Minutes-PC 1966/04/25}" ~
~: ~ - ~ i
~~ City Hall
Anaheim, California
April 25, 1966
~
~ A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
~ REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to
order by Chairman Camp at 2:00 o'clock P.M., a quorum being present.
, PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Camp.
- F - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
'-~' PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Robert Mickelson
Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompson
"~~ Planning Supervisor: Ronald Grudzinski
Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts
Office Engineer: Arthur Daw
Associate Planner: Jack Christofferson
Associate Planner: A1arvin Krieger
Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs
INVOCATION - Reverend Edmund Krueger, Grace Lutheran Church, gave the Invocation.
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Herbst led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Fla9.
APPROVAL OF
TFIE MINUTES - The Minutes of the meeting of April 11, 1966, were approved as submittede
CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. GARY MC CONNELL, 2742 West Orangethorpe
PERMIT N0. 807 Avenue, Suite M, Fullerton, California, Owner; requesting permission
to ESTABLISH TWO WALK-UP RESTAURANTS on property described as: A
rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately
146 feet on the south side of Ball Road and having a maximum depth of approximately 276
feet, the westerly boundary of subject property being approximately 205 feet east of the
centerline of Dale Avenue. Property presently ciassified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE,
' Subject petition was continued from the meetings of February 16, March 14 and 28, 1966,
to allow time for the petitioner to submit revised plans.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the petitioner had submitted
revised plot plans, but the elevations were those which the Commission had originally
;, considered.
i ;
~' Mr. Gary McConnell, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that after
considerable discussion with members of the staff, he had prepared a revised master plan
of the property showing landscaping as required by Code along the western
~~ j, as well as in the front setback and the arkin are • Property line,
~ I` w i t h t he P 9 a, h o w e v e r, a f t e r c o n s i d e r a b l e d i s cussion
propose d tenants of the donut and taco shops, the elevations were not revised be-
cause the proposed lessees were not in agreement.
E`' Mr. McConnell also submitted colored renderings of new Winchell donut shop installations
~ • in Southern California.
l`
!,.~ ~ The Commission inquired of the
petitioner whether or not the sign indicated in front of the
p_~ ~: proposed donut and taco shops was included in the conditional use permit request, or whether
, ~:. the petitioner planned to incorporate all three signs on one sign post since this was the
;~ ~; only thing permitted by the Sign Ordinance.
6: ~ ~
Mr. McConnell stated that since he was the owner of the property, he was not requesting a
sign variance.
~ The Commission also requested clarification of the proposed future 40 by 70-foot structure
r
to the south - as to the exact time the structure would be developed and the type of structure
- being proposed.
f, i
Mr. McConnell stated the decision on the type of structure and the uses for the area would
',' be determined when the property to the south was developed, ar,d that he would be interested
~ ' in trading part of his property to provide for access to Dale Avenue.
' R
~ "~ 3010
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 25, 1966 3011
CONDITIONAL USE - No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono
PERMIT N0. 807
(Continued) THE HEARING WAS CIASED.
The Commission indicated that since the petitioner had not made specific
request for approval of the proposed sign, any consideration of the sign was eliminated if
the Commission approved subject petition.
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 2008, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to gra~t Petition for Conditional Use Permit
Noo 807, with the fii~ding that the petitioner and lessees make every attempt to revise the
elevations to develop a more compatible development with the residential area to the east
, and amending Condition No> 4 to provide that the approval of subject petition shall not
include any signs indicated on the plans. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, kowland, Camp.
: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
CONDITIONAL USt - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING~ GARY MC CONNELL, 2742 West Orangethorpe
PERMIT N0. 808 Avenue, Suite M, Fullerton, California, Owner; requesting permission
to ESTABLISH A RESTAURANT WITH ON-SALE LIQWR (BEER) on property
described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage
of approximately 146 feet on the south side of Ball Road and having a maximum depth of
approximately ?_76 feet, the westerly boundary of subject property being approximately
205 feet east of the centerline of Dale Avenuee Property presently classified C-1,
GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZUNE.
Subject petition was continued from the meetings of February 16, March 14 and 28, 1966,
to allow time for the petitioner to submit revised plans.
Mr. Gary McConnell, the petitioner,advised the Commission that revised floor plans had
been submitted and that the revised master plan for the development that was oresented to
the Commission with Conditional Use Permit No. 807 also applied to subject petition; that
only beer would be sold on the premises and a steam table would provide for the serving
of sandwichese
Mr. McConnell, in response to Commission questioning, stated he had no information as to
the possible future request of the lessee for a hard liquor ]icense; however, the proposed
development was so designed that if it was converted into a cocktail lounge, no change in
the existing structure should take place.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
?'HE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The G.~mmission noted that the proposed use was permitted in the C-1 Zone, subject to a
condit5.ona1 use permit - however, the proposed beer bar would not be compatible with the
resideniial integrity to the east; that the use was incompatibie to a relatively small
shopping area and did not contribute to the best intnrests of the area; furthermore, a
beer bar in conjunction wit11 the clientele of a donut shop would hardly be a compatible use,
and that the bar might develop into a"hang-out" for undesirable people.
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 2009, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit
No. 808, based on the fact that the proposed use would adversely affect the adjoining land
uses, and that it would have a deteriorating effect on the small neiqhborhood shopping area;
that the use was not compatible with the area in general and undesirable to the residential
integrity of the area; and that with a junior high school in the general vicinity of subject
property, the use would have an undesirable influence upon the children. (See Resolution
Book.)
On roll call the fo:•egoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
-;,,~ AYES: COMMISSIONcRS. Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland Cam .
~', NOES: CUMMISSIONERS. None. ' ~
~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
*
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 25, 1966
3012
CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. CHIELL L. PHARRIS, 18151 Charter Road,
PERMIT N0. 826 Orange, California, Owner; requesting permission to EXCAVATE AND REMOVE
SAND AND GRAVEL TO A DEPTH UF 75 FEET on property described as: A
rectangularly shaped parcel of land (containing approximately 24 acres)
with a frontage of approximately 1,670 feet on the east side of Miller Street and having a
maximum depth of approximately 640 feet, the northerly boundary of subject property being
approximately 180 feet south of the centerline of Orangethorpe Avenue, and further described
as 6722 Miller Street. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
Subject petition was continued from the meeting of April 11, 1966, to allow the petitioner
time to resolve preblems and complete studies.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that a letter from the attorney
for the petitioner had been received, requesting an additional two weeks' time for the
completion of the studies being made by the engineering firm.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to continue public hearing of Conditional Use Permit
No. 826 to the meeting of May 9, 1966, in order to allow the engineer for the petitioner
to complete studies as requested by the petitioner. Commissioner Mungall seconded the
motion, MOTION CARRIcD.
CANDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. EIXNARD J. FIORELLA, 1301 Brittany Cross Road,
PERMIT_N0. 831 Santa Ana, California, Owner; PHIL PISCIOTTA, 1835 East Pacific Coast
A DRIVE-THROU~H RESTAURANT~WITHgWAIVERS OF1(1)rMINIMUMeFRONTeSETBA~KS Permission to ESTABLISH
HEIGHT, (3) MINIMUM REQUIRED LANDSCAPING, AND (4) 6-FOUT MASONRY WALL~ABUTTINGIA RESIDENTIAL
ZONE on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land situated at the north-
west corner of State College Boulevard and Center Street and having frontages of approximately
102 feet on State College Boulevard and approximately 88 feet on Center Streete Property
presently classified ~-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.,
Subject petition was continued from the meet~ng of April 11, 1966, in order to allow the
petitioner time to submit revised plans eliminating some of the requested waivers as
suggested by the staff.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompsor. advised the Commission a written request had been received
i~ from the petitioner indicating the architect was unable to complete the revised plans in
_ time for the hearing on April 25, and requested an additional two weeks' continuance.
Commissioner Allred offered a motion to continue public hearing of Petition for Conditional
Use Permit No. 831 to the meeting of May 9, 1966, to allow the petitioner time to submit
revised plans. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECLASSIFICAI'ION - PUBLIC HEARING. MANUEL DE ALMEIDA, 5385 Bishop Street, Cypress,
N0. 65-66-103 California, Owner; JAMES K. SCHULER, 914 East Katella Avenue, Anaheim,
California, Agent~ requesting that property described as: A rectan9ularly
TENTATIVE MAP OF shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 235 feet on the
TRACT N0. 6246 west side of Knot.t Street and having a maximum depth of approximately 465
feet, the southerly boundary of subject property being approximately 841
feet north of the centerline of Orange Avenue, be reclassified from the
R-A, AGRICULTURAL, Zp1JE to the R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE, to develop subject
property for 10 four-plex units.
Subject tract, located on the west side of Knott Street, approximately 800 feet north of
Orange Avenue and containing approximately 2.1 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 7
R-3, Multiple-Family Residential, Zoned lots.
Mr. James Schuler, aqent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed
development of the property in close proximity to subject property, noting that the developer
of the property to the south had purchased subject property and intended to extend the R-3
development and provide for a full 60-foot wide street, cul-de-sacing to the north. Further-
more, it was the intent of the developer to sell the four-plexes uport completion to individual
buyers.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
~
~
:
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 25,~1966
3013
RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Perry offered Resolution Noo 2010, Series 1965-65, and
P10. 65-66-103 moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall,
to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification
TENTATIVE MAP OF No. 65-66-103 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
TRACT NU. 6246
(Continued) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 6246, subject
to the following coaditions:
~
1. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each
subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval.
2. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 6246 is granted subject to
the approval of Reclassification No. 65-66-103.
3. That the vehicular access rights, except at street and/or ailey openings,
to Knott Street shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim.
4. That alley cut-offs shall conform to Standard Plan No. 130.
5o That the street and southerly alley shall be completely within the tract
boundary or that portion outside of the tract shall be dedicated by separate
document and full improvements included within the subdivision bond~
6. That a one-foot wide lot be provided adjacent to the tract boundary along
the northerly and westerly alleys for the construction of masonry walls
and designated as Lot Nos. 4-A through 7-A.
Commissioner Rnwland seconded the motion. MOTION CARl~IED.
VARIANCE N0. 1786 - PUBLIC HEARING. C. ROSS DEAN AND M. ;'. STONESTREET, 1561 West
Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting permission
to ESTABLISH A GUEST HOUSE WITH KITC:IEN FACILITIES on property described
as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a combined frontage of approximately 265 feet
on the south side of Dwyer Drive and having a maximum depth of approximately 230 feet, the
southerly boundary of subject property being approximately 156 feet north of the centerline
of Pearl Street, and further described as 1218 and 1228 Dwyer Drive. Proparty p:esently
classified R-0, ONE-FAMILY SUBURBAN, ZONE.
Mr. C. Ross Dean, one of the petitioners, appeared befor2 the Commission and stated that
he and the other petitioner had purchased subject property and the small parcel southerly;
that they planned to construct a duplex on the R-2 parcel and a guest house and pool which
would be jointly used by the two petitioners' families; that the development of subject
property was limited because of its size; and, in response to Commission questioning, stated
there would be 30,000 square feet for the three parcels - however, the petitioners' homes
already existed on two parcels, and the third parcel, of course, would be for the guest
house.
No cne appeared in opposition ~o subject petition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the possibility of renting the proposed
guest house, whereupon Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission the R-0
Zone would prohibit this particular use of subject property.
Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. 2011, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred~ to grant Petition for Variance No. 1786,
subject to cpnditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll caJ.l the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
R
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ April 25, 1966 3014
VARIANCE N0..1788 - PUBLIC HEARING. R. B. WURGAFT, Box 4000, Anaheim, California, Owner;
HELEN BOUCK, 319 North Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, ~alifornia, Agent;
requesting permission to SELL ART OBJECTS (BY APPOINTMENT) IN CONJUNCTION
WITH THE RESIDEN"CIAL USE of property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land with
a frontage of appxoximaiely 180 feet on the west side of Hair~or Boulevard and having a maximum
depth of approximately 110 feet, the southerly boundary of subject property ;~eing approximately
166 feet north of the centerline o; Cypress Street, and further described as 319 North Harbor
Boi~levard. Property presently classified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
Mrs. Helen Bouck, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that
in addition to the uses ior subject property as indicated on the petition, she had been
assisting Fullerton State College art students in exhibiting their craft; that she has the
backing of many of the industries in the County; that for some time her group had been attempt-
ing to find a place to show paintings of the art students, and the proposed use of subject
property would be experimental; that fc~r the most part, the paintings would be shown indoors
except for an occasional art show, when it was proposed to also utilize the patio; that she
was not connected with the Anaheim Art Association or the Art Division of the Parks and
Recreation Department since she was not an artist herself, but that she had worked closely
with the instructors of the state college and the University of California at Irvine relative
to the display of art objects by the art students of these colleges; and that similar art
displays were presented at both Pearson Park and La Palma Park by private individuals.
The Commission i.nformed tt~e petitioner the displays of art objects in the public parks were
special requesLs granted by the City Council and were for specific dates only and were not
for the sale of any of these objects.
It was also noted by the Commission that since the petitioner was indicating the showing of
these art objects would :.e appointment only, th~.s would preclude any necessity for a siqn.
Mrs. Bouck stated it was necessary to have a sign in order to identify the location of the
property showing the art objects; however, the sign she proposed would not be offensive and
would be decorative since it was not her desire to alter the exterior of the residence.
~oning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Co;nmission that commercial use of a residential
structure as inter~reted by the Sign Ordinance would permit one unlight, free-standing or
wall sign of 8 square feet.
Mrs. Bouck stated it was her intent to attach the sign to the wall or gate of the property.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution Noo 2012, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and ac'~ption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1788,
subject to conditions, and an additional requirement to allow one unliqhted, free-standing
or wall siqn of a maximum size of 8 square feet. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIUNERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Canp~
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIUNERS: None.
UARIANCE NU~ 1~;8~ - PUBLIC HEARIN~. R. S. HOYT, JR., ET AL, 146 East Orangethorpe Avenue,
Anaheim, California, Owner; FELRO UPHOLSTERY CUMPANY, 102 South
Manchester Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to
MANUFACTURE, WNREHOUSE, AND RETAIL SALES UF UPHOLSTERED FURNITURE on property described as:
An irregularly shaped parcel of land situated at the southeast corner of Center Street and
Manchester Avenue, and having frontages of approximately 175 feet on Manchester Avenue and
approximately 115 feet on Center Street, and further described as 102 South Manchester
Avenue. Property presently classified C-2, GENERAL CONIMERCIAL, ZONE.
Mr. E. D. Fellman, representing the agent for the petitioner, reviewed for the Commission the
proposed use of subject property, noting they were formerly located at 321 North Euclid Street,
in the M-1 Zo~e; that construction of the upholstery was from the frame up -}iowever, no frames
would be manufactured on the property.
"~ Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the location of the proposed
~I ' use was presently zoned C-2, General Commercial, and that an upholstery shop was a permitted
~~ ~ use in the M-1 Zone.
,~
•'~3t,=
~ .
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 25,~1a66
3015
VARIANCE N0. 1789 - No one appeared in opposition to subject petition~
(Continued)
THE HEARI~JG WAS CIASED~
r:
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noo 2013, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Variance No. 178y,
subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On roli call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp~
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMiSSIONERS: None.
VkFilANCE N0. 1790 - PUBLIC HEARING. EDWARD CORWIN, c/o Security First National Bank,
Attn: Mr. Lemoine, 6th and Alvarado Streets, Los Angeles, California,
Owner; DUANE JACK CAhpON, 113 West Chestnut Street, Anaheim, California,
Agent; requesting permission to WAIVE THE REQUIRED 6-FOOT MASONRY WALL to enclose the outdoor
storage of products on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land at the
northwest corner of Orange Street and Cypress Street, and having frontages of approximately
152 feet on Cypress Street and approximately 360 feet on Orange Street, and further described
as 701 East Cypress Streeto Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZUNE.
Mr. A:ane Cahoon, agent for the petitioner, appeared before t~:a Commission and stated it
was proposed ~o use subject property for the storage of old and wrer.ked cars; that subject
property had been usecl before for the storage of cars with only a chairrlink fence; further-
more, in response to Commission questioning relative to the length of use of subject property,
stated it was proposed to siqn a three-year lease~ that there wouid never be any repair work
done on the cars since the police required old and wrecked cars to be stored,and abandoned
cars would be disposed of after twenty days after the police had notified tt:e registered
property ownersand no claim had b:en made of the cars; that it was anticipated to store
approximately 25 to 30 cars there; that there would never be any sales of the cars r,onducted
on the property at any time, and the only access to the property would be to insurance adjust-
ors and the police; an~i that if abandoned cars were not reclaimed after the time limitation,
they would be disposed of by turning them over to a wrecking yard.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that a wrecking yard would require
a conditional use permit~
Dlo one appeared in opposition to subject petition~
THE HEARING WAS CLfJSED.
Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the length of time which the petitioner
should be permitted for the use of the property because of its proximity to the Center City
Area and might have a detrimental effect on the development of the property if an indefinite
period of time was approved for the proposed use.
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 2014, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Variance No, 1790,
for a period of three years for the u±ilizarion and storage of wrecked ana old cars~ (See
Resolution Book~)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by tt~e following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: A11red, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp,
NOES: COAIMISSIUNERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIUNERS: None.
, RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEHRING, EUCLID SHOPPING CENTER, 2293 West Ball Road, Anaheim,
I N0~ 65-66-105 California, and MARVIN FLUEGGE, Box 520, Route 1, Junction City, Ore on
• Owners; Ho RALPH IA VETT, 4921 Durfee Avenue, Pico Rivera, California, ~
Agent; requesting that properi;y described as: A rectangularly shaped
~ parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 661 feet on the south side of Katella Avenue
E~ and having a maximum depth of approximately 620 feet, the westerly boundary of subject
~; property being approximately 661 feet east of the centerline of Euclid Street, and further
described as 1600 West Katella Avenue, be reclassified f r o m t he R- A, A GRICULTURAL, ZONE, to
~ th e C- 1, G E N E R A L COMMERCIAL, ZONE, to establish a sho
~.~ , ing commercially zoned parcel to the westa PPing center in conjunction with adjoin-
!`9 ~w
i
:f ~
'j~ i,
. ~A -
F
I
hiII~UTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN, April 25, 1966 3016
RECLASSIFICATION - Mro Ralph Lovett, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the
NO.. 65-66-105 Commission and stated he was available to answer quest,ions; further-
(Continued) more conditions of app:oval in the Staff Report were acceptable to
them,
The Commission Secretary noted that an additional condition should be indicated, that
bein9 a modified cul-de-sac to be provided at the terminus of Calmar Street, and that
a bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the City should be posted to guarantee the
installation of the cul-de-sac,
_ C:scussion was held by the Commission and Office Engineer Arthur Daw regarding the cul-de-
~~ sac,whereupon Mr, Daw explained this was discussed with the Superintendent of Streets and
it was his theory that originally they could sweep the alley~ but because of the difference
~ , in grade, it was felt necessary to require a modified cul-de-sac in order that the end of
_ th~ alley and the street might be properly cleaned, and that this was an unusual situation
' in that most streets would not stub end into a commercial development, nor would there be
access from the shopping center into this street,
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition~
~
TuE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo
ComJnissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 2015, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition
for Reclassification No~ 65-66-105 be approved, subject to conditions, and the requirement
of a modifi.ed cul-de-sac at the terminus of Calmar Streeto (See Resolution Book~)
On roll call the foregoin9 resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Campa
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None~
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARINuo HARLEN Oo WOLD, ET AL, 3300 Central Avenue, Suite 212,
NO.. 65-66-102 Phoenix, Arizona, Uwner; CO-PAR CURPORATION, P. 0~ Box 8732, San Marino,
California, Agent; property described as: An irregularly sF~aped parcel
- VARIANCE N0~ 1785 of land with a frontage of approximately 100 feet on the north side of
- Lincoln Avenue and having a maximum depth of approximately 614 feet, the
easterly boundary of subject property being approximately 127 feet west
of the centerline of Aladdin Drive, and further described as 2051 West Lincoln Avenueo
Property presently ciassified R-A, AGitICULTURAL, ZONE~
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIGN: C-1, GENERAL CUMMERCIAL, ZONE.
.
REQUESTED VRRIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGFfI' LIMIT WITHIN 150 FEET OF
R-A ZONED PROPERTY, AND (2) REQUIRED SCREEN PLANTING ABUTTING
! R-A ZUNED PROPERTY~
Mr., William Miller, agent for the petitioner, indicated his presence to answer questions
and advised the Commission this would be a two and three-story co^unercial structure, and
that the three-story portion of the structure would be adjacent to the Lincoln Avenue setback.
Commissioner Rowland left the Council Chamber at 2:55 P.,Ma
Mr. Carl fiobbs, 117 Aladdin Drive, appeared before the Commission in opposition, stating
he also represented Mre I~ Do Hatfield, 127 Aladdin Drive, who also opposed the waivers
being req~ested by the petitioner relative to building height and rnquired screzn planting~
Chairman Camp advised Mr. Hobbs the screen planting was being eliminated from the west
property line adjacent to the large R-A parcel - however, it was still being provided adjacent
to the R-1 development to the east,
The Staff and Commission then reviewed the plans with Mr. Hobbs to indicate where the waivers
were being requestedo
THE HEARING WAS CIASED.
~ The Commission notzd that because or the depth of the property and the narrow width, the
~- proposed development for subject property was the most logical that could be piaced there
~ * without proposing land assembly.
.~x
!
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 25, 1966
3017
RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution Noo 2016, Series 1965-66, and
N0~ 65-66-102 moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred,
to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification
VARIANCE NOo 1785 Noo 65-66-102 be approved for a two and three-story commercial structure
(Continued) on subject property, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by tlie following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Campa
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowlando
~' Commissioner Allred offered Resolution Noo 2017, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
;-; and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1785,
,
' subject to conditionse (See Resolution Book,)
; On roll ca11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
~` AYES: COMMISSIUNERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None,
ABSENT: COMMISSIONPRS: Rowlanda
~
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING~ EDWIN C. BECHLER, ET AL, 725 West Anaheim9 Long Beach,
N0. 65-66-104 California, Owner; COLWELL 8 RAY, ARCHITECTS, 112 North McPherson Road,
Orange, California, Agent; property described as: An irregularly shaped
VARIANCr_ E Np., 17g7 parcel (containing approximately 5 acres) at the southwest cornar of
Ball Road and Knott Street, with frontages of approximately 110 feet on
Ball Road and approximately 375 feet on Knott Streeto Property presently
classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET UF R-A ZUNED
PROPERTY~
~ Commissioner Rowland returned to the Council Chamber at 3:05 P.Me
~
__ Mr~ Larry Ray, aqent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission to answer questions
and stated that no waiver of the Sign Ordinance was being requested at this time; that he
was represent:ng the petitioner as his architect and did not know whether or not he had
considered mul'.iple-family development for subject property; that studies made by the peti-
tioner had indi;ated a need for the proposed commercial uses; that it was not anticipated
to serve liquor in the proposed restaurant; that the variance request was for the market
portion of the shopping center; and that the height of the market ceiling was 15 feet, al-
though the dome roof was higher with screening to enclose the air-conditioning equipment.
`'
~ Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised 'che Commission that the
was measured from the para
t height of the building
~ pe
rather than the ceiling heighty and
jected subject property for low-medium densit
re
id that the General Plan p.~o-
I y
s
ential uses~
emphasized that Standard Oil Company had thre Furthermore, it should be
e gas lines in Knott
the responsibility of the petitioner to contact said c Street, and it would be
,
;:. ompany to d
for relocati;,n, replacement, and/or protection. etermine their re uirements
q
~. , No one r~ppeared in opposition to subje:t petitions.
f. ! THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
~
~- ~ , Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noo 2018, Series 1965-66,
; and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer
t and moved for its passage
i
~ ~ ,
o recommend to the
for Reclassification Noo 65-66 104 be approved
subject t City Council that Petition
{ ,
o conditi
~ onso
(See Resolution Booka)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was
passed by the foilowing
vote:
~•
~. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Ro
NOES: COMMISSIO[dERS: None. wland, Camp.
r', ABSENT: CAAM4ISSIONERS: None.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 2019, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passaqe
~'~ and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1787, sub-
ject to conditions and a finding that the approval of subject petition did not approve signs
, indicated on the exhibitso (See Resolution Booko)
* On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIGNERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Cam ~
`~ "~ ;JOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~ p
';~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
~
t
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 25, 1966
3018
AMENDMENTS TO TITLES 17 AND 18 - PUBLIC HEARING< INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,
OF THE ANAIiEIM MUNICIPAL CODE 204 East Lincoln Avenue, pnaheim, California; proposing
amendments to Title 17, Land Deveiopment and Resources,
Section 17,08, Subdivisions; and Title 18, Zoning Code,
Section 18e28, R-2 Multiple-Family Residential Zone, to
include 5,000 square-foot lots and lots of 50 feet in width.
Associate Planner Marvin Krieger reviewed for the Commission the current amendments to
Titles 17 and 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, as follows:
Section 17e08~100(c) - Lots
The width of lots shall be such as will conform to standards of development as
defined in Title 18 of this Code, entitled "Zoning", or by other official plans
'~'t adopted pursuant to lawo Residential reversed corner lots shall have a minimum
= width of seventy-eight and one-half (78a5) feet except in the R-2 and R-3 Zones
" where single-family, 50-foot lots are proposedo Reversed corner lots in the
R-0 Zone shall require a minimum width of ninety-seven (97) feeto The minimum
width of odd shaped lots shall be subject to individual determination by the Cityo
Section 18028~,020 - Permitted Buildings, Structures and Uses
This section was revised for clarification purposes only~
Section 18D28~040(1) - Revised to refer t~ planned residential development resolutiono
Section 18~28o050(b) - Site Development Standards -(1-b) Minimum &uilding Site Area
and Dimensions - Sin91e-Family Units
1. Building site area~ The minimum building site area shall be five thousand
(5,000) square feeto
2„ Building site width. The minimum building site width shall be fifty (50) feet,
Section 18.28.050(5•-c) - Certain exceptions to one-story height limitationo
Section 18~28~050(6-b) - Single-Family Units
1. Front Yardo A landscaped setback area shall be provided and maintained
for each single-family dwelling unit site and said setback sha11 be
~; measured from the planned highway right-of-way line indicated by the
_ General ;lan or other adopted plans~ The setback shall be as follows:
_ (a) p minimum of ten (10) feet, except that
(b) In order to encourage varied setbacks for a tract or a minimum of
one block (ore side of the street) is to be developed concurrently,
the setback shall be an average of ten (10) feet with a minimum
setback of five (5) feet, except that
(c) Where garages open dira~tly upon the street, there shall be a
minimum setback between the garage entrance and the front yard
of twenty (20) feet.
2~ Side vard. Minimum side yard shall be five (5) feet.
~ 3o Rear vard~ Minimurti rear yard shall be five (5) feet,.
I .
y Section 18.28.050(8-b) - Hecreational-Leisure Areas
On any building site on which there are located no dwelling units other than
either one (1) or two (2) detached one-family dwellings, there shall be provided
a minimum of five hundred (500) square feet usabie recreational-leisure space
for each dwelling unit. Portions of side and rear yards may be included in the
calculation of recreational-leisure space to the extent that they are integrated
with and usable as part of a larger recreational-leisure area, and such area
shall have a minimum dimension of fifteen (15) feete
Section 18.28~050(10-b) - Off-Street Parking Requirements
~ Single-family units, There shall be provided for each dwelling unit a minimum
" of two parking spaces in a garageo
Mro Krieger noted that numerous changes had been made for clarification purposes to the
text of Chapter 18~28 in addition to the aforementioned. Furthermore, reference to screen
type masonry walls or walls to separate single-family zones from multiple-family zones with
a solid 6-foot masonry wall except in the front setback should be reduced to 30 inches in-
stead of the previously required 42 inches.
Discussion was then held by the Commission relative to the proposed additions to the R-2
Site Development Standards permittin9 5,000 square-foot lots and 50-foot wide lotso
~
~ } ;
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CAMMISSION, April 25, 1966 3019
AMENDMENTS TO TITLES 17 AND 18 -(Continued)
Commissiuners Gauer and Herbst were concerned that to permit the proposed amendment to the
R-2 Zone would create a problem in that the propos~d sin9le-family units would be constantly
competing with the R-1 requirements; therefore tt~e proposed zone change would be downgrading
and making the R-1 Zone ordinance ineffectiveo
Commissioner Herbst stated that before he would consider an amendment to Section 18.28, he
would prefer seeing the outcome of the Butler-Harbour project in the northeast Anaheim area,
said project being the first approved by the Commission and Council for 5,000 sq»are-foot
lotso
Commissioner Perry stated it would be up to the Commission and Council to review the land
use change requests very carefully in order that requests for multiple-family zoning to
develop single-family lots might be compatible with the surrounding areas, rather than
consideration of the economics involved~
After discussion pro and con between the Commission relative to the proposed zone changes,
Chairman Camp stated that if the proposed change to the ordinance was adopted, it wou ~ be
up to the Commission to stand for the principles of zoning in order to control development
of properties for R-1 and R-2 useso
Discussion was also held by the Commission relative to the possibility of continuance of
the proposed zone change.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono
THE 1-~ARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No~ 2020, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that an
amendment be :.-ie to Title 18, Zoning, Chapter 18~28, Multiple-Family Residential Zone, to
permit lot widths of 50 feetfor detached single-family development on 5,000 square-foot
lots as depicted on Exhibit "A" attached hereto> (See Resolution Booko)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYE:: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp~
NOtS: COMMISSIUNERS: Gauer, Herbst~
ABSENT: COMMISSIUNERS: None~
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No„ 2021, Series 1965-669 and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissio;•.er Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that
I'itle 18, Land Development, Chapter 17.08, Subdivisions, be amended to include single-
family 50-foot lots in the R-2 and R-3 Zoneso (See Resolution Book~)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp~
NOES: CAMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst.
ABSENT: CUMMISSIONERS: None~
RECESS - Commissioner Allred offered a motion to recess the meeting for
ten minuteso Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion.
MlJTION CARRIED. The meeting recessed at 3:50 P.Mo
RECANVENE - Chairman Camp reconvened the meeting at 4:05 PeMe, all Commissioners
being presento
. ;
y ~
~; ~
'r.~
i9
i` i
'i
,,~
,'~
~~ .. = --.
C
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 25, 1966 ,
3020
REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1
RE~MMENDATIONS Recommendat.ion - Adoption of a policy for separation of
service bars and pa.tron bars from the restauranto
Planning Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski presented a study made by the staff regarding the
request made by the Commission on March 28, 1966, to draft a formal staternent of the
Commission`s policy in requiring that any bar located in a"family" restaurant be separated
from the main dining room area, in ordPr to provide an environment where the serving of
alcoholic beverages would not be offensive to children and other non-drinkers, as follows:
FINDINGS:
A study of requests for Conditional U~e Permits (between March, 1961 and April, 1966)
for permission to serve alcoholic bevez3ges in restaurznts, revealed 36 requests for
the establishment of bar facilities in r.:staurants that would normally be frequented
by children and other non-drinkers (A,BaC. rulings ermit minors in establishments
serving alcoholic beverages incidental to t5e serving of food, and prohibit minors
in establishments that serve food incidental to the serving of alcoholic beverages)o
In 50 percent of the restaurants requesting such permits (18), the applicants'plans
showed no provisions for the separation or screening of bar facilities from the
main dining area of the restaurant. In five of these instances, the Commi.ssion
commented on such lack of separation during the public hearing on the matter, and
subsequently denied one permit, unconditionally granted two (one of which the appli-
cant indicated a divider would be installed, but has not done so to date), and in
two cases stipulated the installation of some form of screening or separation of
bar facilities, as a condition of useo The City Council has upheld the action taken
by the Planning Commission in three cases, approved a Conditional Use Permit over
the denial recommended by the Commission in one case, and one case (CUP No. 829) is
currently pending hearing~
RECOMMENDATIONS:
in keeping with the Commission's stated policy and actions as evidenced in the above
findings, and their direction to the staff, a formal statement of policy is recommended
for adoption as follows:
"It is the policy of the Planning Commission and City Council, that any restaurant
permitting the sale of alcoholic beverages, incidental to the serving of food,
shall be subject to the foilowing conditions:
(1) SERVICE BARS (those not directly serving patrons), shall be effectively
screened from the view of patrons in the main dining area of the restaurant.
(2) PATRUN BARS UR COCKTAIL LOUNGES (those directly serving patrons), shall have
a separate entrance than the main dining area, and be screened from the view
of patrons in the main dining area by means of a wall, or walls~"
~
Discussion was held by the Commission regarding the fact that policy is established by
the City Council and the Commission could only recommend that a policy be adopted; that
the wording on patron bars or cocktail lounges directly serving the patron might be clari-
fied further to include the fact that access did not necessarily have to be a separate
outside entrance; and that in order that an architect need not be limited in his design of
the separation of tlie bar facilities from the restaurant proper, it should be effectively
screened or walled~
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recommend to the City Council the adoption of a
pol.icy for the separation of bar facilities from the main dininc areas in restaurants
serving alcoholic beverages incidental to the serving of foud,as follows:
"It is the policy of the City Council that any restaurant permitting the sale of
alcoholic beverages, incidental to the serving of food, shall be subject to the
following conditions:
(1) SERVICE BARS (those not directly serving patrons), shall be effectively
screened from the view of patrons in the main dining area of the restaurant.
(2) PATRON BARS OR COCKTAIL LOUNGES (those directly serving patrons), shall be
effectively walled or screened from the view of patrons in the main dining area,
and shall have separate interior access from that of the main dining area. This
section shall not be construed as requirinq a separate exterior entrance for such
bar or cocktail lounge."
Commissioner Perry seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
_._ _,~
c
r
~ i
MINUTES, CII'Y PLANNING COMMISSION, April 25, 1966 3021
REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 2
RECOMMEIdDATIONS Blue Gum-Coronado Annexation, bounded by Miraloma Avenue on the north,
(Continued) Blue Gum Street on the east, and the Riverside Freeway and La Palma
Avenue on the south.
; Planning Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski presented the Blue Gum-Coronado Annexation, indicating
the boundaries of the proposed annexation and noting that the annexation ~peared to be a
logical extension of the Northeast Industrial Area, and when accomplished would eliminate a
major portion of an island within the area. Comparable City zoning as compared with County
zoning was also presented for four individual parcels~
: Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Blue Gum-
~ Coronado Annexation be approved as a lo9ical extension of the city limits of the City of
Anaheim. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED~
ITEM N0. 3
Prooosed amendments to Titie 18, Section 18~52, M-1 Zone -
Parking-Landscaping setbacks.
Assistant Planner Charles Roberts presen±ed proposed amendments to Section 18.52.060,
Site Development Standards relative to setbacks and landscaping in the industrial zone,
reviewing the fact ti:t the staff and the Planning and Zoning Division of the•Chamber
of Commerce had met to study the possibility of amendments to the industrial zone.
An exhibit was presented indicating all the possible alternatives of setbacks and land-
scaping proposed in the amendment to Site Development Standards of the industrial zone;
said exhibit indicz:.ed that all measurements would be from the centerline of the street
for clarification purposes, even though properties fronting on the freeway, off-ramps,
or flood control properties which might have a curved line leading into a street, the
setback would be determined from the street proper, rather than from the off-ramp, free-
~ way properties, etc.; that this zoning setback of properties aligned or, an angle had been
i hand:ed administratively by the staff - however, it was now being o:ficially incorporated
i into the zoning code.
.~I. Mr~ Roberts also noted that the code presently provided for three alternatives for setbacks;
namely, the entire setback landscaped, a 20-30 ratio, or 10 feet of landscaping in 40 feet
of parking area - however the 20-30 ratio had seldom been used, and, therefore, was eliminated
_ from the code - however the minimums and maximums were indicated, and by inference, the
20-30 ratio could still be provided if the architects desired.
Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the 25-foot setbackson local and collector
streets which were reauired i:o b~: completely landscaped, and the fact that the proposed
amendment would permit a minimum of 10 feet of landscaping with the balance to be used for
parking and/or ~•ehicular circulation. It was determined it was hardly possible adequate
circulation could be provided if a 15-foot area was being projected for parking purposes,
and that the section covering the 25-foot setback on collector streets and freeway frontage
roads should have the word "and" deleted in order to indicate "a minimum of the front 10
feet parallel to the property line, landscaped with the remainder of the required setback
area used for parking or vehicular circulation",
The provision for permitting only a 5-foot setback on local industrial streets and interior
streets of industrial subdivisions was based on the fact that developers wanted to get as
close to a street as possible,and to minimize an undesirable effect, it was proposed to
have a 5-foot setback which would be fully landscaped. ihis would also provide for better
use of the rear portion of the property for parking and storage purposes.
Requirements of landscaping were also reviewed, it being noted that sprinklers and irrigation
facilities were included in order to encourage maintenance of the required landscaping areas,
and since the Development Review Committee was a part of the Development Services Department,
it was felt this referenr,e to the Development Services Department would be adequate.
Commissioner Gauer inquired wh~t was being done regarding the requirement of parking in the
City-owned parking lots; that we were requiring industries and commercial developments to
landscape their properties - however, we were not setting an example by_landscaping the public
parking lots throughout the City, and ;:he Commission shoul.d go on record as recommending that
in order to set an example for industry and commercial development in the City as to beautify-
ing the City, the Commission would recommend to the City Council that all parking areas be
landscaped in accordance with the requirements of private industry.
~
_._..~
MINUI'ES, CITY PLAI'NING COMMISSION, April 25,~ 966
3022
REPORTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 3 - (Continued
Planning Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski advised the Commission that the City's administrative
staff had completed a study on parking areas in the downtown area to determine how to re-
stripe and reorqanize the parking areas for greater flexibility, ar.d, perhaps, th~ require-
m=nt of landscaping could be incorporated into this study if the Commission so desired to
recommend this.to the administrative staff.
Commissioner Gauer stated the Bank of America was planning to landscape their parking
area which was located across the street from the City Hall, and the expenditure of a
few trees for the parking lot to the rear of the City Hall would be minimal, yet would
provide for a breaking up of a sea of asphalt.
Mr., Roberts then advised the Commission that Mr. Grudzinski was attempting to find out
what the exact study consisted of, and would present a sample to the Commission in a few
minuteso
Commissioner Herbst inquired about the deletion of the required 2% landscaping in the park-
ing area, whereupon Mr. Roberts stated this was covered in the section labeled "Irterior
Parking Area", and the figures presented in that section were arrived at after considerable
stuciy of commercial parking areas and industrial parking areas. Furthermore, slides would
be presented immediately after the Commission reviewed the printed document to indicate all
oi the data that was reviewed prior to drafting of tF~ amendment to the Site Development
Standards for landscaping and setbacks in the industrial area.
Mr. Grudzinski presented copies of the study made by the administrative staff reqarding
parking lots in the downtown area and noted that one sample layout which depicted the
parking area to the rear of the City Hall indicated trees or shrubbery were being proposed.
Commissioner Rowland inquired whether or not it should be made a part of the recommended
changes to the proposed amendment that a minimum of four trees be required in any parking
a:ea.
Mr. Roberts stated the formula set forth in the proposed amendment presented an adequate
means of landscaping or placing of trees in the parking area which could be visible from
any arterial street o* highway,
A number of slides were then presented to the Commission indicatinq the various commercial
parking lots; namely, the Buena Park Shopping Center, the Anaheim Shopping Center, Fashion
Square in Santa Ana, and the Autonetics parking area, together with smaller industrial plants
in the Southeast Industrial krea.
Commissioner fierbst offered a motion to set for public hearing for May 23, 1966, considera-
tion of an amendment to Title 18, Chapter 18.52, Section 18.52°060 - Site Development
Standards. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MUTION CARRIED~
I7'F1~I N0. 4
Are:• Development Plan No. 56 - Revision No. 1(formerly
Plaiining Study 2-28-q) - Properties fronting on the west
side of Magnolia Street between Ball Road on the south
and Rome Avenue on the north~
Assistant Planner Francis Nutto reviewed Revision ~~o. 1 of Area Development Plan No. 56
covering the properties on the west side of Magnolia Street between Ball Road and Rome
Avenue. (Copy on file in the office of the Development Services Department.)
Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the recommendations made by the staff
regarding commercial uses for these properties. At its conclusion, Commissioner Rowland
offered a motion to direct the staff to invite the property owners involved in the study
area to meet with the staff to discuss the general problems involv2d in the economic feasi-
bility of utilization of their properties for commercial purposes, prior to the Commission
consideration of the study as presented to the Commission. Commissioner Herbst seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
~
,i
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 25, 1966
3023
REPORTS AND - ITEM N0, g
RECOMNENDATIONS Conditional Use Permit No. 633 -;wo convalescent homes at
(Continued) the northeast corner of Gilbert Street and Crescent Avenue -
Request fc: 180-day extension of time.
Associate Planner Jack Christof:rerson presented Conditional Use Permit No. 633 to the
Commission, indicating a previo~~s request for a 180-day time extension was granted
September 27, 1965 and e,;nire~i;darch 19, 1966; furthermore, the staff recommends that
the 180-day extension of time be granted.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to grant a 180-day time extension for Conditional
Use Permit No. 633, said time extension to expire September 15, 1966. Commissioner
T I Perry seconded the motion. MOI'ION CARRIED.
ITEM N0. 6
'' Consideration of name changes for Palm Lane and Mal.l Lane.
-.~
Associate Planner Jack Christofferson presented a request signed by six property owners
residing ~n Mall Lane, request.ing that said street be changed to Mall Way to correspond
with the street sign, and consideration for the change of Palm ~ ~e, running north and
south, to Palm Way since Palm Lane also ran east and west, and ;,,,C _ast-west Palm Lane
was the only one being used for street identification by the apartments located in that.
vicinity.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to direct the Planning Commission Secretary to set
for public hearing on May 23, 1966, consideration of street name changes of Palm Lane
and Mall Lane to Palm 'Nay and Mall Way. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motione
MOTIOiJ CARRIED.
ADJOURN~d~NT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Rowland
offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Herbst
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 5:00 P.M.
_ .~'
~J ~
;~ ~
y~ ~
Respectfully submitted,
!/!~?. , 1 .,~' =f'~ ~ ~
/~ - -/~_,
ANN KREBS, Secretar~
Anaheim City Planning Commission
~