Minutes-PC 1960/07/18
~ ;: ~
. ~ ~
City Hall
Anaheim, California
July 18, 1960
REGULAR MEETING OF TF~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEEiING - A Regular Meeting of the City Planning Commission was called to orde.r
at 2s00 0'Clock P.M. by Chairman Gauer, a quorum being present.
PRESENT - CHAIRMAN GAUER~ COMMISSIONERS: Rllred, Marcoux, Mauerhan, Mungall i
and Summers. Commiss3oner DuBois entered the Meeting at 2s20 0'Clock
P.M. Commissioner Morris entered the Meeting at 2s30 0'Clock P.M.
Commissioner Hapgood entered the Meeting at 3s00 0'Clock P.M. ~
j
MINUTES - The Minutes of the Meetings of June 6, June 20, June 27 and July 5,
1960 were approved as printed, with the following corrections:
June 6. 1960: Page 3, Paragraph 2, Variance No. 1246, line 2s ---the
same idea on the o~posite corner. line 3= ---tract nresent, and he was---. '
Page 6, paragraph 4, lines 1 and 3s Insert initials "C.J." before name
"Mauerhan". Page 5, paragraph 7, line 2s Change "Palm Street" to
"Harbor Boulevard". ~
PRESENT - Acting Planning Director - Richard Reese ,~
Planning Technician - Gordon Steen
Assistant City Attorney - Joe Geisler
Planning Department Secretary - Shirley Taylor
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION submitted by ASA B. and GRACE S. CARMICHAEL,
N0. F-60-61-3 Grand Avenue Station, Elsinore, California, requesting that the property
described ass A parcel 107 feet by 120 feet with a frontaae of 120 feet
on Winston Road and located on the southeast corner of Winston Road and
Iris Street, be reclassified from C-1, Restricted, to C-1, Neighborhood
Commercial, Unrestricted. This reclassification was held over from the
Meeting of July 5, 1960~, for a report from the attorney's office.
The applicant, Dr. Carmichael, appeared before the Commission a~;d
stated that his representative was to be there a little later. Chairman
Gauer asked what there was that the representative could tell the
Commission that Mr. Carmichael couldn't explain. Mr. Carmichael stated
that the property was now in escrow, but deed restrictions existed
limiting the use to medical and dental or professional offices. The
Tusana Corporation and Mr. Benten proposed to build stores on the
property.
Mr. Harbor of Iris Street appeared before the Commission in opposition
to the reclassification. He mentioned the petition which was submitted
at the previous meeting in favor of keeping the restrictions on the
subject property. He said that there was a school on the street, and
stores in the neighborhood which were vacant, therefore more unrestricted
C-1 was not necessary. Dr. Carmichael stated that he had heard rumors
of possible R-3 Zoning on his property, and if he could not get unres-
tricted C-1, it would be impossible for him to get his investment
returned. He added that when he bought the property he was under the
impression it was commerciai: Mrs. Ruth A. Hoenhouse appeared before
the Commission and stated she was a resident of an apartment across
the street from the sub3ect property, and that she knew Dr. Carmichael
had bought his property in the belief tha~c it was commercial. She
didn't believe traffic would increase enough to become a problem, and
stated the property couldn't remain a detrimental vacant lot forever.
She also said she believed stores would be much better than a two-
story building. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissionex M2rcoux stated there was more C-1 property ad3acent to
that of Mr.~Carmichael's~ which was not restricted. Commissioner
Mauerhan said he understood the property was zoned C-1, Restricted,
for good reasons, and questioned the advisability of placing such
restrictions on the property and then removing them.
- 1 -
~
' r•
~
1
CIiY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JULY 18. 1960 - CONTINUED:
k,°.CLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Ma~coux offered Resolution No. 30, Series 1960-61, and moved
.~
~
N0. F-60-61-3 for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, recommending ~
(Continued) to the City Council that Reclassification No. F-60-51-3 for C-1, Neighborhood,
Commercial, Unrestricted, be approved.
The vote on the above Resolution was as followss
AYES~ CQMIdISSIONERS: Marcoux, Mungall and Summers.
NOESs COMEEISSIONERS= Allred, Gauer and Mauerhan.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSs DuBois, Hapgood and Morris.
Since the vote was tied, Assistant City Attorney Joe Geisler advised that
it takes a ma~ority vote for approval or denial. For the next forty days
this Reclassification will come up before the Planning Commission at each
meeting for a vote oniy, until a ma~ority is reached. In the event the
Commi,sion is still offering a tied vote, after forty days, the Code
provides that it then must automatically go to City Council, as recommended
for approval.
Chairman Gauer stated that the duty of the Planning Commission is to try
to develop the city so that standards are upheid for the good of all, and
every effort is made to treat all citizens equally.
SAVANNAH SCHOOL - A letter r'rom the Savannah School District was read, requesting the
DISTRICT REQUEST Planning Commission to approve the use of Lot 19, Tract 1096 as an access
to the present Hanson Schaol site. The letter explained that on June 15,
1959, the Anaheim Planning Commission had given approval for a walkway
through this property; however the State Department of Education, Bureau
of School Planning and State Departmant of Finance request that the
Savannah School District obtain approval for a roadway through the sub~ect
lot before they will allow an Administration unit to be built on the south
side of the Hanson School site. The letter also pointed out that if and
when the rear corner of the school site becomes a city community park this
same lot 19 could be utilized for an entrance and off-street parkfng space.
Mr. Smeltzer of the Savannah School District appeared before the Commission
and stated that it was necessary to have approval for a roadway in order
to purchase this lot. He added that the City had been considering a part
of the sub,jsct property for a park site, and this would affect the loca-
tion of the maintenance buildings on the school property. Chairman Gauer
inquired as to the width of the lot, and was informed it was between 50
and 60 feet. Mr. Smeltzer said that the property owners on each side of
lot 19 were in favor of the roadway and have signed a petition to that
effect. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Mauerhan stated that he disliked seeing such a roadway
through a subdivision, but if the people on each side were in favor of
it he saw no real problem.
It was moved by Commissioner Mauerhan, seconded by Commissioner Allred,
and carried, that the Savannah School District request for a roadway on
Lot 19, Tract No. 1098, be approved by Resolution No. 16, Series 1960-61.
VARIANCE N0. 1264 - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION submitted by PAUL E. TEMPLETON, 3413 Puente
Street, Fullerton, California, requesting permission to SPLIT R-A PROPERTY,
THUS CREATING A PARCEL OF LESS THAN ONE ACRE IN SIZE, on the property
described as: A parcel 85 feet by 245 feet wi•~h a frontage of 85 feet on
Magnolia Avenue, and located on the east side of Magnoiia Avenue between
Orange and Rome Avenues; its northwest corner being approximately 750 feet
south of the southeast corner of Magnolia and Orange Avenues, also described
as 700 South Magnolia Avenue. The property is presently classi£ied R-A,
RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL.
The applicant, Mr. Paul Templeton, appsared before the Commission and
stated that he wished to build a single residential home on the property.
2
. ~ ~ ,~
~ r ..._..~_._ _-....-._..,...........,~....a~.tim...,.....,.n.+..e,...~. \Y
S ~1 4" iv'
i , .
I
1
~' ~CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JULY 18. 1960 - G~~",'J'xc~JE{;: _
~ VARIANCE N0. 12F4 -?his would be in keeping with ttu; •-~c~es;•'•:.~.,; ;,:: around, and would be
(Continued) comparable to them. Chairman Ga ~s~ ~:~. !~;.:.~~~t::?~. t::at the fences on the prop-
' erty were already installed to cor.=~;:^~ _- :;r,~3 new lot lines. T[~ HEARING
WAS CLOSED.
~Commissioner A12red asked for clarification on this request, and it was
explained that the owner of the ad~~cent property to ttib~South~was deeding
ten feet bf his property to Mr. Templeton in order`to~ritakt=`a~larger lo~
for the proposed residence.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 17, Seric~s 1960-61, and moved
fcr its passage and adopfiien, seconded by Commissioner Summers, granting
Variance No. 1264. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by
the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, DuBois, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux,
Mauerhan, Moxris, Mungall and Summers.
NOESs COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
VARIANCE N0. 1265 - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION submitted by ASSOCIATES FUf•~ ~:IG, INCORPORATED,
12863 Palm Street, Garden Grove, California, requesttng permission to
WAIVE SINGLE STORY HEIGHT LIMITATIONS TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF TWO-STORY
APARTMENTS on the property described ass Parcels on the north and south
side of Provential Drive between Provential Drive and South Citron Street,
also described as Lots 7-12 of Tract No. 3492. The property is presently
classified R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
Mr. Kemp appeared before the Commission representing the applicant, and
stated that they had been caught in a change-over of zoning. He added
that there was a letter on file with the City Clerk from Mr. Dall stating
that other properties in the area were already commercial or R-3. A
petition against the Variance was read by Mr. Steen, Planning Technician,
requesting consideration of the rights of home owners, and pointing out
that Citron Street dead-ended at Vermont, and the traffic problem was very
bad. ~The petition also stated tt:at Citron, Irvine, and Bellevue Streets
had.too many apartments now, and a two-story development would infringe on
privacy. Approximately thirty names were affixed to the petition. Mr.
Kemp addressed the Commission regarding two-story apartments, pointing out
that none of the lots in question were within 600 feet of the nearby
residences. - ~ . : . °•- ~ .. ~ Commissioner Mauer-
han mentioned a road to go south from Provential Drive; however, Mr.
Kemp stated that the City Council r~moved that, and also decided to dead-
end the street. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Mauerhan said he did not object to removing the height limit,
if traffic could eait somewhere other than on Citron Street. Attorney Joe
Geisler mentioned that i~e height restriction probably was imposed as a
condition of the original rezoning. However, Mr. Steen statad it was not,
due to the fact that property to the East and North was R-A.
Commissioner Morris offered Resolution No. 18, Series 1960-61s and moved
for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner DuBois, granting
Variance No. 1265. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by
the following votes
AYESe COMMISSIONERS: Allred, DuBois, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux,
Mauerhan, Morris, Mungall and Summers.
NOES: COMMISSIONERSs None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSs None.
- 3 -
i
;\
, .
~ __~__...__._.~_. _ ----____ __._. _.. . ___...._._...._._ ,__---------
~_.-__ ~: , ~ .
~
i
I
. ,---____._--._ _. __.-..-"~".,'--,. _.-. _.....~.r..._.~ _.-._-.-
~ , ---
~
~ ~.~ i~ ~
~
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUI'ES - JULY 18. 1960 - CONTINUEDs
x
:
VARIANCE N0. 1266 - PUBLIC HEARING. PEI'ITION submitted by RAY Y. MALLONEE, 1023 Liberty
Lane, Anaheim, Califorr~ia, requesting permission to SPLIT EXIS?ING LOT
INTO TWO rARCELS, on the property described as: A parcel 60 feet by
278 feet wiLh a frontag~ of 60 feet on Rosemont Street and.located on
the east side of Rosemont Street between La Palma Avenue.and Romneya
Drive, its nor!hwest corner being approximately 935 feet south of the
southeast corner of Romneya Drive and Rosemont 5treet, also described as
1024 Rosemont Street. Preser-t classification of property, R-1, SINGLE
,o FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
Mr. Mallonee appeared before the Commission and stated that three years
ago a Variance was granted by the City of Anaheim on the lot next to the
one in question, for a similar request. No one appeared in opposition
to the Variance. Tt~ HEARING WAS CLOSED.
A discussion followed, and it was pointed out that the lot would not
be evenly divided, but would conform to the lot next door. Commissioner
Mauerhan asked the reason for this request, and the applicant informed
the Commission that he intended to keep the larger lot for himself. He
was advised that all Engineering requirements would have to be accom-
plish~d, and replied that stz~eet lights, curbs, etc. were already in,
and that there were no sidewalks on Liberty Lane.
Commissioner DuBois offered Resolution No. 19, Series 1960-61, and
moved for its passaqe and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall,
granting Variance No. 1266, subject to Interdepartmental Committee
requirements.
ihe foregoing condition is found to be a necessary prerequisite to the
use of the property in order to preserve the safety and welfare of the
Citizens of Anaheim. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed
by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, DuBois, C.auer, Hapgood, Marcoux,
Mauerhan, Morris, Mungall and Summers.
NOES= COMMISSIONERSs None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
VARie~;~t N0. 1267 - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION submitted by WESTPORT DEVELOPMIHNT COMPANY~
12863 Palm Street, Garden Grove, California, requesting permission to
WAIVE SINGLE STORY HEIGHT LIMITATIONS TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF TNfO-
STORY APARTIN¢NTS ON CERTAIN LOTS, on the property described ass A parcel
approximately 605 feet by 1630 feet with a frontage of 605 feet on
Euclid Avenue and located on the vrest side of Euclid Avenue between La
Palma Avenue and Romneya Drive; its southeast corner being approximately
140 feet north of.the northwest corner of La Palma and Euclid Avenues.
The property is presently classified R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULI'URAL.
Mr. Kemp, representing the aQQlicant, appeared before the Commission and
stated that two weeks previous to this date a Planning Commission Hearing
was held for the zoning on this sub~ect property. Mos~t of the surroundin9
property was other than residential on La Palma Avenue, he said~ and
west of the subject property was Orange County R-4 Zoning. No one
appeared in opposition to the Variance. Tf~ HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Morris offered Resolution No. 20, Series 1960-61, and moved
for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, granting
Variance No. 1267. On roll call.the foregoing resolution was passed by.
the following votes
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, DuBois, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux,
Mauerhan, Morris, Mungall and Summers.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: CQMMISSIONERSs None.
- 4 -
i
i
!
~
~
----~-- - . .._ __ ---- - - _ . --- - -___ . - -------- - ----
_ .__ _ ----
~: ~. ~,_ ,-
-„- -T
~ i -
a
___.._.._..._....._....__.....~.... ...:.....:. ....~... „e..._.. ---.... _
...~.....,,.m.~.,..,~..~......,._.,..e,.,.r,..~,M.~...,,..Q,._... >
l
~ ~~ ~ ~
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JULY 18. 1960 - CL~i?IKiT~D:
VARIANCE N0. 1268 - PUBLIC HHARING. PEI'ITION su~nitted by IA3C~ B. Det-RAFF, 119 Sauth ltelrose
Street, Anaheim, California, requesting permiss#on to UPERAiE A f~ FOR
TFiE AGED, ACCONfODATIN~ SIX PA?IElITS on the pro~aeaty described ass A
parcel 63 f.eet by 141 feet with a:rontage of 53 #eet on Itelrose Street and
located on the west.side of Melrose streeY betaeen Ceirter and Broadxay
Streets; 9.ts northease corner being appraximately 2D6 feet south of the
southwest corner of Center and Melrose Streets, and a3so descrf6ed as
119.South Melrose Street. The property is Qresently classified P-1,
PARKING.
Mrs. DeGraff, the applicant, appeared be#vre ihe ~issian and stated
that she had six bedrooms in the home, and previously cared for eFderly ;
gentlemen there; but is unable to do so now. She told the Co~s!;fon
that she had an opportunity to sell the prv,~eaty if a Bacense cw:ld be
obtained for six patients. No one appeared in ouposition to the request.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
It x~as pointed out that this r2quest had been re#erred to ttee t~naheim
Fire Department and the County Health Department, a~ that btrs. DeGraff
had had three and four patients in the hom~e prevaously. Last December,
1959, a request ha.d been granted for a Day Niu~sery in th.P no~; therefore
it now became necessary to make a new request #oa the fror~er use.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 21, Sesies 1960-61, and moved
for its passage and adoption, seconded by Cmmmissioner Yarcowc, granting
Variance No. 1268. On roll call the foregoang resolution was passed by
the following vote:
AYES: CONlMISSIONERS: Allred, DuBois, Gauer, Hapgood, lfarcoux,
Mauerhan, lEorras, ~&mgall and Su~ers.
NOESs COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS: None.
VARIAN~ N0. 1269 - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION submitted by DW~A~LD F. REA, et a3., 3E15 East
Seventeenth Street, Santa Ana, California, requestin~ ~sexnission to
CONSTRUCT A SEVEN S?ORY OFFICE BUILDING on the psa{~erty descri6ed as:
A parcel 486 feet by 635 feet with a frontage o# 486 feet on Kate2la
Avenue and located on the north side of iCatella Avem~e betw~een Eiarbor
Boulevard and Haster Street; its southRest corner beang approximately
775 feet east of the northeast corner of Har~ror Boulevard and Katella
Avenue; also described as 317-409 Katella Avenue. Ttae property is
presently classified R-A, RESiDENTIAL AGRILUL2URAL.
Mr. Finnegan, representing the applicant, appeared befoae the Co~ission.
Mr. Steen read the application request, and the representative noted that
actually, the request was for a six-story building plus an air candition-
~ ing tower, or 92,000 square feet of space. Plans were presented to the
Commission. No one appearec] in oppositian to ~he request. ~[ic'ARING
WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 22, Series 1960-61, and
moved for its passage and adoption, 6eco~aded by Co~€ssaoner fiapgood,
granting Variance No. 1269, sub3ect to the follaa-ine cond'ationss
1. Interdepartmental Committee requirements.
° 2. 180 day time limit.
i";
The foregoing conditions are found to be a~ecessary prerequfsite to
y the use of the property in order to preserve the safety and welfare o€
< the Citizens of Maheim. On roll call the foregoing resolution was
; passed by the following vote=
F
AYESs COMMISSIONERS= Allred, DuBois, Gauer, Hapgood, ltarcawc,
Mauerhan, lsorris, lE~mga12 and Sia~ers.
NOESs COMMISSIOATERS: None.
ABSENT: CONpN1ISSI0NERS: None.
- 5 -
~
Fi
h
4
s
t
l
~~ .......,._.~...._.. ~
...-.....~_.._«......... ..._......-....._...~___.,~... ~~ ~ .h',
~ ,
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION.MINUTES - JULY 18. 2960 - CONTINUEDs
VARIANCE N0. 1270 - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION submitted by K 8 M INVESTIWENT COMPMIY, 2180
Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, California, requesting permission to WAIVE
SINGLE STORY HEIGHT LIMITATIONS TO PERMIT CONSTRUCIION OF TWO-STORY
APARTMENTS on the property described ass A parcel 300 feet by 600 feet
with a frontage of 300 feet on Orangewood Avenue, and l~cated on the north
side of Orangewood Avenue between Haster and Lewie Street; its southwest
corner being 1980 feet east of the northeast corner of Haster Street and
Orangewood Avenue. Excepting an irregular parcel with a frontage of 98
feet on Orangewood Avenue and a depth of 160 feet, and located on the
north side of Orangewood Avenue between Haster and Lewis Streets; its
southwest corner being 2175 feet east of the northeast corner of Haster
Street and Orangewood Avenue. The property is presently classified
R-A~ RESIDEN?IAL AGEICULTURALo
~
~
f
i
f`
i
t.
`~..
Mr. Knisely, representing the applicant, appeared before the Commission
and presented plans for the proposed development. He called attention
to the fact that there is R-1 development to the South of the subJect
property, a trailer park on the East, and that the sub~ect property was
150 feet from the south side of Orangewood Avenue°s existing single story
homes.
Mr. Robert 0. Kraus, 2107 South Spinnaker Street, appeared before the ,
Commission in opposition to the variance. He stated that he opposed
placing apartment buildings next to R-.1, and that he had been opposed
to the Trailer Park alsoo This type of development was not in the best
interest of the area, he added, and it was not fair to abut single-story
development with two-story apartments. Mre Kraus also pointed out that
he and other property owners in the area had opposed the R-3 rezoning
request at City Council one year before, and at that time, Mayor Schutte
had promised protsction for these property owners. Attorney Joe Geisler
stated that the apartments were automatically restricted to one-story, and
that was the reason for this variance request. Mrs. Raff of Spinnaker
Street, two doors from the sub~ect property, appeared in opposition to
the variance. She mentioned the many chtldren in the neighborhood who
had no suitable place in which to play, therefore some parents have
installed private swimming pools. If two-story apartments were permitted,
there would probably be tw3ce as many children moving into the neighbor-
hood. Traffic conditions would be even more congested. Chairman Gauer
asked if the property owners opposing this variance had seen the proposed
plans for two-story development, and upon learning they had not, he
invited them to do so. Mrs. Raff then stated the plans showed apartments
to accomodate eighty-four families, which undoubtedly would include a
large number of children. Mr. Steen pointed out that the restriction to :
single story was imposed at the time of rezoning. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~
Commissioner Morris called attention to the fact that the sub~ect property
was next to a trailer park, and near an M-1 area. At one time all the ~,
property in this area Has considered potential M-1. He asked why the
sub3ect property should be limited to single story K~hen R-3 has been
approved across from R-1 and with single story next to R-1 for a buffer.
Ii: the proposed two-story will be 150 feet away from R-1, it is a proper :~
request, since the property is already R-3 single story. Commissioner
Mungall noted that this was approved before the new R-3 Zoning Ordinance ;
was adopted. Attorney Joe Geisler clarified the.new Ordinance as regarded .s
this property would permit two-story development on three or four lots ;
next to the trailer park, whereas the remainder of the lots would be ?
restricted to single story. Commissioner Morris said he believed the
rear of the property should be permitted to develop two-story.
Mr. Steen read the original Planning Commission Resolution on the rezoning ;
of the property in question, which restricted the first two lots north of ~
Orangewood to single story; and it was suggested that•the City Council ~
Resolution might contain some changes. This was obtained, and it was
noted that the entire parcel of land was restricted to single story by
the City Council. Commissioner Mauerhan pointed out that the undeve~oped
property along the Santa Ana Freeway would probably be zoned C-1 and M-1 ;
in the i•utura; adding that he believed there were too few two- and three- ~
bedroom apartments, and too many lower priced apartments in the City. ~
-6- -
Y
y
.l~~
°
~ . ~'
i
~ •
:. .~ ___- ------
~
~
~
pNpHEIM CITY PLANNY:_ COMMISSION MINllTES - JULY 18 1960 - CONTINllED=
VARIANCE N0. 1270 - Commfssioner~Marcotix offered~Resolution No. 23, Series 1960-61, and
(Continued) moved for its passaqe and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Swnmers,
denying Variance No. 1270. On roll call the foregoing resolution was
passed by the following vote=
AYESs COMMISSIDNERSa Mauerhan,~Mungallaand~SHwnmersa~ Marcoux,
NOES~ COMMISSIONERSs Morris.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSs None.
VARIANCE N0. 1271 - PUBLIC HEARING. P~TITION submitted by TIEI'Z CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, 11900
Gilbert Street,.Garden Grove, California, requesting permissi~~~'.o
CONSTRUCT TWO DELUXE MOTELS on the property described as: An irregular
shaped parc;el with an average depth of 286 feet and an average width of
651 feet located on the so.uth side of Katella Avenue; its northerly line
being approximately 335 feet south of the centerline of Katella Avenue
and its easterly line being approximately 306 feet west of the Tonosedine
of Harbor Boulevard. Also bounded on the west and south by a p p
80 foot street. The property is presently classi'.ied R-A, RESIDENTIAL
AGRICULTURAL.
Mr. Dick Guthery, xapresenting the Tietz Construction Company, appeared
before the Commission and presented plans for the+ proposed Royal Skylark
Motel. It was .=;~~ted out that a dedicated stree•; must be provided, and
Mr. Guthery re~.:~ad that the 100 foot street will be a part of Tentative
Tract to be fiied at a later date. There would be a restaurant included
in the motel development. No one appeared in opposition to the variance.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
A discussion followed, and Mr. Guthery explained that ori9inally the
request was for two separate motels, but they had been dissolved into
one larger motel. Attorney Joe Geisler stated that even thr,ugh the
advertising had been for the two facilities, the Commission c:^::~d act
on the revised plans without readvertising.
Commissicner DuBois of:ered Resolution No. 24, Series 1960-61, and moved
for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, granting
Variance Noo 1271, sub~ect to the following conditions:
1. Sub3ect to the plans presented.
2` Interdepartmental Committee requirements.
The foregoing conditions are found to be a necessaxy prerequisite to the
CitizenshofpAnaheim.inOnrrolltcalletheVforegoingeresolutionfwas passed
by the following vote:
AYESi COMMISSIONERSs Allred, DuBois, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux,
Morris, Mungall and Summers.
NOESs COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAINING FROM VOTE: COMMISSIONERS: Mauerhan.
VARIANCE N0. 1272 -~~bertHStreet, GardenlGrovebmCalifornia,Erequesting pe~rmis~sionNto 11900
CONSTRUC'T A DELUXE MOTEL on the property described ass A parcel 290 feet
by 350 feet with a frontage of 290 feet on West Street and located on
the east side of West Street between Katella and Orangewaod Avenues, its
northwest corner being 610 feet south of the southeast corner of West
Street and Katella AvE+nue. The property is presently classified R-A,
RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTUR,4L.
_ ~ _
:.,:..~:
~.------- r-.__._.... ---..__...---_______ .__.....___ _
- ------ -- _ . . ..._-..--.
,~ I~L _ . . . _ _.
. •
~ ~ ~ ,.
.
~ .. .~
~:
~:
i
~.
"r:
'~1
;] .
L~
i~
~
~ ~.
~
~.
CITY PLANNING CONIMISSION MINUTES - JULY 18~ 196A - CONTINUEDs _.
~
VARIANCE N0. 1272 - Mr. Guthery, representing the applicant, aqain appeaxed before the Com-
(Continued) mission and presented plans for this development, etating there would be
a 45 foot dedication to the City along West Street. Mr. Edward Chetakian
appeared before the Commission, and said he was representing his neighbors
as well as himself. He further stated that he had a$40,000. home on
West Street which was a quiet residential street, and that he resented
commercial develo.pment so close t~ nice homes. He added that the Katella
School was at the end of .the block, and he felt children would be endan-
gered by the proposed development. Mr. Knisely appeared before the Com-
mission as a resident of West Street, and said most of the neighbors were
in favor of this proposed motel. Mr. Guthery added that he had spoken to
people on the West side of West Street and shown them plans; and they had
indicated no opposition. He f~rther stated that when the development
reached the stay~ where signs, etc., were to be designed~ they would
again consult the property owners in the area, as they wish to keep the
appearance in good ta~ie. He.safd the architecture was designed to
conform with residences across the street, and the applicants felt this
motel would be much more desirable than another commercial use or a
parking lot. •
Ccsmissioner Mauerhan questioned the height of the motel wings along the
street. ,~Ar. Guthery explained.that the wings along the street and half
way back would be single story, while the wings further back and across
the rear would be ~wo story. Commissioner Mauerhan sugge~ted that the
building should be single story for 150 feet from the property line. Mr.
Chetakian stated.that the reason the property owners didn't ob3ect to
the development at first wa~ because they didn°t underst~nd it fully.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Mauerhan pointed out that the area in question was and had
been for at least five years a proposed commercial-recreational zone~ and
home owners should have looked in to this. Commissioner Mauerhan then
offered Resolution No. 25, Series 1960-61, and moved for its passage and
adoption, seconded by Commissioner Swnmers, granting Variance No. 1272~
subject to the following conditionss
1. Hold the building to single-story for 150 feet from the property
line.
2. Interdepartmental Committee recommendations.
3. Sub3ect to the plans presented.
The foregoing conditions are found to be a necessary prerequisite to the
use of the property in order to preserve the safety and welfare of the
Citizens of Maheim. On roli call the foregoing resolution was passed
by the following vote=
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: DuBois, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mauerhan,
Morris, Mungail and Suruners.
NOES: COMMISSIONERSs Allred.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSs None.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC IiEARINGe PETITION submitted by WALTER S. KUBICKI, 1029 North
N0. F-60-61-6 Euclid Avenue, Anaheim, California, requesting that the property des-
cribed as= A parcel 100 feet by 153 feet with a frontage of 100 feet
on La Palma Avenue and located on the north s'_de of La Palma Avenue
between Euclid Avenue and Brookhurst; its southeast corner teing 417
feet west of the north•Hest corner of Euclid and La Palma Avenues; also
described a 735 West La Palma Avenue, be re-
classified/~r~m RESIDHNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, to C-3, HEAVY COMN~RCIAL.
Mr. Richard Kott, representing the appli:ant, appeared before the Com-
mission and stated that when the sub~ect property was purchased it was
~ believed to be C-1. He added that the proposed wheel alignment business
wovld accomodate 15 to 20 cars per day, whereas a gasoline station would
serve many more. No heavy trucks would be delivering parts or equipment.
- 8 -
t\
~'
:.~
tr'~
t
I
~
~
i
e
~
ANAHEIM CITY PL!NNING C~iiYdISSI0D1 1[INUTES - JULY 18. 1960 - CONTINUEDt _ .
RECLASSIFICAiION - lAr. Kott added that the property should be used to the highest and best
N0. F-60-61-6 advantage. A petition had.been submitted with ten or twelve names
Continued signed in favor.of this reclassification.
Mr. Louis Dysinger of 1815 W. La Palma appeared before the Commission
and stated that this business would destroy the uniformity of a well-
planned azea, and would.open the door for other C-3 uses. THE HEARING
WAS.CIASED.
It r.as pointed out that the sub3ect property was in an area which tended
to be C-1, or store front types of.use. Commiesioner Morris offered
Resolution No. 26, Series 1960-61, and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Mauerhan, recommending to the City Council that
Rec2assification No. F-60-61-6.for C-3, HEAVY COMIu~RCIAL, for a wheel
aligniqent business, be denied. On roll the foregoing resolution was
passed by the folloxipg vote:
AYES: C0141ISSIONERSs Allred, DuBois, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux,
Nauerhan, Morris, Mungall and Swnmers.
NOES: ~IMISSIONERSs None.
~ ABSENTm C~lM~IISSIONERSs None.
RECLASSIFICATIalJ - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION submitted by ROBERT Ne ANDERSON, 412 North
N0. F-60-61-7 Placentia Avenue, Anaheim, California, requesting that the property
described ass A parcel 117 feet by 170 feet with a frontage of 117 feet
on Placentia Avenue, and located on the east side of Placentia Avenue
betxeen La Palma Avenue and Underhill Avenue; its northwest corner being
approximately 830 feet south of the southeast corner of La Palma and
Placentia Avenues, also described as 412 North Placentia Avenue, be
reclassified from G2 (Nursery Only) to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial
(Non-restricted, with exception of beer, wine and liquor sales).
George Reisch, representing the applicant, appeared before the Commission
and presented plans for the proposed development of a five-store com-
mercial building with sufficient parking. Mr. Raymond Spehar appeared
before the Commission, stating that he owned property at 1532 Beacon,
and that he approved this reclassification, but hoped that the setback
would be in conformity with others in the area which are 65 feet, with
parking facilities in front. Mr. Steen stated that the building ad~oin-
ing the subject property had a six-foot setback, whereas the plans call
for a ten-foot setback on the sub3ect property; he believed it would be
a hasdship to enforce a 65 foot setback, and noted that the plans
provided for a 3oint parking lot at the rear, with the real estate office
next door. 6[r. Spehar commented that the public was not using the rear
parking, but rras parking at an angle in front of the building. Mr.
Reisch said that the reason for this was that the nursery on the
prop~rty had not been able to comply with the Engineering required
xhen the C-2 reclassification was granted; however, the new owners
would be takfng care of the requirements immediately. THE HEARING WAS
CLOSED.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 27, Series 1960-61, and movEd
for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux,
recommending to the City Council that Reclassification No. F-60-61-7
for C-1, Neighborhood Commercial (Non-restricted, except for beer, wine
and liquor sales), be approved, sub~ect to the following conditions+
1, Development to be in conformance with the plans presented.
2. Interdepartmental ~ommittee requirements.
3. Sale of beer, wine or 2iquor restricted.
The foregoing conditions are found to be a necessary prerequisite to the I
use of the property in order to preserve the safety and welfare of the
Citizens of Maheim. ;
-9- i
-------- _ __ _ __. . __ ._ ____ ... -.-- _._
~ • . .. __.._. ~ IS
/
~ ~~
~.
I
i '
4~„~
~
t '
~ ~
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JULY 18. 1960 - CONTINUED:
RECLASSIFICATION - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the fol?owing vote:
N0. F-60-61-7
(Continued) AYESs COMMISSIONERSs Allred. DuBois, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux,
MauerF.an, Morris, Mungall and Su~ers.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSs None.
RECLA5SIFICAiION - PUBLIC HEARINGo PHTI?I~N submitted by KARJALA ENTERPRISES, INC., Box
NOe F-60-b1-8 203, Anaheim, California, requesting that the property described as=
A parcel 130 feet by 300 feet with a frantage of 130 feet on Pampus
Lane between Euclid Avenue and Loara Street; its northwest corner being
480 feet east of the southeast corner of Euclid Avenue and Pampus Lane,
also described as 1652 through 1660 Pampus Lane, be reclassified from
R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRIGULTURAL to R-3, MIJLI'IPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
Mr. Ted Campbell, representing Karjala Enterprises, Incorporated, appeared
before the Commission and presented plans. He stated that they felt
this to be the best use for the land, whfch abutted R-A property and a
school on the East. A discussion followed regarding whether or not a
Variance request for two-story developsent would be necessary due to the
zoning of th2 ad~acent properties. I~o one appeared in opposition to
the granting of this reclassification. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Mr. Reese suggested that either this matter be held over until a
Variance was approved for two-storys or that the plans for two-story
development be removed from the application. Chairman Gaver poir,ted out
that if the request was granted, the applicants could develop the
property with single story units. Commissioner Mor,is offered Reselu-
tion No. 28, Series•1960-61, and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Allred, recammending to the City Council that
Reclassification No. F-60-61-8 for R-3, MULTIPIE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, be
approved, sub3ect to the following conditionss -
1. Interdepartmental Committee requirements.
2. Plans of development tb_be approved by the City Council prior to
• ~ the.issuance of any Building Permit. _ : ,
3.- Standard R-3 Deed Restrictions.
The foregoing conditions are found to be a necessary prerequisite to
the use of the property in order to preserve the safety and welfare of
the Citizens of Anaheim.
~
TENTATIVE MAP OF - This tract map had previously been approved, and no action was necessary
TRACT N0. 3794 at this time.
STUDY OF 60 FOOT - This study was considered at the July 5, 1960 Meeting of the Plannfng
P-L, PARKING AND Commission, at which time the attorney was instructed to prepare reso-
LANDSCAPING AREAS lution for consideration at this time. Mr. Reese appeared before the
' Commission and stated that consideration was being given to rescinding
all 60 foot P-L Zones except along East Street, north of South Street.
He read the Res~lution Making Certain Findings Regarding the P-L Zones
and Making Certain Recommendations in Regard Thereto. He also made
mention of the fact that the City is setting their facilities on Ball
Road fifty feet back, with twenty feet in front for landscaping. The
Plax Corporation was now developing on Cerritos rrith a landscaped area
in excess of the 20 foot minimum, and the Buzza-Cardoza Company erchi-
tects have been advised that there would be a 20-foot landscaped area on
the north side of Cerritos.
A discussion followed, regarding the setting of a policy to inaugurate
hearings for the purpose of establishing P-L Zones along Cersitos,
Lewis, and other official ^arterial highways" where no P-L Zone exists.
- 10 -
*-~The vote on the above Resolution was as follows:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, DuBois, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux,
Mauerhan, Morris, Mungall and Summers.
NOES: COMMISSI~NERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSs None.
%~
~
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JULY 18. 1960 - CONTINUEDs
STUDY OF 60 FOOT - Upon a motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Mauerhan,
P-L -(Continued) and unanimously carried, Resolution No. 13, Series 1960-61, entitled
"A RESOLUT~ON OF Tkl~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF ?HE CITY OF ANAHEIM NIAKING
CERTAIN FIN~INGS REGAFsDIIVG I'HE P-L ZONES AND MAKING CESTAIN REC~N9u¢NDA-
TIONS IN REGARD THERETO", was adopted.
UNCLASSIFIED USES - Acting Planning Director Richard Reese appeared before the Commission
NOT PROVIDED FOR and calied attention to the fact that several uses previously covexed
IN NEW R-3 ORDI- by the R-3 Zoning Ordinance had been eliminated upon the adoption of
NANCE a new R-3 Ordinance, namely the followings
1. Boarding and Lodging Houses
2. Educational Institutions
3. Golf Courses
4. Hotels
5. Private Lodges, Clubs, Fraternities and Sororities
6o Rest Homes
Mr. Reese noted that all of these uses were liated under the Special
Use Permit section of the new Zoning Ordinance which the.Comr~i.ssion
had recommended.to~the Council. ~ ~
It was moved by Commissioner Allred, seconded by Commissioner Sw~ers,
ancl unanimously carried that the six aforementioned uses be placed
under Section 9200.13, Unclassified Uses, of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
ADDITIONAL SECTIONS-Attorney Joe Geisler suggested adding two sections to Unclassified llses,
TO INCLUDE UNDER thereby requiring a Special Use Permit, as follows:
UNCLASSIFIED USES
1. Add a uses Post Offices.
2. All uses not specificalxy set forth in any other zone shall be
sub~ected to a Special Use Permit.
It was moved by Commissioner Mauerhan, seconded by Commissioner Su~muers,
and unanimously carried that the two aforementSoned uses be placed under
Section 9200.13, Unclassified Uses, of the An,heim Municipal Code.'*
'
AA70URNAIENT - The Meeting ad~ourned at 5s00 0°Clock PeM.
Respectfully submitted,
C~Q~~~e_
RICHARD REESE, Secretary
*Mr. Reese then suggested that the Commission consider amendments
to Section 9200.14 of the Anaheim Municipal Code to include a
provision therein which will require the filing of a Special Use
Permit for all uses not specifically listed under any classification
of the 2oning Ordinance. It was suggested that Public Hearing
be held.
It was moved by Commissioner Mauerhan, seconded by Commissioner
Summers, that a Public Hearing be scheduled on August 15, 1960 in.
the Council Chambers. This motion was unanimously carried.
- 11 -
'
; ,
~
.
-_.._ -----._.. _ _ _
- %~ '
_._._ _._ _ -
i[
~~ ~ ~
~.
\,~
r
~
CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN MINEITES - JULY 18, 1960. CONTINUEDs (CORRECTION OF_ORIGINAL PAGE 11)
; STUDY OF 60 FOOT - Upon a motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Mauerhan,
P-L -(Continued) and unanimously carried,.Resolution No. 13, Series 1960-61, entitled
"p RESOLUI'ION OF THE PLANNING COM67ISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM MAKING
CERTAIN FINDINGS REGARDING THE P-L ZONES AND MAKING CERTAIN RECOMMENDA-
TIONS IN REGARD'THERETO;" was adopted. -
UNCLASSIFIED USES - Acting Planning Director Richard Reese appeared before the Commission and
~ NOT PROVIDED FOR called attention to the fact that several uses previously covered by the
k IN NEW R-3 ORDI- R-3 Zoning Ordinance had been eliminated upon the adoption of a new R-3
, NANCE Ordinance, namely 'the following:
1. Boarding and Lodging Houses
2. Educational Institutions
3. Golf Courses
4. Hotels
5. Private Lodges, Clubs, Fraternities and Sororities
6. Rest Homes
Mr. Reese noted that all of these uses were listed under the Special Use
Permit section of the new Zoning Ordinance which the Commission had
recommended to the Council.
.?
}
,
)
It was moved by Commissioner Allred, seconded by Commissioner Summers,
and unanimously carried that it be recommended to the City Council that
the six aforementior.~d uses be interpreted as requiring a Special Use
Permit, in compliancP with Section 9200.14. (Resolution No. 14, Series
1960-61.)
ADDITIONAL SECTIONS-Mr. Geisler suggested that consideration be given to interpreting 'the proper
TO INCLUDE UNDER procedure for establishing a Post Office,,s3nce the City Council had not
UNCLASSIFIED USES concurred in the recommendation of the Commission placin~ this us2 in the
C-1 Zone. After discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Mauerhan,
seconded by Commission Summers, and unanimously carried thatan interpre-
tation be recommended to the City Council, in compliance with Section 9200.14
that Post Offices be included as one of the uses requiring a Special Use
Permit. The Resolution Number assigned was Number 15~ Series 1960-E,1.
Mr. Reese called to the Commission's attention the fact that the Council
had requested that Public Hearings be held to consider an amendment to
the Unclassified Use section of the Anaheim Municipal Code to cover any
use not specifically provided for or authorized in any other zone. The ~
Commission discussed a pos~~.ble conflict in the proposed amendment and in i
the established proce.3ures dealing with omitted uses or ambiguity as set ';
forth in Section 9200.14. Foliowing the discussion, it was moved by
Commissioner Mauerhan, seconded by Commissioner Swnmers, and unanimously
carried that a Public Hearing be set on August 15, 19b0, to consider evi-
dence relating to the proposed amendment.
ADJOURN&~NT - The Meeting adjourned at 5:00 0'Clock P.M•
Respectfully submitted,
~.7 ~,~~~~-
RICHARD REESE, Secretary
-11-
~
r