Minutes-PC 1962/06/25~ _. . .. . .' ~. ~ ~ ~ • - + c
.G ~
. . ^.':~dd~
,~' ~.. . ~ . . .
~~ _ .. ._ . ... ..•'.
.~
-:~~. ~ ~ . ..,
~
City Hali
Anaheim~ California
June 25, 1962
RHGUTAR MBHTING OP TH8 ANAIiAIM CITY PIANNING COhQ1IS3I0N
ggGUTAR MBBTING - A Reguiar Meetiqg of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was
called to order by Chairman Gauer at 2:00 0''Clock P.M., a quorum
being present.
pRg3HNT .- CHAIRMAN: Gauer. i
COMMISSIONBRS: Camp, Chavos, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley. !~
~
a.
pgSgNT ~-~OMMISSIOIdBRS: Allred, Hapgood, Perry. j';
\, ~• ~'
pggggNT - ZONING CO~t INATCR: Martin Kreidt.
~
ASS TANT ITY ATTORNBY: Joseph Geisler. 1'
~
C~A! CRHTARY: Ann Rreba.
`` J
~1
INVOCATION - Reverend A1. Casebeer, Pirst Christian Church, gave the ~
invocation. '
pLHDGB 0P - Commissioner Mungall led the Pledge of Allegiance ;to the Plag.
ALLHCIANCB
APPROVAL OP - The Minutes of the meeting of June 11, 1962, were approved with
MINUTES the following corrections:
Reciassification No. 61-62-110:
Page 1015, paragraphs 8 and 9 to be deleted and
*' " 1016, paragraphs 9 continued and 10 to be deleted and substi- ~
tuted with Commissioner Chavos' copy of his verbatim diacussion as follows:
" Mr. Chairman: -~
On Sunday afternoon I inspected the premises of the Linbrook Hurdware 3tare and,
am herewith making my report to the Comc~~ssion. I request therefore~ that my report
be taken down verbatim. '
My findinga, Mr. Chairman, show that Linbrook Hardware not only operates a hasd- ~
ware store, as requested on thqir appiication, but a nursery which is C-2 zoning--
under C-3 zoning they Y,ave cabinets--electricai supplies~-sheet metai and a plumbing ~
shop. ' ~ _
Under M-1 zoniag~I found building materiai--iumber yard--paint mixing and as
admitted by Mr. Marks, an underground storage of 10,000 gallons of paiat thinner. :
R
Under M-2 zoniag I found sand, gravel~ rocks, atorage of bales of paper and junk. °
The parking lot is not oaly used as parking iot but also as M-2 use, and i found
storage of trash--nails--pipe threading and other diaposable items. •
These findings, Mr. Chairman, show that Linbrook Hardware is enjoying five
different zonings--C-1, C-2, C-3, M-l, and M-2. All of these Mr. Chairmaa, under a~
variance for Hardware Store. Al1 of these Mr. Chairman, in the middle of a community--
e., commuaity that existed long before Linbrook Hardware ever moved into the area.
~ ~~~.lk-`~l:°7+/.~'\C~ViP~~fljNi~'P.aV ...Yt:.!'~ S?F~l4t.~~~~.~.Y.~?1r.~~ i~ '!tA~-~i: !-.i:_
r
_
.~ k.i
~ ~
, . ~
.
~h'1 ~4 A '
.~f~~\..'~'.
f
~ ~ .
. .':~.
. . ~~ ` . . . .
:~. .~.. . ...... . ~~~
. ~.~ .;,~: -, .~~ '. ~. ~ . .. .
-,~ . , . .
~ . . .: . . . ...
. .. . . .....
: ,
~ ~~ ~~ . . . ' -
~ ~ . . . . . .
`%y
' ~ ~ ~ ••~~ . . ~ ~ . . ~ . ~ ~. .
~
~;
~ MINUT83, CITY PIANNING C~9~lISSION; June 25, 1962, Continued;
~'.`
~
~
:~
~.
r
~4~'
. .,-+.~++p
~ Yj.f
1038
APPROVAL OF - On the basis of these findiags they are in violation of their variance
MINUTB3 and of their parking zoniag.
For the past four qears Linbrook Hardware has violated the Health,
Safetq and General Welfare of the Home owners in the area--has abused
the Home owaers' Constitu#ional rights and bq their appearance and actiona they have
been instrumental in home value depreciatioas. These home valua depreciations have
caused hardship on the home owuers aad a fidancial losa for the Citq of Anaheim.
Linbrook Hardware has made a mockery of the laws of the City of Anaheim--while at the
same time Anaheim has exteaded tc Linbrook Hardware aii the privileges, protection~ and
benefits that a good city has to offer.
Por the past four years these Home owuers have complairied and protested and ali of
their complaints and protests have fallen on deaf ears. In fact, the Home owners were
told that they coulda't do anqthing because Linbrook Hardware was operating undex a
County Vasiance.
ll,fter an investigation bq the Home owners through the office of Supervisor
Phillips, they found out that the variance was given by this citq on September 17, 1956.
Linbrook Hardware has also p=acticed an unfair competitive procedure--because
while their competitors were complying with the lawa of this city to the letter,
Linbrook Hardware by abuaing thc iawa'of tfiis city piaced their competitora at great
disadvantage and two of their competitors were put out of business."
Mr. Marcoux interupted Mr. Chavos, aad asked: "Jim, do yd~x.think you have the
right to sit here? To which Mr. Chavos replied he wanted to continue,"
-"Od the basis of these findings and in'the eairit of Good, Clesa a~e~ Hones#
governmeat--I deem it my duty--as Commissioner oc this City--to atate that--The fact
that theae Home owue=s'have complaiaed for four years and dqring these four peass no
attemQt was ever made to justify the Home owaers complaints nor was there aaq intent
initiated to amend the original variance or to revoke it.
I have therefore no choice, Sir, but to suspect a possible conflir,t of interest."
Mr. Marcoux then asked Mr. Chavos~ "Don't you think you should have disqualified
yourself from the voting?",
Mr. Chavos replied: "As a member of the Planning Commission, I have a right to
• sit here , " '
Mr. Pebley asked Mr. Marks if'tk-ere had beea a"coaflict of.intereat." Mr. Marks
reQiied: "I am surprised Mr, Chavos did not disquaiify himseif." Mr. Marks +hen
deaied the "coafiict of'interest" a~ criticized Mr, Chavos for making the charges a/.•'ter
the Heari•.~g was closed, and thus depriving him of an opportunity to repiq to the
chargea.
Correctioa to Page 1018~ paragraph,l2„should read:.
Commiasioner Chavos qualified his No vote by stating that the Commissioa gave 'i
insufficieat,con~ideration to.Mrs. Yassa, the property owner across the street from ~
the proposed C-1_development, and;to the~property at the corder of I,iacola and Bmpire ~
3treet ~rhich has R-1, Deed restrictioas. i
;
Conditional Use,Permit No.. 250 - Page 1010 add Pinding No.,.6:
6. Applicaat stated he was the bt!iTder of~'the motei on Bristol Street in
Costa Mesa where a.sign advertised bachelor apartmen~s; and`which the
appiicant admitted was:identicai to the proposed:development.
1039
MINUT9S, CITY PIAIdNING COMMISSION, June 25, 1962, Contiuued:
VARIANCS N0. 1479 • CONTIN[SHD PUBLIC HHARING. MR, and MRS. RICHARD B. HU3TON, 515
Nort'.'i Karbor Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Owners; RBAL INVBST-
MSNT, 10502 ~Vest Kate_la Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent;
requesting permission tc WAIVB SIDH YA1tD SSTBACK RHQUIRHMENT 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 feet at a
maximum and the southeast corner of which is 98 feet west of the corner of Citron
Street and Romneya Drive, and further described as 811 West Romneya Dsive. Prope=ty
presently classified as R-3, MULTIPLB FAMILY RB5IDENTIAL, ZONH.
Subject petition was continued from the meeting of May 28, 19b2 and Jur.e 11, 1962,
in order to give the petitioner time to subnit revised plans.
Mr. Harry Knisely, agent for the petitioner, appeared befo=e the Commission and
stated that he had presented revised plans to the Planning Department on June 17, 1962
and that a waiver of side yard setbacks and frontage was granted by the Commission a
few weeks earlier.
THH HBARING 'NAS CIASHD.
The Coamissi~n asked if the petitioner could possibiy put in a turn around road
for traffic, that the plot plans did not indicate such an area, snd that said turn
aro~-~;: ~~ blacktopped.
,v.r, Rninely stal:ed he was aot familiar enough with the plot pYan, and tHat the
petitinner could only answer this question.
kir, Joe Gcisler, Ass=stant City Attozney stated that said tura ~round and "olack-
topping could be made as a condition.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding subject petition:
1, That the petitioner requests ~ variance from the Anat-eia Muaicipal Code:
Section 18.32.080 <2) to permit an encroachment of proposed garages into the
required side yards; and Se^_tion 18.32.050 (2) to permit cons4ruction of a
multiple family development on a fifty-five (55) foot miaimum lot width.
2, fhat t'~ere are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditiona
applicable to the penera11y1to~thedpropertyhoriclasseofuuse in=the samex~~
that do not apply g
vicinity and zone.
3. That the requested variance is necessa:y for the preservation and enjoyment
of a substantial property right posaesaed 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 propezty is located.
5. That the requested variance will not adversely af.'ect the Comprehensive
General Plan.
6. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition. .
Comm~ssioaer Marcoux offered Resolution No. 3?4, Seriea 1961-62, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner PebYey to grant petition for Variance
No. 1479, subject to the foliowing condit3ons:
~
~ ~ , ,~
~~ ~~ ~ ~~
rdINUT93, CITY PIANNING CObA4ISSI0N~ June 25, 1962, Continued: 1042
TBNTATIVB MAP OP - 3. Installatioa of a six (6) foot masonry wall where Lot Nos. 12,
TRACT N0. 4731 13, 14, 21, 22, 23 and 30 abut the plaaned highway right-of-
(Continued) way liae of Ninth Street, provided that said wail shall be
stepped down ~o a height of 24 inches in the front one-half
and to a height of 42 inches in the back one-half of the front
yard setback of Lot No. 30, and installation of reasonable
landscaping the full distaace'of said wall construction, plans for said land-
scapiag to be submitted to and sub,~ect to approval of the Superintendent of
Barkway Maintenance, and said iandscaping to be instailed prior to Pinal
Building Inspection. (Polfowing installatioa and acceptance, t2ie City of
qnaheim shall assume -responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping).
4. Requirement that should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub-
divisian, each subdivisiott thereof shall be submitted ia tentati•ve form for
approval.
S. Waverly Drive shall have a forty (40) foot travel way within a sixty (60) foot
right-of-way.
6. Dedication of all access rights to Ninth 8treet aad dedicatioa to access
rights of Lot Nos. 1 and 2? to Orangewood Avenue.
Commissioner Chavos seconded the motion. MOTION CAP.RIBD.
TBNTATIVJB MAP OP - SUBDIVIDffit: I3.OYi1 A. and AiVN GRBSN, 1646 Ord Way, Anaheim,
TRACT N0. 4695 California; ENGII~BR: Voorheis-Trindle-Neison Inc., 13794 Beach
Boulevard, Westminster, California; sttb,ject tract is located 218
feet, plus or minus~ souta of Orangewood Avenue ua Della L.sne and
covers app=oximntelp 1.9 acres aad 3s proposed for subdivision
iato 4 R-1, ONB PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONH.
Mr. Fraak Richards, agent for the engineers appeared before the Commission and
stated tha4 he had nothing further to add for the Commission's cona3dprstioa.
The Commisaion reviewed the tract map aad aoted a portioa of Lot No. 1 of Tract
No. 2920 was included in this tract, and that the engiaeer had i~3iceted he would
investigate the possib9.lity of iacluding Lot Nos. 1 aad 2 of Tract No. 2920 in 1Yect
No. 4695.
Commisaioner Caatp offered a motion to approve 1~entative Map of Tract No. 4695
subject to the following conditions:
1. Requiremeat that should thia sulxiivisioa be deveioped as uaore thaa one
aubdiviaioa, r•ach subdivieion shali be aubmitted ia tentative form for
approval.
2. Dra~asge from the exiatiag 15 iach~clraia ahall be contiaued to the west tract
boundary aad~ therefrom, to the satiafaction of the Citq Hagineer.
3, Obtain the dedicatioa of Lot A, Tract 3816, adjaceat to the northerly portion
of Lot 3, aad Lot Nos. 4 through 9.
Commissioner Marcoux aecoaded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
~~ . ~ ~
MINUTBS, CIT`: pIANNING CO~AlMISSION, June 25, 1962, Continued: 1043
TSNTATIVH MAP OF - DBVBLOPBR: 20th CBNT[JRY HOMSS INC., 2432 Newport Boulevard,
TRACT N0, 4750 Costa Mesa, California. BNGINEBR: J. BRUCB GOLDBN, 110 West
First Street, Santa Ana, California, Subject tract is located on
the east and west side of Kenmore Street approximately 100 feet
south of Westhaven Drive, and contains 8 proposed R-1, ONH PAMILY
RBSIDFNTIAL, ZONE, Lots.
No one appeared before the Commission to represent the developer.
The Commission reviewed #he tentative map.
Commissioner Marcoux offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of 7'ract No. 4750,
subject to the folloi;ing condition;
1. Requirement that should this subdivision be developed as more than one
subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitte@ in te:. ative foxm
for approval.
Commiasioner Chavos seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
STRBST NAMH CHANGB - p[1BLIC HBAFtING. Recommendation of Street Name Change by the City
Planning Commission, changing Miller Street to Moore Stzeet.
2oning Coordin3tu~, Martia Rreidt, stated to the Commission that a request had
been received from the City Manager's Office requesting that a publzc hearing be
scheduled to change Miller Street to Moore Street, since there was a conflict of names
with a similar street in Buena Park; that the requested pubiic henring was sch?~Y12A
without previously checking with the County to verify said similarity of streets, andl
that it now appears that said conflict daes not, in fact, exist.
Mrs. Hngle, 6741 Milier Street, Piacentia, California, appeared before the
Commission, and protested the name chaage stating that said name had been in existar.ce
for some time, that all businesses and property o~v~ners would have to change statioaezq,
and if one telephone call to the County would have been made, the proposed name
change would not have been necessar~q.,
Commissioner Camp offered a motion that the street name designation of Miller
Street remain the same and the recommended name change not be adopted.
Commissioner Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
VARIANCS NO. 1494 ~ PUBLIC HBA1tING. ARNOLD INVBSIMBNT CO., 2293 West Ball Road,
Anaheim, California, Owner; H. RALPH *_.OVB'TT, 4921 D~rfe~~ s~en;te. Pico
Rivera, Califorr.ia, Ageat; =eqaesting Qermission to sell ON-SAiH
OF HBHR IN CONNHCTION WITH A PI2ZA RHSTAURANT on property
described as: A rectangular parcel of land 335 feet plus or minus by 50 feet p2us oc
minus, with a frontage of 50 feet plus or minus on the west side of Brookhurst Sireet,
the northeast corner of said property being 309 feet plus or minus, south of the south-
west corner of Brookhurst Street and Colchester Drive, and further described as 831
South Brookhurst Street. Property presently ciassified C-1, I~IGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL,
ZO1VB.
Mr. Ralph Lovett, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission, and
stated that subject property was entirely surrounded by bus3ness develogment and that
there was sufficient parking facilities.
Mr, Robert Cox, 12171 Garden Grove Boulevard, Garden Grove, the propoaed operator
of subject pizza restaurant, stated that the snle of beer would be to family trade only,
that it was just a part and accommodation for customess, and that su5ject ty~,e of
C~ ~~
~
1044
MINUTB3, CITY PIAHI~TING COIYAlISSION, June 25, 1962, Coatinued:
VARIANCB N0. 1494 - restaurant with on sale of beer was typical of many similar
(Continued) restaurants in southern California.
THH HBARING WAS CL0.SHD.
The Commission reviewed the plot piaas and noted that access to the proposed
parking at the rear of tBe proposed restaurant building would be accessible to
Brookhurst Street by way of a twenty (20) foot recorded easement on the abutting pro-~
perties to the south,
The Commission fouacl and determined the followiag facts regarding the subject
petition:
1. That the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim Municipal Code;
Sectioa 18.40.010 to permit the on-sale of beer in connection with a pizza
restaurant.
2. That ther.e are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditioas
applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property
that do not appiy generally to the property or class of use in the same
viciaity 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 wiii not be mater9.ally detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and
zone in which the property is located.
5. :'hat the requested variance will not adversely affect the Cr,wprehensive
General Plan.
6. That no one appeared in oppositioa to subject petition.
Commissioner Mungall offered R~soluti.on No. 375, Qeries 1961-62, and moved for
its passage and adoptioa, seconded by Comndssioaer Marcoux, to grant Petition for
Varian~.e No. 1R94~ subject to the folloxing conditions:
i
1. Installation of a minimum six (6) foot wide landscaping strip abutting the ~
Brookhurst Street Right-of-way line, plans for said landscaping to be
submitted to and subject to the approval of Superintendent of Parkway
Maintenance and said landscaping to be installel prior to Pinz2 Building ~ ~
Inspection.
2. On-sale of bees to be pexmitted in connection with the p~.zza restaurant
operation conducted by the present owner only.
On roil call the foregoiag resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYBS: CONA~lIS3I0NBRS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley.
NUSS: COMf'ISSI~ S: None.
ABSBNT: (~C;iMiSSTONBRS: Allred, Hapgood, Perry.
~ ~
, ., __.___~-. __.__ ._ T _ _ ~
~____~_- ~ ._
(`) +~ ~
l~
~
~
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COl~AlISSION, June 25, 1962, Continued: 1051
VARIANCB N0. 1500 - 3. That the requested variance is necessary for the preser-
(Continued) vation and enjoywent of a subataatia.'~ property r•ight
possesaed by other property ia the same vicinity and zone,
and den3ed to tHe property in question.
4. That the requested variaace will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to the:~iroperty or improvements in such vicinitq and
zone in which the property 38 ~btated.
5. That the requested variance will not adYersely affect the Comprehensive
Generai Plan.
6. That the petitioner and the home owners abutting subject property have agreed
by stipulation that a six (6) foot wall shail be constructed on the eaat side
of the alley, that said wall shall be six (6) feet above the R-1 grade, but
shail not be aiore than the height approved bq the Building Departmeat as safe
structures on the existing retaining walls opposite Lot Nos. 4 and 9, of Tract
No. 4614, and that the R-1 property owners shall obtain the necessary
buiiding permits and that construction of said wali shali be done by the
petitioner, with ownership of said walis to remain as property of the owners
of said R-1 property. '
7. That three persons appeared in conditionai objection to subject petition.
Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No: 380, Series 1961-62, anc~ moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos to grant Petition for Variance
No. 1500, subject to the following condition:
1. Development substantially in accordance with Bxhibit Nos. 1, 2; 3, 4 and 5.
On roll ca.ll the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYB3: COMMISSIONIDRS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebleq.
NOES: COI~AiISSIONffitS: None.
AHSBhT: CONAtISSION~tS: Allred, Hapgood, Perry.
. . _
_, •.~•^°.°~ . ` , ;~ _. ; :, ; : . ;' -~ .
~ _..._ ~ -.-~__.__ _____. , ^ --- ____._.. ..---•
~; , _
, .~`
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COAAlISSION, June 25, 1962, Continued:
ioso
VARIANCB N0. 1500 - said wall and that said wall was not providing the separation
(Continued) as requested, that said six,(6) foot wall on the upper level
would require the singie family home owners to reduce their walis
in order to conform to same level as that proposed for the
Multiple Family Development.
Mr. Kelso, 1129 Adair Place, appeared before the Commission and sta4ed he was in
agreement with Mr. Holtermans statement, and further that two wails were erected
instead of putting a retaining wall as required said retaining wall was put on the
alley which reduced the width of the alley., and that he requested that txro walls be
torn down with the City's permission.
Mr. McCoy stated that the petitioner would tear down the existing two walls erected
on City property and would build the walis on the property extending the said wa11s to
meet the City requirements.
The Commissioa asked if there was a six (6) foot wall now in existance, to which
Mr. McCoy repiie3 that in somP portiobs the wall was more than six (6) feet, and other
places only the retaining waii was there which was not more than four (4) feet high,
which if an additional six (6) feet were sGded would be tea (10) feet.
Mr. Don Blackman, 1113 Adair Place, appeared before the Commission, and stated
that he had taken photographs of subject property, which he then submitted to the
Commission.
Mr. McCoy asked the Assistant City Attor.ney Joe Geisier whether it would be
possible for the petitioner to build the wali on the adjoining property owners
property and would said property owners thea apply for the building permit?
Mr. Geisler stated that the property owaers wouid take out the building permit
upon prior agreement with the builder of subject property to construct said wall, and
that ownership would belong to the property owners.
Chairman Gauer asked Mr. Geisler to word the findiags for the Commission at the
time the resolution was made.
The Commission noted that on the R-3 development a ten (10) foot wail would
need steel or iron for reinforcement, that the foundations of the retaining wall would
not withstaad more than a six (6) foot height, that a stipulation could be made, that
if said retaining foundation walis need to be improved the petitioner would improve
said walls if found necessary.
Mr. Geisler informeA the Commission that the requirement to improve said
retaining foundation walls could only be as a finding and not as a condit3on.
1HS HBARING WAS CLOSBD. ~
The Comm3ssion found and determined the foliowing facts regasding subject
petition:" ' ~
1. That tn~>;~r:titiones requests a variance from the Anaheim Municipal Code:
Section ?.A.32.060 to permi•t the completioa of a two story multipie family
apartmei;t ~:~iilding.
2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstaaces or conditions
applicable to the property invoived or to the intended use of the property
that do not apply generally to the property or class of use in the eame
vicinifiy and zone.
I
~
i
~
I
::q'f'':<~;; ~ ,
. ..~~,,.-e,
. ~ ~ ~ ~~ .~ ~ . . ~ . .. ... . ~
, . ,_, . ; ~ .... . . . . . . .. ..-.-~...,-_~~ _
. . ____~.~:2. ...:.,, ....~. ..':~ . . _.i~.: .~..'.. ._:`. .~~~.:.~' .'.;:, r. .......~.~;_'.., . .. ...._.....-...._._.
~ ~
~ ~
-- - :,;'
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNIIdG COMASISSION, June 25, 1962, Continued:
1049
VARIANCB N0. 1499 ~ 1. Thac the petitioner requests a variaace from the Anaheim
(Continued) Municipal Code: Section 18.24.030 (3) to permit an
encroachment of 13 feet ~;a order to coastruct an additioa to
an existing single family resideace.
2. That there are exceptional or extraordiaary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the propertq
that do not applq generally to the property or cl~ss of use in the same
vicinity and zone.
3. That the requeated variance is necessarq for the pr~eservation and enjoyment
of a substantial property right possessed by the other property in the same
vicin3ty aad zoae, and denied to the property in questioa.
4. That fhe requested variaace will not be materially detrimeatal to the public
welfare or in3urious to 4he property or improve~nents in such vicini4y 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.
Commissioaer Marcoux offered Reaolution No. 379,.3eries 1961-62, and moved for
its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungali, to grant Petition for
. Variance No. 1499, subject to the following condition:
1. Development.substaatially in accordance with Bxhibit Nos, l, 2, 3, and 4,
On roll cail the foregoing resolution was passed bv the following vote:
AYES: COhIl~lIS3IONBR3: Camp, Cha:vos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungali, pebley.
NO~BS: COMA(ISSi011BRSd Noae. .
ABSENT: COhAlISSIONHR3: Alired, Hapgood, Pesry.
VARIANCB NO. 1500 - PUBLIC HBARING. GHOitGB AND ALBffitT LA1tRASSE, i568 West Lincoln
Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; MILT McCOY, 1568 West
Lincoln Aven~ue,,Anaheim, Califoxnia, Agent; requesting permission
• to WAIVS 3INGLH ST~tY HBIGHT LIMITATION on property described as: An irregular parcei
of land approximately ?0 feet by 100 feet, with a froatage of 78 feet plus or minus on
the south side of Balsam Avenue, the aorthwest cmrner of said property beiag:80 feet
east of the southeast corner of Curtis Court and Balsam Avenue, and further described
as 2110 Balsam Avenue. Propertq presently ciassified as R~3, MIJLTIPLB PAMILY RBSI-
DBNTIAL, ZONH.
Mr. Milt McCoy, agent_for the petitioner appeared before the Commission, and.
stated that request for waiving single story height limitatioa was a result of the
superintendent of conatruction failing to obaerve plans thus two-story construction
was initiated only one hundred thirty-two d132) feet from aa R-1 development iastead of
the one hundred fifty-seven (157) feet from wliich the plan was designed.
Mr. Ted Holtermana, 1135.Adair Piace, appeared before the Commission, and stated
he.had a conditional objection to sub3ect.petition; that the ageat for the petitioner
contacted all of the property owners, that two-story was not ob3ected to, but that a
, Nall was built on city propertq, that petitioner's property was four feet loper behind
-~ ~ ,,~-~`,,.,--r'-
..~'~w*'.~:'s, .`.r! .. _ . ,_ _ _
:~
,. q
~ "
;i
,
... , ~:. ,. :-~ ~ _~ . ,-.,..r~' t ~F.a r~.4~ti..,.yf..GS +%
. ..... '•:~.-~ ~ : .~a_~.'r ~ ~ . . ~.
t 1 y
~
r ~ ~;
' ~r
~J ~ _ • ~
~ MINUTES, CITY PIANNING CONAIISSION, June 25, 1962, Contiaued: 1048
{
VARIANCS N0, 1498 - The Commission found and determined the following facts re~ard-
~'', SContinued) ing subject petition:
1. That the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim
~ Municipal Code: 3ection 18.24.030 (3) to permit an encroach-
?, ment of five CS) feet in order to construct an addit3on to
~, an existing single family residence.
~'=. 2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property invoived or to the intenci~d use of the property
~' ~ that do not apply generally to the propertq or class of use in the same
~~ ' , vicinit and zone
Y •
3. That the requested nariance is necessarq for the preservation and enjoqment
of a substantial property right possessed bq other property in the same
vicinity and zone, aad denied to the propertq ia question.
; 4. That the requested variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfaze or injurious to the propertq or improvements in such vicinity and
zone ia which ihe property is located.
5. That the requested vaziance will not adversely affect the Comprehensive
General Plan.
6. That no one appeared iu oppoaition to subject petition.
Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 378, Series 1961-62, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seeonded by Commissioner Mungali, to grant petition for
Variance No. 1498, subject to the following condition:
1. Development substantially in accordance with Bxhibit No. 1.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foilowiag vote:
AYBS: CONIhiISSIONSRS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley.
NOHS: CODM~IISSION~tS: None.
RBSBNT: COMMISSIODIDRS: Alired, Hapgood, Perry.
`
' VARIANCH N0. 1499 W PUBLIC HBARTNG. I~IIt. BARL 0. POX, JR.., 611 South Pandora.Place,
Anaheim, California, O~er; requesting permiswion to WAIVB RBAR
YA1tD SBTBACR RBQUIRHMBNT ob property'described as: p rectanguiar
parcel of land 60 fee4 bq 100 feet, ~with a frontage of 60 feet oa the west side of
Pandora Place, the southeast corner of said property being 300 feet north of the aorth-
weat corner of Apollo Avenue and Pandora Place, and further described as 611 South
! pandora Piace. Property presently classified as R-1, OI~ FAMILY RE3IDBNTIAL, ZONB.
ti= Mrs, Betty Jane Pox, wife of the petitioner, appeared before the Commission, and
~ atated she had nothing further to ndd for the Commisaion°a consideration.
The Commission viewed the plot plans.
THE HBARING WAS CL06BD.
The Commission found and determined the followiag facts regarding subject
petition•
~ ;: :~.
F` ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ .
C ..~.~.~~ ~~..~ . . ~ . . ~ ~
II
i •,~~.`('~
II.
_ ~~j
~
~
r .
-
-~
=
~
-~-
--.--
~
~
~. AlINUTHS, CiTY PLANNING COhA[ISSION, June 25, 1962, Continued:
,,,';A
1047
~
~ VARIANCH N0. 1496 W Mr. John Nethery, the pet3tioner appeared before the Commis-
(Continued) sion~ and stated that he planned to build an extension to the
, living room in order to provide more living space aad before
~; redecorating the house.
~ ~ TfIB HBA1tING WAS CLOSHD.
t
r'
~ •-
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding subject
petition:
1. That the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim Municipai Code:
9ection 18.24.030 (3) to construct an addition to an existing single family
residence. '
2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditioas
applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property
~hat do aot apply generally to the propertp or class of use in the same
vicinity and zone.
3. That the requested variance is necessary for the preserva.tion and enjoqment
of a substantial property right, possessed by other property in the same
vicinity an3 zone, and denied to 4he 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 ia which the property is lacated.
5. That thP requested variance ~i11 not adversely afiect the Comprehensive
General Plan.
6. That no one appeared in opposi.tion to subject petition.
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolutioa No. 377, Series 1961-62, and moved for
its passage and adoptiun, secouded by Co~amissioner Camp, to grant Petition for
Variance No. 1496, subject to ~he following condition:
1. Substantially in accord.ance with Exhibit No. 1.
On roll call the foregoing re~oitx:.~ioA wsv passed by the following vote:
AYSS: COMMISSIONBRS: Camp~ Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, pebleq.
NOHS: COMMISSIONHRS: None.
ABSENT: CahIMI3SI0NIDRS: Allred, Hapgood, Perry.
VARIANCB N0. 1498 - PUHLIC F18ARING. l~Ilt. JOFII~1 R. McGAPFIN, 850 Cinda Street,
Anahe~m, California, Owner, request3.ng permission to iVAIVB
RBAR YAFD SBTBACR RBQUIRHMHNT oa proQerty described as; An
irregular parcel of land with a.frontage of fiftywa~ (51) fePt plus or minua
directly east of the iatersection of Burntwood Avenue and Cia.a Street, the northerly
b~undary of sai,d property being approximateiy ten (iG) feet north of an exteasion
of Burntwood Avenue, and furthes described as 850 Gia~a Stree~. Property preseatly
classifie3 as R-l, ONH PAMILY RBSIDHNTIAL, ZONB.
Mr..Joha McGaffin, the petitioner appeared befo:P the Commiasion and stated he
had aothing`.fu.rther to say to the Commission.
7iiB HBARING MIAS CLOSBD,
~ , ..,.4... . -~~~~a, w~.~,~ ~~-~t .. ..s ., . . ,.,. . .. G" . .. ~ . , . .. ~.:,""_ ,` .~; ~
1_ ~~R _ _ . . . . .. . . ... , _ ~ ~ . , . . . .
L~
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING'~OhAlISSION, June 25, 1962, Coatinued: 1046
E. '
i:' .
~.
4 •
i
s
~,,
VARIANCB N0. ia95 - 3, That the requested variance i!; necessary for the pre~e~~-
(Coatinued) vation rnd enjo~me:nt of s sufstantial property right
possessied by o*.uer property in the same vicinity and zok~:,
and denied to the property i~n question.
4. Tha~ the requested v~.:ian:~ will not be materially detrimeata2 xo the public
we2fare or in3urious to the propertq or .ia~j~•ovements ia such viciuity and
zor:e in which the property is located.
S. Tha~ the re.quested varisaee wiil not adv;:;•.;;:~y~ af:ect the Comprehensive
Generai Plan.
C. That no one appear<:, in opposition to s~bj^;:t petition.
Co~issioner ~".amw ~ffered Resolution No. 3?6, S2ICC3 i061-GT.~ and moved for ifis
passage and adopticn, :econded by Commissioaer Marcoux, to grant Petition for Ya:iance:
No. 1495 subject to the foliowiag conditi~vs;
:1. Dedication of 45 !`aet fsom the monun.:~nted centerline of ~,arbor Boulevard,
(34.75 feet existiug;, A property line return of 15 feet shall be ~equired.
2. Installation of sidewalks and driveways on Harbor Boulevard and Wilhelmina
3treet in accordance with the adopted standard plan on fiie in the office
of the City Bngineer.
3, Payment of a Park and Recreation Pee of $25.J0 ~er dwel2ing unit for the
proposed single family residence to be collecl~.d as par4 of 4he 8uili~ing
Permit.
4. Time limitation of 180 days for the accomplisknment of Item Nos. 1 and 2.
5. Codpliance with Code St::#ioa iT.08.250 for the split nf Lot N~. 3• s••~.
requ^sted namely to reduce size of Lot No. 34 from eighty (80) f:el ~o
seventy-si:: (76) feet, an3 increase Lot No. 33 from seventy (70) !'eet to
+3eventy~faur (?4) feet, and thr~t said new lot line be recorded with the
;;::::nty Recorder.
6. Time 2imitation of one hundred eighty (Y£,()) daqs for the accomplishment of
Item ciu. 5.
Oa roli cali the ioregoimg resoluti~an was pa~sed bq the foilowiag vote;
A7l~:S: CCNQl1S~IGI~ltS: Camp, ~iaavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungali, Pebley.
NOHS: CUNMIS3l0.*TERS: None.
AHSBNT: COt~fMISSiOTJ~RS: Alired, Hapgood, Perry.
VARIANCE NO. 1496 - PUBLIC t~ARING. MR. JOEk~T R. t~T~tti; 91L Nutwoo~ Stseet,
Anaheim, Cal:~fornia, Ownez; requesting permission to WAIVS
RBAR YARD SBTc`.4CR ItPQUIRBMBNT on prope.rty descr3t~ed as: A
rectanguiar parcel of land 60 feet bq iC~( feet, wit~ a frontage of c~~ feet on the
west side of Nutwood Street, the nurthea,st corner of sr,~id groperty b.~ing 118 'i•~eet
plus or minus south of the sou4hwP~t coraer of Beacon.Avenue ;end Nutwuod Street, suid
further described as 911 Nutwood 3trzet„ ~roperty pr•eseatly classified as R-], ON~S
PAMILY RH3IDBNTIAL, ZONH.
~ '~
~~..'
~
MINUTHB, CITY PLANNING COMMIS:ItiN, June 25, 1962, Continued: iJ45
yARIANCB N0. 1495 - Pl1BLIC HFP.RINI,, ".Jth CBN1't11RY HOHffiS, INC. , 2432 Newport Boulevard, ~
Costa MPSa, Gali~fornia, Jwner; requesting permission to WAIVB ~
S7ilB YARD SIiTBACK on prcperty descs•ibed as: A rectangular parcel
af land 150 feet bq 115 fea' qt t:~e s~utheast corner of i
Wilhei~aina Street and Harbor Boulevard, aid furth~ 'escribed as 420 and 426 West
Wilhel:~iaa 5:z~~et. Property presently clossi:ied as R-0, ONB PAMILY SUBURHAN, ZONB. i
~ ° Mr., 34ti11ip Sn~!.^.e~, sgeai for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and
F, 1 a.ut-eC that `.he petitioaers found triea~e.ives in this predicament because Lot 33 and 34
~,. were built as rae pa•rcel ia 1950, that Cc~tacil action ec~s vever taken to divide or
~• merge s~bject ?ats, that the petitionereti recena~lp purc:hase:l Lot No. 34 as an entire
parca', and that upon construction, discovered 't:iat the necessary setbacks on Lot No.
~, 33 cor...A aot he maintained.
~
The petitioners v~ere o.~ked by the Coi~a~.ssion why const=uction was not stopped at
~ j the time that th~ stop wi:~k order was iss~.ted.
~ The petitioners replied xhat const~ruction was stopped three days afte:ward, that
~ the time which had elapsed was due to not beiay able ~o contact the coit ractor super-
~ visar, that although the p.°titioaers proptci~ was being constructed i.n proper align-
r ment with the City Code, property ta the east was the one which had been built Yoo ciose
to the property li~e, that the owae: of Lot No, 33 hx~ been a resident of Anaheim for
f~ 25 *0 30 years and did not :-ealize t~~at structure on said lot was not constructed
; accard•.ng to code requirements on setbacGs.
~
¢
~ TH.E :jBA.~ING WAS CLQSBD.
~ aou~:~~g Coordinator Martin Sreidt suggested to the Commission tliat subject hearing
~,- i-,e deiayel until he cailed the inspector in charge from the Buiiding Department tr
'' nerify s•top work order to the petitioners~
~ ~ Chairme~ Gauer then po~~+tp~ned ttle hearing un+;il ths Building Department repre-
sentn*ive was able to info::~ th~e Co~ission on said stop work order.
i ~ Mr. Lesser Siag of the Building Department iilformed the Commission that wh^.n the
~ house was originaliy built it was built oa two lota, that the Building ~e~artment did
~ . ~ not r~:alize at the time the Buil3iaN Permit was issced that the property in ques~ion
( was too alose to property line uf the purchaser, that upon insn_c:ioa r-f the first
stage of checking foiindations C~de violatioa was noticed and a stop wurk flruer was
~. ~ I issued. '
i ~
i The Commission asked Mr. Sing how iong after stop work order was issued did wori; ~
„ ~ .act;!aliy eease, and Ms. Ring replied three days.
j +
: T;iz Commission found and determined the foilowing facta regarding subject ~
'; peti•t3on;
~~ ? i"het the petiFioner requests a vaciance from the Anaheim Muaicipal Code: • ~ -
~ .
Section 18.20.03U C~i to ~ermit the creation of two 4 foot Nide s.i3eyardfl;
i' 18.20.030 (v) ta permit the creatxon of (1) 74 foot w3de iot having an area
of 6500 syuare feet and (2) 76 foot wide lot haviag a lot area oF 8'T00 •
square feet; ~•nd Sectioa 18.04.090 (2-c) to permit the conti;+.ued establisll-
ment of an existing single family dwelling with a side yard of 4 feet an3 to ~
permit the construction of an additionai single family dwelliug :~•ith a side-
yard of 4 feet, with eave pro;jections of 30 inches.
2. That thera are exceptional or extraordinary ca.rcumstances or conditicns
applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property
that do not apoty 62itCL5iSV tn the property or class of use in the same
, vicinity and zone. ~
I
i ~
P.~i. h~~~i ~ ...
r ~
~
~
~
~ .
~~! '~~__--_'~~' ..-...~--~.~~ ...-..~ . . . . . `I ~ . , ` {~. . . . ~~:~.Ij", '.', ~. ~~ :.. ,.~~._:. ~' '
...... ~.~. - r' _ ,. . ..' .., ~_ . _ .._ . _. _ _.~
~ ~
~.
~
` I
~
F ~
~ •
~: .
, ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNIt~ 90MMISSION, June 2~, 1962, Continued: 1052
OONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARIIQG. FLARENCE FIT~ERALD, 311 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim,
PERMIT N0...255 California, Owner; requesting permission to CONSTRUCL A RECREATION
CENTER on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land 85 feet
plus or minus by 115 feet plus or minus, at the.northeast corner of Leatrice Lane and
Mountain View Avenue. Property ~resently classif ied in the R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDEN-
TIAL, ?ANE.
Mr. Joe Franklin~ 301 West Katella Avenue, representing the petitioner appeared before
the Commission and stated that he had nothing further to add for tY~e Commission's consid-
eration, but that the petitioner Xould abide by the xecommendations of thc Cortunissior~
and the Planning Department staff, and that the proposed recreation center was solely
for the use of the residents of the tract.
The Commission asked the representative for the petitioner if a service charge for use
of tl:e re^reational facilities would be made, to which the representative replied in
the negative.
The Commission also noted that ~n site parking would be used for use of the guests of
the tract.
THE HEARING WAS CIASED.
The Gammission found and determined the following facts regard~ng subject petition:
1. That the propcsed useis properly one fo~ which a Conditional Use Permit is
authorized by this Code, to wita ConsLruct a recreation center.
2. That the proposed use will not adversel.y affect the ad3oining land uses and
' the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be iocated.
3. That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow
the full development of the proposed use in a manner not dptrimental to the
particular area nor to t:~e peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the
Citizens of the City of Anaheim.
4. 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 traf£ic in
the area.
5. That the granting of the Conditional Use Permit under the conditions imposed,
if any, will not be detrimental to the peace9 health, safety, and general wel-
fare of the Citizens of the City of Anal:eim.
6. That no one appeared in opposition to sub3ect petition.
7. Th3t the proposed use is in an R-3 multiple family development~ that owing
to the use of said recreation center being limited to the sole use of the
tenants, on site parking requirements should not be considered as being .
applicable to ari R-3 davelopment.
Commissioner Ma.rcoux off ered Resolution No. 381, Series 1961-62, and moved for its pass-
age and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Conditional
Jse Permit No. 255, subject.to the following conditionss
1. Development substantially in accordance with Exhibit Nos. 1 a~id 2.
2. Provision that deed restrictions be fiied limiting the use ot sub3ect recreational
f acilities to the tenants and their guests only of Tract No. 3535 a~d said
use to be free of charge, and that in no event shall said recreatio>>al facilities
be used for commercial pnrposes by the public.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was pas~ed by the following vote:
AYESi 00~1MISSIONERSs Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley.
iVOESe OOMMISSIONERSt None. _
AB~ENTs ~MA7ISSIONERS: Allred~ Hapgood~ Perry.
-.-~"". ,;, , ,,
, ~. , -: .;
„ : .~ n ,. , ,.
,-~-^ -< v ~ 1 ~.. . . , . • i ~-~ ~ ! , ,. , i' ,... . .. .
. _. .. . _ .. ...... . , . .. ~ ,_ _._.,,~_
~
,
._<:,:_':`:
: ~;
~ ~..
~
LJ
~;
~'
w .'
p- MINUTA3, CITY PIANNIIVG COMMISSIUN, June 25, 1962, Continued:
C: ,-
~>
~ :-
~ .
1053
CONDITIONAL USB - PUHLIC FffiARING. ANNB H. PAULUS, 2800 East Lincoln Avenue,
P~tMIT N0. 256 Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting permissioa to HSTABLISH A
SERVICB STATION oa property described as: An irregu~arly shaped
parcel of land approximately 150 feet by 135 feet on the southeast
corner of Lincoin Avenae and Rio Vista Street, and further described as 2800 Hast
Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified as R A, RBSIDHNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, 20NB.
Mrs. Anne Paulus, the p2titioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that
the shape of subject properry was unsuitable for residential use, and that a petition
signed bq 23 adjoining property owners approving subject petition was to be given to
the Commission.
Mr. Jerome Pauius, husband of the petitioner, appeared before the Commi.ssion and
stated that subject property had been farmed since 1900~ that the petitioner and
himself had lived on subject property for 25 years, that property was not suitable for
other than commercial use since any imF~rovement takiag place oa eubject property wouid
require a 23 foot widening on Lincoln E.venue and a 15 foot wideniag on Rio Vista,
which would leave little available lan<t for residential purp~ses, and a service
station would be the only practical ut:~lization of subject property.
Mr, William ~:, Ailea, 2704 Alden Place, representing 256 signers of petition of
neighboring property owners, appared before the ~ommissioa and stated that he again
was appearing before the Commission on what all the property owners thought had been
resolved by the Coa~ission*s action on May 28, 1962 on a similar petition which was
denied, that nothing had changed since that date, tLat more property owners were
becomiag aware af petitions for rezoning of property in :he East Anaheim area and
were add.ing their ~rotests to said rezoning; that the County of Orange had approved
approximately 18 acres of land at the northeast cor.ner of Lincoin Avenue and Rio Vista
Street for commercial zoniag, including a serv3ce statioa, ths~ said 18 acres already
zoned was approximately twice the size needed for the estabiishment of a neighborhood
shoppiag ceater with the existence of a Community Shoppitig Center only one mile west
at Lincoin Avenue and State College Boulevard; that'with the campletion of Route 19
freewaq io the west, the remainder of the property of which subject propertq is a
part, will ser.i.o!~siy ieduce the potenYial area for single family developmeat and set
a precedent for additioaal commercial zoning; that unless the line was held at the
present time for single family developments backing up to Lincoln Avenue aad Rio
Vista Street, said portion of East Anaheim wiii develop into aa unsightly conglomer-
ation of commercial, and consequently, multiple family developments, that with homes
in the vicinity of said property ranging from $31,000 to $36,OOO~additional commercial
development would be detrimental to the property value of ail R-1, one familq devel-
opment in the Bast Anaheim area; ~ha~t in another two years the trees and landscaping
planted will have grown to provide scenic beauty for ail property and that the proposed
a wall on the south side of Lincoin Avanue from Sunkist to the 3anta Ana River
perr~itting single family resideaces up to said wail with no worry about commerical
development encroaching in said area.
Zoning Coordiaator Martin Rreidt presented Pianning Study 47-122-5 which covered
t;~e area bouaded by the Riverside Preewaq on the north, South S4reet ~r the south, the
5anta•1na River on the Rast and Rio Viata Street on the west, ~+hich '~'~c Commissio~
had requested of the Planning Department. Said Piai;ning Study was incomplete but was
p*ojected as the best possibie land utilization for the area in question; that the
gross acreage on subject property was 2,6, that normally 3} to 4 dwelling units per
acre were planned, that it would be possible to support 6.8 dweiling units per acre or
SO dwelling units 30 feet wide by waiving side yard requirements, and that in the
study by the Planning Departmen~ a number of single family dweilings were projected
to be errected on subject property.
TF~ HBARING WAS CLOSBD.
; :c
~*`~~i --- ~ -~ ~- ...: ~ a;t , _ :=,,,,~1-. ~';'
~ ` ~.`
~ 1`•
E
V . . . . ~ . . .
t -_.-. . ~ . . ~ .
\J
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING CONA~IISSION, June 25, 1962, Coatinned: 1054
~,' CONDITIONAL USB - The Commissioa found aad determined the following facts regarding
PBRMIT N0. 256 sub~ect petition:
~ ~ (Continued)
' 1. 1",~at ii.e propcsed use ig properly one for which R Conditional
~- Use Permit is authoriz~:: by this Cod~e, to wit: establish a
l „ service station.
2. That the proposed use will adversely affect the adjoining laad u~e~ and the
growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located.
3. Ttlat in a planning study the Commission went on record as opposing the
commerciai developmeat on ail corners of sublect intersection~ that
coasideration should be givea to the coaceatration of neighborhood commerical
facilities at the na theast corner of subject intersectioa, and that the
propoaed use was incompatible with the R-1, One Pa~eily Development which was
in existence sixty (50) feet south of the subject property.
4. That one pers a, representing a number of persons in the Conacil Chambers and
presenting petitiaas sigaed by 256 persons~ appeared ia opposition to subject
petition; and that a petition with 23 signatures in favor of subject petition
was presented to the Commission.
Commissioner Chavos offered Resolu4ion No. 382, Series 1961-62, and moved for its
passage end adoptian, seconded by Commissioner AS~rcoax, that Petitioa for Coaditioaal
Use Permit No. 256 be denied oa the bases of the aforementioned findings.
Oa roil call the foregoing resolution was pas.aed by the foliowing vote:
AYB9: COhYdI8SI0I~IDEtS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall~ Pebley.
NOSS: COhMI83I0WBRS: None.
AB9HNT: CONMI33IONBRS: •Allred, Hapgood,.Perry.
CONDITIONAL U9B - PUBLIC F~ARING. R. 0. PINCH, 3105 West Orange Avenue, Aaaheim,
PIDtMiT NO. 257 California, Owaer; requestiag permissioa to BSTABLISH H~ARDING
HOMB POR Tf~ AGHD on property described as: An irregularly shaped
par~~.l of land 94 feet plus or minus b}~ approximatelq 200 feet,
with a froatage of 94 ieet pius or minus on the north side of Oraage Avenue, the east
boundarq of which is 1450 feet west of the centerline of Beach Boulevard, and further
described as 3105 West Orange Aveaue. Property presently classified R A, RBSIDSNTIAL
AQtIGJL~IRAL, 20NB.
Mr. H. 0. Pinch, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and etated he
had nothing further to add for the Commission's consideratioa.
A letter was read to the Commission opposing subject petition and signed by five
persons.
Mr. Pinch in rebuttal stated that he had the signatures of all persons residing
within 200 feet of subject property approving subject petition, that the area would be
nicely landscaped, that building on rear of subject property would be occupied by
ambulatory patients, the front building would be for use of guests, that the swimming
pool rtould be fenced in with an alarm system, that there would be a play room and that
there would be three diff~rent living rooma.
~1B HBAkING WA8 CLOSHD.
The Commisaion noted that the petiticner stated he kad a circular drive that circled
the front of aub,~ect pro~artg and that the drivexay was niaeteen (19) bq two handred
(200) feet which provid~d..adeqnate on aite parking.faciiities.
.:st o.o-rr,.. _ ~._ o ~ .,. . ~ ,._ s . .. n,`,
~ ~
~ _
~'
~ '
MINUTBS, CITY P7ANNING COMMISSION, Juae 25, 1962, Continued:
O ~ ~
AH3ffiJT: COMM133IONSRS: Alired, Hapgood, Yerry.
~
..~..~~::-
~oss ~
COPIDITIONAL USE - T'he Commissioa foun.~ and determined :he followiag facts regarin9
PffitMIT N0. 25T subject property:
(Continued)
1. That the proposed use is properiq one for which a Conditional
Use Permit is auth~rized by th±s Code, to ~3t: es±abliah a
boarding home for the aged.
2, That the proposed use will not adverseiy affect the adjoiaing laad uses aad
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 allow
the full development of the proposed use in a manner aot detrimental to the
particu2ar area nor to the peace, health, safety, and geaeral welfare of the
Citizens of tue City of Anaheim.
4. That the granting of the Conditional Use Permit under the conditions imposed,
if any, will not be detrimeutal to the peace, heaith, safety, and general
tveifare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim.
5. That the traffic generated by the proposed use wiil not impose an undue
burden upon the streets aad highways designed and improved to carry the
traffic in the area.
6. That a letter signed by five persons was read in opposition to subject
pe43tion.
Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 384, Series 1961-62, and moved for its
passage and adoptioa, seconded by Commissioner Pebley, to grant Petition for
Conditional Use Permit No. 257, subject to the following conditions:
1. Preparati~on of street improvement nlans and installation of all improvements
for Orang~: Avenue subject to the approval of the City Bngineer and ia
accordance with the adopted standard plans on file in the office of the City
Engineer.
2. Paymeat of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes on Orange
Avenue.
3, Time limitation of 180 days for th~ accomplishment of Item Nos. 1 and 2.
4. Denelopment substaniaally in accosdaace with Bxhibit Nos. 1 and 2.
5. Subject to the written approval of the State of California Department of
Social Welfare pr.ior to issuance of a business license.
6. Subject to the npproval of a Builciing Department inspection to insure the
conformance of thc .:xi~:?ng structure with all Building Code requirements.
7. Provision of fuliy !'•~cuved parking, adequate t,o provide on-site parking as
sequi=ed by the p=op ~.~d use,
On ro'.l call the foregoii~ls resolution w~s pass~d by the following vote:
AYBS: COhA~lIS3I0NffitS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungali, Pebley.
NOHS: COMA~IISSIOI~RS: Y.une.
~ ~._-~
~
... ... .. . ....... .... ~
T..
. `. .
~ ~
~ . . . ..~.'.~.
d
MINUTB3~ CITY PLANNING CONAtISSIQN, Juae 25, 1962, Continued:
1056
CONDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC FIBARING. H. P. YODSR, JR., ARIA A. YODBR, DONALD H. YOD~t
PBRMIT N0. 258 and PATRICIA YODBR, c/o COLDWHLL BANKHR CO., Statler Center, 900
Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles 27, Califoraia, Ormers; B, A.
DA*iL~L? C~6s1Y, ~350 Huntiag:on, fi~~e~a, ~a23.';,r;.ia, Ag2u~;
requesting permission to BSTABLISH A MOBILB HOh~ PARK on property described as: An
irregular parcel uf land approximately 400 feet by 1000 feet, bounded on the west by
State College Boulevazd, on the north bq the Riverside Preewuy, on the east bq
P].acentia Avenue, and on the south by a line running east and west approximately 550
feet north uf the aortheast cornez of State College Roulevard and piaceatia Avenue.
Propertq presently classified as C-1, NBIGHBORHOOD COMhffiRCIAL, Z01~.
Mr. Marvin Henderson, San Marir,u, agent for the petitioaer, appeared before the
Commission and stated that he was familiar with the fiad£ngs and recommendations as
reported to the Commission and that he did not oppose any of the recommendations,
Mr. William B. Purdy, 1243 North Placentia Avenue, appeared before the Commission
in opposition to subject petition stating that he had purchased property abutting to
the south of subject property, that he 3ntended to continue making his home there and
that he would not object if his rights were considered with the provision of a biock
wall abutting his property were erected.
The agent for the petitioner stated 4hat they proposed to construct a block wall
snrrounding the entire property, that the B. A. Daaieli Company have been builders of
mobile homes in oiher areas;that ine proposed development was iatended to be an
investment aot speculation, that trailer park was d~signed not to include children,
that subject proposal would be an asset to the property.
1HB HBARING WAS CLOSBD.
The Commission found and determined the followiag facts regarding subject petition:
1. That the proposed use is properlq one for which a Conditional Use Permit is
su2'~orized by this Code, to wit: a mobile home park.
2. That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoiniag laad uses and
the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be
iocated.
3, That the size and shupe of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow
the fuil development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the
particular area nor to the peace, health, safety, aad general welfare of the
Citizens of the City of Anaheim.
4, That the gLanting of the Conditianai Use Permit under the conditions impoaed,
if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safetq, and general
welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim.
5. That the traffic generated by t'~° proposed use wili not impose an undue burden
upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the t=affic in
the area.
b. Thai, one person appeared in conditional opposition to subject petition.
7. That the appiicant stipuiated that a masonry wall would be constructed around
the entire property.
Commissioner Marcou~e offered Resolutioa No. 384, Series 1961-62~ aad moved for its
passage and adoption, secoaded by Commissioner Camp, to grant Petition for Coaditionai
Use permit No, 258, sub ject to the following conditions:
F' ^.~ ` •
~
~
~ ,a.~,1 _ .,~ , .~`i,..._ ... .~_.. _._.
~
~.
~'.
~ ~.
~
k
.
F. i
MINUTffi, CITY PLANNING Cdi~9~lISSION, June 25, 1962, Continued: 1057
COPIDITIONAL USB - 1. Dedication of 53 feet fzom the moaumented centerliae of State
PBRMIT N0. 258 College Boulevard (50 feet existing).
CContinued) ~
2. Preparation of street improvement plans and installation of
all improvements for Sta*,e College Boulevard cuhjnrt +,~ #hP
approvai of the City 8ngiaeer and in accordance with the
adopted standard plan on file ia the office of the City
Hngineer.
3, payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighYing purposes on State College
Boulevard.
4, payment of a Park and Recreation fee of $25.00 per trailer space to be
collected as part of the Building Permit.
S. provision of trash storage areas as determined by thP 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
Final Building Inspection,
6. Installatioa of fire hydrants as determined to be aecessary by the City of
Anaheim Fire Marshall to provide adequate fire protection prior to Pinal
Buildiag Inspection.
7. Provision of a. tive (5) foot public u4ility easement and a three (3) foot
overhang easement along the southerly boundary of the subject property to
adequately serve the subject property and other properties at the time of the
instalYation of service faci2ities.
8. Time limitation of 180 days for the accomplishmea4 of Item Nos. 1, 2, aad 3.
9. Development substantially in accordance with Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4,
provided that said development shall be in accordance with the proposed
Trailer Pack Ordinance.
10. Provision of a six (6) foot masonry wa11 to be installed surrounding the
entire property, except for the Nall on the front portion of subject property
on both sides of the entrance, which shall be a three and one-half (3}) foot
decorative biock wali, said walls to be constructed in order to protect the
children from ingress to the trailer park, and to shield the trailer park from
the "on ramp" of the free+~ay, and to protect the abutting property owaer to
the south.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followiag vote:
AYBS; COMMISSIONTBRS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, M3.rcoux, Mangall, Pebley.
NOiBS: COAUlISSIONBRS: None.
ABSHNT: CW4~IISSIONERS: Ailred, Hapgood, Pe:sy,
~- Commissioner Pebley offered a motion to recess the heazing at 5;00 0'Clock
_ P.M., and to reconveae at 7:00 0'Clock P.M. Commissioner Camp seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRISD.
RECONVHNB - Chairman pro tem Mungali reconvened the Commission meeting at 7:05 P.M.,
Chairman Gauer being absent; Commissioaers A31red, Hapgood and Perry
~r~re also absent.
..
, :~--~---:.
,~.w~lvr.-~:. .. . . .~:?~.e . ~__ ,~i.....,.
~ ~ ~
~
~:.
~ - ~:
i' ` '
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING OON4JIISSION, June 25, 1962, Continu~eds
k
~ t
~ :; t
~
i~58
OONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. DALE D. 8 SALLY A. WALKER, 1118 North Rosemont
PERMIT N0. 259 Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting permission to
ESTABLISH A YIDFBRAU 8 REPAIR GARAGE on property described as: A
rectangular parcel of land 1$1 feet pius or minus uy a5 reeti ~ius
or minus with a frontage of 85 feet on the nc^th side of Balsam
Avenue, the eastern boundary being 195 feet west of the centerline of East Street.
Property presently classif ied as M-1, LIGHT MANUFACTIJRING, D~NE.
Mr. Dale Walkery the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that
he had nothing further to add for the Commission's consideratione
THE HFARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commission viewed the plans and noted that the proposed garage was to be located
in the Light Manufacturing Zone, whereas a garage was a Heavy Co~nercial zoning,
that on the morning inspection trip it was noted that the front portion of the orig-
inally proposed garage had been redesigned slightly for the establishment of the pro-
posed Hofbrau restaurant, and that no floor plans had been submitted to indicate the
exact type of layout or the proposed extent of the restaprant f acilities.
Commissioner Chavos offereda motion to deny the petition on the bases that it was
incompatible with the surrounding propertyo Commissioner Marcoux said he thought that
only.that portion of a Hofbrau be denied as being incompatiblee
TheCommission continued discussion as to the compatibility of the proposed garage and
Hofbrau in an M-1 zone, that the storage af automobiles would be outside of subject
building, and that sub~ect praperty was adjacent to the flood control channel.
The Commission found and determined the foliowing facts regarding sub~ect petition:
1. That the proposed use is property one for which a Conditional Use Permit is
authorized by this Code9 to wita Establish a Hofbrau and Repair Garage.
2. That the proposed u5e wfll •~ot adversely affect the ad3oining land uses and
• the growth and devel~rm~nt of the area in which it is proposed t~ be located.
3. That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow
the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the
particular area nor to the peace9 health9 safety, and general welfare of the
citizens of the City of Anaheimo
4a That the granting of the Conditional Use P.ermit under the conditions imposed,
if any, will not be detrimental to thE peace, health, safety, and gene:al
welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheimo
5. That the traff ic 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 areae '
6. That the proposed Hofbrau was not compatible to the land uses in the area.
7. That no one appeared in opposition to sub3ect petition.
Co~issioner Chavos offered Resolution 385, $eries 1961-62, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commaissioner Marcoux to grant Petition for Conditional Use
Permit No. 259 for the establishment of a repair garage only, sub~ect to the following
conditionsc
1. Recordation of the deed for dedication of Balsam Avenue.
2: Payment of ~2.OO.per front font for streEt lighting.purposes on Balsam Avenue.
n+~~.e1.,,M,s, ~',Y~:r r
`-r..2~tiflR~ ~.a.,.. . .i:,'+._.r..._,^'.,.. _ •': ~ ..--... . ;f';' ..a, _ . _. ;:2t°. , ,_,..~, . . ,
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 25, 1962, Continued=
~
1059
OONDITIONAL USE - 3. Time limitation of 180 days for the accOmplislvnent of Item No. 2.
PEFiMIT IQO. 259
(Continued) 4. Installation of a six (6) foot masonry wall on the west, north,
and east boundaries of subject property prior to Fina~ Building
Inspection of the Repair ~arage in order to shieid irom view any
wrecked automobiles parked in ~he parking area awaiting repair.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYESs OOMMISSIONERSs Camp, Chavos, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley.
NOES: COMMISSTONERS: Noneo
ABSENTs COMMISSIONERSs Allred9 Gauer, Hapgood, Perry.
CONDITIONAL USE - PllBLIC HEARING. HOWARD H. GILMORE, 5?7 North Rose Street, Anaheim,
PERMIT N0. 261 California, Owner; J. E. BARRINGTON, 715 West Lincoln Avenue,
Anaheim, California, Aqent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH AN
AUT'OMOBILE DETAIL St?OP on property described ass A rectangular par-
cel of land 150 feet plus or minus by 52 feet plus or minus, with a frontage of 52 feet
plus or minus on the east side of Los Angeles Street, the northwest corner of said
pro~er.ty being 104 feet plus or minus,south of the southeast corner of North Street and
Los Angeles StrP~t9 and further described as 750 North Los Angeles Street. Property
presently class•:.f ied C-29 GENERAL OJMMERCIAL, 7ANEo
Mr. Gene Mahaffey, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Co~mnission, and in
response to tha Cotmaission's request for clarif ication of a detail shop, stated that
they proposed to take new cars and used cars and tradeins, clean them and wax the cars
and replace seat covers if needed; that the petitioner intended to blacktop the ?ntire
areaf that no excess parking was necessary as the time of storage was only limited to
awaiting the processing of each car; that no bady work was planned to be done or any
motor repair; that the proposed detail shop was similar to one that was in operation
in Fullertonz and that the existing two-story property at the rear will be rented as is.
The Coimnission asked what the petitiorter would have as an operating personnel since
there was only parking facilities for four carse
Mr. Mahaffey stated that the petitioner plans to ultimately have 12 mechanics with "
two mechanics to a stall.
Mr. Howard Gilmore, the petitianer stated to the Commission, that if additional parking
facilities ~rere required he wo~ald furnish said parking facilities.
THE HF~IRING WAS CIASED.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding sub;)ect petitioni
I. That the~proposed use is properly one for which a Conditional Use Permit is
authorized by this Code, to wita ESTABLISH AN AUI'OMOBILE DETAIL SHOP.
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 allow
the full devel.opment.n!' the.~ropcsed use in a..~annes.not dptrimental to the
particular area nor ta 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 the peace, health, safety, and generai
welf are of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim. '
~ '_ _ ~,.,;~:.. .. t ~ iH,r :.. _., ~ ,,, . , r~ . _ ~ ":,. .ti.;,, t :-s te~w~:? ~~.,; ~_ ~~_,. :~ ~. . _,_.~
`
~f
~
1~ C
C. ~' ~.' ~~~
~
~
~ . O. .
.~
~
~'~, . .
~'' ~. ~ . ~ ~.
~
G MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONy Jutie 25, 1962, Continue6e
~; _ .
,
~ ..
1060
OONDITIONAL USE - 5. That the traffic generated by the ~~oposed use will not impose
PERMIT N0. 261 an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and
(Continued) . improved to carry the trafiic in ine ~ie~i~
6. That no one appeared in opposition to sub3ect petition.
Commissioner Pebley of£ered Resolution No. 386, Series 1961-62, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Comm~issioner Camp, to grant Petition for Conditional
Use Permit No. 261, sub~ect to the following conditions:
1. Provision of trash storage areas as determined by the Department of Public
Works, Sanitation Division, whicti are adequate in size accessible to trash-
truck pickup, adequately enclosed by a solid fence or wall prior to Final
Building Inspection.
2. Development substantially in accordance with Exhibit Nos. 1 and a~~
with the temporary storage of cars in the parking area, and furttr~r pro-
vided that all work to be done shall be done under cover, the shop shall
be onerated as a detail shop, and no body work shall be performed; and that
the two residences to the rear will not ba incorporated into the operation
of said pet3tion, but shall remain for residential use onlyo
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votei
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Chavos, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley.
NOESi COMMISSIONERSe Noneo ~
ABSENTi OOMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Hapgood, Perry<
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. JESSE E. and CALLIE A. PRUEfT, 311 South State
N0. 61-62-120 -College Boulevari9, Anaheim, California, Ownersj CHARLES J. and
CLARE DUOQFF, 1430 Vinevale Street, Anaheim, California, 4gentsy .
requesting that prr.aerty described ass A rectangular parcel of ~
land 70 feet by 110 feet, with a frontage of 70 feet on the west side of State
College Boulevard, the northeast corner of sai.d property being approximately 90 feet
south of the southwest corner ^f Broadway and State College Boulevard, and further
described as 311 South State Col~ege Boulevard, be reclassified from the R-1, ONE
FAMILY RESIDENTJAL, ZONE ~o +he G1~ NEIGE~ORHOOD OOMMERCIAL, ZONE, to permit the
establishment of. a real estate off ice within an existing single family residence. -
Mrs. C: J. Ducoff, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Cownission, and
stated that she and her husband planned to open a real estate office on sub3ect
property= that subject property was opposite the East Anaheim Shopping Center which
made it no longer desirak:le as a f amily residence on a well-traveled street; that she
had met with the abutting and neighboring property owners and explained their plans
and presented plot plans indicating what changes might take place in the general
appearance of subject property; that the petitioner did not intend to have an
unsightly business front, but that it would be an asset to the present one family
residence~ in the area.
The Comoaission asked the petitioner whether she had been informed that a
reclassif ication was the correct petition to use or whether.she had been told said
petition covld be applied for under a Conditional Use Permit.
The petiti~ner replied that she was advised tha~ a petition for a reclass3f i-
cation would be the most:feesible form to use.
THE HEARING,,WAS CIASED.
~ ::;
_ ~ ~:
s `t~;
... ... .~:,rie.... _ ~xz'c-CM' __::J,.-.-iqt~ ....r~r ~... :t.'~~. ,. _.::~~ ~ <..r.L°~.` r. Sl.._.,.J~'m~.:.~`r;fe7:~na.~..~,k.,,i;i~. ..~-~-+.r_~.~--~--~ _~ ,.A,e~.
~~ _ ; _
~ `
F ~
~ ~ . .. i
~
~ '•'
MINUTB3, CITY PIANNING CObAlISSION, June 25, 1962, Coatinu.ed: 1061
gHCIASSIPICATION - Zoning Coordinator~ Martia'Bseidt, informed the Comrdssion~that
N0. 61-62-120 oile of the zoning representatives was in the Chambers, and that
(Continued) perhapa he could clarify his reason for =ecommending the
reclassification.
Zoning Representative, Jack Rogoway, informed the Commission that he recomnended
the Petition for Reciassification because he felt the Commission would want to consid-
er ali ten (10) lots, two to the south aad eight to the north, z~ther than to consider
the lots individually as the lots came up for a variance, and that hv felt the subject
petition had no specific hardship on the property to wsrrant a variance s3.nce ail te;~
parceis had a similar problem.
Mr. Charles J. Ducoff, the agent for the petitioner stated to the C.~mm:'='•on.
that he had considered the C-1 zoning request becapse he plaaned to build a lew
~wilding in the future, that by requesting the reclassification, any future rezoning
of abutting properxy Wouid have been ~ahen care of, and that the future plans might
eacompass a tax consultant and insurance.
Martin &reidt informed the Commission that for the past twelve month~, the pian-
ning Department had been receiving inquiries for property in the area ar~tting subject
property relative as to what can be done with the property whether this would be
projected for commercial use under one reciassification, and that there were deed
restrictions on some of the properky.
The Commission discussed the compiete reclassification and then felt it would be
more desirable to judge each petitioa as it was r~questedthus specifying remodeliag or
r.emoval of the buildings in order tv maintain a uniform apgeareance for proper
commercial 4ype buildiags, aad asked the City Attorney representative Mr. Geisler
whether the subject petition could be changed to a Variance.
Mr, Geisier advised the Commission that they wc+uld have to act oa the Reciassi-
fication, but that the petitioner could ask that the Reciassif ication be withdrawn, and
the Commission could then readvertise uader a Variance ander their own volition.
The agent for the petitioner, Mrs. Charles J. Ducoff requested that Petitioa for
Reclassificat3on No. 61~-62-120 be withdrawin in order to refile under a Variance, and
that a written request would be forwarded to the Planning Department before said
recYassification was to be heard by the City Councii. '
Commissioner Marconx offered a motion to recommend to the Citq Council that the
petitioners reqnest for withdrawai be approved, and that the Commission initiate a
petition for Vaziance ia order to establish the requested use.' Commissioner Camp
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
gBCLASSIPICATION - PUBLIC I~ARING. ROBBRT S. and r1NIlVB T. UNGBR, ~0~8 Bast Lincoln
N0. 61-62-122 P.venue, A.Inaheim, California, Owners; Wiiiiam !~olsborn, 1204 Santa
Rosalea:f;treei, Garden C,rove, California,.Agent; requesting that
property desczibed as: A rectangular parcel of land ?30 feet
~ins os min ~ bq 2`~7 feet plus or miaus~ with a frontage of 23U feet plus or minus oa
the north s~e of Winston Road, the sout~west corner of said property being approxi-
mately 635'feet east of the northeast corner of Magnolia Avenue and Winston Road, and
further described as 2533 Winston Road be reclassified from R-A, RBSIDffiVTIAL AGRICUL-
TURpL, ZONB to the R-3, MULTIPLB PAMILY RBSIDHNTIAL, ZOI~ID to permit the coastruction
of a single story multiple familq residential develop~ment.
Mr. William Wolsborn, ageat for the petitioner., appeared before the Commission~
and stated that the petitione= proposed to deqclop a one st~rq garden tyne 19 unit
apartment devslopment with 5 major buildings plus =ecreationax facilities and carports
in a Residential Agricultural area, that proprrtq ownera abutting sub3ect property did
not oppose the propoae petition.
~`'- :•_....
~ -
~
~
~.
~ MINUTBS~ CITY PLANNING COA9KISSION, 3'une 25, 1962, Continued:
1062
~, RBCLAS3IFICATION - The Commission noted that deveiopment of subject property for R-3,
• N0. b1-62-122 was earlier projec*ed for multiple family development.by a
~;%; (Continued) Planning :,epartmeat Stuc-e, ~w3 that abutting property to the west
i.
i:~ .~ ... ~.
F~ '
'i
f
~. . .. Bi+Q 28c~ •Oa9 S?E., i.S'Jj~~:~d~ :C,. .-~.G1.Sy~c iomiij uc`v21'vpIIEtlit.
1HB HBP.~ING WA3 CIASHD.
The Commission found and determined the followiag facts regarding subject
petition:
i. That the petitioner proposes a reciassification of the above described
pxoperty from the R~A, RBSIDSNTIAL AQtICUL1'[JRAL, ZONB to the R-3, MULTIPLB
PAMILY RHSIDBNTIAL, ZONB, to construct a single story multiple family
residential development.
2. That the proposed reclassification of subject property is necessary and/or
desirable for the arderly and proper development of the community,
3. .That the proposed reclassification of subject property doea properly relate
to the zones and their permitted uses locally established in close proximity
to subject property aad to the zones and their permitted uses geaerallq
establiahed throughout the coromanity.
4. That the proposed reclassification of subject propesty does require
dedication for aad standard improvement of abutting streets becanse said
property does relate to aad abut upon streets attd highways which are proposed
to carry the type and quan#ity of traffic, wh3.ch will be generated by the
permitted uses, in accordance with tne circulation elemeat of the General
Plan.
S. That provision of arages,shall be waived ia lieu of 4he provisioa of car-
~ports under ihe a:~thority g:anted by Code, Sectian 18.64.070.
6. That no one appeaced in oppositioa to subject petition.
Comwissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 387, Series 1961-62, and moved
for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioaer; Camp, to recommend to the
C3ty Councii that Petition for Reclassification No. 61-62-122 be approved, subjet to
Lhe foilowing conditions;
1. Dedication of 32 feet from the monumented centerline of Winston Road~
(20 feet existing).
2, preparation of street improvemeat plans and instailation of zil improvements
for Winston Road snbject to the approval of the City Hngi~;e:er and ia accord-
ance with the adopted:standard plan oa file in the office of tt~e Citq
Hnginzer.
3. Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street iighting purposes on Winaton
Road.
4. payment of a-Park and Recreation fee of $25.00 per dw~lling unit to be
collected as part of the Bui:3ing Permit.
5. Proviaion of trash storage areas as determined by the Departmeat of Public
WorKs';:Sanitation:;Diqision, which are adequate in aize accessible to trash-
trucY pickup~aiid adequately enclo.aed by a'-solid fence or~wall, pr3or to
~
Final Buildiag"Inspection. ' ; .'
~
.
~
~.,.,.. f . .1,...:,:
~~C.~b71+~+;L+YYa..w,Ur~lr~y.,- .
,. .~ ~~.* ,.
,~,..,' _, ...'-'•.. ,Y..~hR:x" . ~.....£,; +~~ C.F,,:l~~?t1tL~T:~:
~ y ' I
-~~ ._..
'u-~
t^w~i ._.. . . . .. . . .. . . . 4 . ~ ~1.
iu~ a
- . .. ~ "_~
~
ce~.~~:': ,~ . ~ .
~.:~
. ~ , - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ .
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 25, 1962, Coatinuede 1063
RHCLASSIPICATION - 6. Time limitation of 1$0 daqs for the sccomplishment of Item
N0. 61-62-122 Nos. 1, 2, aad 3,
1Continued~ ' '
7. .Development substdntially in accordance with Bxhibit No. 1.
8. 9ubject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a planned-uait
multiple family resideatial developmeat on snbject prcperty.
9. provision of a six (6) foot masonrq wall on the west and east bouadaries of
subject property ia order to maintain the residential integrity of the
development and pro~eet the abutting propert.y to the east aad to the west of
subject property.
10. Provision that the interior wails of the proposed carports shali be stuccoed,
that eaclosed storage areas shall be provided along the rear wail of each
carport, and that adeqnate bumper guards shall be provided to protect the
rear of the proposed carports.
The foregoing conditions were recited at the meetiag aad were found to be a
aecessary prerequisite to the use of the property ia order to preserve the safetq
and welfare of the Citizeas of the City of Anaheim.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foilow?ng vote;
AYES: COMMISSIONPRS: Camp, Chavos, Marcoux, Muagall~ Pebley,
NOHS: CObAlISSIO~RS: None.
ABSBNT: CON44ISSIONffitS: A11red, Gauer, Hapgood, perry.
Y:
RHCLA3SIFICATION - PUBLIC i~ffiARING. JOHId D. CIAUSSBN, 9912 South State College ,
N0. 61-62-123 _ Boulevard, Anaheim, Cali£oraia, Owner, BRBDffitICRS DBVBLOPhffiNT
~ COMPE.NY, 524 West Commomvealth Avenue, Pulierton, Califoraia~
Ageat; requesting that propertq described as: PARCHL N0. 1: ,
An L-shaped parcel of land, with a.frontage of 374 feet on the enst side of State
~~ College Boulevard and 395 feet on the north side of Ba11 Road abutting Parcel No. 2 on
~ the north and east; and ;PARCBL N0. 2: A rectangular parcel of land 822 feet pius or
~.~ minus by 250 ieet plus or miaues at the northeast corner of State College Boulevard -
~ and Bali Road, with a froatage of 872 feet oa Ba11 Road, and further described as ,
9912 3outh 3tate College Boulevard be reclassi£ied from the R-A,~~i,ESIDBNTIAL AQtICUI,-
: 1VRAL, ZONB'to R-3, MULTIPLS FAMILY RESIDBNTIAL,,ZONH; and C-3~ FffiAVY COMI~RCIAL, 20NH
for ~arcel No. 2 to permit the establishment of one and two storq multiple family
residential development and comraercial facilities.
~ Mr~.'Henry A. Fredricks, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Cammisaion
~ and stated that the petitioner had heard that a study had been made by the Planniag ~
Department which pro,~ected a planned unit-deveiopment and aeighborhood..commercial
€acilities fos sabject p=ope=ty; aad that this would act, as a buffer zone adjacent to
the homes to the north which would be a betterment for the community, that a study of
the area indicated #hat a commercial development fronting State College Boulevard -
with a single story multipie family developmettt abutting the single family residential
development to the north. .
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised•the Commission that renderings and plot
plans which the petitioner submitted to the Planning Department, were submitted as
generally what the petitioner plaas to build, but that the plaas were not precise plas
of what ~he petitioner plans.for development, that if •the petitioner intends to submit
~
plans and renderings to the Commissioa, this should be indicated at the time the
- petition is filed, that to submit them as they had been were very misieading to:the.
residents in the area who had come to view the plans in the Planning:Department which
;~ are considered permanent records, and.that it did-not give the Planning Department '
a.; a sufficient opportunity to check_the piaas for'code sequirements. _
~`f ~
,";; .
:.
~n'`~: ~
T7 _f
'-~,\ \ . ~
.
, ,
~ ;.
.
.. . . . .
, `, : ` , is
~ f I 1'-; ~ 'r, ! F.
. ~ ~ ~ ...:~...5. ~_<.~Yi~. ~ ,:.E.~,.~.,.i ~.-. ..S ._~;i., . .. 1~L•,~..J.,h.~5.ir:.~n ~,'}~."E'=t.;lF.t.n, s~~ t . ~
_. 7' ..`_. , . . .. :'`~~ L.10.~ h ~.. ~ 'c`fd•?. . ~ " . .,.'tiH-... . . -"~4 i . . ~~~c
_ . ..,
;~
MINUTES, CITY PLAb'NING COMMISSION, June 25, 1962, Continued:
~~~ ~ ~ ~~ '
1064
RECLASSIFICATION - Nfr. Harold Hyman, 1114 Groveland Place, representing a.numbsr of. .
N0. 61-62-123 persons who were in the Council Chambers, appeared.bef.ore.the
~ (Continued) Commission, and stated that he had petitions from 89 persons, that__.
many of the people her represented were new to Anaheim,.that_they....
~ ~ ,~a~ .,~± knnw Qf $rf Pl~AC_.t~VQ way to oresent: protests an .undesixable. ..
petitions affecting them, that the property owners understood at-the.:time they-pur-
id a ks
~`` ,
chased their homes, that the area would be consid~*ed for single family res ences, p r
and schoois, that they felt the proposed reclassification would be a detriment to the
community welfare if the Commission granted subject reclassification,.that as~a teacher,
he felt creation of a high density area v~ould tend to crowd the schools, that.children
in the East Anaheim area attended different schools eacn year because.of_the. cxowed
conditions now existing, that a commercial development would increase•the traffic hazard
to the children on State College Boulevard, that the children were not permitted to cross
State Colege Bouievard now to play in the park area to the west.of the.single.family
area, that the proposed two-story development wouid abut the ailey of the single f.amily.
development to the north thus depriving the residenis of their rear yard pr3vacy, and
that the area bounded by State Cellege Boulevard, Bai1 Roaa ana tine Santa Ana River be
unconditionally zoned for single family residences, sc~~ools and parks.
Mr. Fredricks, in rebuttal, stated that he could understand.the..single .family
residents' reluctance in having apartments abutting their proper.ty, tha.t.all multiple
family developments which his firm had built were of a higher atandard.the..the-avQr-
age, that aIl the units in the newest one they had opened with 81•..units..wexe leased
or rented, triat there was a need for high quality apartments in Anaheim, and that it
would help serve the area to south which would be developed for M-1, Light Manufactur-
ing use.
Two letters of approval and one letter with 34 signatures protesting subject
pet3tion were read to th~ Commission.
AsBietent P18nne7c Ronald Grudzinski oresented a planninq study to the Co,mmission
and interestea pe~sons in the Co~+ncii Cnambers, which haa been requested by the
Planning Commissionr The area covered South Street on thc north,_the proposed Orange
Freeway on the east, Ba1L Road on the south and State College Boulevard on the west.
The planning study showed the pro3ections for primarily single family residential devel-
opment with related facilities such as schools and parks. Incorporated in.the planninr
study was the location of a neighborhood shopping center at the northeast.cornex of tl
intersection of State College Boulevard and Ball Road. Mr. Grudzinski.presented stat-
istical data which depicted the need for a neighborhood commercial shopping center at
this lacation, and compa•red 3t with the developer's proposed plans.
Mr. John Kemp. 1131 Resed~ Street, appeared before the Commission in oppositiDn
to sub3ect petition and stated that he came to Anaheim to live because he felt it was
the best place in California to live, that he had been in real estate in Wisconsin,
and that he purchased his home because of the R-A, Residential atmosphere creating a
wonderful neighborhood, that all the neighborhood home owners were proud of their
homes and spent many hours in maintaining a charming neighborhood, and that the pro-
posed apartments abutting single family residences would be detr.imental to the value
of their property. Mr. Kemp also presented petitions bf protest sigried by 34 persons.
A woman 3n the Chambers stated that she was in favor of the proposed development
.a
that she owned ten acres of land at the southeast corner of Ball Road and State ~ •
College Boulevard.
Another woman in the Chambers stated that she would like to.see the orange groves
remain, so that the children could learn about the birds and the bees and the rabbits
from nat~zre itself, and that Anaheim was fast becoming completely developed which.left
little area for nature to assert itself, and she hoped that it would not become like
the "jungle" of New York City with the growth of mqre apartment houses being'pro~osed.
_. _ :
. ~ ~ ~ .. ~ . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . ~ . . ' ', , - . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ : . . . ' iI':
. . . .. . . . .. ..,,
.. ~ . . . . . ,.. , . ~ ~ . ~ . ~ ~ . - ~ - . :.'I
. . - . . . ~ . ~ ~ . ~ .:1 .
~
.., . . . . .. :' ..
~ - . . . .. . . } ~x'
. . .. . . . .. „ . ..` h
s~ _~•"'~ls~'AhN:t~.7~`~.•O.~ ~M~-~, ,i. ...,~~,...... . :~~.. .. .,.Y~..',,~. {t~;(r ~ 'Stwn,. ~t+,~. J~i.v1~:y..~.1v'~.'i,.`.~i~k+Y°~ ,._1<i y ~ ~ _~_~._. _.__r~ ~{r'r
~
x :~
~
E ~.
~
~
.
t ~
~
~ 1
MINITt'~S, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 25, I962, Continued 1065
RECLASSIFICATION - The Commission noted that there had been considerable concern and
N0. 61-62-123 thought given to the area covered by the planning study, that.all.
(Continued) ideas and thoughts as presented as a result of the planniag. study..
we:e indicative to the people in the Chambers the work and thought
which the Planning Commission and the Planning Department put into
the many proposed developments presented to them,.that the planni.ng
study as presented indicated a logical development..for .the axea,.
and that if the people who have opposed the subject petition and the_proposed.de~elop-.
ment as indicated on the planning study would study the many phases 3nvol~ed,.perhaps
their ideas would change considerably, since a~ervice station was located at one of
the corners of the intersection, and that the reclassification.petition as prese~rted
could be modified to give a very servicable area on the sub~ect property.
The Commission also noted that althou~h it wouid be ideal to keep the.property
as nature intended it was necessary to be reaiistic about a situation.whe~e.the.land .
would be develo~ed for something, that one could not expect the owners to sit.back
and not take advantage of a business opportunity, an~ that the Commission was not in
a position to require the prope.rty owner keep his property as residential..agri~ultural,
that the single family residents have a right to protection and to be concerned.and...
their presence at the meeting indicated this concern, and that whatever.did happen in
subject petition the Commission had to look at the petition from an'ob3ective viewpoint
in determining what was best for all concerned in the City.
Conffnissioner Pebley asked the petitioner whether he would cnnsider the plan as
presented in the planning study or one similar to it, and to withdraw his propnsed.
multiple family deve'lopment, because thE Commission did not want apartments.facing.
the single family development and also was epposed .to two story developments abutting
a single fa~ily developm nt, and that there was a great demand for high quality four unit
apertments in the city o~ Anaheim at th~a present tirne by iong iime residents of the City.
Mr. Fredricks stated his objection to the plan as presented because the proposed
multiple family development would be facing a commercial development which in his
estimation was not the best way of planning apartments facing the rear.of a.commercial_...
development even though this would give a iarger commercial area, and that he wa id
prefer to have apartments on both sides of the proposed commercial development.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED~
The Commissior~ asiced t'he devetoper if they proposed to have four units per lot,.
to which the developer answerer3 in the af?'irmative stating that there was .a.greater
demand for four-unit apartments with the apartment owner living in the fxont and
renting the other three apartments, tnat the proposed plans are generally what the
concept of plans proposed to be followed, that elevations would be changed.. .
11~s. Harmon, 2138 Cliffpark, asked the Commission if the proposed..development...
of multiple family units were approved wou'ld the Commission assure the..abutting,
residents that adequate trash areas would be provided in ordez not to create an
unsightly area in the alley>
The Commission assured Mrs. Harmon that conditions would be imposed which would
require enclosed trash areas, and that.code requirements for R-3 development requixe
a six foot masonry wall between a single family development and.a multiple family
developmentd 1'he Commission also noted that carports were proposed...
The developer stated that they proposed to have enclosed garages and a block wall
abutting the 20 foot alley.
Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue_.the.hearing ~;
of Petition for Reclaseification No. 61-62-123 to the meeting of July.23,..1962 in order _. .', ''
to permit the petitioner sufficient time in which to present precise.plans.for the
proposed multiple family development as well as the commercia.l,devel.opment proposed,
and that the revised plans for the commercial.development provide mor.e arPa.than.was..~
originelly proposed to meet-with plans as pro~ected by the Planning Depa~tment in
their pianning study9 in order that the residents in tha area.as well as the Planning
Department might be given an opportunity to view the proposed plans.
~.
;~ ~:
:,:
r; 's:
,~ 4 ;.
~...~.. f,.+."...,._r~1~:,:.i.l'~wY~....e?~w .., ...~~e"tr J,;.. .. . ..~~:~~. ~ i .a`-.,~. .,/>~..~..,.12.~.. ~...,. P*`.c~::.h;~ 7~zJ~ ?r, ;~ ._. . ... , . . - . e .,_~
~
r ~
t
~
V
~
MINUIES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 25, 1962, Continueds
~ RHCLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Marcoux seconded the motion. MOTION CARBIED.
N0. 61-62-123
~ - ~ (Continued)
1066
I'ENTAYIi/~ MAP OF - DEVELOPER: FREDRICKS DEiiHLOPMENT COMPANY, 52A West Cortmaan~real.th .
TRACT N0. 4757 Avenue, Fullerton, California. ENGINEERs Dan W..Heil, 120 South
Orange Avenue, Fullerton, California. SubJect tract.,is.lacated
on the east side of State College Boulevard,.north of Ball_Road
and contains 40 proposed R-3 lots and 1 proposed C-3 lot..
Sub~ect tract filed in con~unction with Reclassification No. 61-62-123.
.. Mr. Henry A. Fredricks, agent f.or.the developer, appeaxed_he.£oxe.the_Ca~mnission._ .
and,stated he had nothing further to add to what had already been covere~ in.the
petition for reclassification.
The Commission discussed what they would like to see in the re~ised._prec3se.plans
which the developer was,requested to submit, that the plans would ha~e. to.be.in the
Planning Department the Monday before the Commission meeting at which the..xec.lassi-
fication was scheduled to be heard, that the Commission wanted the ~~evelopment.ke~t .
to a one-story development, indication or guide as elevations, that at least.5 or 6
elevations should be submitted, that preci~e plans could not be furnished until leases
were obtained for the various stores at which time plot plans could be submitted,.that_
it would not be feasible or advisable to have building plans for the.commercial devel-
opment at the time approval for the C-1 and R-3 plans might be given, and that the
approval of the tentative map should be heard at the same time as Reclassification
No. 61-62-123.
Commissioner Camp offered a motion to continue discussion of Tentative Map of
Tract No. 4757 until the meeting of July 23, 1962 in order that.it might be.heard..in.
con~unotion with Reclassification Noe 61-¢2-123. Cemmissioner Chavos seconded the
motion~ MOTION CARRIED.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. MR. 8 MRS. JAMES A. ALLEN, 9562 Harvest Lane,
N0. 61-6'2-124 Anaheim, California, Owners; FRANK TURLEY or BILL KISGEN, 9662
Harvest Lane, Anaheim, California, Agents; requesting.that
property described as: A rectangular parcel of land..L00.feet.plus
or minus by 300 feet plus or minus, with a frontage of 100 feet plus or.minus on the
south side of Ball Road, trie northwest corner of ~nhich is 477 feet pius.or.minus east
of the southeast corner of Ball Road and Beach Boulevard, and further described as
2944 West Ball Road be rtclassified from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE ~o
the R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to permit the construction of two story
multiple family residential apartments,
Mr. Bill Kisgen, agent for the petitioner appeared before the Commission.and
stated that'he had nothing further to add for the Commission's consideration, but tht
he was available to answer any questions the Commission might have.
The Commission asked the agent for the petitioner whether the.plat..plens._as..sub- ',
mitted were to be the ones pro~ected for subject development to which the.agent replied '
in.the affirmative; the Commission discussed the substandard quality of the plot plans;
that a two story construction was proposed within 150 feet of a single famil.y residetttiaL .
zone; and thet.subject property was incorporated in studies pro3ecting subject property
for neighborhood commerciel development. ' ~
Commissioner. Marcoux offered a motion to continue Petition fa~.Beclass.i£icatian_..
No. 6T-62-124 until the meeting of July, 9, 1962 in order to pern~t..the.pe.tit3aaez......:.
sufficient time in which to prepare and'present to the Planning,.Depantment...plot..pi.ana_.. _.. ''
which would conform to all Code requirement§, and that said plo.t_plans..wnuld.-ha.ve tn.... ...
be in the Planning Department by-July '2 , 1962 in`order to be considered at the scheduled
meeting. Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MO'fION CARRIEDe ~
. ~
- `• , ,(;;;
:~~ ~ . .,. . : . . ~. . .. ' .` V ..r'
a:~i~~, ,.... k...'wv'~t:...~ F.s,.:i.~., ~.~.!:~'S~.r., .... ..7"~,r`:;i.941."?!~,~.>,...~.,~'Rv.-.71~~nS.:~<M, . =~~t. . ..i~^~ . . ~.. .... .~.
;~
~:.
' _, .• :i
;~
/'Y
V
,.'_':. . . . ' .
~
.,~i,
la
;
Y'irt
~
1VflNUTES, CITY PLANNjNG COMMISSION, June 25, 1962,Gontinueds
RECLASSIFICATION ~ PUBLIC HEARING. MR. 8 MRS. CECIL M. LANCASTER, 6136 Gceenmeadow
N0: 61-62•125 Road, Lakewood, California, Jusuke•Ononue, Or.ange.:Avenue._at Stanton_
Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owness; Joseph P..Gieasanr_M. D,,. 6199
La Palma Avenue, Buena Park, Califarnia,. Agents,.recµuestiag. titat .
property described ass A rectangular parcel of land 615 feet by 620``fest.at,.the.north-
west corner of Orange Avenue and Beach Boulevard made-up.of. Parcel.Nose 1, 2, and 3 be
reclassified from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTiJE;AL, ZONE to the GL,. tJEI(~IDORHOOD
COA~W~RCIAL, ZONE to permit the establishment of cortpnercial facilities on aub~ect
property.
Sub3ect petition was filed in con~unction with Petition for.Conditional Use Permit
No. 260.
Mr. Joseph Gleason, agent for the petitioner, appeared.befnre .the Commission and
stated he was addressing his comments for both the realassificatiaa.and the.conditional.
use permit; that the petitioner planned,to construct a.hospital on .subject.property;
that he had been looking for sometime for a good location and found this best suited
for his purposes in West Anaheim9 and that six physicians wer.e in .the pr.oposed grovp.
Ns. Robert J. Ha~ond, 4632 Kingslawn Avenue, Hollywood,•Ca.lif.ornia,..a~neazEd
before the Cortanission and stated he was not sure his opposit3.an was against the.propos.ed
development but that he thought that he was the owner of a por.tion of sub~ect proper.ty;
that he had not realized the Iegal noti~e sent to him was of impnxtance apd~.did rrot
become aware of it in time to have his reai estate bruker make a study af the sub~ect
petition; and that he wouid like to have the hearing continued un#il he had suff.ici-
ent time to analyze the proposed use as being compatible with plans which he had
projected for abutting property.
The Commission discussed the necessity of having an opinion from the Orange.~oun~y
Health Commission as had been previously agreed upon whenever any proposed medical fac-
ility was presented to the Commission.
Assistant City Attorney Joe Geisler read a letter to the Commission from Dr.
Edward Russell, Health Officer of Orange County on the formuiation of hospital._pl.ans... ... .,
Mr. Geisler a2so stated that Dr. Russell represented one of the.department heads of
the City of Anaheim, and as such, should have been informed on subject petition.
Commissioner Marcoux offered a motivn to continue the hearing of.Rec.lassifi.cation..
Nov 61-62•125 until the meeting of July 9, 1962 in order to permit.the.Pl.anaing De~ar#- ,
ment sufficient time in which to present the proposed petitian to.Dr..Russell for his
~•onsideration~ and for his recommendations. Commissioner Camp secended.the.motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
CONDITIONAL U5E - PIJBLIC FIEARING. MR. & N~S. CECIL M. LANCAS'IER, 6136 Greenmeadn~..... '
PERMIT N0. 260 Road, Lakewood, California, Jusvke Ononue, Orange Avenne at.Sta~..
Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; Joseph .P.. .Gleason,._M. U„ 6189
La Palma Avenue, Buena Park, California, Agents r.equesiiog-.pern~ission
to ESTABLISH A HOSPITAL AND CoNVALESCENT HOIu~ on Parcel No. 1.~. and ES.TABLISH.A..SER~LICE... -
STATION on Parcel No: 2 on property described as: Parcel No.~l - An .irr.egularly._
shaped parcel of land approximat`~ly 450 feet by 620 feet, vrith a.frantage..of..450 fee.t ..
on the north side of Orange Avenue, the southeast corner of said property.beiag.168.
feet west of the northwest corner of Orange Avenue and Beach Baulevard~ and:~aroal..bin..:2:-
A rectangular parcel of land 165 feet by 150 feet at the north~eat.aar,res of Drange
Avenue and Beach E,ulevard. Property presently classified as R-A, RESIDFN'!'IAL AGRICULT-
URAL, ZONE. ~
Sub~ect petition was filed in ~on3unction with Petition for Reclassification No. 61-62-125.
Mr: Joseph Gleason, agent for the petitioner, appeared:before.the..~~m*++AR~on.and
stated that he would like to have sub~ect petition heard at~the.same time as the petition
for reclassification was heard.
Commissioner Marcoux offered a motion to continue the heaaing af.~.Petition..fot
Condition?1 Use Permit No. 260 until the meeting of July 9,.1962-in order to.h~ve-
sub~ect peti.tion heard in conjnnction v~ith Reclassification Noe 61-62-125.. Commissioner
Camp seconded the motion: MOTION CARRTED.
~' ~1£~,~\'~h..>v~.~..%n .r.....~_, ~ ..,.,., f,-.,.1. ~~.:''...Y.., ,4r.~:~t, S ~~_,'~.~:..o4E,;..S".
~
. r;'
,
~ , ~~_
U
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 25, 1962, Cantinued
1068
AIu~NDMENT TO M-1, - PUBLIC HEARING. By the CITY PLANNING CONW[ISSION to consider
LIGHT MANUFACTURING, the proposed amendment to Title 18, Chapter 18.52 of the
ZONE. Anaheim Municipal Code relating to M-1, LIGHT.NWNUFACTUR'ING,
ZOIVE.
Assistant City Joe Geisler read to the Commission the proF..ad chan9es to th? Code
as it related to the problems which the present code had c.~sed the manufacturers in the
City, that in order for the manufacturers beinq governed '~ these cade.ragulations to
progress with chang3ng procedures and methods, some revision had to.he taken in consid-
eration.
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 388, Series 1Q61-62,••and.moved.for its
passaqe and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux that the Plaaninq Commission
recommend to the City Council that Amendment to Title 18, Chapter 18.52 of the Anaheim
Muncipal Code relating to M-1, LIQiT MANUFACTURING, ZONE be amended-as propnsed,--and.to
add that any M-2 uses may be allowed through Pe+.ition for Conditional Use Permit.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COARJIISSIONERSs Camp, Chavos, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebleyo
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Non~o
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Hapgood, Perrye
€, ;
F
F{~. -.
Y
AMENDMBNT TO - PUBiIC HEARING. INITIAT'HD BY THE CITY PLANNIN~ COMMISSION to consider
(~NERAL the proposed amendment to Title 18, Section 18v04v030 of the Anaheim
PROVISIONS Muncipal Code relating to General Provisions - Use - Parking Requirements-0
Zoning Coordinatcr Martin Kreidt called the Commission's attention to Title 18 Code
book under Section 180040030 (a) (b) and proposed that (a) be changed to reads-.-~.
For dweliings, there shall be at least one parking space shall be provided on the same
site with the main building, and such parking spaoes sha11 not be less than ten feet
(10) wide by twenty (20) feet long with adequate prov3sions for.ingress and.egress,
and each space shall have a minimum af nine (9) feet clear access to the abutting alley
or the clearing area, and such parking area must not extend in front of the building
set-back linea
and that (b) shall be changed to read:
For buildings other than dwellings, parking spaces shall be provided on the same lot
as the main building or contiguous thereto or within a reasonable distance of the
subject property in a functional arrangement consistant with the safety and convenience
to the users in accordance with the following standardsa
Mr. Kreidt stated that the propesed change was the result of the Planning.Department
undertakinq a very thorouqh analysis of the entire parking diagram .indicating the spaces
the width, sizes, access aisles, etc. for the various types of..shopping.facilities,etc.~
that although the proposed amendment had almost been completed, Planning_.Directar Dick
Reese was unable to be present to cover the detail involved, although what is proposed
after a very thorough analysis is to remove the ten (10) foot by twenty (20) foot
restrictions, and that the proposed requirements have by and large.been worked up by
the Traffic'Engineer, and that additional time would be rec{uired to complete all the
proposed requirements.
Commissioner Pebley.offered a motion to continue the hearing of the Amendment to the
General Provisions - Use - Parking Requirements until the meetin9 of_July 9, 19b2 in
order to allow the Planning Department time to obtain additional_information for the
proposed revision. Comanissioner Camp secotided the motiona MOTION CARRIED.
~r.~ ._~.~...~ ~_.~..~ ~~~ - . _.__ ~ .
.~~
... ' . . ~ . ~ . . ~ ..~ .. .: .. . .
~ ~
~ ~ ~.
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 25, 1962, Continueds A'~L•9
REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1
RECO1dN~NDATIONS
Clarification of Incidental Uses ~
Conditional Use Permit No. 114 ~
Sub~ect conditional use permit was approved by the Planning.Commission and.the City ~
Council; that clarification of "Nine Games of Skill" was requested of the Lommission ~
by Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt who also stated that subjeat-games.of skill had ~
been installed on the subject property of said Conditional IIse Permit without the i
specific authorization by the original approval of said pex~n:~.te i
Commissioner Camp offered a moi:ion to interpret that the insta.llation of "Games of
Skill" including pinball machines, miniature bowling machines,.e+_c.instal]o.~ on sub~ect
property of Conditional Use Permit No. 114 as being incidental accessories uses to
the "putt-putt" miniature golf course approved dnder Conditional Use Permit No. 114.
Crnmnissioner Pebley seconded the mo•tion. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM N0. 2
Salaries of the Planning Co~mnissioners
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt read a"Blue Note" addressed to the Planning Director
Dick Reese from the City Manager Keith Murdoch which read as follows: "The City
Council at thEir informal session, Tuesday, June 12, felt that the proposed increase
in expense allowance to the Planning Commissioners should not be placed in effect.r
ITEM N0. 3
Amendment to Orange County Sectional
DistriCt Map No. 8-4-9, Exhibit "0"
A proposed change of zone from the A-1 to the M-1-5 classificaticn on property loca~ed
on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, west of the Santa Ana Canyon Road and the.Santa
Fe Railroad tracks parallel to Santa Ana Canyon Road was presented to.the Commissiaa..
Cortanissioner Marcoux offered a motion requesting the Co~mnission.Secretary to send a
letter of transmittal to the Oranga Covnty Planning Commission.advising them that,
owing to the location of sub~ect property in an area outside of the ~urisdiction of
the City of Anaheim that no coimnent be made on the proposed zone change.
Co~maissioner Mungall aeconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
I'fEM N0. el
Notice of Public Hearing, City cf Placentia Planning
- Corsmission on Zone Ct~ange #62-2A6 and # 62-113 from
P.Hi. Planned Manufacturing to R.G...Garden Apar.tments
to alloqr the construction of cantroled.Garden-type
apartments at 15021 Orangethorpe Avenue, Placentia, Ca1.
The Connnission noted that the proposed zone change was in cloae proximity.to 1~-1, Light
Manufacturing, Zone property in the City of Anaheim, and that.#he proposed zone change
would be incompatible with the present zoning in the City of Anaheim...
~
Caroroissioner Chavos offered Resolution No~ 390,, Ser~es 2961-b2, and moved for its passage
and adoption, secvnded by Commissione.r Marcoux to r~comvaend to the Planning Cammission
of the City of Placentia to deny Petition for 2one Change No. 62-10b and No. 62-113~on
the bases of the findings of the City Council of the City.of Anaheim.Resolution
~ ' No.1 62-R-335.
~
!
l~l
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 25, 1962, Continued: 1070
REPORTS AND - ITEM NO_5
RECONWIENDATIONS
(Continued) Extension or ?ime Liinitatirn
" Variance No. 1072 ._.
A letter was received from the petitioner of sub~ect llariance requesting that an
extension of time for Variance°1072 be granted by the Co~mnission.
Co~issioner Pebley offered a motion to recoimnend to the City Council that the
requesting extension of time for Variance No. 1072 be granted. .Commissioner.Chayos
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
~
ITEM N0. 6 ~
Orange County Use Variance No. 4997
Use Variance No. 4997 to permit the establishment of Sport, Recreation, and Enter-
tainment Center in the 100-C1-10,000 local business district on.a thirteen (13) acre
parcel located at the northvrest corner of the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and
Theojuana Street was presented to the Commission.
The Orange County Use Variance applicant, Mr. David S. Collins, was present and
presented to the CoTmnission a rendering of the proposed development together with a
revised plot plan. The revised plot plan was substantial2y the same as the:plat plan
received from the County with the exception that two access drives from the proposed
service station at the southeast corner of sub~ect property~~rrere shown to provide
ingr~ss and egress from the residential tract abutting to the east directly to the
proposed recreation center.
Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to advise the Orange County Planning Coimnission
that the Planning Coimnission of the City,of Anaheim recommends favorable conside~ation of
the ~roposed development with the following reservationsa
1. Ingress to and egress from the recreation center if approved, be limited to
Rio Vista Street and Lincoln Avenue only, by the prohibition..of any access
Theojuana Street, owing to the fact that the proposed commercial development
and the single family reEidential development to the east, presently.under
under constz•uction, are basically incompatiblea Until such time as .the acreage
abutting to the north of sub~ect property and west of the single family sub-
division now under construction is developed, the only point of egress.from
this single family development will be through the interceiption of T'heojaana
Street and Lincoln Avenue. Access from the commercial center to Theo9uana
Street will have a detrimental effect upon the single family residences l~aca.ted
in close proximity to this intersection and may also work to the detriment of
the commercial development, by providing an escape route westerly from Theojuana
Street to Lincoln Avenue at times when the traffic load at the 3nterception
of Theo~uana Street and Lincoln Avenue from the single family development will
be substantial, becavse of the availability of or:ly one outlet from this lar.ge
single family dEVelopment.
2. In order to accomplish a greater physical and functional separation from the
proposed coimnercial use and the single fami].y residential use.being--developed
to the east and pro~ected to the north of subject property, a six (6) foot
masonry wall should be constructed along the east and.north boundaries of
sub3ect property; the maximum open space, in the form of parking.area, shwld
be provided between the proposed coTmnercial structures and the easterly and
northerly property lines of sub3ect psoperty, ~ single.story height limitati~n
should be applicable on buildings constructed within 150 .feet of the easterly
and northerly boundaries of sub~ect property; treewells spaced at 25 foot
intervals along the easterly and northerly bovndaries of subjeci: property, or
distributed throughout the parking area.
f, .
~
. .. , ~ , .
•
~ ~ r------ `~
~
~ ~
MINUl'ES, CITY PLAIQNING CO1WYfISSION, 3une 25, 1962, Continued~
REPORTS AND I.lEN N0. _ (Continued)
RECG]Iipu~NDATI0N5
1071
3. Tha~ adeyuste parking be required,.pr.ov3ded that no less than
50~ of the area be devoted to said parking facilities.
4. That a minimum six (6) foot wide landscaped.strl~ be provided
along the Lincoln Avenve frontage of sub3e~t:property or 3nstalla-
tion of treewells throughout the'parking.area ad~acent to the
Lincoln Avenue frontage of subject property.
5, That the structures proposed to be established•an subject property
be sub~ect to architectural approvaif and
6. That the Planning Commission of the City of Anahe.im go'on record
as being opposed to the establishment of a service station at
the northwest corner of the intersection of Theo~uana and.Lincoln
Avenue; and
7. 'I'hat the proposed sign at the Rio Vista sntrance-of the preposjed
development be located along the southerly side of ~he 30 faot
wide private drive and be limited to a maximi~m height of 45 f~et,
any lighting of said sign, if permitted, be.arranged so as not`
to discourage single family residential development of the abut-
ting property to the north; and that..the proposed Lincoln Avenue
sign be limited to a maximum height of 53 feet; and
8. That the Planning Cotmnission of the City of Anaheim go on record
as oppbsing the distribution of commercial facilities on all
corners of the intersection of Rio Vista Street.and Lincoln Avenue
but that all co~mnercial facilities..bo concentrated.at the n~orth-
east corner of said intersection owing to.the.county znniag that
now exists on this corner of •the intersection as has.been done in
conJunction with the recent denial of one request for .the estab-
lishment of a.service station at the.southwpst corner of .this
intersection, and the denial of a service station at the.south-
east corner of this intersection. In.this regards it..is of
conccrn to the P:anning Commission of the.City.af Anaheim that
the approximate acres now proposed to be devoterl #o.neighborhood
cormnercial facilities, with the bulk,af the.rema3ning...13 acres
devoted to conaaercial recreational facilities, that.the approxi-
mate 5 acres are proved to be adequate in providing the.neigh-
borhood conmiercial facilities for the.future trading area in
which it is located. Pest experiences have indiceted #hat the
need for neighborhood crnmpercial facilities may.r.equire a need
for 5 to 10 acres. It is the opinion of the Commission.t6at..the
proposed five aeres for cotmnercial use of the 16 acres of com-
• • mercial zoning will prove to be adeqvate for this area, gi~en
the existance of t~he East Anaheim shopp3nq center..one mile
westerly, and ttie indication that a shopping facility will be.
located at the southeast corner nf the.3nter.section.of:.Lincoln
Avenue and Orange-Olive Road, one and one-half miles easterly.
Commoissioner Pebley seconded the motion. MpTION CARRIED.
,Il'EM NO.,
Delimitatibn of the Disneyland Area
~ `~. J
+
. <~
~ -- ---- ]
L,i _ ~
~
REPORT$ A~VD - ITEM N0. 7(Continued) 1072
RECO TIONS '
Co~nissioner Camp offered a motion to echedul:s.a-xork session to
consider the preci~ae delimi~tation of the;Disneyland.area.ia cnn-
junction bith the preparation of the General PTan, but that~the pend!~g rehearin,g for
Variance No. I457 by the City Co~ncil be apprised of the folloxing.t
Preliminary revision of.the proposed limits of i•ha D3.aneyland area in the
., variance of sub~ect property of Verianee No'. 1~"~ tp place the easterly
limita of the Disneyland area along Haster 5tr.:st whiph-incorparates said
•aubject proper.ty, Nithin the Disneyland area, that the preliminary.enalys3s
of :the Disneyland Area has. not be concludec~ that the area sball be reserved
for uses vital to and complimentary to the recreational #unction..af.:this.area,
but that the area on the south side of Katella between...Haster.Street and the
Trailerpark entrance to,the weet be reser~ced for busiaeas.and profeIISional
office vee codiplinientary to !he primary function of the ~isneyland..axea.
Commiesioner 1~IarCOUx seconded the motiorr.~ MOTION CARRIED.
CORRESPONDENCE - 1Vro letters ~vere read to the ColmniBSion from resid~nts in ~he.East
AND Anaheim area aamely Duncan S.'Vanderbilt and Helen (~agg complimenting
'~ISCELLANEOUS the Commissic!: in their unwavering efforts to~.solve..the many zoning
problems of the City of Rnahefm in an unpre3udice~l..and fair manner.
ADJOURNIu~NT There being no r.~.~•:~ bn'ei~ess to transact, Coamnissinner..Pehley ofter.ed
a motion to adf~~:.:n the meeting. Commieaioner Marcoux aeconded the
motion. IY~TION CARRIED.
Meeting adJo~.i,~ned at 11i000'Clock P. M.
Respectfplly submitted,
ANN KREBS, Secre ary
Plenninq Commiision