Minutes-PC 1961/10/16~
j RBGULAR DfBBTING - A Regular Meeting of the City Planaing Commission was called to order
~ by Chairman Gauer, at 2:00 0'C1ock P. M., a quorum being present.
f
~ PRBSBNT - CHAIRMAN: Gauer; CObAtIS3I0NBR5: A31red, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall,
Pebley, Summers.
~
i AH3BNT - CQhAtISSIONffitS: Morris, Perry.
~
R PRBSBNT - Senior Planner - Martin Rreidt ,
i Assistant;Ci~y Attorney _ Joe Geisler
~ planning Department Stenographer Irene Shaw
INVOCATION - Reverend E. W. Matthias, Pastor of Zion Lutheran Church gave the
Tnvocation.
PLSDGB OF - Commissioner Marcoux led the Pledge of Allegiance to the P~ag.
ALLHGIANCH
APPROVAL OP - The Minutes of the Meeting of October 2, 1961 were approved as
MINUTBS submitted. ~
VARIANCB No. 1407 - CONTINUBD PUBLIC HBARING. Petition submitted by JBSSE and DOLOi:HS N.
A12RIOLA, 225 Bast La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners;
requesting permission to WAIVB MINIMUM PLOOR ARBA, YARKING SPACS, AND
BXTBRIOR SIDEYARD RHQUIRHMSNTS: ALSO TO PHRMIT BNCRQACHMBNT OP ATTACHBD
Gp1tAG8 INTO INTffitIOR SIDEYARD; on property described as: A parcel
47 feet by 150 feet with a frontage of 47 feet on the north side of
La Palma Avenue; and located on the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue
and Patt S4reet and further described as 225 Bast La palma Avenue~
Property presently classified in the R-3, MULTIPLE PAMILY RBSIDHNTIAL,
ZONB.
,
3ubject petition was continued from the meetings of September 18, 1961
and Actober 2, 1961 to permit the petitioner an opportunity to submit .
fully dimensioned revised plans for Commission consideration, indicating
build.ing.setbacks and dedication. '
- No one was present to represent or oppose the subject petition.
THB HBARING WAS CLOSBD,
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the
subject petition.
1. That th~ petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim Municipal ~
'~ Code: Sections (1) 18.32.080 (2) which requ3res for subject pro-
perty a seven and one-half (7~}) foot interior side yard to permit an
encroachment of six (6) feet with an existing garage into the re-
• quired interior side yard; (2) 18.32.12C which requires for subject
property one and one-quarter parking spaces per dwelliag unit in
~ a garage or a total of two and one-half parkirig spaces in a garage ~
to permit the development of subject property with the provision.
of two (2) parking spaces in a garage; (3) 18.32.030 w°hich reguires
that the minimum space betweea the exterior walis of main buiidings
end to end shall be a minimum of.ten (10) feet to permit a space of
eight:(8) feet; (4) 18.32,080 (1-a) which requires for subject
property an.exterior side yaid of not less than fifteen (15) feet
• to permit an encroachment of seven aad.one-half (7~) feet into the I
~G exterior side yard with the proposed dwelling and to permit.the
a' ' • existiag dwelling to en~roach three (3).feet into the required
~`~: ~. fifteen (15) foot exterior side yard; (5) 18.32,100.which requires
*'"> ° for subject property that the.ingress and egress from and to any
' ~d ~i
~~~.,~9 ga;age be from.the abuttiag alley only and not from.the street,to' ~
,~, _ : . I
~ . -451 - i
~
' ~°~ ' ~
: , ::
~ ,~
~,
~ R
~ ~ .: ~ . ~ ' . ~ . . . ... ' ~ . , ~. .. ..
'
Cl~~ ,'`Zi:Y'?,2xl~i ~k`.? :.Ut.~~.(L N:hr c,~+V Y 1,1,..~ ...?,.~Y...,'ti~'. ~{ l~.J:.,.. .~ h'..y ~vnG~, r,~~.[yh~2~~:~M,x1~,~. ...:1, r .;,".."~.^°'°~u!BP.'r
~ :. ~. : ~, ,::W
. ~~ ~'~- ::~~~i-.:7'~
,~
Ae7
~ "3;
s:r
t"~":+ ; .;i..,; ~ ..
... . ''F~ SJ '
4
~
452
~
,.
f
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COI~AfISSION, October 16, 1961, Continued:
VARIANCE No. 1407 - permit acceas to ari existing gaiage froin the street; and (6) 18.80.080
CONTINUHD which requires for subject property tha~ any single family dwelling
to be coastructed on subject property shall have a minimum liveable
floor space of not less than 1,225 square feet to permit the construc-
tion of a single family dwelling with a minimum liveable floor space
of 800 square feet.
2. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use
of the property that do not apply generally to the property or class
of use in the same vicinity and zoae.
3, That the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property
in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in question.
4. That the petitioner was not present to represent his case and to
submit revised plans.
Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 107, Series 1961-62, aad
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner pebley,
to deny Petition for Variance No. 1407 on the basis of the aforementioned
findiags,
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYE3: COMMISSIONHR3: Allred, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley,
Summers.
NOBS: COMMISSIONffitS: None.
AHSHNT: COhA4ISSi0NffitS: Morris, Perry.
VARIANCE No, 1408 - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by JOHN D. MITCHHLI,, 701 South Dover
Street, Anaheim, California, Owner, requesting permission to WAIVE MINIMUM
RBAR YARD SBTBACR RHQUIRE~ffiNT on property described as; An irregularly•
shaped parcel with a front~ige of 52 feet located at the kauckle formed
by the intersectioa of Savby Aveaue and Dovex Street and further described
• as 901 South Dover Street. Property presently classified in the R-1,
ONS FAn,iLY RBSIDENTIAL, 20Iv~.
Mr. John D, Mitchell, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and
indicated that he had r-o additional information to .~upplement his
written petition.
~r?'. TH8 HBARING WAS CLOSBD.
T1-e Commission found and determiaed the following facts rega=ding the
subject.petition:
~ 1. That the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim Municipal 1
~ Code: Sectioa 18.24.430 (3) to pe'mit an e~c*oachment of twenty {20) ~
feet into the required twenty-five (2~) foot rear yard of subject !
n,.+.. ... .....ie.. a.. .. ...: a ~ ~.L~ ~ _t _ t'_'_' ~. __ ~ ~
453
:~ MINUT9S, CITY PIANNING COD9dISSION, October 16, 1961, Continued:
VARIpNCB No. 1408 - 3. That the requested variance is necessary for ~he preservation and
~p~i~gp enjoyment of a subatantiai property right possessed by other
property in the 'same vicinity and zoae, and deaied to the property
in question. ' ~
~
~ 4. That the requested variance wiil not be materialiy detrimeatal to
' the public welfare or injurious to the property or icprovements
• in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located.
r, Taat the requested variance will aot adverselq affect the Comprehea-
~ive Generai Plan.
6. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 108, Series 1961-62, and
moved for its passsge and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall,
#o grant Petition for Variance No. 1408, subject to the following
condition:
1. Development substantially in accordance with Exhibit No. 1.
The foregoing condition was recited at the meeting and was found to be
a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to preserve
the safety and welfare o£ the citizens of the.City of Anaheim.
On roll call the foregoing zesolution was passed by the following vote:
AYHS: COMMISSIONSRS: Allred, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall,
~' Pebley, Summers.
~ ' ~
~ NOHS: COMMISSIONSRS: None.
~ ABSHNT: COhAlISSIONBRS: Morris, Perry.
VARIANCB No. 1409 - PUBLIC HHARING. Petition submitted by KBNNHTH W, BRADY, 203 Monument
~;. Street, Anaheim, California, Owner, requesting permission to WAIVB
MINIMUM FRONT YAkD SETEACR REQUIRBMHNT on property described as: A
t
arcel 60 feet by 110 feet with a frontage of 60 feet located on the
p
west side of Monument Street between Mall and Transit Avenues; its
southeast corner being a~:;,roximately 485 feet north of the n~rthwest
corner of Monument Street and Broadway and further described as
203 South Moaument Street. Property presently ciassified R-1, ONH '
FAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONS. •
' Mr. Renneth W. Brady, the pet±t?.oner, appeazed before the Commission ~
and stated he was requesting this waiver to allow walking space around
the east end of his swimming pool.
The Commission asked Mr. Brady if he would1construct a block wall
rather than the existing grapestake fence within 180 days. The
petitioner indicated his intention to construct the wall himself ~
r~ithin 189 days if his_petition were approvred. _
THS HBARING WAS CL0.SBD. I,
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding
the subject petition: ~
,, f
n' i
L That the petitioner requests a variance from the Aaaheim Municipal c
'1'
~,~;
,
~; Code: Section 18.24.030 (1) to permit an encroachment of fifteen
,
ti (15) feet into the required twentq-five (25) foot front yaxd of + a
~}~u1
~-;~t~ - subject property in order to construct a six (6) foot fence. l
. . ,
~~~ ~
. ~ ~
~
.
,,
4 ;
~ -'
~y~k i:s . ' -
~~
-..d,.r rr :^~~.iw~;ua;rr't"} ~ .'. ,+. l r;.'. . „ ~.:-' , , 7,:; . _~..,.....ti .. . _._ y''...'..~'.':.~"r:l,:i'~~5.)..u..... ~ , . , ~ . .c'Sa_ '.~~' .
, t ;
}
. .~`t ...~-;-'
,; ~ r ~, +rK ~ ~ '
- ,iri*.4 rJa, ~n:r.. .5.. 4M,r;> 1t,.... Y'. ~:. . ... . ~ .
A ~ ~.:
r
~, I r •
' '-: ~ ~ . ~. 4 '. < . ~
~._. ~ :.. . . _. =- ._ ~. .. _ . _... _.._~ ~ ..;: . ~ ~~ ~ ~
. . _ . ... . - .. . ..
. ~ ~ .. . ~_: . . - ~~ ~ .
.___...~._ _ ~ ..._ .._-i .~..~ . .... .___ ~ .
. . . . . . . . . . .-. ; ,r ... .
. ~J . . . . . . ~ ~ . .. . . ~ , ~ ~ ~ .
- 454
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COhAiISSION, October 16, 1961, Continued:
VARIANCB No. 1409 - 2, That there are exceptional or extraordinary circnmstances or conditions
CONTINUBD applicable to the property involved or to the intended.use of the pro-
~ perty that do not apply generally to the property or class of use in
k. _ i~ the same vicinity and zone. ~
3. That the requested variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoymeat of a substantiai property right possessed by other property
in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in question,
4. That the reauested variance will not be'materially detrimentai to the
public weifas~e or injurious to the property or improvements in such
vicinity and zone in which the property is located.
5. That the requested variance will not adversely affect the Comprehensive
General Plan.
6. That the existing fence was recently constructed in vioiation of the
pnaheim Municipal Code on an interim basis and that the petitioner has
agreed to the necessity of its replacement with a six (6) foot masonry
wall where said fence presently encroaches into the required twenty-
five (25) foot fzont yard.
7. That no one appeared in opposition,to subject petition.
Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. 109, Series 1961-62, and moved
for its passage a~nd adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant
Petition for Variance No. 1409, subject to the following conditions:
1. Development substantialiy ia accordance with Hxhibit No. 1 with the
stipulation that a six (6) foot masonry wall shall be constructed on
the present fence lacation in the required twenty-five (75) foot front
yard area.
2. Preparation of improvement plans and the removal of the existing
driveway apron and installation of curbing and also the installation
of a new driveway apron for direct access to the existing garage, in
accordance with the approved standard plans on file in the Office of
the City Sngineer.
3. Installation of landscaping in the ten (10) foot front yard setback
prior to Pinal Huilding Inspection of the wall.
4. Time limitation of 180 days for the accomplishment of Item Nos. 1 and 2.
The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were found 4o be a
aecessary prerequisite to tae use of the property in order to preserve the
safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim,
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYBS: COI~tISSIONBRS: Allred, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungail, Pebley,
Summers,
NQES: COMMISSIOI~TERS: Nane.
ABSHNT: COMMISSIONHRS: Morris, Perry.
VARIANCH No. 1410 - PUBLIC HHARING. Petition submitted by CHBT KUSBLBR, 1108 Bast Broadway, I
Anaheiu~, Cali:ornia, Osrne.-, raquesting pesmiss3an to (1? k'AIVE MZ1dIMUM SIDE ..
YARD SBTBACK RBQUIRBMHNT; (2) WAIVB MINIM[JM PRONT YARD SSTBACK RHQUIRBINHNT +
and (3) iNAIVH MINIMUM HOU3H SIZB RBQUIRBMHNT on property described as; A i. •
parcel 50 feet by 158 feet with a froatage of 50 feet located on the west ~
side of.Bast Street between Broadway and Santa Ana Street, and extending I
west to Rose 8treet; its northeasterly corner beiag approximately 253 feet I
south,of the southwesterly corner of Broadway and ~ast Street and further
described as 323 South Bast Stree:. Property presently ciassified in the ~
R 3, MULTIPLS PAMILY RBSIDHNTIAL, ZONB. ~
Mr. Chet Buebler, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and i
stnted that he was requesting waiver of aide yard setback to aliga ~
r,.
- ~
: ~ . , ~
.
_,
. ~ ..,~~:,'; .'~~!~_..'. F.,.... ~~~~: ~ ~:-.;' f'1h.-„r~..:_. ~ ..,,~.:: f~~.,:.r v. ..` i . 4 ~,l:,t~ ~r-r,f.,f~:.l• ~ . F~.
_ _ __ . ,. . .. ._ ~ .. _ , . .
455
~ . ~ 1 . .
, MINUTBS, CITY:PLANNING COhAlISSION, October 16, 1961, Continued:
F ,~1
VARIANCB No. 1410 - with existing buildings, that the building to be moved in will face
CONTINUAD nn East Street, that the fence will be taken down, that the materials
stored on subject property will be moved orito the abutting lots to
the aorth which he also owns but for which he has no plans of develop-
ment.
Tf~ HBARING WAS VLOSBD.
t.
c:
~
~:
a
~:.
~:
r'
V..
~ ~
E:. ` ,<
~.:,.
~
E
~
i
k
~ ~,
f
r.
~ ~~",~~'.~.~ ~
~ ~
It was brought tc ~''~e Commission's attention that the petitioner
intended, if subject petition were approved, to request City Council
approval of a house move-in on subject property.
Commissioner Allred stated triat he felt the area should be upgraded
rather than moving on another substaniiartt'house,
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the
subject petition:
1. That the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim Municipal
Code: Sections (1) 18.32,080 which requires for subject property
a minimum fifteen (15) foot front' yard~to permit the move-in of
a dwelling unit to encroach five (5) feet into the required front
yard; (2) 18.32,08U (2) which requires for subject property side
yards with a miaimum width of seven and one-half (7}) feet to
permit the establishment as a conforming use of a five foot ten
inch (5*10") side yard of an existing residence on subject property
and to permit th'r_ move-in of.a dwelling unit to encroach two (2)
feet into the required side yards of subject property; and (3)
18.80.080 which requizes for subject property that any single
family dweYling locatec~~thereon shali have a minimum liveable floor
space of aot .lesfl thap 1,225 square feet to permit the move-in of
a sir.gie family dweiling with a minimum liveable floor area of
853 square ieet.
2. That the requested variance wiil be msxterially detrimental to the
public welfare and injurioas to the property or improvements in
such vicinity and zone in which the property is located.
3. That the move-in of a substandardPbosse in a declining neighborhood
would only contribute to an undesirable situation; whereas, since
the subject and abutting properties to the north are undes one
ownership, a clearance of these parcels and development with new
multipie £amily structures in accordance with the existing R-3
zoning wouid substantially encourage an upgrading of the neighborhood.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 110, Series 1961-62. and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux,
to deny Petition for Variance No. 1410 on the basis of the aforementioned
findings.
On roii cail the foregoing resolution was passed by the foilowing vote:
AYBS: CONMISSIONBRS: Ailred~ Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall,
Pebley, Summers.
NOBS: COh~lI3SI0NBRS: None,
ABSENT: CObMISSIONBRS: Morris, Perry.
. ~ . ~ _._?•,;~k .v+F'.t'Y'--.r , .i ,.,...,.. ~....,~ ._. . , ~., . .,. _.. ....~
r..:1.~,... ~......,._.., l st_::er.;:e..:~ .~_"•'i~ . . - . .
~ a _ „}x'i ,~S+cri......,,u?µ,~~~csxi~;'~+'~av' x . j::~. ,d .~;5 1.~i t~,~t?'ofJA`*"' i?L;~~v,~~ '~3:r:
v
t ~= i ` ~~~y}.:.
~~~ ~
,
Q . ~ r.c~ 1.~
F:. ~
~ .
.... . . ~ . . ~.
.,.
~
,. ~
~ `
456 ~
~ ~ MINUTBS, CZi`Y PIANNING C(Y~9dI3SI0N, October 16, 1961, Continued:
~ CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HBARING. Petition submitted by hIlt, AR3ENB OHANIAN, 821 North West
PBRMIT No. 166 Street, Anaheim, California, Owne.r; B. RTCHARD CRANB, 511 South Harbor
~ Bouievard, Puiierton, ~alifornia, Lessee, sequesting permission to
E B3TABLISH AN AMBUTANCS SffitVICS'on property $escribed as: p parcel 62 feet
~,• ; by 147 feet with a frontage of 62 feet located on the southeasterly
~ corne. of Lincoln Avenue and West Street, aad further described as
,~,~,• 1022 and 1024 West LinGoln Avenue. Property p=esentlq classified C-2,
~ "k_ _" GffiVBRAL CQMMBRCIAL, 20NB.
C'
Mr: B. R. Crane, Si1 South Harbor Boulevard, Pullerton, California,
the petitioaer, appeared before the Commission and stated that he had
nothing further to add to the information contained in the written
petition.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THS HBARING WAS CIASHD.
The Coiomission made the suggestion to Mr. Crane that the ambulance
parking area should be located at the southwest corner of the parking
lot rather than at that area shown oa the plot plan. Tngress and
egress could-then be made by wpy of'.the'alleq aad would be safer for
pedestrians who might be walking on the sidewalk. Mr. Craae agreed
with.the suggested change.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding
the subject petition•
1`. That the proposed use is groperly one for which a Conditional Use
Permit is sufihorized by this Code, to wit: operate ambulance
service in conjunction with the sick room rental equipment ahowroom
in an existing structure on subject property.
2, That the proposed use will not adversely affect the ad;joining land
uses 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 proposed for the use is I
adequate to allow tho full development of the proposed use in a
manner. aot detrimeatal to the particuiar area nor to the peace,
, heal~h, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of
Anaheim
4. That tfie traffic generated by the propoaed use will not impose
. . .
~ ~
`> i
.
~ .
~ :f
~ ~ . ~
~ .. ~ ~ . .',~
~ ~ ~ ~
457 .~ ~
<`1 MINUTE3, CITY PLANNING CaMMISSIG'r1, October 16, 1961, Continued:
~ CON:~ITIONA~ USE - 1. Development substantially in accordance with Bxhibit Nos. 1, 2, and 3,
PBRMI~ No. 166 with the stipulation that ambulance parking shall be restricted to the
CONTINUBD southwest corner of the parking lot,
~ The foregoing condition was recited at the meeting and was found to be
' ~ a necessasy prerequisite to the use of the p;operty in order to preserve
~, the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYBS: CObAfISSIONBRS: Alired, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley,
Summers.
NOBS : CCA~A4ISSIONHRS : None .
ABSBNT: COMMISSIONBRS: Morris, Perry,
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC I~ARING. Petition submi~ted by GLBNN P. and W. PHQBBS 0'NHAL,
PBRMIT No. 167 1941 Hast Center Street, Anaheim, California, requestiag pP-~*~ssion to
B3TABLISH RBST HOMH POR SLDBRLY AMBUTATORY PBOPLH on pro(~.~, described
as: An "L" shaped parcei with a frontage of 123 feet loc,.ted on the
northerly side of Center Street, its southeasterly corner being approximately
60 feet west of the northwesterly corner of Center Str~et and Placentia
Avenue and further d::scribed as 1941 Bast-Center Street. Properi:y
. psesentiy classified in the R~A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTU1tAL, ZONB.
The petitioner appeared before the Commission and i.ndicated thax he
had nothing further to add to the information contaiaed in the
wri+.•ten petition. '
THS HHARING WAS CLOSHD.
Commiss~.oner Allred stated that the plans showed no proposed exterior
alterations. The petitioner said there would be none in the immediate
future. However, there would be some changes on the rear structure.
Assisfiant ~ity Attorney Joe Geisier stated that any approval of
subject petition ahould be tied to the plans submitted and ali future
development would be limited to that indicated on the plans.
Comm3ssioner Allred ststed that he felt this was a good use for the area.
The Commission found and determined the foiiowing facts regarding the .
-subject petition:
9
`` ~
1. That the proposed use is properly one for which a Conditionai Use ~ - ., ~
Permit is authorized by this Code, to wit: a rest home.
2. That tYae proposed use wiil not adversely affect the adjoining land ~k ~
uses aad the growth and deveiopment of the area.in which it is proposed I `.~
to be locabed.
~ ~
3. That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate
to allow the full development of the'proposed use in a manner not
detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace, health, safety, :
and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
i
~4, That the traffic gene=ated by the propoaed use wiii not impose an
undue burden upon the streets and highways.des;.gned and.parti:aiiy ~.
improved to carry the traffic in the"area: i ~
(~ ,_. .
_ " ~,~
Y~t`~
r
..,,.~ ~ ~ ~ . . ~
~
3~r-.', t~, .ry,t'. F:r~'~'...^~~tir.,C"~~.~.~ii~?L~~F~.r ..., :.. M : ~~t.L's:._:Y?:~.~.. `.'~Ih:.'- .i~.~-r,~'~:'3'Lt f~~c,''.`,~(;~;z«~.~~~~i:,i~~v.~ ~~ ~`, . -.~~,~:il ,.,. ...., ~ '~ .~~, y.(~-'~,~i
0
.
458
MINUTSS, CITY PLANNING COMMI3SION, October 16, 1961, Contiaued:
CONDITIONAL USB - 5. That the granting of the Coaditional Uae Per~tiit under the conditiona
PBRMIT No. 167 imposed, if any, wili not be detriidental to the peace, health, safety,
. CONTINUHD aad general welfare bf the citizetls of the City of Anaheim.
', 6. That no oae appeared ia oppos~:ion to sub3ect petition.
Commissioner Allred' offered Resolution No. 112, Series 1961-62~ a».d
moved for its passge and adoption, seConded by Coamissioner Pebley,
granting Petition for Conditional Use Perlnit No. 167, sub3ect to the
following conditions:
1. Installation of sidewalks in accordance with the approved standard
plans on Fiie in the Office of the City Bngineer.
2, Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes on Center
Street.
3. Subject to the approval of the State Dapartment of Social Welfare.
4. Development substantially in accordance with Hxhibit No. 1.
S. Time limitation of one hundred and eighty (180) days for the
accomplishment of Item Nos. 1 and 2.
~
~` The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting aad were found to
be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to
preserve the safety and weliare of the citizens~ of the City of Anaheim,
~ On roll call the foregoing resolution r,ras passed by the following vate:
i•.
~ AYSS: COMMISSIONSRS: A12red, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall,
Pebley, Summers.
f NQBS: CQD4IISSIONSRS: None.
i
~
F:. , ABSBNT: COHAlISSIONBRS: Morris, Perry.
RBCIASSIFICATYl7N - PUBLIC FIDARING. Petitioa submitted by HARRY P. RIMH, et al, 2515 Villa
N~. 61-62-34 Vista Way, Orange, California, Owner; requesting that property described
as: A parcel 198 feet by 19S feet with a.frontage of 198 feet located on
the north sid^ of Lincoln Avenue between Crescent Way and Buclid Avenue;
its southwest corner being approximately 430 feet east of the centerline
of Crescent Way and further described as 1975-1785 West Lincoln Avenue
be reclassified from the M-l, LIGHT MANUPACT[JRING, ZONB to the C-2,
GBNHRAL COMMBRCIAL, ZONB.
The petitioner was not present.
No ~an.c :.•>peared in opposition.
THH 2iE.;.^,:',": :~+'.u CLOSBD.
The Commission found aad determined the foliowing facts regarding the
subject petition:
1. That the petitioner proposes a reclassification of the above deacribed i ~
i i
property from the M-1, Light Manufacturing,,2oae to the G2, General °
Commercial, Zone. . ; S
i :i
t s':~
, •.` ~ ~ -
,. .., ~ .. .. . ~ . .._._ . _,
. ,~
459
MINUTHS, CITY PIANNZNG CCIMMISSION, October 16, 1961, Contittued:
RBCLASSIFICATION - 2, That_the proposed reclassificatioa of~subject property is necessary
No, 61-62-34 or desirable for the orderly and proper development of the community.
CONTINUBD
3, That the proposed reclassification of subject property does properly
relatc to the zones and their permitted use§ locally established in
. ciose proximity to subject property aad fo the zones and their
permitted uses gerierally established ttiroughout the community.
4. That the proposed reclassificaticn of subject property does not
require dedication for and standard improvement of abutting
streets because said property does relate to and abut upon streets
and highways which are improved to carry the type and quantity of
traffic, which wiil be generated by the permitted uses, in accordance
wi4h the circulation element of the General Plan,
5. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Commissioner Pebley offered Resoiution No. 113, Series 1961-62, and moved
for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissiotter Mungall, to
recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No.
61-62-34 be approved.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foliowing vote:
AYHS: COhAlISSIONHRS: Alired, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall,
Pebley, 6ummers.
NOHS: COMNITSSIONBRS: None.
~ ABSHNT: COMMISSIONBRS: Morris, perry,
RHCIASSIPICATION - PUBLIC HBARING. Petition submitted by M.AX F, and MAY E. HILTSCFffit, ~
No. 61-62-35 1112 North Placentia Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting '
that property described as: PARCBL 1; A parcel 32,5 feet by 130.5 feet
with a frontage of 32,5 feet located on the aorth side of Balsam Avenue
between Curtis Court and Cypress Aveaue; its southwest corner being
approximately 138 feet east of the northeast cortter of Cypress Avenue
. and Balsam Avenue. PARCEL 2: A triangular shaped parcel with a
frontage of 39 feet located on the southeasterly side of Placentia
Avenue approximately 75 feet east of Cypress Avenue, aa3.abutting the
north property line of Parcel l be reciassified from the R-A, RHSIDBNTIAL
AGRICULTURA,L; ZONB and R-3, MULTIPLB PAhiILY RHSIDBNTIAL, Z01~ffi to the
C-3, HBR,VY COMMBltCIAL, ZONH.
The petitioner appeared before the.Commission and briefly reviewed the •
re~jnessed r~ciassificaiioa. ' ~
No one appeazed in opposition to the petition. ~
THH HLARING WAS CLOSBD.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the
subject petition;
1. That the petitioner proposes o reciassification of tfie above
described property from the R-A, ResidentiaL Agricult~rai, Zone
and R-3, Multiple Pamily Residential, Zone to the C-3, Heavy
Commercial, Zone. ,
2. That ~he proposed reclassification of subject properly is necessary-
or desirabie for the orderly and proper de-~~~lopment of the cummuaity.
~. . .;.: ".4
~ .,' ~
~l'.f~ l"~ .r ~ ~ .•...r .. .r .~,... , i~i,~` i T~ . ':'f~, .. , . , , . ~ .,. . .... ~ ~ . . .. .. ~.~ c.t .. . .. . ... . _.. r, . . , .... . . , ~~~r~ f .. . . , .
aa~.rui~a 1 . . /:: . , f SJ: . , t,~.f : r, A 5 t.,
~
~
E
460
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COMdIS3I0N, October 16, 1961, Continued:
RBCIASSIPICATION - 3. Thafi the proposed reclassification of subject property does
No. 61-62-35 properiy relate to the zones and ~their permitted uses locaily
CONTINUBD established in close proximity to subject propesty ~nd to the
~ zoaes aad their permit#ed uses generaTly established throughout
the community. '
4. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does not
require dedication for and standard improvement of abutting streets
because said property does relate to and abut upon streets and
highways ~ich are improved to carry the type and quaatity of
traffic, which wiii be genersted by the permitted uses, in
accordance with the circulation eleraeat of the General Plan.
5. That no one appeared in opposition to subJect petition.
Commissioaer Muagall offered Resolution No. 114, Series 1961-62, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Alired,
to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification
No. 61-62-35 be approved, subject to the following conditions;
I' 1. Hrection of a three fOOt masonry wall on the northeast side of the
triangular portioa of subject,property so that there will be no .
ingress and egress to the service station from the abuttiag alley aad
the exection of a 6 foot wall on the east side of the rectangular
portion of subject propertq.prior to Pinal Buildiag Iaspectioa.
• 2. Recordatioa of standard C-3, Heavy Commercial, 2one deed restric4ions
limit3ng use of subject propertytb a service station oniy or any C-1,
Neighborhood Commercial, 2one use.
3. Development substantiaily in accordance with Bxhibit No. 2.
4. Time limitation of 180 days for the accompiishment of Item No. 2,
~
The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were found to be
a necessary prerequiaite to the use of the property in order to preserve.
the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim,
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYBS: CObAlISSIONBRS: Allred, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungali,
~ ,Pebley, Summers. '
NOBS: CObA(ISSIONBRS: Noae.
~ ~ AB3HNT: COt~AfISSIONBRS: Morris, Perry.
~' ,`_ RBCIA33IPICATION - PUBLIC F~ARING. Petition iaisiated by the ANAI~ffiIM PIANNING COMMISSION, i
No. 61-6'2-37 204 Bast Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, by Resoiution 'rio. 45, I
Series 1961-62,requesting that property described as: A parcel 113 feet f
by 250 feet with a froatage of 250 feet located on the east.side of ~
Zeyn Street aad elso described as Lots 22 through 26 of Hiock 1 of
Tract No. 419, be reclasaified from the R-1, OIVB PAMILY RESIDBNTIAL, ZONH
•and the P-l, PARKING, ZONB to the M-1, LIGHT MANUPACTZAtING, ZONH.
F,` , Mr. Breidt, Senior Planner, requcsted that the Commiasion continue this
petition untii the planning Commission Meeting of October 30, 1961, to
~;t,;! provide the Interdepartmeatal Comaittee an opportunity to submit recommen-
T;~, :.; dations and to grovide the Platining'Dq~prtmeat a~i opportunity to prepare ~' _
a precise plan: -
6 : . :
~',. :::a..w,_ _. . ~e ?",::; , ~~'` '.~„ . . ~ . _ .. . , , .. .. , .,_ - .,.. . : "`~,' _ ' -
~,l _
Y',...:,:.:.~:-..~'.' . . ' . ~
K..~:~~~~~
~ . .
~
~. ; MINUTES, CITY YIANNING CQFA4IS3LON, October 16, 1961, Coaliaued: ' ~.
~. e .. , ~
t '.. 0
R8CIA3SIPICATION - Mr. Boatwick,~00 Midway Drive, Anaheim appeared before the Commissioa .
No. 61-62-37 aad atat~d he was not ia opposition but was interested in knowiag
CONTINUBD exactly what tqpe of buiidiag controls were proposed for the subject I
propertq. ;
,
, Chairman Gauer stated that the abutting area td the east is presently ~
classified in the M-1, Light Manufacturiap 2one aad suggested to Mr. Bostwick~
if he had any suggestions regarding this petition that he keep in eontact ~
with the Planning Department, i
Mr. Jack Kenney, 1441 South Los Angeles Street, Anaheim,appeared before
the Commission and stated that he was aot necessarily cbjecting to the
subject petition. However, he was objecting ~to any condition requiriag
- xhe--deediag of ~~€r~t--for access righ~s~to the. City for the widening
of the street. He stated that Zeyn Street~ is only 300 feet long with
a school at the north and trailer park at the south.
THB HBAItING WAS CLOSBD.
Commissioaer Mungali offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux
and carried, that the subject petition be continued until the meet3ng
of October 30, 1961.
TENTATIVH MAP OP - SUBDIVIDffit: PRUDHNTIAL HO~S, 2411 Bast La Palma Avenue, Anaheim,
TRACT No. 1246 California, Subject tract is located at the southeast corner of
La Palmaand Placentia Avenues and contains 34 proposed R-1~ One Pamily
Residential, lots, 6 proposed R-3, Multiple Family Residential, lots,
4 proposed C-l, Neighborhood Commercial, lots, and 1 proposed C-3~
Heavy Commercial, lot.
Subject Tentative Tract is filed in conjunction with Reclassification
No. 61-62-36 and Variance No. 1411.
Mr. Jacobsen, repr:esenting the petitioaer and engineer, appeared before II
the Commissioa and stated that the recommended conditions, if required,
would be satisfactory with the petitioner.
No one appeared in opposition to subject tract map.
Commissioner Mungall asked if the subdivider would be willing to improve
the parcels which are shown as "Not a Part of".
Mr. Jacobsea, foliowing private discusaion with the property owners, ~
indicated to the Commission that the subdiv3.ders'do aot owa these~parcels.
However, they would be wiiling to improve tnem ii ihe C:itq of,Anaheim I
acquires the necessary sight-of-way and app~oves the reclassification
and variance filed in conjunctioa with sub,ject tract. j
f
Coamiseioner Allred affered a motion seconded by Cama~issioner Summers
and carried, that the Tentative Map of Tract No. 1246 be approved -.
aubject to the following conditions:
1. Al1 streets within the tract be 6Q feet in width.
2, Realign aliey (slighter;.angle) from northeast,corner uf "Not A Part"
to northeast corner of Lot 10.
'3., Sycamore Street to align with existing 3ycamo're'5t;reet to the east
aad have 40 foot.roadwaq-width. ~
~ ;,
%
~P1~
i~
~ .~ . ... ~%~2~',.S~:;Lf1.1~ S:..s.~t i.a.. ';.7~. . ~:~_~r.~.. i:~J~. . _._„~- «.-.
. . 1 . -..'4. il.~ti1~~2 L.... .
~ . ~A:' I~V...~_~ :~t~.~q4i.Y iF1:M M ,, i... . ~, ~.+~. .... ' , ~ x
^
F . ~x_
~ ~
462
~ .'
MINUTB3, CITY PLINNING COh~lISSION, October 16~ 1961, Ccntiflued; ~~ ~I
TBNTATIVB MAP OP - 4. Subject to the approval of Petitioa for ~teClassification No. 61-62-36. ~
TRACT No. 1246
CONTINUHD 5. Pertinent plot and building plans in connection with this Subdivision ~
Map will not br, reviewed by City Couhcil, but will be reviewed by the ~ ~
Planning and iche Buildiag Depertment. ~
i
6. Requirement that should this subdivision be developed as more than ~
one subdivisioa, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in ~
tentative form for approval. ' ~
7. Subject to the approval of the State Highway Department. I
RSCIASSIPICATION - PUBLIC FffiARING. Petition submitted by PRUDBNTIAL HOMBS, 2411 Bast La Paima
No. 61-62-36 Avenue~ Anaheim, California, Owner; H. B. I.BAR~ 13419 Piuma, Norwalk,
California, Agent, requesting that property described as: pARCSL 1: A
parcel 143 feet by 457 feet with a froatage of d57 feet located on the
south side of La Palma Aveaue betweett Piacentia Avenue and Whittier Street;
its northwest coraer being appzoximately 203 feet east of the centeriine
' of Placeatia Avenue, PARCHL 2; A parcel 143 fe~t by 173 feet with a
frontage of 143 feet on the east side of Placentia Avenue and located oa
the southeast corner of Placentia Avenue and La Palma Avenue. PARCHL 3:
A parcei 163 feet by 195 feet with a frontage of 195 feet located on the
east side of Piacentia 9venue between La Palma Avenue and Underhiil Avenue;
its northwest coraer beiag approximately 143 feet south of the southeast .
corner of Placentia aad La Palma Avenue~. PARCEL 4; A parcel 103 feet
by 140 ieet with a frontage of 103 feet located oa the east side of
Placentia Aveaue between La Palma Aad Underhill Avenues; its northwest
coraer being approximately 549 feet south of the southeast corner of
La Pa1ma and Placentia Avenues. PARCBL 5: A parcei 630 feet by 947 feet '
with a frontage of 630 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue, and
loca.ted on the southeast corner of Placentia and La Palma Avenues; excepting ;
Parceis_ 1 through 4; and also excepting those portions marked "Not a Part" !
on Tentative Tract No. 1246, be reclassified from the R A, RBSIDENTIAL ~
AQtICULTURAL, ZONB to the R-3, MULTIPLB PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONH (Parcei 1),
C-3, HBAVY COMMBRCIAL, ZONB (Parcel 2)~ C-1, I~IGHHCYtFI00D CQhU4ffitCIAL, 20NH
(Parcel :3), C-1, NBIGtIDatH00D C01~9~f8RC3AL, ZONB (Parcel 4), and R-1,
ONB PAMIT.Y R~SIDHNTIAL~ ZONB (Parcei S).
Subject Reclassification is filed in conjunction with Tentative Map of ~
Tract No. 1246 and Variance No. 1411.
Mr. Jacobsen, representing the petitioner and eng3neer, appeared before
the Commission and oatlined the petitioners request. . _
Mr. B. Coliing, President of the Sunkist Civic Association, appeared
before the Commission presented e letter to the Commission ostlining
the position of the Association on subject petition and requested that
the proposed C-1 properties be limited to business aad professional
offices oaly, that the proposed C-3 zone for 8ervice station be denied~
that the R-1 minimum house aize of 1575 square feet established by the .
Anaheim Flunicipal Code for the subject proper4y be enforced, that the ~
proposed R-3 properties be deaied, particularly the proposed two-story
construction, and, in its piace, that properly treated R-1 uae be approved
along La Paima Avenue. •.
~
_ I'
•. ' ~ -
, . I
1 ,. ..~...
: `c
.
„ l _ ~
. ~ ~I,i,... . -: .. . .,.. .~ .. .. .-,.,. i , r~ .. .. , f Y ..t.. . , .... ..~_,i.. . . . „ _~.
. a sk- + ~'
,_,~.~ . . __ ., ,, ~.
463
MINUTBS, CYTY PIANNING COI~AiIS3I0N~Oct~ber 16, 1961, Coatinued:
RHCIASSIPICATION - Mr. Rickert, 2126 Hast La Palma Avenue~ Anaheim, Califoraia
No. 61-62-36 objected to the proposed two-5tbry apartmeats within 150 feet
CONTINUBD of his propertq and inquired about !he proposed aileq iocation,
THB I~ffiARING WAS CI.OSED.
Commissioner Pebley stated that if the propertq across the street
was not zoned C-1 then he might agree with Mr. Colling that the
La Palma Avenue frontag~ should go !t-1, that he was definitely against
the two story R-3 construction on property within 150'feet of single
family resid8nces, that he wa5 in favor of the service statioa at the
proposed locatioa.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding
the subject petition.
1. That the petitioner, proposes a reclassification of the above
described propert}~ from the R-A, Residential Agricuitural,
2one to R-3, Multipie Family Residential, Zone (Parcel 1),
C-3, Heavy Commerciai~ Zone (Parcei 2), C-l, Neighborhood
Commercial, Zone (Parcel 3)~ C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, ~one
(Parcel 4), and R-1, One Family Resident3al, Zone (Pareel ::).
~ 2. That the proposed reclassification of subject prope•rty is
necessary or desirable for the orderly and proper developmeat of
the community.
, 3. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does
properly relate to the zones and their permitted uses locally
established in close proximity to subject property and to the
zones and their permitted uses generally established throughout
the community.
4. That tha proposed reclassificatioa of subject propertq does not
require dedication for and standard improvement of abutting siraets
because said property does relate to and abut upoa streets and highways
" which are improved to carrq the type and quantity of traffic, which
will be generated by the permitted uses, in accordance with the
circulation element of the Generai Pian.
~_ _._.^
~j .. ._-•.t'~ R.L=se~" . ~
5. That written and verbal opposition was recorded agaiast portiona of
sub3ect petition.
Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. 115~ Series 1961-62, and
moved for its passage aad adoptioa, seconded bq Comm3ssioner Pebley,
to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification
No. 61-62-36,be approved subject to the foilowing conditiona:
2. Fayment af $25.00 per d•ae2ling unit P~rk and Becreation fee to be
collected as part of Building Permit,
2. Subject to recordation of a Fina1 Tract~Map of subject property.
3. Piling of C-3 Deed Restrictions limiting uses of Lot No. 7 of Tract
No. 1246 to service station use oniq or any C-1, Neighborhood
Comaercial, use limited to business and profesaional offices only,
and the fiiing of C-1 Deed Restrictions limiting the use of Lot
Nos. 8', 9, 10 aad 11 to'business and professionai offices oalq.
~ . ~..".1.~-~N . .. . . .,. ~ .....r ~ ~ .. ., iM1.4 .. .. ~ r . 4......_ ~ ... _ . ..,.~__ '_
~ ~
•~ . ~ ~ . .. ..
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING CoMMI3SI0N,October 16, 1961, Coatinued;
;t: '
464
RBCIASSIPICATION - 4, Construetion of a u foot ~uasourq wall along the east side of the
No. 61-62-36 aliey abuttiAg Lot No. 1, along the north side of Lot Nos. 39, 40,
CONTINUSD 41, 42, and 43 and along the west side of Lot Nos. 43, 44, 45, 12,
and 13 prior to Pinal Building Inspectioa of the R-1 residences.
5, Yrovision of a mini~u!n s:tx (6) fodt laddscaped strip along the
proposed C-1 lots, plans ior said landscapittg to be subject to the
approval of the Superiatende~t of Parlcway Mainteaance and to be installed
prior to Pinal Buiiding Iaspection of structures situated on res~ective
lots. ,
6. Time limitation of 180 daqs for the accompiishmeat of item No, 1.
The for?going conditions 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 c~.tizens of the City ~f Anaheim.
On roli~call the foregoing resoiutioa wa's passed bq tHe f.ilowing vote;
AYES: CObAlISSIOPIDRS:, Alired, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungali,
Pebley, Summers.
NOHS: COA9~SIS3IONERS: None.
AHSHNT: COhA~lI33I0PIDRS: Morris, Perry.
P
~•
~
~
k~ . ._
':I
. _.",..~:L:av.
VARIANCH Na. 1411 - PUBLIC F~ARING. Petition submitted by PRUDBNTIAL HOI~S~ 2411 Bast
La YaLw.~ Avenue, Anaheim, Caiiforaia, Owners; H. B. LBAR, 13419 Piuma,
Norwalk,, California, Agent; requestiag permission to WAIVE SINGLS STQiY
F~IG:iT LIMITATIQ~1; on property desc=ibed as: A parcel. .143 feet by 457
feet with a froniage of 457 feet located on the south side of La Palma
Avenue between Placentia Avenue and Whittier Stxeet; its northwest
corner being approximately 203 feet east of the centerline of Placentia
Avenue. Property presentiy classified in the R-A, RHSIDHNTIAL AGRICULT[TRAL,
ZONH.
9ubject Variance is filed in conjunction with Tentative Map of Tract
No. 1246 and Reciaesification No. 61=62-36.
Mr. Lear, representing ~the petitioner~ appeared before the Commission
and stated that this is an o1d tract which has been "kicked around"
for a long time, and that the applicants feel that the two-story R-3
construction, is a feasible plan.
Their primary pnrpose ia proposing two-story coastruction is to permit
them'Lo construct executive apartments.
Mr. B. Bush, associate bf the petitioaer, appeared before the Commission
and stated that the developer intended to improve the area by providing
large floor area apartments. •
TH8 FffiARING WA3 CL06HD.
Mr. Jacobsen stated that.the request for two-story coastruction was not
to increase the density but to.increase the.floor size of the apartments.
Commissioner Pebiey atated'that`he feels stroaglq that one.of the best
ordiriances which`the Citq.of Anaheia has is the iimitation of taro-story
• apart~ents within 150 feet of cne-family residential zones.
~. . _ .
. -+~,_::.~. .~:~~~~ ~:::::t~~.!.tifv8.': ~ , i;:,:i . .._;.:.;. .:~..P.?, 1r .,.. _ ..c~~„_,' ~,d,S ,._. . ~„x~:+.Y JL ~rnffiz;;~•... . , , . .....,. ..
~ .. ---
~1
~ 465 ~~ ~
;
MINUTE3, CITY PIANNING CdMMISSION, October 16, 1961~ Continaed: ~ ~
pARiANCB No. 1411 - The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding ;
CONTINUHD the subject petition. .} j
1. T71at the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim Municipai ~
Code: Section 18.32.060~which requires for subject propezty that ~
no two-story muitiple family dweliings may be constructed within t ,,
150 feet from a siagle family residential zone, to permit the ~ s
construction of two-sto=y apartments on the proposed R-3 portion ~ ~
of subject property. ; s
~ j i
2, That there,a;e no exceptional or extraordiaary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the ~roperty invoived or to the intended i
use of the propeity,that do not apply generally to the property i
or class of use in the same vicinity and zone. ~
3. That the requested variance is not necessa=y for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other
property in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property
in a,uestion. '
4. That the requested variance will be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the psoperty or improvements in
such vicinity apd zone in which the property is located.
5. That the ordinance prohibiting two story apartments within 150 feet ;
of single family residential is sound and should be carried out. ;
;
6. That written and verbal opposition of the subject petitioa was '
presented to the Commission.
i
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 116, 3eries 1961-62, and !
moved for.its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, ~
to deny Petition for Variance No. 1411 oa the basis of the aforementioned
findings. '
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
pYHS: COhAlISSIONffitS: Ailred, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall,
' Pebley, 9ummers.
i '
NO&S: COMMI3SIONBRS: None. ~
i
i
AHSHNT: COhAfI3SI0T~RS: Morris, Perry. j
i
~ -
':'aS1TA?'IVS MAP OP - DHVBLOPBR: W. D. QtBSCHNBR COMPANY, 1138 Bast 1'7th Str.eet, Santa Ana, ~
14tACT No. 4408 California. HNGINBHR: Bennett and Wynne, 1126 "A" Hast 17th Street,
San+.a Ana, California. The txact is located on the northwest corner
of Cerritos Avenue and Lewis Street, and contains 18 M-l, Light Manufactur3ng
' Zone and P-L, Parking-Landscaping, Zone lots.
Mr, Hd. Lindskog, representing the developer and 4he engineer, appeared.
before the Commission and stated he had no comments to make on the
proposed tract. ,
The Commissioners were informed that at the time of issuance of the
building peimit the parking requirements would be enforced, i
i
!
~ .
----*.- ~. ,
.,, . .
. . ;.
~ • '•~ ...; , ; . ...:,i. ;~::',
.. _ .. '~ . ~:. ,,,; ,... ~ ~ . . :;~.~- / .~. S ...c'. ...'S i ,,.t'.y' ':~:..~..,.. .....,. .........,-~....._...•-....._~..~..~r
, ~. ~ , -~, .:. . -.i. .r'~•- '.~~" ~ t, ~....1 ~._ .
.~ ... ..~..~.~.. .~~ ~I. l~~~VT' V'~F.,~.
. . -~ . . .. ' Y+' 4~.
~
~,':' MINUTSS, CITY PIANNING C06AlIS3ION, Qctober 16, 1961, Continued:
~ TBNTATIVH MAP OP - Commissioner Allred offered a motion,. seconded by Commissioner Pebley
TRACT No. 4408 and carried, that the Teatative Map of Tract No. 4408, revised
~~ `• ' CONTINUBD October 12, 1961, be approved, si~bject to the following conditions:
~
. !
1. Provisioa of utility easements along exterior boundaries as
determitted to be necessary by the Director of Public Utilities
to adequately serve the subject property and other property.
2. Contact be made with contiguous property owners to the west of
this tract to determine if theq wiil participate, at the time
of development, in the cost of the improvements adjacent to
their property.
3. If the contiguous property owners do not participate, an agreement
shall be entered into which will detail and determine the complete
cost for tt;e improvements adjacent to the reserved strip, which
is the obligation of the present developer, and upon payment of
this determined amount by the contiguous property owners, a
dedication of the one foot strap shall be made to the City of
Anaheim.
4. Requ3rement that should this subdivision be developed as more than
one subdivisiott, each subdivision thereof shali be submitted in
teatative form for approval.
5. Pertinent plot and building pians in connection with this Subdivision
Map will not be reviewed by City Council, but wi11 be reviewed by
the Planniag and the Huilding Department.
TBNTATIVB MAP OP - DBVHLOPBR: R. L. PARRCJYV, 9656 Garden Grove Boulevard, Garden Grove,
TRACT No, 4417 Caiifornia. The tract is located on the south s~de of Orangewood
Avenue, east of I.oara Street, and contains 20 proposed R-1, One
Pamily Residential lots.
,. ':t~. 7
;
.-~ . . . ~ .... ._.. ? !H .
The applicant was aot present.
Commissioner Marcoux offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Yebley
and carried, that Tentative Map of Tract No. 4417 be approved, subject
to the following conditions:
J.. Abandonment of existing 10 foot easement on south tract boundary
and 8 foot easement from Loraiae Way to south tract boundary by the
City of A~-aheim if existing vuater 2ine can be relocated in Loraine
Way to the satisf'ac4ion of the Director of Public Utilities.
2, Access to Orangewood Avenue shall be permitted for Lots 2. 3, and
4 only.
3. Drainage easement may;be necessary on "A" Street for lots fronting ~
on Orangewood Aveaue, adjacent to this tract, Determination of
thia to be made prior to submissioa of final map.
4. Requirement that should this subdivision be developed as more than
one subdivision,'each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in
. tentative form for approval. ~
~ 5. Pe=tinent plot and building"plana in conttection with this Subdivision,
Map will not be seviewed by City.Councii but will be reviewed by
the Pianning and the Building Department.
{
.:i
I ~f;
~. . . . ,~ ~'~ ' . . . ~ . ~ f
'~icn, ~ . .. ,-,2.,?, b~ .^,S . , .._. . ~..., i ~J.'.'~ i . ~_.:r5.(1' ,.~._~l.G':~i..v. ~±~r" YCra;» ~0 . . . . . ..' t ... }~.
MINUTES, CITY PIANNING CIX , . --- - .
CCYtRBSPONDENCB - ITBM No. 1: LBTTBR PROM STATB DIVISION OP HIGHWAYS:
A letter received from the State Division of Highways regarding
State-owned property at the Northeast corner of Lincoln and Buclid
Avenues was read tb the Commission,
The Commisaion was under the impression that Rayco would.be
interested in buying the subject propexty. Mr. Kreidt informed
the Commission that if the State were to sell the pro~erty it would
have to be sold at auct?on.
Commi.ssioner Marcoux offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Summers
and carried, that this letter be referred to tlie City Manager.
ITBM No. 2: LETTBR IN RBPSRBNCB TO VARIANCB No. 1344:
A letter received from Bileen Mae Rerron regarding Variance No. 1344,
for the use of a beauty shop in an R-1 Single Pamily Residential, Zone
for a six (6).month trial period, was xeceived and filed by'tl~e
Commission.
RSp~tTS AND - ITBM No. 1: Oraage County Use Variance No, 4834: '
RBCOirAlBNDATIONS
Urange County Minutes were received and filed regarding Use Variance No.
4834.
ITBM No. 2; Preci§e Pian Study on North sideof Broadway:
A directive from City Council was received by the Planning Commission
requesting that the Commission initiate a Precise Plan Study of the
area bounded on the north by the alley parallel to and midway between
~ Lincola Avanue and Chestnut Street, on the east by Harbor Boulevard,
on the south of Broadway, and on the west by Citron Street.
Commissioner Pebley offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux
and carried, that the Planning Department prepane a Precise Plan Study of
area in accordance with the request of the City Council.
ITSM No. 3: Proposed Amendment to Section 18.68.060 - Conditions and
Regulations:
City Councii Resolution No. 7240, requesting that the Commission initiate
a proposed amendment to Section 18.68.060, Conditions and Regulations
was received by the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Mungall offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux
and carried, that the Pianning Commission initiate a Pubiic Hearing on.
a proposed Code Amendment as contained in City Councii Resolution No.
7240 for November 13, 1961.
ITBM No. 4: Landscaping at CMA
The Commisaion stated that the Planning Department should investigate the
problem of landscaping on the CMA property Socated at: South Loa Angeles
Street and Cerritos Avenue. .
,
: ',!';t?. .,"'.~~._ .. .,.{t.~....?~. r f . ,... . .....~ ..... .., , ,...,.. ~b, ...r:.r^{ t.l .:~.7F'/,.r,~Lr~1~~~....~~~ ,._:. . .. _ .....
~ ~;
.~ { . ',
y~i'
~' ;
~ ~^~ .
.
~qS y
~yy.~
~y., .. ~~ ..
xF~
~~.; ~
. ~ . . ~
~ '
:
.
_ , . . . . .
~ -_
. . . ~.
...~.~~,,,n : ..
~ . . ~ .
.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~~
468
MINUTHS, CITY PIANNING COI~AlISSION, October 16, 1961, Continued:
RHP~tTS AND - ITBM No. 4: Landscaping at CMA - Continued:
REWA9d8NDATIONS '
CONTINUHD Commissioner Allred suggested that the Commission,during the course
of their field trips~be carefui in observing the cbmpliance of property
owners with Code regulations.
Commisaioner pebley offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux
and carried, that the Planning Department notify UfA of their Code
violation and that ali necessary corrective action be taken.
ADJOURNMBNT . - There being no further bnsiness, the Meetiag was adjourned at 4:10 p~CI,pC~
P. M.
Respectfully submitted,
JEAN PAGB, Pianning Commission Secretary
By: ~~~==~tii/'~-
Irene Shaw
PSanning Department Stenographer