Minutes-PC 1962/06/11~ City Hall
Anaheim, California
June 11, 1962
RBGUTAR MBBTING OF TH8 ANAHBIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION
REGUTAR MEETING - A Regular Meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was
called to order by Ch~irman Gauer at 2;00 0'Clock P.M., a quorum
being present.
PRBSBNT - CHAIRMAN: Gauer.
COMhfISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall,
Pebley, Perry,
ABSENT - COMMISSIONBRS: None.
PRHSHNT - ZONING COORDINATOR: Martin Kreidt.
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: Joseph Geisler.
COh41ISSI0N SBCRSTARY: Ann Krebs.
INVOCATION - Chairman Gauer gave the invocation.
PLHDGB OF - Commissioner Perry led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ALLHGIANCE
APPROVAL OF - The Minutes of the meeting of May 28, 1962 were approved as
MINUTHS submitted.
vARTAx.R NO_ 1474- CONTINITED PUBLIC Fi&ARING. MR. and MRS, RICHARD fi. HUSTON, S15
North Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Owners; RBAL INVEST-
MENT, 10502 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent;
requesting permission to WAIVB SIDB YARD SBTBACK RHQUIRBMHNT on
property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land with
a frontage of 55 feet on the north side of Romneya Drive, a depth
of 434 fee# at a maximum and the southeast corner of which is 98
feet west of the corner of Citron S±reet and Romneya Dr3.ve, and
further described as 811 West Romr.eya Drive. Property presently
classified as R-3, MULTIPLE PAMILY RBSIDENTIAL, 20NB.
Subject petition was continued from the meeting of May 28, 1962,
in order to give the petitioner time to submit revia?d plans.
Mr. Harry I{nisely, attorney for the petitioner, appeared before
the Commission and stated that changes had been made to the plot
plans, as requested by the Commission.
The Commission reviewed the revised plans and noted that said
revisions were not indicated by plot plan revisions; that the
petitioner should submit complete revised plot plans, and that the
Commission wanted to present a compJ_te file to the Council on any
petition heard,
Zoning Coordinator Martin Sreidt, stated that the Planning Depart-
ment would like the Commission to state a policy regarding the
submission of revised plot plans to the Planning Department for
- 980 -
~
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COI~IISSION, June 11, 1962, Continued: 981
VARIANCB N0, 1479 - check, that heretofore, plans were received too late to
(Continued) adequately check them, and that at Seast a week was needed for
a deadline for submission of said plot plans.
Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to continue Petition for
Variance No. 1479 until the meeting of June 25, 1962 and that
the petitioner was to have said revised plot plans submitted
to the Planning Department not later than June 18, 1962,
Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
COMMISSION POLICY ON - Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt, asked the Commission to state
REVISBD PLOT PLANS a policy regarding the submission of revised plot plans when-
ever a petition was continued for said reason, that adequate
time was necessary to review and compare said revisions in
order that they had conformed to the City code and met all the
requirements suggested by the various departments on said
petitions.
Commissioner Chavos offered a motion that it be the policy of
the City Planning Commission to have all requests for revised
plot plans reach the Planning `c~a=tnient not later than 5:00
0`Clock P.M. the Monday prior to the Commission meeting.
Commissioner Alired seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIHD.
CONDITIOIVRL USB - CONTINUBD PUBLIC HBA1tING. THOMAS A BSYRLH, 5022 Triggs,
PBRMIT N0. 225 Los Angeles 22, California, Owner; Dr. Paul Toma, 5101 Ba&t
Floren~:e, Bell, California, Agent; requesting permissior. to
BSTABLYSH A MOTBL AND RBSTAURA:~QT on property described as:
A parcel of land 1'S5•feet by 774 feet with a frontage of 155
feet on the north side of Anaheim Road, the southeast corner
of which is 480 feet west of the northwest corner of Miller
Street and Anaheim Road, and further describ~:d as 3141
Anaheim Road. Property presently classified as R-A, RESI-
DBNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONB.
Subject petition was continue~i from the meeting of May 28,
1962 in order to provide the petitioner time to submit
revised plans.
Mrs. Mary Stewart, agent for the petitioner appeared before
the Commission and stated that she had nothing further to
say to the Commission.
Zoning Coordinator Martin &reidt, informed the Commission that
revised plot plans had been submitted the morning of the meet-
ing but he had not had a chance to review the findings of the
Planning Department. • '
The Commission reviewed the revised plot plans as submitted
and noted that swing-out type windows would not be permitted
on the north, east and west sides of proposed building
since said windows would encroach into the driveway area of
the proposed motel.
i Mrs. Stewart then informed the Commission that any changes
I the Commission proposed would be complied with by the
petitioner.
THB HBARING WAS CIASED.
~ _ ., r,. ,~ ~_..T'_, ,
'r~i; . _
~ ~,
MINUTBS~ CITY PLANNING CO~MfISSION, June ll, 1962, Continued:
CONDITIONAL USB - The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding
PffitMIT N0. 225 subject petition:
(Continued)
1. That the proposed use is properly one for which a Conditionai
Use Permit is authorized by this Code, to wit: construct a
motel and restaurant.
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 and shape of the site proposed for the use is
adequate to aliow the fuli development of the proposed use in
a manner not detrimental to the particular srea 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 P.ermit under the
conditions imposed, if any, will not r~ 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 no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Commissioner Allred offered Resciuiion No. 346, Series 1961-62, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner
Pebley, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 225,
subject to the foilowing conditions:.
1. Dedication of forty-five (45) feet fzom the monumented center-
line of Anaheim Road (20 feet existing).
2, Preparation of street improvement plans and installation of
a11 improvements for Anaheim Road, subject to the approval of
the City Hngineer and in accordance with the adopted standard
plans on file in the office of the City Bngineer,
3, Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes
on Anaheim Road.
4, Yrovision 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 Pinal Building
Inspection. '
5, Access drives shall have a minimum vertical clearance nf
fourteen (14) feet.
6. Installation of fire hydrants, as determined to be necessary
by the Ci'ty of Anaheim Fire Marshall, to provide adequate
fir,^, Rrotection,
7, Time limitation of one hundred eighty (180) days for the
accomplishment of ftem Nos. 1, 2, and 3.
.. , ~ (~"~_. ._ ""i
~
o~~ ~~~
~
MINUTES, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, June 11, 1962, Cantinued;
4
983
CONDITIONAL U9B - 8. Development substantially in accordance with plans submitted
PffitMIT N0. 225 with Bxhibit Nos 1, 2, 3, and 4 except that shake roof shall
(Continued~ be provided; parking'sha11 be provided in accordance with code
requirements and in accordance with the open sir parking
space dimensions adopted by the PSanning Commission and on
file with the Planning Department prior to Final Building
Inspection; that no swing-out type windows shall be permitted
on the north, east and west sides of the proposed building
where said windows would encroach into the driveway area of
the proposed motel,
9. Installation of a twenty (20) fuot strip of landscaping on
the right-of-way line of subject property, pians for said
landscaping to be submitted and subject to the approval of
the Superir.tendent of Parkway Maintenance and said land-
scaping to be installed prior to Pinal Buiiding inspection.
10. Subject to the reclassification of subject proparty to the
M-1, LIGHT MANUPACTURING, ZONB.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following
vote:
AYBS: COI~tI3SIQNffitS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux,
Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
NQBS: COMMISSIONHRS; None.
ABSBNT: COhAlISSIONERS: Hapgood,
~ CONDITIONAL USH - CONTINUBD PUBLIC HHARING. ALPINB.DEVSLOPMBNT CQMPANY, 820 South
f ~ PBRMIT N0. 240 Grand, Santa Ana, California, Owner; requestinq permission to (1)
F ALL04Y ON SALB OF BBBR AND WINS and (2) SSTABLISH A DANCB STUDIO
~ on property described as; A parcel of land 117 feet by 167 feet
~ with a frontage of 117 feet on the east side of State Coliege
' Boulevard, 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 Nor.:,, State Coliege
~ Boulevard, Property presently classified as C-1, NBIGHBQRHOOD
~;` CONA4HRCIAL, 20NB (Restricted),
i Subject petition was co:etinued from the meeting of May 28, 1962
F to provide the Pianning Department time to readvertise subject
r petition.
E
; Mr. Lucian Bscalle, agent for the petitioner appeared before the
~ Commission and stated he had nothing further to add,
THB HBARING WAS CL0.SBD.
The Commission discussed the previous restriction on subject
property and its relationship to the present petition.
The Commission found and determinecl tkie foilowing facts regarding
subject petition:
1. That the proposed use is properly one for which a Conditionai
Use Permit is authorized by this Code, to wit: (1) on sale of
beer and wine and (2) establish a dance studio,
z
~. ,
!
.
,:,. ; „ t :,.
J ' ~;----------~-.- .
,. ,
, ,,.,, ;,., . . , , ;;. .., . ~ ,. .. ... ,. ,... ~-__---_.._._
~
~ ~
~
V
t ,.
~
MINUTBS; CITY PLANNING COt~lISSION, June 11, 1962, Continued:
~
984
CONDITIONAL USH - 2. That the proposed use wili not adversely Fffect the adjoining
PffitMIT N0. 240 land uses and the growth and deveiopment of the area in whic2a
CConLinued) it is proposed to be located.
3, That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is
adequate to ailow the full development of the proposed use in
a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the
peace, health, safety, and general welfare o€ the Citizens of
the City of Anaheim.
4, That the granting of the Coaditionai Use Pesmit under tk;e
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 ^arry the traffic ia the area.
6, That no one appeared in oppusition to subject petition.
Commissiuner Camp offered Resolution No. 347~ Series 1961-62,
and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner
Pebely to grant Petition for Conditional Use Perinit No, 240,
subject co the following conditions;
1. Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes
on State College Boulevard.
2. Subject to the compietion of the modification to Rtclassi-
fication No. SfS-59-84 as stipulated in Reclassification No.
61-62-106.
3. Time limitation of one nundred eighty (180) Zays for the
accomplishment of Item No, 1.
4. Subject to the filing of deed rest=ictions limitiag subject
petition to the sale of beer a.~d wine in an Italian restaurant
by the owners only; that no bar shall be installed, and that
all beer and wine be served at the tables only; that should
~aid restaruant be sold, said Conditional Use Permit No, 240
shali becoAe null and void ar.d shall not be passed on to the
new owner,
5, Provison that Store No, h be restricted to the use as an
Italian restaurant oniy; that store No. 6 be designated as a
dance studio.
6. Installation of landscaping in the unpaved portion of subject
. . property abutting the State College Houievard right-of-way,
approximately two feet in width, plans for said landscaping
to be submitted to the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance,
and said landscaping to be installed ptior to issuance of a
business license for the requested operation.
AYBS: COMMISSIONBRS: Allred~ Camp, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall,
Febley, Perry.
NOBS: COMMISSIONIIRS: Chavos.
ABSBNT: COh4dISSIONBRS: Hapgood.
, i
,. .. , : 1. . ~~-`"~'---~~~ ----- ' _
~
MINUTS3, CITY PIANNING
Co[
CONDITIONAL USB - C01
PffitMIT N0. 242 Av~
61',
pe~
on
wi•
th~
co:
cl
Sa
in
pl
Mr
Co
re
ch
TH
Th
su
1.
2.
~,;:.. -~, ,~--- -.__-~~
~ ~
~
V
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMIS3ION, June 11, 1962, Continued: 986
CONDITIONAL USH - 1. Dedication of 53 feet from the monumented centerline of
PSRMIT N0. 242 Magnolia Avenue (30 feet existing).
(Continued)
2, Preparation of street improvement plans and installation of
all improvements for Magnolia Avenue, subject to the approval
of the City Bngineer and in accordance with the adopted
standaaiplans on file in the office ef t}~e City Bngineer.
3. Payment of $2.00 per froni; foot for street lighting purposes
on Magnolia Avenue.
4, Payment of a Park and Recreation Fee of $25,00 per dweliing
unit to be collected as part of the Building Permit.
^: + e
5. 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 Pinal Building
Inspection.
6. Provision of a three (3) foot public utiii.ty easement and a
two (2) foot overhang easement northerly and southerly; a
five (5) foot pubiic utility easement and a three (3) foot
overhang easement easterly, along the said boundaries of the
subject property to adequately serve the subject.property and
other properties, at the time of the installation of the
service facilities.
7. Access drives shall be a minimum of twenty-one (21) feet in width
with adequate angle cutoffs provided, or a minimum of twenty-
eight (28) feet in width if no cutoffs ase provided and, in all
cases, shall have a minimum vertical ciearance of fourteen <14)
feet.
8. Instailation of fire hydrants, as determined i:o be necessary
by the City of Anaheim Fire Marshall, to provxde adequate
fire protection.
9. Drainage from the east shall be accepted in a manner satis-
factory to the City Hngineer.
10. Time limitation of oKe hundred and eighty (180) ~3ays for the
accomplishment of Item Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 6,
il. Development substantially in accordance with revised Bxhibit
Nos. la, 2a, 3a, and 4a except as amended herein.
:12. Provision of finishing of three (3) sides of the interior of
the carports with stucco; insL•allation of bumper guards at the
front of said car~ortsF and the inst•allation of enclosed tr.ash
st~.rage cabinets in said carports:
13. Installation of a six (6) foot masonry wall on the north,
east and south boundaries of subject property.
14. Subject to the reclassification of subjec: property to the
R-3, Multiple Family Residential Zone, and in accordanc«
with Reclassification No. 60-61-54, as amended by the i".:y
Council regardiag amendment of Condition No. 2 of Resolution
of Intent No. 6722 passed by the City Council on March 7,
1961 omitting reference to recordation of a final tract map;
~'..
V ~
~: °
~
~
~
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COMMIBSION, Juae 11, 1962, Continued: 987
CONDITIONAL USH - requesting that Variance No, 1334 be terminated, said variance
PBRMIT N0. 242 having been filed in conjunction with Reclassification No,
(Continued) 60-61-54, and which is no longer applicable.
,On roll call the forego:
vote:
AYHS: COhAfISSIONERS:
NQBS: COMMISSIONHRS:
ABSHNT: CO;+IMISSIONERS:
ing resolution was passed by the following
Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall,
Pebley, Perry.
None,
Alired, Hapgood.
Commissioner Alired returned to the Council Cha~nbers at 2:40 P.M,
CONDITIONAL U3E - CONTINUBD PUBLIC tffiARING. DARRYL WALKBR, 2112 Nyon Place, Anaheim,
PBRMIT N0. 244 California, Owner; Joseph Sinay, 1361 Ridgecrest Drive, Beverly
Hills, California, Agent; requesting permission to ES'TABLISH A
MOTBL on property described as: A parcei of land 102 feet by 359
feet with a frontage of 102 feet on the south side of Lincoln
Avenue, the northeast corner of which is 1,275 feet west of the
southwest corner of Lincoln and Buclid Avenues, and further
described as 1800 Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified
as R-A, RBSIDHNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, ZONH.
Subject petition was continued from the May 28, 1962 meeting in
order to permit the petitioner time to submit revised plans.
Zoning Coodinator Martin Rreidt read a telegram from the agen4 for the
petitioner requesting that the Commission postpone public hearing
until the meeting of June 25, 1962 in order that a more com;~re-
hensive architectural study could be made.
Commissioner Camp offered a motion co continue the he~ring of
Conditional Use Permit No. 244 until the' meeting of Jur~_ 25, 1962~
in order to permit the petitioner time to compiete compr~hensive
study of plans. Commissioner Allr~-.d seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIBD.
Commissioner Camp left the Council Chambers at 2:40 ?,M,
RBCLA33IPICATION - CONTINnBD PUBLIC HEARIPIG. MARGARBT K. HIL~, 7366 West Manchester,
N0. 61-62-107 Apartment A, Los Angeles 45, California, Owner; Ted Pish, 1234
Bast Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requestzng that
property described•as;• Four irregularly shaped parcels of land at
the northeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Jefferson Street
with an approximate frontage 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, RBSIDBNTIAL AGRICULTUAAL, ZONB to the R-3~
MULTIPLB FAMILY RESIDBNTIAL, ZONB and Parcel Nos 2 and 3 from the
R-A, RHSIDHNTIAL AQtICULTIJRAL, 20NS to the C-1, NBIGHB~tH00D
COMMBRCIAL, 20NB to permit the establishment of a MULTIPLS PAMILY
PLANNBD UNIT DBVELOPMHNT on Parcel No. 1 and ESTABLISH A SBRVICH
STATION on Parcel No. 3.
Subject patitioner was filed in conjunction with Conditional Use
Permit No, 243.
, ~ ______ ~._.__._~_. ._.._____,,.._-.
, .
. ~ ~----,--- ----
------
•-' ~G, ':. , ;. . - •. .: . ; ,•~~~.- - .- - -:_ ..._.
~ ~.
~_ ~
~
V
MINUTB3, CITY PIANNING COI~9~lISSION, June il, 1962, Continued: 9$$
RBCLASSIPICATION - Mr. Ted Fish, agent for the petitioner appeared before the
N0. 61-62-107 Commission and stated that the petitioner had just been advised
(Continued) by the Metropolitan Water District that a sevety-two (72) inch
water main was proposed to be installed running through one
corner of subject property, that plans were revised to indicate
that one four-unit building was omitted from the original pians;
said proposed building was located at the :.~rth boundary of
subject property, that the Metropolitan Water District requested
a 100 foot right-of-way with a 50 foot easement and a 50 foot
temporary wall; that the Metropolitan Water District preferred
that no wall be erected abutting easement to property on which
said water main was proposed; that Sandscaping could be provided
by the petitioner and said area be used for recreational purposes
for the multiple family development proposed; and that the pool
area and the play area was moved to the opposite side of subject
property,
The Commission inquired as to whether the Metropolitan Water
District had requested the righ4-of-way. Mr. Fish advised that
they had not but he understood that the Metropolitan Water Dis:rict
attorneys were workiag on said rig'^*-of-way request.
The Commission requested that a letter be obtained from ~the
Metropolita.a Water District, that said easement not be blocked
by a six (6) foot masonry wall.
Mr. Geisler stated this would give a slight out on a condition
that a masonry wall be provided if the Metropoiitan Water
District would not permit said masonry wall construction and
that a possible wood fence would be satisfactory to the
Metropolitan Water District.
THB HBARING WAS CLOSHD.
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-A, RHSIDffidTIAL AGRICULTURAL,
ZONH to C-1, NBIGHB~tH00D COMMF.RCIAL, ZONB for Parcei Nos.
2 and 3; aifd R-3, DfULTIPLB PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONS for
Parcel Nos. 1 and 4, to establish a multiple family planned
unit development and a service station.
2. That the proposed reclassification of subject pzoperty is
necessary or desirable for the orderly and proper develop-
ment af the community.
3. That the proposed reclassification of subjec4 property does
properly relate to the zones and thei= permitted uses _
locally established in close proximity to subject prope~ty
and tio the zones and their permitted uses generally esta~li~;:ed
throughout the community.
4. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does
require dedication for and standard improvemeat of abutti~tg
streets because said property does relate to and abut upon
streets and .iighways wi;?ch are proposed to carry the type
and quantity of tzaffic, which will be generated by the
permitted uses, in accordnnce with the circulation element
of the General Pi~n.
fti r'
_..__...... -- --- - -___ _ _ .
-.-I~{ . . , . . T ~:..~_. . . _. ... ._._._
~ ~
V
MINU:BS, CITY PIANNING COMM130ION, June 11, 1962, Ccntinued; 989
RBCIASSIFICATION - 5, That na one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
NO, 61-62-107
(Continued) 6. That the proposed land use for the area was compatible for
future development.
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 349, Series 1961-62.
and c~oved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner
Mazcoux to recommend to the City Council that Petition for
Reclassif?cation No. 61-62-107 be approved subject to the
following conditi~ns:
1. Dedication of fifty (50) feet from the monumented centerline
of Jefferson Street (30 feet existing).
2. Dedication of thirty-two (32) feet from the monumented
centerline of Santa Ana Canyon Road (30 feet existing),
3, Preparation of street improvement plans and installation of
all improvements for Jefferson Street and Santa Ana Canyon
Road, subject to the approvai of the City Hngineer and in
accordance with the adopted standard plans on file in the
office of the City Hngingeer.
4. Payment of $2,00 per front foot for street lighting purposes
on Jefferson Street and Santa Ana Canyon Road,
5. Payment of a Park and Recreation Fee of $25,00 per dwelling
unit to be collected as part of the Building Permit;
6. Provision of trash storage areas as determined by the Depart-
ment of Public Works, Sanitation Division, which are aflequate
in size, accessible to trash-truck pickup, and adequateiy
enclosed by a solid fence or wall, prior to Final Buiiding
Inspection,
7. Provison of a five CS) foot public utility easement and a
three <3) foot overhang easement along the northerly and
easterly boundary of the subject property to adequately serve
the subject property and other properties, at the ti~e of the
installation of the service facilities.•
8. Jefferson Street alignment shall conform to the Master Pla~
for Jefferson Street as approved by the County of Orange
and the City of Anaheim.
9. Time limitation of one hundred and eighty (180) days for
the accompiishment of Item Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, a~id 7.
10. Subject to the approval of Petition for Conditional Use
Pesmit No. 243.
11. Development substantially in accordance with Bxhibit Nos.
1, 2, and 3.
12. Provision for the installation of a six (6) foot minimum
strip of landscaping along the proposed commercial develop-
ment frontage of Jefferson Street, said landscaping to E2
submitted to and subject to the approvai of the Superintendent
of Parkway Maintenance, and said lanscapi.ng to be instalied
prior to Final Building Inspection,
~ ~ ---°--__.-.~ :
~,....,.,,..,~..
-- -- - -- -,-~__....._. - - - - - -
, . -~.~.. ~~ .~...'""'°"""""' , . ~ _ ~... . ... .
. , . , ,,
~ ~
~
MINUTES, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, June 11, 1962, Continued; 990
RBCLASSIFICATION - 13, Installation of a six (6) foot masonry wall along the North ~
N0. 61-62-307 and Bast boundaries of sabject property between the proposed
(Continued) R-3, multiple family deve7opment and trie proposed C-1, i
neighborhood commercial development; provision that should ~
the Metropolitan Water District not permit the construction ~
of said masonry wall abutting the Metropolitan WatEr District f
right-of-way, a six (6) foot wood fence or wall satisfactory ,
to the Metropolitan Water District shall be constructed, i
14. Provision that buildings on said property shall be used for ~
residential purposes only, and that existing structures ;
shall be removed before reclassification of subject property
is approved by the City.Council.
i
The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were
found to be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property
in order to preserve the safety and welfare of the citizens o:
the City of Anaheim.
o- ~
On roll cali the forego;
vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONBRS:
NOBS: COMAlISSIONSRS:
ABSHNT: COhIlNISSIONfiRS:
ing resolution was passed by the following
Allred, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley,
Perry, C;~avos.
None.
Camp, 'iapgood.
CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUBD PUBLIC HBARING. MARGARBT K. HILL, 7366 West Manchester~
PBRMIT N0. 243 Apaztment A, Los Rngeles 45, California, Owner; Ted Fish, 1234
Bast Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting
permission to BSTABLISH A MULTIPLB FAMILY PLANNBD UNIT DRVBLOPhffiNT
on ~arcei No. 1 and BSTABLISH A SERVICB STATION on Parcel No, 3
on property described as: Two irregularly shaped parcels of
land (Parcel No. 1 and Parcel No, 3) at the northeast corner of
Santa Ana Canyon Road and Jefferson Stzeet with an approximate
frontage of 154 feet on Je.fferson Street and 147 feet on Santa
Ana Canyon Road, Property presently classified as R-A, RBSI-
DBNTIAL AGRYCULTURAL, ZONB.
I Subject petition xras filed in conjunction with Reclassification
No. 61-62-107,
Mr. Ted Fish, agent for the petit.ioner appeared before the
Commission and stated he had nothing further to add to the
proposed petition.
Tfffi HBARING WAS CIASHD.
The Commission found and determined the foliowing 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
multiple family planned unit development and a service station.
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 lucated,
~ ~
~ ~ . . ~ . .. ~ .~ . . .. .. .
~
( ~ . . ~ - . ~ ~ ~,
~
MINUTES, CITY PIANNIN•^• COhMISSION, June 11, 1962, Continued: 991
CONDITIONAL USH - 3, That the size anci shape of the site proposed for the use is
PffitMIT N0. 243 adequate to ailow the full development of the proposed use in
(Continued) a manner not detri~aenisl 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
conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to tlie
p~ace, health, safety, and generai welfare of the Citizens of
the City of Anaheim.
S. That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not
impose an nndue burden upon the streets and highways designed
and improved to carry the traffic in the area,
6. That no one appeazed in opposition to subject petition.
Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No, 350, Series 1961-62,
and raoved for its passage and adorytion, seconded by Commissioner
Alired, that Petition for Condition~~l Use Permit No, 243 be
granted subject to the folloWing conditions;
1. Dedication of fifty(50) feet from the monumented centerline of
Jefferson Street (30 feet existing).
2. Dedication of t~i.rty-t~yo (32) feet from the monumented
centerline of Santa Ana Canyon Road (30 feet existing).
3, Preparation of street improvement plans and installation of
all improvements for Jefferson Street and Santa Aaa Canyon
Road, subject to the approvai of the City Bngineer and in
accordance with the adopted standard pians on file in the
office of the City.Hngineer.
4. Payment of $2.00 per fror,t foot for street lighting purposes
on Jefferson Street and Santa Ana Can.yon Road.
5. Payment of a Park and Recreation Fee of $25.00 per dwelling
unit to be coilected as part of the Building Permit.
6. Provision of trash storage areas as determined by the
Department of Public Works, Sanitation Division~ which are
adequate in size, accessible to trash-truck pickup, and
adequately enciosed by a solid fence or wall, prior to Pinal
Building Inspection,
7. Provision of a five (5) foot pubiic utility easement and a
three•(3) foot overhang easement alone the northerly and
easterly boundary of the subje~t propexty to adequately sesve
the subject property and other properties, at the time of the
installation of the service facilities.
8. Jefferson Street alignment shali conform 4o the Master Plan
for Jefferson 3treet as a~proved by the County of Orange and
the City of Anaheim.
9, Time limitation of one hundred and eighty (180) days for the
accomplishment of Item Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7,
V ~.
~
~_.., ,.. - _
V ~ ~.
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING CODR~tISSION, June 11, 1962, Continued; 992
CONDITIONAL USH - 10. Subject ta the approval of Petition for Reclass_iication
PHRMIT N0. 243 No. 61-62-107.
(Continued)
11, Development substantially in accordance with 3xhibit Nos.
1, 2, and 3,
12, Provision for the instaliation of a six (6) foot minimum
strip of landscaping along the pr~posed commercial develop-
ment frontage of Jefferson Street, said landscaping to be
submitted to and subject to the approval of the Supes~n-
tendent of Parkway Maintenance, and said landsca;~zng to be
installed prior tc Pinal Building Inspection.
13. Installation of a six (6) foot masonry wail along the north
~' and east boundaries of subject property between the nroposed
R-3, multiple family development and the proposed C-3,
neighborhood commercial deeelopmen4; provision that should
the Metropoiitan Water District not permit the c.~nstruction of
said masonry wallabutting the MWD right^of-way, a six (6)
foot wood fence or wall satisfactory to the MWD .ha11 be
constructed.
14. Provision that existing structures on subject property
shall be used for residential purposes only, and that
II existing structures shall be removed prier to reclassification
of subject property being approved by the City Council,
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following
vote:
AYBS: CONAlISSIONBRS: Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall,
Pebley, Perry.
N08S: CODMlISSIONBRS: None. '
ABSBNT: COHAlISSIONBRS: Camp, Hapgood.
TENTATIVB MAP OF - S[iBDIVIDHR: R. L. FARR04V, 9656 Garden Grove Bo~ilevsrd, Garden
TRACT N0. 4731 Grove, California; HNGfNBHR: R. L. STUCKHY C~~n1PANY, 9582 Garden
Grove Boulevard, Garden Grove, Caiifornia; suYhject tract is
Socated at the northwest corner of the intersection ~f Orangewooc~
Avenue and Ninth Street and covers approximately 8:03 acxes and
is proposed for subdivision into 30 R-1, O:~e Pamily Resident~.al
lots.
Zoning Coordinator M. Rreidt read a request from the engineer req,uests.n;;
that subject tract be considered at the June 25, 1962 meeting ~f
the~Commission.
Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to continue consideration of
Tentative Map of Tract._No. 4731 to June 25, 1962 in order to give
the engineer sufficient time to submit a revised tentative map.
Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIHC,
Commissioner Camp returned to the Council Chambers at 3;00 P.M.
~ ~ ~i
!d "'c'
~o.:,
I '
~
__ ~...._._.~-------- .._
._..~ - -~-~_.__ - -- -- -'
,. . .
,-----~ , , ~ , ' , ~
_ . . , .. . . . , ! .... .. ... .. . . ...__.. ... ,..... ~
. . *' . .. . . - . q . . . . I . i ~" .
I
, ~ J' •
ti. .
~.:.1 ~ ..... .._ .
~~ ~ ~
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COI~IIS°Ii':; Jure t:s, 1962, Continued: 993
'!'ENTATIVB Moi~ OF - DSt'FLCP~^.: YAi:~IMAC :NC., 2?639 Arlington, Torrance, CaliforniFi;
~.RACT *;G. 4735 HNC7A;8&R; hicDANIBL ENGINBFRING COMPANY, 222 Bast Linco]n Avenue,
Ana.he.iti, •.^,t;lifornia, Subject tract is S~~p+ed on the nortlieast
cor.ner ~,~~ '3ast and South Streets, ar;d contains 20 proposed ;t-1,
S3ngle Fs:.r.ily Residential, lots.
Subjecf t:ract is filed in conjunciion ;vith Reclassifica~i.on Ne.
61-62-].13 and Varisnce No, 1487.
Mr. A.. J. McUaniel, agPtii, for the petitioner eppea~~d bafcze the
Commission and stated he Uad nothing furthzr to add other than he
would lil:e to have both the reclassific.tion and variance covered
at the same time a~ ine Tr.act Map war, being reviewid,
Subject tract and subdi•vision /vas in accordance with Pianning
Study No. Z9-94-2 recen7:i; P:iJVl:jG~ hy the Planning Commission
anri City Council on subjact property, .Zoning Coordinator Mart~.n
Kreidt informed the Commission,
Commissioner Mungall offtered a motion to approve Tentative Map
of Tract No. 4735 subject to the foZlowing conditious;
1. Pro~~~.~±en of a forty••seven (47) foot cul-de-sac radius,
2. S1^~•~ld this subdivi.sinn be devel~ped as more than one
:int~division, each s;:i,davisiu; shall be S4hl11~~~~@~'~ in t•eiitative
form for approval.
3. Subject to the approval of plot and builrling pian~ by the
Plsnning and Buildin~ ~~p~r:a~ents;
4. Deuita#ion of all ¢~cce3s rigt:.ts to Has# Street,
5. Installation of a ~ix (61 foot masonry wall ~1:~r,o the Bast
St~-eet,right-of-way abuiting Lot Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and along
the South Street right-of-way abuxting ?at No, 1 exc~pt that
said wall shall be stepped dcwn to a he.ight of 42" in the
rront, one-half of the f~~on~t yard ::etback of Lut No, 1 and
the height of 42" in the ~~ack ane-i'ta:~; of said se•iback of
Lot No, 1, togethe.^ wi.tt~ the instal:.ation of reasonable
landsr.aping in tY.e uncementeci portior. of the Bast Street and
South Street ri,ht-of-ways, the fu11 distance of said wall
construction, pla.:is for said landscaping to be submitted to
and subject to the approval of .he Saperi::ie;.~3ent oF Parkway
MaintenancP, and further pzovided that follevring ir.stallation
and accep:ance, the Cit; of Anaheim shall assan,e responsi-
~ility for maintenance of said lazrdscaping.
6. Subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 51-d2-113
and Variance No, 1487,
Commissioner Camp spc:.~nded t:ie motion. MOTION CARRIBU.
RBCI.J?S°IPICATION - PUBLIC HBARING. PAUL H. PLSTZ, 3302 West Ball Ror.d, Anaheim,
NO_61-62-113 Califo~~:a, Ck+mer; McDANIBL BN~-:.~ERING COMPANY, 222 Hast
Lincoin Avenne, P.,naheim, California, Agent; requesting that
proper:y described as; A rectangular parcel of land at the
northeas5: corner of Bast and South Streets, having a frontage of
605 feet pi~s or minus on South Street and 335 feet plus or minus -
on Hast Street be reclassified from the F-0, ONB FAMILY SUBURBAN,
~. _ _ ___. . . 'r. .. . ~- T . . -. ----- . . .- y ..._..-----
a.~ ~ ~.~ _ ~ . ,~ q~. , . . . 1 . . . . ~ . ~ : • ~ ~ . ~ . ~ . . ~ ~! -- -- •
U
~ ..
r~ ~~
~,
MINUTBB, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 11, ].962, ~ontinued; 994
RBCLASSIPICATION - ZONH and R-1, ONH PA.MILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONH be reclassified to
N0, 61-62-l13 R-1, ONS PAMILY RBSIDBNTIA;.., ZONB,
(Continued)
Subject petition filed in conjunction with Variance No, 1487 and
Tentative Tract Map No. 4735.
Mr. A. R. McDaniel, agent for the petitionei, appeared before the
Commission and stated he had nothing further to state to the
Commission,
Zoning Coordi.nator i~2artin Kreidt informed the Coamission that
subject reclassification was in accordance with Pianning Study
No, 29-94•-2 recently endorsed by the Planning Commission and
City Council on subject property.
Mr. Duncan Vanderbilt, 705 Grove Street, representing neighboring
property owners asked to view the proposed plans, and upon viewing
seid plans stated that there wouid be no objections for neigh-
boring property owners. ,
Z1fB HBAAING WAS CLOSBD.
The Commission noted that the proposed R-1 lots were ninety-one(91)
feet with a minimum frontage of twenty C20) feet.
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, ONB PAMILY SUBURBAN, ZONH
to the R-1, ONB FAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONB to construct a
proposed 20 R-1, singie family development,
2. That the proposed reclassification of subject property is not
r.ecessar•~ and/or desizable for the orderl;: and proper devel-
opment of the community, ~
3, That the proposed reclassification of subject property does
not properly relate to the zones and their permitted uses
]~cally established in close proximity to subject property
a~,d xo the zones und their permitted uses generally estab-
li~hed th:oughout the community.
4. That the proposed seclassification of subject property does
not require de~iicltion for and standa:d improvement of
abutting s;reets because said property does relate to and
::' ~t upon streets and highways whir,h are improved to carry the
type and qunntity of traffic, which will be generated by the
perwitted uses, in accordance drith the circulation element of
. the General Plan. _ _ _ .
5. That no one appeared ia opposition to subject petition.
Commissioner A13.red offered Resolution No. 251, Series 1961-62,
and moved for its passage and adoption, secor.ded by Commissioner
Pebley to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclass-
ification No. 61-62-113 be approved subject to the following
conditions;
~. Subject to the recordation of Pinal Tract Map No. 4735 on
subject property.
- - ----- - ._ _.,~.. _..~.._ _ ___. __
..:~~.' _ . ' . .: ~ -, ,: ~-.--. . .
V ~
MINUTES, CITY YLANNING C0~9dISSION, June 11, 1962, Continued: 995
RRCLASSIFICATION - 2. Subject to tke granting of Variance No. 1487.
N0. 61-62-113
(Continued) The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were
found to be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property
in order to preserve the safety and welfare of the citizens of
the City of Anaheim.
On roll call the forego
following vote;
AYBS: COMMISSIONBRS:
NOBS: CddMISSIONBRS:
ABSBNT: COhAfISSIONBRS;
ing resolution was passed by the
Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux,
Mungail, Pehley, Perry,
None.
Hapgood.
VARIANCB N0. 148? - PUBLIC HBARING. PAUL H. PLBTZ, 3302 West Ball Road, Anaheim,
California, Owner; MCDANIBL HNGIN&BRING CONIPANY, 222 Sast
Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting
permission to WAIVS PRONT YARD SHTBACK RBQUIRSMBNT on property
d~scribed as: A rectangular parcel of land at the northeast
corner of Sast and South Streets, having a frontage of 605 feet
plus or minus on South Street and 335 feet plus or minus on
Bast 3treet, Property presently classified as R-1, ONH FAMILY
RHSIDENTIAL and R-0, ONH :~AMILY SUBURBAN, ZONHS.
Subject petition Was filed in conjunct±on with Reclassification
No, 61-62-113 and Tentative Map o: Tract No. 4735.
Mr. A, R. McDaniel, agent for the petitioner, appeared before
the Commission and stated that subject variance covered 5 Sots
fronting on South Street and 15 interior tract lots, that all
other properti~s were so oriented as to be unaffected by this
variance, and that because of the peculiar shape of subject property
it was necessary to decrease the front yard from 25 feet as
required to 20 feet, but that all other code reauirements
would be complied with if subject variance were approved.
Tf~ HBARING WAS CLOSBD,
The Cammission found and det~rmined the following facts regard-
ing snbject petition:
1. That the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim
Municipal Code: Section 18.24,030 (1) to permit the
encroachment of five (5) feet into ttt, reqaired front yard
of the proposed one family development as proposed to be
sulxiivided.
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 =: use in the same vicinity and zone,
3, That the requested variance is necessary for the preser-
vation and enjoyment of a substantial property right
possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone,
and 3enied ta the property in question.
4. That the sequested variance will not be materially detri-
mentai to the public welfare or injurious to the property
or improvements in such vicinity and zone in whicti the
property is located.
r:
~
. ,.. ,
. . ,:::'. _ , .
~ ~ ~
~ ' '~.
V
MINpTgg, CITy piANNING COF4lISSION, June 11, 1962, Continued: 996
VpRIANCS N0. 1487 - S. That the requested variaace wiii not adversely affect the
(Continued) Comprehensive Generai Plaa,
6. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Commission~r Yebley offered Resolutioa No. 352, Series 1961-62,
and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded bq Commisaioaer
Camp to grant Petition for Variance No. 1489, subject to the
foliowing conditions.
1. Subject to !he recordation of Pinal Tract Map No. 4735 on
subject property.
2, 8ubject to Architectural Committee approval of building
plans.
3. Subject to the approval of Reciassification No. 61-62-113.
On roli call the foregoing resolution was passed by the follow-
iug vote:
pyHS; CQh~IISSI0I~RS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer. Marcoux~
Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
NOHS: COMMIS3IONIDRS: i:one.
ABSBNT: COMMISSIONER:: Hapgood.
VARIANCS N0. 1484 - PUBLIC I•IDARING• 1~4t• and t~IItS. OSCAR A. MUNOZ, 509 Bast Adele
Street. Aaaheim, Caiifornia, Owners; requesting permission to
WAIVB MINIMUM PLOat ARBA RHQUIRBI~ATT on propertq described as:
A rectangular parcel of land 48 feet plus or minus bq 171 feet
~lus ar m3aue with a frontage of 48 feet plus or miaus oa the
north side of Adele Street, the southwest corner of said
property being 96 feet plus or minus east of the northeast
corner.of Sabiaa and Adele Streets, and further described as
509 Hast Adele Street. Property presentiy classified ia the
R-3, MULTIPLB PAMILY RSSID&~]TIAL, ZONS.
No one appeared to represent the pet34ioaer although someone in
the Council Chambers stated that oae of the petitioners was ili
in the hospital.
Zoning Coordiaator Martin Rreidt informed the Commission that a
single familp dweliing of approximately 800 squaxe feet was
located oa the abutting property to the east.
1HH ~ARING WAS CLOSHD.
The Comaiission found and determined the following facts
regarding subject petition:
1. That the petitioner requests a variance from t~ae Anaheim
Muaicipal• Cbde: Section 18.80.080 to permit the eatab-
iishment of a single family dwell~ng of a minimum of 810
square feet.
2. That there are except3onal or extraordiaary circumataaces or
conditions applicabie to the property iavoived or to the
in4ended use of the property that do not apply geaerailq to
the property or ciass of use in the same vicinity aad zone.
~ ~
U
MINUTSS, CITY PLANNING COhA4ISSI0N, June 11, 1962, Continued: . 997
VARIANCB N0, 1484 - 3. That the requested variance is necessary for the preser-
(Continued) vation 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 not be materialxy !'.etri-
mentvi to the public ~~elfare or injurious to the ~_operty or
improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property
is located,
5. That the requested variance wiil not adversely affect the
Comprehensive General Plan.
6. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. 353, Series 1961-62~
and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner
Allred to grant Petition for Variance No. 1484, subject to the
foilowing conditions:
1. Payment of a Park and Recreation fee of $25.00 per dwelling
unit for the new unit only, to be collected as part of the
Building Permit.
2. Development substantially in accordance with Bxhibit Nos.
1, 2, and 3.
On roli call the foregoing resolution was passed by the fol?uw-
ing vote;
AYHS; COMMISSIONBRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux,
Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
NQBS: COhA~IISSIONHRS: None.
ABSHNT: COI~AfISSIONHtS: Hapgood.
VARIANCS N0, 1485 - PUBLIC HHARING. DR. HIMBR F. and FRANCIS GOOSL, 1016 Chevy
Chase Drive, Beverly Hills, California, Owners; MR. R. R. YOUYG,
5400 Bast Olympic Boulevard, :~s Angeles, California, Agent;
requesting permission to ADD BRARH ALIGNMENT AND MUFPLBR
INSTALIATION SHRVICH TO fiXISTING STORE on property described as:
A rectangular parcel of land 192 feet pius or minus by 55 feet
plus or minus with a frontage of 55 feet plus or minus on the
south side of Lincoln Avenue, the northe~st corner of said
property being 266 feet plus or minus west of the southwest
corner of Lincoln Avenue and Harbor Bodlevard, and further
described as 524 West Lincoln Avenue, Property presently
classified in the C-2, GENERAL COh1hffiRCIAL, ZONH.
Mr. R. R. Young, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the
Commission and stated that he .was available to answer any
guestions the Commission would like to ask.
The Commission stated that parking facilities were somewhat
adequate; the petitioner was aiso asked where he planned to
perform this work if it was to be done indoors or outdoors~
~
~ o
~ V ~
MINUTSS, CITY PIANNING CON4IISSION, June 11, 1962, Continued: 998
VARIANCB N0. 1485 - except that the lift would be outdoors.
CContinued)
The petitioner stated that removal of the mufflers would be done
outdoors at the rear of subject property and that all other work
would be performed indoors,
1 The C~armission also noted that subject property a~utted R-2
~ property to the west and that removal of mufflers would
create hazardous dust to the residentiai area abutting subject
~ propeYty.
THH HBARING WAS CL0.SBD,
The Commission found and determined the following facts
regarding subject property:
1. That the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim
Municipai Code; Section 18.44.010 to establish a brake and
alignment service with muffler installation on subject
property and Section 18.44.030 <5) to permit the provision
of parking facilities in accordance with plans.
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 ~nd zone.
3, That the requested variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjogment of a substant~~?. ~roperty right possessed by
other property in the same vic.nity and zone, and denied to
the property in question.
4,, That the requested var:ance will not be materially detrimental
to the public welfare or in,~urious to the property or
impror•ements 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 due to the close proximity of an R-2 two family area
abutting to the west and south of subject property, all work
should be confined under cover.
7. That no one appeared in op*~osition to subject petition.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolutic::i r`o. 354, Series 1961-62,
and moved for its passage and adoptie:, seconded hy Commissioner
Camp to grant Petition for Variance Ii• 1485, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Development sutatantially ia accor~lance with Bxhi.~.it N~s. 1
and 2 except as amended herein, a.nd the provision that
Standard parking requirements siia.ll Y~e waived.
V
MINUTB3, CITY PIANNING COAAlISSION, June il, 1962, Continued:
999
VARIANCB IvO. 1485 - 2. Provision of trash storage areas as determined bq the
(Contxnued) Department 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
Finai Building Inspection.
3, Revised plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
indicating that Lift has been enclosed in the structure,
that present structure has been extended to the south to
' enclose said Lift; and that the removal of and installation
of mufflers shali be confined to the enclosed structure as
extended to the south.
On roll call the forego
ing vote:
AYBS: COMMISSIONBRS:
NOHS: COMMISSIONHRS:
AHSBNT: COMMISSIONBRS:
ing resolution was passed by the follow-
Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux,
Mungali, Pebley, Perry.
None,
Hapgood.
VARdANCB Nu. 1486 - PUBLIC I~ARING. F, A, YUNGBLUTH, 815 West Broadway, Anaheim,
California, Owner; GLBNN P, PRY, 1S7 West Lincoln Avenue,
Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to BSTABLISH
, LIGHT PURNITURH RB-UPHOI.STBRY SBRVICE on property described as;
A rectangular parcel of land 60 feet plus or minus by 130 feet
• plus or minus with a frontage of 60 feet plus or minus on the
west side of Los Angeles Street, the southeast corner of said
property Leing 62 feet north of the northwest corner of Adele
Street and further described as 407 North Los Angeles Street,
_ Property presently classified in the C-2, GBNgRpL COhA4ffitCIAL,
ZONB, _
Mr: Glenn P. Nry, agent for the petitioner appeared before tlxe
Commission and stated he had nothing further to offer to the
.. Commission, but would be a•ailable to answer any questions..
1HH HBARING WAS CLOSBD.
The Commission discussed the fact that the structure on subject
property was in a state of disrepair, that if anything were
planned for subject property any existing structure should be removed {o
prevent any .`ire,~hazard, and that the proposed service would not
enhance the appearance of the City.
1. Tha~t the peti,tiona requests a variance from the Anaheim
Mun:.ci.pal Code; Section 18.44.010 to esta;;~3sh a fuzniture
re-upholstering service, a .
2. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
or conditions applicabie to the property'involved or to the
intended use o: the property that do not appiy generaily to
the property ox+ class of use ir. the same vicinity and zoney
3. That the requested variance is not necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right
possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone~
and denied to the property in question,
E~
~
~ ~
~'_ ~
~~
MINUTSS~ CITY PIANNING C(~AlISSION, June il, 1962, Continued; 1000
VARIANCB N0. 1486 - 4. That the requested variance will be materiaily detrimental to the
(Continued) public weifa=e or injurious to the property or improvements in
such vicinity and zone in which the property is located,
5. That the requested vaziance will €.dversely affect the
Comprehensive General Plan.
6. That the subject property would be incompatible with the
proposed use.
7. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Commissioner Ailred offered Resolution No, 355, Series 1961-62,
and moved for its passa~e and adoption, seconded by Commissioner
C'tavos, to deny Petition for Variance No. 1486 on the bases of
tl,e aforementioned findings.
On roll cail the foregoing resolution was passed by the follow-
ing vote:
AYHS: COI~AQISSIONBRS: Allred~ Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux,
Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
NOHS: CONBdISSI~;IHRS: None.
' ABSBNT: COMMISSIONBRS: Hapgood.
VARIANCB N0. 1488 - PUBLIC HBARING. GARMBN SCALZO, 1912 ICathy Lane, Anaheim, Cali-
fornia, Owner; Pffi -CHUNG•CHAO, 11151 Stratford Way, Garden
Grove, California, Agent; requesting permission to HSTABLISH AN
"ON-3ALB" LIQUOR LICSNSED RHSTAURANT on property deacribed as:
A xectaagular parcel of land 610 feet pius or minus by 85 feet
plus or minus with a frontage of 85 feet plus or minus on the.
° east side of Harbor Boulevard, the northwest corner of said
property being approximately 1180 feet south of the southeast
corner of Midway Dr,ive and Harbor Boulevard, and further
described as 1560 South Harbor Boulevard. Property presently
ciassified in the R-A, RBSIDBNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONB.
Mr. C. Scalzo, the petitioner, appeared before the Cocmission
• and stated that he had nothing further to state to the
Commission, but was available to answer questions.
TH8 HBARING WAS CLOSHD.
The Commission discussed the :pnearance of the roof portion of
the present structure and the unsightliness of the multi-colored
_appurtances on said roof.
The Commission found and determined the following facts
regarding subject ~petition:
• 1. That the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim
Municipai Code; Section 18.16.010 to establish on-sale
, liquor in an existing restaurant.
~
~
x
_ :'. ~
.. L _.. ._ .,
I ~ '
,
`J ' ~
,_, i
.._ ._ ...___ 3
~ ~
~
~
~. ..---
a
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING CONAIISSION, June il, 1962, Continued: 1001
VARIANCB N0. 1488 - 2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
(Continued) conditions applicable to the property involved or to the
intended use of the property that do not apply generally to
the pfioperty 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.
4. That the requested variance will not be materially detrimental
~ 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 wili not adversely affect the
Comprehei-sive General Pian.
6. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Commissioner Yebley offered Resolution No, 356, Series 1961-62,
and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner
Mungall, to grant Petition for ~ariance No. 1488, subject to
the foliowing conditions:
1. Dedication of sixty (60) feet from the monumented centerline
of Harbor Boulevard (50 feet existing).
2. Provision of trash storage areas as determined by the
Department of Public Works, Sanitation Divisi r, which are
• adequate in size, accessible to trash-truck pickup, and
adequately enciosed by a solid fence or wall, prior to
Pinal Building Inspection,
3. Time limitation of one hundred and eight/ (180) days for the
accomplishment of Item No. 1.
4. Provision that all structures on tne roof of the existing
restaurant be painted the same color as the baiance of the
roof in order to maintain color harmony.
5. Provision thet the "on-sale" of liquor is an incidental
use in conjunction with the restaurant operation by the
owner of subject restaurant and that said granting of the
variance shall not be granted to a future owner of subject
property by virtue of the sale•of subject property.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the follow-
ing vote;
AYSS: COMh!ISSIONBRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux,
Murg ail, Pebley, Perry.
NOBS; COI~IISSIONSRS: None.
ASSHNT: COhA~IISSIONBRS: Hapgood.
o .e
~~: ~~_~ ~
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING C~AlISSION, June 11, 1962~ Continued:
VARIANCB IVD, 1489 - PUBLIC I~ARING. JOBL R, GULLBDGS, 722 Blder Street, Anaheim,
California, Owner; CROSBY CONSTRUCTION OOMPANY, 1110 North
Harbor Buulevard, Santa Ana, California, Rgent; requesting
permission to WAIVS RBAR YARD SETBACK RBQUIRBMBNT on property
described as: A rectangular parcel of land 102 feet plus ot
minus by 62 feet plus or minus with a frontage of 62 feet pius
or minus on the east side of Hider Street, the southwest corner
of said property being 63 feet plus or minus north of the north-
east corner of Blder 8treet and South Street, and further des-
cribed as 722 Blder Street. Property presently classified in
the R-1, ON8 PAMILY RHSIDffiVTIAL, ZONB,
Mr. Jack Keeney, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the
Commission and stated that he had nothing further to add for
the Commission, but that he would be glad to answer any question
the Commission might have.
The Commission asked if the existing patio was to be enclosed,
to which the agent for the petitioner stated that it would be
removed rsnd an entirely enclosed room wouid be constructed,
Tf~ HBAP;ING :9AS CL0.SBD,
The Commission found and determined the following facts regard-
ing subject pe~tition:
That the petitior.er requests a variance from the Anaheim
Municipal Code: Section 18.24.030 (3) to construct an
addition to an existing singie family residence.
That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
or conditions applicable to the property involned or to
the intended use of the property that do not apply generally
to the p~operty or clas~ of use in the same vicinity and
zone.
That the requested variance is necessary for the preser-
vation and enjoyment of a substantial property iight
possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone~
and denied to the property in question.
4. That the requested variance will riot be materially detri-
mental to the public welfare or =.njurious to the property
or impravements in such vicinity and zone in which the
property is located.
5. Thut the requested variance will not adversely affect the
Comprehensive General Plan.
6. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 357, Series 1961-62, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner
Marcoux to grant Petition for Variance No. 1489, subject to the
foilowing condition::
1, Development substantially iu accw~dance with Bxhibit Nos.
1~ 2~ and 3.
,, i
,
a
i
;: ~;
~-;
~
MINUTES, CITY PIANNING COhalISSION, June 11, 1962, Continued:
VARIANCB N0. 1489 - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following
(Continued) vote: •
COI~lISSIONBRS: Ailred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux,
Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
COhVYtISSIONBRS: None.
ABSBNT: COMMISSIONBRS: Hapgood.
VARIANCB N0. 1490 - PUBLIC fIDARING. MR, and MRS. NO~tMAN J. RBRR, 617 Grove Street,
Anaheim, Caiifornia, Owners; requesting permission to WAIVB
RBAR YARD SBT'BACK RBQUIREMBNT on property described as: A
rectangular parcel of land 48 feet plus or minus by 114 feet
plus or minus with a frontage of 48 feet plus or minus on the
east side of Sabina Street, the southwest corner of said property
being 336 feet plus or minus north of the northeast corner of
Sabina Strset and Wilhelmina 8treet and further described as
728 North Sabina Street, Property presentiy classified in the
R-2, 1W0 FAMILX RSSIDENTIAL, ZONB,
Mr. Barney Hennessey, agent for the petitioner, appeared before
the Commission and stated he had nothing further to add, that he
was appearing for the petitioner because one of the petitioners
xras being hospitalized that afternoon.
-, ~
THB HHARING WAS CLOSHD.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding
subject petition:
1. That the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim
Municipal Code: Section 18.80.Q80 to construct a single
family residence with a minimum livable floor space of 800
square feet, and
Section 18.28.030 (3-b) to provide a 15~ foot rear yard
encroachment on subject property.
2, That there are exceptionai or extraordinary circirmstances or
conditions applicable to the pror2rty invoived or to the
intended use of the property that do not apply generally to
the pro~erty 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,
4. That the requested variance -vill not be materially detri-
ments~~ 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 vari.ance will not adversely affect the
Comprehensive General 'Plan. .
6. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Comaissioner Perry off;:~~;d Resolution No. 358, Series 1961-62,
and moved•for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner I
Mungall, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1490, subject to the
~ .. ~.
~ ,,
~ `..'
MINUTSS, CITY P7~~iNING COMMISSION, June 11, 1962, Continued:
VARIANCE N0, 1490 - following cor.dition;
(C~~ntinued )
~
1004
~ 1. Development substantially in ascordance with Bxhibit Nos. 1
and 2 provided that.the proposed single family dweliing
unit and~garage be relocated westerly a minimum of two (2)
feet *.o provide sufiicient turning radius from the alley
into the proposed garage,
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following
vote:
AYBS: COMMISSIONBRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux,
Mungall, Pebely, Perry.
NOHS: COMMISSIONBRS: None.
AHSBNT: CObN~IISSIONffitS: Hapgood,
VA1tIANCH N0. 1491 - PUBLIC HTARING. MR. and MRS. NORMAN J. KBRR, 617 Grove Street,
pnaheim, California, Owners; requesting permission to WAIVB RBAR
YARD SBTBACR RBQUIREMBNT on property described as: A rectangular
parcel of land 96 feet plus or minus by 114 feet plus or minus,
with a frontage of 96 feet plus or minus on the west side of
• Sabina Street, the southeast corner of said property being
384 feet pius or minus north of the northwest corner of Sabina
and Wilhelmina Streets,~and further described as 729 and 733
Nbrth Sabina Street.
Mr, garney Hennessey, agent for the petitioner, appeared before
the Commission and stated he had nothing further to add for the
Commission.
Zoning Coordinator Martin %reidt asked the agent for the
petitioner if the property was to be developed as a common
turning area for the two dwellings. The agent answered in the
affirmative.
Mr. J. Geisler, Assistant City Attorney advised the Commission
that granting of the variance could be subject to a condition
that the two parcels of property shall comply with the code
and remain under single ownership.
THS HBARING WAS CLOSBD.
The Commission found and determined the following fac's
regarding subject petition:
1. That the petitiona requests a•variance from the Anaheim
~ Municipal Code: uection 18.80.080 to construct a single
fami7.y dwelling with a minimum livabie floor area of
approximately 800 square feet. and
Section 18.28.030 (3-b) to permit the development of ten
(10) foot rear yards~.
2. That there are exceptional or ex#raordinary circumstances
or conditions applicable to the property ?.nvolced or to the
intended use of the property that do not apply generally
to the property or class of use in the same vic•dnity and
zone,
~
* ~ -- .
(.~) ~ O
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING C(~lMISSION, June li, 1962, Continued:
1005
VARIANCS N0. 1441 - 3, That the requested variance is necessary for the preser-
(Continued) vation 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 not be materialiy detri-
mental to the public weifare or injurious to the property
or improveme~.ts in such vicinity and zone in which the
property is located.
5, That th~a requested variance will not adverselq affect the
Comprel~ensive General Plan,
6, That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 359, Series 1961-62,
and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner
Camp, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1491, subject to the
following conditions;
1, Deveiopment substantialiy in accordance with IDchibit Nos.
1 and 2.pzovided that the dwelling units and garages_.be..
reversed so that'the~dtvelling units wi~Lencroac~i in the
rear yards and that the ga e~it~,ll be located between the
existing and pro~ed ingle family~?ie~lin s in such a
manner thatyadeyuate turning radius is provide f-~access
in.to-th2'~proposed garages,
2. Subject property consisLiag of two recorded pa±•cels and
presently having a~common ownership shall remain in common
ownership, and~further provided triat this conditional
variance approval be recorded,
On roll cail the foregoing resoiution was passed by the follow-
ing vote:
AYBS: COhAfISSIONSRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos Gauer, Marcoux,
Mungail, Pebley, Perry.
NOBS: COMMISSIONBRS: None.
ABSBNT: COhUfISSIONBRS: Hapgood.
VARIANCB N0. 1492 - PUBLIC F~ARING, MR, and NIltS, MARSHALL R. BAUCOM, 212 North
Dale Avenue, Anaheim, California~ Owners; requesting permission
to WAIVB SIDBYARD SETBACR RHQUIRBMBNT TO CONSTRUCT A BLOCK WALL
on property described as: A square parcel of la~zd 115 feet by
115 feet at the southeast corner of Dale and Yale Avenues, and
further described as 212 North ]Sale Avenue. Property~presently
cla~~ified in the Yt A, RESIDBNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, 20NH.
Mr. !!~*shail R: Baucom, the petitioner~ appeared befor~ the
Commission and stated that subject variance was requested
because of uadue noise and intrusions by school children, that
it was neces.sary to have the property somewhat enciosed because
of the h.llness of the petitioner's daughter; that he felt that
. the.requirement of street dec~ication and instailation of curbs
and gu4ters was as a condition to the conatruction of a masonry
wall cras a bit more than he could finance at the present time.
~~) '"`°~'
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMAfYSSION, June S1, 1962, Continued;
:.:~<w_. ~. - - --_ _ . d
,
~ ~
1006 i
i
i
VARIANCB N0. 1492 -~e Commission discussed the possibility of adjoining property i
(Continued) _ to the south tieing cleveloped in the near future; that the post-
ing of a bond to insure the installation of curbs,gutters and '
sidewalks should be considered; and that abutting property to ~
the west is classified in the R-3, muitiple family zone, which'requires ;
a fifteen (15) foot front yard setback. I
The Commission found anc~ determined the foilowing facts
regarding subject petition;
1. That the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim
Municipal Code; Section 18.16.030 C2-b) to construct a six
(6) foot masonry wali along the side yard property line.
2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions appiicable 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 req~~ested variance is necessary for the preser-
vation 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 not be materialiy 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 Chavos offere~! Resolution i:o. 360, Series 1961-62,
and moved £or its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner
Perry, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1492, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Dedication of forty-five (45) feet from the monumented
centerline bf Dale Avenue (20 feet existing) including return.
2. Provision that a two-year bond be posted to insure the
install~tion ~f street improvements of sidewalks, curbs and
gutters on Dale Avenue, and should pr~perty abutting to the
south be developed prior to two years that said improvements
shaii be installed on subject property at the request of the
City Hngineer, that should property abutting to the south not
_ be deveioped within tha sa~d two-year quarantee period, the
petitioner may request that said bond be renewed 4hrough the
City Bngineer or City Attorney.
3, Time limitation of one hundred and eighty (180) days for the
accomplishment of Item Nos. 1 and 2.
4. Development substantially in accordance with Bxhibit No. 1
provided that said six (6) foot wail shall be constructed
parallel to Yale Avenue and three (3) feet from the right-of-
way line of Yale Avenue.
'~ ;~ ~ , ~
. , --.~ . i . ~--~,.- _ _ ." ._ ......_. ._..._......_:...y
~ ~ , ~ . ~ . w I~ "
. . . . ;, .. . . . . , ., .. . ...
~ . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . .
~ ~
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COhAlIS3ION, June 11, 1962, Continued:
VARIANCB N0. 1492 - On roli call the forego
(Continued) ing vote;
AYHS; COMMISSIONHRS;
NOBS: COhAlISSIOI~RS:
ABSENT: CObAlISSIONBRS:
~__ .._~___...._ _~_._°~ ::
~
1007
ing resolution was passed by the follow-
Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux,
Mungall, Perry.
Pebley,
Hapgoud,
VARIANCB N0. 1493 - PUBLIC FIDARING. CIAIR H, SCHNEIDHR~ 1716 Bast Santa pna Street,
Anaheim, California, Owner; HUGH ULRICH, 1237 Sodth Brookhurst
Street, Anaheim, California~ Agent; requesting permission to
WAIVB F:ZONT YARD SBTBACK RBQUIRHMSNT on property describe3 as;
A rectangular parcel of land 62 feet plus or minus by 100 feet,
with a frontage of 100 feet on the south side of Santa Ana
Street, the northwest corner being 154 feet plus or minus east
of the southeast corner of Santa Ana and Elder 3treets, and
further described as 1716 Bast Santa Ana Street, Property
presently classified in the R-1, ONF3 PAMILY RHSIDENTIAL, 20NB.
No oae appeared to represent the applicant before the Commission.
THB HBARING WP_S CLOSED. ~
The Co~nmission discussed the possibility of continuing subject
petition, but decided that subject petition could be ruled
upon within the Commission,
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 (1) to co~struct a six
C6) foot masonry wall to enclose a proposed swimming pool in
the front yard of subject property.
2. That there are exceptionai 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 preser-
vation and enjoyment of a substantiai property right
possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone,
and denied to the property in question,
4. That the requested variance will• not be materially detri- .
mental to the public welfare or ittjurious to the property
or improvements in such vicinity an3 zone in which the
property is located,
5. That the requested variance w311 not adverseiy affect the
Comprehensive General Plan.
6, That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
3
,
t
i
i
. l
~.~~..'I: _.
c.~ ~ e
MINUTB3~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 11, 1962, Continued: 1008
VARIANCB N0. 1493 - Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 361~ Series 1961-62~
(Continued) and moved for its passage and adoption, se~onded by Commissioner
Marcoux, to grant Petition for Variance Nu. 1493, subject to the
following conditions;
1. Development substantially in accordance with Hxhibit No. 1
provided that said six (6) foot masonry wall be a decorative
block wall; that it is to be canstructed wi4h a twelve (12)
foot s~tback from the existing property line and constructed
parallel to the right-of-way line of Santa Ana Street.
2, Installation of landscaping fronting the said decorative
block wall, plans for said landscaping to be submitted to
and subject to the approval of the SuperintAndent of Park-
way~Maintenance and said landscaping to be installed prior
to Final Building Inspection of said wali.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the
following vote;
AYBS: COMMISSIONHRS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux,
Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
NOBS: COM.4!ISSIONHRS: None.
ABSBNT: COHAlISSIONBRS: Hapgood.
CONDITIONAL '.::'s - PUBLIC I~ARING, PRITZ G00.SSBNS~ 2401 North Park, Santa Ana,
PBRMIT N0. 25~J California, Owner; DAVID W. HOOA, 1609 North Bush,.Santa Ana,
California; Agent; requesting permission to BSTABLISH A MOTBL
on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land 232
feet pius or minus by 814 feet plus or minus with a frotttage
of 232 feet on the east side of Huclid Avenue, the southwest
~,~ corner of which is approximately 300 feet north of the north-
~ east corner of La Palma and Buclid Avenues, and further
~,~~j~ described as 1154 North Buclid Avenue. Property presently
classified in the R A, RBSIDBNTIAL.AGRICULTURAL, ZONB,
Mr, David W, Hook, agent for the petitioner, appeared before
the Commission and stated that the petitioner pianned to use
the proposed motel as efficiency apartments in conjunction with
industriai requests for this type of development, that a
similar development was constructed in Long Beach and proved to
be quite successfui; that many of the industries the petitioner
consulted regarding the proposed development heartily endorsed
the subject development as it wouid provide a temporary abode
for visiting consultants and temporary personnel assigned to
projects in their concerns, said personnel prefering kitchen
facilities with their temporary abodes. .
The Commission asked the agent for the petitioner if they
would consides the possibility of eliminating a,11 but ten per
cent of the kitchen units, to which the agent replied they had
no intention of revising their plans as they considered them
the best ty~e of facility being offered for their use.
; C s ', ' x . t ; i , ". { : ~ ' r 3 :
r
~ I
~,
~.
t.i
l"~t'~~ .~.'~ 8_ c-~J ~ 2 5'~-
. .. . ~ ., _, . ~ ,
~ . . . ~. . - ~~ f ~ .
~ ~ ~
MINUTHS, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, June il, 19E2, Continued; 1009
CONDIT[ONAL USB - Mr. Arthur Horman, chairman of the Visitors and Convention Bureac~
PBRMIT N0. 250 Motel Division, appeared befdre the Commission and presented a
petition with 33 signatures r2presenting members of the Motel
• Division opposing subjeck petition, Mr. Horman also presented a
survey to the Commission indicating thc number of kitchea nnits
in the motels in Anaheim and surrounding communities, and stated
that the overall perceatage of units was 7.Sy6, that the Motel
. Division requested the Com~uission to take corrective steps to
make a clear delineation between apartment houses and motels;
that building code requirements for motels be devised; and that
the Commission and the City Council examir.e more carefuily ali
requests for Conditionai Use Bermits for proposed Motels until the
delineation and code requirements be formalized,
Mr. Robert Poilock, 1187 Arbor Street, appeared before the
Commission and stated that his property abutted subject property
to the rear and that he represented the property owners in the
surrounding area requesting that an aliey should be provided for
and that two-story construction should not be approved since it is
abutting single family resi.dences, that the general opinion of
the neighbori~g property owners regarding granting of said petition
is'to require the two-story building to be some distance from
the R-1 single family area, and that the alley easement be made
in or@er to provide for future development of any abutting property
of ingress and egre~s to the R-1 area,
In rebuttai Mr. Hook stated that there was no mention made that an
alley dedication in the Interdepartmental Committee reco~4mendations.
Mr. Pollock then stated that at the time of the purchase of his
property, a seven (7) foot easement was made for an ailey right-of-
~ way.
THH HBARING WAS CLOSBD.
The Commission discussed the appiicant's insistance that aii
kitchen units were to remain as proposed, that the proposed deveT-
opment tvas snbstandard to the R=3, multiple family development
'~ code requirements, that abutting area was stili undeveloped, and
that serious consideration should be given to the proper develop-
ment of said property. •
Mr. Joe Geisler, Assistant City Attorney advised the Commission
that under R-3, multiple family development code requirements, no
two-story building could be build within 150 feet of R-A, Resi-
dential Agricultural zoni.ng; and that in a petition for a motel
in said R A zone there was no two-story limitation, but that as a
condition of approval height iimitation could be stipulated.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding
~ 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
motel,
2. That the proposed use will adversely affect the adjoining
Sand uses and the grotdth and development of the area in which
~ ~ it is proposed to be located.
~ ~
~', MINUTEB, CI~Y PIANNING COMMIS3ION, June il, 1962, Continued;
c
';
!_.
~` ~
~'
t ~,
~ . -,
f ~
~
':.'i
r . ..=''~~:'~~,~ ...
CONDITIONAL USE - 3, That the applicant wouid not agree to removal or reduction of
PBRMIT N0. 250 the kitchen units in the proposed development,
CContinued)
4. That large parcels of land abutting subject property are still
undeveloped which oould possibly be used for R-1, ONH PAMILY
development, and that subject petition would then be incom-
patible with this development,
S. That subject petition represented a substandard R-3, MULTIPLB
PAMILY development and would be an inffingement on the R-3,
zoning of the Anaheim Municipal Code,
Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution No. 362, Series 1961-62,
and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissio~ r
Pebley, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No, 250 on
the bases of the aforementioned findings.
On ro11 call the foregoing resolution xras passed bq the foilowing
vote;
AYBS: COMMISSIONBRS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux~
Mungall, Pebley, Perry,
NO&S: COMMISSIONBRS: None.
ABSBNT: CONAiIS5I0NBRS: Hapgood,
CONDITIONAL USH - PUBLIC F~ARING. LHGRAND D, SPENCBR, 653 West Commonwealth Avenue,
PBRMIT N0. 253 Pulierton, Caiifornia, Owner; RALPH MATZER, 606 South Jefferson,
~ Pullerton, California, Agent; re.questing permission to CONSIRUCT
A WALK-UP BURGBR CHSF on property described as; An irregularly
shaped parcel of land approxima:ely 410 feet by 100 feet, with a
frontage of 410 feet on the west side of Los Angeles Street~ the
southeast corner of which is approximately 40 feet north of the
centerline of Cerritos Street, and further described as 1475 South
Los Angeles Street, Property is presently cxassi~ied in the R-A,
RHSIDBNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE,
Mr. Ralph Matzek, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the
Commission and stated he had noth3ng further to add to the
petition.
Mr. Aibert Bostwick, operator of the trailer park abutting subject
property appeared before the C~mmission and stated that lights
and noise from the proposed walk-up restaura~t would be detri-
mental to residents of the trailer park, and that if subject
petition were granted, he would request that a six (6) foot'
masonry wall be con3tructied aad if possibie he would like to have
an eight (8) foot masonry wall.
TH8 FIBARING WAS CLOSBD.
The Commission discussed the inadequacy of the required parking
spaces for the proposed development with 72 spaces required and
only 29 spaces sriown; that thirty (30) foot aisles wer e required
by zoning code for 90~ parking.
~(
C
iG y .
f,'.., _ . .. ~
~i
-...,.~A,~ _~_._:,.~.
.. ;. ,_ .. . ...i,.u . .. ......... .. .. . ,. ., 1 .~ , ..~ ~,~._ ~~'t.. .. ie. . . "~ix
.. .:. a
W
r -
~ '1
r_~._.~__ ___.___ ~
. . . . .. ... .i
i
'F
..
~~ : ~ :,. ~
MINUTB3, CITY PLANDTING COMHIISSION, June 11, 1962, Continued: 1011
COPIDITIONAL USS - Mr. Don Swango representing the petitioner, stated that any
PBRMIT:NO. 253 overflow of pa~king spsce needed could be obtained by using the
SContinued) liquor store parking area.
The Commission found ant determined the following facts regarding
' subject petition;
1, That the proposed use is properly one for which a Conditional
Use Permit is anthorized by this Code, to wit; establish a
walk-up restaurant.
2. That the proposed use Wiil 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 traffic generated by the proposed use wili impose an
undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and
improved to carry the traffic in the area,
4. That the proposed use would not be a compatible use in the
area which had prese~htable buildings adjacent to subject
property.
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 363, Series 1961-62,
and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner
Mungall.to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No, 253 on
the bases of the aforementioned findings.
On roil call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following
vote:
AY&S: COMMISSIONBRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungali,
Pebley, Perry.
NQBS: COhA~IISSIONBRS: None.
ABSBNT: COt~41ISSI0NBRS: Hapgood.
RBCBS3 - Chairman Gauer recessed the meeting of the Commission at 4:45.P.M.
to recoitvene at 7:00 P.M.
RBCONVHNE - Chairman Gauer reconvened the meeting of the City Planning
Commission at 7:OS P.M.
CONDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC HBARING. CARL G. HAYS, WILLIAM A. HUTTON~ JSSSBB N. HAYS~
PBRMIT N0. 254 323 Bast Ba11 Road, Anaheim, California, Owners; JOHN M, RSNT,
118 South Los Angeles Street, Anaheim, California, Agent;
requesting permission to ESTABLISH A SBRVI~E 3TATION on property
described as: A square parcel of land 178 feet by 178 feet at
the southwest corner of Ba11 Road and Harbor Boulevard, Property
presently classified in the R-A, RBSIDBNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONB.
Mr. John Kent, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the
Commission and stated #hat Standard Oil of:Indiana were the
lessees of subject property who were;new to the Southland and
planned to.erect other stations in Caiifornia; and that the
station~s dedication.of land would cut the availabie land area .:i
considerablq.
( .
~. ~
~
~
' 'I
~
~ ~~
~ ` ~
~J
~
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING CObMISSION, June 11, 1962, Continued:
~
~ ~ _
r . ~ '
F ~
CpNDITIONAL U9B - Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt stated that the Bngineering
PHRMIT N0. 254 Department recommended that the full fifty-three (53) feet
(Coatinued) dedication would have to be made, that instead of a thirty-~five
(35) foot radius at the corner, a twenty-five (25) foot radius
at the corner was recommended, that if the Commission saw fit
the Bngineering Department~would like to have the siopeat the
beginning of sai3 drive rather than three (3) feet from the BCR
in o=der to be able to give customers better access to the pumps
and present a clearer approach to the corner of Bali Road and
Hhrbor Boulevard; that~ingress and egress to the station from the
rear of abutting trailer park was omitted and that there were
two driveways from Hart+or Boulevard which would create a traffic
hazard.
The Commission indicated #hat plans were not in conformance with
accepted standards, that said plans shouid indicate ingress and
egress to the abutting trailer park from the west side of the
pxoposed station.
Mr. Art Daw, representing the Hngineering Department stated that
all recommendations as stated are desirable factors in the granting
of subject petition.
THB HBARING WAS CLOSBD.
The Commission discussed requesting compl:~e revised plans
indicating circuiation to the trailer park with the required
driveways from Harbor Boulevard that cutoff e,.trance to Ball Road
would be set back 125 feet.
The petitioners agreed that there should be access in the area
where the present road is to the north entrance of said traiier
park.
Mr. Kreidt then informed the Commission that the Fire Department
was not aware of the problems involved as there were no pians
ava:.lable at the time of the Interdepartmentai Committee meeting.
Commi,ssioner Allred offered a motion to re-open the hearing and
contiaue Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 254 to June 25,
1962 in order for the petitioner to submit complete plot plans
which shall be s~.pproved by the Traffic Department and Pire Depart-
ment.
Commissioner Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
~.~ ~~ ~ ~
F ~;.
RBCLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HBARING. I~IIt, and MRS, HAROLD SWANSON, 2117 Bast Lincoln
N0. 61-62-109 Avenue, Anaheim, California, Ownefs; W. W9ISH M~tNINGSTAR. -
Attorney at i~,.~, 10? Bast Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California,
Agent; requesting that property described as; An irregularly
. shaped parcel of land, approximately 96 feet by 84 feet, at the
nor.thwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Olana Way, and further
described as 2117 Bast Lincoin Avenue be reclassified from the
R-1, OI~ PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, 20NB to the C-1, NBIGHEORHOOD
COI~P!ffitCIAL, ZONB (Restri~:ted to Medicai Offices).
-dr. W. W. Morningstar, agent for the petitioner, appeared before
ti~e Commission a~d stated that the petitioner was planning to make
Bas± Anaheim his home, that deed restrictions were placed on homes
;
i
~
"';
`_: ~
",i
-r~ : . r ~. : --^^- ~-~-~--- _ ..--^"-- . - .---•~--~-~
.:. L . ..:.:. ^-_"~"
; ~r. ~ ~.~.1. -. .:~.!.r~r .~l../r~.~ ~,'..~ .., t~r'...:+ .~ ..,a~'.' ~•, . ...._. ,,,,."'
_.+...~ ~~..~a
__ _. _i
~
1013
RHCLASSIFICATION - in 1953; but that said deed restrictions were removed a year later;
N0, 61-62-109 and thSt plot plans indicate parking spaces for six cars with
~ CContinued) paxsing from the south of said street.
hlss Wiliiam Conneliey 21Q4 Ward Terrace appeared before the
~ -~
~^~.
E .~ .
~ ~
Cemmission and stated that subject property shares a common ailey
with the commercial area, that alley is constantly blocked by
coamercial vehicles, that to her knowledge deed restrictions had
not been removed, that to grant said reclassification would greatly
depreciate the value of the common access alley as any additional
commercial use of said alley would be detrimental, as heavy traffic
in said alley necessitated plscing af stop signs, that conditions in
and around said alley were deplozable in comparison to eight years
ago when her family moved into the area, and that granting of
said reclassification would set a prece3ent for all R-1 one family
property in the area beinQ tesed for commercial uses.
Mr, Joe Geislez, Assistant City Attorr~ey stated that the County
records did n~t indicate that deed restrictions have remained on
subject property,
Mrs. Leonerd HarrilY, 2118 Ward Terrace, appeared before the
Commission in opposition to subject petition and stated thai~ all
abutting property to the east was R-1, one family development and
that spot C-1 zoning would be detrimentai to the property values of
all adjoining property.
The Commission, secretary read a letter of protest from the Anaheim-
Sunkist Civic Association; two sep~rate petitions signed by 61
neighboring property owners opposing subject peti!•ion were also
read.
TFffi HBARING WAS CLOSHL~.
The Commissioa found and determined the foilowing facts regazding
subject petition:
1. That the petitioner proposes.a reclassification of the above
described ~roperty fro~h the R-1, ONB FAMILY RHSIDHNTTAL, ZONB
to the C-1, NBIGHHORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONB (Restricted to
Medical Offices) to establish a medical office.
2. That the proposed seclassification of subject property is not
necessary and/or desirable for the orderly and proper develop-
ment of the community,
3. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does not
properly relate to the zones and their permitted uses locaily
established in close proximity to subject property and to the
zones and their permitted ases generaily established throughout
the community:
4, That the proposed reclassification was not compatible to the
area, that if subject petition were approved a precedent would
' be set for the entire area,
Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No, 364, Series 1961-62,
and moved for its'passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner
Mungall, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for
Reclassification No. 61-62-109 be disapproved on the bases of the
aforementioned findings.
,
!
!
L
~a
j. .
.
r
~
a
~
a
~I b
I `i
~ ~
{
i
f a
1 , ~
~ '~ :
~ .
~ _._.
F,' !. ~ ~~~- . ~ i 1 . ~
\./
MINUT&S, CITY PLANNING COhA~tISSION, Ju~ 11. 1962, Continned;
RBCIASSIFICATION - On roil cail the foregoing resolution was passed by the following
N0, 61-62-109 vote;
6 • (Continued)
F
AY&S: COMMISSION~tS: Allrf:d, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux,
Mun/Sall, Pebley, Perry.
NOHS: COhAfISSIQAffitS; None,
ABSBNT: CQt~dISSIONffitS: Hapgo~d,
~
s.'>.
r.
r
s
4
~
~~
6
~
r
RfiCLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC fffiAP.ING. INITIAIBD BY Tf~ CITY COUNCIL, 204 Bast Lincoln
N0. 61-62-110 Avenue, Anaheim, California; requesting that property described as:
Two (2) groups of parcels. One group made up of Parcels 1, 2, and
5, with a frontage of 180 feet, a depth of 600 feet, the northeast
corner of which is 484 feet west of the southwest corner of Hmpire
Street and Lincoln Avenue. The second group made up of Parcels
3, 4, 6, 8, and 9~ is located directly on the southwest corner of
Empire Street and Lincoln Avenue, with a frontage of 112 feet on
Lincoln Avenue and 250 feet on Bmpire Street, and further
described as 2100-2140 West I.incoin Avenue from the R-A, RESI-
DBNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, Z@IE to C-1, NBIGHB~2HOOD COA4dBRCIAL, ZONH
for Parcel Nos, 1, 2, 3, .;:id 4; and P-1, AUTOMOBILH PARKING, 20NH
for Parcel Nos. 5 and 6; and R-3, MULTIPLB PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL,
ZONB for Parcel Nos. 8 and 9.
Subjeet petition,was filed in conjunction with Conditional Use
Permit No. 248.
Zoning Coordinator Martin I{reidt informed the Commission that a
map indicating the zoning action as recommended by the City
Council was prepared by the Planning llepartment, and that it
could be viewed bq anyone in the audience as it was placed on
the wall of the Council Chambers.
Mr. Jac~es Best, 2133 Hiawatha Avenue, appeared before the
Commissiion and sta4ed that he opposed the establishment of
Commerr.ial property oaly 150 feet from R-1, one-family residentiai
property on Bmpire Street because.of the depreciative effect on
any property on Hmpire Street.
Mrs. James Passo, 114 Bmpire Street opposed the proposed
commercial property extending 150 feet down Hmpire because a
porti~on of said property proposed for commercial use would be opposite
her property, and that she preferred to see R-3 extended farther
to the north on Bmpire Street.
Mr. Jack Ward asked the Commissioa if Linbrook Hardware had
informed them what they prdposed to do with the commercial
- property.
Mr. Jerry Marks~ of Liabrook Hardware, stated that the owner
pians to use subject property as proposed by the Council; that
he desired to remove a11 future controversies'once aad for ail;
and that as the sixth largest lnardware store in the country
they p~oposed to operate under C-1 zoniag.
The Commissioa stated that Linbrook operated with an open area
within the bnilding as a lumberyard which had kot beea approved
under a C-1 zoning,
I
4'
~
MINUTB3, CITY PLANNING CObMISSION, June il, 1962, Continued:
1015
RSCIASSIFICATION - Mr. Joe Geisler, As~istent City Attorney, was asked to read the
N0. 61-62-110 requirements under C-1, Neighboihood Commerczal zoning; and upon
(Continued) reading said zoning requirements stated that a variance has
specif3c zoning regulations upon which an extension can be made;
that the zoning f~r C-1 covers an e-:isting building or a structure
which may have an interior open •;uurt; that those areas not within
the wall are no~ considered C~1; and that removal of the existing
underground storage tanks wou~~l aot be required, but if new ones
were to repiace the existing ones a Conditional Use Permit must be
obtained for said replacement,
Someone in the audience stated that there was a rack of structural
Sumber piled in an unsightly manaer on the Linbrook property and
wondered if this piling of lumber extending over'the existing
walls would continue in the future .
Mr. Marks stated that the lumber would be the only item which
could not be hidden from view.
Mr. James Landeau asked the Commission if there wouid be any
changes from conditions as they existed at the time the 10,000
gallon tank vras instalied.
Mr. Chavos stated that no where in the original application did
it state anytl~ing regarding the storage tank.
THB HBARING WAS CL0.SHD.
Mr. Geisler stated that there was nothing in the code regar~~ng
storage tanks except in the M-1 zone and that at no place i~l the
code was the underground storage of tanks covexed.
Mr. Chavos stated that he had made a field trip on Sunday to
inspect the premises of the .Linbrook Hardware Store; that not
only did he find that Lit ;ioak was a hardware store, as requested,
but they also had facilities for C-2 zoning, and under C-3 zoning,
they had pumps for gas; under M-1 zoning they had builda~ng
materials, a lumberyard, paint salps, paint thiruters and an under-
ground storage tank as admitted by Mr. Fishman; under M-2 zoning
they had gravel, rocks, storage of bales of paper, storage of nails
and batteries; that said items were stored on a parking lot, This
then gave Linbrook C-1, C-2, C-3, M-1, and M-2 zoning on a variance
originally ~ranted for C-1; and that the parking area exten~ion
granted in 1958 was now being used for M-2 use.
Sased on the findings, Mr. Chavos feit that Linbrook was in
violation of their variance and use. Linbrook had been in
violation of one of the findings which read "that the requested
variance would not be mate=ially detrimental to the.public
welfare or injurious to prophrty or improvemetYts in such vicinity
and zone in which the property was located"; that the value of the
property in the neighborhood had greatly depreciated; that it was
a hardship to the adjoining pr~perty owners in having to take this
loss in the value of their property, but in addition, it was aiso
a loss to the~City, because the City could not offer ail the
adt~antages to property owners that a good city should offer; that
the home owners had fought the changes for four years to no
avail, and at one time were told that the City had not granted the
Linbiook variance, but that th~ Connty Supervisors had, and,
upon checking further with the Supervisors~ the property owners
found that said variance had been, in fact, granted by the City
~..~ ~
~ .~,
~I
~•
~ ~ , ~._ _. '' -
Q ~ ,
,
r...~ :1
V ~~
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING CO~~AlISSION, June 11, 1962, Continued;
RBCIASSIFICATION - of Anaheim on September 7, 1956; that Linbrook Hardware had also
N0. 61-62-110 practiced unfair competitive procedures while their competitors
(Confiinued) had complied with the laws of the City; that Linbrook Hardware had
a greater adv~ntage over their competitors, and that two of the
competitors had gone out of business because of this unfair
practice.
~ir. Chavos found that the prope:ty owners had complained for four
years the fact there was a different variance, that nothing was
done to request the petitioner to ~omply with the City's laws, and
that this would indicate a possible conflict of interest on the
part of the City Officials in view oF all the findings and
inspections he had made. If there were any other business,
Mr. Chavos stated, that enjoyed all the advantages which Linbrook
enjoys, he would take back everything he said,
Commissioner Allred stated that the Council would not have
ini.tiated subject reclassification if the Council did not feel
tliis could remedy an unfortunate situation.
Commissioner Perzy stated that the Commission and the Council was
trying to resolve something, but that so far nothing had been
accomplished, that it was felt that something had been resolved
several months ago but that now it appeared that that was not the
case. ~
Commissioner Camp offered a motion to refer subject petition to
the Council without any recommendation, since the Council was
instrumental in instituting subject petition, the Council should
resolve it.
Mr. Geisler then informed the Commission that some action was
required by law on all ReclassiFications by the Commission, and
a motion to grant or deny would have to be made.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding
subject petition;
1. That the City Council has initiated a reclassification of the
above described property from the R-A, Residential Agricultural,
Zone to the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone for Parcel Nos.
1, 2, 3, and 4; and P-1, Automobile Parking, Zone for Parcel
Nos. 5 and 6; and R-3, Multiple Family Residential, Zone for
Parcel Nos. 8 and 9.
2. That the proposed reclassification of subject property is
necessary and,~or desirable for the orderly and proper
development of the community.
3. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does
properly relate~to the zones and their permitted uses locally
established in close proximity to subject property and to the
zones and their permitt~"d'uses generally established throug-
out the community, '
4. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does
require dedication for and standard improvement of abutting
streets because said property does relate to and abut npon
streets and highways which are proposed to carry the type and
quantity of traffic, which will be generated by the permitted
uses, in accordance with tl~ circulation element of the
General Plan.
`
~; . , 1 ..' . ~ _ ., _ . ,_ .. _ ~ , -, . ,. 1', ..__..._. _ •.r~,'~r~.--~ _... .._ . . ., . _,.._. ~_.
~ J
i ~
( 1
I... -~
I
~
i; i
`;
'v'
_ ~ '
C~
MINUTBS, CITY PLAAIlVING CObAlISSION, June 11, 1962~ Continued:
1017
RBCLASSIPICATION - 5. That four people addressed the Commission in opposition to
N0. 61-62-110 subject petition, ~
(Continued)
Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. 365, 3eries 1961-62
and moved for i.ts passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner
Perry, to recommend to the City Coqnciltha't Petition for Reclass-
ification No. 61-62-110 be approved subject to the following
conditioas:
, i
c
~ ••
F
~
~
~r, ~
X f. .,kL.~::
1. Preparation of street improvement plans and instaliation of I
ali improvements fot Lincoln Avenue, and all improvements un j
Parcel Nos. 3 and 6, subject to the approval of the City
Engineer and in accordance with the adopted standard pians on
file in the office of the City &ngineer. Installation of
sidewaiks in the front of Parcel No. 1(formerly waived).
2. Acquire Lot A, Tract No. 2299, along the westerly side of
Hmpire Street,
3, Dedication,of 30 feet from the monumented centerline of Hmpire
Street (22 feet existing),
4, payment of $2,00 ger front foot for street lighting purposes
on Lincoin Avenue.
5, Instailation of sidetvalss and driveways ~n Empire Street in
accordance with the adopted standard plans on file in the
Office of the City Bngineer. ' i
6. Payment of a Park and Re~reation Fee of $25.00 per dweiiing I
unit to be coliected as part of the Building Permit,
7. 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 fettce or wall.
8. Subject to the approval of Petition for Conditionai Use
Permit No. 248,
, ~ 9. Time limitation of one hundred and eighty (180) days for the
accomplishment of Item Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7.
• 10. Provision of parking in accordance with Code requirements and
in accordance with the open air parking spaces standards
adopted by the Planning Commission and on file in the
Pianning Department.
il. Instailation of iandscaping in the parkway portion of the
Lincoln Avenue right-of-way Sine ~butting Pareei No. 3 and
installation of an 8 foot wide landscaped strip along the
southerly boundary of Parcel No,~S, plans for said Sand-
scaping to be submitted to'and'eub~eCt ~o'thA,eppsovai~of-Sup~rin-
tendent~o£ Parkway Maintenancea and.eaid landecaping to be;;inetalled
prior to Final Building Inspection, provided that-eatd,landecaping
in P~rcel No: 5 shall consist of a minimum 15.gallon size pine trees
spaced~at,24 foot intervals intersperced with Oleander trees spaced
" at 8 foot intervalso
12e Recordation of P-1 Deed Restrictions limiting the use of Parcel Nos.
and 6 to vehicular parking onlyo
13o Installation of an.18" high solid masonry wall alany the east line of
Parcel Noa 6, except the southerly l00 feet thereof, prior to Final
Building Inspection of the drivEVray on Parcel No~ 60 ~
.. ~ . .~, '~ ,{;:::,:i. n..{. ,^.~!~ . . . ., . . . ~ . .. i .. ,... ~.~4' 1 ... i _ , .;? ~;..fir Y'l ~~. ~~'!.': . Y>kt:` ! ... ~:a ~:.,.._+: ~'.-'~.~
~
~
. ~ iu
t~ e
~ ~
6 . -..~ . . '.~.._ . .. -'~ . _ .:. .. ,.. :.:
~ ...~ - ~ ~ ' ' •
~ ` ~ _ ~ e~~
~' MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COhA9ISSI0N, June 11, 1962, Continued: 1018
~
RBCJA33IPICATION -
14. SuY~ject to the approvai of a Conditianal Use Permit for a
NQ. 61-62-110
~, planned uait~residential development on Parcel Nos,,,8 and 9.
~ (Continued)
` 15. Subject to the construction of a six (6) foot masonry wali
~:' alottg the southerly boundary of Parcel No. 3 aad the southerly
100 feet of the easterly boundary of parcel No. 6 where said
~ parcels abut the property proposed for Reciassification to the
..
~
R-3, Muitiple Family Residenti~l, Zone.
.
F 16. Subject to the ~onstruction of a six (6) foot masonry wall
along the southerly boundary of Parcel No. 5 prior to
;' Fin~l Building Inspection of the parking area of Parcel No, 5.
17. Posting of a two (2) year bond to insure construction of e~
' six (6) foot masonry wall along the westerly boundaries of
~ Parcel Nos, 2~nd 5, where said parcels abut property
classified in the R-A, Residential Agriculturai, Zone,
18. Subject to the completion of ali proceedings under petition
for Reclassification No, 61-62-78 as approved by the City
Councii; '
19. Subject to Architectural Committee approval of all structures
placed on Parcei Nos, 1, 2, 3 and 4.
The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were
found to be~a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property
in order to preserve the safety and welfare of the citizens of
the City of Anaheim.
On roil call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following
vote:
AYBS: COhAiISSI0IVBRS: Allred, Camp~ Gauer, Marcoux,
Mungall, Febley, Perry.
NOBS; COf~4u(ISSIONBRS: Chavos,
AHSENf: COMMISSIONBRS: Hapgood.
Commissioner Chavos qualified his "No" vote by stating that the
Commission gave insufficient consideration to Mrs, Passo, the
property owner across the street from the proposed C-1 development
and to the property at the corner of Lincoln and Bmpire Street,
i.
'r:.,.. - . .
k
~.. ,
~
r.
4
~ ,~
N
~
~ .;
CONDITIONAL USH - PUBLIC HBARING. INITIATBD BY TF1B CITY COUNCIL, 204 8ast
PBRMIT N0. 248 Lincoln Avenue, Anahei~, Caiifornia; requesting that a MULTIPLB
PAMILY PLANNSD UNIT DHVHLOPMBNT BB PROPOSBD on property described
as: An L-shaped combination of Parcels 8, 9, 10 and 11 with a
front:.ge of 450 feet pius or miaus on the pest side of Empire
Street~ the northeast corner of said property being 150 feet
. south of the southwest corner of Bmpire 3treet and Lincoln Avenue~
and further described as 2100 to 2140 West Lincoln Avenue.
property presently class~ified in the R-A, RESIDBNTIAL AQtICULT[JRAL,
ZONE.
Subject petition was filed in conjunction with Reciassification
No. 61-62-110.
. , . . ~ . . ~ ~ ~ . ' ~. ~ ~ ~~..
. . _ , . . . . . . . I .
. . ~ . . . . . . . . . ~ .. . . . . . . . ~ ~ : ~'(i
'~~":,.''~'~. .._ 1. . ~ . „~ ., . . ', , . .t . . _.. ~~T-,. . , ~, vP,%.9.",. .. .. r.. .1~~""'_"' . ,_ . '
~ v '~
F
~ . . .. ... - _
F{' '~
~
L ~ . ' ~
'1
V
~~. .... _. . ,
~;: MINUTES, CITY PLADIlVING COhAlISSION, June 11, 1962. Continued;
CONDITIONAL U3B -
PffitMIT N0, 248
€ (Continued)
~, ..
1019
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt stated that subject petition
was the first step in resolving problems emanating from the
Linbiook~~ Hardware petition, that no ingress or egress to the
Lintiook property would be possible from Bmpire Street, and
that r,ny.proposed driveways w6uld serve the residents of the
proposed developm~nt oniq,
THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo
su~~ec~ie~i~~onound and determined the following facts regarding
P
1. That the proposed nse is properly one for which a
Conditional Use Permit is authorized by this Code, to
wit: a multiple family planned unit development.
2. That the proposed use will not adversely affect the
adjoining iand qses an$ the growth and development of the
area in which it is proposed to be located,
3. That the size and shape of the site proposed for tne 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 Conditional UseI~nnit under the ~
conditions imposed, if any, wili not be detrimental to
the peace, heaith, safety, and general welfare of the
Citizcns of the City of Anaheim,
5, That the traffic generated by the proposed use wili 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 Camp of€ered Resolution N~. 366, Series 1961-62,
and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded Uy Commissioner
Alired, to grant Petition for Conditionai Use Permit No, 248,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Acquire Lot A, Tract No. 2299, along the westerly side of
Bmpire Street.
2. Dedication of thirty (30) feet from the monumented center-
line of Bmpire 3treet (22 feet existing).
3. Provision of trash storage areas as determined by the
Department of Public Works~ Sanitation Division, which are
adeguate in size, accessible to trash-truck pickup, and
adequateiy enciosed by a solid fe~nce or wall; prior to ~
Pinal Building Inspection,
4. Instaliation of sidewalks and driveways on Bmpire Street
in accordance with the adopted standard plans on :ile in
the Office of the City Sngineer,
5, Payment of a Park and Recreation Pee of $25.00 per dwelling
uxlit to be collected as part of the Building ~erm.it,
6. Subject to the compliatt~e and_completibn of'PBtition for
Reclassification No. b1-62-110.
--'-~ r-;^-~; ~~---~
r.':i ~ _. .:~ ~ 'f, + ,_.
. ,. ...... . ... .. .
~ ~ .. . ~ . . . .'.• .
V ~ ` T
~ . .. ~ ~ ~ ~k ~~
~ l
.. .. . _. . . . . ~:1
~ ~_._~__~. _. . . , , . . _-.
f: :. ,
~
~ ~
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COh9YtISSION, June 11, 1962, Continued;
CONDITIONAL USB - 7. Time limitation of one hundred and eighty (180) days for the
2'BRMIT N0. 248 accomplishment of Item Nos. 1, 2, and 4. •
(Continued)
8. Subject to the reclassification of subject pxoperty fA the R-3,
Multiple Family Residential, Zone.
9. Sub3ect to the installation o~ a six (6) foot masonry wali along
all boundaries of subject property except ~he entire street~
frontage of Parcel No, 7.1 pra.or to Pxnal Building Inspection.
10. Dedication of ail access rights of subject property for the
entire street except for those openings provided for the sole
use of tenants and their visitors of subject development.
11. Limitation of recordation of deed restrictions limiting subject
property to muitiple family residential purposes only~ and '
Simiting structural height thereof to fifteen (15) feet above
natural.grade level.
12, 3ubject to the approval of plot and building plans by the
City Council.
On roll call the foregoing resolution wns passed by the foliowiag
vote;
AYES: COh4dISSIONBRS: All=ed, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux,
Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
NOBS: CQhAlISSIONBRS: None,
ABSBNT: COI~fISSI0N8RS: Hapgood.
RHCIASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HHARING. B~jAMIN DABULIS, et al, 2504 Orange Avenue,
N0. 61-62-i11 Anaheim, California,~ Owner; requesting that'property described as:
A rectangular parcel: of land 120 feet by~348 feet with a frontage
of 120 feet on the south side of Orange Avenue, the northeas•L
corner of said property being 180 feet west of'the southwest
corner of Webster and Orange Avenues, and further descriSed as
2504 Orange elvenue, from the R A, RBSIDENTIAL AQtICULTIJRAL, ZONB
to the R-3, MULTIPL~ PAMILY RBS1'DBNTIAL,'ZONB.
Subject petition was filed in conjunction with Conditional Use
Permit No. 249.
Mr. Theodore Pearson, 1855 West Blm Street, agent for the petitioner~
appeared before the Commission and stated that he had nothing to say
at this time, but would be available to answer any questions,
Zoning Coosdinator Mactin Kreidt inforcaed the Commission that the
pr~posed development incorporated inadequate sp~ce between fronts
of the proposbd structures, that piot plans indicated substandard
dwelling units, that said units indicated 570 feet. 552 feet and
810 feet, that inadequate turning space in 'the: parking tva~ noted~
and that the petitioner proposes the development at variance from
Planning Study 33-28-3 endorsed by the Planning Commission and the
City Council, and that subject study stipulates a maximum density of
6,000 square feet of iand area per dweiling unit with a recreatianal
area of 100 square feet per dwelling unit,
_:': .i
;:, .
..:.4
1021
RBCIASSIPICATION - Commissioaer Allred offered a motioa to cont~inue the hearing of
N0, 61-62-111 Petition for Reclassification No. 61-62-i11 until the meeting of
_.' iContinued) July 9, 1962 in order to allow the petitioner sufficient time in
which to present complete and revised plot plans incorporating
all suggested changes.
j Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
~
COAIDITIONAL USH - PUBLIC HBARING. BSJAMIN DABULIS, et ai, 2504 Orange Avenue,
PHRMIT N0. 249 Anaheim, California, Owner; Tf~ODQRB B. PBARSON, 1855 West Blm
, Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to
CONSTRUCT A ONB STOitY PIANNHD UNIT DBVBLOPI~ffiNT oa property
described as; A rectangulaz parcel of land 120 feet by 348 feet
with a frontage of 120 feet ~n the south side of Orange Avenae,
the aortheast corner of said property being 180 feet west of the
southwest corner of Webster and Orange Avenues, and fusther de-
scribed as 2504 Orange Avenue. Property p~esently classified in
the R:A, RBSIDSNTIAL AGRICULTURpL~ ZONB.
Subject petition filed in c;.njnttction with Reclassification No.
61-62-111.
Mr. Theodore Pearson, agent for the petitioner appeared before
the Commission and stated that he would like to have subjeCt
petition heard at the same time as Reclassification No. 61-62-111
aad that subject petition be postponed until that time.
Commissioner Pebley offered a motion to continue hearing of
Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 249 to July 9, 1962, in
order that it be heard in conjunction with Reclassification No.
61-b2-111. Commissioner Alired seconded ine motioa.
MOTION CARRIBD.
RBCI.ASSIPIC'ATION - PUBLIC HBARING. A4t, and MRg, S. ROACH, 345 Haxgrove Street, '
N0. 61-62-112 Inglewood, California, Owners; BBN J, I~SS, 11912 Della Lane, !
Garden Grove, California, Agent; requesting that property ~
described as: TWo (2) rectangular parcels of laad. PAttCgL 1: i
Being 125 feet plus or minus by 290 feet plus or minus, with a !
frontage of 125 feet pius or minus on the north side of Lincoln
Avenue, approximately 700 feet west of 8uclid Avenue, ppRGgI, 2;
Being 200 feet plus or minus by 300 feet, adjacent to and north
of Parce1 1, and further described as 1747 West Lincoln Avenue,
be reclassified from the R-A, RBSIDHNTIAL AGRICULTURqL, ZpNg j
to C-2, GgNgRqL COD9dffitCIAL, ZOI~ID for Pazcel No. 1, and M-1, ~
LIGI~MpIQ[JPACIURING, ZONB for Parcel No. 2. (
Mr. &en J. Hesa, agent for the petitioners,appeared before the
Commisaioa and stated that petitioners had a 35-year lease on
subject property, that the proposed plans for subject property
would present a subatantial improvement to the area.
TH8 HBARING WAS CLOSHD.
The Commission discussed the location and extension of the
proposed development as to whether it extended both to the north
aad to the east; and if there were any plans for landscaping
subject properLy facing Lincoln Avenue.
'
-r-^----,---------~
' .~:5~;.:~s;J.x?'..r.. ~ ,Y....- -.. _.~.: . „ ..:....1._ . '^.?~~ ... ~~n-.~} 1 ?~ .:,4i~,'_~'+:`ci ,,.~~I ,~~~1 i.~i.`'.~ ,
... .. . .. . .. :~~
~ r t °t > G.'~~. ~~. ~,`.i.ev~.'Vwf ~.~...''i,.. ~.!F+ry?.:. 3a :~l.t,~n_ ...",~^:- _ . • ~ . .
~ ' ~t~
~ - '
, .
,~..
.
= ~`, r~ ~; .~ ?
. ___:`._ _
., .__ _:
_,
;~: i :
~ ~ ~
r MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COAAlISSION, June il, i962, Coatinued: 1022 ,
~.:,,.. _ _.:
~„
4 . ~ . ~ ~ . . . ~~' ~~
RBCIASSIFICAT'ION - The petitioner stated this would be to the east only and that
~ N0. 61-62-112 ,subject property projected easterly toward Huclid Avenue, that ~
` (Continued) there would be no parking.in the front of the property but "
~ facilities were beiag provided in the rear, aad that landscaping
was planned for subject property fzcing Lincoln Aveaue and
~ ~ a fountain. .
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt suggested that the pm posed
landscaping be no less than six (6) feec and that th~e setback I
should be thirty-five (35) fee;. ~ •
E
1I~ HBARING WAS CLOSHD.
The Commission found and determined the foliowing facts
+ regarding subject petition:
1. That the petitioaer proposes a seclassification of the I
above described property from the R A, RHSIDBNTIAL AGRI-
~'~ CULTURAL, ZONS to the C-2, GHNBRAL COMh~tCIAL„ ZONH for
Parcel No. 1, to use for banks, offices, and stores and M-1,
LIGHT MANUFACTURING, 20NB for Parcel No. 2, for Warehouse
facilities.
2. That the proposed reclassification of subject psoperty is •
necessary and/or desirable for the orderly and proper . • '
development of the community.
3. That the proposed reclassification of subject property
does properiy relate to the zones and their permitted
' uses locally established in close proximity to subject
property and to L•he zones and the3.r permitted uses generally
established throughout the community.
4. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does
not require dedication f~.r and standard improvement of
abutting streets because said property does relate to and
abat upon streets and highways which are improved to carry
the type an~i quantity of traffic, which wili be generated
by the peraitted,uses, in accordance with the circulation
element of the ~eneral Plan. •
5. That no one appeared in opposa.tion to subject petition.
~ Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 367, Series 1961-62,
and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner
" Pebley, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for
Reclassification No.,61-62-112 be approved subject to the
~ foliowing conditicns:
1. Prepazation of street improvement plans and instaliation of
all improvements for Lincoln Avenue, subject to the approval
of the City Engineer and in accordance with the adopted
,: s~tandard plans on file in the office of the City Hngineer.
2. Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes
on Lincoln Avenue.
~: .
~ 3. Provision oE trash storage areas as determined by the
Department of Public Works, Sanitation Division, wni~ri are
adequate in size, accessible to trash-truck pickup, and
adequately enciosed by a solid fence or wall, prior to .
Pinal Building Inspection.
~:
~ : ~'
~ ,: ;
' ~~
~ ~'Y: ) .. . . . . .... . .
~ ~ .'L'~`~ Y~+ ~ . ' . . . . . . . '
~ ~~ b~ ~ . ~ - . . ' - ~ ~ . . . ~ ~ ' . . .
{$~. ~~`r 3g4~%4'3 .. . , ~ . . . . . ~ , ~ ~ ~ . . . .
4u ~'Y~ ~ ~ ~ . . . ~ . . . ~ . . . . . -
i ' y
r '~. -
~ ; ~
:
~z ~ ,
c . ~
~~~ ~ t.:. _
, , ~....,~ ---~ ;,
r~~ .: ~~ ~-= -Y~- a . ): ~~- ..f~. ..~ , ~~: .~~~ i ~ ~:
~ ~
`' ~.~~~n.~:..~,,~..,«..j..~.~ ... ~., ., o.tk~.-.... .... vri~'~.?5 :..;w +., f; ,..~ ~".;c&:~ <,. ~ ~~. ~' ~_....,....~. ta.r., .. ~:.~;. x_r.;7,-~?#lrt,.b:Y uAt ~l ,t :~~ .~,.t -
._.. . 1~ .. ~i,. 'L, v..
;.~.r . ~ ~ , .....n. , .. . . ..,_
~ 1~V• .Vi-V4-: .~
~ (Continued; ~w~ •~ '. ~~~~ ~.___~_ . ~__ . _..' .. ' . - _
the subjecY property to ad'equateiy serve the subject property
~:. a~ other properties, at the time of the iastaliation of the
service facilities.
S. Inatailatioa of ,fire hydrants, as determined to be aeceasarq
~~ by the City of.Anaheim Fire Marshall~ to provide adequste fire
protection.
r '
6. Time iimitatioa of one.hundred and eightq (180) days for the
~ accomplishment of Item Nos 1, 2~ and 4.
~; ;- 7. Developmeat substantially ia accordaace with Bxh3bit Nos. 1
t through 5.
8. Instailation of a 35 foot landacaped setback abuttiAg the
Lincoln Aveaue right-fo-way line~ aad that said landscapiag
~
c; :;: ~ be instailed prior to Pina1 Buiiding Inapectioa.
9, posting of a bond to insure the construction of a six io)
S . foot masonry wall.where said property abuts propertq classified
in the R A, Residential Agricuitural, Zoae.
F The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were
fouad to be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property
in order to preserve the safety and welfare of the citizens of
` bhe City of Anaheim.
qn roli ca12 the foregoiag resolution was-passed bq the foilowing
vote:
' AYBS: ` CQMMI3SIONBRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Guaer~ Marcoux,
.. ..
Mungall, Pebieq, PeLry.
, NOH3: COI~9YfIS3I0NBRS: None.
pBSBNT: CO1~AiISSIONBRSe Hapgood.
. 1
RHCLASSIPICATIOAI - PUHLIC FffiARING. LBO Mf. VAND(Yt, 8412 Pox Hi11.Avenue~ Bellehurst, . :.
:
NU. 61-62-115 Caiiforaia, Owner; DR, ,1oHx"J..blAGRANN'~.407 South Archer~ Anaheim,
~ CaSiforaia, Agent; requestiag tliat property describea:as:' An L-
`
shaped parcel of land adjacent to service statioa p=operty st the ,
aostheast corner of Ba11,Road`aad Snott Avenue, havi~g a frontage '-
oi: 90 feet plus or minus on Bali Road and 70 feet on:Bnott Avenue
be reclassified from the R-A~ RBSIDBNTIAL AQtICULTURAL; ZONB to the
.
G1, . NBIGf~CRH00D COD4dBltCIAL, 20NH.
Mrs. Dee McCarder,.agent•for the petitioner, appea=ed befo=e the
Commission and stated she Was avaiiabie 4o_answer any questioas
the Commission might'have. -
Mra. Annie Tores, 3435 iKest Ball Road, appeared,before the Commissinn
and etated she objected:oniy because-a.commercial development vaithout
a wail wouid endanger her smali chiidrea, and that she would like to
see.a block wail const;ucted on"the north aad east boundaries of ,;
-
' aubject.propertq.
Mr..Parke Young,,920 South %nott Avenue, appeared before the Com-
mission and stated that:hia property;abutted,imeiediately.,to the°, ,.• ~
nor#h of sub3ect.:propertq, that an irngation iiae'which was,uaed
for, his property.vrould;ties,cut.off 'bp'the con8truction of a biock.: ~
wall as the irrigatioa line outiet aould be,`on Lbe sou4herly side ,
of the block waii. =
;
,~,,,
.
±]
i
,
: h~`4 ~
~ ~~;
V ,.,
y~>~
~
. :r2
~
~ ~
~ i
:3 ~~
~
. . .. - ,,.,r ~.. .. _. .~_ .., . ~1
.~, .r i.." JJ
The Commissioa found and determined the following facts regarding
subject petition:
1. That the petitioner proposes a reclassificatioa of the above
described property from.the R A, RBSIDBNTIAI. AGRICULTURAL, ZOd~18
~to the C-1,. NHIGHBORHOOD COMMBRCIAL~ ZO1~ffi, to construct medical
aad professional offices.
2, That the proposed reclassification of subject property is nec-
essary and/or desirable for the orderly aad proper developmeat
of the community.
3. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does.
properly relate to the zones and their permitted uses localiy
established in close proximity to subject propertq and to the
zones aad their permitted uses generaily established through-
out the community. .
4, That the proposed reclassification of subjeet property does
require dedication for and standard improvemeat of abutting
streets becanse said property does relate to and abut,upon
streets and highwaps which are improved to carr.y the type
oind quantity.of traffic, which will be generated bp the
permitted uses, in accordance with the eirculation element of
the General Plan.
5. That two persons appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Commissioner-Marcoux offered Resolu~ioa No. 3b8, Series 1961-62,
and moved for ;its pa§sage_and adoption, seconded by Commissioner
Mungali to secommend that Petitioa for Reclassification No. 61-62-115 ,
be approved §ubject to the following conditioasa
L Dedicatioa of fiftq-three (53) feet.from the monumented center- '
line of Ba1T Road and Knott,Avenue (30 feet existing).
2. Preparation of street improvement plans and installation of all
improvements for Ball Road:and Rnott Avenue, sub,ject to the -
approval of the City Bngineer and in accordance with the adopLed
standazd plaas on file in the office of the City Bngineer.
3. Payment of ~2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes on ~
Ball Road'aad.Knott Avenue.
4. Provision`o£ trash storage areas as determined by the Department
of;Pubiic Works, Sanitation Division, which are adequate in size~
accesreible to traskt-truck'pickup, and,adequately enclosed by a ':~.
~ solid feace or wall, prior_to:Pinal B~Llding Inspection. -.
5. Time limitatioa of one hundred and eighty (180) days for the .
accomplishment of ~Item Nos.:1; 2, and 3.:
6. Development substantially in accosidance with Bxhibit Nos..i, 2,
and.3.with #he exception.that the proposed>parking shall be_
revised to provide 60 degree angular parkiag in accordance'with
'
code'requirmeat8, and :that a six`(6) foot.wall'be canstructed < .:
along-the'aorth Aad east`bouadaries of subject property...-.
.7,- Inatallation of.a aix'(6) foot minimum etrip of landscaping.on
`Snott Avenue<and Bal1 Road,right-of-way land abutting=sub,ject
- ' propertq. Pians for said landscaping to be submitted to and: . 7i
, -
.,
' T.~
,
_
k
_
~- ~s~
~ ,~
~
~ ~
.:
.
. . ~ . . . . ' ~
.. ~ . i .'. ::~ ., ~..'. .~- ~' , ' ,' . . _ ., :- ~-~ ;i u4
~:.
._
..: ' ~
~. ' :
, ~
~ .
~
~~ ~ ' ~~
-~~~ ~f1
~ r .r;
•.
_ .
,
,
.
. ' ...
.
. ~ . .. .
~. . ...,' ~ , . . . . ' ~ ' .
~ :Y
.
1~.7~
.
.~. . '., :. .~~ . ~~, ., . .. .: ~.. ~
..
I
~
t ~ ~#~'~
t
.
2 `C' .'
'
: .. ~.•
i r i
~
v
_ ~+-~.~-....I~~~ li ~~ if fi,. yr.. ,..1Y a+v~, ;sxr..:a };~.~)~E.'.
ra. ...:<.. n. .. i.:r.. a~.i ~_... . . __._- _ __._. _ . . ... . ........_ ,. . . _..... _._ .~ ~. ._... ~.__....
,~.,,
!jY
t`
~;::':'':;
RHCIA3SIPICATION -
N0. 61=62-115
(Continued)
subject to,the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway
Maintenaace, said laadscaping to be inatalled prior to Final
Building Inspection. ' .
8. Recordatioa of. G1 Deed Restrictions restrictiag sub,ject
property to medical and professional offices of one storq
constructioa only.
9. Provisioa of ttie extensioa of an irrigation pipeline on
sub~~ct gr ~e~t~ to tha ~p~~s~t~ side of~ the proposed masonry wall
on e n r~ o ndary o ec proper,yo
The foregoing c..;nditions were recited at the meeting and were
found to be a neeessary prerequisite to the use of the property
in order to preserve the safety aad welfare of the Citizens of the
City of Anaheim.
On roll call the foregoing rea~lutioa was passed by the foilowiag
vote:
AYBS: COihA~lIS3I0NHRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux,
Mungall, Pebleq, Perry.
NOBS: COI~AlISSIOI~BRS: None.
AHSENT: C~AfISSIOI~TBRS: Hapgood.
- RBCIASSIPICATION - pUBI.IC HBA1tING.' VIOI.A M. JONHS, 215 3outh Bush 3treet, Anaheim,
N0. 61-62-116 California; Owaer; HARRY B, LINDI~ffiBHRG, 214 South Sunkist,
~ 1 Anaheim, California, Agent; seqnesting that property de
sczibed
,
as: A rectaagular parcel of land 155 feet bp 50 feet witlr a
frontage of 50 feet on the west. side of Bush Street, the south-
east coraer of said propertq.being 141 feet north of the aorth-
west cornes of Broadway and Bush Streets, aad further described
as 215 South Bush Street be seclassified from the R-l, OI~ PAMILY
RBSIDHNTIAL~ ZONS to the R-3, MITI,TIPLB PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL~ 20NB.
Mr. Harry B. Liadneberg, ageut for ~he petitioner~ appeared
before the Commission and stated he had nothing further to saq,
but that he would be glad to anawer any questiona the Commission
might have. . .
Mrs. John Swaia~e, 211 South Bush Street~ property owner abutting
subject property~ appeared befor.e :the Gommission and stated that
the street was too aarrow to accommodate aaymore multipl~e famiiq
developmenta, that the alley to rear of aub3ect proper.tq {vould be
; = biocked conataL4Y~ as it was on the oppoaite side of.the atreet -
where a,number of oue storq multiple family dwellings were
~
~ reeently built, and that proper.ty owners residing on the atreet ~
never had access to parking facilities frontiag their properties
~ because.residents.of the apztments occupied all the avaiiable
" space, and said:propertq owners in the area were also opposed
.
~ to subject petition.
:
6 TfIS I~ARING WAS CLOSBD. ~
~ T
e C
i
i
i
d
h
omm
ss
on d
scusse
the densitq of the proposed f,our unit
'
t apartment that there was oniq.sufficieat laad to accommo~aie
t
~- ' three units and provide a little recreational area on said los~
~r a~; and that although the sub,jeet property had'a depth of
155'feet
F~' ~'Sz .
; it only had a 50-foot frotttage. ;
r ~:
~f~
~k ,
. . . ~ .
~ ~ ~
~
~ . .~
-
~ ~ ~
~
~l
PF
C ~j ~i.4
`
k~ . . , .
. .
.
.
_ . . .
.
. ~ ~ ' ~ ~ . . ~ `h
~
Y
~
~ '. ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ .
.
4
4~
~~
/ ~ ;
, ~ , .
_
, .. .
.
.
k~'i
!~t . . ..
.
.
. . . {
V' 4 . ,
S~
'y~ I
~
~
~, 7 ~ .l
9
~A
~~ .
~
h
r~at „ ; ~
~
1 ~ ~ 4
~
N f~.' ~,
. '{
j' ~
JLy,
~+3~ 4 .~ ~
.
~~1/s~"
~ , .
~
~ a y w~~
7
~
~
yy/
{Sl~~~{~
~
~P`~°'L~ '~ ' ~
7O/~s~r~r _ .. . . . . __ . .. .. _ ., .. ._,. e . . . '__ . . . _ ~
.:
~~~
~~`q
a,. ~ :\t L~'+~ f~~Q
~ i ~ : . r'~. Y~ ..nlt'~'~i ~.'~i!ix4~~'S~l w.~:a w*fr.~: ni.:re'v . ~S'~?ti. ~sa a'~`„"-»~«'?~$ o ~ » ~: r . ",. .
N `~ ~'
` - " . .. . ~ I.~I ~~ . . . . . ... .
k '
1tSCIA33IPICATION
N0. 3i^62~T17
2. That'the proposed reclassifieatioa of subject propertq is
not neceasarq aad/or desirable for the orderly and proper
developmeat of the community.
3. That the proposed reclassification of sub,~ect property
does ttot properlq relate"to the zones and their permitted
uaes iocally esteblished in close proximity to subject
property and to the zones aad their permitted uses generally
established throughout the community.
4, That the propoaed deveiopmeni was too dense for the aquare
foot area of subject pzoperty, and that ao.recreatioaal
facilities were provided oa the proposed plans.
S. ThaL one person representing nearby ueighbors appeared in
opposition to subject petition.
Commisaioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 369,tSeries 1961-62,
and moved.for its passage and adoption, secoaded>by Commisaioner
Pebley to recommend to th,e Citq Councii to disa`p~rove Pe;~ition
for Reclassification No. 61-62-116 on the baeei~'Of the aforementioned
findingt. . ~ .~.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foTlowing vote:
AYES: COMNIISSIONERSs Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Nlungall,
• Pebley, Perry.
Sub3ect pet t on was e n con3unc on w n oaa ae
Permit No.'25,2. ~
Mr. Lloyd Mount~'ageat for the petitioaers appeared before the
Commi,saioa, and stated that he wae addresaing his conmenta.for
both~t9~~reclassificatioa aad the conditional use permit; that
the.propoaed densfLg.-ofe:.the deveiopneat was leea than one-haif of
the miaimuai.code~ie_qui,rement.,;.that.the uait~:.xouid have st~ingle
roofs, and .that the petitioner would'lite;.to aake uae of aa
existirig awimmiag pooi on sub3ect properti~.
NOES= . CONaIISSIONERSe~. Nonee
ABSENf: COI~I[ISSIONERSs Hapgood.
- PUBLIC H&+RING. MR. and MRS. BIRBY HAIR, 501 3outh Ynott
Aveut~e, Aaaheim,:Californie sad:HRAIDSTO and MAXINE SIG4IA,
13141 gerry, Garden Grove, CaliLfornia, Owners; reqaesting that
property described'as: A rectangular pareel of lan3~'-264 feet
plus or minus bg.460 feet plus or niaus, with a frontage of.26'4
feet plus or minus on the west side of Rnott Aveaue~ the aouth-
`east corner being 38L feet pius or minus no~th of #he northxest
cosner o.f Sno#t:and Orange.Ayenues be reclassified'fraa the R-A
RBSIDBNTIAL AGRICULT[AtAL, Z01~ to the R-3, MULTFP~B..PAMILY
RBSIDBNTIAI., ZO1~B.
i i fil d i ti ith Co d3.ti 1 U
~
y
~-
x •
~
1
_ ._. _ _.. - ._...
---- -
' ~
~- .
~
~
i
E
r - t,; _..
~
~ -
~
~ ,
:~;=
MINUIBS, CITY PIANNING COA9NTSSION, June 11, 1962, Continued:
1027
RHCIASSTFICATION - Mr, Michaeal 2ahra, 3406 Glen Holly Drive, appeared before the
N0. 61-62-117 Commissioa and stated that the proposed development xould meet
(Continued) the approval of the Westridge Howmeowners Association.
THB HBARING WAS CL06BD,
The Commission discusaed a similar reclassification which was
approved oa abuttiag properties to the soutm, that subject
petition was comparable to the recommended development for the
area; that plot platts iadicated a ten (10) foot area between
buildings which would have to be covered.
The Com~ission found and determined.the followiag facts
regarding subject petition:
1. That the petitioner proposes a reciassification of the above
desCribed property from the R A, RESID~VTIAL AGRICULTURAL,
ZONB to the R-3, MULTIPLS PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, 20I~ to
construct a planned unit development.
2. That the proposed reciassification of subject property is
necessarq and/or desirabie for the orderly and proper
deveiopment of the community.
3, That the proposed reclassification of subject property does
properly relate to the zoaes and their permitted uses
iocally established in close proximity to subject property
and to the zones and their permitted uses generaily
established throughout the community,
4. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does
require dedication for and standard improvement of abutting
street because said property does relate to and abut upon
streets and highways which are proposed to carry the tqpe
and quaatity of traffic, ~vhich will be generated by the
permitted uses, in accordance with the circulation element
of the General Plaa. •
S. That no one appeared in opposition to sub,~ect petition.
6. That carports instead of garages are to be constsucted,
Commissioner Camp offered Reaolution No. 370, Series 1961-62,
and moved for its passage and adoption, secoaded by Commissioner
Allred, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for
Reclassification No. 61-62-117 be approved subject to the
following coaditions:
1. Dedication of fifty-tLree (53) feet from the monumented
centerline of Snott Avenue <30 feet existing).
2. Pr~eparation of street improvement plans and installation
of all improvements for %nott Aveaue, subject to the approval
of the City Bngineer and in accordance with the adopted
standard pians on file in the effice of the Citq Engineer.
3. Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes
on Knott Avenue.
~
~,. ,.. .. . ,. ~ .. . ... , ,. ~, ,::±. .s , .~:.~.. ,, . ~ --
~ ~
~
~. ' w
•
' ~- ---- ---- --- ~
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COM~lISSIUN, J~~ne 11, 1962. Continued: 1028
RSCIASSIPICATIOt~ - 4. Paye~ont of a~ark and Recreation Ree of $25.~0 per dwelling
N0. 61-62-117 unit to be collected as part of the Building Permit.
EContinued)
5, Provision of trash storage areas as determined by the
Department of Public Works, Sanitation Division, which are
adequate in size, accessibie to trash-truck pickup, and
adequately enclosed by a solid fence or wall, prior to
• Pinal Building Inspection.
t~. •Subject to the approval of Petition for Conditional Use
Permit No. 252.
7. Developer shall contact Standard Oil Company regarding
~, protecting, lowering, replacing or relocating their pipe
lines and related facilities prior to Pinal Building
Inspection or priox .to the installation of street improve-
ments.
8. Instailation of fire hydrants, as determined to be necessary
by the City o£ Anaheim Fire Mazshall, to provide adequate
fire protection.
9. Time limitatioA of one hqndred eighty (180) days for the
accompiishment of Item Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 7.
10. Developmeat substantially in accordance with Bxhibit Nos.
1, 2, and 3 except as amended bq this action.
il. Provision that breezeways between the proposed building be
covered.
12. Provision that all carports be stuccoed on three sides on
the inside, tha! bumper guards be installed at the front of
said carports aad that enclosed atorage cabinets, and that
enclo3ed storage cabinets be provided ia each carport; that a
fifteen (15) foat setback area be prov3ded where the pro-
posed front yard trash area, and the proposed recreational
area encxoach into said front ya:c1.
The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting aad were
found to be a nacessarq prerequisite to the use of the property
in order to preserve the safety and welfare of the Citizens of
the City of Anaheim.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the
foliowing vote:
AYBS: COMMISSIOI~RS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mazcoux,
Mungsii, Pebleq, Persy.
NQHS: COMMISSIOPTEAS: NonP.
AB9ENT: COMMISSIOI~RS: Hapgood.
~! ~
MINUTB3, CITIC PIA?IIdIYG CONflKISSION~ June il, 1962, Continued:
1029
COImITIONAL USB - PUBLIC F~ARING. l~IIt, and MRS. BIRBY HAIR, 501 South Rnott Avenue,
PffitMIT N0. 252 Anaheim, California, and MR, and I~fftS, gRNBSTp SIGAIA, 13141 $erry,
Garden Grove, California, Owners; requesting permission to
CONSTRUCT A PIANNBD UNIT DBVBLOPMIBNT oa property described as;
A rectangular parcel of lan~d 264 feet plus or minus by 460 feet .
plus or minus with a frontage of 264 feet plus or minus on the
west side of Rnott Aveaue, the southeast corner beiag 381 feet
plus or minus north of tue aoa:h-west corner of 1Cnott and Orange
Avenues, property presentlq classified ia the R-A, RBSIDENTIAL
AGRICULTURAL, ZONH.
Subject petition was filed in coajunction with Reclassification
No. 61-62-117.
Mr. Lioyd M4unt, agent for the petitioners appeared before the
Commissioa and stated he had nothing further to state to the
Commissioners,
THB HHARING WAS CLQSBD.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding
subject petition;
1. That the proposed use is properly one for which a Conditional
Use Permit ia authorized by this Code, to wit: a plaaned
unit deyelopment.
2. That the proposed use will not adverselq affect the adjoiaing
land uses and the growth and developmeat of the area in
which it is proposed to be located.
3. That the size and shapeof tihe site proposed for the use is
adequate to allow the fuii deveiopment of the proposed use in
a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the
peace, health, safety~ and general welfare of the Citizens
of the City of Anaheim.
4• That the granting of the Conditional Use Permit under ~e
conditions smposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace~
health, sasety, and general welfare of the Citizens of the
City of Anaheim.
S. That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not
impose aa undue burden upon the streets and kighways
designed and improved to caxry the traffice in the area,
6. That no oae appeared in opposition to subject petition.
7. That carports instead of garages are to be coastructed,
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 371, Series 1961-62,
and moved for its passage and adoption~ seconded by Comm3ssioner
Perry, to grant petition for Conditioaal Use Permit No. 2 52,
subject to the foliowing conditions:
1. Dedication of fifty-three (53) fee~t from the monumented
centerline of ltnott Avenue (30 feet exiating),
2. Preparation of street improveweat plaas and installation of
all improvemente for Kaott Avenue, aubject to the approval of
the City Angineer and ia accordance with the adopted atandard
plans on file in the office of the City Hngineer.
V ~ ~
~
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, June il, 1962, Continued:
•
1030
COI~ITIONAL USS - 3. Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes
PffitMIT N0. 252 on Raott Avenue.
(Continued)
4. Payment of a Park and Aecra t of the BuildingOPermitweliing
unit to be collected as P
5. Provision of trash storage areas as determined by the
Departme~t of Public Works; 3anitation Division, which are
adequate in size, accessible to trash-truck pickup, and
adequately enciosed by a solid fence or wall, prior to Pinai
Building Inspec~tion.
6. Subject to the approval of Petition for Reclassificatiou No.
' 61-62-.L17.
7, Aeveloper sha11 contact Standard Oil Company regarding
protecting, lowering, rePlacing or relocating their pipe
lines and related facilities.
8, Installation of fire hydrants, as determined {o be necessary
by the City of Anaheim Pire Marshali, to provide adequate
fire protect3.on.
9. Time limitation of one hundred and eighty (180) days for the
accomplishment of Item Nos. 1, 2, 3, and ~.
10. Development substantially in accosdance with Hxhibit Nos. 1,
2, and 3, except as amended herein.
11. Provision that breezewaYs bexween the proposed buildings be
covered.
12. Provision that ali carportg ~ stuccoed on three sides of the
inside; that bumper guards be installed at the front of said
carports, and that enclosed storage cabinets~ be provided in
each carport; that a fifteen (15) foot setback area be pro-
vided' where the proposed front yard trash area and proposed
recreationai area encroach into said front yard.
pn roll call the foregoing resolution was passed bq the following
vote:
AYBS: CONAlISSIONBRS: Muagall,CpbleyhaPerry~uer, Marcoux,
NOBS: CI;d~AiISSiOi~ffiFtS: None.
pHSHNT: COMMISSIONBRS: HaPBood.
F ~~' ~ ; il~
~.. . s, ~:
~
F
f!';
RECIASSIPICATION - PUBLIC FffiARING. L. B. HARBO~+ .TR• ~`~ ;'+~ILL BUTLBR, 2283 West
N0. 61-62-118 Lincoin Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting that
property described as: A rectangular parcel of land 167 feet plus
or minus, by 226 feet plus or minus at the northwest corner of
Lincoin Aven4_ and Monterey Street be reclassified from the R-A,
RHSIDSNTIAL AGRICULT[JRAL, ZDI~ to the C-1, NBIGHBORHOOD COMMffitCIAL,
ZONB.
V
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COhAfISSION, Juae 11, 1962, Continued:
1031
RHCI.ASSIPICATION - Mr. Merrill Butler, one of the petitioners, appeared before the
N0. 61-62-118 Commission and stated that when both petitioners subdivided,tract
(Continued) of subject prope=tq was a part of tae County of Orange, that
after the map had been recorded the petitioners had applied to
the Countq for a C-1. NSIGHBORHOOD CahA~ACIAL~ 20NB, that
finally the property was annexed to the City of Anahe3m and
subject property reverted to R A, RBSIDHNTIAL AGRICULT[TRAL, ZONB:
and that the petitioners had discuased the matter with the citq
officials at that time, but the petitioners were advised that
nothing could be doae until a precise plan was available.
The Commission asked the petitioner whether they xere planning to
build the proposed professional buildings, and the petitioner
replies that the petitioners were not building themselves, but
that a development company was buying the property that said
development company specialized in constructing the propo,snd
type of structure, and that subject building was proposed to be
a garden type office building.
Mr. R. L. Richmoad, 2254 West Polk Avenue, appeared before tlie
Commission and stated his propertq abutted to the north of sub-
ject property, that abutting property on both sides was R-1
oae family development; that he represented the two other
property owners who c~esired only one story construction and a
six (6) foot masonry wall be constructed on the aortherly
boundary of subject property.
' Mr. Lewis Dragicvich, 9802 Polk Avenue, appeared before the
Commission and stated he was not opposed to the proposed
professional buildiag but that he felt approval of subject
petition might establish a precedent for the entire east side
• of the sabject property.
THB HBA1tING WAS CL06BD.
The Commi.ssion found and determined the following facts
regazding subject petition:
1. That the petitioner proposes a reclassification of the
above described property from the R-A, RBSIABNTIAL A(~tI-
C[JLIURAL, ZONffi to the C-1, NSIGHBORHOOD COh9dffitCIAL, ZONH
to construct a ga:9en type professional office building.
2. That the proposed reclassification of subject propprty is
necessary and/or desirable for the orderly and proper
development of the community.
3. That the piuposed reclassification of subject property
does properly relate to the zones and thei= permitted uses
iocaily established in ciose proximity to subject pro;~erty
and to the zones and their permitted uaes generaliy estab-
lished throughout the community.
4. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does
not require dedication for and standard improvemeat of
abutting streets because said properfq does relate to and
abut upon streets aad highways which are improved to carrq
the type and quantity of traffic, which will be generated by
the permitted uses, ia accordance with the circulatioa
element of the General Plan.
. ' .r
~ ~
C_)
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June lx, 1962, Continued; 1032
RBCIASSIPICATION - 5. That two persons appeared in opposition to subject petition,
N0. 61-62-118 one of whom aiso represented two property owners abutting
(Continued) to the north of subject property.
Commissioner Alired offered Resolution No. 372, Series 1961-62,
and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner
Perry, to recommend to the City Couacil that Petition for
Reclassification No. 61-62-118 be approved subject to the
following coaditions;
1. Installation of sidewalks and driveways on Lincoin Aveaue in
accordance ~Hith the adopted standard pians on file in the
Office of the City Bngineer.
2. Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes
on Lincoln Avenue and Monterey Street.
3. Time limitation of one husrlred and eighty (180) days for the
accomplishment of Item Nos. 1 and 2.
4. Development substantiaily in accordance with Hxhibit Nos. 1
and 2 with the exception that parking space No. 48 be deieted
and replaced in part with a minirt~um six (6) foot strip of
lanscaping, that the patio walls aoutting the Monterey
Street right-of-way be relocated three (3) feet westeriy to
provided a three (3) foot minimum landscaped strip abutting
Monterey 5treet, and that the building including aay.
marquees maintain a thirty-five (35) foot setback from the
Lincoln Avenue right-of-way line. ~
5. Recordatioa of private deed restrictions limiting the use.of
subJect property for business and grafessioaal of£ices only.
6. Provision of a miaimum three foot landscape setback abutting
the Monterey Street right-of-way.
The foregoing condition were recited at the meeting and were
found to be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property
in order to preserve the safety and welfare of the Citizens of
the City of Anaheim.
On roli call the foregoiag resolution was passed by the foilow-
ing vote:
AYBS: COhQiIS3I0I~EtS: Ailred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux,
Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
NOHS: COMMISSIOPIDRS: None.
ABSBlVT: COMMISSIOIVBRS: Hapgood.
RHCIASSIFICATION - PUBLIC H:4A.RING. HARRY RNISBLY, 730 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim,
N0. 61-62-119 California, Owner; Requesting that property described as: A
rectangular parcel of iand 138 feet plus or minus by 266 feet
pius or minus with a frontage of 266 feet plus or minus on the
north side of Rateila Avenue and 138 feet plus or minus on the
east side of Bayless Street, and located oa the northeast
corner of Bayless Street and gateila Avenue, and further d escribed
as 1515, 1523, 1531 West Ratella Avenue, be reclassified from the
R-1, ONB FAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, 20NB to the C-1, NSIGHBCRHOOD
COhA~IBRCIAL, ZadVS.
Mr. Harry Knisely, the petitioner, appeared before the Commiesion ~i
and stated that in 1959 the three parcels under consideration I
were under one onwership, that Lhe'request for a reclassification ,
to construct an office building at that time was denied, that j
~
~ 1 . r _.~ , . -------~-~----__-- .
_ , -_.~ _
~ ~
.. , ~ ...,.--~ . . -_ __.. _ . .,,;... , .,.. .... .. ...; . ;.`,F
V .~~, ' ' ~ ~~ ~~~ ~.
E. MITdOTAS, CIT7t PLANNING CON-dIS3I0N, June 11, 1962, Continued:
RBCIA9SIPTCATIOIi - recently a reclassification for C-1 was also denied, but upon
~
°'` N0. 61-62=119 recommeridation of the City Council a study was made and the
~ (Contiaued) Plaaniag Department =ecommende3 that sub3ect p;operty be used
for business and profeasional oifices, that a common drive would
exist between two of, the lots ia subject petition; that the
~ subject pm perty was now aader three owuerahips; that the
~ existing structure oh sub,ject propert'y would remain that faciai
~ changes were propose'd~ by leveling the roof aad remodeliag to
~ i change int~ a busine'ss structure, that something was planned in
~ , conjuaction wiih tne cnurch praperty which was the ceater lot,
and that the petitioner agreed to exchange easemeats with the
~;••- church for use of the common drive.
~ Mr. Geisler, Asaistant City Attoraeq stated it was not legai at
~ present to have a common drive between two properties that if ,
k'' >` subject petition were approved a condition should stipulate.that.
' a single drive shall be maiatained by both property owners
~ adjoining the driveWay.
~
Mr. Stanleq Stobaugh~ 1524 Holgate Avenue, appeared before
~ Commission.and stated that if subject petition were granted all
p :R-1 property ia the area would suffer through property 4
depre~iation, that he was opposed to aa.office building in a ~
•residential area~ that he represented several aeighbors who alao !
r
~ opposed subject petition.
; Mrs.Stanley Stobaugh stated there were no business buiidings
f _ east of sub,ject property that only single family homes were9n the
r. area. .
i ~ . . ~ . . . . _. t
~ Mr. Bnisely in rebuttal, stated that gatella StYeet was conyert- I
iag to a..commercial area,;that it reQresented a seryice road,to the
4 ~Countrq Ciub; and-that aii property in the vicin3tp wouid turn
i commercial~because of the; heavy traffic.
` TFID F~ARING WAS CIASSD.
~ -_,Commiasioaer Camp asked the petitioner if he deEinitely waiated },
to change`_the character. of the building or did he favor the idea
of cleaning up and painting,.but keeping the character of the
house to-harmonize with the other property, and the petitioner
, °
stated he wanted #o change the facial structure Qf the buiTding.
The Commissio.n found and fleYermined-the following fac.ts regarding •
sub,jec'c.petition:
1. That the petitioner proposes a reclassification of the above
' described property from the R-1, ONID;PAMILY RBSIDIINTIAL, ZaNE,
to.the C-1,, NIDIGHBORHOOD COhAlHRCIAL; ZOI~ to establiah
t business'and professioaai offices aad church activities.
r. . .
2. That the proposed reclassificatioa of subject pzoperty is
- necessary.and/or'desirable for the orderly and proper
development of the commuaitq.
3.: That the proposed reclassification of'subject property.does .
: properiy relate to'the zones and their permitted usee
: locally ~stablished`in.close proximity to aub,~ect property:and
': to the zo~nes`aad _their permitted uses:geaerallq estabiished
throughout.the.community.
~•
+~
, .
:s „5
y~ :
, ''
~' : '
s-0
~`~ r- ~~
'h~' ,r
~
~
.,
~~ ,_ I i ;
< <
t ; ,
~ ~ --'""n'~;7ie....~.~ r"~"'~! _~C .r~ x+ .._ :n.=r. .r ..`, ~...,., .'d5 .r...,.. .,,1.~~ ~.i .T.i}..`~.. .l..,v:r..`e.a. .'t~5~,}..r .. . .i .._ .
"_. . . ,.. . . ..~.. ~
~. . . .
''
i , __
pp ~ ~'.. ~ v (,}. .. .^ > , ~ , l ¢1".'i'vo , i.i Se Ir:h3f y.'?,'i,•
' ~.~3r,. ~i~sa'Nv` . a.. 'k .:y:ed, . ~
~~`L .. ~ ~ .
[ ' ~~:~ Vj ~ ~
' ~~. ' 1~~ it~` • ..
MYA'~~R~ .
~ ~
~ .
~
~'.
~ C
~j~ ~:~ o ;
-~
,
~
~
~
~ _ t
: : ~ . : _ .
~
~:
~ ,. ..
MINUTB3~,CITY PIAIVNING COMMISSION, June 11, 1962, Continued: 1034
' _ .
~ .
RHCLAS3IPICATION, - 4; That the proposed•reciassification of.subjecfi property does
,• N0. 61-62-119 not.require dedication for,and stand~asd improvement of abut-
~~ (Continued)~ ' ting streets`becanse.said property d~es relate to and abut ,
~ upon streets and highways which are improved Lo earry the
' type and„quaat~tg of;,traffic~ which'wiil be geaera'ted by the
perlni,tted uses,,~in accordance with the circulation elemeng .
~ of the General Plan. ~
.
!;
` 5. -That two people appeared `in opposition to subject petition. ~
~ Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 373, Series 1961-62, ~
a~d moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner
~,~,; Allred, to recommend to #he City Council that Petition for
a' Reclassificat~on No. 61-62-119 be approved subject to the
foliowing 6onditions: • .
1. Payment uf $2.00 per:front foot for street lighting purposes
,.
on Bate.lla AVenue and Hapless`Street:
2. Provision of.#rash storage areas as determiaed by ~he Depart-
+ ` ment o
f Public Works; Sanitation Division, which are adequate .
.
: in~size, accessible to trash-truck pickup, and'adequatelq
-eaciosed by a solid feace or waii~ prior to Pinal Hsiiding.
Iuspectioa.
- 3. Time limi4ation of one hundred and.eightq (180) days for the
_ `accompli§hmeat of ltem No. 1. :
' 4. Recordation of Deed restrictions,limitiag the use of sub3ect •
'
.. , ,property to_'chnrch purposes and businesa,and professional
_
'
" offices oriiy,
r. .
5, provisioa of a six:(6)'foot masonry wall-to the rear of
subject property, said wall.to;match masonry wall.abutting
subject property. _ :
6. SubjecL tu the appropal of the Architectur~l Coatrol
Committee for any alterations to any exist~ag structures.
2. Proviaion that subject structures ahall remt+in as R-i single.
familq'residences,uatil buildings are~completed prior to Pinal
~
Buiiding Inspection:. .
8.; That a common,drivewaq be used`between Lot Nos. 9 and 10,
and,ehall:be maintained:by both property ownera of ad,joining ,
'said drivewaq.
~
,.
, ,
The,focegoing conditions wexa =eeited at the meeting.and were
,
~ found to be a necessary.prereqaisite to the.use of 'the property '
y in order to p'reserve the safety.and`~'_f~re of the•Citizens of -
` the Cif.y of Anaheim.
~ On roli call the foregoing resolution was p'assed by..the fol2ow-
~ irig.vote:.:
,
~
.
' ` ` . . ; - AYBS .~ C01~9~lIS3IONIDtS: _..Alired Camp, Chavos Gauer Marcoux `
. ~ ~. ~ ._ ~
~
, `.~Mungall,:Pebiey,•Perry•
t NOBS.. COMdIS3I0NERS ` None.
t ~:
;~ AHSffiVT • COI~AIISSIOI~tS: ' Hapgood
~
~
'
}
p
~
~'
~'~rr~ ~
~~
~.
i
~ `~ ~
~.
{
~ ..~, . ':
~
"
'
~
~
+ .
:
, ~ ,
.'
. I
-
~
.
~,
~ ~ :
.
.
. , . ~. ~; .~.,~
,.. . ,. '~ ... ,. ~ .
~
r ~
~-
'
~i ~ } ~
'a~ry
+a ~~ti~~~ ,f, ; ~ .r
~ ~:. ~:
~
~R
~
t ~ r ~:t
..
.
~~ ~
: 1 ;~~
i
f i 1 r.,. ~
,~
~',
t ,~ .
.. ~.~ ;
~ .,'
h
`
t ?,~
<,~r ~a, x. '~ ^
,
-~'~ p~
a . . . '. , n., ~,~ L. , ,~ ~ ~~~ . . „ . .... >s",~f . ~. > `.'. . . r ~. .1< . , 6~~i.,~~R?,. ~ i ,'/s.. .,'s4 ~ ..'t~~. * t; ~~: ~t?P ,~7;~:~~~. t..,-.,-=_-,.,-.'~. r. . .
,. t
, .5 ;
„ ~
_ ..; ~.~SFfk~1S~^~,~,iY~,a.~~ ._~.a.~ 7 . .n ~i^ ar~: e [,r:?~.~'' ~.~ ~~.S+~k;'.+s" ..~,~ .:
n~ !
' :1
~ ... ~ . ..
-
~
~
7
~
. . .
' ~
~t' . ::7:'.~. . 5
~~ ~~9 f ~~~-. ~ ~
,
~~-
~
~
: ~
? ~, ~
e
~
,
;
- : , . a
~MINUTESs=CP".-:'L9NNING GOMMISSION; June 11, 1962, Continued= Page ~1035. .
~ ~ ~ ~ i
REPORTS ~ANID. - ITEM NO>. ls KTTCI~N UNTfS "IN MOTELS PROPOSED FOR' ANAF~ItA. ~ ~ ~
REC01~9V~I~ATIONS ' ,
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt gave a report on._the nwaber of kitchen!
units in ths existing m,otels_'in and eround Anaheim; that the report
indicated at 7.5~ of tiie Anaheim motel units were equ~ped with
~
kitchen #acilities; ttiat an additional 20 motels<which are not
•
1
: , ~embers of the.Visitors`and;Convention Bureau, Motel Division were ,
,
~ not contacted as to their facilities; and that a policy or I '
, recommendation,from the Commission would be appreciated by the !
~ ~
'~lanrii.ng'yepaximenti szaiing'%ne mazimum percantaga a': uzita
~
of proposed motels that would`be allowed by the:Commission.
',
; Commissioner,Marcoux offered a motion to limit.the number of kitchen
~ units in`any propoeed:motels'to 10A6 of the total nurobeT of units
ei
~ r
: m
being proposed,`and that this:be the stated,policy of the Anah
~ ,. Planning Commission. .
~ Commissioner Camp seconded the motiono MOTION CARR~D.
~
k
, ' .
TTEM NOo 2s
~ Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt.read a report from the City '
Manager's 'office asking that the Commission.consider changing
~ the name :of Miller Street to Moore Street.
~ The Commission iequested that.the Searetary prepare for publication
~ a notice;to change tke name:of Miller Street to Moore Street
to be;heard at' a Public Hearing June 25, 1962e
ITEM N0.=3s :PROPOSED:PLANNING STUDYe _
~ The Camnissiom discussed requesting" of the,:Planning Department
E the possibility of;a Plarining:Study of th"e~area around the
~ Watexwheel'o
~ Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to request~the Planning
~ Department present,a:Planning Study;of-the area-bounded.bn the -
' north by.Romneya Drivei, on the west,by.Euclid Avenue on.the
' by.La Palma Ayenue and:on the:east by the single family
south
~~ ,
subdivision to;the Anaheim Planning Commission upon its completion. ,
'
~:•
~
_ Commissioner:Ghavos_seconded'the,inotiono;,;MOTION CARR~D.
'
`
r CORRESPOI~IDENCE - ITEM NO.- ls
~ and .
MISCELLAI~OUS
Request;to the Director of Pub13c Works regarding Landscaping on
~ . ~ East Street between La Palma`:and ~tomneya Diive. ., '
F
~ . Commission Secretary read a,blue not'e from the Director of
,.
~, , .
Public..Works9':ihornton Piersall, in".reply to a reques~.;to'his
~ ' departm'ent to.investigate the~possibility of landscaping in.the _
..~ ` ': : ~ `. abbveC.named .areao -`..
'~The Commissioner,Marcoux offered a:inotion to accept and.'.file the .
~° ` -b,lue•notea Gommissioner Mungall:,seconded the motion. MOTION:.CARRIED.
~~ ~; : , ': ..
. . . „
.-~ ~~-. ~ ~ ~~ .-1
~ITEM-NO~e 2a
.
,~ ' , , , , :
{ '~ ~ Zoning,Coordinator Martin Kraidt.advised ,the Comaission'that the
~
kf '~ `,Southein California Planning Congress June meeting was.:being :
~P ~ ~ )k,4
a~;; ~
` . ..
held~June 14, 1962 at<the Lakewood=Country Club'in Lakewooda .
°
`
C .
` ry
~;~ , : „ • , . ' • ; `.
i ;
sh ~
;~~% Commissioners:Camp~ Gauer, Marcoux, and Aebley indicated they would - i
a
~ ~::r~s
..~~tY
R~7 • : attend o;: , d
: ,
(
r
~. . ' .: .
' j L
`
~ '
~
-
~ (
,
L'b
..;.n .
~.~. . .,~.. .
. .~ ~~:. .
..,.. ...~ _ .
' _ .,
.,
. ~ .
.. . ~. . ~
:..'.:
~ „ . ~ "
. .'- , ' _
f F
G
'(,. ,
. ~
~
1 " ~ ,
•
~i ~
. ;
.
. .:: 1
4
T~ ~r x ' ~
t~
~~I ~
{
: « ~ ~ ~
~+
`', ~'' ~
~; ,' _ 4 .~
'.
..
. t ~
t 1
/~
}~+'
ri :N' f
I /
~.
at'~;~~y~
i .'
r ~tt`}1,~~~r~3c ,. - ~r x ~ i ~~ 5 ~ ~ ~
~
1
~ E'
r
Ij?0 Z~
.J
;1~ ,+a? '
~
Y ~ ( h { 4 ~7`'`{ 7 .t ~ ~ ~~~ I
~ 'Cy 1 1 ~
~1 ~~ YS
, .~.
,
~~ l i " ~ ~lSi ~ '
~- `f
~~ } 51 1 ~
~.
~~F Yi~'~' V ' ~ ~ a" '1 ,t :
~ '
c
.
'f• i~ ~,
.~
~
{ ~
r
~j ,~ ~
IE.°_' ~ s~. p,_~ `
~
~
.
....d~f., _) w ~, r.i,.. .~.. a+iiF.YCd1vP'~tt".17 . :
. J
.
._._
4
~
~
..... ~l"~r ~ `;r'""F'..':`t:~"~' .y~.~. _. . .t, n.. )~"~?: ~,.ti K ~ °.jl~ :_ ., .._.ifi ~.~ ~ ~+e V...~.1':.. ..~.F,.'~.#^.:SY'I~..f!~ h ~...... , i.w. .. .. i` . . ~ . ~ . . . . .. ~ . . ..g.,.:
- .
'
~ _ ~ .~_!,r+.~ r~h(~ ~.r ~ ~
„rr;1F~.. `isn ~~.yt ~.)._ .
~ ~
,
t~
~ ,
c.
. ..
~ ~-
,
~
..
.
.. ~ ..
.~'
~ '
. .. - it".'.:? . ~ • .
! d
" ~~~s.~ ~ ti ~ . .
. , :~ ~~ - . ~ ~ . ~ _ . . .~.~~~~r . . ~
~ ~
. . -
• ,
~
f r_.
:. _ . . . - ,
~ . .
MINUTES, CITY, PLANNING COMPAISSION9 June 11,' l%2; Continueds Page 1036
'
{
CORI~SPOAIDENCE- - TfEM.NOo 3t ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING.COMMISSION U5E VARIANCE N0. 4988.
~ and
MISCELLANEOUS Zoning Coordinator Maxtin Kreidt read.a letter from the Orange
, County Planning Commissiom regarding Use-:Variance No. 4988, whiGh •
~
~ asked for the'Commission's revlew an8 recommendation on said Variance, ~
' that said Use Variance ~as a request for the;establishment of a ~
i
~ - real estate:office.in the RP, Residential-Professional District '
~; ' on the east side of Brookhurst Strae~ 51Q :eet north of Lincoln ;
Avenue,:that sub~e,ct area is in the proce.ss of:aiu~exation to the '
~ City of`Anaheim, and that a.plot plan had b,een.received.
~ ~ The Cortuni$sion discussed the various businesses in said area in '
~
relationship to the.piopused:plans and use§ for said area when ,
~, sub3ect area is annexed to the City of Anaheime i
~ . Coamnissioner Allred offered a motion to advise the Orange County
Planning Commission that the Aneheim Planning Commission acknowledged
receipt_of their letter and to advise that the Commission recommended
~ denial.of sub~ect Use'Variance No.,.4988.on the bases that it was
not.compat3ble with the proposed plans and uses of sub~ect property
~. when'the area in which the subject property was located was annexed '
s
,. bY the City of Anaheimo. . .
t"
~
~- Commiss3oner Chavos seconded the mot3ono MOTION CARRIEDa
f TTEM NOe 4s
~ A note was,read from Marvin Krieger of the Planning Depertment
~ .. ` asking.;that the:~ommission make a.c.larification statem^,nt to ._; ~
~~ `, be furtHer"cor%idered at'the`City Council meeting regarding Codes
r. Section;18e04o030 (a)`fer the provision of.xalls.separatirig. ,
, multiple family and.commercial devel,opnents,o' The question was
, discussed and'referred to tlie Planning Department, with`suggestions9
'
p for further`study. - - -
i r -
ITEM NOo 5s ANAFiEIM COUNCIL OF HOIu~ OWNER: ORGANIZATIONS. (
~ The Commission Secretary re,ad a letter fran.the Anaheim Council of I :
,
` Home Owner Organizations signed by:the piesidents of six Anaheim
Civic`Associationsa''The letter indicated:the Council's affer of
; `'assistanc? to.the.Cominission whenever the Commission:felt'it was
r •.' importar:~ t~...t`:all concerned ba fully informed regarding any item :,
' on "the' es .. ~ae;
,.: ;. ,.;
Commissioner Chavos offered a motion.to direct ttie Secretary.to
. _ .
• ,
; directi;a,letter: to the Anaheim Council;pf'Home Owner Organizations '
a `thanking; them:;:for their inteiesty,:ai~d ad+iising` them that if the .
~~ occas3on~d3d arise the-Commissibn,would be' glad to advise them
S and ask'them for theix,coopesationo Com-nissioner Allred seconded _
~ the motiono-,:MOTION CARR~De ,
TfEM NOo 6s . .'
..
Zoning';Coordinetor Marti::_:Y.reidt advised .the Commission`that a;
'; > ;reviewjof the; General:Plan.:for'boundaries~and uses in the Disneyland
- aiea was to have been:presented to them; but tliat Planning Director
Richard;Reese i~as unable to';do so~because he was`'delayed by.a:Budge ~
meeting;` andi that ttii`s review. would be presented to the• Commiesion ~
' at the next work sessiono
~
~r ~ ~
~ i ~y',~'~
~ r~ ~ .~ '-~~ ::' ..~' ~: .:: .`. .'_ '.:' ,-. -.-. _
ADJOURI~NT There b
eing no;further business tio ~transact Commiesioner Camp ~
~~' ~~r
;~ .
t _offered.'a motion to:~ad~onrn;the
meF.ting:of; the :City of :Anaheim ~ + ;
~
~, ~ _
,
4s ,Elanning Commissianb_`Commissioner Perry seconded the motion.'.
' >. :
,
~c~` .
~ 'MOTION;-CARRIEDo ' ..
~
i Re ctfully _'u mitt`d~
,
~ ec e ary;. :
y ~ y
!
T ~t
~ ..
( .
~
~ ~
~.. .~' . ;
~
"~ ~
J
}{.i
' .
r
y' ', .I ' ~ J .
: :.( - ~~ : K ~)t J 1
r
J li i ti
.F
'G~a~ ..I~1 ,
2: ,~, ,~ ~_. ~. . , -. t .. 1 ~. ~ ~:. ~~ i ~
~ . . . . . , '~
. ~ h h"
f
~
y
~~~~ u_~~~` ~ ~ la~:,
t •. t er. !.LF'~6 aiz_._ ~ n-:1:r...7i,,.1 I.... i . Ie.Pa.bv... , ~.'},~?t.., . .._S4i .li'!:?~.k.3 J}af. ~ ~4?vu!P~RF1r./ks:(n. @ --_ . . . }j}'i