Minutes-PC 1965/09/27~ City Hall
Anaheim, California
September 27, 1965
A REGULAR MEE2ING OF TEIE ANAF~IM CITY pLANN2NG COMMISSION
REGiJLAR MEE'PING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was oalled to
order by Chairman Mungall at 2:00 o'clock P.M., a quorum being present.
PRESENT - CHATRIdAR~; Mungall
~ - OOMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland.
~'~~~ (Commissioner Rowland entered the Council Chamber at 2:05 p.m.)
~!-~ ~ ABSENT
- ~OMMISSIONERS: Camp.
~j`
! PRESENT - Zoning Supervisor: Robert Mickelson
K +
~i Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompson
Deputy City Attorney: F~rman Roberts
~~ Office Engineer: Arthur Daw
f~ ' Planning Commission Secretar
f'~ Y~ Ann Krebs
;{. Planning Department Stenographer: CaroZyn Grogg
I
_j
~.I INVOCA'TION - Recerend Ray Leffler, pastor of the Friends Church, gave the invocation.
`'~,,~ ~ PI,EDGE OF
ALIEGIANCE - Commi.ssioner Herbat led the pledge of allegie.nce to the Flag.
;, APPAUe~AL OF - i'he ~4inutes of the meeting of September 13, 1965, were approved as
; ~ THE b1:LR~L'IES aubmitted.
~ i 1(ARIANCE N0.17:~0 - CONrINDED PLBLIC HEARING. CHARLES F. ~ EUdA SPAUI,DING, 1115 INest Broadway,
Anaheim, Cal3fornia, Owners; requesting permission to develoo an apartment
building with waivers of (1) front yard setback; (2) minimum required side
yard; (3) location reqLirements of acces~ory buildings abutting a property line; and (4) minimuu
required recreation area, on property described as: A reatangularly shaped parcel of land with
a frontage of appraximately 50 feet on the north side of Broadway and a maximum depth of approx-
,'i _- i9atel.y 158 feet, the eastern boundary of said property being approximately 193 feet west of
the centerline uf west Street, and further described as 1115 West Broadway. Property classifiec
:,.~ R-3, MLTLTIPL•E-FAM.ILI'' RESIDENTTAL•, ZONE.
` Sub,ject petition was continued from the meetings of June 7, July 7, and Augsst 16, 1965, in
~ order to al.7.ow the petitioner sufficient time to submit revised plans.
a
`~ No one appeared to represent the petitioner.
~j
;
I 'di•• konald Ihomp~on advised the Commission that revised plans had not been submitted,
~ and that upon contacting the petitioner°s wife the staff had been informed that the petitioner
, was on a vaoation at sea, and she would relay the message to him upon his return.
~I I THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the petitioners not submit?ing revised plans
as requested by their Body, and the feat that subject peti.tion had been cantinued for three
hearings; further that the proposed development could be revised to incorporate all R-3
requirements without reque~ting the varianaes from Code.
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1780, 5eries 1965-66, and moved for its passage and
a3option, seconded by ~ommissioner Gauer, to deny Petition for Varianoe No. 1710, based on the
fact that the proposed plans would be incompatibla to the area, that the petitioners were
requesting a privilege not enjoyed by the adjacent property owners, and that revised plans
whioh the Commission requested could have been submitted without requesting the waivers from
Code.(See Resolution Book)
' On roll oell the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
;~'; AYES: CW~AISSIONERS: A].lred, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall.
y NOES: COMMISSIONE;RS: None.
.; ~
,~ ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp.
1 ~ I
' i i - 2737 -
_ --- _':.
r.
~
2?38
MINU'l~S, CI'PY PLANNING COMNIISSION, September 27, 1965:
VARIANCE N0. 1733 - CONTINiTED PUBLIC HEARING. RICHARD C. PRICE, 12545 Elatvidw Drive,
°3verside, CaliYornie, and/or OPILLIAM L. PRICE, 1045 Sierra ~Eadre Villa,
Pasadena, California, Owners; requesting 9PAIVER OF RE6IUIRF_'D DEDICATED
STREEP FRONTAGE FOR DIVISION OF LAND on property desoribed as: An irregularly ,haped paroel
of land of approaima~ely 3.3 aares, the northeasternmost point of subjeat propt.rty being a
minimum distanoe of approaims.tely 290 feet from the centerline of Peralta Hills Drive.
Property presently classified R-E, RESIDENTIAL ESTATF'S, ZO~IE.
~:~ ~ Subjeat petition was aontinued from the meeting of September 13, 1965 at the request of the
petitioner.
Mr. William Price, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Co~ission and reviewed the
proposed waiver request, noting that the property ~wners w~ere unable to subdivide the property
unless some relief was given by the City in order to enable them to enjoy the same rights as
ad~oining property owners did; that the eaisting situation was not creatod by the petitioners
but was inherited from their father prior to annexation to the City of Anaheim; that many
attempts had been ma.de to re~olve the difficulty to comply with Code requirements; and that
upon aontaating the Zoning Division, it was determined that the division of subject property
could not be made without a variance request.
The Commission inquired of the petitioner whether or not the roads indicated on the plot plan
were to be developed to city standards.
Mr. Price replied that this was the petitioners problem which ha.d not been resolved; that he
was proposing to provide aacess for the property owners to the west, namoly Messrs. Bever and
Robertson; that the existing road had been checked by a leading street contractor who advised
him the road v~as in exoe].lent aondition; further that only five homes would be utilizing the
r•oad being proposed rather than the roacl being used as if it were a street in a subdivision.
Considerab':~ discussi.on was then held by the Commission relative to a private road being pro-
posed, erhether or not trash pinkup could be eaoomplished with the narrow road, and in order to
have adequate fire protection the petitioner should provide a modified cul-de-sac on his
roperty, which would aat as a turn arpund for the fire and t~ash trucks,and that the petitionr:~
~xas providing minimum one acre site~ if the property was divided.
Mr. Priae stated that it was necessary that some solution be made by the City because of his
finanoial problems, due to i:Llness in the family, he could not wait until standards were set
up by the City, since he was attempting to subdivide the property to obtain the money needed,
and urged the Commission to oonsider his petition favorably.
Zoning Super-visor Robert Miakelson advised the Co~ission that private trash pickup could be
arranged Por by the petitioner, and sinae these road~ proposed would be privata, any agreement
made by the petitioner and prospective buyers of the property were no conoern of the oity.
No one appeared in opposition.
THE HEAR7..c,: WAS CLOSED.
Disoussion was held by the Co~ission as to the possibility of continuing sub,ject petition
until after the Interdepartmental Committee for Public Safety and General Welfare meeting on
September 29, 1965; whether to require that the petitioner reaord the privete easement prior
to the lot split; adequate turn around radius for fire truaks being approved by the ChieP of
the F'ire Department, . 8nd that if subjeot petition were approved that a record of survey
to record the approved division of subjent property be recorded with the County Recorder.
Co~i.ssioner Herbst offered Resolution No. 1781, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Co~i3sioner Allred to grant Petition.for Varianoe No. 1733, subject
to the petitioners recording a 20-foot private easement for the benefit of the other two lots,
that adequate turn around be provided whioh was acceptable to the Chief of the Fire Department;
and that a Reaord of Survey be recorded prior to issue.nce of a building permit.(See Resolution
Book)
Cn roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the folla~ving vote:
+'~ AYEu: COD~ISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall.
~~t~
NOES: CO~MISSIONERS: None.
* ~~ ABSENT: COM9QISSIONERS: Camp.
.tY
~
MINiITES, CITY PLAlVMIl~1G COMMISSTON, September 27, 1965 2739
~~ , ~~
`~ ,
,.
RECLASSIFICATION - C~NTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. DOYLE 3 SHIELDS DEVELOYMENT COMPANY, INCORPORATED,
N0. 65-66-20 and 831 South Manahester Avenue, Ana.heim, California, Owner. Property desoribed
as: A triangularly shaped parael of land looated at the interseation of
VARIANCE N0. 1?20 West 5treet and Manohester Avenue, with frontages oP approaimately 218 Pset
on West Street and approgimately 250 feet on Mannhester Avenue, and further
desoribed as 831 South Manohester Avenue. Property presently classified
M-i, LICHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, (*FNF'RAr. COME~EtCIAL, ZONE.
REQ'JESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF MIDIIMUM REQUIRED SETBACK.
Sub~ect petitions v~ere oontinued from the meetin~s of August 2, 16, and 30, 1965, to allow the
petitioner time to resolve right-of-way problems.
Zoning Supervisor Robert Miokelson advised the Commission that Mr. J. E. Sullivan had informed
him that a letter requesting withdrawal of sub3ect petitions had been mailed to the Commission
on Friday, although the staff had not received it up until meeting time.
Co~issioner Herbst offered a motion to reco~end to the City Council that all proc3edings on
Pet~tions for Reclassi£ication No. 65-66-20 and Variance No. 1720 be terminated, since the
petitioner requested withdrawal of the petitions. Commissioner Rowland seoonded the motion.
MOTION' CAARIED.
VARIANCE ?V0. 1;35 - PCTBLI~ HEARING. H0~ D. WILBURN, 1402 Richmond, Placentie, Californie,
i ERCElu~-AD ELEC7RIC SIGNS, 2312 South Susan, Santa Ana, Californie, Agent;
re,questing a WANER OF MAR]M[JM HEIGHT OF A FREE STANDING SIGN on property
i describAd as~ A rt~cangularly shaped ,arael of land w?th a frontage of approaimately 1.06 feet
or. West Katel'la Avense and a maximum depth of approximately 332 feet, the western boundary of
said property being approaimately 290 feet east of the centerline of South Euclid Street, and
further de~aribed as 1671 West Katella Avenue. Property olassified C-1, General Commercial,Zone
Mr. Homer Wilburn, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that what was pro-
posed was a sign that would be visible from further away than the present sign; that signs to
the west obstri:cted the motorists view of the existing sign, and that the property had been
vacant, although they had a potential lessee.
~-. waitar Brooks,representing the sign company,appeared before the Commission and reviewed the
location of the proposed sign noting that sUbject property had a definite he,rdship in the fact
that eaisting sign~ obl.iterated the sign on subject property, and that a restaurunt depended
upon proper signing in order to be succes~ful when drawing business from the passing traffic.
It was also noted that if sLbject petition was epproved, the existing sign would be ramodeled,
the pylon would be cut off, and that the request was to permit a sign in excess to that allow-
able in close prosioity ot R-1 development.
The Commission expressed the thought that perhaps the property owner had created his own hard-
ship in the construction of the building; and that the property owners of single family hemes
to the east and north should be afforded some proteation from signs.
No one appeared iii opposition.
THE H~ARING WAS CLOSED.
Deputy City Attorney F4irms.n Roberts advised the Commission that a roof sign was permitte3
provided, however,that no illumination of the aign would be permitted.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1782, Series 1965-G6, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commi.ssioner Perry to deny Petition for Variance No. 1735, on the
basis that the petitioner had not proven hardship; that signs in the area were not more than
25 feet in height; and that the petitioner had created his own hardship in the construction of
the existing structure.(See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMeEISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall.
,~
` ~ NOES: CO~LISSIONERS: Irone.
~ ABSENT: COMEQISSIONERS; Camp.
~
F
MINUrES, CIfiY PLANNING CO~EMISSION, September 27, 1965 2740
P.ECLASSIFICATION - CONT"NUED PUBLIC HEARING. BYRON A. ~ LUETTA F. DAHI,, 1600 Crone Avenue,
N0. 64-65-127 Anaheim, California, Owners; JA~LES A. BAI~R, 411 South Ohio St.reet, Anaheim,
Californie, Agent; requesting that property described as: A rectangularly
shaped paroel of land looated at the southwest aorner of Harbor Boulevard
and South Street, with frontages of approaimately 183 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard
and approximately 250 feet on the south side of South Street, and further dascribed as 504 West
South Street be reolassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL ZONE to the C-1, GENERAL COM6QERCIAL,
ZONE.
, : Sub~eot petition was continued from the meetings of Mey 10, June 7, and August 2, 1965, in
F.!_^~_~ order to allow the petitioner time to submit development plans.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commi.ssion thet a letter had bean
~F reoeived Yrom the petitioner requesting that subject petition be continued to the meeting of
~ '' ' October 2 1 . .
~~ 5~ 965, in order that it might be considered in conjunction with a Petition for
~• Conditional L'se Permit for a servioe station.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to continue the publia hearing of Reclassification
I~o. 64-65-1'L7 to the meeting of October 25, 1965 to be heard concurrently with a Petition for
Conditional T:se Permit. Co~issioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
'lARIANCE N0. 1'36 - FUBLIC HEARTNG. RICHARD S. BRACE, 1402 West Romneya Street, Anaheim,
Californie, Owner; HERBERT D. MUISE, 10650 Beach Boulevard, Stanton,
Californi.e, Agent; request WANERS OF: (1) MINIMUI~d I,pT qplD'I'H: (2 ) LOT
AREA: (3) REAR vARD SE~BACK, AND (4) FRONT YARD SETBACR on property
described as: A rectangularly shaped paroel of land located at the southeast aorner of West
Romneya Lrive and approximately 203 feet on Crown Street, and further described as 1402 West
Romneya Drive. Property classified R-1, ONE FAM.ILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
Mr. F~ed Sawyer, 131.71 Chirping Sparrow Way, Tustin, representing the petitioner,appeared
before the Co~ission and reviewed the loaetion and size of lots in close proximity to subject
property; that the petitioner proposed to oonstruct homes fur his two children on subject prop•
erty; and tnatthe onl.y reason the property could not be divided to conform with Code require-
ments was the location of the existing residenoe.
No one appeared in opposition.
Tf~ HEAR2IYG WAS CL:OSED.
Co~issioner Perry offered Resolut3on No. 1783, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and
adoption, aeoonded by Commissioner Herbst to grant Petition for Yarianoe No. 1736, on the
Uasis the proposed 3ivision of sub,jeot property ~vas compatible with existing development in
the area, and subject to nonditions.(See Resolution Book)
On roll aall the Yoregoing resolution was passed by the foll.owing vote:
A~'ES: COI~LM~SSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall.
NOES: C03MdISS20NERS: None.
ABSENT; CODGMISSIONERS: Camp.
VARIANCE N0. 1737 - PL~I~IC HEARING. SAM h TOKIKO NAKP.MURA, 9821 Marian, Anaheim, California,
Ownsrs; R. W. UVINCHELL DONUT SUPPLY CORPORATION, 3200 Valhalla Drive,
Aurbank, Californie, Agent; requesting WAIYERS OF: (1) REQUIRED M~IIMi7M
DISTANCE OF A FREE STANDIN'G SIGN FROM PROPERTY I~~fE; (2; REQUIRED MAXIMU9A AREA OF A VPALL SIGN;,
AND (3) REQUIltED CONDITIONS OF A WALL SIGI~[ on property desaribed as: An irregularlp shaped
paroel of land with a frontage of approaimately 270 feet on the north side of i4est Linooln
Avenue and a mexi.mum depth of approximately 223 feet, measured at right angles to Linaoln
Avenue, the western boundary of said property being ooincident with the eastern boundary of
the Orange County Flood C~ntrol Distriot ahannel, and furtner described as 2641 West Linooln
Avenue. Property presently classii'ied C-2, GII~AL CO~RCIAL, ZONE.
Mr. Robert MoMillan, representing the R. VP. Winohell Donut Corporation, reviewed the proposed
?; ~ sign request, noting that if the looation of the free-standing sign complied with Code, it
:;.~` ~ would be looated approzimately 39 feet easterly of the donut shop; that the wall sign exaeeded
the Code minimum by only 2}~; that the signs were stendard in all donut and sandwich shops and
j_, represented the image already established•and that considerable savin in desi
~ B gn of standard
~ w, signs was aaoom~lished if the proposed sigas werb approved. It was further noted that sinoe
'I ~ the proposed lessee was a ohain establishment it was proper to maintain a specific identifica-
{ i tion whioh would oreate a hardship if not permitted.
MIMITES, CIl'Y PLANTTINCf C01~6ISSION, September "?7, 1965 2741
VARIA1dCE N0. 1737 - The Co~ission, upon reviewing the plans, inquired of the agent for the
(Continued) petitioner whether or not the psrapet oould be relooated, to which Mr.
MoMillan replied, that if the arohiteot had lrnown the sign requirements
cP the aity, he would have redesigned the building, but this was not deter-
i mined until after oonstruation of the building.
E It was al~o noted by the Commission that the Plood aontrol channel was located immediately to
the west oP the proposed sign, whioh acted as a natural separation Yrom the property to the wes~
~~ ' eSx~. Roy Mabee, 2947 Weet Linool.n Avenue, owner of property adjacentto the east appeared before
•4~ the Commission and requested that the proposed sign plans be explained to him, sinae he proposed
to develap his property in the near future and was not desirous of having a sign located in such
'<i~ a manner that it would be detrimental to his future development.
s,
~ Assistant Zoning Supervi:;or Ronald 'I'hompson reviewed the proposed request for Mr. Mabee.
~ TI~ HEARLN~G WAS CLGSED.
, Disoussion was held by the Commission as to the
'~ possibility of reaommending that a two-year
~ bond be posted in l.ieu of the aonstruction of a 6-foot masonry wall to sepe.rate the commercial
i property from the R-A property to the north.
~ Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. '1784, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and
"~.~ adoption, seoonded by Commissioner Perry to grant Petition for ~rariance No. 1737, sub3ect to
conditions and reaommendation to the City Counoil that the 6-foot masonry wall along the north
property line be waived, and in i.ieu thereof, that a two-year bond be posted to insure the
.i oonstructior of said wail. ici the event the property does noi; develop Por commerciel purposes.
~ (5ee Resolution Book)
~ On roll aai.1 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
I
~ A~'ES: COMEAISSTONERS: Al:red, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall..
NOES: COMM.T.: ~IOIQERS: R~one.
~
- ABSEN'*•: OOeLM~SSIU~RS: Camp.
1
~ CO?~IDIT'LUNAL i;SE - PGBIu`.C. I~AA~I3. HC~R C. GUI`TR2DGE, 1127 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim,
, PERI~Ii' n0. 761 Caiifornia, Owner; '~ED J. MORIAR.;`v, She1.1 OiI Company, 1.085 North Harbor
! Bou1F•~ard, Anaheim, Californis, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH
~' A~T Ai':O~GOBILE SEF.PICE STATION WITH YVA~,'ERS OF ~ARIMUM HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF
~ ~ FREE STANDZNG SIGNS on p y
~ J pro ert described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land located
'+ at the northwest corner of 3outh Harbor Boulevard and West Ball Road, with frontages of approxi-
~I~ } mately 232 feet on Harbor Boulevard and 129 feet on Ball Road, and further desaribed as
'I ~ 1171 South Harbor Boulevard. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICUI4lRAL ZONE.
i '
•~ i Mr. ~dike Colmar, 139 South °rospeot, ~stin, appeared before the Commission representing the
owner, and reviewed +he proposed use of sub,jeat property expressing the opinion the the proposed
servioe station was the highest and best use of the property, and that t~ny teohnioal questions
h. the Co~ission might have would be answered by Mr. Ted Moriarty.
i. .
~ ~ Mr. Ted Moriartp, agent for the petitioner appeared before the Commission enri stated that the
proposed sign was neaessary in order to attract freeway business; that the ticight would be the
~ , same as the sigu approved by the oity for the Amerioen Oil Company on the opposito corner;
;' Purther, in response to Co~ission questioning stated that sub~ect property was not vi~ible
I until after automobiles had topped the overpass on Ball Road.
The Commission expressed tho thought that it seemed the oil companies and their service stations
felt that the sign ordinanue was not appliasble to them; that higher signs were being propc+sed
• at eaoh hearin¢; that sub,ject property was part oY the aommercial reareation ares and some con-
trol of height of the signs in this area should be considered; and that the oil companies wore
requesting privileges not given to other businesses.
%~~ ; Assistant Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the C-1 zone required
~; a masonry wall between the serviae station site and the property to the north, and that the
, service station site development standards also reoo~ended a masonry wall ~vhere the service
-~ i~ station was ad~acent to property primarily used for residential purposes.
;~ ~ ' ~j
'I I~
r •.
~ E ~~ ~~ -- . _
~ - .-- - , , _- _ - . _._.._.
~~ .
~ .
:: ~ .
MINUTES, CITY PLANN~IG COMMISSION, September 27, 1965 2~42
CONDITIONAL U5E - Mr. Kirb- ~°~aYi.llip, advised the Commission to his lrnowledge the sign on the
T.'ERMTT N0. 761 servi^r.• r+~: •;,>s; site on the south side of the street was 70 feet high, altho
(Continued) he k~:. ~ .., ;~-~+~1 it; that the intersection was so hidden from view from
onc;^~:'..a,; ?,,~~:: ~nd beasuse of the overpass that a sign in excess of that
pe-::>:;'':~: .,.. ^as necessary; further, that the masonry wall had been
iT1G:.' °ti'~•; ',. _: was tha desire of tha petitioner to request thet considera-
tiu.:. ~... • i,..- ;~-, ~;~.iver of the masonry wall on the north since the property
owne~• • r•;gerty had indicated he proposed commercisl c;evelopment; but
that the masonry wall along the wast property line would be uonstructed.
~ No one appeared in opposition.
Tf~ HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commi~sioner Perry oPfered Resolution No. 1785, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and
adoptios, seoonded by Commissioner Herbst ~~o approve Petition for Conditional Use Permit
No. 761 for the sarvioe station only, and the waiver of the required ma.sonry wall along the
north property lino, but thet the request for waivers from the sign ordinanoe were denied,
sub~ect to aonditions for the serviae station approval(See Resolution Hook).
On ro11 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vvte:
AYES; CONIDS2SSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall.
NOE:: C01~I:SSIONER,~: None.
ABSEN?: COA~SSIONER.S: Camp.
Chairme.n Mungall announoed that Conditional Use Permit ''o. 762 would be considered by the
Co~ission after 4:30 p.m. in order that consideration might be given to co~ents made by the
representatives of the Orange County and Metropolitan Water Districts.
CONDITIONAI: L°SE - PL•'9Z~IC HEAR'QA'G. HAROIID 6 JEAN DAOtiST, 92B West Wilhelmina Street, Anaheim,
PERMIT N0. 764y ualifornie, Owners; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A RESTAL'RANT W1TH 7VALK-
UP FACIL~ITIES WII'~i wANERS OF; (1) MII~TIMiTM REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK; (2)
REQUIRED LANDSCAP]NG; (3} REQUIpED WALL ABL'TTING RESIDENTIAL PROPER~Y; AND
(4) MIN~~Ukti REQL'IRED PARRING on property described as: A re~tangularly shaped
pa.roel of land with a frontage of approximately 100 feet on the east side of South Anaheim
Boulevard and a msximum depth of approximately 155 feet, the northern boundary of said property
bei.ng approaimately 3?5 feet south oP the centerline of Broadway Street, and further described
as 406 South Anaheim boulevard. Property pre~ently c3assified as M-1, LIGHT ~ID'JSTRIAL, ZONE.
Mr. Harold Daoust, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the
proposed walk-up restaurant noting thet seating would be provided f^r approximately 28 persons;
that the uses established on ad,jacent properties was formerly for the snle of ne.~ and used cars,
but that many of the sales agenaies had moved southerly of Bal7. Road; that the area could use
a restaurant; and that they had a 15 year lease which was contingent upon approval of subject
petition.
f,~ Offioe Engineer Arthur Daw~responding to Co~ission questioning steted that there was no i~an-
I ent pro,jeats for streot widening of Anaheim Boulevard although ~he Interdepartmental Committee
i had recommended that a 40-foot strip from the centr~rline be dedicated for street widening pur-
I poses, and that it was advisabla to require that the petitioner relocate the struature to
coinoide with the ultimate right-of-way for the street.
t
:.j ~ It was noted by the petitioner that other stz•uctures on the street were looated close to the
?' ~ property line, but that he would relocate the structure in order that future relooation would
~ not be neoess~sry.
~' 1 Mr. Leonard Smith, 325 South Claudina Street, appeared before the Commissiet. and t~equested that
~. ~ plans of development be reviewed by him in order to determine whether or not he was opposed to
~" the proposed development. Upon having the plans reviewed for him, Mr. Smith stated he had no
~• opposition to the proposed development.
5,, A letter oP oonditional opposition was read to the Commission from the property ovmer to the
;~ north, said letter requesting that the Co~i.ss::.on require a masonry wall in order that debris
+ , might not blow into the new car storage area, and to prevent drivers of cars utilizing tkee
a _ parking area from crossing over his property.
;;~ *' It was noted by the Commission that a restaurant was a permitted use in the M-1 Zone; therefore
,~ „~ ' the requested masonry wall could not be a requirement.
E
MLNUTES, CIT'Y PLANNING COM~ISSION, 5eptember 27, 1965 2743
CONDITIONAL USE - Tf~ HEARING -PAS CLOSED.
PERMI'P N0. 764
(Continued) Commissioner Rowla:.d oPfered Resolution No. 1787, Series 1965-66, and moved
Por its passage and adoption, seaonded by Co~issioner Allred, to grant
~ Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 764, sub3ect to conditions and the
requirement that the proposed struoture be relocated easterly approaimately
seven feet to provide for the ultimate street widening of Anaheim Boulevard.
(See Resolution Book)
p. ._.:ialfi$ On roll oall the foregoing T 'ution was passed by the following vote:
i
~f ' AYES: CO~ne7SSI0NERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall.
;~
NOES; COh~t~.ZSSIONERS: None.
ABS~3'i': COM~ISSIO?~RS: Camp.
RECLASSIFICA?'ION - PuBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY TI~ PLANNING COM~dIS~ION, 204 East Lincoln
N0. 61-62-92 Avenue, Anaheim, CaliYornia; DESMOND MACTAVISH AND ASSOCIATES, 650 Californie
San Franoisao, California, Owners; JAMES 0. ~LTON, 3940 Don Felipe Drive,
Los Angeles, Cali~ornie, Agent; proposing that property desaribed as:
A reotangularly shaped parael of land looated at the northeast curner of Lincoln Avenue and
Gilbert Street, with frontages of approaima.tely 310 feet on West Lincoln Avenue and approximate-
ly 640 feet on North Gilbert Street; subjeot property being further divided into Parcel Nos.
1, 2., and 3 as follows:
PARCEL N0. 1- A paroel 150 feet by 150 feet, with a frontage of 150 feet on Linooln Avenue
and located at the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Gilbert 5treet.
PAR.CEL• N0. 2- A parcel 268 feet by 310 feet, with a frontage of 310 feet on Linaoln Avenue
and looated at the northeast oorner of Linooln Avenue and Gilbert Street, except
a parael 150 feet by 150 feet with a frontage of 150 feet on Lincoln Avenue and
located at the northeast corner c,£ Lincoln Avenue and Gilbert Street.
PARCEL N0. 3- A paroel 310 feet by 372 feet, with ~;rontage of 372 feet located on the east
side of Gilbert Street between Lincoln and Crescent Avenues, its southwest
oorner being approximately 268 feet north of the nartheast corner of Linooln
Avenue and Gilbert Street.
Have deed restrintions amended to propose the ahange in alassification of the property from R-A,
AGRICUTLRUAL ZONE to C-1, GENERAL COD~ERCIAL, ZONE far Paroel No. 1 for the establishment of a
serviae si,ation; C-1, GENERAL COEO~ERCIAL, ZONE for development with uses permitted in said zone:
and R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL,ZONE for Paroel No. 3, to be developed in acaordanoe with
aode requirements.
Zoning Supervisor Robert Miokelson reviewed for the Commission the basis for readvertising sub-
~~ct petition, noting that a servioe station was now a permitted use in the C-1., Zone~that
heavier C-1 uses had been established in close proaimity to make the requ.irement that Parcel
No. 2 be developed for business and professional uses only obsolete, and that sub3eot property
to the north was bounded by the muniaipal golf aourse thus making single story construation
unneaessary. It was also noted that the petitioners had a oonditional use permit petition and
a revised tentative tract filed for the Commission to consider after sub,jeot potition had been
resolved; the oonditional use permit being to permit a servioe station at the intersection of
a ma.~or and oolleator street.
No one appeared in opposition.
Tf~ HEARING WAS CLOSED.
i Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 1788, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and
adoption, seoonded by Coa~issioner Perry, to recommend to the City Council that an amendment
be made to Resolution of Intent No. 62R-446, dated May 8, 1962 approving Reclassifiaetion
No. 61-62-92, by the deletion of deed restrictions on Paroel Nos. 2 and 3 limiting the use to
business and professional offices for Parael ho. 2 and single story multiple family development
Yor Paroel No. 3. Further, that the boundaries of Aaroel No. 1 be amended to incorporate a
parael 150 Peet by 150 feet, and that the C-3, Heavy Commeroiel, Zone deed rustrioted to a
, servioe station site be amend~ed to the C-1, Zone, sub3ect to filing of a Conditional Use Permit,
and further sub,ject to oonditi~ns.(See Resolution Book)
~
~
~ MIlQUTES, CITY PLANNING COM6Q.ISSION, September 27, 1965 27~4
f
~ RECLASSIFICATION - On roll oall the foregoing resolution was passed by the folloc~ng vote:
` N0. 61-62-92
~ (Continuad) AYES: CO~SSIOI~RS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, RoWland, Mungall.
~ NOES: COM~LSSIONERS: None.
ABSEN'I: COI~ISSIONERS: Camp.
I CONDI2IONAL• USE - PUBLIC HEARING. DESMGND MACTAVISH 3 ASSOCIATES, 650 CaliPornia, San
~ PERMLT N0. 760 Franoisao, Californie, Owner; JAMES 0. MELTON, 3940 Don Felipe Drive,
~~ Los Angeles, Onlifornis. ABent; proposing to ESTASLISH A(~ASOi~ 3ERVICE
.y~ TENPATIVE MAP OF STATION at the intersection of a•ma,jor street and a colleotor street on
.I~ '' TRACT ?~~. 4645, property described as: A reatangularly shaped parcel of land located at the
,;. REVISION N0. 1 northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Gilbert Street, with frontages of
approximately 150 feet on Lincoln Avenue and approaimately 150 feet on
~ Gilbert Street. Pro ert
p y presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
I
~ Sub~ect traot, loaated at ihe northeast corner oY Linooln Avenue and Gilbert Street, and con-
? taining approximately 9.1f~ aoras, is proposed Por subdivision into 8 R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY
I RESIDENTIAL:, ZONE and 2 C-1, GENERAL COMNIERCIAL, ZONE lots.
~.
~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the aonditional use
~ permit was neoessery to establish a servine station as a oonformir.3 use in the C-1 Zone, ar.d
1 that the tract was revised, to permit additional footage for the servioe station, further the
~~ time limita,tion had expired on the original tentative tract approved, therefore it was necessary
to submit a new tract map, and Reclassifioation No. 61-62-92 previously considered by tho
, Commission would establish the proper zoning for the service station site.
I No one appeared in opposition.
~ TT~ HEARING VPAS CIASED.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1789, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
I and adoption, seaonded by Co~issioner Perry to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit
~ No. 760, sub~ect to oonditions.(See Resolution Book)
,~.t "_'' On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
I AYES: COMl~SSIONERS: Gauer, Perry, Rowland, Mungall.
i !
I NOES: COMNLISSIONER,S: Allred, Herbst.
:t
~+
j ABSEN~7': COMM2SSIONERS: Camp.
~i
~ Cou~i.ssioner Rowland offered a motion to approve Revision No. 1 of Tentative Map of Tract
F~ No. 4645, subjeot to the following aonditions:
I
rl i 1. That should this subdi;,ision be developed as more than one subdivision, eaoh
~~~ ~ subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval.
~ i
2. That the approval of Tentative Map of Traat No. 4645, Revision No. 1 is granted subject
~ to the approval and oompletion of Realassification No. 61-62-92.
s. ~ Coa~issioner Herbst seoonded the motion. M~TION CARRIED.
~;
RECESS - Co~issioner Herbst offered a motion to reoess the meeti:ig ior ten minutes.
' Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting reaessed
~ at 4:02 p.m.
j R~CONVENE - Chairme.n Mungall reoonvened the meeting at 4:15 p.m. all Co~issioners excspt
j Co~issioner Camp being present.
~:
E~ ~ ;
..1
1
1 '
~ *
~~i
~,. , ~ .
E
MI2u'uiES, CIT7C PLANNING COI~ISSION, Septemher 27, 1965 2745
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING.LAURA M. SCHULZ, 2038 West Lincoln Avenue, Anahei.m,
N0. 65-66-30 and California, Owner; VPN7GER COMPANY, INCORPORATED, 8879 -Pest Piao Bouleverd,
Los Angeles, California, 90035, Agent; property desoribed as: Paresl No. 1:
~;,ONDITIONAL USE A reatangularly shaped parael of land located at the southeast aorner of
PERMIT N0. 7~43 Linaoln Avenue and ESnpire Street, with frontages of approximately 67 feet
on Lincoln Avenue and approxima,tely 130 feet on F~pire Street; Parael No. 2:
A reotangularly shaped parael adjoining and easterly of Parael No. 1, with a frontage of eppros-
imate?y 196 feet on Linooln Avenue and a maximum depth of approaime.tely 150 feet; and further
, desaribed as 2028 West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified Parcel No. 1- R-1, ONE
_'~~ FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE; Parael No. 2: R-A, AGRICUI~TURAL ZONE.
~{ , REQUESTED CLAS32F`ICATION: C-1, GENERAL COM6~ERCIAL, ZONE FOR PARCEL NOS. 1 d, 2.
REDUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ES'^ABLISH A-PALK UP DONUT SHOP AND SHOPPING CENTER VPITH WANERS OF:
(1) MARIE~IJM HEIGI~Pf OF A STRUCTURE LOCATED -PITHnJJ 150 FE~~ OF AN R-1
ZONE; (2 ) SCREEN PLANTING ABUTTING AN R-1 ZONE; (3) COUNCIL POLICY
REGARDING SETBACK ON LINCOIN AVENUE IA.T TI~IIS AREA; (4 ) ALLE7 REQUIRE-
MENT; AND (5) REQUIRED NiTMBER OF PARKIIVG SPACES.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Co~ission that a letter from the agent
for the petitioner was received requesting that sub,jent petitic+ns be aontinued to the meeting
of October 18, 1965 to allow time for the submission of plans, said plans having been received
but had not been reviewed by the Development Servioes staff or the Interdepartmental Commii;tee.
Mrs. ~'. VP. Passo, 114 E,Snpire Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition, stating that
her ho,ne was i~ediately to the south of sub3ect property; that deed restrictions were in efPeoJ
on the R-1 parael limiting its use to R-1 purposes Por 25 years; that she was opposed to C-1
zoning due to the faot that many small children were in the area;and that the traffio whioh
wouJ.d result from commercial traffia on ESnpire Street would be detrimental to the safety of the
residents of the area.
Mrs. Rosendo Euzarraga, 2043 Wes~ Embassy Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition,
stating she was opposed to development of sub,ject property for a small shopping oenter, because
of the increase in traPfic ad acent to residentiel development.
h1r. Gary Jones, 2039 West Embassy Street, appeared before the Commi.ssion in opposition, stating
that the plans submitted for aonsideration bv the Commission were different than those presentec
to the property owners, that all parking should t:• in conformance to code requirement, since
it was possible for commeraial traffic to park on the residential street thus adding to the
ha2ards children are faced with, and that considerably more traffic will be utilizing the alley
ad,jaaent to the homes fronting on Embassy Street creating dust,noise, and commerciel traffic;
and that if subject petition was to be considered favorably by the city, access to Embassy and
Empiro Streets should be prohibited.
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue consideration of Petitions for Reclassifica-
tion No. 65-66-30 and Conditional Use Permit No. 743, to the meeting of October 18, 1965, in
order that the Development Services Department and the Interdepartmental Committee might have
an opportunity to review the revised plans submitted as requested by the petitioner.
Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. GEORGE NAKANISH2, ET AL, 10252 Beach Boulevard, Stanton,
N0. 65-66-42 and California, Owner; COORDINATED DEVELOPERS, INCORPORATED, 19212 He.mden Lane,
Huntington Beach, California, Agent; property described as: A rectangularly
CONDITIONAL USE shaped parcel of land of approximately 14 acres, with a frontage of approxi-
rERMIT N0. 763 mately 665 feet on the south side of West Ball Road and a ma.ximum depth of
approximately 940 feet, the eastern boundary of said property being approxi-
mtttely 670 feet west of the centerline of South Beach Boulevard, and further
described as 3050 INest Ball Road. Propert; classified R-A,AGRICULTURAL,ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDEIJTIAL, ZONE
REpUESTED CONp~!'IONAI. USE: ESTABLISH A MOBILE HOE~ PARK
Mr. Joh; Defalco, representing the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the
. proposed development noting that the mobile home park would be for adults only; that the use
would be aompatibile to the urea;and that accommodations would be available for modern trailers.
It was also noted that all requirements of the proposed trailer ordinanoe would be met,although
_ it was their intent to stagger the wall along the Ball Road frontage rather than having a wall
R whion was completely straight, further that the required 20-foot setback might act as a catch
for debris from the street.
.at~
.~ _.. ' - -
MIIdi1TES, CITY pLANNING COMMISSION, September 27, 1965
274 6
RECLASSIFICATION - It was noted by the Commissior, that staggered masonry walls were ereoted
N0. 65-66-42 and ad~acent to the I{eystone Savings and Loan property on Fairhaven Drive with
landsaaping plaaed in the setback, which presented a pleasing and aaoeptable
CONDTTIONAL USE appearance to the residential integrity of the area; tliat the petitioner
PERMIT N0. 763 should be required to set back 20 feet from Hall Road both for esthetic
(Continued) appearance and to reduce the t~affic noises from the street; that the setbaok
should be fully landscaped, and the proposed wall only oocupied a depth of
nine inohes.
The agent for the petitioner, responding to Commission questioning, stated that an additional
' road would be provided at the southerly part of the proposed park for access to the city of
---~~ Stanton portion of the park, but that the ma.in entrance would be from Ball Road, and no direat
~~ through traffic would be enaouraged by placing a road directly through the park; further that
,~ ell pe»manent struotures would be located within the boundaries of the city of Anaheim.
.
i~ Mr. YPilliam dorn, 1326 South East Gates Street a
sub eot ~ PPeared before i;he Commission in opposition to
i i 3 petitions, and stated that he was opnosed to having traffic from the trailer park going
through the single family subdivision to the west, since there still was a stub street which
aould be extended to the trailer park; that the proposed trailer park would be detrimental to
' _ the area sinoe a 30 acre R-1 subdiviswn3s under construction to the north and an esta5lished
R-1 subdivision was looated to the west; that trailer •parks would be more compatibile to the
street to the east namely Highway 39; that if the R-3 B~ultiple Family Residential, Zone was
apprwed the petitioner could aonstruot two story apartments and project additional traffic
to the residential streets, further their privacy whioh they had been en;joying would be invaded
by apartment construction, and that their property would depreaiate in value.
The Commission advised Mr. Horn that the projected street would be located ~outherly to Stanton,
and that one of the conditions,iP subject petitioners were approved, was the cul-de-saaing of
the stub street thereby prohibiting vehicular traffic.
Mrs• Theresa Sohultz, 1330 South East Gates Street, appeared before the Co~ission s:.:•.ng she
was opposed to approving R-3 zoning beoause of its implioations to possible apartment develop-
ment for the property, if the petitioner chose not to exercise the proposed use.
Mx's• Mary A.+ui Coa, 1333 South East Gates Street, appeared in opposition, also stating she was
opposed to R-3 zoning because of possible apartment development; further that the grade of the
property was suoh that it would be sloped adding to the drainage problem and looation of the
apartments or trailers in such a manner that their privaoy would be ?nvaded.
Three letters in favor of subjeot petitions were read ta the Commission.
Mr. Defaloo, in rebuttal, stated that the privacy of the single family development aould be
invaded by aonstruction of two story R-1 home~; that a 6-foot masonry wall was proposed for
~:,n entire west property line, and that no acness would be provided to the stub street to the
west.
Tf~ HEARING -YAS CLOSED.
Disoussion was held by the Commission relative to tha density of 8 units per net aore compared
with 5 hombs if developed for R-1; that there would be no ohange to the school requirements
sinoe the petitioner proposed an adult mobile home park; that the proposed development would
aat as a buffer against the commeroial development and heavy traffic on Highway 39; and that
it was not witY~in the jurisdiction of the aity to provide Pacilities for the property loaated
within the city of Stanton.
Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Cor~3ssion that one of the city of Ana,heim's requirements
; would be adequate fire protection for the property within the oity's boundaries, but that the
i aity did not furnish utilities, etc. to another city only to County territory.
Ft~rther disoussion by the Co~ission as to the
i possibility of the petitioner not developing
the property for the intended purpose although R-3 zoning was approved by not eleating to
eaoercise the oonditional use permit, but that development could be in eaoordance with plans,
and if the petitioner planned apartments, unless he filed a subdivision traot, could not build
in aooordanoe vrith the site development standards of the R-3 zone and would be required to file
an additional petition to approve any change in development plans.
i Zoning Supervisor Robert ~1ia;:e~son advised the Co~ission that in order to insure that no
vehioular traffic would generate to the R-1 subdivision to the west, additional condition
~ aould be mede that the acoess rights to Norwood Avenue be dedicated to the City of Anaheim,
~
~
.. . _.• i --- ~--- --------- ~ . ~--~'w..,.
. _ _' ~ _ 'w.~:, ' . ~'°.'L^ o ~~~
MI~ITES p ~l'rY PLANNING CO~d~A.ISSIOK, September 27 , 1965
2747
R~CLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Harbst offered Resolution No. 1790, Series 1965-66, and mwed
N0. 65-66-42 and for its passage and adoption, seaonded by Commissioner Allred, to reaommend
to the City Counoil that Petition for Reclassification No. 65-66-42, be
CONDITIONAL USE approved sub~ect to conditions and the reouirement that a 6-foot masonry
PEA~.I'P N0. 743 wall be provided behin3 a 20-foot landscaped setback from Ball :,ad, and
(Oontinued) that all aoaess rights to Norwood Avenue be dedicated to the City oY Anaheim
(See Resolution Book)
On roll osll the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COD~ISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Ferry, Rowland, Mungall.
NOES; COM62CSSIONERS: None.
~5~: COM~AISSIOI~RS: Camp.
Coa~issioner Herbst offered Resolution No. 1791, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and
adoption, seaonded by Co~issioner Allred, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 743
subjeot to conditions.(See Hesolution Book)
On roll oall the foregoing resolution was passod by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIOI~RS; Allred, Gauor, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall.
NOES: COI~I.tSS201sERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp.
CONDTTIONAL USE - PUgI~IC HEAgING. ~rIEpRA DE pRO, c/o 1621 East 17th Street, Suite 1, Santa
PER~dIT N0. 762 Ana, California, Owner; C. L. PHARRIg, p, p, Box 155, Plaoentie, California,
Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH AN OPERAfiION FOR Tf~ ,;%CAVATION,
PROCESSING, STORAGE, WHOLESALII~[G, l~ND DISTp2g,,7gI0N OF SAND AND GRAVEL,
INQLUDING AN ACCES80RY OF'FICE, yqEIGHING STATION AND A CARF,'TAKEft~S gESIDENCE
~~ w~R ~F REqUIRED 10-FOOT LANDSCAPED S2'RIp on property described as: An irregularly
shaped parael of land of approsimately 18 acres loaated south and. a~est of a reatangularly
shaped paroel of land of approaime.tely .6 acres at the southwest corner of Walnut Street and
Richfield Road, frontages of sub~ect property being approxima,tely 530 feet on V7alnut Street
and approximately 630 feet on Riohfield Road. Proparty classiPied interim M-1, Light
Industrisl, Zone.
1~r. Soott Richmond, attorney for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed
the nroposed use of subject property, noting that it was compatible with established uses to
the south of sub,jeot property; Purthor that the Orange County Water District was propo~ing to
exoavate property to the west for a settling basin; and that the waiver of the required land-
scaping along Riohfield Road v~ould be offset by the ezisting eucalyptus trees which afforded
adequate soreening to ad,jacent property.
~'• Howard UP. Crooke, representing the Orange County Iflater District, appeared before the
Commission and presented a map indicating where the VYater Distriat proposed to establish their
water spresding facilities, noting that several paroels had already beer. aaquired; that one of
the serious problems facing the Water District was the faot that the Metropolitan 49ater Distric
had a 78-inoh in diameter water pipeline along a portion of the westerly boundary of sub,ject
property and iY eacavation alongside th9 pipeline ooourred, the groun4 under the pipe could be
undermined, thereby ,jeopardizing the proper flow of the water supply to Orange County cities
and areate a health hazard; that the Metropolitan Water Distriot representative Mr. Fibnry wells
wss present in the Council Chamber and if subject petition were considered favorably, that the
4Pater Distriots be given time to determine whether or not the soil compsation under the existir.
pipe oould withstand excavation on both sides, and urged the Commission to oontinue their decis
ion on sub,jeot petition until the study was made to determine the depth to which exoavation wa~
safe. It was further noted that eacavation by the County Water Distriot was not to sell the
sand or gravel,but to provide a water settling basin.
Mr. Henry Wells, 1111 Sunset Bou:Levard, Los Angeles, chief engineer of i;he Metropolitan Distric
appeared before the Co~mission and stated that in addition to concurring with Mr. Crooke's
statments, he wished to emphasize that the water pipeline was in quite a vulnerable spot; that
the pippline was in ,joint ownership with the city of Ana,heim having a considerable interest,
and then reviewed the looation of the pipeline noting that the pipeline was located at a dep+,h
of only ~ feet ad~aaent to sub,ject property, and then had a gradual drop to 20 feet as it
approaohed the Santa Ana River, and that in order to present factual engineering data, a 4-week
oontinuanoe was neasssery to supply said data.
~
;:
_. <.~ ,. . ~ - _ _.. _-
i '~:.
.~~
:1r
{
I I
~
MIISOTES, CITY PLANDTING CO~MISSION, September 27, 1965 2748
CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. Vio Peltzer, 1198 Riohfield Road, appsai•ed before the Commission in
PER~2'P N0. 762 opposition stating that he was opposed to further encroaohment of the sand
(Continued) and gravel operation into prime industrial land; that when La Palma Avenue
was eatended easterly this would be detrimental to any development along the
street. beaeuse sand and gravel operations were generally dirty, dusty and
unsightly along a ma~or road; and that the dirt and dust were also detrimental
to his present oaeration oP trying to grow oranges.
Mr• Jaok Esmilton, 6651 Richfield Road, owner of the property at the northeast oorner of
Walnut Street and Riohfield Road, appeared before the Commission and stated he was opposed to
the sand and gravel operation in tha center of prime industrial land, and if the Commission
were to aor,~ider sub3eot petition Pavorably, one of the conditions should be that any sand and
gravel operation set baak 500 feet from proposed ma,jor thoroughfares, in order to lessen the
detrimental effeat upon development of ad,jacant land, sinae it would be a total impossibility
to try to interest prospeotive buyers of the property due to the more intense use and the dust
and dirt, together with the noise of the operation proposod.
1~6r. Isster Carden, representing the Henry Harms propewty at 7001 Sovth Riohfield Road, appeared
in opposition to sub,jeat petition, stating he ooncurred in the statments made by Mr. Peltzer,
and further noting that when the prevailing winds were from the west the dust and dirt from
the proposed operation would destroy the existing residential integrity of the property for
his clients; that i:f sixbiect petition were approved a ma,sonry wall surrounding the operation
should be required to proteot the adjoining property owners; that the required setback c~long
VPalnut 5treet be ma,intained, and further that landscaping as required should be maintair,ed,
sinoe the operation oould not be considered an asset or inducement to prospective developers
of the industrial property or to pre~ent residential use of ad,joining properties.
Mr. Peltzer asked that if snbjeot petii;ion v~as considered favorably by the Commission that the
hours of operation be the same as was imposed on Sully-2d:i11.er and Consolidated Rock Products
Companies, namely 6 a..~. to 7 p.m.; and that truaks be prohibited from using Richfield Road.
bLr• Riohmond, in r.ebuttal., stated that his clients had been in communioation with the governing
Bodies; that they would also be conoerned if the operation undermined the pipeline because that
would destroy their operation; that if the Commission felt the soil tests would be necessary
before a deoision could be rendered he would be agreeahle to continLance of the petition; that
the Code provided that no exoavation could be made within 100 feet of a sottling basin; that
the other sand and gravel operation~ were required to setback only 60 feet, but since the pipe-
line was along the wasterly edge of subjeat property he would be willing to cooperate with ~r.
Crooke and the County -Pater Distriet in resolving any problem:; that he would comply with Code
requirements relative to dust and dirt in order that the operation would be mor.e compatibl.e
to the adjoining property owners; and that, in his opinion, the proposed uso wa~ a compatible
use in the M-1 zone.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Discussion by the Commission indicated that the area proposed for sub,ject propert.y was consider~
ed prime industrial land, and when La Pa1ma Avenue was extended and widened the industrial
potential would greatly inarease; that uses that were detrimental to the industriel appearance
of an srea should be prohibited in arder that all properties could be develnped to its highest
and best use; further that with the acquisition of l.and ad,jaaent to subject property by the
Jrange County 44ater Distriot fo.r water settling purpose~ the use proposed might be detrimental
to its effeotiveness; and that a?8-inoh in diameter water pipeline located on the westerly
boundary of sub,ject property might be undermined by the proposed sand and gravel operation.
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution IVo. 1?86, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and
adoption, seaonded by Commissioner Herbst to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. '762,
based on the fact that the use would be detrimental to potentiel development of adjacent prop-
orty for industrial purposes when Le, Palma Avenue was eatended and widened, said street being
proposed through the center of the northeast industrial. area; that the use might undermine an
eaisting water pipeline which supplied water to Orange County; and that the water settling
facilities being proposed by the Orange County Water District might be jeopardized by the pro-
posed use.(See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMTSSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, ~Gungall.
NOES: COMM2SSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: C01~62SSIONERS: Camp.
Commissioner Herbst requested that the Metropolitan Water Distriat conduat their soil testing
along the water ipeline, and submit a report to the City Counail at the time subjeot petition
was reviewed by ~hai: Body.
MIr^dTES, CITY PLANNING CO~ISSION, September 27, 1965 2749
RECLASSIFICATIOAI - P'JBI,IC HEARING. DONAItD R~ IRENE M. ROTfi, A~erioan Realty, 10582 Katella
N0. 65-66-43 and Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; property described as: A reotangularly
shaped parcel of.land located at the southeast oorner of Linaoln Avenue and
VARIANCE N0.1738 Bush Street, with frantagas of approaimately 50 feet on Lincoln Avenue and
approximately 125 feet on Bush Street, and further described as 1000 East
Lir•.aoln Avenue. Property presently classified R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDEN-
TIAL, ZONE.
, AEQUESTED CLASFIFICATIOb~: C-1, GENERAL C~M~RCIAL, ZONE
•~-•''~;~ REQiTESTED VARIANCE: ~AAIYERS OF; (1) fiEQUIRED MASONRY WALL ON SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY
4t ~ i]IVES, AND (2) MINTMIIM REQirrRED PARKaJG SPACES
~j~ I Mr. Don Roth, one of the etitioner:, a
p ppeared before the Co~ission and reviewed tne proposed
j use of an existirg structure; that he was proposing to construct a grapestake fenae elong the
easterly property line, because of the possibility oP expansion in s~varal years to include the
,{ property to the east for a general office building; that the proposed use •aould be aom~atible
with the existing commercisl uses established in close proximity; F.nd that the proposea improve-
! ment to the property wou7d enheaae the area.
.I '
No one appeared in opposition.
ZHE HEARING -PAS CLOSED.
~,i
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1792, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recowmend to the City Council that Petition
i for ReclassiPication No. 65-66-43 be approved subject to conditions.(See Resolution Book)
i On roll call tne foregoing resolution was pa~sed hy the following vote:
;~ AYES: COMMISSIONEB.S: All.red, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall..
NOES: COMMISSIONEEiS: None.
; ABSENT: CO~L~4ISSIONERS: Camp.
i _ Commissioner Rowland offered Re~olution No. 1793, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
~ and adoption, seoonded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1738, subject
~~ to conditions.(Sse Resolution Book)
:I
j On roll call. the foregoing resolution was pas:ed by the following vote:
-j AYES; COMdS2SSI0NERS: Allred, Uausr, Herbst, Perry, Row:land, Mungall.
~
; NOES: C0~6l6ISSIONERS: None.
~
. ~ , nas~rr: coe~uss2ox~xs: c~P.
RECLASSIF'ICATION - F~~~ HEARIN~s. HARLEN, EVEL`IN, ~ DARRvL P~'OLD, AND RTCHARD 3 LOUISE
N0. 65-66-4.4 and ELSER, o/o Cheok Mark Realty, 1831 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, Californie,
Owners; DONALD M. TAFiBELL, 6914 ?~a Tijera Bo~:levard, Los Angeles, ~5,
VARIANCE N0. 1739 Californie, Agent; property described as: A rectangularly shaped paroel
of land looated at i,he northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Aladdin Drive,
with frontages of approxima.tely 102 feet on West Lincoln Avemie and approxi-
mately 98 feet on North Aladdin Drive, and further desoribed as 2091.YPest Lincoln Avenue.
Property presently classified R-A, AGRIC!'LD'RAL, ZONE.
REQUES'TED CLASS]FICATION: C-1, GENERAL COM~RCIAI:, ZONE.
i AE~UESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF MARIML'N[ HEIGIiT LIM2~ ADJACEN'I' TO A SINGLE FAMILY'
,. RESIDEN'PIAL ZONE
Mr. T. r,. Lewis, 10900 Dale, representing the petitioner and the purchaser of sub3eot property,
appeared be£ore the Commission and reviewed the proposed development of a real estate ofPiae
' on subjeot property, noting that the rear wall of the struature would be in esaess of 30 feet
~.~~ from the struoture to the north and that the property to the west was vacant; further,that
properties fronting along Linooln Avenue were developed or being developed for co~neroial
, purposes.
~~ ~ No one a
~ ppeared in opposition.
•; THE HEARING -PAS CLOSED.
~
2750
MINQTES, CITY PLAIaJLNG COD~LSSION, September 27, 1965
RECLASSIF'ICATION - Commissioner Allred oPfered Resolution No. 1794, Series 1965-66, and moved
~TO. 65-66-44 and for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend
to the City Council that Petition for ReclassiPioation No. 65-6E-44 be
VARIANCE N0.1739 approved, subjeat to conditions.(See Resolution Book)
(Continued)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMaCLSSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall.
NOES: COI~ISSIONERS: None.
~' "'"'~~ ABSENT: COD~LSSIOI~RS: Camp.
:(;
'~'~ Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 1795, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and
~ adoption, seconded by Oommissioner Herbet, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1739, subject to
conditions.(See Resolution Book)
~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
~ -, AYES: CO~ISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall.
~i NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
i .,
~ ~ ABSENT; CO~GNIISSIONEAS: Camp.
~~ AMEPIDMENr TO - P[iBL2C HEARZNC. INI.TIATED BY TI~ CI:T'Y f'LANNING COMEAISSION, 204 East Lincoln
~~ TITLE 18 Or^ Avenue, Anaheim, Cal.ifornia, proposing an amendment to the Anaheim Munioipal
{~ Tf~ ANAf~IM Code, Tit1e 18, Chapter 18.04, Section 18.04.OZ0 - USES; Chapter 18.08,
ri MUNICIPAL CODE Soction 18.08.390, Home Oacupations; and Ghapter 18.18 RESIDIIVTIAL ESTATES,
t : ZONE.
Plannir.g Supervisor Ronald Grudzin~ki advised the Commission that no change had been made to
the preliminary draft of Chapter 18.18, RESID~'IAI~ ESTATES, ZONE; that upon ad~~ise of the
aity attorney~s offioe, Section i$.08.390 hsd been revised in aaaordance with the draft dated
September 2?; and that no change had been made to Chapter 1$.04.020, TTSES as orginally submit-
ted. It was also noted that a special meeting with the Engineering Department and the Peralta
Hills Homeowners Assoaiation was schedul.ed for September 29, 1965 to resolve the street
patterns, drainage, and other utilitie: for that area, and if any substantial changes were
reaommer.ded at the meeting whiah might affeot the R-E Zone, these then could be inoorpora-
ted into a subsaquent draft, therefore, it was recommended that the Co~ission oontinue their
deoision on the proposed amendments to Title 18 until the meeting of October 18, 1965.
Two County Tract Maps were then reveiwed by the Co~ission, in whioh a number of inherent
problems were noted if the existing amendment to the R-E, Zone would not incorporate a solution
to these problems.
Discussion was held by the Co~oission as to a feasible solution to the setback requirements,
problem lots, width of streets for the Peralta Hills area, and the possibility of incorporating
alternate solutions if these were proposed for development under the R-E, Zone.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to continue consideration of Amendments to Title 18,
Chapter 18.0~4, Chapter 18.08 and Chapter 18.18 to the meeting of October 18, 1965, in order to
inoorporate any additional amendments which mi.ght result from a meeting scheduled September 29,
1965 between the Engineering Department and the Peralta Hills Homeowners Assooiation:
Co~i.ssioner Allred seaonded the motion. MOT'ION CARR.TED.
REPORTS AND - ITEE~[G N0. 1
P,~COEd~ENDATIONS Orange County Tentative Map of Traat No. 6066. SUBDNIDER: John W. Plough,
Box 228, Orange, California. ENGINEER: Toups Engineering, Inc., 1801 North
College, Santa Ana, California. Subjeat traot loaated south of the Riverside
Freeway at the intersection of Cerro Vista and Peralta Hills Drive and con-
taining 13 aores is proposed for subdivision into 12 E-1, Residential
Estates Zoned lots.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson presented Orange County Tentative Map of Tract
No. 6066 to the Planning Commission, noting the location of subject property, and the fsat that
the land use was in acaordance with the proposed Hill and Canyon General Plan.
; ~~ ~.
--._._ ~ ----
P
MINU1'ES, CITY pLANNT,~NG COME~Z~SION, September 2?, 1965
REPORTS AND - II'F~ NQ. 1
RECOLA~ENDATIONS (Continued)
2751
In response to questioning, Planning Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski advised the Com:nission that
no ao~ent was avai.lahle r.alative to street standards for the Pera~ta Hills, although the City
was in the prooess of developittg standar.ds. It was further noted that the proposed street did
not meet the City°s present etandards; and that the proposed traat, otherwise, was in confo.rm-
anae with the City's R-E, Residential Estates, Zone requirements.
Cocmaissioner Rowland offered a motion to recom:nend to the Cii;y Council that the Orange County
Planning Co~3.ssion be urged to oonsider favorably Orange County Tentative Map of Traat
No. 6066 as a logiaal..method oP development of property loaated in the Peralta Hills; Purther,
that said traae was in oonformanoe with the requirements of the R-E, Residential Estates, Zone
for the Peralta Hills as it pertained to the propo~ed Hill and Ca.nyon ~eneral Plan. Commission-
er Perry seaonded the motion. t~OTI~N CARRTED,
ITEM N0. 2
Orange County Tentative lde.p of Traot No. 6067. STJBDNIDER; John -V. Plough,
P. 0. Box 22$, Orange California. ENGI~~EER; Toups Engineering, Ino., 1801
North Col.lego, Santa Ana, California. Subject trac+., loaeted on the east side
of Cerro Vi~•ta, north of Peralta Hi11s Drive and south of the Riverside Free-
way in the Peralta Hills area, and containing 10.5 acres, is proposed for
subdivision inta 10 E-1, Residentiel Estates Zoned l.ots.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson presented Orange County Tentative Map of Tract
No. 606? to the Plasin.ing Commis_ion, no+.ing the location o£ sub,joct property, and the fact that
the land use we,s in conforma,noe with the pr•oposed Hill and Canyon General Plan. It was further
noted that two of the propo~ed iots were panhandled in shape and were to be served by two
20-foot acoess drive~.
In response to questioning, Planning Supervi~or Ronald 3riAdzinski advised the Commission that
elthough the Oity did not have adogted standard= to act as a guide in the development of such
aocessways, the st,~,fp oou:l.d find no reason to present any opposition to the proposed develop-
ment; further, thst in order to p.r.oce:s a tract, as proposed, in the City, a vari.a:~ce was
neaessary to permit panhandle lots.
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to recommend to the City Counci.l that the Orange ~ounty
Planning Commission be urged to coasider favorably Orange County Tentative Map of Tract
No. 606i, as a logical method of d~relopment of property looated in the Peralta Hi1is; that
the proposed tract, if prooes~ed in i,he City, would reyuire a variance to permit the two
panhandle lots9 and that the balaaoe of the tr•act waa in conformance with i~he requirements
of the R-E, Residentia]. E~tate~,, Zone for the Peral.ta Hills as it pertained to the pruposed
Hill and Canyon General Plan. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. M01~ION CARRIED,
T'PE~A N0. 3
Orange Cou.nty use Varianoe No. 5625 - Requesting temporary waiver of the
required improvement of the right-of-way of Anaheim Road (Miraloma Avenue)
as stated in Sectio.n ?8.022?.'~ of the Orange County Zoning Code, in con-
nection vrith the estab].i~~hment of a beer tavern in the hi-1., Light
Industris:l Di~trict.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Ronald 'Thompson presented Orange County Use ~tTarianae No. 5625,
aoting the location of su.b,ject property and reviewing a report from the Engineering Department
which indicated that the City of Anaheim had reaonstruoted Miraloma Avenue (Anaheim Road) to a
Yinal design grada in 1960 at wh.ich time additional widening to tha design grade was provided;
that the requested use was commercial in ne.ture, and the County of Orange should require side-
walks at this time; that the petitioner had posted a$600 bond for improvements to be construc-
ted within two years or within 60 days after the completion of the City':; contraot is proposed
for construction in June, 1966. Recomendations by the Engineering Department were that there
be a dedication of 45 feet from the oenterline of the street for Miraloma Avenue(Anaheim Road)
in aaaordanoe azth the City of Anaheim General Plan - Circulation Elemant; and th~,t the request
for temporary waiver of street improvements be approved.
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange County
Planning Co~ission be urged to require that the petitioner of Orange County Use Variance
No. 5625 dedicate a strip of land 45 feet in width from the center line of Miraloma Avenue
(Anaheim Road) for street widening purposes in conformanne with the City of Anaheim General
Plan - Ciraulation Element, and that the temporary waiver of street improvements be granted.
Further that sidewalks be constructed at this time fronting subject property. Cot~issioner
Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARR.~D.
~x ~
i
. ~ - • ; ._.,. . . --- - -
MTNUTES, CITY PLAi+~LVG CO~GMZSSION, September 27, 1965 2752
~: .-~.:/I!~
~ ; i ,
REPORTS AND - ITE~d N0. 4
REC0~IDATIONS CONDITIONAL• USE PERMIT N0. 633 - Establish a Convalescent Home, northeast
aorner of Gilbert Street and Crescent Avenue - request for extension of time.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Ronald ?•hompson presented a request from the agent for the
petitioners, Mr. Le Roy Rose, reque~ting a 180-day eatension of time for completion of
conditions in Aesolution No. 137?, Series 1964-65, granting Conditional L'se Permit No. 633
on Ootober 19, 1964.
It was noted that the only requirements of the Conditional Use Permit were required to be
oompleted prior to final building inspection, but that in accordance with Section 18.64.040
a 180 day time limitation was automa.tically imposed, therefore, the agent for the petitioner
was desirous of retaining an active statu~ of the Oonditional Use Permit by reque~ting r~:
additional 180 days.
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to grant a 180 day extension of time for the aompletion
of Conditional Use Permit no. 633, said time extension to expire March 19, 1966. Commissior,er
2erry seaonded the motion. M0:'ION CARRIED.
TTE~6 N0. 5
CONDIrIONAL i'SE PERE~PT N0. 680 - Establish a One and Two-Story P1Enned
Rosidential Devel.opment - Webster Street
request for an extension of time for completion of conditions.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompsen pre~rnted a request from the agent for the peti-
tioner, Mr. Phillip Case, reque~ti.ng a 180-day extension of time for ca:~,pletion of conditions
in Reso~ution No.. 1.558, Series 1964-65 dated Niarr,h 15, 1965, granting Conditional tise Permit
No. 680, noting that no previous request: for an extension of time had been made, and that
the only applicable condition in the granting of tho Conditional L~se Permit was the completion
of conditions of Reolassification tio. 63-64-62 for subject property; further, that none of the
conditions of the realassificatian had.been aomplet•ed.
Co~issioner Rowland offored a motion to great a 180-day extension of time for the compl.etion
of Conditional U~e Permit No. 680, said time extension to expire ~darch 15, 1966. Commissioner
Herbst seaonded the s.otion. N~Om'I0~ CARR~D.
TPE~d N0. 6
Amendment~ to Supplement to Petition - request for Commissional approval
g' ~ -
~~`
~j ,
€g *
6'1
I" ~
Assistant Planner ~darvin Krieger reviewed the amandments made to the Supplement to Petition
which were neoessary in the filing of a Zoning Petition, and reque~ted that the Commission
determine their appropriateness by the adoption by resolution of said amer.dments.
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1?96, Serie~ 1965-66, and moved for its pas~age
and adoption, seconded by Co¢~issioner Uauer to approve amen3ments to the Supplement to
Petition referred to as Exhibit "A" - Recla~~ification; Exhibit "'A" - Conditional L`se Permit;
Exhibit "C" - Variance.(See Resolution Book)
On roll oall the foregoing resolution ^:as pas:ed by the fol.Iowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COLR~ISSIOI3ERS: Camp.
ITEM N0. 7
General Plan Amendment Nbs. 61, 62, and 63 - Aighway Rights of Way-Circulatior
Element and General Plan Amendment No. 66 - Table of Exceptions to the Highway
Rights of Way-Circulation Element
Assistent Planner Marvin Krieger reviewed the propo~ad amendments to the General Plan Highway
Rights-of-lRay - Ciraulation Element, and roquested ..hat if the Commission approved of the pro-
posed amendments they be set for public hearing.
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to direot the Commission Secretary to set for publia
hearing General Plan Amendment Nos. 61, 62, 63, and 66, to be scheduled for the October 18,196_
maeting. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRSED.
ADJOURiTn~NT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Herbst offered a motion
to ad,journ the meeting. Commissioner A=.lred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 6:06 p.m.
ResYeotfully sC~ub itted,
_~~~~N~2/ %~4~ Secretary
~ .,~
F