Minutes-PC 1960/10/17..__._. - ..~....~,,,,.,..,....,~ ,~.~,~.~..f.,,r, -
~ ~ i
~~~ ~~~
Anaheim, Califarnia
October 17, 19~0
REGULAR N~ETING OF THE CITY PLANNING CO1~I£SI~B
e
REGULAR MEETING A Regular 6heeting of the City Planning Commission was called to ordes ~
_ at 2:05 0'Clock P.M.,.October 17, 1960, by Chairman Gauer, a quox~ae ~
being present. ;
PRESENT - CHAIRMAN GAUER: COUMiIISSIONERS: Marcoux, 1Lorris, ldumgall, and St~ers. ,
Commissioner Hapgood entered ghe lleet~ng at 2=25 P-N-
ABSENT - COMMISSIONER: Allred.
MINUTES - The Minutes of the Meeting of October 3, 1960 were appraved nit6 the
following correction: Page 14, reason No. 1, foz denial o# Te~ative
Map of Tract No. 3882, should be deleted.
The Minutes of the Spacial Meeting held October 7, 1960 aere ap~px~oved
as submittedo
~ Chairman Gauer requested that henceforth the minutes o~ meetings contafn
the date in the first paragraph in addition to the date located a1t the
heading..
PRESENT - Acting Planning Director - Richard Reese
Planning Technician - Martin Kreidt
Assistant City Attorney - Joe Geisler
Planning Department Secretary - Jean Page
TENTATIVE MAP OF - A Tentative Map of Tract No. 3622 was presented to t6e ~ission.'Ihe
TRAG7 N0.3822 Subdivider is.R. H. GRANT, P.O. Box 2067, 1665 Brooldnsst, AnaheiIDs
California. The tract is located on Western Averiue 659.75 feet na~th
of Ball Road, and contains 32 proposed R-1 lots. ?'his map was beld
over from the meetings of September 19, 1%0 and October 3, 1960.
Davidson Jacobson, authorized agent of the lAcDaniel Engineering Cao-
pany, appeared before the Commission and reviened the derelop~ent of
the tract up to the latest revision of October b, 1960. He explained
that the southwestern corner of Not A Part was purehased to p~orlde
for the alignment of Street "A* with ?eranimar Drive, and t6at stub
Street "B" was provided to the south.
John Prins, representative of the subdivider, 8. ii. Cu~ant, sppea=ed be-
fore the Commission and registered opposition to the October 12s 1960
Interdepartmental Committee reeommenda4ion whieh stated that 11ot A
Part be made part of the subdivision or ded3ta#ion aad i~psove~eeet to
be furnished on Western Avenue.
No one appeared in opposition to the Tentative ?raet. TH~ E¢J1RDG ~AS
CLOSED.
It was moved by Commissioner Mungall, seconded by C~mi~siouer Wrcomc
end carried, that Tentstive Map of Tract No. 38?2 be approved, snbject
to the following conditions~
1. NOi A PART OF to be made part of subdivision or dedicatlan aod ia-
provements be furnished on Western Avenue ei~er bp ~ubdivi,der ar
owner of NOT A PART.
2. Pertinent plot and building plans be su2~itted to L~ty Co~ncnl for
review.
3. Requirement that should thie s~bdivision be developed as reoze tl~an
one subdivision, each subdivision thereof sha12 be ~itt,~~d ~
tentative form for approval.
The Commission found and determined the follor-ing facts regaading tbe
sub~ect Tentative Tract~
1. This tract map was held over from meetings of Septe~ber 19, 1960
- 1 -
I~
.. ~
~
MINUTES, CITY FLANNING COMMISSION, October 27, 1960, CONTINUEDs
TENTATIVE NfAP OF - and October 3, 1960a
TRACE Nc~.3622
~ Con~inued ' 2, The revision of Tentative Map of Tract No. 3822 da~ed October 5,
1960 has been revised to substantially conform with Planning and
Engineering recommendationso • '
3. This revision provides for the aligruaent of Street 'A" with Terani-
mar Drive and makes provision for a stub Street "B" to the south.
4. It is the option of the subdivider to stub or cu:-de-sac the east-
erly end of Street "A">
5. No one appeared in opposition to the Tentative Tract Map.
PIJBLIC HEARING - Amendment to Code, to consider amendments to Title 18 -"Zoning°, to
establish a P-L zone along frontages of certain areas. This hearing
was continued from the meeting of October 3, 1960.
Acting Planning Diiector Reese and Mro Roy McClelland, representative
of the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, discussed the proposed changes
to the sub3ect amendment to Title 18 - Zoning, of the Anaheim Municipal
Code, to establish a P-L zone along certain highway frontages. .
No one. appeared in opposition to the proposed amendment. THE HEARING
WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Morris offered Resolution No. 99, Series 60-61, and moved
for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, recom-
mending to the City.Ccinncil the adoption of the Amendmerrt to ?itle 18,
2oning, of the Anaheim Municipal Code, establishing a P-L Zone along
the highway frontage of the following described propertiesj
1• Those properties lying on the north and south sides of and along
Cerritos Avenue extending from Los Angeles Street to the easterly
City 13mitse
2. Those properties lying on the East and West sides of and along
Lewis Street extending from Ball Road to Katella Avenue.
Said P-L Zone to be 50 feet measured from the Planned Highway Right-Of-
Way line as established by the Circulation Element of the Comprehensive
General Plan with the following exceptions=
1. The provision of a 35 foot P-L Zone along the north side of Cerritos
Avenue from Lewis Street easterly to the Santa Fe Railroad right-of-
way.
2. The pravision of a 35 foot P-L Zone on the south side of Cerritos
Avenue from Lewis Street easterly to the Southern Pacific Railroad
right-of-wayo
3. The provision of a 35 foot P-L Zorue along the east side of I.ewis
northerly from Cerritos Avenue to the Santa Fe Railroad right-of-
way and southerly from Cerritos Avenue to the Southern Pacific
right-of-way.
On roll call the foregoing resolution rras passed by the following votes
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Marcoux, Morris, Mungall, Swnmers.
NOESs CO~M~IISSIONERS: Noneo
ABSENT: COMINISSIONERSs Allred, Hapgoode
VARIAN(~ N0. 1303 - PUBLIC HEARING~ PETITION submitted by WILLIAM and GENOWEFA HURLEY,
1703 Crone Avenue, Anaheim, California, requesting permission to OPER-
ATE A TELEVISION SALES At3D REPAIR SHOP IN GARAGE, on property described
ass A parcel 66 feet by 112 feet with a frontage of 68 feet on Crone
Avenue and located on thA northwest corner of Crone and Euclid Avenues,
and further described as 1703 Cron@,Avenue. The property is presently
classified R-]., SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
-2-
%
;
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION9 October 17, 1960, CONTINUED:
VARIANCE N0. 1303 - Nlr, William Hurley, the co-petitioner, appeared before the 6onrx#ssion
Continued and stated his position as followss That since his previous petition
for a variance on the sub~ect property, he has obtained the necessary
licenses and permits required for ToV. sales and repair; that he has
created no nuisance by his home-repair activities; that commercial use '
exits across Crone Avenue on Euclidy that the sub3ect property borders a
commercial zone,and the area no longer has a residential character; and
that all signs on the sub~ect property have been removed.
~. Mrs. William Hurley, the co-petitioner9 appeared before the Commission
and stated as follows: That the granting of the requested variance will
not depreciate property values in the•area; that the subJect property
is presently exposed to traffic9 noise, and litter associated with any
commercial area; and that the sub~ect property is meticulously main-
tained.
Mra David McCaffery9 resident at 1702 Beacon, appeared before the Com-
mission and stated as follavss That ine present intention of the peti-
tioners is essentiall.y the same that existed at the time of denial by
the ~ommission and the Cc+uncil of a similar petition submitted by the
owners of the sub3ect property, that the petitioners for variance have
illegally installed a concrete pad in the front yard in violation of
Section 18008.780 of the Municipal Code, that legal action by the City
on thn sub3ect property is now pending, and that the extension of a
commercial use north of Crone along Euclid wiil sub~ect ;~roperty to the
north along Euclid to future commercialization. He stated further that
at the time of the first request by the pe.titioners, a petition of pro-
test containing 105 signatures was subrt:itted and that there had been
no known change in attitude of the signers of that petition.
N[re Cecil McCa119 resident at 1715 Crone Avenue, appeared before the
Commission and submitted a letter containing his understanding of and
opposition to the sub3ect petition for varianceo He stated that the
petitioners should rent a commercial shop for the propcsed use.
~ j
f '
~ ~
~
i~ ~
E ~._____ _ ._ ._.
Mre Marvin Pelt, a resident at 1703 Siba, appeaxed before the Commie-
sion and stated that his daughter was nearly struck down recently by an
automobile leaving the illegal concrete pad in front of the sub~ect pro-
perty.
Assistant City Attorney Joe Geisler informed the Commission that the
matter of the complaint,which was filed for violation of the Zoning
Ordinance by the operation of the repair business in the petitioner`s
home and th~ violation of the Ordinance by the construction of the con-
crete pad in the front yard~is pending. He ~stated that it has be~n
continued pending the determination by the Commission and the Council
of this variance request, that it was filed for the purpose of stopping
the violation at the present time9 and that because of the Speedee-Mart
and the coaunercial uses south of Crone on Euclid9 the City would have
to make a determination of all facts before the suit could be prepared.
THE HEARING 'NAS CLOSEDo
The Commission found and deteimined the following facts regarding the
request for variances '
1. Sub3ect property is presently zoned R-1 and was so zoned at the time
of purchase by the petitioners.
2. Although subJect property is across the street from commercial front-
age on Euclid, it is still residential in character, notwiihstanding
the illegal concrete pad in the front yard. SubJect property is
surrounded on east and west sides by R-1 and on the north by R-A,
Also the commercial strip referred to south of Crone on Euclid is
surrounded itself by residential property on the west, north and
east sideso
- 3 -
---+, .
_ __ ..__ ._ _... _.
~
U ~ ~
~J :
~
~
.
~ ~ ~
ri3NUTES, CIIY PIAIiNIIiG COi9Y[ISSION, October 17, 1960, CONTINUED:
VARIANCE N0. 1303 - 3. Expansion of commercial use north of Crone Avenue would be a seri-
Continued ous detrimental encroachment into a resid~an•tial area and set a pre-
cedent for future strip commercial along Euclid north of Croi>P hve-
nue, •
4e Arz identical request by the same petitioners was recently denied by
the Planning Commission and the City Councilo However, the Council
felt that the development of commercial stores across the street had
changed the situation in the area sufficiently to warrant a waiver
of the 6 months waiting period for refiling.
5. Two letters of opposition together with verbal opposition have been
recorded against the sub~ect petition for variance.
Commissior,er Morris offer<:.d Resolution No. 100, Series 1960-61, and
moved for Its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall,
to deny Variance No. 1303 to operate a television sales and repair shop
in the garage at 1703 Crone Avenue. .
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votet
AYES: COI~IISSIONERS: Gauer, Marcoux, Morris9 Munga119 Summers.
NOES: COh4NISSIONERS: Noneo
ABSENT: CO~MdISSIONERSs 411reds Hapgoodo
VARIANC~ NO. 1304 - P[IBLIC HEARINGo PETITIQt~ submitted by JOHN Fo IRMINGER~ 1745 Apt. B~
Park Avenue, Long Beach, California, requesting permission to DIVIDE
EXISTING LOT INTO TWO LOI'S9 EACH WITH LESS THAN REQUIRED WIDTH9 on pro-
perty described as: A parcel 124 feet by 150 Peet with a frontage of
124 feet on Citron Street and located on the west side of Citron Street
between Romneya Drive and La Palma Avenue; its southeast corner being
approximately 475 feet north of the northwest corner of Citron Street
and La Palma Avenueo The property is presently classified R-3, MULTI-
PI~ FAMILY RESIDENTIALo
l[r. 3ohn Irminger, the applicant was presento
No one appeared in opposition to the petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED<
The Co~ission found and determi^ed the following facts regarding the
request for variance:
1. The subject property is presently zoned R-3 multiple family resi-
dentiale
2. Existing lots in this area have 60 fto frontages.
3. The proposed lot split will result in two 62 ft. lots, thereby in
conformity with established lot cuts in the area.
4. No one appeared in opposition to the petition.
Commissio~er Mungall offered Resolution Noo 101, Series 1960-61, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux,
to grant Ve~riance Noo 1304, sub3ect to tha following conditions:
1. Filing of a Record of Survey<
2. Payment of $25.00 per lot Park g Reco fee to be collected as part
of Building Permit.
3. 90 day time limitation on Items 1 and 20
The foregoing conditions were recited at the Meeting and were found to
be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to pre-
serve the safety and welfare of the Citizens of Anaheim.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes
- 4 -
--.. _ - _. _-- -.- -- _.-- ---.._ __._~_,..___._._.._..__ _.... _,... .._ _. . ._ .___. .__.._.. __ ._.
-T
~ ~ e ^ ' ~ ~. ... . .
i
. ,
~
~.~
,i
......~
~
: ~ ,,1
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 17, 1%Q, CONTINUEDs
VARIANCE N0. 1304 - AYESs pMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Morris, Mungall,
Continued Suma~rs..
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonea
ABSENI's COMMISSIONERS= Allredo
VARIANCE N0. 1305 - PUBLIC HEARINGo PETII'ION submitted by CLARENCE Ho and FIARENCE M< MINERY,
1002 South Shelton Street9 Santa Ana, California9 requesting permission
to WAIVE SINGLE S1'ORY HEIGHi REQUIREMENT TO PERMIT CONSTRUCfION OF TVYO
STORY APARTN¢ATI'S TO WITHIN 7~- FEET OF R-A ZONE9 on property described as:
M irregular shaped parcel with a frontage of 180 feet on Stinson Street
and located on 4he east side of Stinson Street between Lincoln Avenue
and Broadway; its northwesterly boundary being the southeasterly boun-
dary of the Orange County Flood Control Channei and its northwesterly
corner heing approximately 413 feet south of the southeast corner of
Lincoln Avenue and Stinson Street~ The property is presently classified
R-A, RESIDEN?IAL AGRIGULTURAL,.
Mr. Clarence Minery9 the applicant, appeared before the Commission and
stated that most of the Intezdepartmental Committee recommendations have
been complied witho In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Morris,
he stated there was no difficulty in respect to the Orange County Flood
Control es~emento
No one appeared in opposition to the petitiono THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the
request for variances
' 1. A petition for reclassification to R~3 is now pending on the sub~ect
propertyo
2o Although a petition for reclassification f-r R-3 scattered unit de-
velopment on the property to the east of the subject property was
denied, ihis petition for a planned R-3 subdivision aprears to be
the opti~um development for •~he proposed si.te.
3o The plot plan presented to the Commission is one garage short of
the code requiremento
4. No one appeared in opposition to the petitiono
Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution Noo 102, Series 1960-61~ and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Cortunissioner Summers,
to grant 'lariance Noo 1305, subject to the following conditionss
lo Sub3ect to final. app.:uval of the R-3 reclassification now pending
on the sub~ect propertyo
2a The provision of 20 garages as required by the Anaheim Municipal
Codeo
3. Dedication and improvement of 20 ft. alley contiguous to southerly
property linee
4. Preparation of street improvement plans end installation of all im-
provements in accordance with approved st~ndard plans on file in the
office of the City Engineero
5. Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes on '
Stinson Street~
6. 90 day time limitation on Items 3, 4, and 50
The foregoing conditions r.~ere recited at the Meeting and were found to
be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to pre-
serve the safety and welfare of the Citizens of Anaheim.
(Continued)
- 5 -
'_'_._..._ _ .. . -..::: ' ,-~-- ~v~^^-A+-. : -a[x~.;':/.:.v
~~' _."~~~ '- 1~ ,. . , . . . ~_ _' ' . - . . -
~`.
~~
~
`J
'~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 179 1960, CONTINUED:
VARIANC~E•N0. 1305 - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
Continued
A1'ES: COMMISSIONERS= Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Morris, Munga119
Swnmerso
NOES: CONpNISSIONERS: Nonee
ABSENTs COb4ufISSIO;?ERS: Allredo
I VARIANrx N0. 1306 - PUBLIC HEARINGo PETITION submitte~ by JAN~S RALPH HENSON, 3106 West
Monroe Avenue9 Anaheimy California, req:~esting permission to CONTINUE
USE OF EXISTING SECOND DWELLING UNIT I~ R-1 ZONE, on property described
as: A parcel 65 feet by 110 feet NitFc a frontage of 65 feet on South
West Street and located on the souihwest corner of South West Street
and Fay Lane9 and further described as 405 South West Street. The pro-
perty is presently classified R-1, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
Mr. Harold Mack, a resident at 1312 South West ~atreet, appeared before
t4e Coamission and stated his position as follows: That the property to
the west had been developed to R-3 with the understandtng that a strip
of R-1, of which the sul~Ject property.is a part, would remain as zoned
to serve as a buffer for the R=1'development east of West Street; that
^ the suh~ect structure was constructed in direct violation of the Muni-
`• cipal Cade by the original owner of the property; and that a petition
of oppcsition signed by 19 property owners in the area has beer, submitted
to the Commissiono
N[rs. Ralph McFadden, owner of property located at ll.l2 Fay Lane, appear-
ed before the Commission and stated her position as followss That the I
occupants of the subJect dwelling unit have created frequent and pro- i
longed disturbances requiring frequent reports to the Anaheim Police !
Department; that to permit an R-2 use in an R-1 zone would constitute
an unfair priviledge to owners of the subJect property; and that a pe- '
tition of opposition has been submitted to the Commission containing
the signatures of 10 nearby apartment owners obJecting to the existing i
use because of the stipulated reasonso
Mr. James Henson, the applicant, was present and stated his position as
follows: That the present use causes no disturbance; that the existence
of apartments to the west is undesirable; and that the sub~ect dwelling
unit existea at the ti.me of purchase and was believed to be conforming.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo
Assistant City Attorney Joe Geisler informed the Commission that the mat- ~
ter had been investigatedo He stated that apparently the additional
living unit has existed approximately 2 to 2~ years, and that the first ~
ob~ection was registered approximately one year ago or 1} years after
construction. The Building Department has is~ued no building p~+rmits
for its constructiono He stated further that accord3.ng to information
obtained from the Police and Planning Depar±ments, ths original owner
rented the unit for a period prfor to the purchase of the property by
the applicant, that Mro Henson's statements were apparently correct,
and that it Nas occupied for a long time without any ob~eations.
Mr. Mack supplied informat#on regarding the background on the construc- ~
tion of the unit. He stated that a patio was constructed first,and then ~
gradually the other parts were added, walls, windows, doors, and finally ~
an address number. A concrete parking area is provided on the north side !
of the dwelling9 for which a building permit was obtained. I
Chairman Gauer addressed the audience and stated that thi~ case was an ~
example of people taking advantage when the neighbors are not aware of ~
what is intended, that it was only possible to have a well run city '
when the citizens take an interest in what is being done in their commun- ~
ity and make sure that proper attention is gfven to these matterse Ne
-6- ~
~ •
------------.,._..----.~_____~_.___~_
. .
, ------~- ~
,`.-'~I.._'__-- . ~ ~
. `~
~
f
I
i
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 17, 1960, CONTINUED:
VARIANCE N0. 1306 -~tated further that the petitioner had purchased the property in the
Continued existincj condition and that now the problem would have to be resolved
F,y the City~
Commissioner Mungall informed the Commission that at the time the area
was zoned,there was an agreement by the Commission and the Council
that the west side of the street would remain R-1 to serve as a buffer
between the R-3 on the west and the R-1 to the easto
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the
request for variance:
i
lo I'he original ownerrhad apparently converted and~or illegally estab-
lished a second dwelling unit at the rear of the sub~ect propertyo ~
2o The present owner apparently purchased the property believing the
second unit was a permitted useo ~
3o The sub~ect dwelling unit represents a gross violation of the Muni-
cipal Code generally and of the present zoning specifically as for- j
merly agreed upon by the Commission and the Councilo
4o Regardless of the illegal use the present conduct of occupants of
the sub~ect dwelling unit appear to constitute a nuisance to sur-
rounding property owners and residentso
5o Two petitions have been filed and verbal complaints recorded by
residents in the areao
Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution Noo 103, Series 1960-61, and
moved for its passage and adcptiony secondec' '~y Commissioner Morris,
to deny Variance No~ 1306 reyuest to contint,a use of existing second
dwelling unit in an R-1 zone, located ~t 405 South West Streeto
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERSa Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Morris, Mungall,
Summerso
NOESs CONLMISSIONERSs• Noneo
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allreda
VARIANCE NOa 1307 - PUBLIC HEARINGo PETITION submitted by SUNKIST HONI~S, 9741 Lincoln Ave-
nue, Anaheim, California, requesting permission to WAIVE FRONT AND REAR
YARD SETBACK RE4~IREMENTS ON TRACE N0~ 2767, property described ass A
parcel 665 feet by 1228 feet with a frontage of 665 feet on Sunkist
Street9 and located on the east side of Sunkist Street between La Palma
Avenue and Anaheim-Olive Road; its northwest corner being approximately
1290 feet south of the southeast cor~.er of La Palma Avenue and Sr-'•ist
Street, excepting an irregular shaped parcel with a frontage of 2a1 ft.
on Sunkist Street and an average depth of 237 ft~ and located or. the
east side of Sunkist Street; its northwest corner being approximately
1710 £eet south of the southaast corner of La Palma Avenue and Sunkist
Streeto The property is presently classified R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRIGUL-
TURALo
`
fulr. Jack Cochran9 authoriyed agent fos Sunkist Homes, appeared before i
the Commission and described the proposed development. f
i
No one appeared in opposition to the petitiano THE HEARING WAS CLOSED<
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the
request for variancea
1. Although the homes west nf Slankist Street have a minimum floor area
of 1525 square feet, the Council resolution approving this Tract No.
276? stipulated a minimum of 1350 square feet of floor areao {
20 .Requested yard waiver appears to be most critical on the No. 6062 i
floor plan which hab a 3 bedroom, 3 garage layout around a central
_ ~ _
---- ._._._ ... .
_ _ ~-.-..._----- -- ----..
~ ~._.___ . . ----
r :
,.
;.
. .
. ' • . ~ ~~'C ' .
. ~ ',~~j
~I ~ ~~~~.~•' .
MINU?ES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONy October 179 1960, CONTINllEDs
VARIANCE 1J0. 1307. - patioo In some of these cases the proposed rear yard is only 17
Continued feet. However, they have one 20 to 25 ft. side yard which would
appear to compensate for the shallow rear yard.
3o Although the request constitutes a waiver on practically the entire
tract, the over all development appears to be a good one and the
front yards which vary from 15 feet to 22 feet appear to be neces-
sary in all but a few cases, because of the proposed floor plans.
4o Lot Noo 56 and Lot Noo 63 did not meet the minimum side yard re-
quirement on a reverse corner loto Ample room is available, how-
ever, to make the necessary adjustmentso
5o No one appeared in opposition to the petitiono
Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution Noo 104, Series 1960-61, and
moved for its passage and adoption9 seconded by Commissioner Hapgood9
to grant Variance Noo 13079subject to the following conditions:
1. The completien of all improvements provided by Final Tract Noo 2767.
0
2. The provision of adequate side yards on Lots 56 and 63.
3. Development in accordance with plans presenteda
The foregoing conditions were recited at the Meeting and were found to
be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to.pre-
serve the safety and welfare of the Citizens of Anaheima
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes
AYES: COANNISSIONERSs Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux~ Morris9 Niungall, Summers.
NOESs COMMISSIONERSs Noneo
ABSENTs COMMISSIONER: Allred.
VARIANCE N0. 1308 - PUBLIC HEARINGo PETITION submitted by Marko E, Botich, 2134 Romrteya
Drive West, Anaheim, California, for permission to WAIVE REAR YARD SET-
BACK REQUIREN~NT TO PERMIT ENCROACHMHNT TO WITHIN FIVE FEET OF REAR YARA
P?OPERTY LINE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADDITION TO HOME, on property described
as: A parcel 60 feet by 100 feet with a frontage of 60 feet on Romneya
Drive and its northwest corner being 185 feet east of the southeast cor-
ner of Lotus Avenue and Romneya Drive and further described as 2134
Romneya Drive. The property is presently classified R-l9 SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIALo
The applicant was not presento
Mre and Mrs. Joseph Heater, residents on property located at the rear of
the sub3ect property, appeared before the Commission and stated their
• position as follows: That the existing rear yards are approximately 16
feet in depth at present, consequently, the propose~d construction would
constitute a fire hazard, and that any addition should pro~ect into the
front yard onlye
Commissioner Mungall suggested that the Pianning Department contact the
property owner to determine the feasibility of pro3ecting the addition
into the front~yard and that the Commission should hold the sub3ect
variance over until the next meeting to provide the applicant an addi-
tional opportunity to verbally present his petitione
It was moved by Cortunissioner Mungall, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux
and carried that Variance Noo 130B be continued until the meeting of
November 7, I960, and that the Planning Department contact the appli-
cant in respect to possible alteration of plans to pro3ect the addition
at the front of the resider~ceo,
-8-
e . O _ .i
' i
I '
. i ;i
,.~,r,W__ ..._ ,` .
~~ . ~ ,~
YINIT!'ES, CI?Y PLANNING CON9K7SSION, October 17, 1960, CONTINUEDt
SPECIAL t~ PER1dIT - PUBI,IC HEARING. PETITION submitted by DAVID S> COLLINS, 1077 West Ball ~
N0. 85 Road, Anaheim, Ca.lifornia, requesting permission to CONSiRUCT A PLANNED i
UNIT LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEV$LOPMENT, on property described ass A
parcel 588 feet by 752 feet with a frontage of 588 feet on Westmont ;
Drive and located on the north side of Westmont Drfve between Carleton
Avenue and Loaza Street; its southeast corner being approximately 150
feet west of the northwest corner of Westmont Drive and Carleton Avenue, ~
and further described as 1225 Westmont Drivee The property is presently ~
classif.ied R-0, RESIDENTIAL SUBURBANo
Mr. David Collins, the applicant, appeared before the Commission and in-
troduced Mre Lecn Ruderman, associate of Mra Collins. Mr. Ruderman brief-
ly outlined the proposed pro3ect and introduced Mro Alexander, the arch-
itect of t6e proposed development. Mro Alexander explained the design
and function theory upon which.the proposed development was based,as
ovtlined in the 3~page mimeographed manuscript entitled "Concepts of
'rlestmont Private Park Estates" which was filed with the Commission„ He
described the over aIl proposal and displayed plans and renderings of
the dwelling unit layouts. He also expressed the desire of the applicant
to alleviate,by redesigning the playground areas and other features, some
o£ the misapprehensions expressed by abutting property owners. He re-
viewed the questions and the two findings listed in the Plann3ng Depart-
ment Staff Report and answered all items in the affirmativeo
Chairman Gauer informed the Commission that a petition of opposition,
co~taining 51 signatures and stated reasons for opposition, had been
filed with the Commissiono
Interested parties appearing in protest before the Commission and stating
their position were as folla:•~s= Mr. Osborne Wheeler of 615 North Carle-
ton, Mro BeL. Copeland of 6~1 North Carleton, Dr. Whittier of 424 Wedge-
wood Drive, Dr. Stasbak of 537 Dwyer Drive, and Dr. Kott of 522 Dwyer
Drive. The bases of their complaints were as follows: The presented
renderings are inaccvrate; the proposed intensity of use falls far
short of the present R-0 requirements applicable to the property irt ques-
tion; the development, because of the corporate ownership, might acquire
±he appearance of co-op apartmentsy the proposed development will have
the appearance of multiple housing9 property values in the area would be
depreciated because of the proposed development; the proposed units
would have a value far below abutting dv~elling units; corporate main-
tenance of the area will be voluntary without public control on minimi~m
standards of maintenance; the proposed development, in essence, `_~ a
multiple family tract development.
Mr. Ruderr.~an, in rebuttal, emphasized F.H.Aa requirements for proper
maintenar~ce, and the park-like atmosphere which would be created by the
installation of undergraund utilities and the reduction of land area
neces~ary for street purposeso
Mr. Alexander, in rebuttal, conceded that the proposed density was above
existing densities of the surrounding areao and he pointed out the de-
sire of the developer to cooperate w3th surrounding property owners in
arriving at. a final plan for development, that the development cannot
be compared Nith a tract development, and that the appearance of the
development will be park-like and entirely desirable.
Dr. Kott, in final argument, stated his understanding of the innate de-
sirability of the development, but criticized its development on the
sub3ect property, and suggested that the development be situated else-
where on a more suitable site. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commissio~n found and determined the following facts regarding the
request for special use permits
1. The basic land use is not compatible with the surrounding R-0,
, _9_
i
``~___ -------.____ _ ___----
J
~`
i, ) ~ ~
~
MINUTES, CITY PIANNING CON~NISSION9 October 179 1960, CONTINUED:
SPECIAL USE PERMIT - Residential-Suburban area.
No. 85. Continued 2. The over all density is not consistent with that of the su.rrounding
areae
3o ihe size and value of the individual dwelling units are not c~:n-
parable r~ith t~ose in the suxrounding areaa
4o The nature of design and const-ructio~. is not consistent with that
of the surrounding areaa
5e The proposed development would not appear to appreciate or maintain
established property values in the 9eneral area as would a standard
single fami.ly hame developmento
6. Such a development would appear most appropriate and desirable in
an area of lower property values.
7, A petition has been filed and verbal complaints recorded by resi-
dents in the areao
Cominissioner Marcoux offered Resolution Noo 105, Series 1960-619 and
moved for its passa9e and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Morris9
to deny Special Use Permit No, 85 request to construct a planned unit
low density residential developmen# on the property located at 1225
Westmont Drive<
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votet
AYES: COHIMISSIONERSs Gauer, Hapgood9 Marcoux, Morris, Munga119
Stimmers o
. NOES: CpNa1ISSI0NERS: Noneo
ABSENTs COt~IIISSIONERSs Allredo
SPECIAL USE PERMIT - PIJBLIC HEARINGo PETI'iION submitted by LANDS AND BUILDING, INCORPORATED9
N0. 86 2185 East 17th Street, Los Angeles 23, California, or~ property described
ass A parcel 100 feet by 320 feet with a frontage of 320 feet on To-
panga Drive and located on the west side of Topanga Drive between Lin-
coln Avenue and Delmonte Drive; its northeast corner being approximate-
ly 150 fc2t south of the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Topanga
Driveo Request to OPERATL• COIN OPERATED PORTABLE BOWLING MACHINES IN CON-
JUNC?'ION WITH A SNACK BAR AND SODA FOUNTAINo The property is presently
classified C-1, NEIGHBORe1C`JD COMN~RCIAL.
Mro Green, spokesman for the ~etitioners, explained the natur~ of the
proposed use and the locationo He stated that the sub3ect property
described in the Preliminary Title Report was in excess of the parcel
proposed for the sub3e~t permit, and describes the entire shopping
center where the proposed use is to be located.
No one appeared in opposition to the petitiono THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the
r~quest for special use permit=
1. The subiect property is presently zoned C-lo
2. The propos~il development appears to be a proper use for the sub3ect
property.
~ 3. No one appeared in opposition to the petition.
Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution Noe 106, Series 1960-61, and
moved for its passage and adoption9 seconded by Commissioaer Hapgood,
to grant Special Use Permit No. 969 sub~ect to the condition that the
development be completed in accordance with the plans presentede
?he foregoing condition was recited at the Meeting and was found to be
a necessary prer~quisite to the use of the property in order to pre-
serve the safety and welfare of the Citizens of Anaheim.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
- 10 -
r
. ~
V ~ ~.
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Oc+pber 17, 19t~, C02JTINUEDs
SPEC.,4L USE PERMTT - AYES: (;ONOuIISSIONERS: Gauer, Hap~ood, Marcoux, Morris, Mungall, 1
N0. 86. Continued Summerse i
NOESs COMMISSIONERS: Nonea ~
ABSENT:COMMISSIONERS: Allredo
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARINGo PETITION submitted by IA~IINIL CORPORATION, 705: Mon-
N0. F-60-61-36 roe, Buena Park, California; WILLIAM P. MASON, 2966 Lincoln Avenue,
Anaheim, Authorized Agent; requesting that the property described as=
A parcel 330 feet with a frontage of 330 feet on Lincoln Avenue and
located c..i the south side of Lincoln Avenue between Knott and Western
Avenues; its ,:orthwest corner beinq approximately 950 fee: east of
the southeast corner of Knott and Lincoln Avenues, and further des-
cribed as 3340 West Lincoln Avenue9 be reclassi~fied from R-A, RESI-
DENTIAi n.r'•F_TiiULTURAL to C-39 HEAVY COMMERCIAL.
Mr. William Mason, authorized agent of the Locknil Corporation, des-
cribed the proposed developmento He explained that +.;~ ~,roposed cof-
fee shop and cocktail lounge will be separated, inc`.dental to the
primary use of the building, and accessable only frrm the bowling
area.
Mr. W. C, Wykoff, a representative of ihe Locknil Corporation, dis-
cussed the landscaping, setback, and parking provisions of the de-
velopment. He displayed a rendering of the proposed development
which showed the proposed structure in addition to the areas reserved
for landscaping and parking facilitie:.
No one appeared in opposition to the petition. ?HE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commission founc; and determined the following facts regarding the
request for special use permits
1. The petitioner requests reclassification from R-A to C-3 for de-
velopmeht of a bowling alley with incidental coffee shop and cock-
tail loun~e.
2. Adequate provision is made for ~arking.
3. The proposed development plans provide for a 25 ft. 13ndscaped
area. The required setback and landscaped area along this portion
of Lincoln Av2hue is 35 feet.
4. The proposed coffee shop and cocktail lounge will be separated~
incidental to the primary use of the building, and accessible only
from the bowling area.
5. The surrounding area has been developing with commercial uses.
6. No one appeared in opposition to the petition.
Commissioner Summers offered Resolution No. 107, Series 1960-61, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux,
recommending to t.he City Council that Reclass;fication No. F-60-61-36
fox C-3, HEAVY CONaIERCIAL, be approved subject to the fol3owing condi-
tions:
1. Development in accordance with plans presented with the exception
that a minimum setback of 35 feet from planned highway right-of-
way line of Lincoln Avenue be provided.
2o Preparation of street improvement plans snd the installation of
all improvements in accordance with appraved standard plans on
file in the office of the City Engineer.
3. Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes.
4. 90 day time limitation on Items 2 and 3.
xhe foregoing conditions were recited at the Meeting and were found to
be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to pre-
- 11 -
. .. ' . ~ ' .. . . ! ~ _ 'T --_~_~__ ,i~ . • .
~ ~ ~`i
MuVUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQ*!; October 17, 1960y CONTIIvUEDs
RECLASSIFICATION - serve the safety and welfare of the Citizens of Anaheim.
N0. F.60-61-36, "
Continued On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote=
AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Hapgcod, Mercoux, Morris, Mungell,
Summers. '
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSs Allrede
RECLASSIFICAT?ON - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION submitted by ROBERT R. and i~MRY M. PITCHHR,
N0. F-60-61-'J7 4642 Woodhaven Drive, Yorba Linda, California, as Owners; GEORGE Co
ROSE, 222 West Ball Road, Anaheim, California, Authorized Agent, re-
c, that the property described as: A parcel 56 feet by 110 feet
questin
,
with a frontage of 56 feet on Harbor Boulevard and loc2ted on the
west side of Harbor Boulevard between South and Water Streets; ite
northeast corner being appsoximately 220 feet south of the southwest
corner of Water Street and Harbor Boulevard9 and further described
as 621 South Harbor Boulevard, be reclassified from R-1, SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL to l:-1, NEIGHBORHOOD CONUAERCIAL.
Mr. Georye Rose, authorized agent for the petitioners, appeared before I
the Commission and stated his position ay follows: That he was re-
questing the C-1 zoning to establish a public accountant°s office, that
he definitely did not want a variance, that no remodeling was required,
and that the existing residence was only 10 ~~ears old. 'i
Dr. Kott, ad~acent property owner, appeared before the Commission
and stated his position as follows: That he was in favor of the re-
quested reclassification to C-lso long as the removal of the existing
residence and the construction of new offices with adequate parking be
required as was required by the Commission in the granting of his pe-
tion for Reclassification No. 59-60-210 •
Commissioner Mungall stated that the Commission had denied a variance
on the sub~ect property to establish an interior decorator's shopo
Chairman Gauer read a letter submitted by the Anaheim Board c+` Real-
tor's approving of the reclassificationo THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Assistant City Attorney Joe Geisler advised the Commission that the
subject reclassification would be establishing a zone change and
could not be considered as a varianceo He stat~ld that this was the
only opportunity that 'the'Commission would have to control the devel-
opment of the property and to provide a suitable transition to commer-
cial use.The Cortunission slioul'd,by deed restriction, either require the
removal or convarsion of'the'structure,or that plans be furnished be-
fore the reclassification is effectede
The Commissioners explained their desire to permit use of the property
for commercial business and professional use, honrever, they did not
consider it desirable for the existfng structure to retain the resi-
dential appearance; and eince the applicant did not desire a variance
for the proposed use, reclassification of the property 4o C-1 would
provide no means of restriction on the type of use or the nature of
the structure.
The Coramission found and determined the following facts regarding the
request for reclassification to C-1:
1. The petitioner requeets a reclassification from R-1 to C-1 to util-
ize existing residence for professio~al officeso
~ 2. Petitioner does not desire a variance and does not ~ntend to remo-
~ del the dwelling if granted the reclassification to C-lo
- 12 -
--- --..._ _._.__.._~__,-..____.---------_.________.~,._..._~.,
`~i , _
~ i
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMAiiISSION, October 17, 1960, CONTIDIU~~Ds
RECLASSIFICATION - 3. ,A reclas53fication to C-1 would permit a number of uses not suitable
NOe F-60-61-37 for'the ezisting resideqtial structure and not compatible with the
Continued surrounding areao
4e A recent Reclassification Noa F-59-60-21 was grant~d for a medical
, center on nearby prop.erty with a deed restriction prohibiting the
use of an existing dwalling for residential purposeso
5o If sub3ect reclassification were granted it would provide the only
apportunity to reqaire th~: xemoval or alteration of the ~.cisting
resider.tial structure: This could be done by deed restriction or
by stipulation that ~he olans.for construction or alteration tie sub-
mitted pxior to establishment of the'.reclassification. Since the
applicant'does not intend to alter building nor does he have any
iiesire for a variance, the Commission finds it impossible to recom-
mend approval of the reclassification. This is done in view of
the hasic desire of'the Commiss3on to permit the use of the sub~ect
property for professional use~
6. M ad3acent property owner appeared in opposition to said reclasai-
fication if findings similar to those attached to his Reclassifica-
tion Noo F-59-60-21 to C-1 were not also imposed on sub3ect reclass-
ification, namely, removal of an existing residence~
Commissioner Mungall offer2d Resolution Noa 108, Series 1960-61, and
moved for its passage and adoption9 seconded by Commissioner Hapgood9
to deny Reclassification No. F-60-61-37 request for C-1 for the pro-
perty located at 621 South Harbor Boulevard~
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYESs COMMISSIONERSs Gauer, Hapgood9 Marcoux, Morris, Mungall,
Summerso
NOESc COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
ABSENTs CON~NISSIONERSs Allredo •
TENTATIVE MAP OF - A Tentative Map of Tract Noe 3970 was submi•t{ed to the Commission.
TRACE NOe3970 SUBDIVIDER: CAL~T.4TE AGENCIES9 INCe, 217 South "D" Street, Tustin9
Californiao The tract is located at Santa Ana and Pythias Streets and
contains 49 proposed M-1 lots.
N[r. Bill Brown and Mro Nicholas Barletta, representatives of Calstate
Agencies, Inc., appeared ~iefore the Commission and explained the in-
tended development of the sub~ect Tentative Tracto
The Commission discussed the use limitation placed upon the sub~ect
property by Special Uss Permit Noo 50 and the requirement that a Spe-
cial Use Permit must be aQplied for on each use that might be develop-
ed in the tract.
No one appeared in opposition to the tentative tract. THE HEARING WAS
CIASED.
The Commission found and determir.ed the following facts regarding the
sub~ect Tentative ~i_acts
1. M-1 zoning presently exists on this property.
2. This is an industrial subdivision that backs up to the new elemen-
tary school on the east and a single family tract on the southo
3. Pertinent plot and building plans which meet the requirements of
the office of the City Engineer must be submitted to the City Coun-
cil for reviewe
4. The subdivider intends to develop this traat as an industrial park,
each parcel or set of parcels to be under separate owrtership, and
- 13 -
~~U ~. .. . . - ' . .
MINUI'ES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 17, 1960, CONTINUED:
TENTATIVE MAP OF - the Commission was assured that every safegvard for proper develop-
TRACT N0.3970 ment would be volun~tarily imposedo
Continued 5e No one appeared in opposition to the Tentative Tracto
It was moved by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Mungall,
and carried, that Tentative Map of Tract Non 3970 be approved, subject
to the following conditionss
1. Installation of all improvements, masonry walls, landscaping,
lighting, and surfacing of open areas not utilized by buildingso
2o Provision for adequate drainage facilities in accordance with the
requirements o£ the City Engineero
3o Suhmissian of pertinent plot and buildfng plans to the City Council
for seview, which are in accordance with the requirements of the
City Engineero
4o Requirement that ghould this subdivision be developed as more than
' one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in
tentative form for approval.
5o The limitation to u~:s specified in Special Use Permit No. 50.
PUBLIC HEARING - Amendment to Code, Article IX, Chapter 2, Section 9200.13, "Unclassi-
fied Usesa" This amendment was considered at previous Planning Com-
mission Meetings and was adopted at the Special Meeting on October 7,
1960 by Resolution No. 97, Series 1960-610
CORRESPOt1DENCE - Item is BUENA PARK ZONE :HANGE Z-180:
.A letter from the City of Buena Park was read to the Commission re-
questing recommendations regarding Zone Change Z-180 from single family
to multiple famfly on proposed Grand Annexation Noo 2 to the City of
Buena Park. It was pointed out that the subject property abutts single
family residential use to the south located in the City of Anaheim and
is in close proximity to property pending for reclassification to R-3
in the City of Anaheimo Sub3ect Heclassification Noo F-60-61-19 was
considered by the Anaheim Planning Commission for a period of forty
iiays without achieving a ma3ority vote for approval or denialo Conse-
qvently, sub~ect reclassification has been transmitted to the Ci{y
Council for action to approve or disapprove.
It was moved by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Cortunissioner Summers,
and carried, that the Planning Department trar.smit to the City of
Buena Park a recommendation that the proposed multiple family devel~p-
ment be limited to one story within a distance of 150 feet from the
southern boundary of sub~ect property, because it abutts R-1 sing:e
family residentiai at :;at point. Furihermore, subject letter should
explain the actioi~ taken by the Anaheim Planning Cortunission on Reclass-
ification Noe F-60-61-19, now pending before the Anaheim City Council.
Item 2= CENTRALIA SCHOOL DISTRICT:
Acting Planning Director Reese read a letter to the Cortunission from
the Centralia School District requesting approval for the acquisit3on
of an additional 2 acres, approximately, of land ad~acent to the Cen-
tralia School to be added as playgroundo
It was moved by Commissioner Mungall, seconded by Commissioner [iapgood
and carried, that the Acting Planning Director transmit a letter of
approval of the acquisition by the Centralia School Districtd
I{em 3s ORANGE COUNTY TENTATIVE TRACT NOo 3959s
Acting Planning Director Reese requested that the Commission amend
- 14 -•
a
~ ~ ~
. . T .I_ _ .... '.I~_ . . . . ...~ . .
~ ' ~ ~ .,. ~•~ ~ .
~
i ~-~NUI'ES~ Ciyy pIANN
ING COMMISSION9 October 17, 1960, CONTINUED:
~ ~p~gppN~(~ - their letter of October 5, 1960 to the Orange Coun~ty Planning Commis-
tive Tract Noo 3959, to delete re-
T
t
t
(Continued) a
en
y
sion reaaxding Orange Coun
Tract No.3959 ference to lot sizeo
' It was moved by Morris, seconded by Hapgood and carried, that ^cting
Orange County
th
t
e
o
Planning Director Reese transmit an amended letter
. Planning Commission as instructedo
DISCUSSI~I - Assistant City Attarney Joe Geisler informed the Commissioners that an
roviding a compensation of
l Code
ici
u
~
, p
pa
n
Anaheim M
amendment to the
00 for each meeting attended'not to exceed one meeting per week,
$10
.
was scheduled for its second hearing before the City Council, and that
it would be in effect within 30 days or by November 14, 19600
~IN~R - Acting Flanning Director Rees~ informed the Commissioners that a meet-
at 1:00 P.M.,
1960
•tober 28
O
f
,
,
c
or
ing had been tentatively scheduled
the Western Real Estate Research Company, at which time the re-
with
.
sults of the survey conducted for the proposed civic center would be
outlined and discussed. ,
gg~~~T
- - Commissioner Hapgood requested that the City Council be requested to
services for the months of June,
hi
f
~ s
or
authorize the back payment
and August, 19609 during the period when he attended the meet-
July
,
ings but was technically not a member because his term had expired.
p~p~ - The Meeting was ad~ourned at 6s00 0°Clock PoMo
Respectfully submitted,
~ i ~ i
~~ 4
RICHpRD ESE, Secretary ~~!
- 15 -
~ -----~------ ---------._ --- __..._ ---- - •-- - ---