Minutes-PC 1961/10/02_
~~ :. ,~
p ' 1~
4
i. ~
r ~< .
~
~ :~ .',,
~ . . _.
~
~ . .
~~~~ .
~~r+M~~'. - ~
.. ~ :;':f~~l:'~ .
City Hall
Anaheim, Califoznia
October 2, 1961
MINUTHS OP Tf~ RBGUTAR MHSTING OP ThH ANAHBIM CITY_PIANNING COhWIISSION
RHGUTAR MBBTING - A Itegular Meeting of the City Planning Commission was calied to order by '~
Chairman Gauer, at 2:00 O~Ci~ck Y.M., a quorum being present.
FtE9BNT - CHAIRMAN: Gauer; COb9~lISSIONffitS: Ailred, H?~,~;~.d, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebiey
Perry, 3ummers.
ABSBNT - i
CObAlISSIONBRS: Morris. ~
pRBSBNT - Planning Director - Rithard Reese I
Senior Plannes - Martin Areidt
Assistant City Attorney - Joe Geisler
Commission Secretary - Jean Page
INVOCATION - Reverend Chasles Cox, Jr., Pastor of Friends Church, gave the invocation.
i
PLBDGB OP ,
ALLBGIANCS - Commissioner Pebley led the Pledge of Aliegiance to the Plag.
APPROVAL OP
MINUTBS - The Minutes of the Meeting of September 18, 1961 were approved as submitted.
VARIANCS No.140?- CONTINUBD PUBLIC HSARING. Petition submitted by JBSSE and DOLORES N. ARRIOLA,,
~
225 Hast La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, California, 4wners; requesting permission
to WAYVH MINIMUM PLOOR ARBA, PARRING SPACB, AND SXTERIOR SIDBYARD RBQUIREMHNTS; ,
also to PBRMIT BNCRCIACHMHNT OF ATTACHBD GARAGB INTO INIBRIQR SIDBYARD; on pro- I
perty described as; A pancel 47 feet by 150 feet with a frontage of 47 feet i
on the north side of La Palma Avenue; and located on the northwest corner of i
La Palma Avenue and Patt Street and further described as 225 Bast La Palma
Avenue. Property presentiy classified in the R-3, MULTIPLS PAMILY RHSIDBNTIAL, ',
ZONH.
Subject petition was continued from the meeting of September 18, 1961 in I
o=der for the petitioner to submit revised plans for Commission consideration,
said plana indicating building setbacks and dedication a,id being fully dimen-
~ sioned.
Ido one was present to represent the subject petition. It was noted thFt the
petitioners had been notified to attend said continued hearing.
Commissioner Allred offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pebley and
carried, to continue the subject petition until the meeting of October 15,1961
and that the petitioners be notified to attend said hearing.
CONDITIONAL USH - PUBLIC HHARING: Petition submitted by RA.YMOND aad ESTSLLH K. SPHHAYt, 1532
PBRMIT No. 163 Heacon Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; RAYMUND SPBHAR, same address,
Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A HOPBRAU RHSTAURANT WITH ON QAi.R
BBBR; on property described as: A parcel 3:?0 feet by 640 feet with a front-
age of 330 feet located on the south side of Anaheim Road between Dowling
and Mi11er Streets; its northwest corner being approximately 640 feet east of
the southeast corner of Dowling Street and Anaheim Road. Property preaently
classified R-A, RHSIDSNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, ZONB (M-1, LIGHT MANUPACTURING and
P-L, PARKING IANDSCAPING, ZONBS pe,nding as per Reclassification No, 60-61-90).
_429-
~-i ~~ ,;.r"~- .. . J .. r_..-•..--_"r--r . r :6,.:.. . .. , .. . _ J S_~:t,:r>nv q . t ~~ ..J;: ^ ' -
~ t ~.
F
~ _ _.._...""" '__..._~ ..
~ ~ ~~.:~.~_"."'_
430
~; ::.
~ ,• .
~' .
MINUTBS, CITY'PIANNING COhMIS3I0N, October 2, 1961, Contimued:
CONDITIONAL USB - Mr. Craig Granger, 125 Suuth Claudina Street, appeared before the Commission
PffitMIT No. 163 to represent the petitioners, and described the proposed construction of a
Contiaued hofbrau restaurant in conjuaction with the sale of beer on subject property.
He submitted plot and floor plans and indicated that the entire five acres of
subject property was to be developed with industrial buildings, that the pro-
posed restaurant would be combined with an iadustriai buildingf that a dining
room, ia addition to a lunch counter, would be provided, that the restaurant
would be of benefit to and would be utilized by the employees of the Auto-
netics plant located in tHe area, and that the restaurant would be oper~ted
similarly to one established in Downey. Mr. Granger stated further that the
proposed establishment would not be "just a beer bar" and he submitted twa
letters to the Commission, one writtea by the City Manager of the City of
Downey ~and one by the Chief of P~ce of the City of Downeq, attesting to
the,character of Mr. Hramer, the•:.roposed operator of the restaurant.
Mr. Granger also stated that the restaurant would probabiy ciose at 9:00
0'Clock in the evening, and he submitted a Ie~ter to the Commission from
empioyees of the Autonetics plant indicating their approval of the proposed
~ establishment.
The Commission reviewed development plans and the petitioner's agent stated
that tl,are wouid be tables and booths in both aections of the restaurant
building, with waitresses serving both sides, and that the clientele would
consist mainly of the junior executives of the Autonetics plant.
THB FiBARING WAS CIASBD.
The Commission discussed landscaping requirements and clayrificatiott was made
in respect to the recommendation that landscaping oe installed in the front
20 feet of the pending 50 foot Parking-Landscaping zoned strip abutting the
front property line of subject property. The matter of the improvement of the
private road, indicated on Bxhibit Ido. 1, was aiso discussed and the Com-
mission recommended that the street be developed in accordance with City
staadards if the petitioners intended to dedicate said street to the City in
the future. The petitioner's agent indicated that it was definitely not their
intention to dedicate the street.
~...~
The Commission found and determined the foliowing facts regarding the sub-
ject petition:
1. That the proposed usi° is properly one for which a Conditional Use Permit
is authorized by this Code, to wit; a restauzant-j'•~fbrau type with the
sale of mait liquor.
2. That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and
the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be J.o-
cated.
3. That•the size and shape of the site proposad for the use is adequate to
a11ow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental
to the particular area nor to the peace, health, safety, and general wel-
fare of the citizens oF the City of Anaheim.
4. That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undae
burden upon the streets and highways designed and proposed to carry the
traffic in the area. .
5. That the granting of the Conditional Use Permit under the conditions
imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety,
a~~d general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
6. That,if the petitioner intends to dedicate to the City at a future time~
the private road indicated on Hxhibit ho. 1, the street shall be developed
in accordance with City standards with right-of-way of sixty (60) feet and
with turn-around property radius of fifty (50) feet.
~ ~
~ 1 ~ ~ :~'s',e ~.;f;,~: . :`H5n e . 1~n v ~ ~ ..4 rf a~ ~ ,~::'ir:''c;'S'
~ '
~ ~
'i,r -
~ ; . ~ . .. ~ I . . , . .
~.
. _
~
~
. ~
Y
~
430 :~ ~
E;"' MINUTHS, CITY'PIANNING COMMIS3ION, October 2, 1961, Continued:
~
~ COND.ITIQNAL USB - Mr. Craig Graager, 125 South Claudiaa Street, appeared before the Commission
~ PffitMIT No. I63 to represent the petitioners, and described the proposed construction of a
~ Contiaued hofbrau restaurant in con,junction with the sale of beer on subject property.
; He submitted plot and floor plans and indicated that the entire five acres of
~ subject praper.ty was to be deVeloped with industrial buildiags, that the pro-
~
G:.'.
~_. .
~
~ ~ '
6•,,
~
~
~
~ 'r ~.
posed restaurant wouid be combined with an iadustrial building, that a diniag
room, in addition to a lunch counter, would be provided, that the restaurant
would be of benefit #o and wouid bE utilized by tfie'empioyees of the Auto-
netics plant located in tlie area, and that the restaurant would be operated
similarly to one established in Downey. Mr. G=anger stated fu=~cher that the
proposed estiablishment would r.ot be "just a beer bar" and he submitted two
letters to the Coromission, one writtea by the City Manager of the City of
Downey and oae by the Chief of Police of the City of Downey, attestiag to
the character of Mr. Rramer, tY-e proposed operator of the restaurant.
Mr. Granger a2so stated that the restau=ant would probably close at 9:00
0'Clock in the edening, and he submitted a le~ter to the Coiumission from
employees of the Autonetics plant indicating their approval of the proposed
~ establishment.
The Commission reviewed development plans and the petitioner's agent stated
that there would be tables an3 booths in both aections of the restaurant
building, with wattresses serving both sides, and that the clientele would
consist mainly of the junior execntives of the Autonetics plant.
TF1B F~ARING WAS CIASBD.
The Commiasion discussed landscaping requirements and cla~rification was made
in respect to the recommendation that landscaping be instalied in the front
20 feet of the pending 50 foot Parking-Landscaping zoned strip abutting the
front property liae of subject property. The matter of the improvement of the
privnte road, indicated on Bxhibit No. 1~ was also discussed and the Com-
mission recommended that the street be developed xn.accordance with City
standards if the petitioners intended to dedicate said street to the City in
the future. The petitioner's agent indicated that it was definitely not their
intention to dedicate the street.
The Commiss.ion found and determined the following facts regarding the sub-
ject petition:
1. That th.e proposed use is properly one for which a Conditional Use Permit
is autnorized by this Code, to wit: a restaurant-hofbrau type with the
saie of mait liquor.
2. That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and
the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be lo-
cated.
- 3•. That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to
ailow the fuil ~'evelopment of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental
to the particular area noz to the peace, health, safety, and general wel-
fare of the citizens of the City of Anahezm.
4. That the tzaffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue
burden upon the streets and highways desigr,ed and proposed to casry the
#raffic in the area. .
' S. That the granting of the Conditional Use Permit under the conditions
imposed, if any, wi11 not be detrimentai to the peace, heaith, safety,
and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
6. That,if the petitioner intends to dedicaYe to the City at a fu`.ure time
the private road '•!icated on.Bxhibit No. 1, the street ~hall be developed
in accordance wi*• ..ity standards with right-of-way of sixty (60) feet and
with 4urn-ar~und ,,,_.'cty radius of fifty (SO).feet.
7.' That no one appeati a opposition to subject petition.
~.,._..
.. ...__._
.
:, i~iy-.:,.,: , ._'_' , ,,^"""'1, .: r _ , : a~ _ , ; :., . . .. .,..., :'_, ,~'? .-, , ,. . t .c:, ~~.,is~, .. . _.,:r"'IL, _ -^-- -- - ,- -.
~n ~ y ~~ •~ rn, ~~ ,~,.,..l,~.r:'3~'r~- 1 ....`'~~: 'SS^ .,.i?: ,l~S~~ .ai°'d..,'~-: yr~lig- : l ~ s3:
7^ ~ ?'
{ V~ I
_ . . . ,~ .. ..
.._. . ~ ' .1.~ r. .~`f~~~ ~~ ~ - - -
..
.. _.___<..---~_.~_.._~___~_.~ _ _~__..'' :. ._._.:r...:.. .~_...._.._.. `-._ _...~.::.-. ..~_.. - -
,.. . : . ' . ~, . . .~ 14iw~ 7^' . . ... ..
1~;• 7 ~
. ~. ~ •~ • ~. ~ . ~ ~. _ j~ .
~ .. . ~ . . . .~..~ .. . ~ ~ .
~ ' ~ ; : , 431
0. . . . .. . . . ~ . .
~ MINUTE3, CITY P7ANNING COMMISSION, October 2, 1961, Continued:
~ CONDITIOTIAL USB - Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 99, Series 1961-62, and moved
PBRMIT N0. .163 for its passage and adopfiion, seConded by'Commissioner Ailred, to grant
~.' Continued Petition for Conditionai Use Permit No, 163, subject to the following
conditions:
, ~
1. Development of the restaurant substantiaily in r.ccordance with Bxhibit
~,
>.
~' .. ' ~
Nos. 1 and 2.
2. Installation of landscaping in the front twenty (20) feet of the
pendiag fifty (50) foot P-L, Parking-Landscaping, Zone along the
frontage of subject property, plans for 3aid land3caping to be sub-
mitted to and subject to the approval of ttie Superintendent of Park-
way Maintenance and to be installed prior to Pina1 Building Inspection
of the hofbrau restaurant.
3, Preparation o~f street improvement plans and installation of all improve-
pproved standard plans
" ments for Anaheim Road in accordance with the a
on file in c:-e offic: of the City Bngineer at time of development.
4. Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes on Anaheim
Road at the time of development.
The foregoing conditions were reci#ed at the meeting and were found to be a
necessary prerequisite to the use of the psoperty in order to preserve the
safety and weifare of the citizens of the City of Anaheia.
' On roil call the foregoiag resolution was passed by the following vote;
' AYES: CohIMISSIONBRS: Alired, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley,
Perry, Summers.
NQHS: CQMMI3SIONIDRS: None.
ABSBNT: CObA4ISSI0NBRS: Morris.
CONDITIONAL USH - PUBLIC HHARING. Petition submitted by JOHN C. STEIDAlBTZ, P. 0. Box 56,
PBRMIT No. 164 Shaver Lake, California, Owner; HAZBL M. DASCSNZI, 7481 La Palma Avenue,
Buena Park, California, Agent; requesting permission to HSTABLISH A GUBST
HaMH POR AGED: on property descr±bed as: A parcel 190 feet by 645 feet
with a frontage of 190 feet on Western Avenue and located on the west side
of Western Avenue between Lincoln and Orange Avenues; its northeast corner
being approximately 605 feet south of the southwest corner of Lincoin and
Western Avenues; excepting a parcel 90 feet by 18Q feet with a frontage of
90 feet on Western Avenue arnl located on the west side of Western~Avenue
between Lincoln and Orange Avenues; its northeast corner being approximate]~
705 feet south of the southwest corner of Lincoln and Western Avenues and
further described as 145 South Western Avenue. Property presently classified
R-A, RESID9NTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONH.
y~zel M. Dascenzi, the petitioner's agent, appeared befose the Commission
enci stated that she had nothing to add to the infermation contained in the
gUbject petition. ~
'CHE. HBARING WAS CIASED.
~ .
~ , ?' u ,"
w~
The Commission reviewed deveiopment plans and noted that the subject propertq
had been approved for a social club, however, since *_he clnb hed not been
established, prior to the time limit, the permit had expired.
In response to inquiry by the Commission, the petitioner's agent indicated that
there would be approximately eleven patients cared for on the premises, and
that there was an adequate amount of parking availabl@ because there was
approximately two acres of land included in the one parcel. The Commissiu,n
discussed'"the matter of a one foot reserve strip,~of land along the westerly
boundary of subject property which has been recorded by the developer of the
multiple family residential tract abutting sub~eci praperty on the weat. It
was noted that the strip was reaerved in order to require the owner of sun,~ect
'
~ ,.. .,~., ~r' .. . . . :. . J,,. ~ , . . ;+~,A: ~.~i ._.;;;:~:'~I.-: _
c
..;::
+~.
n;
~
~
~
~
~;.
~:
~
1. That the proposed use is properly one ~'or which a Conditional Use Permit
is suthorized by this Code, to wit: a.rest liome.
2. That the proposed use w3.11 not adversely affect the adjoining land
uses and the growth and development of the area ia which it is proposed
to be Socated.
3, That the aize snd shape o£ the site proposed for the use ia adequate
to ailow the fuli development of the proposed uae in a mannex not
detrimental to the partieular area noz to the peace, health, safety~ and
general welfare of the eitizens of the City of Aaaheim.•
4. That the traffic genesated by the proposed use wili not impoae an undue
burden upoa .he streets and highways designed and pr.opoued to carry the
traffic in the area.
5. That the granting of the Conditional Use Permit under the coaditions
imposed, if any, wili not be detrimental to the peace~ heaith, safety,
and general welfare of the citizens uf the City af t~naheim.
6. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 100, Seriea 1961-62, and moved
for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Summers. to grant
Petition for Conditioaal Use Permit No. 164, subject to the followiag
conditions:
1. Development substantially in accordance with Bxhibit Nos. 1, 2, and 3,
2. Ded~.cation of 45 feet from the monumented centerline of Western Avenue
(20 feet existing).
3, Preparation of atreet improvement pians and installation of all improve-
ments for Wes~ern Avenue in accordance with the approved standard plans
an file im the office of the City Bngineer.
4, paymeat of $2.00 per front foot for street lightiag purposea on Weatern
Avenue. ~
5. Provision of utiliby easements along exterior boundaries as determined
to`be'necessary by the Director'of Public Utilities to adequately serve
the subject property and other'property.
6. Tipne limitation of one hundred and eighty.(180).days for the accomplish-
ment of Item Nas. 2, 3, 4, and 5. ~
' The foregoing conditioas were recited at the meeting and were found to be a '
necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to preserve the
safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of. Anaheim:
'On roli call the fo;egoing resolution was passed by.the following vote:
AyES; '"'CQhUNIS5I0NBEtS: Ailr.°.d, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungail, Pebley,
Perry, Summe;s.
NOBS : COIYA~IISS I ONBRS : None .
AHSHNT: COhA~IISSI0N8RS: Moxris. ,
,
. --r-, r -..
..
~ }i~-"L~' .::ir si.c 1~
~ ~. ~ - .t4:a, , F~.. .i , , . _. ~'-;~: n :-;A.S."~~!..l.. ~i~>'? , ! .1-ti~.,S_ ~.+,...tt>. ~'f ,' t.,lr!! .
Y f
;
~
~
~?
. r+ .~~51 xCi",k.N4~$~aM1~t~y"'„"'"',4.,'tk''k?~F ~~ ?.,~,~,.;v ' A~42,'~'FF.it"'' ~t~". .'~.tl-.: C°7i:; '«,~ .
c +
r ~c
.
r
:
~
';~
~J ~
Ly
v, ~l 'c:.+^rr' ~,, o..: ..S'~-: ~ '~'I~ 'y='a.. .
_ _ . tiw'.'.v'~~~ .. . . . .
.
-
~
~
. ~ : .
T9
~ ~
A ~
~ E41/ ~. ~~ . .
.. ~.
~
• :,; .. _ . .:. °~ . . ....:
. ~ ~ ~ .:
; , _ 432 ~ . .
M*_NUTE3, CITY PIAIv1~lING COHMI3SION, October 2, 1961, Continued:
C4I~IDITIONAL •USB - property to coope=ate in the improvement of the alley sepazati~ the two pro-
pBRMIT N0: 164 perties should the owner of subject'property wish to utilize whe a12eq for
.
urposes.' The petitioner's agent indica~ted that she was aware of the
e
ss
Continued ~^
p
a
ac
recordation relative to the strip of land, and that they planned to develop
:the zear o f t he su bjec t pr o p e r t y a t a l a t e r d a te, at which time the y would _
work out the access problem with the developer of the abutting property.
The Commission found and determined the follqwing facts regarding the subject
petition:
_, i
r, ,
~
~ 1
~~
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, October 2, 1961,.Continued:
CANDITiONAL U3B - PUBLIC FffiARING. Petition submitted by RUSSBLL MURRAY, 922 North Alamo Street,
pERMIT No. 165 Anaheim, Califosnia and JOHN T, CALLAHAN; 1014 North Alamo $treet, Anaheim,
•California, Owners; reguesting permission to SSTABLISH A CHURCR on the pro-
perty described as; `A triangular shaped parcel with a frontage of 365 feet
located'on the north side of Sequoia Avenue between Moraga and Ventura Streets;
its northerly boundary abuts the Pseeway overpass boundary on the south, and
furthes described as 9593 3equoia Aveaue. Property presently classified
R-1, ONE PAMILY•RBSIDBNTIAL, 20NB.
Mrs, J. R. Taylor, the petitioner~s agent, appeared before the Commission
and stated that she was representing her husband who wished to establish
i a church os the subject property.
THH kIBARING WAS CL0.SHD.
The Commission reviewed plot plans for the proposed use and noted that a
Resolution of Intent for C-2, Heavy Commercial, Zoning was pending on the
subject property. Mrs. Taylor indicated that they proposed to utilize
the existing structure for the church, that no improvements were pianned
other than painting of the building and repiacing broken windows, and that
a steeple would be placed on top of the building and a sign would be erected.
She stated further that the church would be known as the "Wayside Chapel" of
the Assembly of God Denomination, that they conside=ed the building to be
adequate for chu=ch purposes because they we=e just commencing the fo•rmation
of a congregation, and that it would require approximately a three year
period of time to develop a sizeable congregation.
The Commission discussed the matte= of a bond, posted to insure the in-
stallation of sidewalks and driveway approaches, that had been requised as
a condition of approval for Petition for Reclassification iVo. 60-61~-102 for
the reclassification of subject property to the C-2, Heavy Co.mmercial, 2one.
The Commission also discussed the advisability of requiring that the impr~ve-
ments be installed for the proposed use of subject property foz church pur-
poses.
The Commission also diecussed the desirability of requiiiaa the instalia-
tion of a wall or other type of prosection, in addition to the indicated
landscaping, along the boundary of the vacant parcel of land not included in
the subject petition. Commissioner Marcoux noted that, aithough it would
be of benefit to the church to provide a wall or fence, it would probably
be too expensive for the petitioners, :in view of the three year period of
time indicated as the approximate period of time that the property would be
used before expansion waald make additional facil.ities necessary.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the subject
Petition:
1. That the proposed use is properly one for which a Conditional Use Pesmit
is authorized by this Code, to wit: a church.
2. That the ptoposed use will not advessely affect the adjoining l~nd
ases and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed
to be located. -
3. That the size and shape of the site psoposed for the use is adequate to
allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detri-
meatal to the particular area nor to thc pcace, health, safety, and
general,welfare of tl~e citizens of'the City of Anaheim.
4. That the traffic gene;ated by the proposed use wiil not impose an undue
burden upon the streets and highways designed and improvec' to carry.the
traf£ic in the area.
5. That the granting of the'Conditional Use Permit under thP conditions,
imposed, if any, wiil not be detrimental to the pence, health, safety,
and general weifa=e of the citizens of :he City of-Anaheim;'
. ~ ,':
,.. . . •. ` J ;
. .. . ~,..:kSVFS.,~r_~.~.a,. ~..::~~~i ,T-. L'. n:e..,, t, ... z.;,. 3 . . -~:t` , i ,~'~.>. "~t ~. ..^- "'T..,.,:t .'r ..~ .~'n»~;, ~ ~"'.".._" ."?."."_ . ~_,,.__~__. _ ~ r •-S.L~:
CF ~ -~ " 1 ~; „,.~~.~'~i~~. : -~ ~~.3out7pL;5 ~~4,'~?F~ -c•9: a~ffa`.~.. ~4~y~±5r?~Af~.,..''Lt a•~ s ,s,y~',~,'
F ~ ~ ""~
~ . :~
~[,
.. . ~ . ,... . ... . ,,_
..~:.'. ~~_~, . ..~.., ~~...~ ~~~~~ '„ .. ~ . .
._
, ~~_~.._._._ . ... . ..., .
. . . , ~ . F.•~.. ~ K
~ .. ' ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
_ ,434
E.
~ _
~ MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, October 2, 1961, Continued;
COPiDITIONAL USB - 6. That a boad has been posted, unde= Pet3tion for Reclassificatioa No.
~~., pBRMIT N0. 165 60-61-102 for the pending reclass~,fication of subject property to
~ Continued the C-2, Heavy Commercial, 2one, in order to insure the instaliation
~ of sidewaiks and driveway approaches.
E 7. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petitioa.
:
€ Commissioaer Marcoux.offered Resolution No. 101, Series 1961-62, and moved
- - for its passage and adoptioh, seconded by Commisaioner Berry, to grant
b'ect to th~ foliowing
P,' .
1' ', '
~... 'l
Petition for Coaditzonal Jse Permit No. 165, su ~ -
conditions:
1. Development substantially in.accotdance with Hxtiibit Nos. 1 and 2.
2. Installation of landscapi'ng in accordance with Bxhibit No. 1, pians
for said landscaping to be submitted to`and subject to the approvai
of the ~uperintendent of Parkway Maintenance and to be instalZed prior
to Final Building Iaspection.
3. Time limitation of three (3) years from the effective date of subject
petitioa for the use of subject property for cfiurch p~srpose.s, and sub-
ject Lo the review of said petition at the expiration of said time
period psovided a writtea request is properly filed by the petitioners.
,
The foregUing conditioas were recited at the meeting and were found to be a
neceasary prerequisite to the nse`of the property in order to preserve the
safety and welfnre of the citizens of the ~i=y of Anaheim.
Commissioner Mungall offered an amendment to the above motion, secoaded by
Commissioher Pprry, to includa the following conditions;
4. .That driveway aprons sh~li be 3.nstalied as required by the City Hngineer
and in accordance with staadard plans and specifications on file in the
Office of the City 8agiaeer.
5. 7~'hat si3ewalks shall be insta2led along the westeriy 80 feet of Sequoia
Street to accomodate.pedestrian traffic.
6. That a bond a.n aa amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim
shall be posted witYi the City to guarantee the instailatioa of said
driveway aprons and sidewaiks stigiulated in Condition Nos. 4 and 5.
On roll cali the motion to amend the original motion offered to adopt
Resolution No. 101, Series 1961-62, failed by the following vote:
a
~
~
AYBS: C01~4tISSIONBRS: Mungali, Pebley, Perry, Summers. '
NaBS: COhAtISSIONHRS: Alired;:Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux. I
ABSBNT: CQMMIS3IONHRS: Morris,` . ~
On roll~call Resolution No. ].01, 5eries 1961-62,was passed by tihe foilowing ~
vote as originaliq offered:
I
, -, _ ;
; : ~ : ~ ~;
~ ,--~-------- <
,,~ '
~"""~y ,. .~..:~__~ iii.~:i ~.-~!;?.!..~f~ ,.:,,..~ j ,,,.,~r~ . ._ ; '. , ,r~,v >:s t... ._ ..?.,.tr . ... . . . , . , , v'
qygS; COAMSISSIONBRS: Allred, Guuer, Hapgood, Marconx, Mungaii, Pebley, •
P~rry, ~uc,mers,
NQHS: COhIIdISSIONBRS: None.
AHSBNf: COMMISSIONBRS: Morris.
RBCIASSIPICATION - PUHLIC FIDARING. Petition su~mitted by CHRRLBS B. and BRMA F. PRAidC, 433
No. 61-62-29 Weat Lincola,Aveaue, Aaaheim, Califoraia, Ltivners; 3MITH and WILLIAM3, Archi-
tects,.1414.Pair Oaks~A~~ :nue,.South Pasade.na,;California, Agent; requesting
tha~ the property described as: An irregulAriy shaped parcel with a frontage
of 280 feet on the,eas4 side of Cypress Street arid a froatage of 175 feet on
trie nox.therly side of Placent3a,Aveaue end further described as 3221 North
Plauentia Avenue, be reclass~ified from the.R-A, RHSIDBNTIAL AGRICULTURAL,
20NH to the C-1, N1'.IGH.BOttH00D ~oNAlBItCIAL; ~ONH, ,
I
~
f .:- ~
~.. -
~:
~
~-
~J
435
MINUTH3, CI?'Y PIANNING C~.N~4fISSION, October 2, 1.961, Continued: ,
RECLP.SSIFIC°.~ION - Mr. Charles Prar.s, the petitioner., ~ppeared before the Com~aiss:i;,n a;•3
No. 61-62-29 ~~ated that he had no*.`.ing to add to the infarmation contained ~.re ::Iie sub-
Continued jPct petition and that the architect was present to answer any questions in
respect ~o the ~roposed constructior. of inedical offices, union offices,
con£erence ro,,•ms, and accessorp fasilities on subjeci~ F:operty.
TH'3 HBARING WAS CLOSHD.
, i The Commission re viewed developn:eri; ~lc~as and discussed the notatiun on the
~lans indicating that a rortic~a ~af R-,,, Rcsidential Agriculturol, zoned pro-
perty abut~ing subject prr,perty on tYie aorth was to be included in the sub-
ject petic:.an. The pe:i'cioner ?nGi.cat+:d `hat he did not inten~i to develop
tk ~'~ portion at the prese it time b~t ti:at '.:P wishzd to include it ir.. the
propc:ed reclassificixtion of subject ~ra~.~erty. Assistant City Attu:n°y Joe
Gzisier advised the C:omm3ssion that ti~e northerly parcei cou11 nat be iacluded
in the subject petition ~ecause it w~; not advertised in conjunction witi;
said peti.t °.on.
The Commis5ion discussed the possibility of the northerly parcel becoming
land-locfieG and the petitir,:.er indicated that he did not wish to install a
wall along the northerly boundary o£ subject property between the two pro-
perties. He s:ated that it was possibie that he would sell the northerly
portion of the property. Tb_ ~;.~mmissior. indicated that wall requirements
should be satisfied.
' The Commission found and detsrmined t`te following facts regarding the subject
petition:
1. That the petitioner proposes a reclassification of tte above desc:ibed
I property from iile R-A, RHSIDBNTIAL AGRIGULTIJRAL, ZONE tr, ?;ie G 1,
NHIGHHORH00~ COMMffitCIAL, ZONfi.
2. That the propose~i reclassi£ic~tion of subject pror~rty is necessary o~:
desirable for the orderly an6 prorer development of the :omm~:nity.
~. That the piopoAe3 re~lassifi.:aiion of subject property does properly
relate to ttie ~ones and the:~r permitted uaes locally e,stablished in
ciose prox~mity `.•? ~utijec`: propF•rty a.d to the •%,one._ and their permitted
uses generally estabiiaiied inroughout tlte comm~:nity.
..''iat ~he prc~,ose'c: recla,~sification of subject property does require
d~edication for and atandard improvement of abutting streets berause
sui:i property does relat' Jo and abut upor. streets and hi~hws~s which
are proposed to carry the :ype and qaar~tity af traffi~, wi._ch wiS.l be
generated by the permitted uses, in a.ccordan~e witl; t.:: circulation
element of the General P1an.
5. That the owner of the svbject praperty and abut±ing property to the nurth
is creating a ian~-locked pnrtion oi `~is property~ that a 30 foot access
easement is shown to said ,aorthern, portion of property noi incorporated
in the subject rer:itior~ for Reclassification, an~ that it is 4i:~ sole
responsibi.li'cy of ea~.d ov.nsr 4o record an easement: for :Lngress and ~r,•ress
for the land-la~ked pc,rtion ef the ovrner's property si*uated northerly
of subje~;t troperi:y and omi#tec'i fram the subject Petitr.on for Reciassi•-
fication,
6. That no one ap(:ar.l i.n opposition tu subject petition.
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 1Q2, Series 1961-62, si~r'. moved
for its passage and adoption, seco-;ded by Cor~missi.oner Ailred, to recommenc~.
to the City Council, that Petition for Recla3sification No. 6%-(r2-i•9 be
approved, subject to the following conditions:
1. Development substantially in acccr~ance with Bxhibit No. 1.
~
.... .. ..... .. - ..
~<. ,. ''~-,.1.~~_~...~~ , . , . , . r.'.... ,~.- , _
~
--•-~
.. . _ ~ r •.- . .. _ • - ~-- -
:, ;:>
~ ~
436 ;~ -
~ RBCLASSIPi:~TI~1- 2: Provisior, of landscaping ia accordance with Bxhibit No. 1, plans for
No. 61-62-29 sa'_~ :andsCa~~ing to be ~~ubmit#ed •;o and subject to the approval of the
Continued ?;uperintendeat of Parkway inrtntenance aiid to be iastalled prior to Pinal
~ Building Inspection,
3. Pzovis3on of a six l5) foot masonty wall alottg the aorth aad east
bour_dar?ea of subjeCt property, cxde~;t for a thirty (30) foot section
where the proposed ease~ieii* abuts the land-lacked parcel to the north.
4. Dedication of ~15 fac~: from thp W~r~~rc.:nted centerline of Placentia Avenue
(30 feet exis~ing?.
,., p:eparation of scree± im.provement plans and i~xstallation of ali im-
pro~;.aents for Placer.tia Avenue and Cypress Avenue in accordance with
:he approved standa~3 plans on file iu the Ofiice of the City Hngineer.
6. Paymei:t of $2.OQ per front foot for stree# lightixtg purpuses on
Ylscceat3a Avenue ,and Cypress Avenue.
~ ~' ,. ,
7. Provision of utili~y ea~ements along exterior boundaries as determined
to be necessary by the Directnr of Public Utilities to a6equately serve
the subject property and other property.
8. P visioa of ~^.rea;'for adequate trash ~torage and pic~uo as determined
by the Departme.~t of Public Works.
9. Time limitation cf ninety (90) days for the accomplishmeat of ~tem Nos.
4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
The £oregoing coaditions were .cc~cited at the meetiag and were found to be a
necessary pre~equisite to the u:;e of the property in order to preserve the
safety as:d r~elfare of the citia:eas of the City of Anaheim.
On roii cali the foregoing resr..lution was passed by the following vote:
AYSS: CObAlISSIONHRS: Allred,. Gauer, Hapgood, Marcaux, MangRli, Pebley,
Perry, ~;:~mers.
NOH3: CC+AfMIS$IONffitS: None.
ABSBNT: C~fi.i.SSIONBRS: Morris,
~ RHCIASSIPICATION- PUBLIC F~RING: 4etition submitted by KEtv'IVi3TH and MARJORIH K4RRI8, et al,
Nu. 61-6?°SO _ 506 Peregrivz, Anaheim, ~'alifornia, Owners; requesting that t:he prope•r.ty
~ described as: 3~arcels 1 through 8~.ocated oa the east side ot° Placenti~
Avenue and exteiiding north from Underhill Awenue for a distance of 4Q2 feet;
' also Parcel 9 located on +che south side of Underhili Avenue b~~tween p~n~entia
! snd New Avenues; its ~lorthwest c••~rner, treing app*o::3~ratelv 65 feat east ro¢ the
southeast corne: of Placentia and Underhiil Avenues, +nd further descrit~ed
as 20z-306 Narth Placentia Avenue a:-d 2006 Hast Undexhi2i Avenue,. be re~;la:.si-
E fied from tbe R-1, ONsi PAidILY R~S'SDBI3TIAL, ZUNB to the L'-i, N$IG1~(~'cF1~~
COMMffi:C:IAL, ZOHa ;Aeatricted to Business and Profe:~sionai office~).
;~
± :~~
; +
s 1~ `~.
..•
~1 ~~..r.W:t. >
Mr. Ke:mesh Harris, the petitioner,appeared Sefore the Commissina and stated
that lte was reques*.ing the reclassificatio,z of subject praperty in ordar to
estab]ish an accbunting office in the existii~g single £amily resideatial
structuse, aad that the owners of the properties abutting subject property to
the north and facing Placentia Avenue were alsa interested in rec2assifica-
tion of their properties to the C-1, Neighborhood Commezcial; Zone in arder
to estabiish businesa and professionai offices in :he existing residences,
He stated fu=ther that the properties on P~acentia Avenue were no longer
desirabie for =esiden~ial use because of the heavq traffic und ihe noise,
~hat the properties were difficult to rent £or resideniic~l purposes, ar~•..
tliai they presented a run down appearance which was a dEtri¢~nt to the a.r.ea.
Mr. Harris nresr.~ted a rendering, showin~ three residences az:U their
possible appearat-ec: if they were converted into commercia] uc;r. He also
atated~ that Mr. B. J• Jette,, uwteer of. one af the properties, wvuld report on
:;-+- ~ - - ~: _"' ""-., ~ ~_~.
_ ~,,,. ~. 1 . ., ... ~ _ , , _ , ~. .. 'i ~ .~~~. , ~~~~:.,~
[
I
~
.. ~.
;`5
~ +.:}
~ -"
~: _~
i
`~
~ ~
P
~ MINiTTH3, CITX PIANNING COMMISSION, October 2, 1961, Continued:
~.
RHCLAS3IPICATION-
N0. 61-62-30
Continued
the wall requirea~ehts, that the requirements and recommendations if the
properties wese approved ~'or conversioa to commercial use were understood
by the property owners astd would be complied witti, that he would be uti1-
izing Lots 4 and 5 for the proposed accounting offices, and rhat five of
the properties on Placentia Avenue were presently occupied by the owners of
the property. Mr. Harris stated that the other property owners intended to
develop their properta~es £or real'estate offices and other simi~ar uses if
the properties tveie reclassified, that they proposed to remodei some of the
houses and prov3de driveways betweea them, that uniform signs wouid be in-
stalled, that blact-topping, would be installed in accordance with the Code
requirements for the ty+pe of busine5s to be established~ and that a con-
tinuous block wa11 wouid be instalied along the alley for the protection uf
the ahuttiffg R-l, Orie Pamily Residential, development. He added that the
owners of property abutting to the'east had given their consent to the
coi~struct7.on of said wall.
Idr. SdwArd Coiling, Preside~t of the Anaheim-Sunkist Civic Association,
appeared befor~ the Commission, and read and submit~ed a letter from the
Association protesting the.proposed reclassification. The letter out-
lined reasdns for the protest and suggested that, if the best use of +.ae
land were determined to be for commercial use, a professionai job should be
done in respect to its ~tilization. Mr. Colling stated further that tb;•re
was an ample amount of vacant land in the area alr,eady classified for com-
mercial purposes, that the proposed use of the subject area would be det-
rimental to the surrounding area, and that traffic probxems wouid be in-
creased. He submitted pictures of other areae where residential pro-
Ferties were being utilized for comwerciai purposes, noted that they created
unsightly appearances, aad requested that if the Commis:;ion did approve
the sub,~ect petition that only suitable commercial buildings be permitted
and that restrictions be imposed on the properties. He stated that he
was.not aware of the ~eed restrictions in effect on subject propexty, pro-
hibiting the use fbr other than residentiai purposes, when he had protested
against a similar request for reciassification of property in the subject
area. Iie indicated that since that timE, after carefui consideration in
respect to possible commercial use of the property, it was his opinion that
if an organized commercial development were established it wouid not nec-
essarily be detrimental to the area and might be a solution to the existing
probiem.
Mrs. 8. J. Chase, 227 Curti.s Way, appeared before the Commission and in-
formed them that a petition of protest against the proposed reclassification,
signed by the majority of the property owners in the abutting residential
tract, had been fiied with the City Council.
The Commission discusse~i the present condition of the existing residences
in the subject area and~Mr. Harris stated tht~t, if the propospd reclass-
ification ~xere approved, the area will be improved rather than allowed to
deteriorate. Commissioner Pebley indicated that he did not think that pro-
pesty owners would permit p=operties in which they have invested to continue
to depreciate because of a lack of maintenance in the event.the subject peti-
tion was not approved.
Mr. George Reisch, owner of property located at 2006 Underhill Avenue,
appeared before the Commission and stated that a Petition for Reclassi-
fication to the C-1, Neighborhood Commerciai, Zone had been denied by the
Commission For his property and was being held in abeyance by the City
Council penving #he disposal of subject petition. He stated further that
he was interested in the requested.reclassification of subject property
because he considered it the best use of the property, that Bxhibits had been
prepared by the Planning Department suggesting alternative proposals for the
use of the prope=ty, that a great amount of traffic on Placentia Avenue made
the properties unsuitable for residential use,'that five out of the ten
houses were presently rented and oae was vacant,,that a suitabie Precise Plan
had peen devised for the uae of the properties, and that if restsictions were
- ~ '-;`; '~...:.. , ..
s',
i ~'~
~ ~ - ~ ~ " ~,J.~..k~Mv..:'9~r3;&<, : .c:~f.~ -:.. ~. r h tp wi~e ~ 7 r .
~~ ..x ~...y'ti< >~'~}~11, .«u..S.vlr9~. -~~'2L
2b,.
`{ `~~
~
. . : . _,.
i.4
. . . . -. ,,: ; .. ,.. .; ~,.,. ,
. .. ... .. ~ . .
, ._.__..v:.._~
., . . . .. ~: . ~ .~ ~ . .~r~~
. .... V ~ . .. . ~ ~ ~ . . ,
. . . . ~ . .. .. . I
` . . . : . . - . . .. . .. . . . ..
r
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COhAlISSION, October 2, 1~~61, Continued:
438
- i
~BCIASSxFICATION - imposed oa the properties the prupcsed uses would be a credit to the City ~
No. 61-62-30 of Anaheim.
Continued '
Chaisman Gauer addressed tne audience, stating that the Commission had given
! the problem of the uae of the subjec~ prope;t~es a considerable amount of
, attention, that"they had made field trips to the area, that studies had
~ i beem pregared by the Planning Staff for consideration of possible solutions
~ to the problem, and tha4 no deciaioas had yet beea made in respect to re-
~. I . solving the matter, '
~''~ ~ Mr. Martin $reidt, Senidr Planner, di~played the exhibits p~repared by
k. - the Pianning Staff and outlined the alternative plans for ihe use of thx
~ ~`~ subject properties. He read staff recommendations for the development of
~~ the properties as suggested for each exhibit. The exhibits proposed one I
pian for the use of the existing residences by the utilization of com-
munal driveways ~o the proposed pQrking areas aad by imposing various
~'~ restrietions, another plan for the removal of the existing residential
~ structu~•es thereby permit~ing an integrated commerciai development, and
a tliird plan for possible R-3, Multiple Pamily Reaidential, development.
~ THH FffiARING WAS CLOSHI).
Y,
¢ The Commission noted that most of the subject .properties were not being
; maintained properly, that .he area needed improvement, and that the ~
~ removal of the existing structures might be expensive.
~ ; : ..
Mr. E. J• Jette appeased before the Commission and stated that the owners '
~:_ of property abuttiag the subject properties on the east we.*.e agreeable to
` the installation of an alle at the rear of subject ro erties.
~ "' Y P P
i. In response to inquiry by Jdr. Colling, it was pointed out that the
~`; Precise Piaas presented were oniy suggested solutions to the problem~
p, Mr. Coliittg indicated that he considered the plan for the complete removal
` of the existing structures to permit ultimate cemiaerciai development would
f be the only saitabie pian in the eveat the properties were reclassified,
and that said plan should "either be adopted or the property should re-
' main as classified for single familq residential use only..
~: Assistant City Attorney Joe Geisler advised the Commission that the plan
indicatin~ use of the existing structures for commercial ~~e would also
~ require approval of a.Petition for Variance in order to satisfy Code re-
quirements in re.spect,to parking facilities.
Mrs. Harris informed the Commission that they,proposed to utilize only
a portion of the residence for the proposed accounting office and that
the remain3er would be utilized for residential purposes. Assistant City
Attorney Joe Geisicr advised the Commission that the combined residential
aad commercial use would not be permitted.
k :. .
= Commissioaer Marcou~c offered a motion~ seconded by Commissiener Mungall,
~ and moved for its passage and adoption, to recommend to the City Councii
~. that subject petition be approved, subject to the following conditions
~ 1. Deve3.opment of each parcei substantiaily in accordance with ~chibit No.
S.
~ __:.
~ 2. Recordation of C-1 deed restrict3ons limiting the use of subject pro-
perty to business and professional offices oniy with prohibition of com- '
~ `` bined residential and commercial use of any structure at any given time.
~y !;? 3. Installation af a six {.6),foot masonry wall; where'said walis do not
~ exist, along easterly boundary..on the alley abutting Loi; Nos.. l
y~`~';~x~ through 8; except for the provision of trash storage area,openings to
~'~ c,''t1- permit the pickup of rubbish from the lots~abutting the east side of the
~ ;`i ~.J :, . ' ~ . . . . . . .. . . . ~ ' . . . ~ ~ . .
ti°~ w i
~ ! ~M1~,.1.•~ . . -. ~ . . . . . . .' - . . , • ~. ~. . . ~ ~ .
,~J`, - . . .. ' . . , . . . . ~ ' . ~ ~ ' ~ . ~ - ~ ..
~ . . . ~ ; ~ ~ . . . ... - . . ' . . ' - . .
r
~wt
iY ~a ~. '. ~. ~~
1 y ~-~-..
~.fW~~~vJ~ti.`Sc ~ '~,~^tA 3'L-_frv;=~ _ f.~~ _. . "F' ._ _... ~ , ..., 1...,nc ,,,... r~r.. . I~.-, ...:'' ,t ....i~.l..o ~_.Svt~ ,~.a,'%4.,,,~
439
MINUTBS, CITY PlANNTNG COMMISSION, October 2, 1961, C~ntinued:
RBCIASSIPICATION - a1ley~and except for the provision of heavy duty gates to provide
No. 61-62-30 for pedestrian or vehicular access to said alley from the lots
Continued abutting the easterlq bouadary of the alley, and the provision of a
six (6) foot masonry wall aloag the'east~property linc ~of Loc No. 9.
Plans xor said walls t~ be sub3ect to review by the Az~chiie~tural
Commit#~2 and to be constructed the full distance as indicated on
Exhibit No. S prior to the Final guildipg Inspection of any one of
the buildings #o be located on the ssbject lots for commercial use.
~~ 4. Dedication of fifty-three (53) feet from the monumented centerliae of
Placentia Avenue for Lot Nos. 1 through 8~ recordation of private ten
(10) foot wide access drives between ~t Nos. 3 and 4 and Lot Nos. 5
and 6 from Placentia Avenue to the existirig aliey to the rear of sub-
~~ ject Lot Nos. 1 ttirough 8, dedication of access rights to Placentia
Avenue for Lot Nos. 1 thrcugh 8, with the exception of the two ten (10)
foot wide drives, and dedication of access rights to Underhill Avenue
of Lot No. 9.
5. Provision of oae (1) fully improved parking space, ten (10) feet by
twenty (20) feet in size, for every two-hundred and fifty (250) square
feet of gross floor space within any structure located on any one of
~ Lot Nos. 1 through 9. All parking required by any structure shall be
provided on the same lot on which the structure is located.
6. Concrete paving and provision of tree wells or landscaping, including
street`trees, of the parkway portion of the ~treet and highway rights-
of-way abutting Lot Nos: 1 through 9, and the landscaping of the front
yard of Lot Nos. ?. through 9, plans for said landscaping to be sub-
mitted to and subject to the approval of the Supe=intendettt of Park-
way Maintenance, and to be instailed prior to Final Building Inspection.
The maintenance of all landscaping required on the subject lots shali
be Considered a condition of uce of subject lots.
7. Complete maintenance of a predominantly residential appearance of Lot
Nos. 1 through 9, or the removal of the existing residential structure
and replacement with commercial facilities. Said commercial facilities
shall have a minimum fifteen (15) foot landscaped front yard setback,
rpith the provision of all parking spaces at the rear of subject pro-
perty substantiaily as indicated on Hxhibit No. 5. No external al-
terations shall be made to the existing structures of Lot Nos. 1 through
9.
8. Provision of enclosed trash storage areas,subject to the approval of
" the Director of Public Works, at the rear of Lot Nos. 1 through 9,
adequate iri size to contain all trash within the enclosure, prior to
Pinal Building inspection. There is to be no outdoor storage of
materials under any circumstances.
p.
' 9, Limitation of structural height to one (1) story.
k 10. All signs and advertisemeats located on.the individual properties
on Placentia Avenue and an Underhill Avenue and visible from these
~ ' 4wo streets shall be limited to one (1) free standin~ sign with a
~ maximum of eight (8) square feet of area. The signs oa all p=oper-
t
I
~ ties shall be of a uaiform nature, subject to the approval of the
!.
,. p;chi~e:.tural Committee. No flags, banners, lighted signs, bill-
~. boards, or roLating devices shall~under any circumstances~be permitted.
11. Provision of a suitable bumper guard abu:ting the requfred wail to
protect and safeguard the conditioa of said wall, with the mainten-
~ ance of said wali to be :he responsibility of the owners of the in-
~ dividual properties contaiLed in the propo§ed commercial deveiopment.
g
'~
12.
Removal of driveway apron on Parcel No. 9, and replacement with stand-
ard curb and gutter, in accordance cvith the approved standard pians
r`~; ~: on file ia the'office of the City Bngineer,
s ~:J~'
~. R i, Y
~
~ ~
~ .~.,..~,:
-.F ._'*~
c,.. , .,.~. ~
e, ., . ,.. ' .......~ . „ , ~:~.s~ 4. ..':.i' r,+'.,.-.c~;.,r..l. ,., ~~ . .. ~ ~ , .
~
1 .
~ y..;
1~ :rr ~rAxn ti~t.A.:a.C4~~xi',:~,M, wnV. ; ~, ...,Yr~ _ t'a~~^ ~;:~3y~i'~...~,'.s4'~r ... .
~
~
~ ;'~
~
~ ~
~
~
~
~'~
TBS CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 2,
MINU ,
1961, Continued:
~ : .',
~ _.
~.
~.
r::
~~d + .~
,~ .
..
~~
~ .
440
a
RBCLA9SIPICATION - 13. 3ubject to the approval of Petitioa for Reclassification No. 60-61-96~
No. 65-62-30 said approval to be aub,ject to the pertinent conditions of approval
Continued as outlined herein.
14. Subject to the a pprovai of a Petitioa for ,Variance for waiver of Code,
Section 18.40.030 (5), for garking requirements.
15. Time limitation of one hundred eighty (180) days for the accomplish-
ment of Item Nos. 2 sud 4.
On roll call the foregoing motion faileQ by the following vote:
pyBS; COhASISSIONBRS: .Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, 3ummers.
NOBS: COD9~IISSIONBRS: Allred, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. ~
pBSBNT: COMMISSIONBRS: Morris.
Commissioner Alired indicat'ed that he considered Sxhibit No. 6 to be the
ideal pian for the §olution of the probiem presented by the subject area
and that the otf~er plans would be d3fficult to maintain as desirable com-
mercial development. He cited instances in other areas in w hich residences
had been converted into commercial uses resulting in the deterioration of
the area. ,
The Cummission found and determined the following facts regarding the sub-
ject petition:
1. That the petitioner proposes a reclassification of the above described
property from the R-1, Single kdmily Residentiai, 2one to the C-l,
Neighborhood Commercia.i, Zone (restricted to business and professional
offices oniy).
2, That ihe proposed zeclassification of the subject property is premature
in View of the amount of vacant commercial land presently undeveloped
and ayailable, and that until such time as the land values have ad-
vanced to warrant the removal of the existing residential st.ructures
for replacement with a suitable commercial development, the proposed
reclassification would not be an improvement to the area.
3, That verbal opposition mtas recorded against subject petition, in
addition to a letter of conditional protest received from the Bast
Anaheim-Sunkist Civic Association.
;~
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 103, Series 1961-62 and moved
for its passage and adoption, secunded by Commissioner A~ilr°d, to recommend
to the City Councii that Peti.tion for Reclassification Dfo. 61-62-30 be
denied on the basis of the a.forementioned findinqs.
On roll cail the foregaing res:i+staon was na~aed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIC'iBRS: Allrec', ;fauer,Hapgood, Mungall, Pebley, Perry,
Summer;
NQBS: COMMIS3IONBRS:. MarCOU;:.
ABSBNT: COI~ASISSIONBRS: Morris.'
Commissioner Perry.indicated.tni~t na action be taken by the Commission
upon the Precise-Plans pre,ented by the Planaing Staff, &chibits 5, 6, or
7, and that the subject petitioa oe referred to the City Council with the
findings outlined in Resolution No. 103,, Series ]~961-62 together with the
studies•prepared by the Planning Department.
~--~_" •~--;~-~-~;a~
.... . .. . .., f t ~.n .
a
. e~ :4.:'.....~P . ~.~~.. .. !i. v
~~ '.~ :., ~ ~~. ~" .'.. : - ' ~
~ y~
' ~~ ~~
~3
~ ~. ' . . ~ ~ ' . Mf .2'~"~vTbtr.. 3' 1 ~A... J
. . . ' ' . . ~ 5 t t~.~ a~ . ~
~ .. ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ . . . . .
. . . ~ ~ ~ ~ . . . ~ ~
~ 441
~
MINUTBS, ~IT3f PIANNING C~A~!ISSION, October 2, 1961, Continued:
RBCIABSIPICATION- PUB~IC FIDARING. Petitioa submitted by MAURICE PINTO, 14014 McNab Avenue,
No. 61-62-31 Bellflower~ Califorqia, Owner; request3~g that'the property described as;
An irregulariy shaped pateei witp a fioaYa~e of 56 feet iocated on the
east side of Mountain View'Aveaue betweeh Sateila Avenue and the dead ead~
and exteadiag east to Maachester Avenue and further described as i828 Mountain
' View Avenue, be reciassified from the R-A~ RBSI~Ht~TIAL AGRICULTURAl, ZOd~ to
{ the C-1, NSIGHBQRHOO~D CaNASBACYAL~ ~ONE. ~
j Mr. iV: L. Rredar, 3101 Third Avenue, Corona Del Mar~ appeared before the Com-
, mieaion to represent the`pe'litioAer.
The Commisaion reviewed developmeht plans aisd.the.petitioner~s agent in-
`;,,;:,,•,~ dicated that a certain amount of access would be provided from Mountain
~': View Avenue, that the exist~ng residence on the property would be removed,
and ttiat there would not be a'pear ioad of traffic at any oae time because
of the type of operation.
The Commission noted that a revised development plan had been submitted
which indicated that parking stalis would be 9 feet in width.
Mr. R. B. Williams, 1829 3outh Mountaia View Avenue appeared before the
Commission aad requested iaformation in respect to the type of stores that
were proposed for the commescial development. He indicated that he pre-
ferred triat the subject property be classified in the C-3, Heavy Commercial,
Zone.
The Commission pointed out that the petitioner proposed ta construct a
two story commercial building to contain service t ype businesses con-
sisting of a small neighborhood grocery, a laundromat, and other service
stores. '
Mr. Rosea, atturney at 318 West Center Street, appeared before the Com-
mission and stated that the petitioner wras requesting permission to
estabiish a meaC m~_tet and a laundromat in order to serve the needs of the
people liviag in the numerous trailer parks in the area. He stated that
many of the peopie do not have transportation and need the limited type of
services that would be provided in the proposed development in close proxi-
mity to the parks, whereas a C-3, Heavy Commercial, zone could permit uses
that would not be of benefit to the occupants of the trailer parks.
Commissioner Morris entered the Council Chambers at 4:10 0'Ciock P.M.
THB HBARING WAS CLOSBD.
The Commiasion discussed the propoaed commercial development recently
approved for the southeast corner of Satella Avenue and Haster Strett.
Chairmaa Gauar read the various uses that are permitted by the Code in the
C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone and noted that an off-sale liquor opera-
tion would be permitted, bat that cocktail iounge~ or bars would not be
permitted.
The Commiasion found and determined the following facts regarding the subject
petition: • .
1. That the petitioaer proposes a reclassification of the above described
~ properry from the R-A, RBSIDHNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, ZONS to the G1~
NBI('nHBORH00D COI~i~iBRCIAL~ 20NB.
2. That the proposed reclassificatiop of subject property is necessary
or desirable for the orderly and proper development of the community.
3. Tttat the proposed reclassificatioq of subject propertq does properly
relate to the zones aad their permitted uaes locally established in
close proximity ta sub3ect property aad to the zonea and thei; permitted
~~- : ir 4 ~ ... .. .,.
!:1L . . ~ . , . ~ ~ ~~.~
.rr}.r, YL~ .,...." .. ......... .... .... .~ .,.., '.r:' . __ . ,. . . ,.. ..::~.{,?Yf~ _:__ _ ., ._ . .`-_.
S l P~
1,~ 'xE - . ,..
. ' ' • . , ..~ F.:~ . •
. ' . .. -. . I ~: ~ . .
~
. . .. . . ~, 1. ' . ~
~ .
' "~ - - '.. . ~
' . - .' . ...._ . . .. `N ~
. . . - . . .. . . . , . ~1' .
. . , ... . , ~, . .
. .-~ ~ . . . . . . . . . . : J ~~~~^
!' ... . . . ~ ~ ~ . . .. ~ ~ ~ ' . , ~.
~
~: .. _ 442
~'
MINUTBS, CITY PIANDTING CObA~tIS3I0N, October 2, 1961, Continued;
~. RBCi.ASSIPICATION- uses eaezall established throu hout the commuait
8 Y B Y•
No, 61-62-31
~' Continued 4, That the proposed reciassification of subject property does require
f; standard improvemen# of abutting streets because said property does
x. '`~ relate to and abut upon streets and highways which are proposed to carry
~ the type aad quaqtity of traffic~ which wili be generated by the per-
mitted uses, in accoidance with the circulation element of the General
~ Plan. .
~
~, .. ~ 5. That no one a
~. ppeared in opposition to subject petition.
~` Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 104, Series 1961-62, an3 moved
;~;?`~'`~ for its passage and adoption, setoade3 by Commissioner 3ummers, to recommend
to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No, 61-62-31 be
a pproved, subject to the'foliowing~coaditionso
~ 1. Development substan#ially in accordance with Bxhibit Nos, l, 2, 3, 4,
~`' S, aad 6.
`
;- 2, Iastallation of a six (6) foot masonrq wall on the northerly property
' ~ine adjacent to the parking area and the southerly~p"roperty line prior
,. to Fina1 Buildiao Inspection.
` 3, provision of parking area in accordance with the Code requirements and
f the open-air parking dimensions adopted by the Planning Commission and
k on file in the office of the Planning Department.
~ 4. Provision of a six (6) foot landscaped strip abutting Mountain View
_ Avenue and Manchester Avenue, plans for said landscaping to be submitte~
to and subject to the appr.oval of the Superintendent of ParkwayMainten-
ance and.to be installed prior to Pinai Buiiding Inspection.
° ~ 5. Preparation of street improvement plans and installation of all im-
F provements for Mountain View Avenue and Mattchester Avenue in accordance
with the approved standard plans on file ia.the office of the City
Bngineer.
6. Payment of $2,00 per front foot for street lighti~ng purposes on Mountain
View Avenue and Manchester Avenue.
7. Provision of utility easements along exterior boundaries as deter-
mined to be necessary by the Director of Public Utilities to adequately
serve the subject property and other property.
8. Time~limitation of ninety (90) days for the accomplishment of Item Nos.
5, 6, and 7.
`- - The foregoing conditions were rPCited at the meeting and were found to be a
~~~ • necessary prerequisite to the ,use of tha property ia order to preserve the
safety and welfare of the titizens of the City of Anaheim.
~:
e.
On roll cali the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
~+
~~ AYBS: COhAlI3SIONHRS: Allred, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley,
Perxy, Summers.
f NC1ES: COFB+lISSIQI~ffiEtS: None.
~ AHSBNT: COMMISSTONBRS: None.
~ AHSTAINBD:COhQtISSIONBRS: Morris. :
~ RBCIASSIPICATION-.PUBLIC FffiARING: Petition initiated by the ANAHBIM PLAHIQING CO~hAMISSION, 204
~ ` T No. 61-62-32 8ast Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, to consider reciassif.ication of
~-: ~ property described;as; The nortnerly 260 feet of the property described as
~ 1` follows: A parcel of property located between Water and South Streets; said
2~; ; property having a depth of 160 f.eet westerly from the right=of-way of Bast
{iYt.w.. ' Street. ,
";~°r~k>'-~ ; , '
r . . .. . . . . . . . . . .
,. , .
~.~.. . . - . . . _" ._" - .." . . . ~ .. .. . ..... ~_._. ~ ..__ . .. . .~ ...._. ~. . . ~ ~ ~ ..
. . .;:;i „~r ..~~...~ ., .~: ~. ~:: ..:...-.;,, .~s~; ~ , ... -,.;.. .,. ,~o,; .a. . ~.~ .
, ~ ;; _
~
,;,,
~S
~
~
v
~
. ~
~'{~il1,f:. )qv}M_:'A~{~~ .~'~
~,' ~
~
443 • ~
~ ~ MINUTHS, CITY PLANNING CObAlISSION, October 2, 1961, Continued:
RBCIASSIPICATION- Subject.petition initiated by Planning Commission Resolutiou No. 80, Series
N~. 61-62-32 1961-62 for the consideration of•the amer~dment of Ordinance No. 878, adopted
Coatinued by the City Council ia.connection with petition for Reclassification No.
53-54-9; at the directive of the City Council issued on August 29, 1961.
~ '~ Assistant City Attorney Joe Geisler advised tAe Comuiiseion that the sub,j~ct
property 2iad been a source of diffitultK for the City for some time. He
~
4 reviewed the past action in reclassification of the subject properties aad
noted that certain conditions of the Ordinance had never been completed
. i aad that the matter of access had become~a probleta. He stated that Ordi-
! nance No. 878, adopted by`the City Council on Janaary 26, 1954 provided as
follows: . ,.
P. .... . . . . .. ~
"A strip of land along the westerly right-of-way line of South East Street
from East South Street tb Sast Water Street, having a depth of 160 feet, now
is zoned`R~3, Multiple PBjnily Residential, Zone, and that ,it be changed to,
and incorporated in, the following zones:
That the easterly 6tl feet of said parcei be changed to a
P-I., PARICING-IANDSCAPING; ZONB, provided that not less than
the 2asterly 25 feet thereof be lnndscaped and provided that~
a driveway not less than 16 feet in width be established between
said landacaped area'and the balance of said property, with
entrances on South`Street and Water Street, and one entrance
on Hast Street; and provided further that a fehce or other
barrier be erected on said driveway so that it does not
beco~rie a through driveway from South S4reet to Water Street.
That the balance of the property be changed fram an R-3,
MUI.TIPLH PAMILY RHSIDBNTIAL, ZONB to an M-1, I.T.^,HT MANUFACTURING,
ZONH, proeided that an aileyway in the rear ot .he parcels of said
property affected by this change be establzshed from South Street
to Water Street. This alley shail not bp less than 20 feet in
width."
Mr. Geisier informed the Commission thz' the alley has been provided,
However, the sixteen foot access street nee; never been installed. He
stated that one of the owners, Mr. H, D. Jounson, had constructed an
industrial building approximately 4 years ago and had been denied an
entrance on the basis that the conditioas of the ordinance bad not been
met~and the exact entrances on 8ast Street have not been determined.
Subsequently, Mr. Johnson had been granted an entrance, as the result of
a lawspit, which had been cons~ructed on his property in front of the
electrical contractor*s building. Mr. Geisler stated further that approxi-
mately two year3 ago a service station,xras established on the northwest
corner of South and Bast Streets with an entrance, constructed in error and
at variance with the Ardinance, on Bast Street to serve the service station.
Subsequect to tYa: service station construction, Mr. Johnson applied for and
was given a permit, in error, for an access drive. The permit was rescinded
and although a lawsuit was instituted, the entrance was denied on the basis
that Mr. Johnson already had aa entrauce. .Mr. W. H. Jeweit, owner of the
central portion of the property in`question, has requested access privi-
leges for his p=operty and the matter is presently involved in court pro-
ceedings, :Mr. Geisler discussed .the iocatio~ ~f the Glen Aire Manufacturing
building, which was to maintain 150 foot building setback from Hast Street,
~
and he iadicated.that although the dedication was 160 feet, it was deter-
mined that the. building wae not constructed on any poition of the land
• covered.by the 0;dinance. Upon contact by the City.Attorney, the owners of
the G1en Aire.property indicated that they were not interested in cooperating
in respect to the plans prepared`by the Bngineering Department, the'ori- i
ginal of which §howed an access road, in order that compliance with the Ordi-
nance could be accomplished. Mr. Geisler indicated that ths~ J.ocation of the
road.as outlined on the origina~ plans would be.maintained by
the city
and i
_
,
that ib eliminatea the access drive on the`H. Dc Johnson property and pro- " ~
a
vides insiallation of a new.opening next to the service station on Water
I . -
' . ,; ,
~.,
. - "
, , . ,: ". _ .
;,;:
~ ~i
~ , _. ..
, - - _
. .
.~ . ,..: .. .. .... ~~.. . . . . ~, ~~.. .~
~. ~ p.1
_ ~;_-.. _ . ac~i ,~..~i~!f~. .~cr~*j~;. ~ .~,-. - ~~ .r- c..': . ,..~_. >.?~ .f.` ~ik~',.af.?n. ~.~..'l..:f•t~'~t..~. , i~s.~. ,-.. ..._ _.... _ . __. .~ . _ .:f`
. ~ rt ~;a:~-. n - .,i~.. .~i=;W ,:+.~ ~. ~~ . .
, . . . . . ~ . ..~ / .' . .
. . ... . . . .. _ ~' . .
. . ~ . . ~~' . ..
, . . .. .. ~....~
. ~ ... ... :.' . ~. ~. . ~..
. ' ._,__..:.'__'___.__ .~.. _ . ' ' .,~. .. , ~mti~
. ~:,
. \~' ~ . . .. ~ ~ . . ~ . ~:~~.~~. ~ ~ .
444
~.;.._ _ . . ~
MINUIBS, CITY PIANNING COP9~fISSION, October 2, 1961, Continued:
RHCIA89IPICATION- Stxeet. This road would be a 29 foot dedicate3 street which would allow for
No. 61-62-32 passage ia each direction, in addition to parallel parking on each laae. He
Contiaued ~tated further that thie'plan would permit whatever openings were required
• { for the Johnson, the Jewett, and the Glen Aire properties. Mr. Geisler
f informed the Commission that the plan was presented to the owners of pro-
! perty on the east side of East Street, at which time Mr. Johnaon and Mr.
Jewett had indicated that they would be basically willing to cooperate in.
, ( the cost of develeping'tHe plan, which iacluded the street improv~ments and
. the landscaping with the landscaping to be absorbed by the City. The Glen
Aire Manufacturing Company indicated at that time that they were ~iot in-
terested in cooperating in the cost of the development. As a cor,~equente,
a second plan had beea devised, eliminating the Glen Aire property from the
development. Therefore, the properties thAt would be completing the condi-
tions of the Ordinance wo~ld be established in the M-1, Light Manufactur-
ing, 2one classification. and that it would appeaz logical that the property
that had not complied with the coaditions of the Ordinance should revert to
the R-3, Multiple Family.Residential, Zone,under which it was ciassified
before the coaditions were imposed. Mr. Geisler added that sihce that time
he had been contacted by Mr. Gurneg, a partner in the Gien Aire Maaufactur-
ing Company, in respect to a continuan:.e of the matter until such time as
they could dzrange a meeting with Mr. Johnson and Mr. Jewett in respect to
the instsllation of the sixteen foot street.
Chairmati Gauer read a le~:ter, dated September 26, 1961, signed by Mr. A. F.
Habener, requesting that the subject petitionbe continued until after Novem-
, ber S, 1961 because his partner, Mr. C. T. Gurney, is not availabie until
that time. Chairman Gauer also read another letter from Mr, A. P, liabener
protesting the proposed reclasaification on the basis that it would be
detrimental to the poseibilities of the continued exiatence of the Glen Aire
Manufacturing Compaay.
Mr. A. P. Habener, partner in the Glen Aire Manufacturing Company, appeared
~ before the Commission and stated that he was the part owner of the northerly
260 foot parcel in the subject area. He requested that the subject petition
be continued until his partner C. T. Gurney could be present and stated that
the problems involved were relatively new tc. him. He atated further that
he would request a denial of the proposed reciassafication to the R-3,
Multiple Pamily Residential, Zone because the zoning wouid not be oi i;eaefit
to the three properties involved, to the a.3jacent residential properties,
or to the City of Anaheim, and that the reclassification would not do any-
thing to enhance the appearance of the :iubject and the surrounding properties.
Mr. Habener added that the subject proFerty was purchased for M-1, Light
Maaufacturing, purposes, that it would remain in its present condition, that
they would not maintain the landscaping, that it wouid not resolve the pro-
blem of the propesty owners because the issue at 4he present time was the
,;:des~i~.of the Jewett property to gain access to their newly developed pro-
perties, that if the subject ~roperty reverted to the R-3. Multiple ~ami~y
Residentiai, classification it wouiQ no longer be possible to negotiate for
access purposes, and that no definite approach had been offered to resolve
the problem. He discussed the location of the buiiding and stated that it
had been constructed in;accordance with the plans agreed upon, that apprrxi-
mately six ;6) ~`eet of the building would be ciassified in the R-3 zone if
the zoning were chaaged-because the major portion of the building had t,een
constructed upon the existing M-1 propert,y which had been established since
1933, and that the: Ordinance reclass~fying tfle propzr~y had aot been sdopted
to accomodate the structure which had 6een built in good faith. Mr. Habener
assuced the Cownission that he thought the problem could be resolved by nego-
tiation, and stated that he did not thiak that Mr. Jewett should be denied
access to his prnperty, altliough he did not think the access should be pro-
d efer-
r
ty
vided at the expense of the Gien Asre Manufacturing Company. He ma e r
ence to comments regarding thp attitude and the lack of interest shown by the
Glen Aire Manufacturing Company in cooperating in the improvements and stated
that he did not consides.the ir.astallation of a road across his propefty to i~
permit access for the Jewett ~roperty, r.~hich he said said. was not in accord-
ance with the old ordinaace~ was an equitabTe`.solution to the psoblem, thus.
i
.,
~;;~ V i: - 1 C ~
. . .. . . _ 1 ~. . ~ . ~ . , ~.. ~ f . . _.. .1.. . ~ ~t~ .. . .. ~ ~~~_ c .. ._ -. _ . - +- -
~ . . . . , . „ .:~.;1 . _ _.
. ~.
~ .. .. . ~ . . '~~ '! . .
~ - - . ~ . . .t . .
~ ~. ~ . ~ . ~~~ •
~ _ .__..._. . . . . . . . . . , ~ ~ , , . . ' . ^,7 . . .. ..
. . . . ~, ~ . . . . . . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .
445
~ ~iINUT~S, CITY PZANNII~ COA4lISSION, October 2, 19b1, Continued:
g RHCLAS3IFICATION' explainiag the reason for the lack of interest. Mr. Habener emphasized
No. 61-62-32 that if a reasonable plan Could he dev3aed wHerebq accesa could be ac-
~. Continued complished without penaliziag hisiproperty, he was sure that the matter
coul.d be resolved aad detaiis worked out.
~.
~ Mr. Harold McCabe appeared before the Commission and stated that he
` represented Mr. Jewett and that he was not opposiag the subject petition,
r ~ He stated further that he was trying to obtaia access for their property
~ aad that at one time access was possible. However, Mr. Jehnson had in-
• stalled a hedge aad a wall, therefore, Mr. Jewett has not had access for
~.. i • approximately one year and the only possible access has beea to go over
. the curb. Mr. McCabe added'that, although the aervice station did not
~ compiy with the origiaal plan, Mr. Jewett would be willing to make ~~f~
~ improvemeats as requested in order to provide the acceas road. He in-
f~ dicated that if the subject property reverted to the R-3 2otte class-
ification~ the plan for the access road wouid be abandotted aad another
manner of access would be conside;ed because the Jewett property was
faced witY~ a serious problem in respect to access. 'He stated that he
~ under:.tood that the owners of the subject property, the Glea Aire
r Manufacturiag Company, were not interested in coatributing for the access
j: road and that he did not believe that progress cauid be made ia trying to
E compromise with them.
,
Mrs. Peters appeared before the Commission and stated that she was a
propertq owner in the area, that the property owaera have tried for
~ two years to negotiate in ordar to sesolve the pioblem of fulfiiliag
r the intent of the Ordinance reclassifyiag the subject property, and
~ ~ that the property owners in the area wished to see the industrial
businesses obtaia access to their properties and to maintaia screening
~ to protect the.residential sectioa. She stafed that,.in view of the
; statemeata made by the partner ia the Gien Aire Manufacturing Company
relative to continuance of the sub3ect petition in order ta ailow time
~ for both partnera to participate ia the discussion and possible nego-
~ tiation,•it was also the request of the property owners in the area that
the subject petition be continued as requeated.
Chairman Gauer indicated that~ ia his opinioa, the owners of the sub3ect
propertp did t~ot intentionaily violate the intea~; of #he Ordinaace. How-
~ ~ evex, errors had been made in following the Ordinaace reaulting in the
~ preaent confu'sed situation ia respect to the atatus of the subject propertq.
}Y stated that if the problem could be Norked out by negotiation, it would
` be a solution acceptable to the Commission and the City.
~.
Assistant City Attorney Joe Geisler advised the Commisaion that, since one
•,~ of the properties invoived in the matter had a serious access problem, a
temporary acGess might be permitted with the understanding that the access
be abandoned and removed at such time as the problem has been resolved.
Mrs. Peters complained to the Commission th?t the property already had
access by placiag boards at the cusbs, that the owner had beea required
~' to remove black-topping he had iastalled at which time they were assured
` that the conditions of the, t;,Ydinance would be fulfilied, and that large
~~ trucks using the property were creating a hazarci for the children and a
~ nuisance for the property owners.
~.. ~ -.
~E
! •'::
~
t
„`
~ Fr
~
~ ..~~. rt~ .
~ _ , '~
THH HBARING WAS CL0.SBD.
Coeimissioner Morris aoted that the matter of permitting access would not be
within the jurisdiction of the Commission, and Assistant City Attorney Joe
Geisler advised the Commisaioa that the access problem would be within the
reaim of the authority of the City,Councii.
~ommissioner Morris offered a motion, seconded bq Commissionex Summers and
-0
carried, that the sub~ect petiYion be continued until the meeting of ~
November 27, 1961 with the recommendation that the partiea inyoives; the ~
Pianni~g Staff, the representatives of the C~.ty, aad the property owners in
tbe area endeanor to resolve~the probiem for the benefit of ail concerned.
•~ .. . -- _
, - ~ ~ .~; --•'-~ :,.. r-- r-^-, t~~.
. .. . . .,......,.. _ . . . . . . , . . ..... . ~ . . , .., ,. .,. . .1 . ....., .. . ;f~~.:_, ~_._ _ ~...... .. .~,...~ _ -.._
~ .`° 1 ~F T ..h.- `~ .4~ ' F.~.n,'.., l.h~ ~.3~; 1~? ~ n / a...;Z4~,. '.:a ;': ... . ;
r~ ~l. ^
/~ F '
,.~~ ~;~ .. . ~
. ~ . ,~I ~, . . . .
. . . . {,lt . . i
. . , . ' .. .,~ .; ~
• . , ... '~' ~,:, '' - . : ~. -: ~~_'~ -.h.., 1';, ' ~'^
1
.. ~ .. . ,~. . . ' .3 ' '!
_ _....' . . . . .. . . . ~ . ~'.~.~.'',' .. e
. . . ~ . .. . • ~ • . ~ ~ ~ . ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
446 ' ,
~ MINOTBS, CTTY PIAD7FING CObAlISSION, October 2, 1961, Continued: ~
RB(:IASSIPICATION- PUBLIC tiBARING. Yetition submitted by BUGENB C. TUPTS, 2011 Random Drive, ~
~' No. 61-62-33 pnaheim, California and DONALD A. PULY.MAN, 2005 Random Drive, Anaheim,
~: .California, Owners; requesting that the property described as: A parcel
103 feet by 177 feet with a front'age of 177 feet iocated on the north
? side of Random Drive between Agate aad Barnsdaie Streets; its southeast
~- ~ corner being approximately 70 feet west of the northwest corner of Agate .
~, Street and Random Arive and further described as 2005 and 2011 Random D.r3.+~e~•
~ be reclassified from the R-A, RESIDBNTIAL AQtICULTORAL, ZONB to the R-1,
C'- ONB PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, 20NH.
i'.
~' The petitioaer appeared before the Commission aad stated that he had +
' ~ purchased the property with the understanding,that it consisted of two
~,a;<:. - reaidential lots. He stated that he had co~lstruCted one house on a portioa
of the property aad then discovered that he'could aot build on the remainder
because it was ciasaified in the R-A, Resideatial Agricultural, Zone.
~ TFffi HBARING WAS CLOSHD. `
i. ~
~
- The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the 1
~ subject petition: •
1. That the petitioner proposes~a reciassification of the above described
property from the R-A, RESIDBNT:AL AGRICULTURAL, ZONH to the R-1, ONH
PAMILY P.HSIDENTIAL~ 20NS.
's
2, xhat the proposed reclassification of subject,property is necessary
or desirable for the orderly and proper development of the community.
~
4. ''
3. That the proposed reclassification of.subject property does properly .
relate to the zones and their permitted uses locally establiahed in
s close proximity to subject property and to the zones and their permitted ~
- uses generally established throughout the community. .
~ . 4. That the proposed reclassification of subject property doea not require
dedicatioa for and etandard improvement of abutting streets because
said property does relate~to and abut upon streets and highways which
are,impioved to carry the tqpe and quantity of traffic, which will be
generated bq the permitted uses, in accordance with the ci=culation
element of. the General Plan,
5. That no one appeared in opp~sition to subject petition.
;.
Commiasioner Mungall offered Resolution No. 105, Series 1961-6?., and
` , moved for its passage.aad adoption, seconded by Commissiotter Marcoux to
recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No.
61-62-33 be approved~ subject to the following conditions: .
a, 1. Instailation of driveways in accordance with the approved standard plans ~
i: ' on file in the office of the City 8n3ineer.
~ 2. Recordation of a Record of Survey of subject property. .
3. Time limitation of ninety (90) days for the accomplishment of
~ '
~ Ztem Nos. 1 and 2. ~
~ TY,~ foregoing conditions were recitcd at the mee•cing and were found to be
~ a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to preserve
the safety and weifare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
€
~ ;, On roll call the foregoiag resolution was pasaed by the foliowing vote:
~ Y` '~ . pYBS; COhAlISSIONBRS: A11red, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mor.ris, Mungall, '
L ~ -` ~,` Pebley, Perry, Summers.
;,,,v. ;. NOBS: C0~4dISSIONBRS: None.
j}~,.:~ ,.: AHSBNT: COMMISSIOI~RS a None . •
,~.:~,, r ~ _
2~.~'j - r~;, ~ . . . ~ ~ . . . , . ~ . . . . .
, t; e~~L7" ~ . . . . . . . ~ . . . . , ~ , . . . .
~ ~ . . . . ~ _ . , . ~. ~.
~ ~t ~ ~ - . .. . .. .. ~ . . . . ~ , . . .
~~ _ _ ~II~_}.~~- ,. . .,.~~ . ... ~. . ._.... ,. ~ ... 5i;~~ '..~.~ . . .n... ..n,~,.. i:.~, . _., _ ._'s~. , , _ , _t
A Request received from the City of Placentia~ relative to the proposed
change in name of certain stseets located within the territorial limita
of the City of Anaheim, was suBmitted to the Commission,
An area map was displayed for trie Commissiun and it was noted that the
request wa8 submitted by the City of Placentia in order to provide uni-
' • gormity in atreet names within the City of Anaheim, the City of Piaceatia~ •
• and the County of Oraage. The Commission was informed that requested
changea are as .foilowa:
~~ Tp LOCATION
c°•'<?;';i;;~
r ~.. .
s: ,.;: 1. Blue Gum Street M~lzose Street Between i.a Palma Avenue
on the south and Orange-
thorpe Avenue on the
north.
2, Crowtuer Avenue and Crowther Avenue or Between Piacentia Avenue
• Placentia-Yorba Yorba Boulevard on the weat and Orange-
• Houlevasd thorpe Aveaue oa the
east. •
3. La Jol1a Street McPadden Street Setween Placentia Avenue
on the west and the stub
. end of La Joila Street
' (between Dowiing and
Milier Streets) on the
_ east.
The Commission reviewed the map and discussed the proposed changes at some
length. It was noted that an exteasion of BSue Gum Street waa propos•.d to
intersect with Melrose Street.
Commissioner Marcoux offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pebley and
carried, that the fo2lowing changes be recommended to the City of Placentia
and to the City Council of the City of Anaheim for thei= consideration:
1. That Melrose Stzeet be changed to Blue Gum Street from Crowther Avenue
southerly to its propose3 intersection wi4h Blue Gum Street~ thereby
extending Biue Gum Street from Crowther Avenue on the north to La Palma
Avenue on the south.
2, That Crowther Avenua and Placentia-Yorba Boulevard be changed to Yorba
Boulevard extending from Placentia Avenue on •the west to its intersection
with Orangethorpe Avenue on the east.
3. That La Jolia~Stre2t remain unchanged for its entire length.
CORABSPONDBNCH - Item No. 1: .QtANGB COUNTY USB VARIANCB N0. 4837:
Subject petition, =eceived from the Orange Ccaaty Planning Commission and ~
submitted to the Anaheim Pianning Coaunission at.the.meeting of September 18,
1961, was con+,iaued until the meeting of October 2, 1961 in order to permit ~
the preparation`and submission'of a land use study of the subject area for
Commission consideration. Subject petition contained a request to establish
a 122 unit trailer park`in the A-1, General Agricultur:tl District of the
_
County.
An aerial photograph.and.a base map of the subject area were submitted to
the Comoaission for review. It was noted'that a previous action in respect
to the development of a trailei park on the northwest corner of Blue Gum
- and Coronado Streets had:been.recommended to the`County for`approval with
the additional recoinmendation that;the west side of B1ue:Gum 3treet be,
- .~~
.
- • ' , :
;: ~!~.::
.
,
..
., .
,
, -
, . , .
• .
_ ;
<;,:
.
;
. ,
~.
v
,"
.. . .
_. ... .~~7`ci'~kk."i?~~.~if:..;'4 .?-:~,.i.,~i'A.Faf', 7..,.., , _1:~.`tm:;( rek~:E.cn.~ - ,~~..~~K~_9~..~_..\! ~~T-,:°~.~.h.~"i,zy~v,v`~m~9'^+.f+5a5. _ . ..,.. ."~.^-.:^"'°~ /
~, '.
~ { j ,.j.
i,. . _.~..w'.
established as a dividiag line betweea medium density residential use and
t~e industrial use as pro3e~'ted on the General Plan for 4he area.
The Commissioa discusaed at some leng5h the necessity fes establiehing a
~ point of demarcation betweea residential use and industrial use and it
~ was pointed out that the City Council had recentiy directed the Pianning
Commissiott to prepare a Master Plaa for the area east of Placentia Avenue
. to Jeffersan Street and north of the Santa Ana River to Orangethorpe Avenue.
Planning Director Richard Reese informed the Commission that the area pro-
jected for industrial development in the northeast section of the County
was being encroached upon by other uses. However, it was the hope of the
County that industrial development would be encouraged for that section.
He noted that a discussion has been held by the City Council in respect
to the establishment of trailer parks and that the Council considered a
trailer p8rk suitable foc the area a~though they did not tia~sider
apartment construction desirable. The Co~nmission iadicated that traixez
park develop~ents and apartment building development were both in the
medium deasity residential ciassification.
The Commission discussed further the advisability of estabiishing a
dividing line at Blue Gum Street on the west with La Palma Avenue as a
dividing line on the south.
Commiasioner Mungall offe;ed a motion, seconded by Commissioner perry and
carried, that the Planning Department transmit notice to the Orange County
Pianning Commis"sion that the Anaheim Planning Commission recommends that
Use Variance No. 4837 be denied on the basis that a line of demarcntion
between residential use and industrial use along Blue Gum 6treet had been
adopted by the Commission, so as to reserve the ar~a east of Hlue Gum for
industrial development as projected on the General Plaa, indicating that the
Commission was developing a general plan of the area, and that the approval
of the subject petition would be inapnropriate in view of the status of the
curreat study of the arra.
A notice received from the Orange County Planning Commission, relative to
Use Variance No. 4840, was submitted to the Commission. Subject petition
requested permission to establish a temporary real estate office and locate
three temporary signs in connection therewith for the period of one year in
the A1 General Agriculturai District. Subject property is located on the
southerly side of Lincoln Avenue approximateSy 1,200 feet easterly of Rio
Vista Street, east of Anaheim.
The Commission noted that the subject petition was similar to previous
~~ requests in sespact to advertising signs for the sale of newly coestructed
I residential subdivisions. The Commission discussed the advisabilitq of re-
~ quiring the developer to post a bond to insure the removal of the signs at the
expiration of 'the time limit and to requize that the developer maintain the
area in which the sigqs are iocated, &eeping the area ciear of debris and
weeds.
Commissioner Alired offered a~otion, seconded by Commissioner Summers and
carried, that_the Secretary transmit notice,to the Oraage County Planning
Commission, indicating that the'Anaheim Planning Commis:;ion recommended
approval,of the subject pe±ition subject to the following conditions:
1. Subject petitioa be approved'for a period of bne (1) year with the':post-
ing of`a;bond by the petitioner to insure the removai;of all signs at the
_ . ,
expiration of said time period:
2, That the.signs lie dated and the area in which.they are lacated be main-
tained.
~~:-~ ,. , ,
C~ '.~:~: 9.. . . . ' '~ ~: iY~v~: ~i ~ '~ N . ~~~ti ..'~Y ''tm'~J/F V n-R~.~..~~Y ;^'~ ~ . ~ ~ .
, ,. . i~t .F,Y7.1S _ .,..~.. ~., ~ . ._ .:s.uy . . ~-d ~a....~rb1~: ~ A_v .;. at}.q:4fif~Yr,.'St~r~ La.a~ h .:..5. y. ~, ~'ce~,i._ , .. _ - :
r ~
~:,~
. .~
- - i~
.. . . . ' . . ..:~1~~5'i
~ ... ~ - ~ ' . ~ : ' , r~~,
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING CQARr1I35I0N,• October 2, 1961, Continued:
~ C01tRBSPONDffi1CB - Item No. 3: QRHNGB COUNTX USB VARIANCB N0. 4842: .
Continued . . .. :
A notice received from the Oraage County Planaiug Commissioa, relative to
° Use Variance No. 4842, was aubinitted to #he Commission. Subject petition
~ requested permission to establish a temporary reai estate office and locate
four sigas in conneCtion the,.ewith for'a period of one (1) year in the A1
~' ~ General Agricultural District. 5ubject property is located on both rides
of Lizbeth Wax approximately 125 feet west of Mar,~an Street, east of
Aaaheim.' .
The~Commission ao~ed that the'sub,~ect petition was similar to previous
requests ia respe~•t to adi+ertisitig sigas'for tl}e sale of newly constructed
residential subr?ivisioas. The Cominis~~ori`discussed the advisability of
requiring the developer to post.a bond to if-aure the removal of the signs
at ttie"expiration of the time limit aad to require that the deveioper
maiata:n the area in which the signs are located, keeping the area clear
of debris and weeda.
Commissioner Alired offered a motion, seconded by Commisaioner 3ummers
and carried~ that the Secretary transmit notice to the Orange Couaty
Planniag Commisaion, indicating that the Anaheim Plaaniag Commission
recommended approval of the subject petition subject to the foliowing
conditions:
1, Sub3ect petition be approved for a period of oae (1) year with the
~ postiag of a bond by the peti~ioner to insure the removai of ail
aigns at the expiration of sai.d time period.
2. That the s3gns be dated aad the area in which they are located be
maintained. •
ggp~tTS AND - 1. Review of CONDITIONAL USB PBRhlIT N0. 147:
RHCOI~A!ffiQDATIONS ~
A request was aubmitted to the Commission for clarification of Condition No.
2 of Resolution No. 52, Series 1961-62~ which granted Petition for Condi-
tionai Use Permit No. 147 for permission to estabTish a church.
It was pointed out 4hat Condition No. 2 included in its requirements the
installation of landscapi~g on the eas~Lerly boundary line of subject pro-
perty. The Commission was.informed that to require said landscaping would
encroach into the proposed parking area and that it was not included in the
development plans submitted to the Commission.
Commissioner Mungali indicated that it was not intended to include land-
scaping on the easterly boundary liae although it was considered necessary
for the southerly boundary line.
Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. 106, S°ries 1961~62, amending
Resolution No. 52, 3eries 1961-62, to sead as follows:
2, Yrovision of a minimum twenty-five (25) foot landscaped area on
the 5outherly boundaxy line abutting existing wali where subject
property abuts the R-1, pne Family Residential, Zone, except for
those areas reserved fos acceya`drives and wa7.ks, that trees shall
- be planted es part uf this landscaped area, that pians foz-said
landscaping shail be submitted to an.d subject to the`approval of the
: Superintendent of Parkway Maintena»ce, that said landscaping shail
be installed prioi to Piaal.Building Inspection, and that this
condition shail not apply to the westerly-232.34 feet of subject
property, measured along the southerly:property line.
2. Aeview of RBCLASSIPICATION N0. 61-62-3:
Base maps of the area tetween~La'Palma Avenue and.Crescent Avenue showing
`property cuts and.reaidential structuses east and west of Magnolia`Avende,
~,v'r^t`^..-^'~;~.:~"a+a' ~f~ci i ~.~,~`;., Si'~.. F r..t~.~'.~..,s.o;~'..5~:.: 1::W:,.,.t;.'4~~'~?~ha~+,~~t k,i'!~r,t~~?~,A, .,'TY~.';w'~f''~.~3_/.dts2!~3St'y . .,.<. .. . ..~ . .,.. . .
~' ~ ;; 'Si ;.! ~''~~:~'-r't r. ..W. r`~~, ~,. ~~ _ x ~Ta.~ r'.Y. , f ~ .:,. ~t ~,'F,'U ~
~ iY~7
~ ~~., . . ~, ~~
~
_ . ~~~ ~ . .. . . .
~ ~. . ... . . , . ,.:,; . . . .
,:'~.`r . ... . ;~~.:. - .. . . .:~~. . ~.r ~.:;,.,-- .w<~
_,r r .~,~ , ~
i A_
~ . ~ ( ~ ~~ ` . .
. ~ 4 ?
~ ~. ~ . . ' ~ . . ,
~~..~'• -. .~ . . .'. . ~. ~ . . .
_ _ 450 ; - ,;
..
MINUTBS; CITY PIAh2II2~ CObA~IISSION, October 2, 1961, Continued: ,
ggp~tTS pND - 2, R~eview of RSCxASSIPICATION N0. 61-62-3, Continued: ~
ABCOMMffidDATIONS
Conti_nued in addition to twe preliminary exhibits were presented to the Commission. ,y
The situation of these homPS were discussed ~thoroughly prior to an extensive
field examination. . ~
After further diacnsaion, Commissioner Morris offered a.motion, seconded _~
by Commisaioner Marcoux and carried, that no alterations, whatever, of
the existing land use and zoning of the subject properties be permitted ~
and that the position of the Commission on Petition for Reclassification -'?
No. 61-62-3, which was recommended to the CiLq Council for deniai, be ~
reaffirmed. ~ '
, 3
„ ADJOURI~ffiVT - There being no further business, the Meeting was adjourned at 5;50 0'Clack ~ :~
'~ ~ , P.M. ~
~ t,;, J
Respectfully submitted,
~ y
~ ;
~ I
JBq GH, Secretary I ~ '-
I ;
~ ~
~
~
~
~
- a
~ ~ ~
• ~
~
~
~
• ~
_ '~
~
+~
.. .. ~
~..~ ..' : _ i :~a
- , ~
{ '- '; r.!
~
r _
x
' {t.
< .
1 ~ y~ ~ :, .
~ j , r~~- :
~~ii ~Py f : ' ~ .. . ~ ~ ' .. ~ . . . ~ . . . . ~ ., ~
~S.,IY`"a~r~! . ~~ . ~ ~ ~ . .
j , . y+~7 ~. . ' . . .. . . . . . . . . . _ :.
~-: -~ . . ... .. .. .. . .. .
... ~ ' '' ~ - . . . .. ~ 4 ~ ..,
P „ . . . . - ~ . . . . , - . .