Minutes-PC 1962/05/28T
~~
REGUTAR MBHTING OF TFIE ANAHHIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
RBGUTAR MHBTING - A Regular Meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was
called to order by Chairman Gauer at 2;00 0'Clock P,M., a quorum
being present.
~~ffi`iT - CHAIAMAN: Gauer.
COMMISSIONBRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall,
Pebley, Perry,
ABSBNT ~ COMMISSIONBRS: None.
PRESBNP - ZONING COORDINATCIR: Martin Kreidt.
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORN&Y: Joseph Geisler.
COMMISSION S&CRBTARY: Ann Arebs.
INVOCATION - Reverend Le Roy Miller, pastor Faith Lutheran Chuzch gave the
invocation.
PLBDGB OF - Commissioner Allred led the Pleclge of Allegiance to the Plag.
ALLBGIANCB
APPROVAL OF - The Minutes of the meeting of May 14, 1962 were approved as
MINUTBS submitted with the following corrections:
1. Item No, 2 of correctioas made to the April 30, 1962 minutes
which read as follows:
1. Page 877 - TBNTATIVB MAP OF TRACT N0. 4627
"Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to accept Tentative
Map of Tzact No, 4627, (Revision No. 1;, dated April 24,
1q62, etc °t
"Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CAARIBD.
was recinded.'''
2. Page 907, Reciassification No. 6i-62-58, paragraph 6 shculd
read:
"Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution No. 311, Series 1961-62,
and moved far its adoption and passage, seconded by Commis-
sioner Marcoux, to recommend to the City Council to deny
Petition for Reclassification No. 61-62-58 on the bases of the
aforementioned findings:'
3. Page 910, Variance No. 1472, paragraph 2 line 3 should read:
"to an existing motel to the south, that additional land was
not"
^ ~36 -
__ _._ ._.`--•------.--.--._ ._____._..-----.~.__. p~
~,........~.~ . ~.~ . . . . . -__._ ' __ .' _'_"_ . ~ ~II
~ `~l
City Hall
Anaheim, California
May 28, 1962
r ,r ~
` _'
1 ~-'
,~
~
V
~
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING CaMMIS3I0N, May 28, 196.2, Continued:
AFPFtOVAL OF
MINUTBS
(Cont~ed)
937
- 4. Page 913, Conditional Use Permit :40. 223, paragra,r.h should
read as follows: j
----._-,_ ~
i
i
1
I
i
~
I
i
"Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 315, Series 1
1961-62 and moved for its passage and adoptiou, seconded ,
by Commissioner Chavos, to c.eny Petition for Conditional Use Per•
mit No. 223 on the b3ses of #iie aforementioned findings." '
THNTATIVB MAP OF - SUBDIVIDBR: RINKHR D?"JBLOPMENT CORPORATION, 10600 Katella Ave- ,
Voorheis-Trindle and ~
?l
TRACT N0. 4476 :
nue, Anaheim, California. BNGINS~
Nelson Inc., 13794 Bear,n Bo:!levard, ;~Vestmins*cr California. ,
Subject tract is locateG be•,`.~rieen Sa1t,i Ar.~ River and Newport ~
Freeway at the northeast ~orr,er of the ini:rsection of the ~
Newport Preeway and the .Riverside Preeway, and contains 189 ~
proposed R-1.• ONB PAMILY RSSID~TTIAL, 20NB lots.
Subject petition was con#:inued from the meeti~ g c+~` May 14, ~
1962 at the request of the petitioner.
~
Zoning Coordinator, Martin Kreidt read a letter to the Com- ~
mission which was received from Mr. Renneth Carlson of F
VoorAeis-Trindle and Nelson Inc., Sngineer for the tract i
requesti~.~p a continuance oi subject tract until the meeting of
June 25, 1962.
Commissioner Mungall affered a motion to continue subject
tr~ct until the meeting of ,June 25, 1962; Commissioner ;
Marcoux seconded the motion. MOTIO,~ CARRISD. ~
1
TSNTpTi~g MAp pp - SUBDIVIDBRc LUSK CORPORATION, 10522 Santa Gertrudes lsvenue, a
1~. Q. i
~(IYLB BNGINBHRING
TRACT N0..4689 ,
Whittier, Calif~raia. HNGINBBR:
Box 178, Suite 333, Spurge.:o A..ui.J.ding, Santa Ana, Calif~rnia. ~
~
Subject tract is Soc;~~ed on the east side of the Newport p
Preeway on both side:s of the extensiori of I:incoln Avenu^, qnc: ;
contains 138 prop~sed ?t-1, ONH PAidILY RSSIDHNTIAL, ZONR, lots. ,
Mr, William Luslr, agent for the subdivider, appeared befora~ the
Commission and stated •:hat sidewalks wou13 be instailed on one
side of Lincoln Avenue oniy since gr;,i°.s on L~.ncoln Avenue
were nine percent, that although sidewalks were not ir.dicated
within subject tract, all previous tracts :rhich the ~developer
had erected inciuded side~valks, and that l~e thought subject
tract woald be treated in the same manner.
Zoning Coordinator Kreidt stated that ~the Planning Departnent
had a list of suggested street names, if the deveioper wo~sid
like to see them. ~
Commissioner Perry offered a motion to accept Tentatir~ M~p
of Tract No. 4689, subject to the following conditions:
1. Requirement thaf snould this svbdivision be de:-eloped as
more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof sl~all
be submitted in tentative form for approval.
2. Subject to the approvai of plot and building plans by thA
Planning and Building D~partments.
3. Provision of acquisition of propexty frcm the State or the
relocation of "A" Street to the east be required to provide
developabie lots along the northwesterly tract boundary,.
~~
. • ,
. . t
~~
. ~ a
~ ~ I '~ :;i:~~ '
1 : ,, cil
, a'
'_. . .... . _.._...._."'__._._ . . ... ... ......___ ~__..^._'"_' ____"__ _""'__...""_...._ _'__.._.....__._
~ _
~~ ~~ ~
~
E
; tdINUTF;5, f I'.CY .tL :NNING COMMISSION, May 28, 1962, Continued: 938
7BN'fi1'f*.Ji3 MAP OF - 4. The a~erag~ ?ot size shall a° 10,000 sqaare feet, wit:h
TRAG; iti~).468g no lo•: less than 8,000 squarc: feet. The minimum bailding
(Cor~tir.iued) . pad si~e shall be 7,000 squa~:e feet.
5. Priur tc the submissicrn u~ :l~e final map the pre::ent city
limits between the Ci:y o: ~.:ra~ge a~.a ~+.*.; of Anaileim shall
be adjiisted to C6ArOY~~ tv the trac+ bcnncaries;
6. Areas withir. the City of Anahe.im, after the boun!.arp ad~ust-
ment, contributing to the drai~tage district ia the City of
Orange shall be resp~nsible for the drainage cnarge, which
shall be paid prior ~: appro•ral uf the final map. Th: a.e~
shall be the net area draining inta the C~ty of Oxange.
i. SidewaJ.lcs sha11 be const:~ucted on one s~e of Linc~ln Ave.ziae.
Commissi~~ner Nungali secanded the motion. MOT1~N CARRIBD.
CONDITIQ*I.;;. L~S& - PUBLIC HBA1tING. BDWARD D. ANDBRSON, 2770 West Linco~n Avenue,
p7'iQM'".' ""v. 246 Anaheim, Califoi. ia, Oumer; requr~stir;g pexmissioa 4~. iXPAVD
~v-`.~ TRAILER PARK on'property described se; A pazcel of .la::d
108 feet ~y 222 feet witF; a froritage of 108 feei an the south
side c: Lincoln A•renw^. *Y,e no~-r:h,rest corr. - being 400 feet
e3st of the southeast corn~.: nf Lincoln Avenue and Dale 4'~enue,
and further descrit~ed as %'tE6 A'.°_st Lincoln Avenue. Troperty
presently classif•ied a~ C-1, NBIGHBORNOOD COMMHRCIAL, ZONE.
Mr. Edwazd D. Ar.derson, the petitioner, ,appeared before the
Coiami;:sion and. stated he had nothing f~rther to t~?1 the
Commission, but Novld be glad. to ans~xer any qr?st3ons.
2oning Co~rdinator M. Kreidt stated that Petiti~n for Reclassi-
fication Plt~. 6L`-E1-107 reclassii;Ting sabject pcopFrty frr,m
the R-A, kHSIDBtd'~'IAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONH, to the C-1, NEIGHBORIi00D
C(':v1MBRCIAL,, ZONR was st:ill pending on subject prop.=.rt,, that {he
ir:cent cf the petitioner t~ complete said reclass;ifitation sl~ould
be clarifieu. that recommendation shonld be m~de +.o .he City
Con.~c:Ll to na;~e the completion of this reclassific~tion a,:; -~~ i-
lion of approva.l or to terminate said reclassificstion, and t:nat
said r.eclassificatidn was for the purpose o£ establishing a
20-seat :_e~~.a;aran4 ir conjqnction with the trailer park which
was approved witk, a resolu:inn of intent by the City Cou^cil
on July 'L5, 1961.
hir. Anderson then stated th4t a bond guaranteeing the instslla-
tion o.f sidewalks and cezbs ltafl anotkier foar months before ~x-
i iraticn. aad at that time both :sid~v~!t?.ks aad cu*bs ~NOUld l~:iv.
been installed.
THH HBARING WAS CLOSHD.
The Commission found and determined the fo.llowina facts regarding
subject petition:
1. That the proposed use is prope.rly one for which a Conditiona~
Use Permit is anthorized by this Code, to wit: expansion of
an existing trailer park. •
_.._-
--.._.._-----. __ _--_.___ .....--•-
--
-----•- I
~
- - _. _..-- --...~_ ~
-,_~--- ~
_.._~W -
r
, .
- - . _ . . .._. _..__~
~~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING GOMMISSION, May 28, 1962, Continued 939
CONDITIONAL USE - 2, That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining
PERMIT N0. 246 land uses and the growth and development of the area in which
(Continued) it is proposed to be located.
3o That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is
adequate to allow the fell development of the proposed use
in a manner not d~trimental to the particular area nor to
the peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the Citisens
of i:he City. of Anaheimo
4o That the granting of the Conditional Use Permit under the condi-
tions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace,
health, sa.°ety, and general welfare of the Citizens of the City
of Anahei*•.;o '
5. That the traffic generated by the proposed use w~ll not impose
an urdue burden upon the streets and highways designed and
improved to carry the traffic in t.he areao
6> That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution Noo 326, Series 1961~62, and
r~oved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissionex• Camp,
~o grant Petiti.on for Conditional Use Permit Noo 24ci, subject to
the followir~g conditions:
ie Subject to the completion of Reclassification Noo 60-61-107
prior to issuance of a Final Building Inspection of the proposed
trailer spaceso
2. Development sue;stantially in accordance with Exhibit Noe 1,
provided that said trailer spaces shall be in accordance with
the proposed trailer park ordinancee
3. Payment of a Park and Recreatio~~l'ee of $25000 per trailer spaae
to be collected as part of the Building permito
4. Provision of trash storage areas as determi~ed by the Department
of Public Works, Sanita+ion Division, which are adequate.in size,
accessible to trash-truck pickup, and adequately enclosed by a
so~id fence or wall, prior to Final Building Inspectiono
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the fcllowing
vote:
AYES: CONQ~AISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux,
Mungall, Pebley, Perrye
NOES: CONWfISSIONERS: Noneo
hBSENT: CONQuIISSIONERS: Nonee
TENTATIVE NfAP OF - SUBDIVIDER: ORANGEiHORPE INDUSTRIAL PROPER'CIES. 146 East Orangethorpe
TRACT N0. 4703 Avenue, Anaheim, Californiao ENGINEER: McDaniel Engineering Company,
222 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Subject tract is
located on the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue east of the Atchison,
Topeka ~~nd Santa Fe Railway Right-of-Way, and contains 15 M-1, LIGHT
MANUFACTURING, ZONE lots.
__ - -- .________,_~_____~_ _
_ __ --_ ' -
~
a . . . . . .. --r .- - - _. ^ _ q --
~
1
tl °. .
'
.~ ~w~ •
~ ~~ O
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 28, 1962, Continueds 940
TENTATIVE MAP OF - Mr. A. R< McDaniel, engineer for the developer appeared before the
TRACT N0. 4703 Commission and stated that ded:;.a~,idn of 220 feet for access.rights
(Continuec~) wouid be more than adequate for safety measures in relation to the
right-of-way of the railroad tracks, and that no driveways wi.thin
lOG feet of tne subject railroad tracks were plannede
Mr. Art Daw from the City Engineer's office was asked to clarify
the Interdepartmental Committee's recommendatims of 220 feet, and
stated that an original 150 feet,of access rights was specified
to be derlicated, but that later it was felt 220 feet would be
necessary because vp•rtical curves were necessary in the stree.t
grade to provide an adequate crossing of the railroad tracks, whereas
the lesser amount might present an inadequate driveway access to the
street from th~ proposed manufacturing lots for truck traffic, and
sight distance to the crossingo
Commissioner Allred offered a motion to accept Tentative Map of
Tract No. 4703, subject to the following conditions:
lo Requiremant that should this subdivision be developed as.more
than one subdivision, each subdivision the:eof shall be sub-
mitted in tentative form for approvalo
2o Existing improvements shail be checked as t~~ their condition
and adequacy and brought up to standards as required.by the -
City Engineer and Director of ?ublic Utilitieso .
3o Dedication of access rights to Orangethorpe Avenue as required
by the City Engineero
4o Dra3nage of the area shall be accomplished in a manner satis-
fectory to the City Engineere
Cortonissioner htarcoux seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDo
Commissioner Camp left the Council Chambers at 2:40 p,me
TENTATIVE NWp OF - DEVELOPER: V. Je SHRADER, 6700 Stanton Avenue, Suite "E",.Buena
TRACT N0. 4%17 Park, California. ENGIIVEER: McDaniel Engineering Company, 222
East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. Sub~ect tract is
located on the west side of Sunkist Street approximately 1,340012
feet north of South Street, and contains 32 proposed R-1, ONE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE lots.
Mr. A~ Ra McDaniel, engineer for +ne developer, appeared before
the Commission and stated that if recommendations by the.Inter~
departr.a~+al Committee were approved it would 3eopardize his
client`~ ,.nvestment :onsiderably, that the developer would have
to sacrifice another lot to construct a.street for future devel-
opment which was not planned or contemplated, and.that he had
submi+ted various sketches and plans as well as attending sta£f
m edingsat which time he not been informed of the planning study
in progress on sub,~ect an~' abutting propertyo
Zoning Coordinator ~rio Kreidt stated that Planning Study 38-112-4
covered subject property as requested by the Commission, that
two alternative layouts for a stub stree+ to the north to provide
future egress to the abutting odd shaped property, a stub street
to permit circulation to the south, and to eliminate the stub
street to the west in order to eliminate the creation of 10,000
square foot lots; that the planning study as displayed indicated
. .. . „ _. . . . ... r;' 4 .
~ ~~ ,
(~ ~ "~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 28, 1962, Continued: 941
TEMATIVE MAP OF - that the best use for the ~r:sperty was R-1, single family development,
TRACT N0. 4717 and that he would present sub~ect study to the Commission for.review
(Continued) _ and.approval before it was presented to the City Council for appravale
Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to continue sub3ect tract for
two weekso
The Commission discussed the lack of ingress and egress to subject
tract to the north, +hat providing a cul-de-sac to the west would
createan undesirable situation, and that it would be less easy to
develop property abutting it into R-i, single famil.y homeso
Commissioner Chavos withdrew his vrevious motiono
Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to accept Tentative Map of
Tract No, 4717 subject to the following conditions:
lo Requi-rament that should this subdivision be developed as more
than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be sub-
mitted in tentative form for approval.
2o Subject to the approval of plot and building plans by the
Plannzn9 and the Building Departmentso
3e Installation of a six (6) foot masonry wall where Lnt Nose 1,
32, 21, and 20 abut the planned highway right~of-•way line of
Sunkist Street, provided that said wall shaii be stepped down
to a height of twenty-four (24) inches in the fron+ one-half,
and to a height of farty-two (42) inches in the back one-half
of the front yard setbacks of Lot Nosa 1 and 32, and installa-
tion of reasonable landscaping the full distance of said well
construction, plans for said iandscaping to be submitted ta
and subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway
Maintenance, prior to Final Building Inspectiono (Foilowing
installation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume
the responsibility for the maintenance of said landscapinge)
4. Provision for a stub street to the north as presented Exhibit
No. 1 of Planning Study 38-112-4, to eliminate stub street to
the west and provide a stub street +o the south tract boundaries.
Commissioner Allred seconded the ^~otion. MOTION CARRIED.
Commissioner Camp returned to the Council Chambers at 3:20 p.m.
PLANNING STUDY - Sub3ect study area bounded on the north by Center Street extended,
N0. 38-112-4 on the south by Sout'h Strept, on the west by State Ct lege Boulevard,
and on the east by the proposed Route 19 Freewaye
Zoning Coordinator M. Kreidt presented the subject planning study
to the Commission as follows:
On January 22, 1962~ as a result of Planning Commission considera-
tion of Reclassification Noo 61-62•-59 and Conditional Use Permit
No. 189, the Planning Department was directed to prepare a Planning
Study "on the area south of Lincoln Avenue and west of Sunkist
Street, to be presented to the Planning Commission so that it might
better be determined what type of development should be allowed
that would be best for +he residents and for the City".
~~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 28, 19b2, Continued: 942
PLANNING STC~Y - Planning Study No. 36-112-4 was completed and submitted to the
N0. 38-112-4 Planning Commission at their meetiiig of February 5, 1.962o The...
(Continued) study was considered as evidence in the final Commission•considera-
tion of Reclassification No. 61-62-59 and Conditional Use Permit
Noo 189. At that time there was no offi'cial Planning Co~mni.ssion
acceptance or rejection of Planning.Study No. 38-112-e4e
i.
Planning Study No. 38-112-4 was then altered and presented as
evidence when Reclassification Noe 61-62-59 and Conditional Use
Permit No. 189 were brought before the..~ity Council on.March 13, 1962.
At a later date, subject study was considered at a Planning Gommission E
work session due to the fact that additional information had bsen S
acquired and new alternative plans were sUggestedo =
,
The final pla~ was determined by the Commissior~ and referred..back ~
to the Planning Department for completion of the graphic and text ~
presentations for Planning Study 38-112-4. ~
2. Problem: ~
To project the highest and best development of properties con-
tained within the study area.
3. Findinqs:
. (1) The study area has been previously devoted to agricul-tural
land utilize'tion.
(2) The stady arQa is rapidly acquiring a singly family, low-
density, rQSidential charactero
(3) A large community shopping center, the Bast Anaheim Shopping
Center, is located in the study area at'the southeas# corner
of the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and State College
BouleJard. (see Exhibit 1)e
(~4) There is a long belt of multiplo family housing direotly
south of the East Anaheim Center, seryibg as a transitional
land use between the sho~iping center and.the.single family
dwellings to the south.
(5) Th~: Planning Commission and the City.Council of the City
of Anaheim have expressed a definite.desire to encourage
si•,~gle family low-density residential development in the ,
iimnediate eastern area of.the city, bounded on the north
by the Riverside Fxeeway, on the west by State College y
$oulevard, on the south by Ball Road, and on the east by . ~
the Santa Ana River.
4. Conclusionss
(1) The t.rend toward single family residential growth is
expected to continue: ~
(2) Consideration should be given +o the•establishment of
multiple family development of.a transitional use east
of the East Anaheim Shopping Center, and abutting the
pro3ected single far.:ily residential development.
. ~
_.
! ___ _. .-_T-~__^__.. -
. , . ; ...
,: , : _
..,
,
-~~-- .::__.-~ : ~ , . • . ~ , . :,_ . • , -.. ~. . ~-_.;_ ... . . .__... .. _._
~~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLP.NNING COfuA7ISSING, May 28, 1962, Continued:
~
943
PLANNING STUDY - 5. Recoimnendations If Approved:
N0. 38-112-4
(Continued) (1) That the area enclosed by Planning Study No. 38-112-4
be developed substantially in accordance with Exhibit Noe 4e
a. Basically low-density, single family residential.devel-
opment with adequate circulation for pedestrians and
vehicles.
bo Development of multiple family units along the eastern
side of the East Anaheim Shopping Center to provide.a
transitional land use between the shopping center and
pro3ected single family residential developmsnt on
properties to the east of the shopping center,
Basea on the foregoing, Mre Kreidt stated, sub~ect recommendation
of the department was the highest and best for the community, and
that if the study were approved it would be submitt~ed to the City
Council.
Commissioner Pebley offered a motion to adopt the plans and-submit
them to the City Council, that the area enclosed by boundaries
submitted in Exhibit Noo 4 of Plannin9 Study Noo 38-112~4.
Commissioner Perry seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
VARIANCE N0.147;; -~'JBLIC HEARING. MR. JANIES H. CANFIELD, 2549 Orange Avenue, Anaheim,
California, Ownerf requesting permission to WA211E REAR YARD AND
BUILDIP:G SEPARATION REQL'?REMENfS on property described as: A parcel
of land 100 feet by 72 feet.plus Qr minus, with a frontage of 72..£eet
plus or minus on the north side of Orange Avenue, the southeast.coxner
of which is 145 feet west of the T~orthwest corner of Gain Street..~and.
Orange Avenue, and further described as 2549 Orenge Avenue. Property
presently classified as R-1, ONE FAMILY RESIDEN!'IAL, ZONE.
Mr. Jack Keene, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the
Commission and stated he had nothing further to offer to the
Coimnission.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commission found and.determined the following facts regarding
subject petition:
1. That the petitioner requests a variance from the.Anaheim Muni-
cipai Code: Section 18.34.030 (3) to construct an addition of
a family room.
2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved.or to the
intended use of the property that do not apply generaily to
the property or ciass of use in the same vicinity and zone.
3. That the requested variance is necessary for the preservation
and en~oyment 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 requested variance will.not be materially.detrimental
to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improve-
ments in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located.
5. That the requested variance will not adversely affect the
Comprehensive General Plan.
E : , 1 ---,--- ~-~ - --- - - -
~ _~ . _. . . , _ ~. : _ _ _ . . _ ..___ _ -
T ' . ~ . _. _ _ ..
i
,,,( ,..p-....
. i .
1 '
' :~.'
_...---..__ _. ------- --- ------ ` ---__ _ - ~
~~ V ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CONaAISSION, May 28, 1962, Continued: 944
VARIANCE N0. 1475- 6. That no one appeared in opposition to sub3ect petit.iono
(coritiinued~)
Comnissioner Ailred offered Resolution No. 327, Series.1961-62,
and moved for its passa.ge and adoption, seconded by Cortenissioner
Camp, to grant Petition for Variance Noe 1475, subject to the
following condition:
1. Development substantially in accordance with Exhibit No. 1.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following
votes
AYES: COMMISSIONHRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood,
Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
NOESs COMMISSIONERSs Noneo
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
!~ARIANCE N0.1476 - PUBLIC HEARING. MP.. HARVEY SERVANCE, 3431 Brady Avenue, Anaheim,
California, Owner; requestino permission to WAIVE MINIMUM FLOOR
ARFJ~ REQUIREMENf on property described as: A parcel of land 55
feet by 135 feet with a frontage of 55 feet on the north side of
Brady Avenue, the southwest corner of which is 260 feet east of
the northeast corner of Knott Avenue and Brady Avenue, and.£urthex
described as'3425 Brady Avenue. Psoperty presently classified_.as
R-1~ ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
Mr. Stanley Shearer, agent for the petitioner, appeared before-the
Commission and stated that subject request was presented to the
City Council for approval with a possible increase in size of .the.
building, that later it proved to be economically not feasible as
the layout would not lend itself to this increase, and that the
sub3ect building exceeds in size about 90~ of the buildings in the
areaa
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding
sub3ect petition:
le That the petitioner requests a variance from the Maheim
Municipal Code: Section 18.80.080 to permit relocation of
a residencee
2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditionv applicable to the property involved or to the
intended u~~e of the property that do not apply~general.ly to
the property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone.
3. That the requested variance is necessary for.the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right.~possessed by
other proper+.y in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the
property in question.
4. That the requested variance will not be materially detrimental
to the public welfare or in3urious to the property or improve-
ments in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located.
5. That the requested variance will not adversely affect the
Comprehensive General Plan,a
~ _.. . , -_'_ .~_ ~_._ . . . _ . ._. . _._.. ,
, ~.
+ec~ . - --- - i
, ~ ; _
.
1 _.
~ ~~ ,.'
MINUTB3, CITY PLANNING C(Y~AfISSION, May 28, 1962, Continued: 945
VARIANCS N0. 1476 - 6. That no one apneared in opposition to subject petition.
(Continued)
Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 328, Series 1961-62,
and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner
Allred tu grant Petition for Variance No. 1476, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Development substantially in accordance with Exhibit No. 1.
2. Subject to City Council approval of a house moving permit.
3. Installation of driveways on Brady Avenue in accordance
with the adopted standard plans on file in the Office of
the City Bngineer.
4. Payment of a Park and Recreation Fee of $25.00 per dwelling
unit to be collected as part of the Building Permit.
S. Time limitation of one hundred and eighty (180) days for the
accomplishment of Item No. 1,
The foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
3
AYBS: COMMISSIONSRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood,
Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
NOBS: COMMISSIONBRS: None.
ABSENT: CONA~IISSIONERS: None.
VARIANCB N0. 1477 - PUBLIC HBARING. MR. and MRS. H. D. ALDBRDICH, 2654 Palais Road, a
Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting permission to WAIVH RBAR ~
YARD SBTBACK RBQUIRBMBNT on property described as: A parcel of ~
land 75 feet by 102 feet, with a frontage of 75 feet on the
south side of Palais Road, the northwest corner of which is 240 ;
feet east of the southeast corner of Sherrill Street and Palais i
Road, and further Sescribed as 2654 Palais Road. Property
presently classified as R-1, ONB FAMILY RBSIDENTIAL, ZONB.
Mr. James Nelson, Nelson-Dye Construction Co., represznting the '
petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated he had i
nothing further to add to the petition in question. ,
THH HBARING WAS CLOSSD.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regard- ?
ing subject petition: !
I
1. That the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim !
Municipal Code: Section 18.24.030 (3) to permit a three ~
and one-half (3~) foot encroachment to construct an
addition to residence on subject property.
2. That there are 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 zone. ~
3, That the requested variance is necessary fox the preservation ;
and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by ;
other property in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to i
the property in question.
. i
•
1 .. .. =. .a
~ (~ ~ t~
~ ~
j MINUTS3, CITY PIANNING CQMh1ISSI0N, May 28, 1962, Continued: 946
I
4 ;
! VARIANCB N0. 1477 - 4. That the requested varianc~ will not be materially detri-
(Continued) mental to the public welfare or injurious to the property
~ or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the prop-
i erty is located.
1
( 5. That the requested variance will not adversely affect the
~ Comprehensive General Plan.
6. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 329, Series 1961-62,
and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Coimnissioner ~
Chavos to grant Petition for Variance No. 1477, subject to the
following condition:
1. Development su~stantially in accordance with Exhibit Nos.
1 and 2.
On roll cal.i the foregoing resolution was passed by the following
vote:
AYSS: COMMISSIONHRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood,
Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, i
NOHS: COMMISSIONBRS: None.
ABSBNT: COhA1ISSI0NERS: None.
VARIANCE N0. 1478 - PUBLIC HBARING. LIONBL B. BABCaCK, JR., 2272 Crestwood L~ne,
Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting permission to WAIVE RBAR
YARD SBTBACR REQUIRHMHNT on property described a:~; An irregularly
shaped parcel of land approximately 100 feet by 72 feet with a
frontage of 72 feet on the south side of Crestwood Lane, the
northwest corner of which is 325 feet, plus or minus, east of the
southeast corner of Jean Street and Crestwood Lane, and further
described as 2272 Crestwood Lane. Pruperty presently classified
as R-1, ONB FAMILY RESIDHNTIAL, ZONE.
No one appeaxed to represent the petitioner before the Commission.
THE HEARING WAS CLQSfiD.
The Commission found and determined the followistg facts regarding I
subject petition: `
1. That the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim
Municipal Code: Section 18.24.030 (3) to construct an
addition to an existing single family residence on subject
property.
2. That there are exce;~tional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involeed o* te the
intended use of the property that do not apply g2nerally to
the property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone.
3. That the requested variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by
other property in the same vicinity aitd zone, and denied to
the property in question.
1
i
~
!
MINUTHS, CITY PIANNING COhAlISSION, May 28, 1962, Cont.inued: 947
VARIANCH NJ. 1478 - 4. That the requested variance will not be materially detri-
(Continued) mental to the public welfare or injurious to the property
or improvements in su:.h vicinity and zone in which the
property is 2ocated.
5, That the requested variance will not adversely affect the
Camnrehensive General Plan.
6. That no one appeared in apposition to subject petition.
Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 330, Series 1961-62,
and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner
Mungall to grant Petition for Variance No. 1478, subject to the
fol3owing condition:
1. Development substantially in accordance with Exhibit No. 1.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following
vote:
AYBS: COMMISSI(SVERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood,
Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
NOBS: COMMISSIONBRS: None.
ABSBNT: COMMISSIONBRS: None.
VARIANCH N0. 1479 - PUBLIC HFARING. b4t. and bfR~. RICHARD E. HUSTON, 515 North
Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Owners; RBAL INVHS'IMENT,
10502 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting
permission to WAIVB SIDB YARD SBTBACK RBQUIREMBNT on property
described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a~
frontage o.° S5 feet on the north side of Romneya Drive, a depth
of 434 feet at a maximum and the southeast corner of which is
98 feet west of the corner of Citron Street and Romneya Drive,
and further described as 811 West Romneya Drive. Property
presently classified as R-3, MULTIPLH FAMILY RESIDHNTIAL, ZONE.
Mr. Harry Knisely, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the
Commission and stated that he noted that the staff report
indicated a request for a two week continuance which he wouid
like to ask for.
Zoning Coordinator, Mart3n .°.reidt, staed that the Fire Department
recommended an access drive of twenty-one (21) feet would be
needzd iII o:der to get the fire equipment iato the property,
that a turn around of thirty. (30) feet minimum radius was also
needed, that because of the exist nce of single family homes.
abutting property tc the >ast boundary of subject property an3
residences on the west that it be suggested that the dri~reway be
provided to the east of the garages whicb are located on the
west of subject property, in order that the required turn
around may be placed where the garages were originally proposed
to be constructed.
Mr. Itnisely stated that subject property had been before the
City Council and had been granted on a previous petition, but
that it had expired, and that he was not prepared tc state
whether proposed details could be worked out.
~TFIB HSARING WAS CLOSBD.
r ~- , _
i .
.
~, '_ ..'~-- _
~7 i ~ ~ ;
MINUTHS, CITY PLANNING C~".IBSION, May 28, 1962, Continued: 948
VARIANCH N0. 1479 - Commissioner Perry offered a motion to re-open the hearing and
(Continued) continue subject peti.tion to June 11, 1962 in order to provide
the petitioner an opportunity to submit revised plans. Commis-
sioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
VARIANCH N0. 14°0 - PUSiIC HBARING. PBTPBNY, INC „ JAMES TWBDDBLL, FOTINE 'IWBDDELL,
PATRICIA J. ttf]RTO:: and NO??::P. ~, CHEROSKE, 10422 Garden Grove
Boule~;ard, Garden Grove, California, Owners; Miller Investment
Company, 511 West Willsen Way., Garden Grove, California, Agent;
reque.sting permission to BSTABLISH A MOTBL AND OFFICE BUILDING
on property described as: An L-shaped parcel of land with a
frontage of 104 feet on the north side of North Street and a
depth of 396 feet, the southeast corner of said property being
200 feet west of the northwest corner of North Street and
Redo~ldo Drive, and further described as 1303-1305 and ]305~ North
Strer.t. Property presently classified as R-0, RHSID&NTIAL SUB-
BURF.AN, ZONH.
Mr. Harry Knisely, attorney for the petitioners, appeared before
the Commission and stated that the petitioners p.lanned to use the
proposed office fortheir own use in connection with the motel and
his other enterprises, and that office space would not be
leased to other tenants.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt, stated that a recent petition
similar was denied by the City Council as being incompatible to
Disneyland area uses.
THB HBARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commission discussed the possibile uses the proposed office
could have other than a motel, that to use it for real estate
purposes would not be in conformance with proposed uses for
the area.
Assistant City Attorney J, Geisler stated that said office could
be allowed and that if the !'ommission wished to stipulate said
use for the motel owner on~y in a condition this would be
allowable.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding
subject petition:
1. That the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim
Municipal Code: Section 18.16.010 to permit the establishment
of an office building and motel on subject property.
2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circum~iances or
conditions applicable to the property involvei 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 zone.
3, That the requested variance is 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.
--------- _ _ __ --_ ------- -- ----.._ _------•• -- - --...._ _ -
- . ~- ---- -- ---
~_._ ~ ' .
~ ~ . ~. . . . ._ . . . _..__ . .
, • ~
~
_ . _..
~ __ ; .
;. '.
~ :_..~
---- --- --------_._ -____- •---- - _ .
~ ~ -~
~ ~ ~
MINUTBS, CITY PLANN ING COMMISSION, May 28, 1962, Continued: gqg
~ VARIANCE N0. 1480 - 4, xhat the requested variance will not be materially detri-
(Continued) mental to the public welfare or injurious to the property ur
i improvemeats in such vicinity and zone in which. the property
~ is located.
I
~~
5. That the requested variance will not adversely affect the
~ Comprehensive General Plan.
i
IF 6. That no one appeared <.~ opposition to subject petition.
~ Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 231, Series 1961-62
~ and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner
°~ Pebley to grant Petit ion for Variance No. 1430 subject to the
following conditions:
1. Provision that the proposed office building be used as a
business office by the owner of the proposed motel, and that
no real estate office be allowed in said office bnilding;
that an indentification sign for said offi„e buildi.ng be no
larger than two (2) feet by four (4) feet and that ~igns for
said motel be in accordance with code requzrements.
2. Development substantially in accordance with Hxhibit Nos. 1
and 2, with the exceptioa that the two driveways revising
tiie northerly portion of subject property shall be connected
in order to provide adequate circulation for automobiles,
trash-trucks, and fire trucks, said driveways to be subject
to the approval of the Fire Department.
3, Installation of landscaping in the twenty (20) foot setback
from the planned highway right-of-way line of Katella Avenue,
plans for $aid landscaping to be submitted to and subject to
the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance,
and said landscaping to be installed prior to Final
Suilding Inspection.
4. Dedication of sixty (60) feet from the monumented centerline
of Katella Avenue (forty (40) feet existing),
5. Preparatior. of street improvement plans and installation of
all improvements for Ratelia Avenue, subject to the approval
of the City Engineer and in accordance with the adopted
standard plans on file in the office of the City Bngineer,
5. Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes
on Katella Avenue.
7. Provision of trash storage areas as determined by the ilepTrt-
ment of Public Works, Sanitation Division, which are adequate
in size, accessible to trash-truck pickup, and adequateiy
enclosed by a solid fence or wall, prior to Final Building
Inspection.
8. Access drives shall be a minimvm of tx2nty-one (21} feet in
width with adequate angle cutoffs provided, or a minimum of
twenty-eight ;28) feet in width if no angle cutoffs are
provided and in all cases, shall have a minimum vertical
clearanca of fourteen (14) feet.
1~----- -
-- . ~1.4
~?
MINUTSS, CITY
VARIANCS N0. 1480 - 9. Installation of fire hydrants as determined to be necessary
(Continued) by the City of Anaheim Pire Marshall to provide adequate fire
protection.
10. Time limitation of one hundred and eighty (180) days for the
accomplishment of Item Nos. 4, 5, and 6.
Commissioner Mangall offered a motion to amend No. 1 of the
conditions of the foregoing resolution to include the following:
Provision that the use of said office building being proposed be
used for the specific use of the owner of the motel only, and
that if said motel were sold, the future owner be required to ,
petition for a variance for any subsequent use of said office '
Uuilding.
Commissioner Chavos seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
On roll call the foregoing resolution as amended was passed by
the foliowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONEItS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, ~
Mungall, Pebley, Perry. ~
1
NOHS: COI~AMISSIONBRS: Chavos.
ABSBNT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
VARIANCH N0. 1482 - PUBLIC HBARING. LaFRANCB B. TSRRBLL, 1307 North Jasmine Place,
Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting permission to WAIVH RBAR
pND SIDE YARD SETBACK RSQUIRBMBNTS on property described as; A
parcel of land 100 feet by 65 feet with a frontage on the west
side of Jasmine Place, the southeast corner of which is 65 feet
north of the northwest corner of Jasmine Place and Clover Avenue,
and further described as 1307 North Jasmine Place. Property
presently classified as R-1, ONB FAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONE.
Mrs. L. E. Terrell, wife of the petitioner, appeared before the
Commission and stated that build9.ng of the room addition to subject
property was in progsess, that the contractor whom they hired had
advised them that a variance was not needed, and that when the
petitioner asked the contractor for the number of the Building
Permit in order to obtain a loan the contractor disappeared.
Assistant City Attorney J. Geisler stated that the contractor had
several contracted additions in Anaheim for which no Building
Permits had been obtained, that subject construction had a
number of building violations in addition to work being done
without a variance; that a warrent was issued to apprehend the
contractor.
The Commission asked the petitioner her reason for appearing
before them, and the petitioner stated that the variance was
necessary in order to have tlze present construction i~spected as
well as complete construction and financing with the issuance of
a Building Permit.
TFffi HBARING WAS CLOSHD.
~ - -----;
~
~
f
-__ ____. ~
_
. _ - --------. -_ _ ._.... _
4
, ~
1
~ r.:;
•
: ~~
1` 1
,~
ti
l~
MINUTSS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 28, 1962, Continued:
951
VARIANCB NO. 1482 - The Commission found and determined the following facts regard-
(Continued) ing subject petition;
1. That the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim
Municipal Code: Section 18.24.030 (2) and (3) to permit the
conversion of an existing garage into a bedroom and
connection thereof to an existing single family residence.
2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary c=rcumstances
or conditions applicable to ~e property involved or to the
in}ended use of the property that do not apply generally to
the property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone,
3. That the requested variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial propei•ty right possessed by
other property in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to
the property in question.
4. That the requested variance will not be materially detri-
mental to the public tvelfare or injurious to the property or
improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property
is located.
5. That the requested variaace wili not adversely aff?ct the
Comprehensive General Plan.
6. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 332, Series 1961-62,
and moved for its passage aad adoption, seconded by Commissioner
Allred to grant Petition for Variance No. 1482, subject to the
following cond9.tion:
1. Developroent substantially in accordance with Bxhibit No, 1
and with the provision of a gutter to be installed on the
south side of subject carport .~r drainage to the east of
said carport.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following
vote:
AYBS: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood,
Marcous, Mungall, P~bley, Perry,
NOES: COMMISSIOPIBRS: None.
ABSBNT: COMMISSIONBRS: None.
VARIANCE N0. 1483 - PUBLIC I~ARING. MR. and hIItS. RICHARD SMALL, 949 McCloud Avenue,
Anaheim, California, Owners; Mr. Harvey L. Lucas, 4517 Tiller
Avenue, Orange, California, Agent; requesting permission to
WAIVE RBAR yBqRD SBTBACA RHQUIRBMENT on property described as:
An irregularly shaped parcel of land approximately 111 feet by
60 feet with a 60 foot frontage on the west side of McCloud Ave-
nue, the southeast corner of said property being 60 feet north
of the northwest corner of Norman Avenue and McCleud Avenue,
and further described as 94~ McCioud Avenue. Proper'cf presently
classified as R-1, ONE PAM~LY RBSIDSNTIAL, ZONB.
V
~~
MINUTBS, C7TY PIANNING CQMMISSION, May 28, 1962, Continued; 952
VARIANC$ N0, 1483 - Mr. H. L. Lucas, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the
(Continued) Commission and stated he had nothing further to add for the
Commission's consideration, but would be glad to answer any
questions.
THH HBARING WAS CLOSBD.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regard-
ing subject petition:
1. That the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim
Municipal Code; Section 18.24.030 (3) to permit the con-
struction of an addition to existing residence.
2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved or to the
intended use of the property that do not apply generaliy to
the property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone.
3. That the requested variance is necessary for the prenerv-
ation 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 requested variance will aot be materially detri-
mental to the public welfare 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 no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Commissioner Marcoux offered Resnlution No. 333, Series 1961-62,
and moved for its passage and ad.o,~tion, seconded by Coaunissioner
Mungall, to grant Petition foz Variance No. 1483, subject to the
following condition:
1. Development substantially in accordance with Bxhibit No. 1,
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following
vote:
AYHS: CC!MfISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gaue , Hapgood,
Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry,
NOHS: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
CONDITIONAL USH - PUBLIC HBARING. THOMAS A BBYRLfl, 5022 Triggs, Los Angeles 22,
PBRMIT N0. 225 California, Owner; Dr. Paul Toma, 5101 Bast Florence, Bell, Cali-
fornia, Agent; requesting permission to BSTABLISH A MOTEL AND
RH3TAURANT on property described as; A parcel of land 155 feet
by 774 feet with a frontage of 155 feet on the north side of
Anaheim P.oad, the southeast corner of which is 480 feet west of
the no=thwest corner of Miller Street and Anaheim Road, and
further described as 3141 Anaheim Road. Property presently
_.... •aj
~
i
~
;
,
~
~
i
i
;
i
~ ~
~
MINUTHS, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, May 28, 1962, Contiaued:
953
CONDITIONAL USH - cinssified as R-A, RBSIDBNITIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONB.
PHRMIT NO• 225
(Continned) Miss Mary Stewart, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the
Commission and stated that she had nothing further to state to the
Commission.
THH HBARING WAS CLOSHD.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt, stated that the floor plans and
the plot plans had some discrepen~ies, and that the floor plans,
plot plans and elevations did not conform witY{ each other.
The Commission discussed the fact that the elevations show the ?
frontage jutting out with a rock roof, whereas the regular plan j
shows a straight front with no jutting out and a shake roof. (
!
The agent for the petitioner stated that what appeared as apart- ~
ments were hospitality areas planned specifically to meet the
requirements as requested Uy the Pla rniing Department of Autonetics
who desiredto have the conference rooms and luncheon or restaurant
confined to one area, and that said area could be used as a ~
regular motel uni' using separators. ~
Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to reopen the hearing and
continue subject petition until June 11, 1962, at which }ime the
petitioner wili present revised pians for the Commission's
consideration.
Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
(:OND3TIONAL USE - PUBLIC HBARING. MR, and hlltS. ALBAN HOLTZ, 534 West La Veta,
PB1tMTT N0. 236 Orange, California, Owners; r~.questing permission to fiSTABLISH A
SERVICE STATION on property described as: An irregularly shaped
parcel of Sand anoroximately 150 feet by 150 feet at the southwest
corner of Lincoln Avenue and Rio Vista Street.
Mr. W. W. Jones agent for the petitioner, appeared before the
Commission and stated he had nothing further to add for review by ~
the Commission on subject petition, bnt would be happy to answer
any questions the Commission might have.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt, stated that Planning Study 37-
123-1 covered the area occupied by subject petition.
Mr. William D. Allen, 2704 Alden Place, appeared before the
Commission in opposition to subject petition and read a letter of
protest signed by 120 neighboring property owners which stated
that 18 acres of land at the nor.theast corner o£ Lincoln Avenue
and Rio Vista Avenue was approved for commercial use which included
a service station at this intersection, that the size of the area
approved was approximately twice the area needed for the estab-
lishment of a neighborhood shopping center, since an existing
shopping center was located only one mile west of the subject
property, that the completio~t of the new freeway to the west would
reduce the number of potent~;al single family developments, that
the approval of aubject petition would set a precedent for
additional commercial zoning at the remaining corners of subject .
intersection, that said commercial zoning would develop into an
unsightly area of commercial and consequently multiple family
developments in a predominately one family development; and that
~
• ' i ,
' j _.
~
(
C V ~ 2~b
- ~ : . . ~: , . r <. . . -
, ~ ~
fj7\
*r"
MINUTB3, CITY PLANNING CC~MMISSION, May 28, 1962, Continued: 954
CONDITIONAL USB - the fire hazards presented with commercial zoning were considerably ~
PHRMIT N0. 236 greater.
(Continued)
Mr. Clifford Rauch, 615 Doone Street, appeared before the Commission i
in opposition to subject petition and stated that he could not see ~
! the economic feasibility of another service station in an area with '
'• ample stations within a radius of a mile that the proposed service
station would not be compatible with the many R-1 single family
homes now being built and proposed for the area.
~
There were 18 other pe.rsons in the Coucil Chambers appearing in '
protest to subject petition. ~,
The agent for the petitioner stated that since the Orange County
Planning Commission had already approved a service station (which
Chairman Gauer stated was recommended for denial to said Commission)
this additional station would not present any more unsightliness,
and that with the proposed freeway to the west it would seem much
less objectionable,
, THB H6ARING WAS CLOSBD.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding
subject petition:
l. That the proposed use is properly one for which a Conditional
Use Yermit is authorized by this Code, to wit; establish a
service station.
2, That the proposed use will adversely affect the adjoining land
uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is
proposed to be located,
3. That in a planning study the Commission went on reccrd as
opposing the commercial development at subject intersection,
that there was adequate service station facilities for the
area, that there seemed to be no need for four service stations
at subject intersections, and that cor.sideration should be
taken as to the highest and best land use development for
subject area.
4. That 18 persons appeared before the Commission in opposition
' to subject petition, two persons presenting petitions with
120 signaEures of neighboring proper.ty owners in opposition t~
subject petition,
Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 334, Series 1961-62, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner
Marcoux, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 236 on the
bases of the aforementioned findings.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following
vote:
AYBS: COMMISSIONBRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood,
Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
NOHS: COMMISSIONHRS: None.
ABSBNT: CQNMISSIONERS: None.
C ~~ Z'3 6
.o,~-~
1~ ~
~
' . i ^ ~.
, •
. - --- ~,;;
~ ~ ~
MINUTS3, CIT1' PIANNING COMMISSION, May 28, 1962, Continued; ,/ 955
~l" ? "/ ,~- ~ -J~ C cnX'J~
PIANNING.STUDY - Commissioner Marcoux offered a motion, directing\the Planning
Department Staff to prepare Planning Study No. "~~-for the
ultimate development of the area bounded on the north by La Palma
Avenue and the Riverside Freeway, on the west by the proposed
Route 19 fz•eway, on the east hy the Santa Ana River, and on the
south by °!1 Road. Commissioner Camp seconded the motion,
MOTION CA? :IBD,
CONDITIONAL U3B - PUBLIC HEARING. _:YG BBACH BANANA DISTRIBUTORS, INC., 1419 Magnolia
PBRMIT N0.237 Avenue, Long Beach, California, Owner; John H. Irwin, 5230 Clark
Street, Suite 11, Lakewood, Califom ia, Agent; requesting permission
to ALLOW ON-SALB ALCOHOLIC BSVERAGBS on property described as: A
parcel of land 919 feet plus or minus by 435 feet plus or minus at
the northwest corna of Ball Road and Huclid Avenue, with 919 feet
plus or minus fronting on Euclid Avenue, and further describ?d as
903-905 South Huclid Avenue. Property presently classified as
C-1, NBIGHBQRHOOD CQMMffitCIAL, ZONH.
Subject petition was filed in conjunction with Variance No. 1474.
Mr, John H. Irv!in, agent for the petitioner appeared before the
Commission and sta~ed that he had applied for a Conditional Use
Permit before which was denied on the basis that it was not
compatible with the C-1, Neighborhood Commerc'ial zoning and devel-
opment of the subject area, but that he felt now subject petition
would now be in conformity with other uses and was proper for the
neighborhood to fill the needs of the community, and that food
would be soYd in conjunction with subject petition.
The C~mmission discussed the untidy appearance of the alley to the
west of subject property.
Mr. Irwin stated that although the area was checked three times a
week by parking lot attendants and by school boys twice a week,
subject petitioner was unable to police the area constantly in
order to maintain a neater appearance, that in all probability the
trash was emanating from the apartment houses, from the market and
drug stores, and that it seemed •that the debris was bl~wn constantly
onto petitioner's property.
Mr. Ralph Lundquist, the apartment ow~zer abutting subject property
appeared before the Commission and stated that he had a petition
from all of the apartment owners abutting the shopping center and
subject property opposing subject petition, who felt granting of
subject petition would be detrimental t'o the community since school
children patronized the shopping center, that many of the apartment
_ - tenants stated they would move if subject petitioner were granted,
that at the time of'the psevious denial, Mr. Irwin had stated he
would not pursue obtaining permission to operate any similar
business, and that another establishment had the exclusive rights
to dispense food in the shopping center,
THB HBARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commissioner found and determined the following facts
regarding subject property:
1. That the proposed use is properiy one for which a Conditional
Use Permit is authorized by this Code, to wit: on sale
alcoholic beverages.
~ i _r.._.~_~~_~__:_.._~..r r: - -
t z~~ . . ..
V
L~
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING C~4IISSION, ?~u;~ "~, ' ~~:~'~. ~:oat~.nued:
~
956
CONDITIONAL USB - 2. That the ps:~,::•::~~: u5~~ w:.t3 adversely affect the adjoining land
PBRMIT N0. 237 uses and the a--~~~t'r.: a,?d 3evelopment of the area in which it is
(Continued) proposed to be located.
3, That one person appeared before the Commission representing 48
neighboring apartment owners and t~nants in opposition to
subject petition.
4. That the proposed use was not compatible with the C-1, NEIB-
BORHOOD COMMBRCIAL ZONE use an~l development of the subject
area.
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 235, Series 1961-62, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissior~er
Chavos, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit 237 on the
bases of the aforementioned findings.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the toliowing
vote:
AYBS: COMMISSIONHRS: Allred, Ca[~•:, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood,
Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
NOES: CONA~tISSIONBRS: None.
ABSBNT: CQMMISSIONBRS: None.
VARIANCH N0. 1474 - pUBLIC HBARING. LONG BBACH BANANA DIS1RIBliTORS, INC., 1419 Magnolia
Avenue, Long Beach, California, Owner; John H. Irwin, 5230 Clark
Street, Suite il, Lakewood, California, Agent; requesting permission
to WAIVH PARKING SPACB RBQUIRBMBNT on property described as: A
parcel of land 759 feet plus or minus by 435 feet plus or minus
at the northwest corner of Ball Road and Huclid Avneue, with 759
feet plus or minus fronting on Buciid Avenue, and further
described as 901-957 South Buclid Avenue. Property presently
classified as C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COhA9HRCIAL, ZONH.
Subject petition was filed in conjunction with Conditional Use
Permit No. 237.
Mr. John Irwin, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the
Commission and stated that the petitioner had changed his plot
plans as sqbmitted to the Commission which formed an "L" to more or Iess
locR i n traffic and to keep through traffic out, that petitioner
had several calls for the proposed small buildings, that with
1100 apartments within the particular shopping center one space for
each apa~tment seemed somewhat unnecessary, that the 491 spaces
- proposed was more than adequate, that by developiag the number of
buildings proposed this would adequately supply the needs of the
community, aad that this then would complete the shopping center,
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt, stated that although the
petitioner requested a variance of 74%, the Planning Department
upon checki:g plans found a lesser percentage of 72.3%.
THB HBARING WAS CLOSBD.
c ,
~ _
. ,i
:' . i
I
1
V
i ~ .
V
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COA4~lISSION, May 28, 1962, Continued:
957
VARIANCE N0. 1474 - Mr.Kreidt stated that the area at Beach Boulevard and Ball Road
(Continued) showed a setback area on Ball Road but that none was noted from
Beach Boulevard; that if the Commission considered approving
subject petition, a reasonable setback be required on Beacon
Street.
The Commission found and determined the followi.ng facts regard-
ing subject petition:
1. That the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim
Municipal Code: Ordinance No. 1046, establish customer and
service parking on 72,3% of subject property.,
2. That there are 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 zone.
3. That the requested variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other
property inthe same vicinity and zone, and denied to the
property in question.
4. That the requested variance will not be materialiy detri-
mental to the public wel£are or injurious to the property or
impsovements 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 no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Commissioner•Pebley left the Council Chambers at 4:48 P.M.
Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 336, Series 1961-62,
and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner
Allred, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1474, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Dedication offifty-three (53) feet from the monumented
centerline of Ball Road and Buclid Avenue (50 feet existing).
2. Provision of trash storage areas as determined by the
Department of Fublic Works, Sanitation Division for the
entire shopping center, which are adequate in size, access-
ible to trash-truck pickup, and adequately enclosed by a
solid fence or wall, prio; to Pinal Building Inspection.
3. Provision of parking facilities which conform to the open-
air parking space dimen~ions adopted by the Planning
Commission and on file with the Planning Department.
4. Provision for a minimum five (5) foot setback on Seacon
+ Street right-of-way, with the installation of five (5) foot
landscaping on the Beacon Street frontage of subject property,
plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and subject
to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance,
and said landscaping to be installed prior to Final Building
Inspection.
,
, .:: ,,
.. . i... . .., .., yh ~...~ _..,,.._~ .~ 1F~11C~ f.~..,a.J4;4!':..
~
MINUTB3, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, May 28, 1962, Continued:
958
VARIANCH N0. 1474 - 5. Provision for revised plans to be submitted to the Archi-
CContinued) tectural Control Committee indicating elevations for the
rear of said building with a decorative three and one-half
(3~) foot block wall and overhang on the north side of
Beacon Street.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the follow-
ing vote:
AYES: COMh1ISSI0NHRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood,
Marcoux, Mungall, Perry.
NOSS: COMMISSIONBRS: None.
ASSBNT: COMMISSIONBRS; Pebley.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HBARING, RICHARD J., VIRGIL C., and CBLIA C. COLLIER,
PHRMIT N0. 238 10811 Bast Chapman, Garden Grove, California, OwnQrs; requesting
permission to BSTABLISH A NURSING HOMH on property described as:
A parcel of land 160 feet by 260 feet with a frontage of 160
feet on the east side of N~stwood Avenue, the parcel being the
northeast corner of Nutwood and Ratella Avenues, and further
described as 1885 West Ratella Avenue. Property presently
classified as R-l, ONH FAMILY RESIDBNTIAL, ZONH. Mr. LeRoy Rose,
architect and ag~nt for the petitioners, appeared before the
Cammission, and stated that subject property had been approved
for Reclassification for the same use about two years ago, but
that the petitioner at that time, Mrs. Bair, was unable to comply
with the conditions of the reclassification because of insuffi-
cient financial means, that the new owner wanted to continue the
use of said nursing home, and that plans were substantially in
accordance with plans as prev~.ously submitted.
THH HBARING WAS CLASBD.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Rreidt stated that if the Commission
approved subject petition that the original petitioner request
by letter terminatior_ of the Reclassification No. P-59-60-99 in
order to close the file; that property.abutting subject property
on three sides is classified as R-~, single family development,
and that a rest home could be esta lished under a Conditional Use
Permit without having to file for a reciassification which was
formerly required,
Mr. Rose stated that he had the authority of the original
petitioner and requested orally to the Commission permission to
terminate Reclassification No. F-59-60-99, as the original owner
wishes to sell subject pro~erty. '
Commissioner Camp offered a motion to request the City Council
to terminate Reclassification No. P-59-60-99 as requested by the
agent for the originai petitioner. Commissioner Allred seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIBA.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regard-
ing subject petition:
1. That the proposed use is properly one for which a Conditional
Use Permit is authorized by this Code, to wit: establish a
nursing home.
4
~.
~ ~ ~
V
MINUTH3, CITY PIANNING CONAlISSION, May 28, 1962, Continued:
959
CONDITIONAL USH - 2. That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining
PBRMIT N0, 238 land uses and the growth and development of the area in which
(Continued) it is proposed to be located.
3. That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is
adeai~•ite to ailow the full development of the proposed use
in ~ manner not detrimentai to the particular area nor to the
peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the Citizens of
the City of Anaheim.
4. That the granting of the Conditional Use Permit under the
condit~ ns imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the
peace, health, safety, an~ general welfare of the Citizens of
the City of Anaheim,
5. That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not
impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed
and improved to carry the traffic in the area. '
6. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution No. 337, Series 1961-62,
and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner
Camp to grant Conditional Use permit No. 238, subject to the
foliowing conditions:
1. Provision of a twenty (20) foot wide strip of landscaping
along the right-o:-way line of Katella Avenue and Nutwood,
except where building presently exists, plans for said land-
scaping to be submitted to and subject to the approval of
Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance, and said landscaping
to be installed prior to Pinal Building Inspection.
2. Development substantially in accordance with 8xhibit Nos. 1
and 2.
3. Installation of a six (6) foot masonry wall on the north
property line of subject property.
4. Subject to the written approval of the State Department of
Welfare and the Orange County Heaith Department, prior to
issuance of a building permit.
5, Provision of parking facilities adequate to pravide on-site
parking for all vehicles, that said required parking shall be
required on-site.
6. •Dedication of sixty (60) feet from the monumented centerline
of Katella Avenue (40 feet existing).
7. Dedication of thirty-two (32) feet from the monumaited center-
line of Nuswood Street ('LO feet existing). •
8. Preparation of street improvement plans and instaliation of
all improvements for Katella Avenue and Nutwood Street,
subject to the appraval of the City Bngineer and in accord-
ance with the adopted standard plans on file in the office of
the City Bngineer.
.. t_~:.. ..... . . . . .
~ ~ •
~
E .
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, Ma;~ 28, 1962, Continued:
;:; :
{:
~ ~~~
~~
~r.
- -~.
~
960
CONDITIONAL USB - 9. Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes
PHRMIT N0. 238 on Aatella Avenue and Nutwood Street.
(Continued)
10. Provision of trash storage areas as determined by the Depart-
ment of Public Works, Sanitation Division, which are adequate
in size, accessible to trash-truck pickup, and adequately
enclosed by a solid fence or wall, prior to Final Building
Inspection.
11, Time limitation of one hundred and eighty (180) days for the
accomplishment of Item Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following
vote:
pyE3; COb1MISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood,
Marcoux, Mungall,Perry.
NOBS: COMMISSIONBRS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Pebley.
F..;i.:
~~:.~:
F '`
~'.
&
CONDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC HBARING. MAURICt:::iNTO, 14014 McNar Avenue, Bellflower,
pIIiS7IT N0. 239 California, Owner; Rosen & Kuehn, 318 West Lincoln'Avenne,
Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A
Bfi&R TAVBRN on property described as: An irregularly shaped
parcel of land approximately 56 feet by 340 feet with a frontage
of 56 feet on the east side of Mountain View, the northwest
' corner of which is 325 feet south of the southeast corner of
: Katella Avenue and Mountain View, and further described as 1818
Mountain View. Property presently classified as C-1, NSIGHBORHOOD
COMMBRCIAL, ZONB.
Mr. Stanley Rosen, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the
, Commission and stated that the applicant aad the opesator of the
proposed estabiishment was also present, that the proposed build-
ing is to be completely soundproofed, that the proposed building
wAs located in an M-1, Light Manufacturing area, that a C-1 had
been obtained for the subject property; that the petitioner has
an opportunity to purchase property abutting to the south, that
the petitioner intends to construct on this abutting property an
industrial building andtoprovide additional parking for the area,
which will act as a barrier to the view of proposed tavern.
. Mr. Charles Frank, spokesman for the Plantation Mobile Estates,
a trailes park immediately to the south of the proposed devel-
opment, appeared before the Commission and stated that the
petitioner had not acted forthrightly in requesting subject
tavern, that area was origi.nally intended as a C-1, Neighborhood
Commercial area to service the trailer park tenants needs and
find that no tavern had been proposecl for the existing building,
~ that the tenants of the trailer park are of a finer element with
many chiidren as well as a$450,000 investment in said trailer
park, and that the value of said trailer park would considerably be
affected by the establishment of the proposed tavern with the
~ noise of traffic coming and going from said establishment, as
well as the noise from a juke box.
~~,._. „~~ _.
{.„.,..
~_---~-~, . . ,. ." '- ': _,~.. -"~-•
~ '
~; ,,
~ .,
~ ,:
~
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING CQb1MISSION, May 28, 1962, Continued: 962
CONDITIONAT, USB - PUBLIC HBARING. FRITZ GOOSSHNS, 2401 North Park Boulevard, Santa
PffitMIT N0. 'L41 Ana, California, Owner; James M. Decot, 2828 Hast Coast Highway,
Corona Del Mar, California, Agent; requesting permission to
BSTABLISH A SCHOOL IN RBAL HSTATB, INSURANCH AND BUILDING PIELDS
on property described as: An irregular four-sided parcel of land
approximately 150 feet by 500 feet with 110 foot frontage on the
north side of Ball Road, the southwest corner of said property
being 250 feet east of the northeast corner of Ball Road and Los
Angeles Street, and further described as 125 East Ball Road.
Property presently classified as M-1, LIGHT MANUFACTURING, ZONB.
~No one appeared before the Commission to represent the petitioner.
THS HBARING WAS CLOSBD.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding
subject petition:
1. Thst the proposed use is properly one for which a Conditional
Use Permit is authorized by this Code, to wit: establish a
school.
2. That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining
land uses and the growth and development of the area in which
j it is proposed to be located,
3, That,th e size and shape of the si4e proposed for the use is
~ adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in
' a manner not detrimentai to the particular area nor to the
peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the Citizens of
the City of Anaheim.
4. That the granting of the Condi4ional Use Permit under the,-.,
conditions imposed, if any, will m t be detrimental to the ~
peace, heaith, safety, and generai welfare of the Citizens of
the City of Anaheim.
5. That the. trriffic generated by the proposed use will not impose
an undve burden upon the streets and highways designed and
impro,ad to carry the traffic in the area.
6. That: subject property was located in a compatible area of land
use,.
7. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Coa~missioaler Camp offered Resolution No. 339, Series 1961-62, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner
Chavos to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 241, on the
basES of t5e aforementioned findings.
OYi roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following
vote;
1 AYBS: COMMISSIONBRS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux,
Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
NOBS: CaMMISSIONHRS: None.
ABSBNT: CQMh1ISSI0NBRS: Hapgood.
Commissioner Alired ieft the Council Chambers at 7:30 P.M.
~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 28, 1962, Continued:
963
CONDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC tffiARING. l~AbRONB INVESIMHNT COiKPANY, 9776 Katella Avenue,
PBRMIT N0. 242 Anaheim, California, Owner; Rothman-Steen and Associates, 617
South Harbor Boulevaid, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting
~ermission to BSTABLISH A MULTIPLH FAMILY PIANNBD UNIT DSVBLOPMBNT
on property described as; A parcel of land 333 feet by 654 feet,
with a front~ge of 333 feet on the east side of Magnolia Avenue,
the northwest corner of which is 267 feet south of the southeast
corner af Magnolia and Lincoln Avenues, Yroperty presently
classified as R-A, RESIDBNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, ZONH.
Mr. Gordon Steen, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the
Commission and stated that subject petition was tiie outgrowth of
a previous application for zoning to R-3, Multiple Pamily Use, that
a resoiution of intent was pending at the present time; that
the rerlassification was before the Commission in March, 1961, that
a Tract Map was filed at that time with 16 lots; that since that
time the property had changed o~xnership and the present Applicant
rather than build a speculative type apartment house, preferred to
build a garden-type development with 73 units, and that the units
contained 1100 to 1300 square feet.
~ The Commission asked Mr. Steen why a new set of plans was sub-
'- mitted and how many additional units v~ere added to the~previous
~ number. Mr. Steen stated that there were nine additional units,
z but tHat qua~.it~ rather than quantity was 'the important factor in
t said petition.
~ Zoning Coordinator Martin Itreidt, stated he had a blqe note from
the Assistant Chief of the Pire Department asking that the internal
; circular drive as recommended by the Interdepartmental Committee
~" be a twenty-one (21) foot width peripheral drive as recommended by
the Fire Department be provided in order to provide adequate ingress
~' and egress to subje~t property; that this was brought to the Commis-
~ sion's attention'as there ~vas a signature of agprovaZ of the.
proposed plans from one of the Fire Marshalis who was not aware of
the Interdepartmental Committee~s recommendations at the ti~e this
approval was given.
Mr. Lenzi Alired, a resident and property owner abutting to the
north of subject psoperty, appeared before the Commiss±on and
stated th~t he was not opposed to the R-3 development, but he
would like to~See that the Pire Department's recommendation as
read to the Commission be adopted, since a peripherai circular drive
of propes width to the north an~t the south around the subject
propezty was needed, that the 'pians as proposed were overbuilt and
created a high density property which would give it a much more
crowded appearance than~was formerly proposed; that although the
pians did not indicate any masonry walis; he felt walis were a
prerequisite for any multiple dwelling development, that walis
should be specified on the north, south and east property lines,
and that he would like to see substantiai changes in the plans
before the Commission would approve subject petition.
Mr. Steen stated that masonry walls would be erected on the north,
south and east boundaries of subject property, and that the plans
as submitted exceeded the minimum requirements for R-3 multipie
family developments of 60yo coverage. ~
: ~'~'~:'~':~
~
~
E
i'.:'_:'-~" .~~~
`~ ~ ~ ~
~• .. ~ '.t i '~..n-~.p,x.,r ~ r _ ..~,\' .
~ "~.
... .. . . ~ . . ~, ' ' ,~~~~
.. ~ ~ ~ .. . . ~ .
~
~
~ ._,
'.~:,...:~:,' .
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COD4dISSION, May 28, 1962, ~onii,-,~ed: 964
CONDITIONAL USH - THH HHARING WAS CL05ED.
PERMIT N0. 242 '
(Continued) Mr. Mungall left the Council Chambers at 7:40 P.M.
The Commission asked if the recreational area was sufficient to
meet the needs of the future tenants and was informed by
Mt. ICreidt that there was ample recreational area.
Mr. Kreidt read some of the conditions of the Resolution of Intent
on the reclassification approved by the City Council, and stated
that none of the conditions had been complied with, that if
subject petition were approved these conditions should be taken
into consideration and that it be recommended to the City Council
to amend Reclassification No. 60-61-54 specifically Condition Nos.
2, 4, and 5 and that an extension of time be granted, and Variance
No. 1334 be terminated.
Commissioner Pebley offered a motion to r~eopen the hearing and
continue Conditional Use Permit No. 242 until June 11, 1962 in
order to give the petitioner time to submit revised plans to the
Planning Department, Commissioner Camp seconded the motion,
1dOTI0N CARRIBD.
Commissioner Allred returned to the Council Chambers at 7:Su P.M.
CONDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC HHARING. DARRYL WALKBR, 2112 Nyon Place, Anaheim, Cali-
PERMIT N0. 244 fornia, Owner; Joseph Sinay, 1361 Ridgecrest Drive, Beverly Hills,
California, Agent; requesting per~ission to ESTABLISH A MOTffi, on
property described as; A parcel of land 102 feet by 359 feet
with a frontage of 102 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenua,
the northeast corner of which is 1,275 feet west of the southwest
corner of Lincoln and Euclid Avenues, and furthe: described as
1800 Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified as R A,
RBSIDHNTIAL A(~tICULTURAL, ZONH.
Mr. Joseph Sinay, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the
Commission and stated the building was specifically designed
around the proposed swimming pool with a waterfail in ;:i:e front
• for added attraction, that the petitioner would be willing to
construct a biock wall abutting the R-1 property to the west, but
that he did not feel R A property to the west would be developed
into an R-1, single family development but rather would turn
commercial and the rendering which he submitted to the Commission
. was an example, that they wouid be willing to erect biock walis
whenever any abutting property become R-1.
The Commission asked Mr. 5i:iey if the pioposed motel development
was more than one story, and if it was,the biock wail would be in
conformance with code requirements.
Mr. Arthur Horman, owner of the Kettle Motel to the east of subject
property appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject
petition, and read two ietters one from the Motel-Hotel Section of
~ the Anaheim Area Visitors' and Convention Bureau which stated that
the proposed motel was 7.ittie more than a sub-standard apartment
house, utilizing the "motel" title to avoid the building code
i ~
;
I~ , i
~ .
~ ' R
~ '
V
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING C0~9~lISSION, May 28, 1962, Continued:
965
CONDITIONAX, USB - requirements for apartments, that said bureau was great2y
PffitMIT N0; 244 concerned with the over-building trend for motels in the Anaheim
(Continued) area; and a lekter from the Orange County Apartment House Asso-
ciation which stated proposad motel also represented a sub-
standard apartment house nnit using the dubious names of Motels;
that as a memeber of the Visitors' and Conveation Committee when
it was a part of the Chamber of Commerce from which subject
Com~aittee separated a year ago, subject petition was a typical
plan which said Committee was trying to discourage.
Mr. Homer Wilson, 1797 Bmbassy Avenue, owner of the R-1 property
abutting subject property, appeared before the Commissian and
stated that subject motei, in his opinion, does not conform to
the standards set up for snotels in Anaheim, that it appeared to
be a sub-standard apartment hotel, and that proposed motel would
be detrimenta•1 to the City of Anaheim.
THB HBARING WAS CLOSBD.
Commissioner Mungali returned to the Council Chambers at 8:08 P.M.
~. ,
~ .~
The Commission discussed the a-1 property abutting subject property
and that single story construction should be required as per code
requirements, that a11 plans indicated each motel unit had a
kitchenette which ~ras indicative of a stlb-standard apartment
I dwelling development, and that the maximmm ~umber of kitcher units
in the average motel was 25% of the total number of units.
. The petitioner reasserted his intention to cater to families
' exclasively, and that the subject property was selected because it
wocld be located on a state h?ghway.
Commissioner Camp offered a motion to reopen the hearing and
continve Fetitian for Coaditional Use Permit No. 244 to the June
il, 1962 meeting, in order to give the petitioner time to submit
new plans to the Planning Department which would indicate the
changes to which the Commission objected. Commissioner Marcoux
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
CONDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC HBARING. MR. and MRS. GBORG$ B. SIBBBTT, 61 Lagunita,
PHRMIT N0. 245 Laguna Beach, California, Owners; B. A. Daniell Company, 2350
Huntington Drive, San Marino, California, Agent; requesting
permission to ESTABLISH A 1RAILSR PARK on property described as:
An irregularly shaped parcel of land approximately 1000 feet by
600 feet, bounded on the north by the Riverside Freeway, on the
west by the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad, on the east by
the Flood Control Channel, on the south by a line running east
and west approximatiely 35 feet north of REnwood•Avenue the parcel
has a frontage of 32 feet on the west side of Raymond Avenue (Hast
9treet). Property presently classified as M-1, LIGHT MANUPACTURING,
ZONB. '
1 Mr. Marshall Anderson, agent for the petitioner appeared before
the Commission and stated he was unaware the findings and condi-
tions were available to anyone psior to the meeting, but had
. nothingfurther to say to the Commission.
~
i
V ~
MINUTH3, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, May 28, 1962, Continued:
CONDITIONAL USB - Mr. Frank Johnson, representing the Anaheim Citrus Products
PBRMIT N0. 245 Company, appeared~before the Commission in opposition to subject
(Continued) petition, and stateG that odors from subject company would be
objectionable to tenants of the proposed trailer court, that the
area was primarily M-1, Light Manufacturing, Zone, and that the
subject petition would not be compatible to the area.
Mr. Anderson, in answer~to the opposition, stated that subject
petitioner had a sizable investment, that there were residences
across the street from subje~t prope.rty, and that a thirty-two (32)
foot easement into the area made snbject property landlocked for
any ~ther type of development.
TFffi HBARING WAS CLOSBD.
The Commission discussed the possibilities of a trailer park in
an industrial area, that it would present a possible spot
zoning effect, and that it would not be consistant with the
development a~id plans for the City.
The Commission fopnd and determined the followng facts regarding
subject p~tition:
That the proposed use is properly one for which a Conditional
iTse Permit is authcrized by this Code, to wit: establish a
trailer park.
That the proposed use will adversely affect the a3joining
land uses and the growth and development of the area in which
it is proposed to be located.
That the proposed use would be an encroachment in an M-1, Light
Manufaciuring,:Zone.
That the propused use will be a detriment to future develop-
ment of the land into M-1, Light Manufacturing, Zone use.
5. That one person appeared in opposition.
Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 340, Series 1961-62,
and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner
Chavos, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 24S on *he
bases of the aforementioned findings.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following
vote:
COhASISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux,
. Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
CQMMISSIONffitS: None.
ABSBNT: COMMISSIONBRS: Hapgood.
CONDITIONAL USS -- PUBLIC HBARTNG. MARDffiV PROPBRTY DBVBLOPMHNT, et al, 250 South
PhRMIT N0. 247 La Cienega Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, Owner; Mart Anthony
Gottuso, 1312 North Nicholas, Pulierton, California, Agent; request-
. ing permission to BSTABLISH A PLANNSD-UNIT DBVELOPMBNIT on property
described as: A pazcel of Sand 630 feet by 310 feet at the north-
west corner of Orangewood Avenue and Haster Street with a frontage
~
~
E ::
~
..? < , `j-_ ._ _.
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COhAfISSION, May 28, 1962, Continued
967
CONDITIONAL USB - of 630 feet on Orangewood Avenue and 310 feet on Haster Street.
PBRMIT N0. 247 Property presently classified as R-3, MULTIPLB PAMILY R&SIDBNTIAL,
CContinued) ZpNH,
Subject petition was filed in conjunction with Tentative Map of
Tract No. 3691. -•
Mr. Thamas McFadden, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the
~• Commission and stated that conditions as required for a R-3 devel-
opment have been complied with as to construction, setbacks,
distance between units, density, etc., that it now appeared
impractical for the developer to maintain subject development on
tract of land, that the developer proposes to divide subject
property into 17 separate parcels of land each parcel having four
dwelling units together with garages for said four units, that
similar projects were found to be integral to the adjacent
property, and that each property owuer will have ingress and
egress rights across his neighbor~s property.
THB HBARING WAS CLASBD.
~
f; ;
k
~
~
i ,
F :'
,.c _
Mr. Joe Geisler, Assistant City Attorney, stated that in connec-
tion with subject petition the City Attorney's office would
recommend in the event the Commission approved subject petition,
that sufficient documents be required for the filing of easements
of access and ingresa to amply protect the lots not facing upon
streets public or private, or alleys pablic or private, to insure
that such lots are not landlocked without access; that the praposed
plans are substantially sub-standard in accordance with ordinance
requirements for R-3, multiple family development; that it be
recommended that said lots which are to be utilized for joint
recreational or open-space use be designated on the subdivision
map as "nat a buildable lot," and "(recreation or whatever purpose
iatended);" that 1o~s apparentiy designed ior garage or parking
space requirements for each buildable lot be designated with the
same numeral as the building lot with the addition cf a letter,
i, e. Lot 18 and 18a; that actual documents filed in connection
~vith the joint use of open space and recreational area and for
rights of ingress and access be submitted to be approved by the
Planning Department and City Attorney prior to finai recordation
of the tract map, and that in any case must be in accordance with
the provisions of the Conditional Use Permit if granted in
conjunction with the Subdivision Map which shall constitute a
single package arrangement. .
The Commission noted that there was no recreation area indicated;
that plot plans indicate garages backing onto Orange Avenue, that
the Planning Department recommended som~focm of landscaping to
beautify said back of garages.
Mr. Geisler recommended that prior to tlie Conditional Use Permit being
finalized by the Coamission, the file be recorded in the
Recorder~s Office which wili also refer to the Conditional Use
Permit that proposed property owners would not have a free reign
to build on subject lots; and that the same conditions could
arise with a proposed subdivision and thus wouid be on record as
to the procedure that said petition foliowed,
T'he Commission found and determined the following facts regarding
subject petition;
I
- -'-'~
.
V ~ ~
~ .
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, May 28, 1962, Continued: 968
CONDITIONAL US8 - 1. That the proposed use is properly one for which a Conditional
PBRMIT N0. 247 Use Permit is authorized by this Code, to wit: establish a
(Continued) planned unit development.
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 located.
3, That the size a:~d shape of the site proposed for the use is
adequate to allow the fuli development of the proposed use in
a manner not de#rimental to the particular area nor to the
peace, health, safety, and $ener~.l welfare of the Citizens of
the City of Anaheim.
4. That the granting of the Cw:ditional Use Permit under the
conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the
peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the Citizens of
the City of Anaheim.
5. That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose
an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and
improved to carry the traffic in the area.
6. That provisions for l~t area and dimensions, yards, garages,
walls appiicable to this zone in which property is located,
shall be approved by this particular action in accordance with
the conditions attached thereto and to the Tract Map as filed,
7. That no one appeared in opposition.
Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 341, Series 1961-62, and
moved for its passage and adaption, seconded by Commissioner
Pebley, to grant Petition for Variance No. 247, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Recordation of Final Tract Map No, 3691 on subject property.
2. Payment of a Park and Recreation Fee of $25.00 per dweiling
unit to be coilected as part of the Building Permit.
3. Provision of trash storage areas as determined by the Depart-
ment of Public Works, Sanitation Division, which are adequate
in size~ accessible to trash-truck pickup, and adequately
enclosed by a solid fence or wail, prior to Piaai Building
Inspection.
4. Installation of a decorative masonry wall not to exceed three
and one-haif (3+~) feet in height at the corner of Haster and
Orangewood on subject property covering Lot No. SAP, Provision
for adequate landscaping to shield from view the appearsnce of
rear of the garages fronting on Orangewood Street, plans for
said lanscaping to be submitted to and subject to approval of
the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance, and said landscaping
to be installed prior to Final Building Inspection.
5. Recordation of deeds of easements for ingress and egress to
protect lots not facing upon streets, public or private, or
alleys, pubii.^. or private, to insure that such lots not
become landloced without access; subject recordation to be
' submitted for approval by the City Attorney przor to final
~, recordation of Tract Map.
~ ~ ~
a
\~ • ~ ~
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 28, 1962, Continued;
969
CONDITIONAL USE - 6. Provision that Final Tract Map be labeled on its face, that
PERMIT N0, 247 Lot 18-A be stipulated as a recseational area.
(Continued)
7. Subject •:o the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 3691
on rol'. call the foregoing resolution was passed by the follow-
ing vote: ~
AYBS: COMMISSIONHRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux,
Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
NOBS: COMMISSIONHRS: None.
ABSE[ST': COMMISSIONBRS: Hapgood.
TBNTATIVS MAP OF - SUBDIVIDBR: MARDBN PROPffitTY, 250 South La Cienega Boulevard,
1RACT N0. 3691 Beverly Hills, California. BNGINHHR: PAiJL B. IACONO and ASSO-
CIATSS, 2330 West Third Street, Los Angeles, California. Subject
tract is located on the northwest corner of Orangewood Avenue and
Haster Street, and contains 18 R-3, MULTIPLB FAMILY RESIDBNTIAL,
ZONB lots.
Subject tract map was filed in tonjunction with Conditional Use
Permit No..247.
~
~ ~`:._,, --
~ '~'c -
Mr. Thomas McFadden, agent for the ?etitioner, appeared before the
Commission and stated he had nothing further to add other than
what h~d been stated for Conditional Use Permit No. 247.
Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to recommend approval to the
City ~ouncil of Tentative Map of Tract No. 3691, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Requirement that should this subdivision be developed as more
than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shail be sub-
mitted in tentative form for approval
2. Subject to the approval of plot and building plar,s by the
Planning and Building Departments.
3, Lot 18-E shall be improved to City standards and dedicated as
a public alley. A ten (10) foot corner cut off is to be
provided on I,ot 8-A,
4. 3ubject to the approval and completion of Conditional Use
Permit No, 247 for sub-standard lots and usage of the property.
5. Provision that Final Tract Map be labeled on its face that Lot
18-A be stipulated as a recreational area.
6. Recordation of deeds of easements for ingzess and eg=ess to
protect lots not facing upon streets, public or private, or
alleys, public or private, to insure that such lots not become
iandlocked without access; subject recordation to be submitted
for approval by the City Attorney prior to recordation of
Pinal Map of Tract No. 3691. ~
Commissioner Chavos seconden the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
~ ~, - . - 1,. ~ . . _ ..
~~
MINUTHS, CITY PLANNING COhWISSION, May 28, 1962, Continued: 970
RHCLASSIPICATION - PUBLIC HBARING. ALPINH DHVELOPMBNT COMPANY, 820 South Grant
N0. 61-62-106 Avenue, Santa Ana, California, Owner; requesting that propezty
described as: A parcel of land 117 feet by 16? feet with a
frontage of 117 feet on the easi side of State Co11Age.Boulevard,
the northern boundary of said p::operty coinciding approximately
with an extension of the northern edge of Redwood Avenue, and
further described as 402-412 North State College Boulevard be
reclassified from the C-1, NHIGHBORHOOD CCHIMERCIAL, Z~1B (RESIRICTBD)
to the C-1, NBIGHBORHOOD COMMBRCIAL, ZONH (UNRBSTRICTHD).
Subject petition was filed in conjunction with Conditional Use
Permit No. 240.
Mr. Hdward Bscalla, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the
Commission and stated that the subject property was restricted
only to prohibit the sale of beer and wine; that the property to
the north was also C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, but was not
restricted; that at the time the property was purchased the
realtor advised them to petition for the restriction as previ-
ously applied for, that since it was subject petitioner's first
venture into this field they did not realize its importance at
that time, and that the beer and wine will only be sold in
conjunction with the sale of food in the Italian restaurant, which
would be open evenings only.
• The Commission discussed the proposed dance studio and the
possible effect the sale of beer and wine adjacent to said studio
would !~ave.
Mr. Thomas R, Jones, 1945 Bast Redwood Avenue, appeared before
the Commission in opposition to subject petition and stated his
property was located'acros~ the street from the proposed tavern,
and that the changing of said restriction would leave the neigh-
boring property owners with no voice in the establishing of
similar commercial ventures in the area at any time in the
future, and that he represented~the 35 property owners who signed
a petition of protest submitted to the Commission.
Mr. Royce D. Shannon, representative of the Church located at
311 North State College Boulevard, appeared before the Commission
and stated that the proposed sale of alcoholic beverages so
close~ to a church, that fature plans will require classrooms
south of the present structure, that the entry of said classrooms
to the entire of subject property would only be 350 feet, and
that the Church protested the pr.oposed petition.
Mr. Frank L Chandier, onr of the proprietors of the subject
restaurant, appeared before the Commission and stated that he did
not propose to sell beer and wine to be takei'~ off the premises,
that it would only be sold in conjunction with the sale of
restaurant ~heals, that there would be no bar or "jukebox"; that
when he made application to the ABC Board for his license he
also stated only the sale of beer and wine in conjunction with
the sale of food in the restaurant, that the time they had
planned subject restaurant, the petitioner had contacted the
Church pastor and stated what they proposed :o do; that by
measurement, tHe distance between the Church property and subject
property was 750 feet; and that he would not open said restaurant
until 5 P.M, on Sunday afternoon in order not to interfere with
Church services, and close by il P.M.
THB HBARING WAS CLOSBD.
. ~_--~-_--r-- ~ . , -- - ~.,.~
~ ~
~
~ 971
CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, May 28, 1962, Continued:
MINUTES
,
~ RECLASSIPICATION - Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt, advised the Commission that
ecific requests one
o s
t
~ N0. 61-62-106 p
w
under the reclassification there were
d the other for a possible liquor
a
s
`~ (Continued) n
en
for an Italian delicates
that the Conditional Use Permit filed in conjunction with
~; , store;
said reclassification stated the sale of beer and wine 10on sale"
in conjunction,with the =estaurant, and a dance studio in the
~ store; that the reclassification as posted did not metion the
~ sale of beer and wine, but that the Conditional Use Permit
.
j~ stated erroneou'sly "off sale" of beer and wine; that three items
of these two requests were dependent on the reclassification
• change.
The agent for the petitioner stated that subject petitioner did
not intend to file for a delicatessen and liquor store, and they
would like to amend their petition to strike out said requests.
Assistant City Attorney, Joe Geisler stated that the reclassi-
fication could be amended•to read the sale of beer and wine in
conjunction with the sale of restaurant food only as a deed
an3 that the Conditional Use Permit should also have
restriction
~ ,
said restriction, since the original reclassification asked that
deed restrictions be filed in the event such a request came
through later.
The Commissior. continued discussion on the various restrictions
that cou13 be imposed if subject petition were granted.
Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to deny the petition on
~~ ' the bases that subject peta.tion was not in conformance with the
~,
` .
; C-1 zoning restrictions as filed. Commissioner Alired seconded
the motion.
~ The Commission then discussed the clarity of subject petition as
,, to its specific requests, after which Commissioner Allred with-
drew his second to subject motion.
Subject motion lost for want of a second.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding
subject petition:
That the petitionerproposes a reclassification fo the above
1
.
described property from the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone
(prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages) to the C-1,
Neighborhood Commercial, Zone unrestricted.
That ti-e proposed reclassification of subject property is
2
.
necessary or desirable for the orderly and proper develop-
ment of the community. ~
(. That the propose3 reclassification of subject pxopexty doas
3
,
properly relate to the zones and their permitted~uses locally
~ established in ciose proximity to subject property and to the
. zones artd their permitted uses generally established through-
~ out th:• community.
r.~: ~ ~~ .I .
~ ~.' '
C:' ,
~ ~'•.' :~i~ . . .
f .4
R !
~ ~ . : ' ~ , ~ V~
. . . ~ __ ~ ~_. ~ -~._"_` . . .. .. . . .. ~ ~ . . ~
~ . . ~
~ ~
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 28, 1962, Continued:
1
~1
-`
F.
'0
1
~?
~'ti'.
~:
972
RECIASSIFICATION - 4. That the proposed relcassification of subject property does
N0. 61-62-106 not require dedication for and standard improvement of abut-
CContinued) ting 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 will be generated by the
permitted u§es, in accordance with the circulation element of
the General Plan.
5. That two persons, one of whom represented 35 neighboring
property ow4ers, appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 342, Series 1961-62,
and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner
Allred, to recommend ~o the City Council that Reclassificstion
No. 61-62-106 be approved, subject to the following condition:
1. It is recommended to the City Council that Oradinance No.
1590 be amended so as to requise the recordatio~l of amended
C-1, NSIGHBORHOOD C0~9~lHRCIAL ZONH deed restriction to wit;
"No. 3. No building shali be used for residenL~ial purposes
unless zoned; no sale of beez, wine or liquor be
ailowei except that the sale of t~eer and wine may be
permitted in connection with the sale of restaurant
food, and further subject to approval by a
Conditional Use Permit."
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 safetiy and welfare of the citizens of
the City of Anaheim.
On roll cail the foregoing resolution was passed by the
following vote:
AYBS: COI+lMISSIONERS: Allred, Cawp, Gauir, Marconx, Mungall,
Pebley; Perry.
~ NQSS: CQMMISSIONB1tS: Chavos.
ABSBNT: COhlMISSIONBRS: Hapgood.
CONDITIONAL USS - PUBLIC HBARING. ALPINB DBVBLOPMBNT COMPANY~820 South Grand,
PB.RMIT N0. 240 Santa Ana, California, Owner; requesting permission to (1)
ALL(7W OPP SALB UP BBHR AND WINH and (2) BSTABLISH A DANCfi STUDIO
on property described as: A parcel of Sand 117 feet by 167 feet
with a frontage of 117 feet an the east side of State College
Bqulevard, the northern boundary of said property coinciding
approximately with the'northern edge of an extension of Redwood
Avenue, and further described as 402 and 406 Nortr- State Coilege
Bonlevard. Property presentiy classified a~ C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD
. C~CIAL, ZONH (Restricted).
Subject petition fiied in eonjunction with Reclassification No.
61-62-106.
2oning Coordinator Martin Rreidt, advised the Commission that
the Conditional Use Peririt filed in conjunction with Reclassi-
fication No. 61-62-106 stated that sale of beer and wine "on sale"
in conjunction with the restaurant, and a dance studio in the
~'
E, _ .
~ `.:::'..~
i
E`'' :
~. ,.....~,
~ ~ ~
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COhA9ISSI0N, May 28, 1962, Contiaued: 973
CONCITIONAL USH - store; that subject petition was erroneously advertised as "off sale"
PBRMIT N0. 240 of beer and wine, and that subject petition should be continued in
(Continued) order to readvertise the petitic;~ prbperty..
Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to continue Conditionai Use
Permit h~. 240 to June 11, 1962, in order to readvertise subject
petition. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
RHCBSS - Commissioner Pebley moved for a ten (10) minute recess, seconded by
Commissioner Allred at 9:35 P.M. MOTION CARRIBD.
RHCONVBNH - Chairman Gauer reconvened the meeting at 9:45 P.M.
RBCLASSIPICATION - PUBLIC HBARING. MARGARET K. HILL, 7366 N[est Manchester, Apartment A,
N0. 61-62-107 Los Angeles 45, California, Ow--er; Ted Fish, 1234 8ast Lincoln Avenue,
Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that property described as:
Pour irregularly shaped parcels of land at the northeast corner of
Santa Ana Canyon Road and Jefferson Street with an approximate front-
age of 405 feet on Jefferson Street and 310 feet on Santa Ana Canyon
Road be reclassified on Parcel Nos. 1 and 4 from the R-A, RBSIDHNTIAL
AGRICULTURAL, ZONH to the R-3, MULTIPI,E PAMILY RBSIDHNTIAL, ZONB and
Parcel Nos.2 and 3 from t,he R-A, RBSIDffiVTIAL AGRICULTURAL, 20NB to
the C-1, NBIGH~BORHOOD COMMBRCIAL, ZONB to permit the establishment
of a MULTI2'LH FAMILY PLANNBD UNIT DBVHLOPMHNT on Farcel No. 1 and
BSTABLISH A SffitVICfi STATION on Parcel No. 3,
~ Subject petition was filed in conjunction with Conditional Use Pexmit
No. 243. ~
Mr. Ted Fish, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission
and stated that he hoped the plans for the development met with the
Commission's approval and that h2 had nothing further to say regarding
subject petition.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt asked the petitioner if plans had
• been formalized for the commercial property proposed for eubject
property.
M:. Pi~h then stated that nothing had been definitely planned for the
commercial development.
Mr. Kreidt then stated that the Planning Department was completing a
Planning Study which incorporated.subject property, that it Would be
benefi~ial to the petitioner if he knew the findings of said Study, ~
since subject Study covered the area between the Santa Ana River and
Santa Ana Canyon Road which had bee++ recently annexed to the City of .
Anaheim, and that i~i all likelihood the Study would recommend a
larger form of ~ommercial development.~
TH8 HBARING WAS CLOSHD. ~
The Commission discussed the proposed pians for a bridge at Jefferson
Street, the arterial roa3s crossing the river and possible tie~.ns '
with the Santa Ana Canyon Road. '
~ Mr. Fish stated that a road had been cut through the hilis connecting I
with Lincoln Avenue and the Preetvay, and that both the bridges and
the road were not near subject property. That development of
Parcel No. 1 would begin immediately and Parcel Nos. 2 and 3
shortly thereafter or within three months, that Parcel No. 4 would
~. .
~
I _
~ . . .. . . ' .
~ ..._._ .~_..Y,-.._....~__
{
. ~e ,.',`.""'...~'. .:,.--~.,~~"_~ .:i.", . ~r,:~ ,. ..; ::,~. . ,. ,::.,, , . .,, ~:;.~~ . :~,i:i~ , ..,. ~:,r. .,. : ~.t_.._..__.~w__~.. __. . .. .
~. . ,
E
~ . ,
V
MINUTS3, CITY PLANNING CODR~tISSION, May 28, 1962, Continuede
974
RHCIASSIPICATION - eventually become R-3, Multiple Pamily Dwellings, and that the
N0. 61-62-107 petitioner would not object to a four-week delay requested by the
Planning Department in order to complete their Planning Study.
Commissioner Marcoux offered a motion to reopen the hearing and
postpone Reclassification No. 61-62-107 for two weeks to June
11, 1962, in order to permit the Planning Department to
complete subject Pianning Study.
Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
CONDITIONAL USH - PUBLIC HBARING. MARGARHT R. HILL, 7366 West Manchester, Apartment
PBRMIT N0. 243 A, Los Angeles 45, California, Owner; Ted Pish, 1234 Bast Lincoln
Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to
ESTABLISH A MULTIPLB PAbtILY PIANNHD UNIT DHVBLOPMBNT on Parcei No.
' 1 and BSTAIILISH A SBRVICB STATION on Parcei No. 3 on property
described ~s: 1~o irregulariy shaped parcels of land (Parcel No.
1 and parcei No. 3) at the northeast cornes of Santa Ana Canyon
Road and Jefferson Street with an approximate frontage of 154 feet
on Jefferson Street and 147 feet on Santa Ana Canyon Road.
Property presently classified as R-A, RHSIDffiVTIAL AQtICULTURAL,
ZONB.
Snbject petition was fi].ed in conjunction with Reclassification
i No. 61-62-107.
Mr. Ted Fish, agent for the petitioner, appeared before th~
t Commission and asked that Conditional Use Permit No. 243 be heard
~ with Reclassification No. 61-62-107.
Commissionex Chavos offered a motion to postpone the hearing of
Conditianal Use Penmit No. 243 to the meeting of June 11, 1962
in order that it might be heard in conjunction with Reclassi-_
fica'cion No. 61-62-107. Commissiqner perry seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIBD.
Commissioner Camp r^turned to the Council Chamt,ers at 10:00 P.M.
RBCLASSIPICATION - PUBLIC FIDARING, h4tS. H. BHNNBTT, 1305~ West North Stree4, Anaheim,
NO, 61-62-108 California, COVINGTON BROTI~IBR.S CONSIRUCTION COMPAICY, 160 Guiaida
Lane, Apartment 1, Anaheim, California, Owners; Launer, Chaffee,
Hanna, Ward, Stack and Langhauser, 131 West Wilshire, Fullerton,
California, Agents; requesting that property described as: An'
L-shaped parcel of land with a frontage of 104 feet on t he north
side of North 3treet and'~a depth of 396 feet, on the southeast
corner of said property being 200 feet west of the northwest
corner of North Street and Aedondo Drive, and further described as
1303-1305} North Street be reclassified from the R-0, RBSIDHNTIAL
SUBURHAN, ZONB, to the R-3, MULTIPLS PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONB, in
order to develop a proposed four 4-unit apartment building,
Subject petition was filed in conjunction with Variance No. 1481.
Mr. Bugene Langhauser, age::: ~ur the petitioners, appeared before
, the Commission and stated the property was suited for subject
; 3evelopment, that the petition was signed by abutting property
~ owners immediately to the easL and west, approved the subject
development, and that a swimming pool wouid be erected for the uae
of the residents of the proposed bSilding.
~
t
V __~,
~::; ,
~
r: .
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 28, 1962, Continued; 975
RBCLASSIPICATION - A showing of hands indicated that there were twelve persons in
N0. 61-62-108 the Council Chambers opposing subject petition.
(Continued)
Mr. Dale Roland, 1230 West North Street appeared before the
Commission as spokesman for the opposition in the Chambers and
presented a protest signed by 43 neighboring property owners',
and stated that the opposition felt it was a poor land use in
developing sabject property into R-3, multipie family use, ~that
it served two primary functions of high density and as a buffer
between the R-1, single family development and less restricted
land use, that there was no ~leed for a buffer between an R-0,
Residential Suburan 2one and the other residential area, that
it would increase the traffic load on an already overloaded
street, that Price School would have a greater influx of children;
that the whole atmosphere of the R-1 nei~hborhood would be altered,
that it could easily influence the future zoning of adjacent
undeveloped property; that the Pire Department would be unabie to
protect the proposed development as well as surrounding property
because the narrow private driveway, which would service the
proposed development would prevent fire equipment from entering
and leaving subject property.
Mr. Warren I.i.chtenwotter, 839 Redondo Drive West, appeared before
the Commission and stated that North Street was too narrow to
add more traffic to it, that children walking to and from the
school had no sidewalks and made it neCessary for them to use
the street, that by approving subject petition,it would create an
additional traffic hazard for the children. .
Mx. Langhauser in rebuttal stated that there were no plans pro-
jected for the southeriy portion of subject property, that only
the northerly portion was being proposed, that oniy sixteen (16)
units were being planned, that the Lido apartments were not near
North Street, that adequzte garage facilities for the proposed
units would be provided; that the subject property was unsuitable
for ~ore than six (6) single family residential homes, and that
it was only suitable for apartment development.
Mr. L. J. Liekleus, 1215 West North Street, appeared before the
Commission to oppose the agent for the petitioners' last statement
and stated that the southeriy half of subject property had homes
on it, and he was unabie to understand w;iy the zoning should be
changed on a R-1 portion of subject propertv unless the petitiuners
planned to remove the homes in order to erect apartments.
THB HBARING WAS CL0.SBD.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding
subject petition:
1. That the petitioner proposes a reclassification of the above
described property from the R-0, RBSIDHNTIAL SUBURHAN, ZONS
to the R-3, MULTIPLB PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONH, in order to
develop four fodz-unit.
2, That the proposed reclassification of subject property is
not necessary or desirable for the orderly and pr~per
development of the community.
U ~ ~
~
.. _ ._.__ ___-~`
CU
~ ,~
1
~
MINUTHS, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, May 28, 1962, Continued:
~
~ ~ _..--~
;
~
976 1
1
RHCLASSINICATION -~ 3. That twel.ve persons, three of whom spoke for them, appeared
N0. 61-62-108 in opposition to subject petition.
CContinued)
4. That the existing property claasification in the R-0,
RHSIDHNTIAL SUBURBAN, ZONS was limited in area, that it
would best be developed for its originally in4ended use
in order to meet the needs of the community for R-0
zoning, rather than the reclassification into a high
density residential zoning.
Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 343, Series 1961-62,
and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner
Chavos to recommend to the City Council to disapprove Petition
for Reclassification No. 61-62-108 on the bases of the afore-
mentioned findings.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following
vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Cauer, Marcoux,
Mungall, Pebley, PerrY.
NOBS: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSHNT: COMMISSIONERS: Hapgood.
VARIANCB N0.1481 - PUBLIC HEARING. MRS.Ii. BBNN&TT, 1305~ West North Street,
Anaheim, California, recorded owner of Parcel No. 1; COVINGTON
BROTHBRS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,'160 Guinida Lane, Anaheim,
California, recorded owner of Parcel No. 2; IAUNBR, (:HAPPBB,
HpNNA, YJARD, STACK & LANGHAUSHR, 131 West Wiishire, Fullerton,
California, Agent; requesting permission to WAIVB SINGLE STORY
HSIGHT LIMITATION on property described as: An "L" shaped parcel
of land with a frontag.e of 10~i feet on the north side of North
Street and a depth of 396 feet, the southeast corner of said
property being 200 feet west of the nosthwest corner of North
Street•3nd Redondo Drive, and further described as 1303-1305
and 1305~ West North Street. Property presently classified as
R-0, RBS1Dffi1TIAL SUBURBAN, ZONE.
i
Subject petition was filed in conjunction with Reclassification
No . 61-62-108'.
Mr, Bugene Langhauser, agent for the petitioners, appeared before
the Commission and state~l that in view of the Commission's action
on the Reclassificqtion filed in conjunction wzth subject petition,
' ' he had no~comment. '
THB HEAAING WAS ~•LASBD.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding
subject petition:
1. That the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim
Municipal Code: Section 18.32.060 to permit the establishment
of two story multiple family reside~htial units.
2. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances ,
or conditions appiicable to the proper.ty involved or to the
~
~' `
~~ : ":
E.
l.J
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CONUNISSION, May 26, 1962, Continueds 977
VARIANCE N0. 1481 -of the property that do apply geperally to ths property or class of
(Continued) use in the same v3cinity and zone~
That the requested vaTianCe will be materially detrimental to
3
e
the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements
in such vicinity and zone in whiCh the pFoperty is locatede
4e That the requested yariance will adversely effect the Comprehensive
General Plano .'
5a That twelve persons appeared in opposition to sub3ect petition.
That the existing property'is classified in the,R-fl~ RESIDENTIAL
6
'
o
best be
SUBURBAN, ZONE and is limited in area,~}~at it would
developed for its originally intended use'in order to meet the
needs of the community for,R-0'zon3ng, ~ather'than the high
density two-story developmer~t proposeda`
Commissioner Allrpd offe~ed Resolution Noo 344, Series 1961-62, and
moved for its passa9e and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos,
to deny Petitiop foi Variance Noo 1481 on the bases o# the afore-
mentioned finding'so
On roll call the ~oregoing resolution was passed by the following
vote: ,
AyES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux,
~ Mungall, Pebley, Pe~rye
NOES= COMMISSIONERS: Noneo '
ABSENTs COMMISSIUIVERS= Hapgoodo
REPORTS AND PLANNING STUDY NOo 40-33-1
Subject study is relative to that area located on the west side
RECONWfEfIDATIONS of Brookhurst Street between Broadway and Orange Avenuee
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that a
a reclassification and study was requested by the ~ouncil some D,~
"~"
,
~~•~
timo ago~ that the report was ready for presentation, but~that
all
tion unti~
e
.
c
it was suggested that the Commiseion hold up
the area covered by the Study was annexed by'the
i
n
property
City of Anaheim, and that said annexation was in process at
the present timea
Commissioner Allred offered a motion to continue hearing of
Pianning Study Noe 40-33-1 until such tima as all property
contained in sub~ect Study had been an{sexed to the Cityo ~
. Commissioner Camp seconded the.motiona MOTION CARRIED.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE TRAFFIC DEPARTN~NTa
The Commission discussed the hazardous conditions present at Ball
Road and Gilbert Street, and that a number of accidents and near
accidents had occurred at said intersectiono
Commissioner PEbley offered a motion to recommend to the Traffic
Department that said department check the fsasibility of installa-
ll Road and Gilbert Street.
f B
a
tion of traffic lights at the corner o
Commissioner Allred seconded the motione MOTION CARRIHD.
~ ~. -
« ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COM~'ISSION, May 28, 1962, Continued 978
COR!3E5PONDth~E - ITEM NOo 1
AND
MISCELLANEOUS Conditional Use Permit Noo 216, Marion Ca and Elaine Ja Henry, petitioners;
clarificationo
Zoning Coordinator, Martin Kreidt informed the Commission that subject
petitioners appeared before the Commission on April 2, 1962, and
~requested a variance to construct a Tastee Freeae Restaurant on property
with a 640 foot frontage on Ball Road adjacent to the school, that ~eti-
tioners' legal description covered the entire parcel of property owned
by said petitioners, and that the Conditional Use Permit was granted
sub~ect to the condition that sidewalks and driveways be installed on
both Gilbert and Ball Road boundary lines of subject propertyo
Mre Norville Overstad, agent for the petitioner appeared before the
Commission and stated that the petitioners understood the Commis~.ion
to say that only that portion of the intersection of Ball Road and
Gilbert fronting the Tastee Freeze was to be improved, but that
Resolution Noo 281 stated that the entire 640 foot frontage of Ball
Road was to be improved with sidewalks and driveways, and he was asking
the Commission to clarify this portion of the resolutiono
The Commission informed the petitioner that the petition was granted
with the specific condition that the entire 640 foot frontage was
to be provided with sidewalks and driveways, and that the petitioners'
request to have only that portion fronting the Tastee Freeze be approved
was contrary to the Commission's ruling in that condition No> 3 specified:
"That sidewalks and driveways on Ball Road and Gilbert Street be installed
in accordance with the adopted standard plans on file in the office of
the City Engineero"9 anc? that they intended by this condition to have
the entire property c.vered=
Commissioner Allred offered a motion to deny the request of the
Petitioners•tc accept revised plans covering the legal description
of property on which a Tastee Freeze is to be constructed, and to
amend Resolution Noo 281, Condition Noo 3, passed by the Anaheim
Planning Commission, and request that the petitioner abide by the
condition to install sidewalks and driveways on subject property
bounded by Ball Road and Gilbert St~~~;,, Commissioner Chavos seconded
the motione MOTION CARRIEDo
ITEM NOo 2
Orange County Planning Commission
RE: Amendment Noo 35, Master Plan of Arterial Highways precise plans
of highway alignments establishing centerline locations for:
Street Adoqted
Linda Vista Avenue November 15, 1961
Dowling Avenue November 15, 1961
Main Street February 7, 1962
Orchard Drive ' February 20, 1962
Meats Avenue February 20, 1962
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt read a lettex to the Commission from
the Orange County Planr.ing Commission which informed the Commission of
the action which had taken placeo
Commissioner Camp offered a motion to accept and file sub~ect letter.
Commissioner Perry seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDo
,.
~
€:` _ _
~' . .
~
l~
n ..
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,•May 28, 1962, Continued:
~
f 979
CORRESPONDENCE - ITEM N0. 3_.
AND
NIISCELLANEOUS Letter from Thomas Pe Walker
RE: Name Change of Cies Street
Zoning Coordinator tde Kreidt read a letter to the Commission from
Mre Thomas Po Walker, requesting that the new street just north
of the Riverside Freeway and running between Placentia and State.
Colle.ge Boulevard which bore the name of "Cies Street" .be changed
to "Via Burton" as maps indicate Via Burton Street extends westerly,
and~that in the interests of uniformity subject name be changede
Conanissioner. Chavos offered Resolution Noe 245, Series 1961-62, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp,
to recommend to the City Council that "Cies Street" be changed to
"Via Burton Street" as requestedo
On roll cali the foregoing resolution was passed by the following
vote:
p1lES: CONWIISSIONERS: Allred, Camp Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux,
Munga119 Pebley, Perrye
NOES: CONA7ISSIONERSs Nonee
ABSEN!': COMMISSIONERS: Hapgoode
ITEM NOe 4,.
Letter from Go Fo Oelkers, Utilities Director
RE: Conditional Use Permiit Noe 2i8, Removai of Pumphouse on Subject
Property
Zonin9 Coordinator MD Kreidt re3d a letter from the Utilities Director,
Go Fo Oelkers regarding the Commission's inquiry to remove the pump-
house from the front of the property located on the west side of West
Stxeet between Romneya Drive and La Palma referred to in CUP No. 218.
Mre Oelkers advised that numerous problems were involved and that it
would be impractical to remove the pumphouse at the present time, but
when said prob:ems were removed steps could be takett for its removal.
Commissioner Mur.gall stated that on the morning field trip i's was
noted that the property in question which belrnged to J. Earl Talcott
is a planned-unit development with R-3 constructiono
Mr, Kreidt then stated that subject property would be investigated
by i:he Planning Department, and that the findings would be presented
to Mre Oelkers and the Commission for further consideration.
AA70URNW~NT - There being no further business to transact, Commissioner Allred
offered a motion to ad~ourn, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux.
MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 11s00 0'Clock P.mo
Respectfully submitted,
~;f~~''~~'.:~
;~'~{:~'I~,
:+~-~y,
, ' ... ... .. ~
.. . ,.:..~~~' ... ~
.... ~!C~
ANN KREBS, Secretary
Planning Commission
_ / r ` - ~_ \ ..
. .. .. . • .. . .. . . . ... . . . ... ... . . ... .~.:.::-....