIONAL i1SE: PEREdIT AN ERZSTING SERVICE STATION VPITHIN 75 F'ECP OF AN R-1 ZC:~~
AND VPITHIN 75 F~f OF A STRUCTIIRE ZW 9N R-A ZONE.
€
.~~
~'~ ~ '
~?,
F~
'I
~i
':~
.~
•I.
:~
MINUTES, CIlY PLANNING COM~LLSSION, Tuly 7, 1965
2650
RECLASSIFICATION - No one appeared in opposition.
N0. 65-66-7 and
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT N0. 718 Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 1692, Series 1965-66 and moved
iContinued) for its passage and adoption, ssoonded by Co~issioner Allred, to recom-
mend to the City Counoil that Petition for Realassification No. 65-66-7
be approved unaonditione.lly.(See Resolution Book)
On roll oall the Yoregoing resolution We,s passed by the following vote:
~YES: CODLE~ISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Perry, Rowland, Mungall.
NOES: COM~4ISSIONERS; None.
ABSENT[ COMA~IS~IOATERS: Herbst.
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1693, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passags
8nd adoption, seaonded by Commi.ssioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Conditional II~e Parmit
No. 718 unconditionally.(See Resolution Book)
On roll aall the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allrsd, Camp, Gauer, Perry, Rowland, Mungall..
NOES: COM~6T_SSIOI~RS: None.
ABSEN;: COM~SISSIONER.S: Herbst.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIO HEARING. INITIATED BY THE G~Y PLANNING COM~ISSION, 204 East
N0. 65-66-8 and Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; C. LOJ~SE mRliRAW, ?04 North Jan_s
Strset, Anaheim, ~alifornia, Owner; property described as: A rectangular.'~y
CONDITIONA~ USE shaped parcel of land located at the northwest aorner of Anaheim Blvd. and
PERMIY' N0. 719 Vermont Avenue, with frontsges of approximately 121 feet on Anahoim Blvd.
e,nd approximately 150 feet on Vermont Avenue. Property presently olassi-
fied R-3, MIILI'IPLE FAM~LY AESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COM6~[ERCIAL•, ZONE.
PROPOSED CONDIIIONAL IISE: FERSEIT AN EXISTING SEFiCICE STATION WI'rHi-P1 'S F~E" OF A RESIDENfiIAL
ZONE AND NOT LOCA'PED AT THE IMPERSEC~ION OF '~1V0 AR^'ER7A11 8?•R.E~~'S.
f~o one appeared in opposition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1694, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to recammend to the City Counail that Petition
for Reclassification No. 65-66-8 be approved unconditionally.(Sae Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution v+as passed by the .°ollowing vote:
AYES: CO~ISSIONERS: Allred, Ca~g, Geuer, Perry, Rorvland, Mungall.
!'} j
I '
'tI A
, i ~x
NOES: COMMTSSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COM~SISSI0I~RS: Herbst.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 1695, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Coe~issioner Rowland, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit
No. 719, unaonditionally.(See Resolution Book)
On roll oell the foregoing resolution Aas passed by the following vote:
AYES: C0~]uIISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Perry, Rowland, Mungall.
NOES: CO~LMISSIOl~RS: None.
ABSENT: CO1~iISSIONERS: Herbst.
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COA~LISSION, July 7, 1965 2651
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBI~IC HEARING. ~TIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COE~SSION, 204 East
N0. 65-66-9 and Linooln Avenue, 6naheim, Californie; MOHAWK PE~'ROLEUM CORP., 405
Montgomery Street, San Francisco, California, Owner; property described
~ONDITTONAL USE as; A reatangularlp shaped peroel of land located at the northeast corner
PERMIT N0. 720 oP Lincoln Avenue and Carleton Avenue, With Yrontages of approaimately
200 feet on Linaoln Avenue and approsimately 105 fset on Carletor. Avenue.
Property presently alassiPisd C-3, I~AVY COME~RCIAL, ZONE deed restricted
to a service station or any C-2 use.
.,-.::~ii~T-~ PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION: C-2, GEI~fiAI, CO~RGIAL, ZONE.
i
,~~ ~ ' PROPOSED COND2~`IONAL TJSE: PER~IT AN E7CISTING SEftV'ICE STATION 9PITHIN 75 FEEC OF A RESIDEN'PIAL
~~r ZONE AND NOT IACATED 1~T THE IN?`ERSECTION OF TWO At~iERIAL STREETS.
.~ No one appeared in opposition.
€.~
~~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
t:
: 1
~~i Commissioner Gauer affered Resolution No. 1696, Series 1965-66, and moved for its pas~age and
'I• adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp to reco~end to the City Council that Petition Por
Reolassificetion No. 65-66-9 be approved unconditionally.(5ee Resolution Book)
~
~, On ro11 oall the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
;~
AYES: CO~LBSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Perry, Rowland, ~dungall.
t'i NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
I!
~ ~ ABSIIVT: COM~6ISSIONERS: Herbst.
;I
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1697, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage e.nd
adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 720
;~ ur.oonditionally.(See Resolution Book)
r
~;~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foll.owing vote:
e.I AYE~: COM~EISSIONERS: A11red, Camp, Gauer, Perry, Rowland, Mungall.
K I NOES: COM~L"SIOi~P..S: None.
i ABS~NT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst.
-i
i{ RECLASSIF'ICATION - PUBL'IC HEARING. INITIA'IED BY 'IF~ CI7'~' PLANNING COMMISStON, 2Q4 East Lin-
~ N0. 65-66-10 and colr Avenua, Anaheim, Calif.ornia; CARL A. FUCHS., 2333 Paradise Road,
'~ Anaheim, California, Oavner; property desaribed as: A reatsngularly shaped
-`I CONDI'r20NAL USE parael of land located at the southeast cornsr of Harbor Boulevard and
~ PERMIT N0. 721 Vermont Avenue, with frontages of ~pproximately 124 feet on Harbor Blvd.
~'I ~ and approximately 127 feet on Vermont Avenue. Property presenilp clasei-
+ fied R-1, ONE FAMI~LY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COMESERCTAL, ZONE.
~ PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE: FERMI'P AN EXISTING SERVICE STATION WITHIIV 75 FEEr OF AN R-1 ZONE
,,1 AND NOT LOCATED AT THE INTER3ECTION OF Tw0 AR~ERIAL STR~ISe
~ i
~ No one appeared in oppositian.
1
~ ' TiIE HEARING wAS CLOSED.
` I, Co~nissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 1698, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage an
~ • ,
adoption, seaonded by Commissioner Rowlsnd to reaommend to the City Council that Patition for
`~ Realassificetion No. 65-66-10 be approved unconditionelly.(See Resolution Book)
, On roll oall the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
~ ,
, ~
AYES: COMEdISSIOI~ERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Perry, Rowland, Mungall.
:a
`~ NOES: COMMISSIONER,S: NONE.
4~ a
'j ~ ABSENT: COM~ISSIONEHS: Herbst.
i
i
, -
;
~ ., _ . _. ..~,__.:.. _ , ~
- . _.. .
~ .__ -- , , r`,: -
1 . ~
~
MIDiD~ES, CITY PLANDiING COb9dZSSION, July 7, 1965
2652
REGi~ASSIFICATION - Commissioner Camp ofPered Resolution No. 1699, Series 1965-66, and moved
N0. 65-66-10 and for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner A11red to grant
Conditional Use Permit No. 721 unaonditionally.(See Resolution Book)
CONDITIONAL IISE
PERMIT N0. 721 On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
(Continued`
AYES: C0~6ISSIONERB: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Perry, Rowland, Mungall.
~=~~ NOES: CO~~dISS20NERS: None.
`~ ABSIIVT: COMMISSIONiERS: Herbst.
{'~
j~ REPORIS AND - IfiE~ N0. 1
I AECOE~fDATIONS COIQDITIONA:~ USE PIIiI~T N0. 590
i Request for extension of time by Julius Nathan, for motel addition
at 1836 South Anaheim Boulevard.
Zoning Supervisor Robert Miakelsor. raviewed a request from Mr. Julius Nathan £or an addi-
tionsl 180 day time eatension for completion of oonditions due to the fact that loans vero
unobtainable until af•ter the completion of the Satelle Avenue overpass, with a further
indication that strest light and street tree fees would 'oe paid befo:e a~y aonstruction took
pleoe. It vas also noted that vrhen petitioners requested an extension of time the City
Counail usuelly requested that street dediaation and a bond for street improvements be posted
s~ a condition of granting an esti~nsion of time.
Commissioner Camp offered a motion to grant an additional 180 day extension of t3me for the
aompletion of aonditions in Resolution No. 1254, Series 1964-65 granting Conditional. lise
Permit No. 590, said time limitation to expire Tanuary 5, 1966. Commissioner Porry seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIID.
ITEM N0. 2
Orange County Case No. ZC65-29 - proposing to change from RP, Residential
Professional District to the C-1, Looal Business District, properties ,
looated on the west side of Braokh•±rst Street, between a point 480 feet
north of Cerritos Avenue and a point 118 feet south of Pacific Avenue in
_ the south~est Anaheim area.
Zoning Supervi~or Robert Mickelson presented Orange County Ca~e No. ZC65-2.9 to the Commission
noting the locetion of sub~eot property and revieWing a report by the 5taff which indioated
the age of the single family homes, the present County Zoning and its pars.itted. uses; the
eaisting and pro~ected vehiculsr aspacity for Brookhurst Street; the vehicular access for a].1
but the lot facing Paaific Avenue was being provided by a 20-foot alley at the rear of the
lots; the County C-1 Zone did not contain site development standards such as is estab:lished
in the City, the proposed County zone Would permit the use of the front yards for paved nax•k-
ing areas as was done on Brookhurst Street, northerly of Lincoln Avenue; and that Brookhurst
Street in this area pre,~ently had a 40-foot dedicated half width, with ultimate dedication
and street widening requiring an additional 20-foot dedication.
Discussion was ileld by the Commission relative to the eaisting oommarcial use of residences
on North Brookhurst Street and its non-co~eraial appearance; that parking should be rotained
to the rear of the existinw struatures on sub~eat propertp and aacess to Brookhurst Street,
a heavily traveled street, be eliminated by requiring dediaation of access righis to
Brookhurst Stret; and that since the County had no site developmeni standards for the reques~
ed C-1, Zone which could create an unsightly appearance in the Pront setbacks, the County
should be ~rged to retain the existing zone for sub~aat, property.
Commissioner Perry offered a motion to reoommend to the City Council that tha Orange County
Planning Co~ission be urged to retain the eaisting R-P, Residential Professional District
for properties being aonsidered in Orange County Case No. ZC65-29, based on the fact that
aaoess would be permitted to Brookhurst Street, a heavily traveled strest; that the unsightly
appearanae of parked cars in the front setback as permitted by the C-1 Distriat ~ould create
a similar situation as that presently eaisting northerly of Lincoln Avenue on the west sida
of Brookhurst Street; and that the ultimate width of Brookhurst Street was pro3ected for 120
feet, which would mea,n sub~ect properties would be required to dedioate an additional 20 feet
°or stre~i. vadening purposes with acoess rights to Brookhurst Street being dedicated to the
County of Orange. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motio:i. ~40TION CARR=ED.
~
~INUZ'ES, CI'TY' PI~AAINTNG COM6dISSION, July 7, 1965
2653
REPORTS AND - IZEM N0. 3
RECO~IDATIONS Assigning a name to tWO dead end streets oreated by the Katelle Avenue
overpass - designated by the California Department of HighWa,ys as
"Katella Way".
~p~
f~
~I
i
Zoning Supervisor Robert Mickelson reviewed for the Co~ission the location of the t~vo
stub streets southerly of the eaisting Katelle Avenue overpass noting that no official
action had been taken by the Citv in renaming these stub streets, but that the State
Divi:.•ion of Highways has attache3 the name of Katella Way to these stub streets. A
report by the staff Was also revieWed in whioh it was noted that the Post OfPioe Department
had indicated that no aonfliat would ensue if said street~ were offioislly namad Ke.tell.a
way.
Couanissioner Gauer offered a motion to recommend to the Citp Council that the two stub
streets southerly of the Satells Avenue overpass be officially named "Ratella VPay" in
aaoorde.nce wi.th a pi•ocedures initiated by the State Division oP Highways, or~issioner
Camp seoonded the motion. MOfiION CARR~D.
ITEN[ N0. 4
Orange County Case No. 811(Seational District Map 1-4-9, Ezhibit K)
Proposed to change from the 80-AR-10,000 Agricultural Residant3al
Distriat to the 100-C2-10,000 Genoral Business District, csrtain
real property located on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road
and northerly of the S.A.Y.I. Canal in the Santa Ana Canyon area.
Planning Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski reviewed for the Co~is~ion the City's pravious action
on Orange County Casa No. 811 in 7'uly, 196q., further noting thst beaause of the cooperative
effort between the Orange County Planning Commission and the Anaheim Ple,nning Co~i~sion in
the development of the Hill and Canyon General Plan, sub~ect petition mas aontinued to the
meeting of July 14, 1965 for aation by the Orange County Planning Co~lssion; that the Hill
and Canyon Genera7. Plan was in the final stages of completion and mould be ava9.lable the
early pa,rt of September; and that the Commission might wish to reco~nend to the City Counail
~ome co~entary for the ~ounty's public hearing of sub,jeot reclassifiaation, and suggested
two possible coa~enta as follows:
1. That the Oounty Planning Co~ission continue said zoning case until such ;ima as
the aompleted Hi11 and Canyon General Plan might be pre~sntsd to them for their
review, slthough it would not be an adopted dooument, it could be used for informa-
tion purposes.
2. That if the County Planning Commission chooses to take a dscisive action for or
against the subject petition at the hearing on July 1~, ]965, tha following com-
mentary could be re-emphasized:
The shopping center would be better located at the intersection of the Santa Ana
Canyon Road and one of the arterials leading up to the Hills, sinae there is an
evident lack of aacess to the center from the population tc be served, i.e., the
homes in the hills. Consequently, the proposal aould reprasent potential strip
aommeroial de~~elopment rather than a planned unified shopping center as encouraged
by the Hill and Canyon General Plan.
~
F1~rther, if the County Planning Commission feels that• the loastior~ is aoaeptable
for commeraie,l center and the intent of the petitioner is to develop a planned
unified neighborhood shopping aenter, he should be enaouraged to devslop under
the County N-C, Neighborhood Co~ercial Distriat ra.ther than the C-2, Gsneral
Business Distriat, Whioh is being requested.
Mr. Crudzinski further advised the Commission that no anditional 3nforme,tion had been sub-
mitted to the Orange County Planning Co~ission sinae ~heir last public hearing on subjeot
realassification.
Commissioner Camp offered a motion to recommend to the City Counoil. that the Orange County
Planning Co~ission be urged to aonsider the following in their publio hearing of Grange
Cou~.lty Case No. 811:
1. Thati Orange County Case No. 811 be oontinued until the Orange County Planning
Commission has an oppartunity to review the completed proposed Hill and Canyon
General Plan, whioh vill be available the first pa,rt of September: or
2. If the County Planning Cou~ission chooses tu take a deoisive action and the peti-
tioner proposes to develop a planr_ed unified neighborhood shopping center, that
he La enoouragod to develop under the Gounty N-C, Neighborhood Cousieroial, District
rather than the C-2, Goneral Commercial Distriat requested.
C~mrtiis~ionAr Perrv seaonded the motion. MOT'ION CARRIED,
't
MINUTES, CITY PLAIVNING CO~dISSION, July 7, 1965 2654
• REPORTS AND - ITE66 Nd. 5
~ \ RECO~DATIONS R-2 and R-3 Zones Site Development Standards Study relating to Yards
Requested by the Pianning Commission January 4, 1965
Planning Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski reviewed for the Commission the Planning Division
Study as requested by the Commission on January 4, 1965 to determine if tho existing
site development standards for the R-2 and R-3 Zones were eacessive as fo].lows:
~ ' ~~ Findings:
',,f~ , 1. The site development standards relating to yards in the R-2 and R-3 Zones are not
, excessive.
,.
~ 2. The basia "problem" is substende~rd sized lots (widths and/or areas) and awkwardly
i shaped lots (excessive depth). This "problem" is reflected in requests for yard,
;i parking and height limit variances.
1
i _ 3. The provisions relating to "exemptions"(Section 18.28.050(1-c) has, in effact,
created a"double standard" using a speaified date as the dividing line. Persons
1~ wishing to develop substandard lots must request varianaes, aoquire enough land
.~ to meet code, or not develop.
:~ 4. The City's past action tend to support the retention and development on substandard
~ lots rather than encoura e land ac uisition and develo ment to Code
I 8 9 p provisions.
5. -Phere lots have met required widths and areas, varianr,es usuai~y were not needed,
~ exr,ept in rare instances.
I 6. VPhere lots have not met required widths and area, but are close (65-70 feet) some
i Were devaluped in aonf.rmanoe to code provisions and others required variances.
The prime determinant was design of structures and site planning.
Alternative Solutions:
~
_ 1. Retention of eaisting site development standards with oareful review of varianaes
i _ to determine where definite hardships esist. In addition, enaourege land aaquisi-
tion, oritioal cansideration of varianoe requests for self-made or unneaessary hard-
I ships, and inoreased staf£ participat5.on in pre-applioation oonferenaes to reduae
1 the number of requests to be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
~ 2. Amend Section 18.28.050(3), Minimum Floor Areas of Dwelling Unit. Greater Flegi-
i bility in dwelling unit design could be achieved by permitting more rooms in the
~~ first 700 square feet of area or by reduaing the required floor area to 575 square
`~ feet. This could reduce the neoessity of increased ground coverage to provide a
F"j marketable unit.
`,1 i There may be some question as to whether the dwelling units thus developed would
rePlect the amenities considered desirable by the City and stated in the General Ple~
~ 3. Develop me~ximum yard provisions which the zones can require (i.o. require developers
~ to provide a minimum yard depth dependinq on structure, eaisting ariteria, and acces:
` ' up to a specified amount.)
~•' ~
i A provision such as this would not have a notiaeable effe,t in reducing the requests
~ for yard varianoes, the problem as stated earlier is substandard sized lots and not
j the eaisting site development standards. Thus even the most minimal requirements
may still entail varianae requests.
~ 4. Develop new zones (i.e. R-2A and R-3A) to be applied to all areas ciirrently zoned
~ R-2 and R-3 whioh contsin substandard lots.
The specific provisions(vvith which the problem lots are in conflict at present) could then
be altered or amended to fit the partiaular lots in question. This may entail changing any
;~ or sll of the following gruvisions: parking, height limits, yard area, coverage, minimum
r~~ distance between buildings, recreation leisure spsae, alleys, frontage, minimum lot width
and area, and floor area per dwelling unit. However, there may also be ample reeson to gran~
~, varianaes even from tYaese new provisions if all substendard development is to be facilitated
`~I * These "new zones" imply the City recognizes that areas containing substandard lots have
{"'~ unique development problems and thereby justify the more lenient provision of the R-2A and
~a R-3A Zones. They also imply that tho existing codes create no hardships in other areas wher~
~: ! lots are of standard si~es in terms of widths and ara8s. ~
~r
,
~~ '
. _ ~ ~ . _ . .. _ . ..... ._ ::.-.,~-_ ._....-. _ . . . _
. - I ~ . - - ~ _ „-+~.ww~
'- -_ _ - . '... . t.. .~
~ ' ">'
~ F
MINDTES, CITY PLANNING COAL~6IISSION, July 7, 1965 2655 .
REPORTS AND - ITF~d N0. 5(Continued)
VieWing this "new zones" alternative in the long range, it appears unlikely that they rvould
solve the problem effeatively.
5. Develop a new zone or zones (R-4) desigr_ed to faailitate the redevelopment of the
Center City area to high densities.
The Center City area contains a ms3ority of the very substandard lots. This area is
being studied at present for possible redevelopment in the future. A primary con-
aept involved in, and essential to, the eaonomic feasibility of redevelopment is
the inareased densities necessary to the aore area.
Recommendation:
The Planning Division reoommends that Alternative No. 1 and Alternative No. 2 be combined
and utilized to reduce the requests for yard variances. In regard to No. 2, the Planning
~ Division recommends more Plexibility in the number rather than reducing the required erea.
It is Division's opinion that the yard provisions, as written, are not excessive, but
because of the variable yard requirements, do cause some administrative and public confusion.
It is felt that ¢ontinued exposure to, and working with, the existing R-2 and R-3 zones will
resolve the oonfusion.
f
Disoussion then was held between the Commission and Planning Staff relative to the possible
amendment to minimum number of rooms permitted in the first 700 feet, reduction of the
required Ploor area, and other facets of the report; •that many of the plans presented for
the 4-unit developments were stoak plans and were not drawn for the partioular property in
question; that the R-2 Code on a normal sized lot would not permit thrse 2-bedroom units;
and that more aereful review of actusl hardship variances should be made.
Commissioner Camp offered a motion to aontinue any sation on a decision for the possible
amendment to the yard requirements of the R-2 and R-3 Zones to the meeting oP July 19, 1965
to ellow the Co~ission more time to study the report presented. Commissioner Perry
seaonded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM N0. 6
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 699 - request to amend Finding No. 6 of
Resolution No. 1663, Series 1964-65 denied by the Commission.
Zoning Sup9rvisor Robert Mickelson presented a letter from the agent for the petiticners of
Conditional Use Permit No. 699, requesting that the Finding No. 6 indicating the number oP
persoas appearing in opposition be amended to rePlect that two persons representing one
industry appeared in opposjtion.
It was also noted by Mr. Mickelson that the Minutes of the several hearings held on sub3eot
petition indioated three persons appeared, and that in all previoss petitions in whioh a
number of persons appeared in opposition, regardless whether they were from one family or
industry, each one Was indicated in opposition.
The Commission was of the opinion that no ahange be made to Resolution No. 1663, Series
1964-65 denying Conditional Use Permit Nv. b99 bece:use a11 persons appearing before the
Co~i.ssion are indiv~duals regardless of Whom or e~hat they represent.
ITEM N0. 7
Work Session - Review of the C-H, R-H-10,000, 20,000 and 40,000 Zones.
; i .•
,
i
.i
i -
~.,~j ~~
C1
~. ' i
.
I -
^'• - -- -
Planning Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski and Assistant Planner James Blades reviewed the
April 10, 1965 draft of the C-H, Commeraial Hillside, Zone and the revised R-H Zones for
ttle Co~ission.
The Co~ission indicated that additional time should be alloted for suggested revisions
bePore publia hearings are scheduled.
ADJOURNN~NT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Rowland offeiau a
motion to ad,journ the m~,eting. Co~issioner Allred seaonded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED. The meeting ad3ourned at 6:45 p.m.
Respeotfully submit ed,
Secretary
aheim City lanning Commission
~
•-- ~''~~
~