Minutes-PC 1967/09/13
..
~,ia' o T-~.r~ _ n/,~ ?X~~'~~ ~`+ !"~'~^ yt'r'- "~1 Yt-.;~ n`~y, "~'~"5 r N "'c.h' "i ; 5 M' r, rt 'S ~ r x~ ~-h y t* x T . . ;,r- . 'in -
. ~
~ ~ Y 4 .~ r- :": t`'
Gi~ ~. M.ti. ...... ~'~ ~ n~in ~,M:t~'t~ F~k,.'.,*.;~,~h~ T. ya~Yt ~~ ,v-K^~°'F 1~ ~ 1 ~'.• n .c~-i~~ ~ 7r1 Ni.~ ~;~ ,r" .
. . ..:.. ..
.~
~
'
~
-
"
~~
~
~ .
.~,~
~~~Y
. . .. ...~
i
. .r. 1 . (
~ .
..
.~ < ..
~ . . .
~
`~
. . ,
.
. . ..
~~J
. . 1 ~ . . . . . . . . . ~ -+..
Y:~
. . ~
i~
. . .
. .
' ~ . . <'
i ~3
_
City Hall ~: ~i
:~~
Anaheim, California
'~~
September'13, 1967
. ~,
+#
A REGULAR MEETING OF T[~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION `~'
; ~~
~ *~
REGULAR MEHTING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commi~sion was called 3;:~"
to order by CHairman Camp at 2:00 o'clock P.M., a quorum being presente
. ~ . . . ~ . "`
Y'~L~
PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Camp.
- COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland. ~
;~~
.
" ABSENT - COMMISSIONER: Allred.
.~~
y
i!Y
PRESENT - Planning Supervisor: Ronald Grudzinski
Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts
'
`
Office Engineer: Arthur Daw '"
~ Associate Planner: Jack Christofferson
~~ Assistant Planner: Charles Roberts
' Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs
'
~
PLEDGE OF
~ ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Farano led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
,
~
APPROVAL OF - The Minutes of the meeting of August 28, 1967, were approved with ~";;'
TFiE MINUTES the following corrections on motion by Commissioner Mungall,
seconded by Commissioner Rowland, and MOTION CARRIED:
Page 3560 - Approval of the Minutes: August 14, 1967 were approved
as submitted.
Page 3576 - Paragraph 3, last line.should read, "Commissioner
Mungall seconded the motion"
Fage 3585 - was held over until September ?'~y 1967. ~
CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. JOSEPH AND ANN SILVER, 232 South Alta V~sta
PERMIT N0. 954 Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, Owners; ARMANDO MENDEZ, 6825 Westminstez
Boulevard, Westminster, California, Agent; requesting permission to HAVE
ON-SALE BEER IN A PROPOSED RESI'AURANT WITHIN AN EXISTING S[-~PPING CENTER ~
on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approxi-
mately 110 feet on the south side of Ball Road and having a maximum depth of approximately ~
~ 620 feet, the westerly boundary of subject property being approxim~tely 520 feet east of ~
Knott Avenue and the easterly boundary being approximately 720 feet west of Oakhaven Drive,
and further described as 3414-A West Ball Road. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL
COMMERCIAL, ZONE. ~
Subject petition was continued from the meetings of July 31 and August 28, 1967, to allow
the petitioner time to submit revised plans indicatino a bonafide restaurant with at least
25~; of the floor area devoted to food preparation.
Assistant Planner Charles Roberts reviewed subject petition, the location of subject property,
the uses established in close proximity, and previous zoning action on subject property, as
well as the Report to the Commission. The revised plans were also reviewed, it being noted
that it was the petitioner's intent to meet the requirements of a restaurant; however, the '
plans fell short of the requirements.
Mr. Bernard Barnhart, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared be~ore the Commis- ~
sion and stated that he had noted that in the Report to the Commission the third revision of
plans still did not meet the requiremeni:s as set forth by the Commission; however, if the
Commission approved subject petition, the bar as indicated on the plans would be reduced and i
converted into a service bar for the waitresses, adjacent to the walk-in refrigeratore
Furthermore, if the Commission desired, the pool table would be removed - h~wever~ this did j
provide a certain amount of revenue; that it had been their intent originally to operate a ;
hofbrau, but the Commission did not feel that proposai was acceptable; and that the sale of ` -
beer would constitute 3~"' to 4096 of the sales. !
Commissioner Farano inquired of the agent whether or not it was their intent to serve the
trade primarily interested in beer, or would food be the primary sales itema :
Mr. Barnhart stated ±hat the sale of beer would be incidental to the serving of food. i
_ _.
~
3586 ~
~;~
`r
lf ~`Y~ ~ i.w Y x,~'-~ 'w .! ~s a~t s ,~ { sw~ n ,~ a~ i~ i t x± p~^r
~u .~ ~n k w~~, r e' ~. 4r ~ f r
1 -
~~
~ . ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMIS520N, September 13, 1967 gg87 '
CONDITIONAL USE - The Commission further pursued the inquiry of the type o~ establishment ~
PERMIT NOe 954 proposed, since if the so-called restaurant started catering to the
(Continued) serving of beer primarily, this would establish a type of facility or I
clientele.
The agent stated it was not the intent of the petitioner to encourage 90;b of the sal~s
for beer since food would be served because of the type of kitchen facilities proposed,
and then inquired if the removal of the bar and replacement with tables might assure the
Commission that food would be the main commodity since the type of food to be served
would not necessarily be short-order or like a steak house, but on the order of a coffee
shop.
Commissioner Gauer was of the opinion that a pool table was not conducive to catering to
family trade since the noises would not be compatible to diners.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Discussion was then held by the Commission as to how much the petitioner had met the
requirements of the Commission, and whether or not the Commission should consider continu-
ance for revised plans, or whether the staff should administer the Commission's require~
ment of 25% of the food preparation areae
Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that a beer bar in a small shopping center, which
was patronized by women and children walking through the parking lot, could be detrimental
and dangerous, and that a beer bar was not compatible with a small shopping center.
Furthermore, the agent for the petitioner had not proven to him that he was proposing to
operate other than a bare
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to approve Petition for Conditional Use Permit
Noo 954, subject to conditions, and the submission of revised plans to incorporate a
minimum 25d floor space for kitchen facilities, as well as removal of the bar area and
replacement with tables with only a small portion being converted to a service bar,
Commissioner Farano seconded the motion>
On roll call the foregoing motion resulted in a tie vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERSe Farano, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Mungallo
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to continue the voting on Petition for Conditional
Use Permit Noo 954 to the~meeting of September 25, 1967, arging the petitioner to submit
revised plans incorporating the statements made by him regarding kitchen facilities and
removal of the bare Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CF•RRIEDa
Associate Planner Jack Christofferson suogested that the petitioner meet with the staff
prior to preparing a new set of plans in order that the staff might advise him of the
kitchen area and other revisions prior to the submission of a new set of plans for
Commission consideration.
VARIANCE N0. 1908 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ANA[-IEIM MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION,
1111 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; proposing that
property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land located
at the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Lombard Drive, having frontages of approxi-
mately 100 feet on La Palma Avenue and approximately 535 feet on Lombard Drive, be utilize9
as an AUTOh1~BILE PARKING LOT (to serve the hospital to the east) and t1 PORTION OF THE PRO-
POSED HOSPITAL EXPANSIONo Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE~
Subject petition was continued from the meeting of August 28, 1967, to allow time to re-
advertise the property incorporating three newly acquired residential properties alon9
the east side of Lombard Drive for parking purposes.
Commissioner Rowland left the Council Chamber at 2:21 P,M.
Assistant Planner Charles Roberts reviewed subject petition, the proposed use of subject
property, the uses established in close proximity, and the fact that Conditional Use Permit
Noo 958 had been approved at the August 28, 1967 meeting, to permit the expansion of the
hospital proposed to the east of ~ubject preperty. It was further noted that the existing
driveway approaches on the east side of Lombard Drive should be removed if subject petition
were approvedo
~fi'~ -~'~, n ; ~rtNS~^ .
~ ~ _.,~.~ _...~.. -.
~.._ . ,s. _ . . , .,_ . , ~
+ . :;' 1 v> f a• v ; 4 ~ . ., ..'~.''.
"t ~
' ~'.
.. ~ . .. ~ ~ J ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 13, 1967 3588
VARIAt7CE NOo 1908 - Mro Wallace Fryer, representing the architect, appeared before the
(Continued)~ Commission and noted that since subject property would have a six-
foot masonry wall adjacent to the property line on Lombard Drive,
this would reduce the amount of traffic utilizing the small residential
street since access to the parking lot would be from West Street and La Palma Avenue, and
that in addition to the decorative masonry wall,landscaping would be planted outside of the
wall, which would improve the appearance of the area where adjacent to single-family homes<
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noe PC67-205 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Variance Noe 1908, subject to
conditions, and the requirement that all existing driveway approaches on the east side of
Lombard Drive shall be removed prior to final building inspectiona (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Campo
I~OES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowlande
VARIANCE NOo 1904 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. NORBERT AND DORA ANN EIMERS, 628 West Valley
View Drive, Fullerton, California, Owners; MESA LAND ~MPANY, 128 East
Katella Avenue, Orange, California, Agent; property described as:
A rectangu~arly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 334 feet on the
west side of Magnolia Avenue and having a maximum depth of approximately 634 feet, the
southerly boundary of subject property being approximately 320 feet north of the center-
line of Broadway; proposing to establish a 120-UNIT, IWO-STORY APARTMENT COMPLEX, WITH
WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT, (2) MINIMUM DISTANCE BE'IWEEN BUILDINGS, AND (3)
MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACKSe Property presently c:lassified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE
(Resolution of Intent to R-3, Multiple-Family Residential, Zone approved by the City
Council)o
Subject petition was continued from the meeting of August 14, 1967, for the submission
of revised planso
Assistant Planner Charles Roberts reviewed subject petition, the location of subject
property and the uses established in close proximity, and the reason for the continuance~
The revised development plans were also reviewed, noting that the number of units had
been reduced to 117, with a density of approximately 37 per units per acre; that parking
facilities were proposed both at the rear and along the Magnolia Avenua frontage of the
property; that two main buildings were proposed with individual segments connected by a
roof line; and that the primary recreational-leisure area was provided for near the rear
of the parcel - however~ separated by the carports~ thereby offering some buffer for
noises emanating from the recreational area of the apartment developmente
Mra Duane Brandon, agent for the petitioner, indicated his presence to answer questions>
Commissioner Rowland entered the Council Chamber at 2:27 P.Mo
The Commission reviewed the plans and expressed the opinion that the intent of the
Commission's requirement that revised plans conform with Code requirements had been met,
and that more recreational-leisure space was being provided; however, the proposed private
street did not meet City standards,
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition,
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution Noo PC67-206 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Veriance No. 1904, subject to condi-
tions. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Camp.
NOES: OOMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allredo
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland.
_ ;.,
:: ,,
- 1~r,~. ~R:,s~.
_ . ... ~ . . , , .. . `C
-- _ .~ . ..., , : . • -::. ,-:... .
_ , , .;;
C~ ~ p ~~ -
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 13, 1967 3589
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. CITY OF FULLERTON, 303 West Commonwealth
NOo 67-68-11 Ayenue, Fullerton, California, Owner;_requesting that property described
. as: Parcel,~oo l- An irregularly shaped parcel of land containing
approximately 2v06 acres, having a frontage of approximately 505 feet on
the north side of La Palma Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 190 feet, the easterly
boundary of subject property being approximately 150 feet west of the centerline of Harbor
Boulevardy and Parcel Noe 2- A rectangularly shaped parcel of land containing approximately
0.8 acres, having a frontage of approximately 240 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue
and a maximum depth of approximately 145 feet, the easterly boundary of subject property
being approximately 890 feet west of the centerline of Harber Boulevard, be reclassified
from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, 20NE.
~~ Subject petition was continued from the meeting of August 14, 1967, to permit the Anaheim
~'~a Parks and Recreation Department time to study the possible acquisition of the property as
;., an extension of La Palma Parke
Assistant Planner Charles Roberts reviewed subject petition, the location of subject property
~ ~ and uses established in close
;t,,, proximity, noting that it was the desire of the City of
~; Fullerton to dispose of excess land assigned to their water facility - however, no develop-
~ ~ ment plans were submitted for the property, and that communica~tion from the Parks and
~' Recreation Department indicated their study had not been completed relative to possible
~ acquisition of the property, and a two-week continuance was requested~
X~ No one was present to represent the petitionera
~ ~u
~~`~~ Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue Petition for Reclassification Noe 67-68-11
ti;;.,,;:`~ to the meeting of September 25, 1967, to allow time for the submission of a report relative
;~ to the Parks and Recreation Department acquiring the property and for the staff to re-
~;,^,,,.1~~ advertise subject property under a different reclassification number for dual consideration
~ of C-1 and R-3 zoninga Commissioner Herbst seconded the motione MOTION CARRIED,
r
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC I~ARING, CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH OF ANAElEIM, 1906 East South S±reet
PERMIT NOo 963 Anaheim, California, Owner; ANN MADISON,.600 South Harbor Boulevard,
Anaheim, Cali:fornia, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABiISH A DAY
SCI~DOL IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE EXISTING CHURCH on property described as:
A rectangul.arly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 112 feet on the
south side of South Street and having a maximum depth of approximately 157 feet, the easteriy
boundary of subject property being approximately 250 feet west of the centerline of State
College Boulevard, and further described as 1906 East South Streete Property presently
classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONEo
Assistant Planner Charles Roberts reviewed subject petition, the location of subject property
and uses e~tablished in close proximity, and previous zoning action, noting that the
Commission had granted a one-year extension of time for the use of the property for church
purposes; that the Commission had waived development iri accordance with Site Development
Standards of the C-1 Zone and the required masonry wall since the proposed church would be
only an interim use; that the petitioner was proposing to utilize one room of the residence
for a classroom, and the converted garage was being used as a chapel which seated 80 persons;
that the remainder of the residence would be used as living quarter~ for one of the teachers;
and that the waiver of the masonry wall was being requested for a period of one yearo
Mrs. Ann Madison, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that
the proposed land use for a Chxistian day school would act as a buffer between the residen-
tial and commercial uses; that there was adequate land area for both uses since the lot
consisted of 17,700 square feet; that the home to the west was now baing used for commercial
purposes since they had a business license; that the Front-on Study recommended by the
Planning Commission to the City Council for adoption indicated the homes along the north
side of South Street were projected for C-0 uses; that she had a petition signed by 46
property owners who indicated no opposition to the school; that the recreation time would
be staggered, the students having 15 minutes each morning and afternoon and an hour for
lunch - thus there would not be any more noise than a large family playing outdoors would
make; that the waiver of the masonry wall was requested for a period of one year, or until
the permanent use by the new church owners was finalized; that-the existing church was
permitted to park on the turf without blacktopping the area; and that the petitioner was
agreeable to construction •of a retaining wall since this would enhance the appearance of
the propertyo
Mrso Albert Kluthe, 821 South State College Boulevard, appeared before the Commission in
opposition and staied that when the church was originally granted under Conditional Use
Permit No. 753, no opposition was expressed because this was considered an interim use;
Mu' ~t ~~y,~.n~ ~
~~y' . ~'~.A - J 1 'Z`T"N~. ~)'..U•
~~ H
.. . , . .~ .... . . . . - . ~ . . ~ . . ~ .. . . , .
.. .' /. '~ . . ..~
l~1 '{` ~ .[ r 7, }~
~ V ~
MINUTES, CiTY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 13, 1967 3590
CONDITIQNAL USE - that the garage was converted into a chapel; that it would be quite
PERMIT N0. 963 , difficult to conduct.a school.with five grades in.a converted garage,
(Continued) and if the rear yard was to be utilized for parking purposes, this
would eliminate any play area required; that there was a possibility
there would be inadequate restroom facilities, and if the school grew,
there would be no place for expansion; furthermore, this home was no place for the proposed
., school, as well as a churcho
Mrso Se Mo Jacklin, 1901 Diana Avenue, appeared before the Commission.in opposition and
stated she also represented the property owners abutting subject property and her property
to the north; that the owners of the property at 1900 East South Street had moved to
Huntington Beach and were planning to sell their homes for residential purposes; and that
she was also opposed to waiver of the masonry wall being requestedo
Mrso Madison, in rebuttal, stated that Mrse Kluthe res~ded on South State College Boulevard -
therefore her pr,operty was zoned for commercial purposes, and her opposition could not be
taken into consideration; that the second woman in ~+pposition was opposed to the church, not
the school, which was not before the Commission at this time - however, the church had
agreed to construction of a plywood fence between the chainlink fence and the 12-foot high,
3 to 4-foot thick shrubbery between her property and the church property since the children
seemed to agitate the dog she owned; that Mrse Gardner had contacted the owners of the
property at 1900 East South Street who had advised her that any opposition would have to
come fxom the new ownexs or tenants rather than from them; that the church had provided
restroom facilities adjacent to the chapel; that another facility was inside the home, and
a third could be provided by conversion ~of the tool shed; that the property was 111~- by
159 feet, which was adequate fur expansion purposes, and if necessary, the dwelling could
be used for classrooms if it was necessary to expando
Mrso Madison, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the residence had been
used by the church for Sunday school classes under Conditional Use Permit Noe 753; that
the Commission had granted the use for two years, with an option for an additional year
since the Commission felt the church would grow - however, the original church hz~ now
outgrown the facilities, and they were moving in the near future to a larger facility with
a a~ew church group taking over the existing facilities; and that the uses proposed were
compatible uses since they afforded a buffer between the commercial along State College
Bovlevard and the R-1 to the west and northo Furthermore, the recen~t "~ront-on Study"
recommended for approval to the City Council the north side of .South Street easterly of
Dovex Avenue for commercial-office uses-which would ultimately determine the type of uses
for the south side of the streete
Mrse Madison further noted that there would be approximately 30 students at the school
who would bring their own lunches and stay the full day; however, the ope:ator of the
school was proposing only to use the 16~ by 25-foot raom wlthin the residence for a ciass-
room since it would be operated similar to a country da~+ $choalA
THE HFARING WAS CLOSED~
Discussion was held by the Commission as to whether or not approval of subject petition
would perpetuate a changing permanent use with both a church and school utilizing the
facilities, since historically churches began their operations as small missions.
Commissioner Gauer stated that if the school were operated properly, there was no reason
for it not to expand since as long as people wanted to send their children to private
schools whici~ provided for less than facilities required in public schoo?s, there was not
much the City could do to regulate this type of facility urider existing zoning, and if
the school.were operated properly, the noise would be no more than from a large, unruly
familyo
Commissioners Farano and Mungall were of the opinion that the facility was tuo small for
both uses, and the petitioner would be back to the Commission asking for further waivers
in order to expando
The Commission was further advised by Mrso Madison that the school would not be a nursery
school and was not regulated by the State; therefore, could not be governed by State
regulationso ,
Commissioner Farano then stated that it had been the Commission's experience from previous
private schools and churches granted,that witl,in a year additional requests would be made
fox school expansion, anc the property would be so built up that adequate area would not
be provided for recreation uses - thus this could create an undesirable problem for the
residential uses established to the nnrth and west.
. TM^,, ~..~~,, .., ... - - -.. - ~-~~..-r,~,
;; -. ~ . . , , .. . ...
_ ..,, ,. . . : - . ~ _
„ r.;. > ..
. _ , _yj~ ~-,.~ I
~ ? r.l t ~ s ~ .-..~_. v
~ O V
MINUfES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 13, 1967 3591
- CONDITIONAL USE - Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noe PC67-207 and moved for its
', PERMIT NO~e 963 passage and,adoption,,seconded.by.Commissioner Mungall, to grant
(Continued) Petition for Conditional Use Parmit Noa 963 f:r a period of us~e year
- • with opticn for extension of an additional yea.r, and if said extens~r,n
were granted, the construction of the masonry wall•would be required;
that a maximum of 40 students would be permittPd in the propor;ed facility, and further„
subject to conditionsa (See Resolution Book)
On roll ca1L the.foregoing resolution was passed by the follc:win3 vote:
• L~
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
'~~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
~~~~ ABSENT: COMMISS~ONERS: Allred.
CONDZTIONAL USE - PUBLIC IiEARINGo C. W. HARRI~ON, 626 Kadota Street, Atwater, California,
,~~ PERMIT NOa 964 .,_ Owner; CLARICE GRAHAM, 11561 Moen Street, Anaheim, ~alifornia, Ag=nt;
~ `.,F, requesting permission to OPERATE A Rc;:? HOME FOR TNr AMBULATORY AGED on
property described as: A rect~ngulariy shaped parc~i having a£xontage
,;,; ': :!
;; ~: of approximately 77 feet on the east side of Loara Street anj ~^aving a maximum depth ~f
approximately 310 feet, the northerly boundary ef subject prcperty being approxiwately
~ 700 feet sout'h of the centerline of Lorane Way, and further des:ribed as 2248 South Loara
;~:, Streeto Property presently classified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
~i s;. Assistant Planner Charles Roberts reviewed subjcct Aetition, the loc~ti:..; of subject
N~,_...;_;!, property, the uses established in close p.roximit;y, and the Report to iho Cc;mmission,
u;~~>~'%;% emphasizing the,fact that in addition to the use of the existing resid.ential structure
a~,,:. -:; :a,
~~:.<.:`u for the ambulatory aged, any relocation of existing structures, move-on, and future construct
` '` would be subject to conformance with the Site Development Standards of the R-3 Zone as
~~~r,,, '~Y it pertained to setbacks, minimum floor area, parking requirements, and other site ~evelr~p-
;;~;::,;.;~!~:m ment standards. Furthermoxe, the City Council was the only body that could approve the
:~;;:;;;; ~::,. ~..
~,,;~i move-on of structures onto subject proper_„ and the petitioner should be encouraged to
~*;:;';;~~r discuss his future plans for the proaerty with the staff in o•rder to permit better utiliza-
~ tion of the site; also, subject property abutted single-family development to the east -
~,, ty"~ therefore, a six-foot masonry wall should be required as a condition of approval of the
~;
'c•~.=;:>''~, .I rest homee
Mrso Clarice Graham, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission, noting that
the sale of subject property was c~~ntingent upon yranting of subject petitior; that she
proposed to purchase the property and had operated ~. similar rest home on North Sabir.a
Street; that subject property fitted her nee~.s. for p:?sent and f~ture expansion to approxi-
mately 15 elderly women; that all the residF~~ts would be ambLlatory - however, e~ould ~ot
be driving cars so that no problem would exist relati.ve ~to park.ing other than when gues+.s
visited the residents; that the school to the south of sub~ect property'would i:~~ create
any undue irritation to the elderly people since at the previous hame she cperated,~ne of
their expressed desires was to have some traffic and noises from childreno
Mrse Graham, in response to Commission questionir;g, statt;; tt,at t:;e ambulstory; alderl,y
residents would be served meals, room, and care, and since they cauld not drive, the only
parking facilities necessary would be when their children visitEd them ~t odd times, and
that children's voices would add to the livability of the a.rea.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
TE~ f-IEARING WAS CLOSED.
'i1
: ~u
~
a, ., i;,
,,,
~,
~
c
The Commission noted that the petitioner had not submitted specific plans of develmpment
for the proposed move-on and relocation of existing structures; therefore, any cha,^,:~ from
the existing single-family residential uses would require development plans to be ;~ubmi.tted
to the Planning Commission or City Council for review and approvale
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC67-208 and moved for its passage ~nd adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Nuo 9rn,
subject to conditions and the xequirement that a 6-foot masonry wall be constructed along
the east property line, as well as submission of future development plans for the property
to the Planning Commission or City Council for review and approvalo (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Campe
NOE.S: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allrade
..,~ _. ,.,: _.
~.
,.~„
. _ ~ i ~',. ... . . . .. . . . . . ..
r
~
~
: j~ ~ F~'~`:
~~ ~~ll`
MINUiES, CITY PLANNING CnNLVTSSTbN~ September 13, 1967 :;392
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIG`f~A~?r~IG. ESTER PENHALL, 1545 £ast Ocean k3oulevard, Balboa,
N0. 67-68-19 Cali'rC.xnia., 'vic~ner; J. W. M~~ MICHAEi,, 454-A Valencia Drive, Fullertor.,
- Ga 'tfaF~iia... Agent; requesting that property described ase A rectan_c,alarly
. 5!':.,~e~d parcel of land (approximately 425 feet by 310 feet) located :?35
€ee~ aast ef khe ce:~•t.;r::i;;~~ ~:f Euclid S~treet and approximately 140 feet vaes+, of the cer.~ter-~
line of nrder. Str~ez= ~tJ,~~ ,outherly boundary of subject property being adjar.ent to the
northerly termisius of Alvy and Amboy Streets, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTUR9L,
ZONE to tne R-2;. F+~J4.;iPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTTAL, 20NEe
f2ECLASSIFICP:fION - rtIBLIC 1-IEARING. ESTER PEN!~1LL, 1545 East Ocean Bc~ulevarri, Balbod,
NOo 67-68-20 Galifornia, Owner; J. W. N~~ MICHAEL, 454-A Valencia Drive, Fullerton,
qalifornia, Agent; proposing +..hat property~;]e5•~r::«ed as: A.rectangulsrly
TENTATLVE MAP OF ~shaped parcel of land (approximately Q.~~ fPei by 33~ feet.j ;c~a~~d 235
TRACT N0~ 645.~~_ ;, feet east of the centerline of Euclid 51:~.^~E= ~+^id appro~i,r,atriy 7.40 feet
west of the centerline of Arden Street, tb~ sunt:+erly boundary of sr~bjec~
property being :,.cijacent to the no~therly texminus of Alvy and Amboy
Streets, be recl.assified from the R-2, MULTIPLE-FAn7ILY RESIDENTIAL, 20~E to the R-2, 5000
Ol~lE-FAMILY, Z014!_e
~ TENT~.TIIiF 'LRACT: D'cVEIAPER: J. lV., MC MTCHAEL, 454-A Valencia Drive, Fulleston, :~liforniae
~ ENGINEER: ANAC;AL• F~~INEEP.ING COMPpNY, 222 East Lincoln AvonuE, Anaheim,
California. Sub~ect tract, lo4ated east of Euclid Stseet, wes: of Arden
Street and north of the termt.nus of Alvy and Amboy Streets, containing
approximately 3023 acres, is prooosed for subdivision into 19 R-2, 5000
Zoned lots.
Assista.nt Planner Chazla~ Roberts noted for the Cortunission that Reclassification Nose
67-68•-19 an~9 67-6E~••^^ shou].d be hes~rd in conjunction, and then reviewed the location of
subiect property, ".,ne proposed us~e ,of subject property, the uses est~blished in ciose
pr~iximity, and th Report to the Gor.~missiono
PAro Cal Qi.eyrel, r~~presenting the e:•~gineer and built9Pr, indicat~:d :~is presence to answer
questi-~so
The C,~m~isa,i~n inquired what was pSOpo&a~ for the small, triangular parcel at the southwest
end u+: tY~e e;c~:ension of Alvy Street,; ~~ere:~pon Mr, Qu2yrel stated that this portion would
be soId ba.ck •to tn~ ?enhall family°since it was an awkward parcel of property to develop
and ~~he cumpatibility was suitabl.e to the adjoining properties to the north and we.t, i.t
would be a proper transition use between the com~riercial to ine west and the P•.°1 to the easte
In reviewing the plans, Mro Queyrel noted that r, E-toot masonry wall would be constructed
along the westerly portion of the properCy~ and edeouate screening would be provided in
order that the commercial uses eventua~ly propost~d for that property to the west might be
adequately shieldedo
A nun~ber of people indicated thei,r presence for clarification af subject petition when
Chairma~ Camp inquired if the~e was any oppositiono The chairman then riirected the engineer-
ing representative of the petitioner to explain what was proposed, noting tha~ the R-2, 5000
woul.d be similar to the homes already developed ~n the gen~ral ara~ and would l~e single-
farnily hortte~ on 5,000-square foot lots.
The developer and tht enginees then disc~isscd th2 plans with the interested property owners,
noting that si;c homes wo~ld be two story and indicated on ihe tract map whe•_~ these six
homes would be located.
One of the saok,~men tor the property owners appearing ?.n opposition statad that all were
in favor of development with single-f~mily humes; howeves, serious objection would be voiced
if the property was de•.eloped for mul.tiple-family residential use as approved o:~ the property
to the north, and which was noh~ being developed.
THE HEARING WAS ~LUSED.
Commis.sioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC67-209 and moved for its passage and adoption, ~
seconded by Com~issioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi-~
ficata.on Noo 67-68-!9 be approved, subject to the recordation of a tract mape (See
R~solution Book)
On ro'l1 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followiny vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp>
NO[S: OOMMsSSIONERS: Idene.
ABSFNT: COMMISSIONERS: Allredo
,.~.,. ~ ~'' '~~. , .
;~.
~.. ... . . ,_ ' , . . ,
t Y
+'~' , f f7 °'~r~ ~ .~' i.~'F r ~ST .rl ~vf"
'! ~J
~ ti ~~}% ~ ~."3".,..~1/t~ ~;F~~..M~..SY~ ~ t.! . .' ,~ ~
+l
.
~,
~.~f
ik5~i5.+F 'i'~~ ~
f "W J~T~Sr,`~•-~.~ifµlN 4 j ~.el~y~tiv*~'
`
A
,~~ ,~
Y
f
~
, ~n A f lt.1:~ ~f ~C N~~,F!Yf{'~„ !{.:3~-
.:. ~ ~ .:'~,) .. ~. ..
M
INUT
Y ~
y
.
ES,,CITY PLANNING CA I
N1M SSION, September 13, 1967 ;~
' 3593
RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC67-210 and~
id0~ 67-68-19
a
V r'~
`
~
p
mo
ed for its
ssage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowl'and, to recommend
• to the City Council that Petiti s
on for Reclassification Noe 67-68-20
RECLASSIFICATION be approved, subject to conditior.s. (See Resolution Book)
N0 . . 67-68-20 ~~?
; ~?
TENTATIVE MAP OF. On roll call the foregoin ~'t
g resolution was
TRACT N0. 6451 - passed by the following vote ~
~'
(Continu'ed . `
~ AYES: COMMISSIONERSe Farano, Gauer, Herbst, M~!ngall, Rowland
• NOES: ~MMISSIONERS: N
Camp ~
y
:e
,
onee
_ . ABSENT: ~MN(ISSIONERS: Al1Ted. • ;
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to approve Tentattve Map of Tract No
to the following conditi
6451
e
ons:
, subject
lo._That should this subdivision be developed as
n
,
more tha
one subdivi
sion, each
subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative f
m
or
for approvale
2e That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No: 6451 is granted sub3ect t
the approval of Recla
ifi
o
ss
cation No. 67-68-20. .
~
3o That Lot "A" be excluded from the blue border of the final tract map, ~~
4. That the cul-de-sac radius be decreased to 47 feet to provide a uniform ~Sy~,;
parkway widthe
5o That a 6~foot masonry ..all be constructed along the westerly tract boundary
but not within the street right-of-way,
Commissioner Mungall seconded the motione MOTION CARRIED.
RECLASSIFICP~TION - PUBL1;, I~ARING. INITIATED BY THE CI7Y PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East
NOo 67-6g-1g~ Lincoln Avenve, Anaheim, California•
as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land~havinghatfrontageYofeapproxi-
mately 241 feet'on the east side of Sunkist Street and a maximum depth
of approximately 237 feet'and`located approximately 420 feet south of the centerline of
Underhill Avenue, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-1, ONE-FAMILY
RESIDEN7IAL, ZONEe
,
Assistant Planner Ch~arles Roberts advised the Commission that the owner of subject pro ert
requested that subject petition be terminated on the basis that the family was not desirous
of having an.ything ~or,;• with the property at the present time due to the
increase in tax base; P,owever, the Commissi.on initiated the Possibility of an
property might be plac.ed ih the most appropriate zone for orderlyldevelopment atasuchetime
as the property owner uzsired to ~ubdivide his property.
~ommissionex• Her~st offered a motion Lo terminate all proceedings on Petition for Reclassi-
fication Noe 67-68-18 as ,r,equested bj~ the property owner. Commissioner Mungall seconded the
n~otiono MOr:ON C,9RRIED,
RECLASSZFICATION -?UBLIG HEpRING, INITIAI'E~ By THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East
N0, (7-68_22 Lincoln Av~nue, Anaheim, Caliiarnia•
as• P.~rtion Noo 1- An irr.p ularl ~sha~edsing that property described
west corner of Romneya Drivegand CherrypWaypandehavinglfrontageseofouth-
dpproximate.ly 130 feet on Romneya Drive and approximately 600 feet on Cherry Way and bounded
on the ~:uth by.Glen Driue; Portion Noe 2- A rectan ularl sha ed
southeast c~rner of Romneya Drive and Cherry Way andghaviny fronta esroflaof land at the
feet on Romneya Drive and approximately 250 feet on CherrygWay; and Porti~PNor3atelAn116
irregularly shaped parcel of land located on the south side of Glen Drive and the east side
of Cherry Way at the ir.tersection of Glen Drive and Cherry Way and having frontages of
approximately 180 feet on Glen Drive and approximately 120 feet on Cherry Way, be ~eclassi-
fied from the R-A, q,RICULTUR~',L, ZONE to the R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL,.ZONE to establish
the most app.ropr.ia~e zoning for properties in this area.
ProForty ow:,ers:
Harley 0. Scha~ffPr, 1233 Glen Drive
J~hn T. Dyrd, 1237 ^ulen Drive
Esperidon Castillo, 1155 Cherry Way
Bernard Morris, 1161 Cherr.y Way
Inez Wieczorek, 12a0 West Romneya Drive
Marcel Mayex, 1232 West Romneya Drive
Ge•rald ~;. McDor~.~;d, 1178 Cherry Way
Susan Huiz, 1230 Gl~:n Drfve
Alvin F. Nellesen, 1173 Cherry Way
George T. Wieczorek, 1175 Cherry Way
Philip Daniels, 1153 Hermosa Drive
Ila Salhus, 1184 North Medford Street
Ronald E. Nelson, 1750 South Zeyn Street
Frank A. Nelleeen, 1190 Cherry Way
George C. Gerlach, 1150 Cherry Way
Albert He Black, 1236 Glen Drive
~ ,_'r ;.,^,~a~.~.,,,~. '°~s at~,'w~".~"'?
. ... ., ~ w4 ~ y xr~ S4 .a , f ~ a .C ( : v ~t
. ;,s. t. : ^' t~ .~'~1`~unzs~ 7 '~~ .?~ct ~`~'.. .=.i'~~'~1j ».; ;`,~,~, <<, ~ M.~?~~ 1~.~-.Y~ , i,•. ' .::M•-
. , .;
. . ,:.. -
. ~ ..
..
r ~
~
' '~ ~
~
.. .
,
,
,
. -
~~~Y _ . ~ ~ ~ . ~ .
.
t~.
, O . , . .. ~ ~. ~ . . . . . .. ~
~/ ~ ~
MINUIES, CITY PLqbjNING COMMISSION, September 13, 1967 ~ 3594 ~
~
:,~
RECI;ASSIFICATION - f,ssistant Planner Charles Roberts reviewed.subject petition
noting
o I ~~
,
NO
67-68-22 that the.Commission had initiated the petition after approval of
(Continued)
r
i I
prope
t
es located at 1170 and ',.172 Cherry Way, which was in between
~
Parcel Noso 2 and 3, since.development of all the properties was for ,;~
single-family residential uses~ and the proposed zoning would place
the propertie
in th
t `>
s
e mos
appropriate classification in the event the owners wished to
subdivide their properties for redevelopmant into residences. `~
Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC67-211 and moved for its passage and adoption
,
seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi-
ficati
n
o
°
o
No
67-68-22 be approved unconditionally. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was ~assed by the following vote: ~x-.
~'~
AYESe COMMISSIONERS: Fa:ano, Gauer, Herbst, Mung~ll, Rowland, Campo
NOES: , COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
" ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allrede °'i
REPORTS AND - ITEt~ N0. 1 ~,';
} RECOMMENDATIONS VariancE No. 1764 (Whitman) - Request for an .
extension of time for completion of conditions.
Assistant Planner Charles Roberis reviewed the request of Mr. Whitman, the petitioner,
requesting,an extension of 180 days from the present date for the completion of a
C-2 development at the northeast corner of Harbor Boulevard zn~ Chapman Avenueo
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to grant a one-year extension of time, to expire
March 22, 1968, for Variance Noo 1764e Commissioner tdungall seconded the motione
MOTION CARRIED,
ITEM NQ. 2
Work session scheduled for S~ptember 18, 1967.
Planning Supervisor Ronaid Grudzinski advised the i:ommission that due to an unprecedented
~ schedule in the'Planning Division, the updating of the General Plan would not be completed;
therefore, the scheduled work session was wontinued to October 2, ~"~7.
~ ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Mungall
offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Herbai
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
f
The meeting adjourned at 3:25 P.M.
Respectfully submitted, -
~~~~2, %~~~t.~.~."""
ANN KREBS, Secretary
Anaheim City Planniny Commission ~
1
,~;,~;
~'fLF fiv: ~,. .... ...
...+A.;.-~ - . . :.:. , ;:~ . ~
. . ... :..~.., . ., .:. ... '~ ' ' ~~ ' . . . . , .. . .
~ ~ 1
• ~
7~~
i
~
1
4 ~t~..~.rl ~S Yl ~"~ry .~ ~ ! :~ ~,
t~+~k
~~
~KF~'~"'Gf-~S yJ~.d~ .i ~.. {~ .i
k ?
~ '.. .r -y c f{ i ~ . ' .: ~
~
.
;
~
.
~
~
.+ ~} ~ { T~r~~yy r
~.
'~f~ ~
k
~ ~ - ~ ~ 'r W~~ J . ~ ~ ~
~}*'~~~r
3'~
~
'
t ~' .,
.
..
~
r
h
g
5
t 1 :
j
:
i`2
~~ i
~~`y''a^r ~;~m ~ ~ Y ~ 1 ~ s~ ( . ~,
tQ`+` ~~
~ ~ ~
t
Y
~
,
,~ ~ ~~ ~ n~Js ,G'~` ti v ~ ~' ~ a :
~; r
3+
S i
'
,
~
'' .
~i
y~~ ~J
S4 iG y
,1~ 1 ,
d~
.
~~
y ,
~~ .A ~ ~. I . ' I {
. r ~
~t
f
!
~ ~
?
j
yk~ a
Ft>a
t
r
,~ ~
}:
. ~i
+
_ i
r
~
'{ Y~,
`
t 7
~ ~
~;j~
+y
i
. .
~~'~ . . '
~ . - . .
~ , ~ ~
. ... . .. . . . . , 1
i' ~
k ~
F
{
4
$
~
iF .
~
~ ~
~
~
~~ ~
~ . ~
"
~ 4 ~
y
~ t i
i ~ ~ i
tt~
~
~ L
;
~: ~ .
E }
~
+~ t r t ~ , ,' ; " :
~
~' ~
. ~.
` r _
~ ~~~~ - .. ~
. ~ . . ~ .~.
~
..
~ .< .
. i , . , . . :-.: .~-
._.. . .. ....., . .
.:~~ .- ~. -. .~- - .. - ~
,~
.
i _
~
r
i i
t ~ f!'
'
~ ~ _
~
~"`c -
.. . ~,_..
~~~
7S ~, ~ • . ~: . .
~. . .~..
~ ~
~
1
.. .4
~
~, ,.. . ~ . ~ ~ . . . ~ . ... ~ .... . .
_~ ~
,