Minutes-PC 1960/12/05~~
~
~~
~
i
~
~
REGULAR HIEEYING
~
a ~1
PRESENr
, ~ ABSHNT
r~ '
MINU'.
e5
PR~SHNT
REGULAF MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
City Hail
Anaheim, Celifornia
December 5, 1960
•~
1
- A Regular Meeting of the City Planning Commission was called to order
at 2s05 P.M., December 5, 19609 by Chairman Gauer, a quorum being
precent.
- CHAIC;MAN GAUERt COMMIBSIONHRSs Marcoux, Morris, Mungall, and Summers.
Comiaissionar Hapgood entered the meeting at 2e30 P.M.
- CQL~!iTSSIONBRSe Allred.
- The Minutes of the Meeting of November 21, 1960 were approved as sub-
mitted.
- Acting Planning Director -. fiichard Reese
Planning Technician - N~artin Kreidt
Assistant City Attorney - Joe Geisler
Planning Department Secretary - Jean Page
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC EiHARING. PETITZOi~( submitted by JOHN M., PAUL F., and CLYDE B.
N0. 60-61-42 SCHLUND, 2036 West Street, Anaheim, California, Ownersj TIETZ CON-
STRUGTION COI~IPANY9 119Q0 Gilbert `itreet9 Garden Grove, California,
Authorized Ag2nt9 requesting that the property described ass A parcel
630 feet by 130~ fest with a frontage of 630 feet on,West Street and
located on the northeast coxner of West Street and Orangewood Avenue
be reclassified from 8-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL to R-3, MULTIPI.H
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
Sub~ect petition was continued from the meeting of Navember 79 19b0
to provide the TIETZ CONSTRUCTION C)MPANY an opportunity to prepare
and present plans for the ultimate development of the entire property
owned b~~ the petitioner including area north of the subJect property.
Mr. Richard Guthexy, authorized agent for Tietz Construction Company9
appeared before the Commission, presented a prcposed plan of develop-
ment for the Harbor Boulevard - Katalla Avenue acreage owned by Tietz
Construction Company, and described the pro~ected development of this
2•:~nd together with its possible influence or, the proposed R-3 develop-
mer~t of the sub~ect property. He presented and filed with the Commis-
sion a proposed general plan dated July, 1960. ,
Chairman Gauer reopened the public haaring.
Mrs. Robert Doty, 2043 Eugene Street, appeared before the Commission
and again expressed her opposition to the commercial developmer,i9and
stated her preference for one, rather than two, story multiple family
ianits.
Mrs. Waltar Jameson' 743 Eugene Place, appeared before che Commission,
made reference to the November 79 1960 meoting and discussion relative
to the possible buffer characteristics of the proposed ur,:'_tiple family
development, ac~d inquired whether the property to the north of her
tract may be ~'^~eloped for multiple family residential to provide a
buffer ~:~neen her tract and the proposed commercial deve:o~m~lnt, as
outlis;ed on the plan submitted to the Commission. She also indicated
her preference for single story, rather than two story, multiple family
units as proposed for censtruction on the ssub3ect property. THE f?EARING
WAS CLOSFD.
The Commission found and drtermined the foll.owing facts regardinq the
Petition for Reclassifications
1. Petitioner requests reclassification of sub~ect property from R-A
to R-3 in order to permit development oi a mult~ple iamily res:~:'~n-
tial tract.
- 1 -
;;s. - --~r----
-r ~
~ ~ ~
~
~
I
W[INUIES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 5, 1960, Continued:
RECLA~;SIFICATION - 2. Sub~ect property abuts R-A an the north and R-1 on tha ~~ast9 on
N0. 60-61-42 the south across Orangewood Avenue, and on the west acrot~s West
Continued Street.
~~
i
3. Although sub~ect paoperty is surrounded on east~ west and south
sides by single family residential development, its northern bound-
ary abute the Disneyland a•rea as outlined or.. the General Plan.
This area immediately north of tihe subject property is owned, in
part, by the petitioner and is proposed for a comprehensive coromer-
cial development in co;l~unction with the Disneyland complex. Said
proposal was datailed to the Commission and outlined in a general
plan dated July, 1960 and,submitted to the Commission on December
5, 19b0.
4. Subject property is separated from existing sin9le farrily residen-
tial development on the west and south sfdes by two ~econdary high-
ways, and abuts a single family residential developme~t on the
east. I'he propcsed construction, however, is limited to one story
within 150 feet .f these single family residential areas. Further-
more the proposed development will eonstitute a buffer between the
existing single family residencas and the proposed coc~mercial de-
velopment north of the sub~ect properf.y.
5. Two letters of opposition, a petition of opposition containing 41
signatures, in addition to vsrbal opposition presented at the hear-
ings on Novennber 7, 1960 and December 5, 1960,were recorded againat
the sub~ect Petition for Reclassification.
Commissioner Morris offexed Resolution No. 1299 Series 1960-61, and
meved for it~ passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Marcouxy
recommending to the ~~ity ~ouncil that Reclaseification No. 60-61-42
for R-3, MULTIPLE FP,MILY RESIDENTIAL, be appr.uved subject to the fol-
lawing conditions=
lo Record Subdivision Map' or dedication of •45 feet from centerline
of Orangewood Avenue (30 feet existing), dedication of 57 feet
from centerline of West Street (30 feet exist~ng), preparation of
street improvement plans for and installatian of all improvements
on West Street in accordance with approved standard plans on file
in the affice of the City Enginser, installation of sidewalks on
v'rangeNOOd Avenue, and payment of 52.00 per front foat for street
ligh~ing purposes on Orangewaod Avenue and West Streete
2. Filing of standard R-3, Mcltiple Family Residpntial, deed restric-
tions.
3. Time limitation of 180 days on Item Nos. 1 and 2.
4o DevElopment of sub~ec~ property substantially in accordance wlth
the descriptive and graphic plans outlined in the brochure9 except
where alterations have been stipu:ated by other conditions con-
tained herein or effectuated by subsequent Co~nission action on
Tentat~ve Map of Tract No. 4001, and in accordance x'.th Code reqraixe-
ments.
5o Provision of a 6 foot masonry wall on the north and east property
lines~ and on the south and west sides of the sub~ect property 5
feet from the property 'j.ne, except a4 the two points of a:;cess
provided by the street and alley tc Orangewo~d Avenue acid the single
point of access provided by the street to West S~,reet, as shown on
Tentative Tract 4001~revised and accepted on December 5, 196J.
The foregoing conditions were recited at the meetir~g and were found to
be a necessa:y prerequisite to the vse 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 votel
~ z ~
I
_ ~_~~----...~.T_.,._ ,..,
~ ~ '~
~
~
!
~
MINVfES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ December 5, 1960, Continueda '
RECLASSIFICATIO~~ - AYESt- CO~ANI5SIONERSa Gauer' Mercoux' Morris, hiungall' Summers. I
N0. 60-61-42
Continued NOES~ COMMISSIONERSi None. ,
ABSEtvi: COMMISSIONERSo Allred~ Hapgood.
• ~ TENTATIVE MAP OF - A Tentative Map ~f Tract No. 4001 was prasented to the Commission. !
;~ TRAG7 N0. 4001 The 3ubdivider is 9'IETZ.CONSTRUCfION COMPAIvY, 11900 Gilbert Street,
i..~ Garden Gruve, Cal3foxnia. The tract is located on the northeast ~
; corner of West ~i_eet and Orangewood Avenue and contains 55 proposed !
(; R-3, Multiple Sar,aly Res3dentiai, lots.
The sub~ect T~nL.tive Map of Tract No: 4001 was continued from the ~
~~ meeting of Nnvember. 7, 1550 in can~e~;:iian with Petition for Reclassi- j
fication No. 60-61-4~2.
Mr. Richard Guthery, autho•ri2ed agent for Tietz Construction Company,
appEar~d before the Comm'ssion, described the revieions which have y
been made to Tentatiue Map of Tract No. 4001 and stated their willing- ;
ness to cul-de-sac the north-south streets at the northern tract '
boundary to comply with the Interdepartnental Committee recommendations. ~
. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding
Tentative Map of ?ract No. 4001~
1. S~bJect tract is located on the northeast quadrant of the intersec-
tion of West Street and Orangewood Avenue and contains 55 proposed
R-3, Multiple Family Residential, lots.
' 2. Sub~ecttract was drawn September 23, 1960 and subsequently amended
by the subdivider, received by and filed with the Commission on
~ecember 5, 1960.
3. Subject tract is eubmitted in con~unction with Reclassifitation No.
60-61-4~:.
4. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 129, Series 1960-61,
recommendin9 to the City Council approval of Petition for Reclassi-
fication No. 60-61-42 for a chaage of zone fram R-A, Residential
Agricultural, to R-3, Multiple Family Residential.
5. No one appeared in opposition to the proposed layout of the tract
as amended.
Commissioner Morris offered a motion' seconded by Commissioner Mungall
and carried, that Tentative Tract No. 40Q1 be approved subject to the
following conditionsi
1. The development of a minimum street grade of.20 percent.
2. The provision of a 20 foot east-west alley-along the north side of
Lot No. 1~ extending from the north-south alley to the first street
east of and parallel to Wes} Street.
3. The provision of cul-de-sacs Qn the north-south stxeets at the
north tract boundary.
4. SuLm3ssion of pertinent plot and building plans to the City Counoil
for review.
5. Requirement that should this subdivision be developed as more than
one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in
tentative form for approval.
7he foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were fovnd to
be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the propsrty in order •to pre-
serve the safety and welfare of the citizens of Anaheim.
-3-
_~ _Y,_~
__ . _._..
. _ y.~
n
. ~: , ~ •
~ ..~
/~
~
~
I
MINUTES, CITY PLANNI~:G COMMISSION, :~ecember 5, 1960, Continued:
~
i
~
!
o VARIANCE N0. 1314 - PUBLIC FIEAAING. PETI'iION submitted by DONALD E. REA, et a19 305
East 17th. Street~ Santa Ana9 California~ Recorded Owner, for permis-
sion to ESTABLISH VARIQUS USE3. PERMITTED IN THE C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COM-
, MERCIAL,.C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, and C-3, HEAVY COMMERCIAL, ZONES, on
' property descriY~ed as~ A par.cal 486 feet b.y 635 feet with a frontage
of 486 feet an Kate•lla Avenua aad located on the north side of Katella
Avenue between Harhor Boulevard and Haster Street; its southwest cor-
ner being.approximately 775 faet east o; the nurtheast corner of Har-
bor Bnulevard apd Katella Avenue and further described as 317-409
West Katella Av~rnie. The property is presently classified R-Ay RESI-
DENTIAL AG@IQULTl1RAI..•
Mr. John.K,ent., autborized agent for the petitioner appeared before the
Commission~ revipwed.the background uf the sub~ect Petition for Vari-
ance, and explained tha~ sinc~e the sub3ect property was in the Disney-
land area and cnulsi not be razoned, the subsequent limitation on de-
velopment resulted in a hardship whiqh the petitioner was attempting
to alleviate by abtaining a variance permitting him to utilize the
_ property for a variety of commercial purposes.
The Ccmmission discussed with the authorized agent and the petitioner
the nature of the pr.oposed variance, and the intention of the petition-
er to request a large number of uses, which are contained fn the pro-
posed C-9 Zone of the proposed 1959 Zoning Ordinance, with the idea
that the Commission could delete those which were considered incompa-
tible and provide the petitioner a list of uses which could be im-
plemented on the sub~ect p*oper~ty. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding
sub~ect Petition for Variancei
1. Petitioner requests a variance from Code, Section 18.16.010, which
stipulates permissable uses of R-A, Residential Agricultural, zones
to permit use of sub~ect property for any C-1, Neighborhood Commer-
cial' use for bars, cafes, and restaurants with danci.ng and enter-
tainment, for studios except motion picture, for television broad-
casting studios, and for motels and auto courts.
2. Variance~No. 1269 was granted by the Planning Commiseion to use
the subJect property for a high-rise regional office building com-
plex containing offices and shops. No action was taken by the
City Conncil following the resubmission and approval, on Septem-
ber 27, 1960, of a revised plot plan.
3. Sub3ect Petition for Var.:ance is requested for the entire seven
acre parcel appruved under Variance No. 1269, although floor and
elevation plans have only been submitted for one building ehown
on the plot plan which was approved by the City Council. Public
welfare and established policy requires that the petitioner supply
floor.and elevation plans for development of the subject property
if he desires a var3ance on the entire parcel.
4. Subject property, as a parti of the Disneyland complex, was ori9ln-
ally inten6ed as a part of the ~-9 zone of the proposed 1959 Zon-
ing Ordinance, and as such, approval of the sub~ect petition would
be inconeistent with the proposed ordinance and previous Commission
action. An analysis by the petitioner of the uses permitted in the
proposed C-9 zone fn cooperation with the City Attorney's office
and the Planning Department, for the purpose of selecting uses de-
sirable to the petitioner, wouid provide a basis for properly ad-
Judicating the sub~ect petition.
5. No one appeared in opposition to the petition.
Commissioner Marcoux offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sum-
mers and carried, that the case be continued until the meeting of De-
cember 19, 1960 to provide the petitioner an opportunity to study the
uses permitted in the C-9 Section of the Code of the proposed 1959
Zoning Ordinance and select those uses he might consider desirable for
sub~'ect property in cooperation with the City Attorney's office and the
Planning Department.
. ~.. ~.-~..---• ~--- ---_-__-____ ,
_ ._. _._ _.
~` ~ ~ ~
riII~iUfES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 5, 1960, Continuedi
VARIANCE N0. 1315 - PUBLIC HEARING. P~TITION submitted by GLEN E. and JANE H. SIRE, 1170
Chateau Avenue~ Anaheim9 California~ Recorded Owners9 for permission
to WAIVE.MINTMUM REAR YARD SET$ACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW ENCROACHMENT
TO WITHIN 18 FEET OF REAR PROPERTY LINE, on pxoperty desc:ibed as~ A
parcel 57 feet by 110 feet with a frontage of.57 feet on Chateau Aye-
nue between Pepper and Walnut Streets~ its northeast corr~ar being
approximately 60 feet westerly of the southwesterly corner of Pepper
Street and Chateau Avenue and further described as 1170 Chateau Ave-
nue. The property i.s presently classified R-1, SINGLE FAMILY RESI-
DENTIAL. . .
Mr. Hall~ contractor for the petitioners, appeared before the Commis-
sion.and verifiad the informati.on contained in the Petition for
Varianca.
THE..HEARING WAS CI.DSED.
The Cocuaission found and determined the following facts regarding the
subject Patition for Variancei
1. Petitioners request a variance from Code,Section 18.24.030 (3),
which requires for sub~ect property a 25 foot rear yard, but
which presently has a 36 foat rear yard, to permit encroachment
of 7.feet into requirad rear yard in order to construct an addi-
tion to an existing residence.
2. The proposed addition would constitute an extension of the exist-
ing residence to within 18 feet of the rear property line and
would occupy 7 percerit '. of the required rear yard.
3. No one appearod in opposition to the Petition for Variance.
.~
(
Commissioner Marcota: offered Resolution No. 130, Series 1960-61, and
moved for its pasaage and adoption, seconded hy Commissioner Mungall,
to grant Variance No. 1315, sub3ect to the following conditione
1. Development shall be substantially in accardance with plans pre- ~
sented. i.
The foregoing condition was recited at the meeting and was found to
be a necessary prerequisite to the uee of the nroperty in order to pre-
serve the safety and welfare of the citizens o~ Anaheim.
On roll call the foregeing resolution was passed by the following vote~
AYES: COMMISSIG:IERSs Gauer, Marcoux, Morris, Mungall, Surtuners.
NOESe COMMISSIONERSe None.
ABSENT~ COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Hapgood.
COFIDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION submitted by WEST ANAHEIM h7ETHODIST CHURCH,
PERMIT N0. 9d 2045 West Ball Road, Anaheim~ California' Recorded Owner, for permis-
sion to CONDUCf GROUP MEETINGS IN A MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
STRiJGTURE, on property-described as~ A parcel 70 feet by 111 feet
with a frontage of 70 feet on Juno Place and located on the north side
of Juno Place between Empire and l,gate Streets; its southwest corner
being approximately 311 fee2 east of the northeast corner of Empire
Street and Juno Place, and further described as 2027 West Juno Place.
No one appeared to represent the petitioners. No one appeared in
opposition to the Petition for Conditional Use Permit. THE HEARING
YIAS CLOSED.
Ihe Co~ission discussed the requested use, the parking facilities,
the amerghip of and deed restrictions on sub~ect and surrounding pro-
perty, and tho absence of the petitioners and other interested persons.
- 5 -
~
:~
~ - --- ~---- __
~ ~ •
~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNIPiG COF~niISSION, December 5, 1%0, Contit~ued=
~
CONDITIONAL USE - Commissioner Hapgocd offered a motion, secanded by Commissioner Mun-
PERMIT' N0. 94 gall and carried, that Conditional Use Permit No. 94 be continued
Continued untfl the meeting of December 19, 1960 to provids the petitioners an
additional oppoxtunity to verbally present their request to the Com-
mSssion.
RECLASSIFICATIJN - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION submitted by EU1{ER and DORA KAMMEL9 et al,
N0.60-61-44 907 South Magm~lia Avenue, Maheim, California, Recorded Owners!
ROBHRT W. McCARTER, 2569 West ball Road, Anaheim, Caiifornia, Author-
ized Agent, requesting that 2he property described ast A parcel lo-
cated ca the west.side of N~,gnolia Avehue between Ball Road and Rome
Avenue, and further describ~~d as Lots 124-141 of Tract No. 1951, be
reclassified from.R-1, SINCT.B FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, to C-1, NEIGHBOR-
HOOD COMNIERCIAL.
The general background af sub~ectPetition for Reclassification,which ~
was contained in a department study requested by the City Council,
was presented to the Commission. i
Mr. Elmer Kammel, one of the owners of sub~ect property, appeared ~
before the Commission and explairued that the subJect property was no }
longer desirable because of its ]:cation on an arterial highway, and T
the solution to the problem was offered by the sub~ect reclassifica- ~
tion. ~
Mrs. Janeky, 2579 West Rome Avenue, appeared before the Commissioh ~
and stated that the re-zoning of sub~ect properties to commercial 1
use would depreciate the values of property on the east side of Mag-
nolia Avenue which face the sub3ect propeities, and that the area is ~
not needed for additional commercial use.
i
Mrs. Berglin, 2569 West Rome Avenue, appeared before ~he Commission R
and stated that in her opinion there were no residents in the are~ j
surrounding subject property that were in fsvor of the proposed re- '
classification. ~ ' ~
Chairman Gauer requested that the rsmainder of the department study j
be presented to the Commiasion for the benefit of the interested !
parties present at the hearing. The study prepared by the Planning j
Department was reviewed. a
The Commission discussed with Acting Planning Director Richard Reese
and the s~esidents from the area present at the hearing, variove as-
pects of the department study., a number of problems related .thereto,
and emphasized the need for adequate time allowance to consider t~e
Petition for Reclassification in view of the procedent it would es- ~
tablish for numerous other areas in the city that are faced with ai-
milar environmental pra6lems. THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDa
,
Commissioner Morris offered a motion, seconded by Cortunissioner Mungall
and carried, that Petition for Reclassifi'cation No. 60-61-44 be.con-
tinued until the meeting'of January 3' 1961 to provide all interested
• parties an opportunity to deliberate upon the proposed reclassifica- ~
tion, the department etudy requested by the City Council, and the
various aspects of the problem and possible solutions which have been
discussed at this ir!itial heariny. ~ '
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITIODI submitted by MARGUERITE BAYTOS, Will-Harb
N0. 60-61-45 Corporation, Recorded Owner; CARLSON-MIDDLEHROOK-~ROSE, 12765 Brotlk-
hur~t Street, Garden Giove, California, Authorized Agent, requeet3~g
that the property described as~ A parcel 205 feet by 260 feet wit
~ a frontage of 205 feet on Harbor Boulevard and located on the eoUtK-
east corner of Harbor Boulevard and Wilken Way and further described
as 2222 harbor Boulevard, be reclagsified from C-2~ GENERAL COMN~RCIAL ~
and P-Ly PARKING LANDSCAPING, to C-3, HEAVY COMMERCIAL. f
`
. _ 6 _ ~
. ~
(
,~ . ~~__--, -----~___-~--_----~.._ ~.-__._..~.. , •-~
,~
.,~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 5, 1%0, Continuede
RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Walter Chaffee, representative of the petitioner, appeared be-
N0.60-61-45 for.e the Commission and introduced the operators of the service sta-
Continued ticn which is proposed for construction on the sub~ect property.
Commissioner blorris discussed the existing traffic problem in the area
and on the subJect property, and he requested the reaction of the
applicant to a proposal that a low wall be constructed with adequate
openings to physically separate the subject property from the White
Front Store's parking lot. Petitioner expressed the opinion that
such construction r~ould not alleviate the problem and stated his be-
lief that existing highixay improvements on Harbor Boulevard were res-
ponsible for the existing traffic congestion. The Commission dis-
cussed at some length the intentions of the a-ners and operators of
the White Front Stor~ to correct the traffic conditions on Harbor
Boulevard and Wilken Way as they are presently affecting through -
traffic aad.abutting residential neighborhood.
Chairman Gauer specifically requested that the representatives of
the White Front Store, George Anenberg and R. T. Jacobs, who were pre-
sent, convay.to the owners and operators the Commission's concern
with.the exist3ng traffic problem and theix desire for action to re-..
sol.vE .the problem.
Mrs. Leila Hansen, operator of the trai2er park on the north side of
Wilken Way, appeared before the Commission and described the con-
gested traffic conditions, and as a consequence, the inconvenience
to and the numerous complaints from the occupants of the trailer
park. 7HE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the
Petition for Reclassification:
1. Petitioner requests reclassification of sub~ect property from C-2
and P-L~ General Commercial and Parking-Landscaping, to C-3, Heavy
Commercial, in order to permit construction of a service station.
2. The subject property is much larger in area than necessary for the
proposed service station, therefore, a restriction to service sta-
tion use only is considered essential in order to avoid further
complication of existing traffic congestion. In the event sub~ect
property is not utilized for service station purposes at any time
in the future, it is considered necessary that a P-L zone be pro-
vided.
3. The proposed use of subject property appears to be compatible with
the existing uses in the area.
4. No one appeared in opposition to the proposed development of a ~,er-
vice station on subject property, however, considerable oppos3.cion
was recorded relative to tAe traffic congestion created by the
White Front Store operation, as it a:fects traffic on Harbor Boule-
vard~ the trailer park north of iNilken Way' and the existing resi-
dences on Nlilken Way.
5. The Planning Commission requested that representatives of the Whiice
Front Stores, present at the meeting, study the effects of the pre-
sent traffic congestion on Harbor Boulevard and Wilken Way9 and to
take any and all action necessary on their part to correct the si-
tuation. The representatives assured the.Commission that the
operators of the White Front Stores would study the matter and
would take the required action to correct the situation as request-
ed.
Commissioner Morris offered Resolution No. 131, Series 1960-61, and
moved for its passa•~e and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall,
recommending to the City Council that Reclassification No. 60-61-45
be approved, sub~ect to the following conditions:
1. That the only C-39 Heavy Commercial, use permitted on subject pro-
_ ~ _
I`~ ~ --- - - - -------- -..~ .._.., - ~-_ _._
_ . ~- - ~
~~ ~ ~Cf
~
~
i
~ ~
MiNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 5, 1960, Continuedj
RECLASSIFICATION - perty is a servSce station~ and that if the subJect.pro
N0.60-61-45 utilized for any uses permitted in a C-2 zone, the P•-L zoneymust
Continued be maint-ained.
2. That sub~ect properi:y shall be developed substantially in accor-
dance with plans presented.
The foregoing canditians were recited at the meeting and xere found
to'be a necessary prerequisit~ to the use of the property in order
to preserve the safa#y and welfare of the citizens of Maheim.
On roll call #he fqregoing resolution was passed by the following
votee.
A~S~ COMMISSIONERSs Gauer9 Hapgood, Marcoux, Morris, bungall,
NOES: S~rs.
COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENTt COMMISSIONERS: Allred.
PUBLIC HEARING - Amendment to Chapter 15.28 of Title 15 of the Maheim Nunicipal Code
establishing Trailer Park Ordinance.
Chairman Gauer reviewed the previous action on the proposed Trailer
park Ordinance, discussed Exhibit "B" amendments to the ordinance
suppl3ed to the Commission' and requested reaction of trailer park
representatives present at the meeting.
Leo J. Freeze, spokesman for the trailer park repreeentatives, appear-
. ed before the Commission,and stated that the main reservations of the
representatives to the proposed ordinance was the proposed i'fispection
fee. He requested that the public hearing and action by the Planning
Commission be postponed until the first meeting in January, 1% 1 to
provide the representatives ample opportunity to prepare their case
against the proposed inspection fee, since they were not aware of the
advertised public hearing sufficiently in advance of the current
Commission meeting to have their position adequately presented to the
Commiseion.
Cominissioner Marcoux offered a motion, seconded by Co~issioner Sum-
mers and carried, that the public hearing on the proposed Trailer
park Ordinance be contimied until the n~eeeting of January 3, 1961, ~
and that a representative of the Administrative Office of the City of
Anaheim be requestad to attend said public hearing.
CORRESPONDENCE - Item No. 1. ORANGE COUNTy ZpiVg CypNGE OF SECTION DISTRIGT Alpp 12-4-10e
A letter from the Orange County Planning Cormiission xas read to the
Commission regarding Orange County Zone Change of Section District Map
12-4-10. It wae pointed out that the sub~ect property is located on
the north side of South Street on both sides of Sunkist Avenue ad~a-
cent to the westerly city limits. Subfect property is presently
zoned agricultural and is proposed for rezoning to R-1, 83ngle Family
Resfdential. Proposed use would appear to be consistent with single
family residential use withirr the city limits of Maheim xest of the
subject property, The Commission also noted that both South Street
and Sunkist Avenue are intended as secondary high~rays on the Arterial
Street and Highways Map af the Circulation Element of the General
Plan, and the dedication of 45 feet from their centerlines along the
effected right-of-way would satisfy the proJected.circulation needs
of the area. ~ ,
Commissioner Mungall offered a motion, secpnded by Commissioner Mar-
coux and carried, that the Planring Department transmit to the Orange
County Planning Commission a cecorc~nendation that Orange County 2one
Change of Section District Map 12-4-10 Exhfbit B be approved on the
basis of the aforemanticned findings.
. . _ g _
..
- _ ...__...._.
'_~ 4
,_ >
MINUTES, CITY PLR-~;tir;'~~ i:~'"`~:~.ti'?` Tc~N~ Aecember 5, 1960, Continuedi
CORRESPONDENCE - ......w; i~;~., ;~, OI~ANGE COUN?Y USE VARIANCE N0. 4657~
Continued
A le~ter from the Orange County Planning Comm3ssion iNas read to the
Commission regarding Orange Caunty Use Variance No. ~4657. It wae
poin#ed cut that the prcposed use is in conformance :rith the AnaM~im
General Plan. Hoi~.var, 50 font P-L, Parking-Landscaping, zones are
xequired in this getwexal area, and where not officially adopteci, are
baing nhserved b:y irulustries. deueloping in the area. The P-L zone
reyi~irements are as followst A 50 foot building setback from the
plar~nad highwaX ri,Cht-af-way linB, and the provision of a 20 foot
lanciscaped area across the entir@ frontage of the property except
for access drives and r~alks immediately to the rear of the planned
highway line. The chain link fence~ mentioned in the Use Variance
appli.cation, may he canstructed within the 50 foot P-L zone. The
Commission also noted that the proposed dedication from the center-
line of JeffexFan Street was indicated as 50 feet on the plot plan
but that 53 feet of dedication will be required to comply with the
Artex3al Straet and .Highways Element. of the General Plan which in-
dtcates Jeffers.on Stxeet as 106 feF,t primary highway.
Commissioner Mv~"~,11 offered a motion, seco~ded by Commiss+~ner Morris
and caxried, tk.at.the Planning Department transmit to the Orange
County Planning Commission a recommendation that Orange County Use
Variance No. 4657 br~ approved on the basis of the aforementioned
findings.
Item No. 3. ORANGE COUNiY ZONE CHAN~E OF SECTION DISTRICT MAP l~i-$-lOs
A letter from~he Orange County Planning Commission was read to the '
Commission re arding Orange County Zone.Change of Section District !
Map 19-4-10 Exhibits H and I. The two alternate proposals for re- ~
zoning of R-1, Single Family Residential, and It-2, Group Dwelling
Districts, to R-2, Group Dwelling or R-3, Apartment Districts of
certain property was described to the Commission together with a land
use map of the area, prepared by the Anaheim Planning Department. The ,
present zc+ning of the area and the existing land use were studied care-
fully by the Commission. It was noted that there is a zoning precedent .
for.R-3, multiple family residential,immediately to the north frcnting
Ball-Road although, except for a small portion, it has not been developed;
as such. It was noted also that there is a precedent for R-2, two fam- ~
ily reaidential, to the west fronting Gilbert Street and that tl~is .
also has.not been developed as such. In view of the present lai~d use `
development,and the fact that Gilbert Street at this point has been ~
removed from the Master P1an of Highways as a secondary high,Nay an. ~
is now proposed as a local street, it would appear urnvise to alter the
present zoning. To do so would result in the further extension of ~
higher density development into the single family residential area east
of Gilbert Stroet and would generate higher traffic'volume on a local ~
street. Also, it appears that Dests Drive abuts sub~ect property and ~
may be continued northerly to serve sub~ect property. This would ap-
pear to permit the development of the strip of property adjoining the
sub~ect property on the eaet and backing on single family residential ,
property, which fronts on idilneburg Street. Development of this strip
of property into R-1, Single ~amily Residential: would permit it then ~
to front upon a street serving R-2 or R-3 properties or compel its de-
velopment for R-2 or R-3 if proposed zone change is granted.
Commissioner Summers offere~ a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mungall
and carried, that the Planning Department transmit to the Orange County
Planning Commission a recommendation that proposed Zone Change of Sec-
tion District Map 19-4-10 be denied.
ACTING PLANNING - Item No. 1. AMENDA~NT TO CODE9 "UNCLASSIFTED USESa°
DIRHCIOR'8 REPORTS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed Amendment to Code, Title 18, Chapter 18.649 ae revisedy
-9-
, , .
-~--- --_....._..._.._...._.,-,--~-- -__ __~____----_..,_._..___.-------~--------
~, - ----
I
~
~
`
~` ~ `~.~
~ .._-----
.
~
I
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSZON, December 5, 1960, Continuedi
ACTING PLANNING - Item No. 1. AMENDI~NT TO CODE~ "UNCLASSIFIED USES."~ Continueds
DIRECIOR'S REPORTS
AND RECOMINENDATIONS was presented to the Commission. Acting Planning Director Richard
(Continued) Reese explairsed that the City Council and City Attorney's office had
reviewed the proposed amendment and.would adopt the ordinance amend-
ing the Code upon rsceipt of the Commission'f recommendation.
Commissioner Mungall offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mar-
cowc and carried~ to re~commend to the City Council the adoption of
Amendment to Code, iitie 18, Ghapter 18.64, "Unclassified Uses," as
~ referred tc the Planning Commissian by the City Council.
Item No. 2. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PLANNING CONGRESS DINNtR MEETING.
Notice of the Southern California Planning Congress Dinner Meeting
scheduled for Decemb.er 8, 1960 in Montebelioy California was sub-
mitted to the Commission.
, Item NO.. 3. BOARD OF REALTOR°S INSTALLATION DINNER MEETING.
Notice of the Board of Realtor's installation dinner, scheduled for
December 8, 1960 at the Charterhouse, Anaheim, California was sub-
~ mitted to the Commission. The Cammission acknowledged receipt of
the invitation and indicated intention to attend the dinner.
ADJOURNMENT - The Meeting was adjourned at 4=45 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
~~~
J PAGE, Secretar
II
i
s
t
:~
•
- 10 -
..._.._.1 ... _. _ . _. _. _... .__. _ .._......._,.. .._._...... .. _...,....._.._..... _.. . . .... ___.__.....---...----~----~ sL_~._._
~
~ ~