Minutes-PC 1965/08/02,
_. ;
City Hall
Anaheim9 California
August 2, 1965
A REGULAR Iu~ETING OF THE ANAI-IEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
, REGULAR A~ETING - A regular meeting of the Ana'::eim City Planning Commission was called
to order by Chairman Munga;:. at 2:OG o'clock P>Me, a quorum being
presento
PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Mungallo
r: .~::a~~
' - COMMISSIONERS: Allredy Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland.
:.,: ~
~ ~ (Commissioner Gauer entered the Council Chamber at
~~' 2:15 PeM.)
~,~ ABSENT - COMMISSIONE!?: Campe
C~
'r_~ PRESENT - Development Services Director: Alan Orsborn
`} Zonir.g Supervisor: Robert Mickeison
~•~ Deputy City Attorr.eya Furman Roberts
;'~• Office Engineer: Arthur Daw
Associate Planner: Ronald Thompson
~I P13r.ning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs
i'I INVOCATION - Reverend I,eRoy Miller, Pastor of Faith Lutherar Church, gave the
invocation~
1 ~ PLEDGE OF
ALLFGIANCE - Commissioner Allred led the pledge of allegiance to the flage
APPROVAL OF
THF MINUTES - The Minutes of the meet~ng of July 19, 1965y were approved as submitted.
RECLASSIFICATION •- CONTIPJUED PUBLIC i-1EARING~. BYRON A~ AND LUETTA F. DAHLy 1600 Crone
; N0~ 64~5-127 Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; JAMES A~ BAKER, 411 South Ohio
_ Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting a reclassification to
_ the C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE, on property described as: A
rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at the southwest corner of Harbor Boulcvard
and South Street, with frontages of approximately 183 feet on the west side of Harbor
Boulevard and approxirnately 250 feet on the south side of South Street, and further
described as 504 West South Streeto Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.,
Subject petition was continued from the meetings of May 10 and J~ne 7, 1965, in order to
allow the petitioner time to submit development plans for subject propertyo
Associate Planner Ronald 'fhompson presented a letter to the C~mmission in which the
petitioners reauested a six weeks' extension of time for the submission of plans,
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to continue consideration of Petition for Reclassi-
fication Noo 64-65-127 to the meeting of September 279 ;~p65, to allow the petitioner
sufficient time to submit plans of developmento Commis::ioner Allred seconded the motione
MOTION CARRIEDo
VARIANCE N0~ 1723 - PUBLIC HEARINGo RUDOLPH WILLSy 3600 West Avenue9 Fullertor~, California,
Owner; MAX WILLS, 3600 West Avenues Fullerton, California, Agent;
requesting permission to waive the min?m;im yard requirements and
minimum ~i.stance between buildings on property described as: A rectanguiarly shaped
parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 100 feet on the west side of Philadelphia
Street and a max.imum depth of approximately 155 feet9 the northern boundary of said property
being approximately 177 feet south of the centerline of Broadway, and further described as
319 Philadeiphia 5;,reet~ Property presently classified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RrSIDENTIAL,
ZONE,.
Mro Go W~ Conti.9 contractor for tF,a petitionery appeared before the Commission and reviewed
the proposed development, noting that because of a serious illness ?.n the family, plans
which had been drawn by the petitioner's designer a year ago were not implemented, and
that plans were in a~co;dance with the previous R-3 Code requirements~
- 2670 -
t
.. ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION9 August 2,'t9o5 2671
VARIANCE N0~ 1723 - Associate Planner Ronald Thempsor, advised the Commission that when the
(Continued) petitioner appear.ed for a zonin
g permit, he was advised by the zoning
representative that code requirements had changed, and upon ccntacting
the C~ity Attorney's offica, it was determined the time limitation be-
tween the rea~ir.g of the new ordinance and the previous R-3 Code requirements had expired,
and the petit?oner was informed he would have to file a varianceo Further, that undex the
old R-3 Codey the petitioner could have developed subject proper~y with a 25-foot court
+ yard, whereas he was proposing a 33-foot, 6-inch court yard~
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitione
.. TI-~ HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the requirement that the carports be
~ ' in accordance with cod2y since the plans did not so indicate,
.
Mro Thompson advised the Commission that site development standards of the R-3 Code would
have to be complied with relative to finishing of the interior of the carports with exterior
materials:,
Commissioner Perry offe:ed Resolution Noa 1715, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption3 seconded by Com~issioner Allred, to grant Petition for Variance No~ 1723,
subject to conditions, and based on the :act that the petitioner had been faced with un-
usual circumst:nces in developing the property, that the property ~acl<lbutted two alleys,
and property abutting to the south would not be jeopardized by the request for the waiver
of the side yard distance. (See Resolution Book,)
On roll cail the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONF.RS; Allred~ Herbst9 Perryy Rowland, Mungallo
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None,
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer,
Com~?ssioner Gauer entered the Council Char~ber at 2:15 .^,"~.,
CONDITIONAL USE PUBLIG HEARING, L~ V.. AND MIRIAM K„ BOSTWICK, 200 West Midway Drive,
PERMIT_h0_ 730_ Ar.aheimY Californ~a; Owne:s; requesting permission to establish an
employee parking lot on property described as: A rectangularly shaped
parcel of land located at the southwest corner of Midway Drive and Zeyn
Street~ with frontages of approximately 114 feet on Midway Drive and approximately 50 feet
on Zeyn Street. Property presentiy classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL9 ZONE~
Mr, Llewellyn Young, representing the petitioner, appe•3red before the Commission and
reviewed the proposed use of subject property, noting that a similar use was permitted
by ~onditional Use Permit No~ 439, ir,unediately adjacent south of subject pr.operty, and
~hat it would service the c~ployees working in the propased warehouseo
Nc one appeared in opposition to subject petition.,
T~~ I-~ARING WAS CLOSED,
Commic:~i~ner ~llred offered f~esolution Noo 1717, Series 1965•-66, and m~ved for its
passa e:nd adoptiony s~conded by Commissioner Herbsty to grant Petition for Conditional
Use Pe..,'~t No> 730, subject to conditions> (See Resolution Book~)
On roll c~ll the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall.
NOrS: c;OMMISSIONERS: None~
A!3SENT;, COMMISSIONERS: Campo
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARINGo pUYLE 8 SHIELDS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INCORPORATED,
' N0~ 65-66-20 831 South Manchester Avenue, Anaheim9 California9 Ownerso Property
p' described as: A triangularly shaped parcel of land located at the
~~ ~ VARIANCE N0~ 1?20 intersection of West Street and ManchPSter Avenua, with frontages of
k` approximately 218 feet on West Street and a y
€'~ • pproximatel 250 fe~ t on
g, Manchester Avenue, and further described as 831 South M a n c hes ter Avenuee
~_ Property presently classified M-l9 LIGHT INDUSTRIALy ZONE,
E1 * REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: G1, GENERAL COfNMERCIAL~ ZONE,
L~ "~ REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED SETBACK
~
MINUTES, CITY PiAPlNING COMMISSION, August 2, 1965 26~2
RECLASSIFICATION •- Associate Planner Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that a letter
N0~ 65~66-20 had been received from the Fe titioner requesting a two-weeks' continuance
in order to resolve development problems regarding the ultimate right-
VARIANCE N0. 1720 of-wayo
(Continuedr~
Con~issioner Rowland offered a motion to continue the hearing of
Petitions for Reclassification No, 65-66-20 and Variance Noe 1720
to the meeting of August 16, 1965, in order to allow the petitioner time to resolve
said right-of-way problemso Commissioner Gausr seconded the motiono MOTION CAh~IED,
VARIANCc. NO., 1724 PUBLIC fiEARING~ FRANK W~ AND EDITH ROSE SACKETT, Owners; L,G~S.
....=~4-;~ CORPORATION, Lessee, 2120 South Main Street, Santa Ana, California;
I WILLIAM A~ BARKER, 3036 South Oak Street, Santa Ana, California,
~ ' Agent; requesting permission to waive (1) maximum height of a free-standing sign, (2)
minimum ground cleara~ce height of a free-standing sign, (3) maximum area of a free-
i standing sign, and {4) location of a free-standing sign within 300 feet of another
free-standing sign on the same property, described as: An irregularly shaped parcel
of land located at the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue, Wilshir.e Avenue, and Pearl
. Streety with frontages of approximately 190 feet on Lincoln Avenue, approximately 203
~ _ feet on Wiishire Avenue9 and approximately 120 feet on Pearl Street> Property presently
classified C-19 GENERAL C^.MMERCIAL, ZONE,.
Mr~. William Barkery agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed
the repuirements of the lesseey Howard Johnson Restaurants, noting that the sign request
was the same as that considered previously by the Commission and located in the Disney-
land area, and that that sign was now in conformance with the code requirements, It was
also noted th3t the proposed height of the sign would not be detrimental to the residen-
tiai development since it was p;oposed to be located at an angle and would be oriented
to Lincoln and Manchester Avenues because of the inaccessibility to orient it to the
freeway ofi•-ramp,
j The Commission was of the opinion the petitioner was requesting waivers of from 50 to
' 100% of the code maximum limitations; that the height was over a maximum ever allowed
~~ in similar iocations; and that if the property to the north ever developed, as the R-3
.~~ tract proposed, residential development would be within 30 feet of the proposed high
sign~
_ In response to Commission questioningY Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission
I the petitioner had dedicated for the extension of Peari Street and had bonded for improve-
~ mentsy but that it seemed unnecessary to construct a street until the petitioner undertook
development of the property, Further, the bond still had four months to run before
expiration, and if deve~opment of the restaurant were to start within that period of time,
construction of the street extending to Wilshire Avenue would be undertaken<
' No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono
THE F~ARING WAS CLOSED~
t Discussion was heid by the Commission on the type of waivers being re quested by the
~ petitioner: whether or not consideration should be given to any portion of waiver of
~ the sign ordinance; that the height of the sign indicated the petitioner was proposing
to orient the sign to freeway traffic rather than the streets on which it was located;
and that the proposed signs on subject pr~perty could not be considered in the same
manner as those approved in the Disneyland areaa
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No~ 1718, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissione•r Herbst, to deny Petition for Variance No, 1724 on
the basis that the proposed 45-foot sign would be within 30 feet of multiple-family resi-
dential development upon completion of the balance of subject property; that the petitioner
showed no hardship which would warrant the granting of the waiver of the sign requests;
and that the petitioner was as~cing for waivers of between 15-20% more than the sign ordinance
permitted,rather than a nominal variance> (See Resolution Book,)
On roll call ti~e foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred9 Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowlanda
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
AASENT: COMMISSIONERS: Campo
~
F
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CCMM7SSION, August 29 1965
2673
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC 1-~ARING~ BARBARA bl~ VAIL, 70-171 Highway 111, Cathedral City,
NO., 65 66-23 ~ California; PAUL AND f~LEN RENN, San Diego County, Ca~ifornia; and
ALBERT AND MADGE HUGHES, ?22-724 tdorth Euclid Street, Anaheim, California,
VARIANCE NO., 1722 Owners; R~ DANIEL OLMSTEAD, JR~, P, 0, Box 2004, Ful2erton, California,
Agent Property described as: Parcel 1: A rectangu~arly shaped p-rcel
of '_and with a f:ontage of approximately 43 feet on the east side of
Euclid Street and a maximum depth ct approx.imately 470 feet; Parcel 2: A rectangularly
shaped parcel of landy south and adjacent to Parcel ly with a frontage of approximately
59 feet on the east side of Euclid Street and a maximum deptn of approximately 470 feet,
the south~rn boundary of caid parcei being approximately 775 feet north of the centerline
! of Crescent Avenue. Pro ert
i P Y presently classified R-A, AGkICI;~_TURAL, ZOIJEe
~~' REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C~-1, GENERAL COMMERCIpL, ZONE,
.:;
';'~ REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUTRED PARKING SPACES
AND REQUIRED SCREEN PLANTINGo
~, Mr,. John Zylstra, rep*esenting the agent for the
' and reviewed the Petitioner, appearedPbeforg the Commission
j i proposed development, noting that only the required arkin and screen
landscaping w.~.vers from code were requested; that plans for the development of the rear
' ~ portion would be submitted when and if circumst~:nces permitted the obtaining of tt~e land-
; ~ locked pazcel to the east; that adequate parkin9 would be provided at the time the undeveloped
portion was planned for use; that a 10-foot easement provided an ~ccess road to the 260 apart-
I~ ment develooment to the east, and the 34•-foot strip acjacent to the flood control channel was
,.~ also owned by the owners of the apartment development; and that since so many owners were
involved in the land assembly, it tiad been difficult to get everyone to agree~. Further, an
offer had been made to the owner of the landlocked parcel to *_he east, but no agreement had
'~~ been reached,
:;
! Mr, Ray Spehar, owner of the property adjacent to the north oi sub'ect
~ official representative of the landlocked parcel to the east a ~ Property and an
in opposition, stating he did not o ~ ppeared before the Commission
i developed simultaneously and in accordanc?hwithmthecCaO CodelwhmchtheUhadatoeconformawiths
i in developing his property, with adequate front and side-yard setbacks; that the General
~ Plan indicated subject property for business and professionai use; that if ttie landlocked
') : pa:cel to the east were left ~nde~~eloped for a later datey the parcel would not be able to
advert:se adequately since the Euciid Street frontage would not be available to them; and that
' the landiocked parcel presently had an easement for access purposes, but said easement
- could be revoked at any time,
t
:I -
:.j It was also noted that landscaping shouid be a reauirement to offset the stark a
I of the solid wall; and that since he was required to develop in accordance with the~sitee
~ development standards of the then proposed C•-0 Zone, the petitioner should not be given any
~i advantage ~~ot nfforded him,
i
Discussion was then he:d by the Commission relative to land assembly of the balance of the
s~ properties and the fact that the parcel to the east would be landlocked, It was also noted
CI by the Commission that at the time the 260-apartment development to the east of subject
~ property was developed9 it had been required thr 34-foot width adjacent to the flood control
t~ ~. channel remain as a green area_
Mro Spehar also noted he rep:esented the owner of the landlocked parcel., who was his brother
residing in the East; and that the pet:tioners had submitted an offer to him on the morning
of the hearing which was unacceptable to him, but he had offered them a counter•-offer~ which
w.as a~so not acceplabie to ihem
In rebuttal, Mr Zylstra stated that since he tad been unable to reach an agreement with
Mr. Spehar regarding the landlocked parceli it w~~ decided to proceed with the parceis
which had beer. acquired since the escrow might close and development of that landlocked
parcel might not be done for a niimber of years; further, th3t when he had offered what he
had considered an acceptable amount for the parcel, Mr~ Spehar had couriter-offered with a
request for a price for the land similar to that with the Euclid Street frontage; that the
lanulocked parcel woul~ be in the same position it had been in the past since the easement
would still exist, and the improvement to the property adjacent to it would add to the value
of said parcel; that the proposed structure was in accordance with code requirements for
setbacks; that one parcel was on a long term lease and the other parcel was on a fee owner-
ship basis; that the proposed stzucture would have a single-story on the c'uclid Street
frontage; and if the structure were reauired to be set back similar to that of Mr, Spehar's,
the property would not be buildable..
It was noted by the Commission that o*.her properties in close proximity to subject property,
* other than Mr.. Spehar's,weze not required to set back in the same manner as Mr, Spehar's
~ property; that it was desirable to have a land assembly of the remaining parcel easterly of
~ subject p*orerty in order to eliminate the possibiiity of a landlocked parcel not being
developeo -it .3ry time in the future.
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 2, 1965
2674
R~CLASSIFICATION - Mro Spehar again appeared before the Commission and ~tated it was his
NO_ 65-66-23 _~ opinion the parcel to the rear could be developed within a year, and
if the petitioners could not develop it, he was sure he would be able
, VARIANCE N0~1722 io do so and could not understand why all prope:ty oN~ners could not
i (Continued)~ r?ach some kind of an agreement~
of escrow closing, and theytweretnotdsurentheyswouldabe~ableetoddevelophallroflthebicause
as well as attempt to obtain the landlocked parcel
parcelo
T!-~ NEARING WAS CLOSED~
. ~
,.T:'sir~T Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the 34-foot strip adjacent to t~? south
•~ of subject property and inquired of Mro Daw whether or not this was a dedicated st.eeto
'`~~ Mr~ Dzw stated there was only 34 feet, and the City did not accept a 34-foot strip for
~, street purposes, although the 260 apartments were utilizing this as an access to Euclid
~ 1 Street, and that a special effort should be made by the petitioners to attempt to assemble
all parcels :nvoived northerly of the flood control channel, which included the landlocked
I parcel, fo: possible develo pme n t~
~IM Commissioner Pe::y offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petitior,s for
t~l Reciassificatior. No,. 65-66-23 and Variance No~ 1722 to the meeting of Auqust 16~ 1965,
~•I. ?n order to allow the Commission time to inspect the property and for the petitioners to
; ~ attempt to contact the other property owners relative to a land assembly of the remaining
~~; landlocked parcei Commissioner Alired seconded the motion~ MOTION CARRIED~
e~
r'` 1
`. i RECLASSIFICATIO~' -~'r.!3,-.IC F,~'r.'ARING VERCIL C. ah'p ELSIE M, MALONE, 3138 West Linceln Avenue,
E NO_ 65_66-~9 Anaheim, Caiifornia, Owners-, Property described as: Two rectangularly
~ shaped parcels of land located at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue
~~ COPJD:TIONAL USE and Topanga Drive, with total and combined frontages of approximately
ii PERMIT ~0_ 731 _ 96 feet on Lincoln Avenue and approximately 88 feet on Topanga Drive;
parcPt ~, tha westernmost parcei being approximately 51 feet wide, znd
-I ~eic.Ql_j, adjacent to and east of Parcel 2, being approximately 45 feet
;I wide, Property p~esently classified R-AY AGRICULTURAL, ZONE~
~' REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: G•1, GENERA.L COMMERCIAL, ZONE~
~
r.` ' REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A WALK-UP RESTAURANT WITH WAIVER
'~;I OF MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING SPACES.
~i Mr, Robert Orr, representing the owners and the ~~roposed L~uyer of the propert , a
~ befo*e the Commission and reviewed the + Y Ppeared
proposed da ~;opRCen.., noting that after the required
; setback for Lincoin 4venue was provided for, plan~ .>s presented indicated four parking
; spaces short; tnat subject property was in close pruximity to a large shopping center which
j had i?3 parking spaces over the requirement; and that the commercial development to the east
~ made the p:oposed use compatible,•
~ No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions.,
~~ J THF I-~ARING WAS CiOSED
Discussion was held by the Commission :elative to the proposed waiver, noting that a 40%
shortage of the re7v:red parking spaces was indicated, and after reviewing the plan,
Commissioner Rowland stated a revision to the plan could be made by eliminating the access
to the alley3 thereby providing between 13 and 14 parkiny spaces which brought the requested
waiver within reason to the required parking spaceso
In response to Commission questioning relative to a reciprocal parking agreement, Deputy
City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission the p~titioner would have to have a
transfer of interest of land or an irrevocable easement for the use of the land from the
property owners to permit the Commission to consider said parking area as part of subject
property-.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No„ 17i9, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
;. and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend to the City Council that Petition
for Raclassification No, 65-66-19 b~ approvedy subject to conditionso (See Resolution Booko)
~ i
'~ On roll call the foregoino resolution was passed by the followiny vote:
I' A~S~ COMKAISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbsty Perry, Rowland, Mungall,
? ~ NOHS: COMMISSIONERS: None~
{ ,~. ABSENT: COMMISSIQNERS: Camp:,
~
,
NiINUTES, CIT7 PLANNING COMMISSION. August 2, 1965 2675
RECLA;~~I'FICATION - Commissioner Allred offered Resolution Noo 1720, Series 1965-669 and
NQ., 65-56-19 moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst,
to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noe 7319 subject to
C:O~DY'IIONAL USE conditions and the amendment of Condition No~ 39 with the addition
PERM:~T N0~ 731 "provided, however, that revised plans are submitted to Development
(C~ntinued) Re~iew Committee indicating a minimum of 13 parking spaces"o (See
Resoiution Booko)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ailred, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungalle
~OES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonea
ABSEM : COMMISSIONERS: Campo
1/ARIANCE NO_ 1721 •- PiJBLIC HEARING~ [,OYLE 8 SHIELDS REALTY, 814 South Manchester Avenue,
Anaheim, Californias Owner; JOHN HARETAKIS, 1673 West Ball Road,
Anaheim, California9 Agent; requesting permission to waive location
of a free•-standing sign on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land
with a frontage of approximately 117 feet on the north side of Ball Road and a maximum
depth of app:oximately 147 feets the western boundary of said property being approximately
200 feet east of the centerline of Euclid StreetY and further described as 1673 west Ball
Road„ Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE,
NL.. Carl Mueller, representing the operator of the restaurant, appeared before the Commission
and reviewed the fact that it was desirous to have the sign located as the architect had
designed it so that the sign could be seen from the adjacent shopFing center since if the
sign were located as required by code, it would be completely o5l:tei~ated from view from
the shopping area, Further~ that a 20•-foot easement to the shoppin~ area ar.d service
staiion was granted to the restau:ant operation9 and if subject petition were not approvedj
the petitioner would be suffering a hardship and not enjoyinq a pz•ivilege which adjacent
property owners enjoyed~
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED..
_,~ Con:miss:or.er Perry offered Resolution No~ i7219 Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Variance No, 1721,
subject to a condition. (See Resolution Book~)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followin9 vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gaueri Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall~
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp,
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC I-IEARING., GRIFFITH BROTI-IERS, 887 South Anaheim Boulevardy
NO__65-66~22____ Anaheim, California, Owners~ Property described ~s: An irregularly
shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approxim~tely 823 feet on the
CONDITIONAL USE west side of Ninth Street, the western boundary of said property being
PERMIT NO., 733 adjacent to the Orange County Flood Control channel, and the southern
boundary being approximately 464 feet north of the centerline of Kimberly
Avenue~ Property presently classified R-A9 AGRICULTURAL, ZONE~
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE~
; ~-
'1 _
~
~ ~
~ ~
:i
I
~~
~;` -
~M .. - --
REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A MULTIPLE-FAMILY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
Associate Planner Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that a letter had been received
from the petitioner requesting a two-week continuance in order to resol~ie development
problems under the Edison right-of-way easement~
Mr.. Lawrence Pechter, 1537 West Laster Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition,
stating his property abutted subject property to the south; that Ninth Street was too narrow
to pr,~vide adeauate circulation for other than single-family residential development; thai
the cars from the existing muitiple-family residential development to the east of subject
property presently parked on subject property, an~ if said property were developed with
multiple-family units, these cars, in addition to those from the proposed development,
would be parking on the streets, thereby denying the single-family property owners the
right to use the streets acijacent to their property for vistor parking; and that the safety
iactor would be greatly reduced by permitting the proposed development.
f
1
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AUgust 2, 1965
2676
RECLASSIFICATION - Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that Ninth Street,
NO., 65-66-22 adjacent to subject property, would have a dedication of 32 feet from
the centerline which provided an 8-foot parkway, a 12-foot travelway, and
CONDITIOP!AL USE that sidewalks was also a requirement of the recommended conditions~
PE'RMIT N0~ 733
(Cantinued) Mr~ David Lay~ residing on Kimberly Avenue, appeared before the
Commission in opposition to subject petition and stated that at the
previous consideration of subject property, the southerly portion was
recommended by the Commission for R-1 development since the northerly portion was proposed
for a City park -therefore, the apartments were recommended for disapproval; that since
the last hearing a tract had been developed on the southerly portion; and that he was
concerned about what had hapoened to the proposed parko
,
Mro Thompson advised the Commission that the City nad dropped plans for the acquisition
of the p3:k site on sub,7ect property because a long term lease had been obtained for a
park site on the east side of Ninth Street under the easement~
Mr., Lay con`_inued: the traffic on the street was becoming quite a problem, and if subject
petition fo* a multiple•-family development were approved, the traffic problem would be
increased since renters of apartments did not seem to have the concern for children and
property as homeowners did„
The Commission then stated that since the petitione: r2~uested a continuance for submission
of revised pians, and since the Interdepartmental Committee had not made their recommenda-
tions on the new plans, final consideration could not be given to subject petition until
all evidence was submitted because the present plans indicated the street and parking
under the Edison easement„
A showing of hands indicated ten persons present in the Council Chan~'~er opposing subject
petition.,
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to continue Petitions for Reclassification Noo 65-66-22
and Conditional Use Permit No., 733 to the meeting of August 16y 1965, in order to allow time
for the petitioner to submit revised plans of the proposed development.~ Commissioner Allred
seconded the motion.. MOTION CARRIED~
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC f'.EARING„ AARON E~ SWAIN, 2U29 Harbor Boulevard, pnaheim,
PERMIT NO_ 73q_ California, O~:ner; requesting permission to estabiish a motel and
pernission for future estabiishment of a restaurant and cocktail
lounge with waiver of minimum lot width on property described as:
An ir:egulariy shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximatel•~ 100 feet on the
west side of Harbor Boulevard and a maximum depth of approximately 555 feet, the southern
boundary o~ Harbor Bouievard being approximately 650 feet north of ±he centerline of
Orangewood Avenue. Property presently classified R•-R, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE,:
Associate Pianner Ronaid Thompson advised the Commission a letter had been submitted by
the petitioner requesting that subject petition be ccntinued for two weeks in order to
allow time for the submission of revised plans,
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition~
Commissioner Perry offered a motion to continue con~ideration of Petition for Conditional
Use Permit No~ 734 to the meeting of August 16, i965, in order to allow the petitioner
time to s~,bmit revised plans~ Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion~ MOTION CARRIED.
?~ ~
~
i ,
~!
y~ ~
RECLASSIFICATION •- PUELIC HEqRING. AGpJANIAN INVESTMENT CORPORATION AND SANTA ANITA
NO_ 65-66-21_~ INVESTMENTS, INCORPOP.ATED, 2030 West Lincoln Avenue, Suite A, Anaheim,
California, Owners.. Property described as: A rectangularly shaped
CONDITIONAL USE parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 280 feet on the west
PERMI'I' N0~ 732 side of Haster Street and a maximum depth of approximately 630 feet,
the northern boundary of said property being approximately 150 ieet
GENERAL PLAN south of Wilken Way, and further described as 222g Haster Street„
AMENDMENT N0. 49 Property presently ciassified R-Ay AGRICULTURAL, ZONE,
REQUESTED C:,ASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE~
REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A MULTIPLE-FAMILY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
WITH WAI:'ER OF REQUIREMENT THAT ALL LWELLING UNITS BE
LOCATED WI':HIN 200 FEET OF A STANDARD STREET~
R
F
MINUTES, CITY FLANNING COMMISSION, August 2, 1965 2677
~ ~~
~
,;+ { ~
1
I
RECLASSIFICATION ~- Mr, Craig Grainger, real estate agent foz• the petitioner, appeared
N0~ 65_56~21 ~ before the Commission and reviewed the land use ~alues in the City,
noting that subject property, if developed for R-1 subdivision, would
CONDITIOA'AL USE make the cost of ±he land abo~t $9,000 to $10,000 per Lot, and that
PERMIT N0~ 732 _ the homes in the area were valued at $17,000~ The proposed develop-
ment was also reviewed with commentary being made that the proposed
GENERAL PLAN development wo~ld be a completely enclosed and integrated residential
AME.NDMEN7' N0~ 49 development, and that there would be no street other than the 20-foot
(Continued) ~ access d:ive around the periphery of the property with sidewalks being
provided which some of the tracts in the single-family area did not
provide:
The CoRmission noted that similar developments to that being proposed had been found
inadequate :and impractical, after having viewed some of them9 and that it had been two
years since *he Comm?ssion had considered similar types of developments in a favorable
light,
Mr, Cha:ies A polla.d, 203 West Tiller Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposi-
t;on to subject ~etitions, noting that the traffic on Haster Street was backed up past
tne beauty shop located :*a~:ediately south of subjec+~ property; that the proposed develop-
ment wouid nave difficu:ty ir makin9 i.eft-hand turns from their periphery access road;
that ±he added traffic wouid increese the traffic hazards to children who sometimes used
the street for wa;k~ng; that s~bject pro,perty was developable for single-family homes
such as were developed to the north, south, w~est ;nd southwest in the City of Garden
Grove; and ~hat ho:nes cou.d be buiit on sub,7ect property to seil for S20y000 apiece~
The Comc.iss~or. r.cted ±;at :f su3ject peiitior were -~op:oved; the single-family homes
wou'_d have str~ee:s both to the front and to tne rear of their propezt:es, 3nd the 20~foot
ac~esswiy wo~.:ld .b~ 3 s~ibs± ~nd ~rd street ,
M:s, .'~!a~y ~~s.ri, ~05 wea± Wiikr.n w',~y, apoeazed before the Commission in opposition to
snbject pe*_it~on .~r.d =.t3ted the petitione: was proposing fou~ t_mes the number of dwell-
ing uni±s normaily pe:nitted ~n that sectior, a~: subject p:operty •- this would mean four
~ tiu:es as ~+any chiidrer ~nd fo~= t?.m:s as much traffic for a street designed for single-
family zesident.ai purno=e~; tha;, tne sdd:tzonai traffic would create a hardship on the
children who =ometimes used thc st~eets to play in; that the:e was considerable traffic
now using Wiik?n Way from the commerc~sl deve~opmen± to the westq that most families had
• two cars, and .n=uff..cient ~a~k=ng was provided because the code required only 1~ spaces
- pe= unit; ar.d that :f sub;ec~ p.operty were approved for multiple-family residential
deveiepment; this wouid set a pattern of development fo: the ~acant iots across the
street and wo.~id project more multiple-famiiy residential use in the single-family
~ residenti~! are•3,
~
M.r.,R H. M~ttman, 229 West Ti'?er Avenue.; -appeared before the Cor,unission and inauired
wheze ±he criidren fror.~ t.he 66 f3milies would be going to schooi since the school facili•-
ties were now overt3xed, ar,d it:3ny of the children in he: tract weie going to the Garden
Grcve schoois; that the chiidrer, wai~ed at the corners of Naster otreet for the bus to
bus them to the schoo:s, and with the additional traffic on Haster Street, if subject
petitior were aopruo•ed; child:en woulo be in peril every day they went to schoolo
M_~s rern Ca.t. i.2~ Wes± LB3tr.ce Lane, appe~red befo~e the Corrmission and stated there
w~s cons,de*~t:? corges±ior. fr.om the multiple f~;rily *esidential development in close
~::oximtty to ;~,b;ect prope:ty; th3t the roise from the sw:nuners ~nd drur,ks who parked
on the stree* ard u-:d the street would ~e greatiy magrified if the proposeu deveionment
we~e appioved, ,3nd that consideration should be given to the singie•-famiiy residents in
the area
In rebutt3i, M:. G:3inger =e~:ewed the method of providing access from the proposed
develop~nent - the fact '.hat tFe developmer~~ :louid have sidewaiks for the children to
waik on and the fac+, that the .tumber of children from the F~roposed development would be
considerebiy less because most apartment dweilers did not .~ave children
N showir.g of n3nds indicated sixteen persons pre~ent in tFe Council Chamber opposing subject
petitiun
TI-+F NEARING WAS CLGSED.
4 di=~.:ssion was heid by the Commission, noting the Commission had ~dvised the petitioners
at the last heazi.na on subject property that a pianned residentiai development of ~•-1
homes might be considered. which wouid include a:eview of possibie reduction of lot s~ze
ard wid+.h; that the planned residenti?1 development before the Conanission for r,onsideration
today was archaic 3nd had r.ot beer. approved for sever•~1 years; that the alley circulation
p:opesed w3s not condur,ive to a compatible living environment; 3nd that no change had taken
place, either economicaliy or physica;ly,ir the area to warrant consideration of subject
petit~on for ot.her than single•-family residentiai development..
~.
i
r 1
MINU1'ES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOIJ, August 2, 1965
2678
REC;.ASSIFICATION - Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No~ 1?22, Series 1965-66,
N0,_65~66-•21 _~ ar.d moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner
Allred, to recommend to the City Council th~t Petition for Reclassi-
CONDITIONAL USE fication No, 65-66-21 be disapproved, based on the fact that the
PERMIT_NO Y73? proposed reclassification was not necessary or desirable for the
orderly development of the area; that the proposed multiple-family
GENERAL PLAN residential use would be incompatible with the existing R-1 develop-
AN~NDMENT NO 49 i.ient; that subject property was developable fer R-1 subdivision; and
(Continued) that the proposed development did not provide a iiving environment
condu~~ive to the type the City would like for its residents~ (See
Resalution Book,)
~• .,'~;,
On roll cail the forego:rg resolution was passed by the fol)owing vote:
AYES: CO~Wu1ISSI0NERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rcwland; Mungallo
NOES: CO^NNISSIONERS: None~
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp:
Commissioner A1?red o.°fe^ed Resolution No:. 1723, Series 1965-66y and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to deny Petition for Conditional
Use Pe:mit No, ~32, b3sed on the fact that the proposed development was incompatible to
the existing single family residential subdivision, that it would affect the adjoining
land uses, and that the granting of the conditional use permit would be detrimental to
the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheimo
(See Resolution Book.)
On rol: call the :~regoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
A~S~ COMMISSIONERS: 411redy Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENr; COMMISSIONER~: Camp,
Commissioner Rowiand ofiered Resolution No, 1724, Series 1965-66, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council
that General Plan .4r„endment No. 49 be disapprovedY based on the fact that no evidence
was p~•esented to justiry the Comnission :ecommending a change to the land use policy~
(See Resolution Book 1
_- On roll cali the foregoing resolution was passed by the iollowing vote:
A~S~ COMMiSSIONERS: A1lredy Gauer, iierbsty Perry, Rowland; MurgaiL
NOES: COMMISSIO~ERS: Nor,e~
ABScNT: COM,MISSIONE3S: Cemp,
RECLASSIFICATION •- PIJBLIC f-IEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANN?NG COMMISSION, ?04 East
NO__65_66 24___~ Lincol;~ Avenue, Ar~~=im, California, propos;ng to establish a
resolution of intei,~ to rezone fror~~ the R•-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE, to
the M-i, LIGHT INUU5:RIAL, ZONE, a certain portion of land described
as follows: That portion of the Northeast Annexation No.. 3(described in Ordinance Uoo
1542) located between the north bank of the Santa Ana River on the south and the center-
line of Orangethorpe Avenue oi, the north, Jefferson Street on the west, and the eas2
boundaries of the Northeast Annexation No:. 3 on the east~
planning Supervisor Ro~ald Grudzinski reviewed th~~ previous Northeast Annexation, noting
that the present action was pending before the Commission because at the July 19th meeting
it was determined by the City Attorney`s office that the property nad been incorrectly
advertised, and it was recommended that the same conditions N:iich established the resolu-
tion of intent for the Northeast Industrial Area known as Reclassification No> 01-62-69
should apply to the resoiution of inte~t of properties unde* considerationo
Mr. Donald Pierotti, owne: of property at the southeast corner of Jefferson and Coronado
Streets indicated his presence and interest in the proposed resolution of intent,
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THE '+EARING WAS CLOSED~
~~~ Commissioner Gaue: offered Resolution No~ 1725, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Conmissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council tha~t Petition
~, for Reclassification Nc, 65-66•-24 establishing a resolution of intent for the areas encompass-
ed in the Northeast Anner.ation No. 3 and part of the Northeast Industrial Area as depicted
`• *~ on ihe General Plan be a
~~~+tY of Intent No. 62R-335 aPProved, subject to conditions as outlined and required in Resolution
~ ,.pproving Reclassification No, 61-62-69. (See Resolution Book~)
'
` - - ~ .r
~.*-.....dM
- --- -a.-.'~~~snya..._-- -- ~+...~
~
MIN~:c^5,,;;;~Y PLANNi;i~ COMMISSIOid, August 2, 1965 2679
RECLASSIFICATIUN - On ro11 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
NO„ 65_66-24 ~
(Continued) AYE~: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall~
NOC-S: C0,1M1ISSIONERS: Noneo
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Campo
~ RECLASSIFICATION •• PUBLIC f-IEARINGa INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANF~ING COMMISSION, 204 East
NO_~65•-66-25 ~ Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposing to establish a resolution
of intent to rezone from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE, to the M-1, LIG}ff
IiQilUSTRIAL, ZONE a certain portion of land described as follows: That
~ portion of the Yorba Annexation (described in Ordinance No> 1777) located between the north
bank of the Santa Ana River on the south, ihe centerline of Orangethorpe Avenue on the north,
, the centerline of Imperial Highway on the easty and the westerly boundary of the Yorua
Annexation on the west~
Planning Supervisoi itonald Giudzinski appeared before the Commission and reviewed the
action of the Commission in the estzblishment of permanent zoning for the Yorba Annexation
at their public hearing of July 19, 1965~ noting that conditions of reading of the ordinance
of subject property should be contingent upon conditions as outlined in Reclassification
-. No~ 61 •62•-69~
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition,
TI-~ NEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No, 1726, Seri.es 1965•-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that
Petition for Reclassification Ido. 65-66-25 to establish a resolution of intent to reclassify
the prooerties io the M-1 "Lone as depicted in the land use of the Anaheim General Plan,
subject to conditions as outlined in Reclassification No. 61-62•-69.. (See Resolution Book~)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, N.erbst, Perry, Rowland, M~ngall~
NCES: COMMISSIONERS: None.,
~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp:
_ RECESS - Commissione: Rowland offered a motion to recess the meeting for
fifteen minutes„ Comrt:iss:oner Allred seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED, The meeting recessed at 4:00 o'clock P,M.
RECONVENE - Chairman Mungall reconvened the meeting at 4:15 o`clock P~M~,
all Cortunissioners being present with the exception of Commissione.rs
i Camp and Perry_
REPORTS AA~D •- ITEM NO_ i
RECOM~AENUATIONS Yard requirements in the R-2 and R-3 Zones~
Plannino Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski advised the Commission that
exhibits as reouested by the Gorranission were not complete and reouested the Commission
continue consideration until the meeting of August 16, 1965.
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue consideration of yard requirements in
the R-2 and R-3 Zones until the meeting of August 16, 1965, Commissioner Perry seconded
the motion., MOTION CARRIED~
ITEM NO,w~
Northeast Annexation - Parcel No., 5- Portion oi
Tract Noe 4644 - Not a Partn
Assistant Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed for the Commission data on Parcel No. 5
{ as recommei:ded to the City Council, noting that technically there was still one small
portion of R-A property left in Parcel No~ 5, rather than R-1 as recommended to the City
Council; that the property owners had been advised in 1962, upon request for R-1 Zone in
,`i Reclassification No~ 61-62-102, that the R-1 Zone would be contingent upon annexation into
the City; further, that most of the conditions for improvement and street lights were tied
' + in with the tract; that dedication of the street ar.~i all other conditions except the street
~, light f=e had been complied with on the "not a part"; that he had discussed this problem
*; with the City At!orney`s office relative to the possibility of any advantage being derived
,~ from the elimir,ation of said parcel from the automatic R-1 Zone recomrr:ended for permanent
j zoning, and it was determined that since a dwelling already existed on the property, it
~} was nr,t necessary to complete the reclassification for the $52.00 street light fee, but
"; i
~
I
MINUTF.S, CITY FLANNING COMMISSION, Atigust 2, 1965 2680
REPORTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0~2 (Continued)
that if the property owner in the future requested any other type of zoning, at that time
the street light fee could be required; and that the foregoing information had been sub-
mitted to the Commission for their information only, and no action by the Commission was
necessary~
ITEM N0~ 3
Orsnge County Use Variance Noo 5587 - West side of Brookhurst Street,
approximately 205 feet north of Cerritos Avenue - Requesting change
of zone from RP to C~-1 Zoneo
Associate Planner Ronald Tnompson advised the Commission that the proposed Orange County
Use Variance No, 5587 was to establish a contractor's office in a residence, and the only
change was a reauest to oermit the location of one parking space beyond the rear yard
setback, and since there was such a minor change in the pz•oposed request, no action was
necessary to the Orange County Pianning Commission relative to subject petitiono
Commissioner Rowland oifered a motion to receive and file Orange County Use Variance
No~ 5587, Commissioner Perry ser,o~ded the motiono NaTION CARRIED~
ITEM NO" 4
Orar.ge County Use Variance No~ 5591 - Cal-Crete Products Company -
Proposing to establish a stepping stone and lawn curbing manufacturing
business on the west side of Tayior Street approximately 800 feet south
of 0*ar.gethorpe Avenue in the M-1, Light Ind;~strial Districto
Zoning S~~nervisar Robert Mickelson presented Orange County Use Variance No, 5591 to the
Comm?ssion; noting the location of the property under consideration and reviewing the
p:opo~?d use rnr subject prope:tyo It was also noted that the ultimate width of Taylor
Strect ~~ras ~roposed ior 53 feet .°rom centerlines and that the setback required by the
City of Anahe:rr in the industrial area was 50 feetswhereas the petitioner proposed a
20-foot setback,
Commissioner Gauer offe*ed a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange
County Pianning Commission be urged to require that the petitioner develop property under
consideration in Orange County Use Variance Noo 5591 in accordance with the City of Anaheim
M-1, Light Industrial, Zone site development star.dards and setbacks which inciudes outdoor
storage to be enclosed with a 6-foot wallo Cortmissione'r Rowland seconded the motiono
MOTION CARRIEDo
ITEM ~!0~
Request for approval of an addition to the Magic Star Motel
and Domino`s Restaurante
Assistant Planne: James Blades presented plans for development of an addition to an existing
motel in the Commercial-Recreation Area and noted plans for rebuilding the Domino Restaurant
were also included~
Zoning Supervisor Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that the original development was
approved under an old variance; that it was considered rather questionable what had been
approved originally and requested that the Commission determine whether or not a conditional
use pe:mit was necessary, or whether development plans could be approved as submitted
without benefit of a public hearingo
It was noted by the Commission that the proposed change was occurring in the Commercial-
Recreation Area and the use was only an expansion of an existing use~ therefore, plans
could be approved subject to installation of fire hydrants as determined to be necessary
by the Chief of the Fire Departmento
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to aporove the development plans for the expansion of
the Magic Star Motel located at 1735 South Harbor Soulevard and the reconstruction plans for
Domino°s Restaurant at 1731 South Harbor Boulevard, provided, howevers that fire hydrants
shall be instailed as required and determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire
Departmento Commissioner Rowland seconded the motione NbTION CARRIED,
~
~, o ,
., r
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMiSSION, August 2, 1965 2681
REPORTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS •- ITEM NO., 6
Conditional Use Permit Noso 522 and 548 - Central Baptist Church,
227 North Magnolia Avenue - Requesting permission to utilize
*.emporary portable metal buildings to provide school facilities
for the increased enrollmente
Assistart Planner James Blades presented the master pian of the Central Baptist Church
as originally reviewed by the Commission under Conditional Use Permit Nos~ 522 and 548,
and noted the foliowing ge~eral findings: (1) that the petitioner requests approval of
, , plans to uiiiize temporary steel framed mobile type buildings, and (2) that the petitioner
~~~ als~ r~quests permission to move and convert an existing building to a new location an~
use~
~ Find:nqs: Conditional Use Perm~t No_ 522
~ _ - -
(i) Subject cor,ditionsl use permit established a master plan for development (Exhibit
Nos.. ? 3r.d 2), As .~ condition of approval, the church was required to dedicate
access rights to tale~ Bruce and Russell Streets to the City of Anaheim (Condition
No, 1; Pianning Commission Resolution Noo 1013y Series 1963-64)~
(2i The S80 d~y t_me pe:iod for compliance expired on approximately June 6, 1964e
As of this date, Condition No,. 1 of Planning Commission Resolution Noo 1013 has
not been comp:~ed with~.
(3) As of this date on!y Condition Nos. 3 and 4 have been complied with~
Findings: Canc~itiona: Use Permit No_ 548
(1) Sub,7ect conditicnal use permit established a high school within an existing
sanit>_~:um buiiding-
(2) As a cor.dition to approval of Conditional Use Permit No„ 548, the church was required
to pay a fee to the City for tree planting purposes: The 180-day time perioG for
comp_isr,ce expi:ed on approximately October 7, 1964.,
! (3) In add~tionY the petitioner was reauired to obtain approvai from the Orange County
-, Flood Cor.t:ol District io construct a foot bridge connecting the two parcels utilized
- for church pu~poses„ The 60-day time period for compliance expired on approximately
June ~, 1964
(4) 4s of this dete, Condztion No~ 1 of Planning Commission Resolution No~ 1096,
Series 1963•64, ~s the only one compiied with,
j
d }
~ Recommendat=ons: neral
.~_----
~ (1; The Deveiopment Services Department recommends that said request be set for public
~i hearing to consider a substantial revision to previously approved planso
i (2) Th~ Deveiopment Sezvices Department recommends that if said request is not set
- for public hearing, that the repuest be subject to the following conditions:
~~. A„ Buildings i and 2 be approved subject to the completion of all conditions
r , of Conditior,al Use Permit Nos, 522 and 548~
€' F B., Thet subject portable buildings be limited to a maximum time of 3 years
j~ (September, 1968),
i
~,
C~ That a recorded easement be required which grants eg:ess and ingress for the
~ period of time permitted,
•
Ii
D~ That all other structures shall be of a permanent charactera
4 E~ That a bond acceptable to the City Attorney be posted to insure the removal
of all temporary structures.
Recommendations: Conditional Use Permit Nos
522 and 548
-
`,~ -
~
(1) ~
-
Recommend recorded ingress and egress easement along south of North property line
for removal of pertable sections of buildings Noso 1 and 2~
J
'~ R; (2) Recommend buiidings Nos, 3 and 4 be permanent structures (not pezmanently located
portable structures):,
.
~i
' ~
~ (3) Maximum time limit For usage of any and all tempordry (portabie) recommended to
~
; ~ be five years (Septembery 1970),~
c
~
r ._ ~ ' k
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 2,'1965 r 2682
RFPORTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ITEM N0._6 (Continued)
Representatives and the archii;ect for the church were present and
reviewed the history of the establishment or the church school facilities> It was also
' noted that approval oi the use of temporary metal buildings was necessary, although not
i
approvedyas part of the plans of development when the master plan for the school was
~ ! approved by the Comreission~.
f Considerable discussion was held between the Commission, the Staff and church representa-
~ tives relative to whether or not the proposed request constituted a substantial change
' from the plans apprcved by the Commission in Conditional Use Permit No~ 522y and the use
. r~;~ of an existing structure for high school purposes in Conditional Use Permit No~ 548~
.;~~ ~ Commissianer Perry en*ered the Council Chamber at 4:35 o`clock P~Mo
I Comm~ssioner Aiired offered a motion to approve the use of temporary metal building
Nos, 1, 2, 3 and 4 for a period of £ive years, subject to review at the expiration of
the five yea: oeriod, providedy however, that all conditions approving Conditional Use
Permit No= 522 and 548 ir. Resolution Nos, 1013 and 1096, Series 1963-64 are complied
wiih as req~:red, and that building=_ 8 and 9 are permitted by code, although not originally
submitted ~n the R~aster plan~ Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion~, hh~TION CARRIE~~
Commissioner ?e°ry abstained.
ITEM NO_ 7
Consideration of an amendment to the C'rty policy regarding use
o.' met3i pre-f3bricated materials foi co~nme~cial and industrial
b,:ild~ngs,
Zoning Suce=visor Robert Mickelson presented a stuciy and recommended guidelines for the
future estab~ishment of ine~ai structu=es in the corturercial and industrial zones of the
City as fcl~ows:
"It is recommended that a policy be adooted by the City Council permitting the constructic~
of ineta'_ buildings in comn~ercial and industrial zones subject to requirements listed below
and to the app-ovai of the Deveiopment Review Committee of the Development Services Depart~
ment, Decisions of Developr~ent Review shail be subject to appeal to the City Council.
Development Review shail require that the following standards be complied with:
Commercial Zones
i, That oniy anodized p3nels or pre--finished panels with factory baked-on
iinishes w?11 be allowed~
2. That building fronts shall incorporate and present either a finished
parapet or overhang to the street,
3, That all roof edges shall be finished with a facia and/or combination
facia gutter
4, That finished sofiits be reauired„
5, That the use of collateral materia:s (brick•, stone, wood, etc~,) be
required in f:ontai design,
6~ That aluminum sash be reqUired~
7„ That color matched fasteners shali be required~
Industrial Zone (where visible from the public street)
1~ Only anodized p3nals or pre-finished panels with factory baked-on
finishes will be ailowed~
2,. All roof edges shall be finished with facia and~or combination facia gutter~
3,. All overhangs to the street shall inco*porate a finished soffit.
;~ , 4~ 'Che use of collateral material is encouiaged on the building fronts~
~j ~ 5~ Aluminum sash is required~
6„ Color matched fasteners shall be required~
~ ~
F
k E~
E ~ ..
~ MINUTES, CITY PLANN.NG COMMISSION, August 2, 1965 2683
f REPORTS AND
r RECflMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0, ? (Continued)
~
~ Inaustrial,?one (where not visible from public street)
1„ A1] metal buildings which meet the Uniform Building Code may be allowed
where :.ompietely screened from public viewn"
Colored slides of existing rt,etal pre-fabricated buildings in Orange County and slides
which were loaned by the manufacturers of said material were also shown to the Commissiono
r' Mr~ Mickelson also advised tne Commission that if they had any technical questions,
.--~~ representatives of the Pascoe Metal Bui?dings and the Butler Steel Buildings companies
~~ were present to answer them~
~~`~ Discussion was held by the Commission as to the existing and future development of pre-
~ fabricated metai struct~res, it being noted that aluminum windows sheuld be a requirement
,i to prevent possibie staining of the panels~
i Corwnissioner He:bst offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that amendments
be made to the existing City policy in approving development plans in which steel pre-
'~ fabricated structures were proposed in the commercial nr industrial zones subject to
:1• approvai of the Development Review Committee of the Development Services Department~
Decisions of Development Review shall be subject to appeal to the City Councile
:~
De~elopment Review shali reouire that the following standards be complied with:
~`
Coame~cia_ Zones
~I 1• Only anodized paneis or pre•-finished ,~anels with factory baked-on finishes
1 wi:i be ailowed
r ~
~; I
EI 2, Bui?ding fronts snali incorporate and present either a finished parapet or
~ overhang to the sireet~
~
~' 3.. Ai1 :oof edaes shall be finished with a facia and/or combination facia gutter~
~" .
~
n• _ 4~ Finished soffit= a:e required~,
~,
G.~ 5~ 'I'he use of collateral materials (brick, stone, wood, etc~) is required in
~ front~i design,
€
`i 6., Aiuminum sash is reauired~
I
,•~ ?, Culor matched fasteners shall be requiredo
~~ Industrial Zon~ (where visible from the public street)
1-. Only anodized panels or ore-finished panels with factory baked-on finishes
~ I wili be allowed.
~. ~ .
2, AI1 roof edges shall be finished with facia and/or combination facia guttero
~
3•, Ail overhangs to the stxeet shall incorporate a finished soffit,
i 4~ The use of collateral material is encouraged on the building frontso
7 ~ 5., Aluminum sash is required.,
I
i 6~ Color matched fasieners shall be requiredo
i
~~ 1 Industrial Zone (where not visible from the
~ public street)
~ 1, All metal buildings which meet the Uniform Buiiding Code may be allowed
where completely screened from public view~
Commissioner Gauer seconded the motiona MOTION CARRIED~
;'. ti
_~
~ _
~~ n
,~ ~
.~
1 i :,
'r
p
i ~
MINUI'ES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 2, 1965 26gq
RECESS ~ Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to recess the meeting for
dinner and to reconvene at 7:00 P,Mo for a work session on the
establishment of the Oil Code with representatives of the oil
industry, The meeting recessed at 5:15 P,M,
r
RECONVENE •- Chairman Mungall reconvened the meeting at 7:30 P,M,y ali
Commissioners being present with the exception of Commissioner
Camp~
, :.v'.,,~ i
~~ Associate Plarner Ronald Thompson reviewed for the Commission, representatives of the
r~~ , oil industry, and interested develo ers the
;' ~ p proposed revision of the City of Anaheim`s
Oil Code, projecting a new chapter to Title 18; Chapter 18,58 (O1 Oii Production, and
'.~' an amendment to Chapter 17~12, Drilling for and ~roduction of Hydrocarbon Substances,
' Discussion was held between the Commission9 representatives of the oil industry, and
!.~ interested developers reiative to various facets of the proposed amendment to Titles
,! _ 17 and 18 of the Anahefm Muricipal Codeo
,.1 Conurissioner Rowland offered a motion to direct the Commission Secretary to set for
public hearing conside:ation of an amendment to Title 17 and the addition of a chapter
~ to Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code for the meeting of August 16, 1965.
Coms~issioner Perry secor.ded the motion~. MOTION CARRIED,
A0.10URNML-NT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Allred
oifered a motion ±o adiourn the meeting, Commissioner Gauer
secor.ded the motion. MOTION CARRIED~
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 P,M,
Respectfully submitted~
;, i
__~L1~~~
ANN KREBS, Secretary
Anaheim Planning Commission
R~
~~.
t.~ ~
~ ~
r
~J
S:
.~~
~ .
i
F
~ !~
*
~