Minutes-PC 1962/10/29~,
„. ~ii' r+~r~,,;:t,/ k•+,,, '•„~aL . ~~ ~ ' :A
, ,.., _ . .. . ~.. .. . . . . . ~.,.
~~
. .
~ .
~ ..:?~, . . . . . . ..
__ ~ FY~[J.~ .,4~. ~ ~ .
Ir%ti ~"
- . ~:Y~1 '`ri ~ , ~
. .- ~ ' ~ - ~ L . . .. ..
. .. . , : . ,+x ~ . ~
• 1 ~
~~ty ~~~~ , ~ i :~
Aae~d;,.: ~Cali f ~rai a
Octdbttlr. 29; ,1962 f ~
1
R~Gt1IpR MHHTIPIG ~OP. 1HH ANAHBIM CITY PIANNING C;OiF9dISSION
' RHG[)IAR 1~8PING - A Regular meetiag of the :Anaheim Ci}q Planning Co~amission vaas
. called to orGer by Chair~lan Gauer a't 2000 0'Clock P,M,~ a quorum
beiag present.
pRB3BNT - CHAIRMAN: Gauer.
COl~4dI3SI0t~TBRS: Allred, Caidp, Chavos~ Marcoux, Mungaii.
ABSHNT - CO6YdISSIO~t~IDRS: Hapgood, Pebiey~ Perxp. ~
I
- pRB3HNT - ZON~NG CO~EDINATOR: Martin Sseidt j
;. DBPUTY ASSISTANT CITY.AITORNBY: Purman Roberts. I
.' • PIAIaIING COL4lISBION SBCRBTARY: Ma Brebs.
INVOCATION - Reverend Harmon, pastor of St. Anthony Claret Catholic Church, gave
' ~ the Invocation.
` pLSDGB'OP - Commiasioaer Marcoux led the Pledge o£ Allegiance to the Plag. '
AI.i,BGIAPICS
, " AppROVAI. OP - The Miautes of the meetiag of.October 15, 1962, were approved with
MI~~ the following correctiont
Page 1226 - CaRRHSPONDBNCB AND.MISCBLLANHOUS: ITBM N0. 2; shouid
.:.read: Liabrook Hardware. : , .
-: CQDIDITIDNAL USH - CONTINUHD PUBLIC FiBARING.. STAN~ARD. OIL of CAI.IPORNIA,.605'WeBt ~
` pffitMIT N0. 266 Alqmpic Boulevard,~ Los Angeles 54, California,•.~xrners; POSTBR and
~,BISffit~ 1550 Weat Washington Boulevard„Los Angeies 7~ California,
Ageat; requesting permiasion to BUILD 1W0~10 FBBT BY 25 PSST STBSL
BILLHOARDS oa propertq described as: An irregular parcel of land af thc southeast
coraer of Lincoln pveaue.and.Heach Boulevard, with a 200 foot frontage oa.both sides,
. :and further described as 9012 Beach Bouleva=d. Property preaeatlq classified:as C-3,
FIBAVY COMMffitCIAL, ZONB. ,
8ubject petitioa wa,s contiaued'from the meetings of July 9, 1962, September 5,`1962,
~ aad October 1,.1962, ia order to a11ow the Citq, A¢torney's Office sufficient..time~:to ~
fosmulate the Biliboard;-0rdinaace., ' " . ~
Depa~y Aseiataat Citq Attorney, Furmaa Roberts, advised the Commisaion that the
Billboard.Ord~naace which the City Attoraeq`s Office has been workiag oa for,some time~ ~
has not:been,compieted;,that they'had receitred a;number,of model Ordiaaacea on Biliboarda ;
_ from other•cities aad'were.aaalyzing them,to.formulate their fiaal draft; that a~ny. j
items;had to be:taten iato conaideratioa in formuiat~iag tbis Ordinance; and that~it'would I
, be at•least two montha before s fiaal draft of said ord~aance would be completed. '~
= . , .: ,
Chairmaa~Gauer'inquired if any oae in the Couacii'Chamber oppoaed aub;ject petitiop; and` ,
: - , . • .
.
received no repiy.
,. °
° 1':, i~~, THB f~ARING WA3: Q.OBED.
Ux, y~~ : :_ ',..
. ;
' ~,.'....~'~~ '
~v ~ •r.~"'~ . _
, ~`#~'' ~'~ 1229 - _
~"f,Y•,+"; ~ .
. ~. • ,
,
.
. ... . s. .
.~ _.
„ :" ~. ;'
1.~ . .,. , ' . . . :. . .' .. .• ~
~ . . . . , .. . . ~ ... ~ .
\
~ +
~ ` ..~, . . . . : ..
y r .- _ ; .. .' . , .-
a.~e i ~, T f ~ ~ ' . ~ ~. ~ ~
~7. ~ ~+,r nd~ ~~r r~~ ~k ~ ~'~ . . ~'4 1 ~ ~ ~~ ~ { L ~ N~ . ~ ~ , , . . , 3 fk~T, r~ ~ ~ ~ ~^'^-r~~.~~~
,.n..,rt, i ..~. _ _. _ ~ ^'',3.~t„~ ..._.r ..y.S..... .... ...rl, . ~,i~.~c,A.t..~.~n~..`. ._ . . ~,rP,iw,~...,.~~;~.& .;.>er..+.,^`"~.~,.,.?'~' . .....:.. ....
[q ~~;1+.yo-r :~ 1 - ~ :~Fri;~{c(.wc,•rYa'°~"!'7~}t~,~al«.~....-iN.~;s~~~ H'ii : .(.v~7 b.~~~..Mw.~'i'3'S4f.n~~S:~~;v. ..
~2 1~
, ~. i
~ .l ';~ _
. ~ . ~ . . . = i h/Y . ~• . ..
~ ~. ..~ .. ~~ - • ~ .. . .
~ '. . . . ~ ~:.. . . ~. ' . . . . . ' ' . ' , . . . . . . ~ ~ • .
~ MINUTBS~ CIT3f PIANNING Ca!9+lISSION~ October 29, 196~, Coatinued; 1230
~~ • `
` CONDITIONAL U3E f PurLher discuasion was heid by the-Co~eniasion relative to denying
~' PBRMIT N0.:266 ' subject petition or.continue hearing of the petition ~nti1 the
~ : (C0IVTINUBD) fiaai draft of the Ordinance was completed. ~
~ CommiasioneY Mar.eoux offered a motion to,reopea the hearing and continue Petition for •
(~ ~'.Q~~t30S..°.~ :.~3.°. .~t.'I~.~~ v0. ~vv iC. ~~8 .ia22'tau~ Gi JdIIL'oa j'r ~ Ins~.°i~ ~A BYdEF ~O d11ow } .
the,Citq At#orney sufficient time to complete his fiaai draft of the Biliboard ~'
~ Ordinaace. Commiasioner Munga7.1 aeconded the motioa. MOTION GIRRIHD. i '
~ ~
Commisaioner ~b]ey entered the Couacil Chamber at 2;20 P,M.
CONDITIONAL USB - CONTINUBD.PUHLIC F~ARING. ROHHRT WASSffitMAN~•1123} Balle Vistia~
PBRSlIT N0. 293 Beveriy Hills, Ca.l.iforaia, Owner; ILpyD 8, MOUNT, 421 8ast Broadway~
A~taheim, California,,Agent; requeating permisaion to CON3TRUCT A
PIANI~ffiD-UNIT DBVBLOPAlBNT, on property deacribed as: p rectangular parcel of land with a
froatage.of'S71 feet~ pius or minus, on the east side of Y.not4 Avenue, aad a depth of
612,fee'E, pius or;mirius,~the aorthwest coraer of said property being 378 f,eet~ plus or
minus, south.of ttie southeast coraer of Liacola aad Auott Aveauea. Propertq preaentiy
classified C-1; I~IQiBQtH00D C(Y~lBRCIAL, ZONB.
. . ~.
Sub3ect petition was coatiaued from,the meetinga of August 20~ September S, and
Octot~er i,'1962~ in order to permit the petitioner an opportunity to submit revised piot
plaas ~ich would indicate st~eet dedications through,sub,~ect propertq.
Chaiso~aa Gauer inquired if there was any one ia the Council Chamber present to
represent the peti~ioner~ and recieved no rasponse.
2oning Coordinator Martia Breidt~ advised the Commission that revised plot plana had
not-beea received in the Planniag,~egartmen*; and that the Departmeat had received no
request for contiauaace o~ sabject petition.
~ffi HBARING WA3 CLOSHD.
Gommissioner Camp offered,a motion to reopen and continue the hearing of Petition for Conditional
Use.permit No. 293 to the meeting.of November 26, 1962, aad to adviae the petitioner
that complete plot plans in accordaace with the requi=ements of the Piaaning Commission
''and the Plaaning Department together with floor plans and e.velations be aubmitted at
that tiwe fas the hearing. Com~isaioner A11red seconded the motina. MOTION CARRI~.
! Mr.. Lloyd H. Mount, agent fo; the petitioner,:errived 3n the Couacil~Chamber twenty (20)
minutes after sub,ject petitioa had beea continued, and requested of the Commisaioa that ~
the Commission.,reconsider his petiti'oa at the current meeting.
Chaisman Gau~er advised the.agent for the petitio~r that if saq heariag on subject
petition were heard~it would be after all other Public Hearinga as scheduled were heard.
Mr. Lloyd Mouat~ agent for the p~titioner, later appeared before the_Commiasion and
stated that he had a dupiicate set.of revised pians which he had filed with the Planning
- Department aometime.ago and-asked that the Cammiesion review his aew piana.
Mr. 8reidt, adviaed the Commission that no development rEView had been made oa the
reviaed plot pians; and #hat Asaiataat Planner Marvin Krieger, would review them and
repor.t.lat,er to.the Commiseion.
Commissioner Camp,offered a:motion to reacind the original motion made aad to reopen
, the heariag of Coaditioaal Uae Permit No. 293, Commissioner Alired aeconded the motioa.
MOTION CARRIED.
Mr.,Lloyd Mount.again appeared before .the Commiasioa aad atated that his requeat.for
- the,waiver of the,mingle-atory heighQ-limitation on a piaffied-unit`deyelopaent xas aii
t6at.he was.`requesting.diace'he propoaed a three-atory development; that the proposed
plaas utilized 15% of the land area; that a,dedicated street, was .being provided
thron;~ :l:e sub~ect p.-opertYi ;that , tht prapassd ~sye3a~~ent° ~conld' ;se .of a Fre~ieh
clasaic:deaign;;that carporte'were propoaed instead'of garages; and that after the
str.eet dedicatio n.was made a front.yard'setliack waiver wouid be needed. ..
'`r "~ ~ ~;~„ ~~ji''I"..-~'f~ u~a ~.rxr;...i`rfi .xC ~.;-~k +~ ~,'gi`a x t ~ .FF ~1,a~~~ ar c ti .;~ x ~t -t? ~{_,_ ... ~ _ _... ~
r~ip`'~ r1r~ .. :t .~t. „ 7.. z _. .1 r. /.. . -'~. ~ . ..:'Si . _v..s:,>u. w~.v-~..a~~„L ~ ~ t.
~_
~ -
:"~:
-t
~'tl ~;
. ~ d,.;~i
" - ;ii ^"~~ _ t:. ?~'4'~'.r~G~=,'~eASCG?f1Y'I'i ..t;r ' ...Tr~r.t,~~;.., `~~....,4~~'~d.'~}'~Jr~, L,S~'''.
t
~~ ~
R
~ .
r .,; , , t " , . .. . . . .Yy`~.a,'.vy~ n.~,
_ `
~~ ;
~ ~-..! .. ~ ` - . ..:! •'
~ MINUTE3, CITY PiANNING ~I38I0N, October 29, 1962~ Continued:
~ ..' ,
CONDITIONAL.U$8 .- II~eputy Assitant City Attorneq, Purman Roberts, advised the Commisaioa
PBRMIT.NO. 293 that apparentlq the hearing had beea Continued before Mr. Mount's
(Continued) arrival; that no oae respoaded wAea.the petitioa was to be heard;
• that no opposition was preserited before the previous contiauance;
- - - that the qcestioa ~fo~~ •h~ Comaissioa was whetS~~ or'nat aa° oae x~o sva~ 3n th2•
F •-. .
~
~
i, ,
~: : .
`.,: -;
Council Chamber would have opposed subject petiLion, but"did not voice it~because no ome
represeated the petitioner, and the hearing was coatiaued; and that if the Commission
would reopen the heazing~ the petitioner would be obligated to aseume any legal
reaponaibility ia the hearing if aay ahould arriae. •
Mr. Lloyd Mount stated that he wouid assume fuii responsibility if anq act3u n was taten
after the Commisaion heerd the petition as origictally schednled.
Chairman Gauer again asked if aay one opDosed subject petition, and received no repiy.
~ 7!~ HBARING WA3 CL08HD. .
~ Mr. greidt read the report from the Development.Review siaff.of the Planning Depastmeat
~ which indicated that ID~hibits "A!' through "D" received duriag the Planaing Commiasion
, meeting on October 29, 1962~ for revie~r and report, indicated-piaas were incomplete;
+ that no detail of the garagea or propoaed carports was ahown; that there were no
~ eievations showing what the overall project,or the compieted buiiding would look like
- upon completion...either from Briott Avenue or the interior street; that there was ao
detail as to'the way the individual modulea or unita would connect; that,from the
sketch on Bxhibit "D" labeled front eievation. it cauld not be determined whether or
` i not the proposed pro3ect would be compatible with $ny known or any projected deveiop-
r meats within Anaheim; that there was a.question whether the modules'or un3ts as shotvn
would require a miaimum distance between themselves; that preseat Cod'e requirements
r require a tea (10) foot minimum bet~en buildings where placed end to end;'that aub3ect
~ exhibite were reviewed bq P1si~ning Director Richard Reese, ia.his capacity ia
Development Review, anc~ hp atated that 3n his opinioa the plans as presented were ia
~ auch var~gnce with any existiag or pro3ected developmeat xrithin the C,ity of Anaheim;
~ and_t~at they could~not-be approved bq the Department.
r . : . . ;
~ -'Pusther discusaipn was'held by the Commission as to the compatibility of the propoaed
;_y;- plans; whether the plans as preseated xere acceptable; and then inquired of Mr, Aiount
how'the bui2dings were'connected xith each other #o be coasidered oae building,
- Mr. Mount stated that there was..a cover area with space between the two buildings; and
further indicated tbat all the plot.plans did not indicate it, there were other
definite advantages to the praposed plot pians. .
Asaistaat City Attorney Joe Geisler, adviaed the Comsission:thab in hia opinion the
plot piaas gs preseated indicated .4iao coeplete buildiags aad not units of several
buiidiags; and that his only oppoa~ition to said petition was noncompiiance with the two
and one-half (2}) storq or thirtp-five (35) foot requiremeats for multiple-faraily u-~it
developments.
~
The Gommisaion noted that the fin3sh of the bnildiag xouid oniq be stucco which again.
~,'- would give a barrack-type appearance;• that tkCere aQpea=ed to be oae single entrance
with stairs used,for fire eaifs only; and that on further analysis~it wouid atili be a.
f requirement of actios for three. stories as requested.
f
Planning Director Ricliard Reese, appeared before the Commission and stated that in the
, ,
•opinion of the'Development Rev3ew function, aub3ec.t developmeat wouid be ~ncompatible; that
the basis for a single buildiag was.queationable and that the responsibility of
architectural;desiga as set.up by the.City_Councii xould rest with both the Pianniag
Coumission and the:.PTa~miag Depar#ment before the petition'was granr.ed or deaied; and
a that the oalq time the Development Reviex functian could de ny piot plan~ was at the time the
E s Building Permit was to lie issued, aad he prefersed to remedy any type of incompatibility
~ : before it would reach that state. .
c
i }~`~ {,c
` '
~.
~`_: ' ~~..~,"'.'~3 .
~ . .~~~>;:.~.~
~..
~
s;
_ ... ... ;
'~P'~c ~
l~ 4 ~rx~~..+"-~xYZ~ra'L5v?-_-~.~ti..x.^.;i.~%?r~~r~;E.~ +?1`.M1 ~e~....~`'~",~~^„",...r~~~; E ~ y~
~~~. ^ -t
,
, #'
i- ~
. .~ ,1~
'
V ~ '
:. ~~:
. t _.". -:. 4
i
\ .
.~
. ,.: - '.
~ .;..'.... ~. "..: ~.. .~.v:...:~.: . '.:':• ':~.":~ _.., ~ .','.: ~:'::.•:'. ...~'. N~v.~~~.:
.
_
. . _~ . ~ ' k '~fT .
.. , /
;: ~~~~ ~ .. .,
~ ' ~
``\ .
\
+~
~
~ ~,J ~ . . . . • , . ~/ " ' ~ -_ ~ ~ ' . .
MINUTB9, CITY PLANNING COi~IS3I0N, October 29, 1962~ Continued:. 1232
.. . I
~ `
~ ~
COBIDITIONAL U38 - The Cotl~iBaiori conceded that.the architecture could be improved; - .
PffitFIIT N0. 293 that,the'plot plaas should be ievised somewhat; but if Mr, Mount ~
~
'(CQNTINIJBD) stated that.bub3eet det-elopment`would be similar to.the Ne~rport Inn, ~
this aould present,a compatible developmeat. ~
'r3F. R2288 agai~i $T$$~O ~IIBL QC fe1L ~Al' AiCf13~0C~ for the proposed development could ~ .
-
present more compatible. plans aad suggested that_tihe Commissioa continue snbject ~ ,
.~~ ~ petition so that the;Architect~De.veioper, At1d #tie Planning Departmeat might meet to
reaolve: some of the problems in queatioa. `
I .
- Commias.ioner Chavos oftered a motion to eontinue Petitioa for Conditioaal Use Permit ~ ~
~ No. 293 to the meeting of November 26~ 1962~ in.order to aliow the petitioner time to ~
consuit with the Ylanning Departnent and preaeat revised pians, aad directed that the
Planniag Department present to the Commissioa a complete r.eport on aii aetions taken
~ s prior to the Commission meeting at which time this.petition was to•be hea:d
,
r, .
Commissioner Alired seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD,
RSCIA33IPICATION - CONTINUBD.PUBLIC HBA1tING. CHARLBS V. AMADOIt~ 2628 Weat ?8th 8treet,
` N0. 62-63-32 Inglewood~ California, aad l~t, and l~tS, E. L. OVIHDO, 1627 8ast
$yca.more Street, Anaheim, California~ Owners; BIpS MARRON, 741 North ~
Pauline~ Anaheim~ California, qgent; requesting that property
' described as: A rectangular parcel of land with a 124 foot froatage on the north side ;
of 3ycamore Stseet, and a depth of 175.feet, the southwest corner of said property -
~ being 320 feet east of the northeast corner af Bast Century Drive aad Sycamore Street,
~ and further described as 162T Sycamore Street be reclassified from the R A, RBSIDSNTIAL
AQtICULTURAL, 20NB, to the R-3~ MULTIPLS PAMILY AESIAENTIAL, ZONB, to construct a four- {
plex one-story apartment. ' ~
J
3ubject petition was continued from the meeting of October 15, 1962, at the request of
€ the agent for the petitiouer in order U-ata more complefe set of plans mighi: ~e submitted.
~ Chairman Ganer inquired if any oae in the Council Chamber was preseat to represent ~
4he petitioners, aad received no reply.
~
~
Co~iss:oae: Etarcoux offered a motioa to continue Petition for Reclassification ~
No. 62-63r32 to #he mee#3ng of November 26, 1962, and'directed,that a letter be
~_ ;
addreased to the petitioner requesting that when reviaed plaas'were submitted that an
r indication on'the piot plans be noted~that 4he removal of the home o~ aubject p=operty
•. would take'place; and that, the petit'soners:consult with'the Plaaning Departmeat to -"'
E. ascertain the type of development recommended for subJect propertq. Commissioner ,
~
1 . :- Mungail seconded the motioa. Mt71'ION CARRIBD. '
. .. . . . . . . . ~ . . . . - ~ , . .
.
. . . _`'
. .
~
~ .
. . . . .
SARIANCS N0. 1526: - PUBLIC HBARING. LOUIS J. and DQtOTHBA 8. STACSBR, 2431 Ma11
~
; Aveaue~ Anaheim, California, Owners;. requesting permission to
~ WAIVS RHAR YARD SHTBAGg RHQUIRH~ffiNT on property described as:
~ A.rectangular parcel of iand witha 73 foot frontage on the aorth side of Ma11 Avenue, aad
~ a..depth:of 100 feet, the southeast corner of said property being 175 feet west of the
northwrest eorner'of Ma11 Avenue and Topo 3treet~ and further described as 2431 Ma11
~ ' ".,' , 'Avenue. .Ptopertq presently classified`R-1,:ONB-PAMILY RBSIDBNT7AL, ZONS.
Mr. Louis J. 3tacker, oae of the owners~ appeared before the Commisaion'and stated that
he had aothing further to add for the Commisaion~s consider~tion. I
Ctisirman Gauer inquired if any one opposed aub,ject petition~ and received no reply. ~
, 1HB HBARING WAS CL0.SBD.`
:
t
~ ~~ _ ,
2oaing Coordinator Maz.tin Sreidt, reyiewed for the.Commission subject petition, and
:
'~ ~:
~ stated..that,it was the first oae received'since the new Ordinance oa
;rear yard aad- ~
,+~ ,
side yard,setback:xas being adiuiniatratec}, in which Lhe Comm3.asion ~a¢:
Councii ruled
}~~~~ .; .
that a tea (10) foot se
tback would be the minimum permitted'oa a rear qard setback
_ ;
r
~ ~
from the property i3fie, . ` ~ . ' ,
`
~~~~
~~,~
~~ ~~~ ~
r
`
• '
~
~y
.. , :_:.. ;
,. -„ -
. .::
. ;
, _. , < . -
,: _ . . i .. .
._ _ _ .. ,.. `
, :
I •'
~ _
~ ,:
a „r
.~~ >
, .
~
_
~
"
Y r
7 ~~
~cr.~ F'
* ~x I.~ i
:, - ': ' ... .. , .
+5~,;
l~ Ytp*'~
Z ~F
!`
~
}2"~~M t i. ~ a
""" _ ~.
_' _ '~If `.~i~`'Y* yr ..q ~'T. Y„~.( y,' . ' 9 -;h 4~'~Vy} t ; ~'Tr ~C' L~ f '3 S`M'i j A5. . hl...~i1i?t ~~ it~ir l} ~ ~
. . . +~4.°,X.. aC~. ~.2a....,.t~~fe~. . .. ., )..T...~? 7. u.. {,"~'_' Y.~.7~;.<.;.X_'sL~11;)-Y~~SlS.^f..~ii;>.~ . . ~
~
. F '~. ! ~.
. . . ~ .i..~+,n~
~
~
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COAAlISSION, October 29, 1962, Continued: 1233
VARIANCH N0. 1526 - The Commission inqyired whe~~er the petitioner was aware of the
(Continued) fact that a new Ordinance re~ardiag rear qard setbacks had
receatly been passed by the Commission and the Council.
The petitioner replied that he liad been iaformed of it, but the plans as presented he
felt were the only feasibie plans they could use to solve the problem of additional
bedrooms; and that as a professor who is required to do research to further his career,
he had no place ia :ahich to study away from the every day noises of a home.
The Commission inquired of Mr, greidt what the reasons were stated on the petition to
show grounds for a land use hardship. Mr. Rreidt then read all of the reasons
presented by the petitioners.
The Commission further discussed waqs and means in which the petitioner might be able to
complq with Code requirements and still construct an addition to the existing residence;
that if said petition were granted; this would set a precedent for the basis of graating
others under similar circumstances; and that all the study that had been putin by the
Commission zn work sessioas regarding rear qard setbacks indicated that the Ordinance
as passed was the best for the benefit of the Citizens of the City ~of Anaheim as well as
the welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim.
Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. 515~ Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos to deny Petition for Variance
No, 1526, based on findings, (gee Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foliowing vote;
AYE3: CQMMISSIONffitS: Alired, Camp, Chavos~ Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley.
NOBS: CONAlI3SIONIDRS: None.
ABSffiIT: COU4~iIS3I0NERS: Hapgood, Perry.
Commissioner Chavos left the Council Chamber at 2:45 0'Clock P.M.
VARIANCB N0. 1527 - PUBLIC F~ARING. BMPIRH INV.BSTMBIVTS, 11059 Wrightwood piace, North
Hollywood, California, Owaers; INTBGRATBD INC „ 9668 Telegraph
Road~ Los Angeles 22, California, Attention: W, R. Baker~ Ageat;
requesting permission to WAIVE BUILDING SBTBACR RHQUIRBMBNT on property described as;
A rectangular parcel of lattd with a 300 foot frontage on the west side of Los Angeles
Street~ a:~d a depth of 326 feet, the northeast corner of said property being 365 feet
south of titie sonthwest corner of permoat Avenue and Los Angeles Street. Property
preaently classified C-1, Neighborhoad Commercial, Zone,
Subject petition was filed in conjunction with Condiiional Use Permit No. 311.
Mr. William Saker, agent for the petitioaer, appeared before the Commissioa and stated
that he was one of the developers of the property, aad that he had nothiag further to
add for the Commission*s consideration.
Chairman Gauer inqu?.red if any one opposed subject petitioa.
Mr, peter Warnoff, 92l! Lincoln Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated that he
opposed sub,ject Variance which would conflict with the required sixty (60) foot setback
of ali businesses on South Los Angele~ Street, north of the Tamasha Club. That if sub-
ject petition were granted, the building which they own at 967-981 South Los Angeles
Street would be hidden from pnblic view; that at the time they requested permiasion to
construct the neighborhood commercial building, they were required to setback sixty (60)
feet; and that the whole block should then be setback similarly to preaent a uniform
appearance.
Mrs. Audrey Warnoff, appeared before the Commission and stated that she opposed subject
petitioa which requested a setback of only twenty (20) feet; that if subject property
were in an ol'der area with a varied setback this could be possible., but.subject property
was all vacant lattd on both the north'and south sides with iot depths of 326 feet; that
granting subject variance would create a hardship aad give a privilege which was not
afforded to them when they petitioned for theis Neighborhood Commercial Development; aad
that no hardship had been proven by t~te petitionera to warrent the Commission's
conaideration.
. .r.; . . .~ _ ` . !-: ~
i.'
~
~' _
~ ~
~
~~ . ,
~ `...---
. ..
~
~ _.
~
s:
R
~..
~ ...
~
~
~
, ~
~_ ., -
k-~~".~
~ . ~
MIN[,"TBS, CITY PLANNING COMMIS3ION, October 29, 1962, Continued:
VARIAN(~ N0. 1527 - The Commission inquired of the petitioner whether he had beea
(Contiaued) informed that a sixty (60) foot aetback was required along
Los Augeles Street, to which the agent for the petitioner replied
ia the affirmative.
The Co~mission further inquired of 2oning Coardinator Martin greidt, why a sixty (60)
foot se:back was originally required, an~ Afr. Zreidt replied that at the tira~ the
property along Los Angeles 8treet and in the immediate proximity of subject property was
rezoned to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial~ it was requested that the sixtq (60) foot set-
back be required to provide a uniformity in the area; and that the plans that were
preseated did not indicate a need for the encroachmeat iato the setback,
Commissioner Chavos returned to the Couacil Chamber at 2:53 0'Clock P.M.
Tf~ HBARING WAS CLOSBD.
It was noted by the Commission that if aubject petition were granted, this would set a
precedent for all subaequent bu:.'.:lings adjacent to subject property to request a similar
variance from the sixty (60) foot setback.
Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 516, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage
aad adoption, seconded by Commisaioaer Mungall to deny PetiLion for Variance No. 1527,
based on findings. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolutioa was passed by the foilowiag vote:
AYBS: C~IISSIONBRS: A11red, Camp~ Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungali, Pebley.
NpB3; COhMISSiOI~RS: None.
ABSBNT: COMMIS3If~S: Hapgood, Perry.
CONDITIONAI. USE - PUBLIC HRARING. BMPIRB INVBSITffiNTS, 11059 Wrightwood Place, North
PBRMIT N0. 311 Holiqwood, California, Owners; INTBGRATBD INC., Attention: W. R.
Baker, 7668 Telegraph Road, Los Angeles 22~ California~'Ageat;
requesting permission to CONSIRUCT r1N RUTq~lOBILB AGBNCY - NIDW, USBD~ AND SBRVICING on
propexty described as: A rectaaguYar percel of land with a 300 foot frontage on the
west side of Los Angeles Street, aa~d a depth of 326 feet~ the northeast corner of said
property being 365 feet south of the southweat corner of Vermoat Aveaue and Los Angelea
3treet. Propertq presently classified C-1~ I~IQiBatH00D Cah1M~tCIAL, ZONB.
Subject petition filed in conjunction witia Variance No. 1527.
Mr. William Baker, agent for the petitioner appeared before the Commiasion and stated
that he had nothing further to add for the Commission's considezation.
~lE HBARING WAS CL03HD.
Zoning Coordinator Martin ICreidt, advised the Commisaion that if they elected to coasider
the plaa favorable and aiace the Variaace waiving the aixty (60) foot aetbact was denied~
plans as presented did aot indicate a sixty (60) foot aetback; and that the Commission
might wish to continue subject petitioa in order that the petitioner mi~ht p~esent
reviaed plana incorporgting'the'requiied sixty (60) foot setbact for Parking Landscaping.
Chairman Gauer inquired if there was aay oae in the Council Chamber opposing subject
petitioa, and received no reply.
Commissioner Chavos.offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petitioa for
Conditional Use Permit No. 311 to the meetittg of Nw ember 14, 1962. Co~issioner Camp
secoaded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
VARIANCB N0. 1528 - PUBLIC HBARING. CLIPTON M, AND ANNIH MAS MARTIN, 1916 West Bali
Road, Anaheim, California, Ownera; requeatiag permission to
BSTABLI9H A DOCTQt'S OPPICB oa property deacribed as; p rectangular parcel of land with
a 124 foot frontage on the south side of Ball Road, and a depth of 365 feet~ the~north-
east corner of said propertp being 190 feet west of the southwest corner of Nutwood
Street and Ball Road, aad further described as 1916 Weat Ball Road, Propertq presentiq
clas~iP3Pd R A. RHSIDBNTIAL AQtICUL1URAL, 20NH.
E
~
.. . . , . .. ~ ~ .. _~I A~7 .
~ ~ i Yt.
~Y!
i,
, • . ., ;
.
,
l ~ ~ ..~
.
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING.CObAlI3SION~ October 29, 1962, Continued: 1235
VARIANCE N0. 1528 - Mrs. Cliftoa N.artin, one of t5e petitioners appeared before
(CONTINUBD) the Commissio~i and stated that this was her second appearance
before the Co~imission regarding the same property; that the
neighbors who ,formerly opposed the use of subject property for
commercial uses did aot now oppose the use'of sub3ect property for a doctoiTs office.
The Commission inquired of Deputy Assistant City Attorney Furman Roberts,whether
the Commission could grant a business and professional use without recla~sificatioa of
subject property.
Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that use must be applied through a reclassification
of subject property, and that in the Code regulations on Variances subject uae was not
permissible.
Mrs. Martin stated that when the petitioners had first applied for reclassification~one
of the Commissioner~s suggested that they come in under a Variance, and that possibly
the use could then be granted.
The Commission thett advised the petitioner that the Commissioa could only grant a
Variance if true land use hardship could be proven, which was the interpretation of
the law.
Chairman Gauer inquired if aayone was in the Council Chamber opposing subject petition~
and received no response.
THH HBARING WAS CLOSHD.
The Commission further discussed the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial use limiting it to
Busi~less and Professional use only; whether the existing home_would be converted to
present a commercial appe~rance or whether it would be removed, and if said use couid
be granted under a Conditional Use Permit.
Mr. :;aberts advised the Coamission that the proposed use was not permissible under a
Conditional Use Permit.
The petitioner advised the Commission that they plan to remove the house within two
years and to construct a regular commercial facility for the use within that time; and
that for the present they planned to use the home in which to reside.
Mr. Roberts advised the petitioner that from the time the ordiance was read on a
Reciassification that the residence couid no longer be used as a residence.
Commissisotter Chavos offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition
for Variance No. 1528 until the meeting of November 14, 1962, in order that the
Commission might initiate proceedings for reclassification of subject property.
~ommisaionez Marcoux seconded the motioa. MOTION CARRIED.
INITIATS - Commissioner Chavos offered a motion ta initiate proceedings for
nxc~ e cIFIGTION reclassifing property described as noted in Va=iance No. 1528 fsom
the R-A, RBSIDBNTIAI. AQtICULTfTRAL, ZONB to the G1, NIHHGBORHOOD
COhAIffitCIAL, ZONH (limited to business and professioaal uses oniq), and that it be
heard at the meeting of November 14, 1962. Commissioner Marcoux seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIHD.
VARIANCB NO. 1524 - YUBLIC HBARING. BLIZApHTH Dqy~ 420 South Heach Boulevard, Anaheim,
California, Owner; requesting permission to WAIVB MINIMUM LOT
SIZH on property described as; p retangular parcel of land with
a 138 foot frontage on the east side of Heach Bouievard, and a depth of 240 feet, the
southwest corner of said property being 488 feet north of the northeast corner of
Orange Avenue and Beach Boulevard~ and further described as.920 South Beach Boulevard,
property presently clasaified as R A, RBSxDBNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZOI~,
`~
l
I
i
. s • ~ ~
~
I .
. 1 ',~:'.
~, ,.
- - ----------- ._ ~_ \
\
~ ~ ~ • ~
- MINUTHS~ CITY PLANNING COhAlISSION, October 29~ 1962, Continued; 1236
~ ..
~ VARIANCB N0. 1529 - Mrs. Blizabeth Daq, the petitioner appeared before the Commisaion*
(Continued) and stated that she had nothing'furt~er to add for the Commission s
. i consideration. '
( Chairman Gauer inquired if any one in the Council Chamber opposed subject petition, and
~ received no responae.
~ ~ THB HBARING WAS CLOSED.
A discussion was held as to the proposed frontage of each lot if subject property was
split~ and it was determined that the lot slze would be sixty (60) feet with a two
hundred and forty (240) foot depth, and that the exisling residence would be moved
northerly on the northernmosi ios.
Commissioner Pebiey offered Resolution No. 517, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption~ seconded by Co~isaioner Mungall to grant Petition for Variar~e
No. 1529, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) !
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followi.ag vote:
AYBS: CQhAMISSIONBRS: Alired, Camp, Chavos. Gau~r, Marcoux, Mungail, Pebiey.
NOBS: CObAlIS3I0*TBRS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONHRS: Hapgood, Perrq.
CONDITIONAL USH - PUBLIC FIDARING. ~tYIAND INDUSTRIAL PROPHRTIHS, '-~o ~ast Orangethorpe
PHRMIT N0. 310 Avenue, Anaheim, California~ Attention: R. S. Hoy~, Jr., Vice Presi-
dent~ Owners; requesting permission to HSTABLICg p BpNK on property
described as; An L-shaped parcei of land with a 272 foot fronta~. on the north side of
Orangethorpe qveaue, and a dept;i of 312 feet, the southeast corner of said property
being 192 feet west of the northwest corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Sast Street, and
further described as 1025 East Orangethorpe Avenue. Property presently classified as
M-1, LIQiT MANUPACTURING, ZONB.
Chairman Gauer inquired whether there was any one in the Council Chamber to represent
the petitioner, and received no reply.
; The Commission reviewed the plans as presented by Zoning Coordinator Martin 1Creidt.
It was determined that the proposed bank would eccupy a portion of an already existing
structure; that there presenfly existed a fifteen (15) foot landscaping zone; that
although, subject property was iocated in~an M-1 Zone~the structures and businesaes
surrounding subject property were predominately commercial.
Chairman Gauer inquir.ed whether there was any opposition to subject petition, and
received no response.
THH HBARING WAS Q.OSHD.
Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 518, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adaption, seconded by CbmmissioneY Ali=ed to grant Petition for Conditional
Use Permit No. 310, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll cail the foregoing resolutian was passed bq the following vote:
AYBS: CODM~lT3SIQdffitS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungali.
NQ&S: CObAtI3SI0NIBRS: None. •
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONffitS: Pebley.
AB3HNT: COhaIISSIOI~RS: Hapgood, Perry.
CONDITIONAL USH - PUBLIC FffiARING. GBRTRUDS HqNHLL, 1131 Beacoa, Anaheim, California, ~
P~tMIT N0. 312 Owuer; requesting permissian .to CONSIRUCT A CHILD CARB NU1tSBRY on I j
property described as: A rectangular parcel of land with a sixty
(60) foot frontage on the east side of Hampatead Street and a frontage of 110 feet on ,
the north side of Ba21 Road, and located at the northeast corner of said streets, and
f~~rther.de.scribed as 956 Hamustead Street. Property preaently classified as R-1~ 01~ ' . ;
_ _ . _
_ _ . .. ___... ._....._.,._....._ . ............... .
PAMILY,AH9IDffidTIAL, ZONB.
~
~ --- - a.~...~.......e.~.~,.,~,. .
g~ ,.
' "_~ • " 1 ; .. ; . ~=
~
i
~
:~:<,
,~<<:.
i~ ; ~ ~
MINUTBS~ CITY PIANNING COPA~II3SION, October 29, 1962, Continued 1237
CONDITIONAL USS - Mrs. Gertrude Howell, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission
3BBMaNT N0. 312 and atated she had nothing further to add for the Commiasion's ~
(CONTIN[IHD) consideration.
i~e Commission noted that the petitioaer did aot provide for a masonry wail between
the garage and the existing masonrq wall on the east boundary of subject property;
that it would be necessary to construct the masonry wall so that the play area would
not have access to Hall Road,
Chairman Gauer inquired whether there was anyone in the Council Chamber opposing subject
petition and received no response.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 519~ 3eries 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioaer Camp, to grant Petition for Conditional
Use permit No. 312, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolutioa was passed by the foliowing vote:
AYB3: COhAlISSIONBRS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, pebley.
NQ83: COkA~IISSI0I~RS: None.
AB3ffiVT: COhAlISSIQNHRS: Hapgood, Perry.
RECB33 - Commissioner Marcoux offered a motion to recess for ten minutes. Commissioner
Camp seconded the motion. The meeting recessed at 3:45 0'Clock P.M.
RHCONVBNB: Chairman Gauer reconvened the meeting at 3;57 o'clock P.M., Commissioners
Hapgood and Perrq being absent.
CONDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC FIDARING: QiIP and NORMA CHASIN~ 1801 Newport Houlevard,
PffitMIT N0. 315 Costa Mesa, California, Owners; JOFIIV A. MAURICB, 1801 Newport Boule-
vard, Costa Mesa, California, Agent: requesting permission to
BSTABLISH A LIQUQR ST~tH AND RBSTAURANT on property described as:
A rectaagular parcel of land with a 269 foot frontage on the south side of Bali Road,
and a depth of 253 feet, the northeast corner of said property being 195 feet west
of the southwest corner of Bali Road an3 Dale Avenue, aad further described as 2820
Bali Road, property presently classified as C-1, NHIGHB~tH00D CONIldffitCIAL~ ZOiVH.
Mr. John A. Maurice, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and
stated that when reviged plans were submitted for the Commission`s consideration
the use had been changed to =ead a cocktail lounge and bar.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Areidt, advised the Commission that since the use had been
changed after it had been advertised, the Planning Department would have to readvertise
subject property and suggested that the Commission continue subject petition for two
weeks so that it might be properly advertiaed.
Chairman Gauer inquired whether there was anyone in the Council Chamber opposing
subjcet petition and received no response.
zxB ~tixG wns ctosan.
The Commission further discussed the location of sub3ect property and the proposed'
use of the subject property and its close proximity to the Junior High 3chool
Commissioaer Allred offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for
Conditional Use Permit No. 315 to the meeting of November 14, 1962, in order that
the Planning Department might readvertise subject petition with the corrected use.
Commissioner Chavos seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
,
.}
;
- ~ ~ I.. . i~ . . ~.
. . ~ ~ ~ i I:~`~ •
. ' . . . . .. . _' '~M' .
C~ ~ ~ ~` : ~ . l
MINUTHS, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, October 29~ 1962, Continued: 1238 I
~
RBCIASSIP~CATION - PUBLIC FIHA1tTNG, ROY LSB BURROUGHS, 213 Rnott Avenue, Aasheim~ il
N0. 62-63-33 Califo~nia, Owner; BALKRAPT HUILDBRS, INC., 254 Sw th Rosemead
Bdulevard, Pasadena, California, Agent; requesting that property ~
described as: ,A rectai~gular parcel of land with a 132 foot froatage on the west side
of Knott Avenue, and a depth of 600 feet, the northeast corner of said property being I
approximntely 810 feet south of the southwest corner of Lincolm and Bnott Avenues, and
further described•as 209 and 213 gnott Avenue, be reclassified from the R-A, RBSIDBNTIAL i
AC~RICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-3, MULTIPLB PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL~ ZONB to construct a planned- i
unit development.
Subject petition was filed in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 313, ,
Mr. Leo Klemzak, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the
Commission and stated that he had nothing further to add fcs the Commission's consider-
`
ation, but that he was available to aaswer any questions which might arise.
Mr. Robert R. Sheer, 6873 Via Norte Circle, Buena Park, appeared before the Commission i
in opposition to subject petition and stated that he urged the Commission to require
150 feet from the Single Pamily developdent to the west of subject property; and that ',
another groperty uwner and himseif had purchased a strip of land.between the sinQle
family development aad the subject property in oxder to maintain their piivacy from ~
abutting property to the east. ~
A letter from the Centralia School District, Suena Park, was received in opposition to ~
subject petition in which they urged the Commission to consider light commercial or ~
industrial development of subject property in order to maintain a favorable assessed
valuatioa ratio to the per pupil ratio of the district; and that high density resi-
dentiai approval of subject property would create a further burden on their school
system.
The Commission inquired of Mr. $lemzak whether he,had contacted the property owners to
the north of subject property; that the proposed use of subject property would present
a long narrow unfavorable type of development; that a similar problem would exist with ;
the property to the north; and that if property to the nor:h were incorporated with
subject property a more compatible development might be achieve3. •
Mr. glemzak informed the Commission that the property owner to the aorth of subject
property had made a tentative statement, that he would like to sell to the developer of
• subject propertq,but had no fiim commitmesrt; that the developer proposed two-story
construction~rather than singe-story, because he was trying to develop a new concept ~
with more ground area for recreation purpoaes; and that the proposed plot plans were
being presented for the first time by the developer. {
~
Commissioner Camp offered a motion to continue Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-35 ~
to the meeting of November 26~ 1962, in order that the Planning Department might
prepare Planning Studq No: 55-1-2, and to contact the property owners to the north of
subject property for a conference with the developer of aubject property~ and to allow ~i
the developer sufficient time to present revised plot plans which would not give a ~
"barrac4 type" appearance. Coamissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD. ~
PLANAIING STUDY - Commiasioe~er Camp offered a motion to direct the Planning Department
N0. 55-1-2 to prepare Planning Study No. 55-1-2, covering that area known as
141, 149, 2U3, 209 and 213 South ¬t Aveaue~encompassing that
property from the Aaaheim City limits southerly to and including
sub3ect property of Reclassification No. 62-63-35~ to determine tlte best land use
proposed for the property which consists of narrow deep iots, Commisaioner A11red
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. •
~ r _ _.:T'c~, a~at.G`?".r...~,ii'~xY~as, u?~. ,~`~,,~f ~c4 .., '~ ~ ;i ..
i, a ~ 9-t ti,~s> ~"+ .rt r~ ~ t f .. ~l~~n.k.'?9.~,kFe:aF...
J ,,
. ,~
h a~ .
i..~ ~ -~.~ . , Y+,~r +~ ~19t _ .'. .
~t
I - /~ ~ ~ a ~h~~~ • ~
' . ~ ~ V . . . . ~ ~ O ~~ ' . . . . ' ~ • ~ ~
MINUTB3~ CITY PLANNING COhD[ISSION, October 29, 1962, Contiaued: 1239
~ . .
~.
CONDITIONAL.OSr ~:PUBLIC HBARING. ROY LBS BURRadTTGHS, 213 Snott Avenue, Anaheim,
d
PffitMiT.NO. 313 California, Owner; RAI.RRAP.T BUxLD~tS~ INC., 254 South Rosemead
Boulevard,:Pasadena, Califoraia, Agent; requestiag permission to
~; CONSTRUCT A PIANNHD-UNIT;DBVBLOPMSNT, AND WAIVB 1W0-STORY HBIGHT
LIMITATION on property descri'~ed as. ..A.rectarigular parcel of iand with a 132 foo!
z frontage on the west side of'Bnott Aveaue, and~a depth of 600 feet, the northeast
[ cornes of said property being approximately 810.f?e: south of the southwest corner of
E; Lincoln Avenue and Snott Av~bue, and further described as 209-213 South Knott Aveaue.
Property.presently classified as.R-A~ RBSIDBNTIAL AGRICULT[TRAL, ZOI~ffi.
~ $ubject petition was filed in coanunCtion with Reclassificatioa No. 62-63-35.
~ . ,
~ Mr. Leo ~lemzak; representiag the agent for tkie petitioner appeared before the
° Commission and stated that he.would like to have subject petition continued ia order
~ { that it might be heard in"coajunction with Reclassification No. 62-63-35,
R 4~ Commissioner Camp offered a mot~on to.continue Petition for Conditional Uae Permit
" No. 323, to the meeting of November 26, 1962, in order that it might be heard in
" conjunction with Reclassification No. 62-63-35. Commissioner Alired seconded the
~ , , motion. MUTION CARRIBD.
;~
~
~
~
' :~
. ~
~
_s
';
, ;i
~ RBCLAS3IPICATION - PUBLIC }~ARING. S. D, VANDRUFP, 2973 Wesi Rome Avenue, Anaheim,
~ N0. 62=63-36 California, Owner; ROHHRT L. BALBN, 921 West iTth Street, Santa Ana,
E Cali€ornia, Agent; requeating that property described as: An
~ irregular parcel of land with an approximate length of 535 feet, and an approximate
` width of 463 feet; said property is located 303 feet north of the ceaterline of Ball
~ Road, 399 feet east of the centerline of Beach Bw levard, 158 feet south of the
f centerline of Rome Avenue,.and 130 feet west~of the centeriine of Gaymont Driye~ be
~ reclassified from the R~:A, RBSIDBNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, 20t~, (C-1, I~IGHBORHOOD C~MBRCIAL,
~ 20NS~ effective November 1, 1962):to R-3, MULTIpLB FAMILY RHSIDBNTIAL, 20N8 in order to
4 construct a deluxe garden type apartment planned-nait development.
k.
~, 3ubject petition was filed in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 314.
~ Mr. Robert L. Balen, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and
~ reviewed for the Commission the plot plans for the ten acre parcel of laad, and stated
' ~~ that he lans to.develo the entire azeel with com iete lans in a roximatel three
~ .;;,;, . P P P P P PP Y
months. ;
I
~ The Commission aoted that subject property was proposed for low-medium denaity residen-
~ tiai, aad commercial development on the Preliminary General Plan; and that the
E plaaned-unit development aa proposed did present a low-density coacept along the
~ nartherly and westerlq property lines utilizing a great deal of open apace with
~ distances between-structurea throughout the development; and that the plans as ,
, presented were coasiderably above the Code'minimum requirements.
~.
Chairman Gauer inguired.if any one was present in the Councii Chamber opposing sub3ect
: petition~ and received no.response. .
' 1HE HBARING WAS CLOSBD. • . . . _
2oping Coordinator Martia Areidt, advised the Commiasion that sqb3ect property was
presently classified. as R-A~ RBSIDBNTIAI. AGRICULTIAtAL, ZONB~ but that effecbive
November 1~ 1A62f`upon the compl~4ion of the Ordinance~sub,~ect propertq wouid be
reclaseified as`C-1, NBIGFIDdtH00D ~~CIAL~ ZOI~, and thua the Plaaniag Department ~
had advertised subject property indicating that said commercial zoning would be
effective on thst.date. ~
Commissioner Alired offered Resolution No. 520, Series 1962-63, aad moved for ita
passage and adoption, secoaded by Commissioaer P2bley~ to recommead to•the City Council
,;: that Petition for Reclassification No.- 62-63-36 be approved subject ta conditiona.
+" +^ (3ee Resolution Book.j
. }~,
r ~ ,~~
k,s:i3?
Rtr,~. s . . ~ - , ~ . . . . . . -
'l {.. ~F~ . . . ~ . . . , . . . . . . . ~ ~ ~ .
~ j l.'' ~` . . . ~ .. . . . . . . . . , . . . .
~+~~1~~ y~.1'h f . . . . . . . . , . ~ . . ~ .
~~A~ ' ~ ~. . ~ . ~ . . . . ' - ~ . ~
~~ . . ~ .~~'.. l.l :~...~.~ ...1..:~ . ".'..:~._. . ~ :.::... ........ .:.... ~~:...._... ...... -.. ..'.~~ ..'. ....:,. ... - _~...... .:::_-~, . .~ ~. . ._.;.. .:.'._.._... . _......-.:.
t: ~ . ~ . . ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ~ .. . ~ . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ . ~ ~ ~ .
„~ ~ .. , . . . . . . ' . . .. . ~ .
r , , . . , , . . . , . , . . . . . . .
~t . Y .. ' , . . , . ..
~ ,,; J . . '. ' . ~ ~ .: ~ ~
~ ~ 4.
~' i ~~ r n ~t,fc r 1,~ >rt Tn^r f .. ,y ^ j~ ,, R x. ~.~ .4 s C_. ,.~Y ~?s I F f 1,~+~ ~~. ~vf s ~ ~~ ~
,_ ,...... .._.~ ,. . ,._ ~:^'~~..f~.: L .~ 1 G. n. ... . ,. H. ..„ . ~ ~ ~._ . ~. _'+!r;~. ,_..w£i.~f~~'nY. !~ASY~~..r~'...r.3^ ~ . . .. .
- _ '+:''`4,~,via4„?y+.° a«...,..r:....,F v~.r..r.;J,: ;.st• `.v,i~¢Pr~~t~.~;.:u~y~"`,.,.f .r: ~-" ~'~ };>
1 fr
• . ;;I
,,r~, r ,,,.,~T --~-
~x; x ~ ti. ,
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~~ ~ ~ . ~ ~~1~ ~' . .
MIIdUTEB~ CITY PIANNING CONAlISSION, October 29~ 1962, Coatinued; 1240
\
RECLAS~iPICATION - The con~litions as atated in the Resolution Book wene recited at
N0. b2-63-36 the mee4ing and were'fouLd to be a necessary prerequisite to the
(Continued) use of the proper:y in order to preserve the safety and welfar~
: of the Citizena of the City of Anaheim.
On ro11 c81t r,t,P f~~~oe_~e :~~~2::.ioa ~s pasaed hy thz ;a11o~s:.n~ ~atee
~ r ~
~ AYBS: CQbAlISSIONHRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley.
!
! NOBS: COFN4ISSIONBRS: None.
~ ABSHNT: COhAtISSIOI~tS: Hapgood, Perry.
~,,.
CONDITIONAL USS - PUBLIC F~ARING. S. D: VANDRUFP, 2973 South Rome,.Anaheim, Cali--
PffitMIT N0. 314 fornia, Owner; R08HRT L. BALHN~ 921 West i7tL Street, Santa Ana,
Cal3fornia, Agent; requesting permiasioa to CONS.1ROCf A,MULTIYLH-
FAMILY PIANNBD-UNIT DSVBLOPI~ffiNT oa property described as: An
irregular parcel of laad with an approximate length of 535 feet, and an approximate
, width of 463 feet~ said property is located 303 feet north of the centerline of Ball
Road,.399 feet east of the centeriine of Beach Boulevard, i58 feet south of the center-
line of Rome Aveaue, and 130 feet west of the centerline of Gaymont Drive. Property
presentlK classified R A~ RBSIDBNTIAL AQtICULTURAL~ ZONS (C-1, NHIGHBQRHOOD CQA9dffitCIAL.
ZONE effective November 1, 1962),
9ubject petition was filed in conjunction with Reclassification No. 62-63-36.
Mr. Robert L. Balen~ agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and
stated that all his comments made duriag the hearing of the reclassification were
applicable, and that he had nothing further to add for the Commission's consideration,
Chairman Gauer inquired if any one was preseat in the Council Chamber opposing subject
petition and received no response.
THB HBARING WAS CL09HD.
Commi9sioaer t~arcoux offered Resolutioa No. 521, Series 1962-63, and moved for its ,
p~ssage.and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petitiott for
~ CondiLional Use Permit No. 314, subject to coaditions. (3ee Resolution Book,)
. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYBS: COl~9dI33I0IJ~tS: Allred, Camp, Chavos~ Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley.
NQHS: COMMISSIONBRS: None. .
ABSBNT: COh9KISSIONBRS: Hapgood, Perry.
RBPOATS AND - ITBM N0, 1: Cocditional Use Permit No. 289, granted pugust 20th
RBCOI~UdBNDATI0N3 • 1962, Reaolution No. 465, Series 1962-63; elarifi-
cation of Condition No. 15.
A ietter was read to the Commission from the Sunset Huildera,.developers of subjecr
propertq asking for the Commiasion~s interpretation of Medical and Profeasional Uae.
The uses to which the developer planned to use aubject property were in coaflict with
the City At#orney~s Office in its interpretation of "Profeasioasl" which permi.tted
only Law, Medicai, and 1lieology. Their list as proposed was ~,s follows:
,: 4
^,: ~
~ .' :~,
a~~~,r ~
~~~;r' ~ , ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ .
..~
, _ _ _ _ ,.
. . , . .. _.
-a ~ ~
;;;
~,,,,,~. ~
d ~~; Si ~~4. sL~~: ::i;~
!~.~_.~~4'~l1~~...:.~i.o~~<~n.~?.....~. ~~,1.~ . . ,.. .. ..f::`i~ .. ..~'.~ ~._~. ..... , ...~.:r, ~. _~ . ..,
;. '
a
C)
AHPQtT3 AND ITBM N0. 1: (Contiaued)
RBCOANlHNDAT?ON9
(Continued)
Abstractor of Titles :~lustrator ar Shaw
Accountant -- ail types Card Writer
Advertising Agent Industrial Relations
Agricultural Advisor Consultant
or Counselor Insurance Adjuster
Appraiser Insurance Broker
Architect Assayer Interior Decorator
Attorney at Law ~ Investmeat Counselor
Auditor Labor Relations
Bookkeeping Service Coasultant
Business Management Landscape Architect
Conaultant Loan Company
Certified Public Accountant Mortgage Company
Claim Adjuster Oculist
Collection Agency Oil Company Office
Dealers in 8tocks, Honds, Opticiaa
and other 3ecurit3es Optometr3st
Dental Laboratory Oral 3urgeoa
Dentfst Osteopath
Designer Photographer
Draftsman Physician
Bngiaeeriag Pirm Public Steongrapher
Bmployment Agency or Bureau Real 8atate Broker
Sscrow Company Real Hatate Office
Pinance Compeny Roentgenologist
Geologist Savinga and .
Grain Broker Loaa Association
Herbalist Surgeon
Mr. Ron garos, one of the developera appeared before the Commission and stated that he
had interpreted the uses for the proposed offices as stated in th~ letter, in that the
License Department permits licenses oa many more than were list ed in the letter, and
that he would appreciate the Commiasion's interpretatioa as to what coasisted a
professxonal use.
The Commission discussed at great length their various interpre tatians of'professionai
uses~sad were of the opinion that there were considerably more than that iaterpreted
by the City Attoraey~s Office, and asked the Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts, the
procedure the Commission would be required to foilow to incorporate their interpre-
tation of the uses proposed for uae of sub3ect property.
Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that under a resolution pasa ed by the Commission
atating that "under Chapter 3.12.010 of the Aaaheim Municipal Code, the Busiaeas
License aection, it is our interpretation that the Profeasional uae for property
development uader Conditional Use Permit No. 289 be as follows; and that the uses as
liated in aubject letter ahould so be stipulated.°
Commissioner Ailred offered Resolutioa No. 522, Series 1962-63, and moved for its •
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux to inter pret Medicai aad
Professional Uaes as indicated, (3ee Resolutioa Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foilowing vote:
AYES: COMdI33I0NBRS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley.
NOBS: COiYWIS3I0NffitS: None.
COhAlIS3ION8RS: Hapgood, perry.
MINUTB3~ CITY PLANHING CQA4lI3~ION, October 29, 1962, Coati~ued: ~ 1241
" ~ MINOTBS, CITY PIANNING COA4~lISSION, October 29, 1962, Continued;
1242
~ ~
RBPCRTS AND - ITB~! N0. 2; 3ect3.ona1 District Map 12-4-10, Bxhibit D, Reclassifi-
RSCONMHN~ATIONS cation of propertp located on the aorth side of
. (Cantinued) Lincoln Avenue between Sunkist Street and Rio Vista
3treet, in the east Anaheim area. Propertq to be
reclassified from the A-1, GFNBRAL AQtICULTORAL, ZONB
to the.R-1; Siwr*_^ PpMILY RESIDSNG9 ~3STRICT. Public
~•. I~ Hearing scheduled on Wednesday, November 7, 1962, by
the Oraage Countq Planniag Commission.
~ ~~ ~ .
ITBM N0. 4: ORANGH COUNTY USE VARIAIVCS N0. 5059; Northeast
corner of Blue Gum and Coronado Streets~ aortheast of
Anaheim. Bstablish a Precision Machine Tbol and Die
Shop. •
Zoning Coordinator Martin ~reidt, reviewed for the Commission the location of subject
property aad its close proximity to the Northeast Iadustrial Area, together with the
findings and recommendations that the Planning Department had in reference to subject
petition as follows:
PINDING:
1: That the use was compatible with the Preliminary General Plan.
RHCOMMBI~IDATIONS:
1. That if subject petition is approved, that the ultimate highway right-of-way be
projected as fifty-three (53) feet for Blue Gum Street, and sixty-four (64) feet
for Coronada Street.
2. That the P-L, Parking Landscaping,Zone be established on Slue Gum Street from the
planned uitimate highway right-of-way.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Breidt,reviewed the sub~ect property and its close proximity
to siagle family development in the east Anaheim area, and noted that it conformed to
the projected use of the land in Planning Study Nos, 38-112-4 and 4?-]22-5.
Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to recommend to the Orange Countq Planning
Commission the approval of reclassification of certain property indicated on SBCTIONAL
DIS~ICT MAY 12-4-10, HXHIB~IT "D" from A-1, Geaeral Agricu2tural District-to the R-1,
Single Familp Residence District. Commissioner Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMWSLY.
. . : ~ . . .. , a~n.: a~.ti
O ,;, ~-~
ITBM N0, 3: 3ectional District Map 7-4-9; Hxhibit N, Reclassifi-
cation of certain property located on the north side
of Lincoln Avenue, south of the Riverside Preeway
between Rio Vista Street aad the Santa Ana River from
the M1 (0) LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, (Oil Production) to the
AR (0) AGRICULTURAL RBSIDBNTIAL, (Oil Production), and
from AR AGRICULT[TRAL RBSIDBNTIAL and C-1 LOCAL BU3I-
NHSS DISIRICTS to the R-1, SINGLB FAMILY RBSIDBNCB
Zoning Ce~c;rdinator Martin Kreidt,reviewed the area where the proposed changes were
located and noted that it conformed to the projected use of land in the adopted
Planning Study No. 47-1?2-5.
Commissioner Pebley offereG a motion to recommend to the Orange County Planning
Commiasion the approva:. of the reclassificatioa of certain property as indicated on
3BCTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 7-4-9~ HXHIBIT "N" as amended, from M-1 C0) Light Industrial
(Oil Producation) to AR (0) Agricultural Resideatial (Oil Production), and from AR,
Agriculturai Residential aad G1, Loca1 Busi.ness Districts to the R-1, Single Pamily
Residence. Commissioner Alir.ed seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIHD.
_ ~
_~
1
~
~ .
,
~
~ .
i 'e
~~ ~ ~
' ~;r 1 .Si ~X~..;:^]+~.'~~x*~,no in i i.':> ~J .:,;:vi ;t . i Fw,':' ). r'i?a:r ~;~i ;;~', ..~:c;nT, w: i~,M~
.~ ~'.
. 7
f'
--_ . . _ . ~
. ~ F.7t"i ,Ty ~'
~
.~
.': , ~ ~ . ~++' . . , . ~ . ~ ~
. . .
F•
r.;
;`.<
~:..:._::~..r... ~
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING CObMI33I0N~ October 29~ 1962~ Coatinued: 1243
~. : : _
RHPOkT3 AND - :ITBM N0. 4: (Contiaued)
RECONA~NDATIONS
(Coatiau.ed) Commiasioner Marcoux offered a motion to adviae the Orange Couatq
Planning Commisaioa, that the Anahei~n Planning Commission
secommends approvai of Orange County Use Variance No. 5059, aub-
3ect to: -
1. Dedication of the ultimate highway right-of-way beiag fity-three Z53) feet on
Biue Gua~ Street, .
2. Dedicatioa of the ultimate.highway right-of-way being sixtq-faur (64) feet on
Coronado Street.
3, provision of a P-L, Parking Laadscaping~ 2one being established oa Blue Gum Street
4:::;'~< from the planned ultimate highwaq right-of-waq.
.~ ,
~ `;;',.' Commissioner Chavos seconded the motion. MOTIQV CARP.;BD.
CQRRBSPONDBNCB - ITBM N0. 1; Petition reeeieed from aine (9) property owners ~~n
AND North Viae and North Rose 3treets.
MISCHLIANHOUS
A letter was read to the Commis;sion fxom property owners in the vicinity of North Vine
and North Rose Streets signed bl- nine (9) property owners petitioaing the Pianning
Commission rezoning North Vine and North Rose 3treets to R-3, Multiple Family
Residential development, siace tne property surrounding them is multiple famiiy
dwellings,.light manufacturiag.to the west and commerciai abutting said streets'at
East Lincoln Avenue; and that said reclassification be acted on~before the Geaeral Plar-
+sas adopted,
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt, suggested to the Commission ~hat some form of action
be taken by the Commisaion in the form of a study of the area as well as a letter to
the property owners advising them what action wonld take place.
~ The Commission commeated that anythiag proposed for the subject area wouid be aa
~ improvement for the City.
~ ~Commissioner Marcoux,offered a motion to direct the Planning Department•to make a atudq
E :of the area proposed in the petition to determine the best posaible land use of the
property, and to advise the petitioners of the actioa the Commission had taken.
Commiasioner Cuavos secoaded the motion. MOTION CARRIHD.
ITBM N0. 2;_ VARIANCB N0. 1168, Motei on Katella Street betweea
Harbor Boulevard and Haster 3treet, Richard Anthony,
petitioner.
Zoning Coordiaator Martin xreidt, reviewed for the Commiasioa the aub3ect property
which a f=ontage of 158 feet on Katella St=eet of which onip 75 feet had been developed
for a motei;~that the owners of subject property now prapose,to construct an additional
unit for the remaiader of the subject property; but #hat at the time sub3ect Variance
had beea approved, plans were only preaented for the 75 foot frontage.
~
1
'. -.. .~~~]
.~~
~
j
a
• ,.1
~ l
a
Deputy Assistant City,Attoraey Purman Roberta, adviaed the Commsssion that the
petitioner would be neguired to„fiie for a Conditioaai Uae Permit witti plans for the
deve].opment of ;the remaiader of the property, since the -0ommisaion had not known or
approved by resolution any future developiaent of #he remainder of the property.
,;, ,
~
~ '
~;Y~ t~
~,t~`~ ~~
s,+ ~'1~~ r,
T 5 t .,`yA )r'^N' 4J+.p'l.('si.?4,:rdS:. }.~ _ .:~^. . ^Srv .
~ i ' ~. .-,a~.~ . '',.~,"'f~i~~:`-.'~a.'':+:~. ~ii?r'• i "lY
' . 'i •,( . ,~` .. . ~ ~ I
~
- ~ ~ `F ~ Lw.t . . '
_ . . ~\/~,J] . . ~ ~•~ ~~ 2~'. ~. . •
. V ' . .. . . . ~:• . . .
~.,. MINUTBS, CITY PIANAtING COI~AiiSSION, October 29, 1962, Coatiaued: 1244
F~
F.. -
~ . CaiRBSPOIVbHNCH -. IT'' N0:-2: (Contiriued) .
~ , AI1D
MI3Cffi.IANBOUS C,'ommissioner Ailred offered a motion to advise the petitioaer
~• (Continued) under Va~3ance No. 1168~ that he would be required by law to file •
~ a petition for Coaditional Use Perinit for development of the ~
,r remaindet of the prope'rty. Commissioaer Camp seconded tIie motioa. °
E ` MOTION CARRIBD.
['
~ Commissioaer Pebley returned to the Couacil Chamber at 6:15 0'Clock P.M, j
s.
ITBM N0, 3; CONDITIONAL USB PHRMIT N0. 229. '~e ~n Compaay; ~~
;L,d`;`;<` Bxtension of time for Conditioa No. 6 of Resolution , i
,~,`, No. 307, 3exies 1961-62. I
A letter was read to the Commisaioa from.the attorneqs for Chrqsler Corporation in
which they requested 'o ne huadred and eighty (180) days Lo accompiish the inatailation
of sidewalks aad driveways on Ba11 Road and Los Angeles 3treet, since the time
limitation originally set in sub3ect reaolutiott would eicpire shortly; that the
facilities as proposed to be coastructed ia sub3ect petition had not beea started; aad
that the plans were being redrawn.
Commissioner Pebleq offered a motion to grant an extension of one hundred and eightq
E180) days for the completion of Condition No, 6 of Resolution No. 307, 3eries 1961-62
for Conditional Use Permit No. 229. Commissioner Chavoa seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIBD.
ADJOi1RNMHNT - There being no further buainess to:dicuss~ Commissioner Marcoux
offered a motion-to adjourn.the meeting of the City Planaiag Commission
Commissioner Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIHD.
The meeting adjourned at 6.:30 P..M.
Respectfully submitted,
/ I~%l~C/ ~ ~
~
ANAI~IM PLANNING COI~4~lISgION