Minutes-PC 1962/11/26~.'fi~"~~ 1 ~
.~t~X~.y`' }x~ '°'~~ ~\ ! 6yt t~~,.. P,A!N'd.F':,TMC',Yi. ...-%AKr -r.:a r. ~,!'tu w~-x. r.r~f ~.°~
""MS
'
d t ~ i
i
i ~ '
J
i } ~
t. ii~ !
~~",
c , ~
~ :;~ .~,
~
N - _ ` .~~,.,~+.. ? r ' / ~.
_
~
~ \\\
~
~~~ ~
~.. . .. .. . . ,:,:
~ .b
r_._.
~. _ . ~
: - ; .
i Cstq.Ha13
~~ _ Anaheira, California l
Novemtier
26, 1962
, .
~. .
C
~ RBGUI]kR'MBBTING OP..THH ANAHEIM CITY PIANNING CObAdISSION ~
~'r ': ~ ,
. RHGUTAR MBBTING - A Regulur meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commisaion was ~
,
~ cailed:to order by Chairman Gauer at 2:00 0'Clock P.M„ a guorum i
y .
,.: being preseat. ;
~
~
i
'
i;
': :
~ - CHAIRMAN: Gauer: :
~
.
,~ ,~; ;
~
- COA9~IISSIONEEtS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Marcoux, Mungall, pebley,
~ Perry.
jr...' .-.~_ . . ~ .~ . . ~ ~ . ~ . ~ .~ . ~ ~ . . . . .
i•
zs , AB9ENT - CQMMISSIONBRSg Hapgood. 4~ ~
,
h J . _ . : . . . ~. , . . . . .
~~ PRBSBNT - ZONING CO(~4t~INATQR: Martin Rreidt.
DHPUTY .'!BSISTANT CITY.ATTORI~Y: Purman Roberta.
PLANNING:COt~IISSION:SHCRBTARY: Ann Krebs. `
INYOCATION - Reverend John K. Saville, pastor of St. Michael*s ~}piscopal Church~
gave the Invocation.
PLSDGS OP - Commisaioaer Camp led the Pledge of A11~egiance to the Plag.
.
AI.LHGIANCH I
i
, APPROVAL OP. - The Minutes of the meeting of November ~4~ 1962, were approved f
' MINUTBS with the foiiowing correction:
I
Pa e 1250 - Conditional Usa.. Permit No. 315 Para ra h 7 Line 2
B ~. B P ~ ~
should reads "generally c:oncedrQ.....aubject".
CONDITIONAL'USH - CONTINUBD'PUBLIC I~A1tING. ROBBRT WASSBRMAN~ 1123+} gaile Viate,
,
PffitMIT..NO. 293 ' Beverly Hiiis~ Cali'foruia, Owner; LLOED B. MOITN'!', .600 Nortl~;.
.;-)~ Euelid Street, Anaheim, Califoraia, Agent; zequest3ttg pesmisaion "
TO CONSTRUCT A.PJAI~iBD UNIT DBVHLOPt~NT,,on property ctescribed as:
:, , _. A rectanguiar~palrcel of:land with a frontage of 571 feet; plus or minus, on the east
,.
side of.Baott Ayenue, and a depth of :612`feet, plus:or minus, the no;thweat; corner of
said:piopertq being..378 feet, plus or'minus, south of the southeast corner of Lincoin
aad Snott Avenuea. Property preaent,ly classifis~"`C-1,,NBIGHROREi00D COFAlERCIAL, ZONH. "
3ub3ect petitioa:was continued:from Lhe meetings of;Auguat 20, 8e}~tember ~, Octobe= 1,
and Novemtier 14, 1962, in order:to permit the.petitioner.,aa, opportunity to sulimil,`
, revised piot pians which ~ould indicate atreet dedications through sub3ect propertq..
,,:
ChairmanfGauer iaquired if there was any one,ia the.Cownc3l Chsmber.preseat.#o
r :i,' repsesent:the petitioae,r, and receiv.ed no.reaponae..: `
,
~ .
Zoning Coor.diaator,;Martin Breidt; adviaed the Coumiasio~a~~hat ao reviaed piot piana
~ had been received:as of 9:OO.A.M ~ November 19~ 1962; th~e deadiine : rdsich time
,
~ ~ seviaed plans.could be received`foz
the
Commieaion's"~conaiderati
on for thie meetiag;
~
i
t r L ;,,, ,
.
.
thqt„ the agent for' the p'etitioner presente~! ieviaed+~ piot piaae to'~ thz : PisYiaing ,. '
+~ ~~~ Depsrtmeat,the afteraoon,'of Noqembex 19, 1962; aad that upon iavestigation it was
~ ~lr~
~ ~ noted,.that the plana were aot ia accordaace with the'requiramente;ae tbs Commiesion .
~` ~y~~ ~~ requested,of the agen# for the petitioner.
.
~r~~
r• °'~"
~~' ~ "'.. '~ '~'., . ~ ~
~ THE HBARING; WA8 CiOSBD. .
- ' i i :
~ •~ A~
~
~erY ,
- 126? ,, .
C
r
~` z`~ '
k
~ .
y
, ~ ~
C`3~ 4~
' 1 ,. " :.. .' ~
I ~j
~.t~j F
~ ,~f
, ' ~ ~
~;
•
.
~ 1~~, ~ ,~ `
~
~ t
.
r' ..., u
k ~ ~ ... . , ~ .
_
,~ ~.~. r . .~ '. ~~
~~ ~ ~~~. ~ ,.
~
~ ~
~ ~ 1 y I
° c v.+~x ~
r~`E1' ~'G ~I~
_
~ x ~ ,
h] '.~.~~ ~: . ~411fF ... i r r' ~
_~'~.` ~~~ , fG., ..^-~a'.F..^s.,^ .. ,.,.r,w+
' .'~t,.» 1c~3 . ,., i n t.,. ~... ~~' ~ . ~ Y.~
~
.`:"~Y,~^r,s.s r~s~'._ ~.?~~._ _~ ,.. _ S ,.1.. _. ~ ; S ~, , ~' ~. ~1 ~k{ .
~ ~~
ws ' ,.. /~
~
. ~,~ :_ '1 ~' ' ~' ,J ~ ~
~ . ~ ' "~
~: MINUTEB, CITY PIANNING COMMISSIC~N, November 25, 1962, Uontinued: 1268 ' +
~
CONDITIONAL USB - Commissioner Chavos stated #hat 2he peTitioner had been given a
PffitMIT N0. 293. number of continuance:; in crder that plot p.ians might conform with ~
(Coatinued) the recommendations of the Planaing-Departmsnt and the planning ~
' Commissioa,as weli 4s aa~s~lying with the Anaheim Municipai Code; ' ,
~ ~hat considerable expense had beea in~s:irred bq the City by tL~
,~ inany continuances of sub3ect petition; and that in his ,,uin:;, subject petition should '"
6e denied without n*ejsdice,c,nd the petitioaer would ~:~et: be required to refile a new ~
pe t i t ion w i t h i a f:,e L i.~ e l iin i• t a t i on s a s s ti p u l a t e d i n t h e Cptxt e3 E h s, n a d d i t i o n~ l
~' filing fee.
~ Commisaioner Msrcoux of.fe:ed a motian xo deny Petition fos C^~dit:Lo~al Use Pexmit No.293
'
without prejud+icc based as~ the folloving findings:
Y~ 1~i. , . . , ~
., 1. That there was lack o~' evidence of com~ietc plot plans as required in ~the ' ~
Anahe.im Municipal Code. i ~
a. That sufficient time had b;ec, iven to the I ~
~ pe'~itianer to submit re:•ised ~
plot plana, but that the pct:.saner failed to appear to present revised plans
or defend the plans which hsd been preseated.
3. That subject petition was occupying time on the Planning Commission's Agenda ~i '
which would be deaying other persons the chance ~a appear with a fair amount j ~ ~~
of time ailowed to hear them. I ~'~
The fore;~~ing moti~n was passed by the following vote:
AYB3; C(lNAtI3SICNHRS: A1]red, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall~ Pebley~ Perry.
NQBS: CONalI3SIONffitS: None.
ABSffiVT: CQMdISSI0IVBRS: Hapgood.
RBI:IASSTPIC'.T.INi ••• s_,r,NrINUBD PiIBLIC HBARING. YNITIATBD BX ~ nNE1HHIM PLANNING ~
N0. 62~63-7.°i COMMISSIOl3, . 204 Hast :.incoln Ay~ nue, huan_eim, California,
~
"' proposing reclassif3caticrn of prop~.rty ueacribed as: Lot Nos. 95, I
96, ~7, 98. 99, 100, 101 wnd iP2 of Tra.ct No. 1565, lo~a~+:u on ~
the-southwest corner of Lincoln A~~eaue and ,tate ~^,.ullege Boulepard. 1Wo irregular : ~ <~
parceLs of 1and. The first parcel haviag an;nppri>x~mate f:ontage of 43 feet on the `
north side o£ Santa Ana SL :..~t; ~.nd An approximate~ fro~:~tage of 187 £eet on the weat , ~
side of State G~liege Soule~ar!.. The secoad he.cel having an approximate frcmtage of ; ~
190 feet on the wtst side of 3ta~e Coilege ;anuievard, and an.average a~prox3mate
depth of 125 feet, the sontheast corner of said property being approxir~ateTy 187 feet :
north of the ttorthweat corner of.Santa Aaa Street and State Collegs roulevard~ and ; ;:
~
further.described as 217, 223, 2'L7~ ~05, 311~ 315, i321, 327. 407 anc.,425 3outh 8.•ate ~
Coilege Houievard, from the R-A, i~,~SIDBNTIAL AQt7CI1LTVitiiL~ R-1,: 01~ffi FAM??•Y Ad$IDBNfIAL, ~
aad C-1~ NHIGFIBORHOOD COt~A~tCIAL~ ZONBS, to the C~•1, NEIGHBORHOOD CObM~tCIAL, z~. ,~
3ub3ect petition was coatiaued from the meeting of Octohex 1, 2962, in ord=r to ailow . ~
~
the Piaaai,ng Department safficient time to prepare s study covering tiie cutire ~ j
commercial frontage of the weat side ot' Stat2 Co11,+ge Boulevarcl :betweea Li~ce~,n Aseaue °
~
and Saata Ana 3treet, and to conaider the ps~obien of ze~oa3ng s3.ngie faRily s..aideacee ;'~
iato coromerdiai uses with the poesibility of remo~~al ~~f the st~ucturea. '-i
Zoniag Coordinator Marfiin &reidt, reqiewed fos the Commis~ion ali the fin8iaga~
Iaterdepa'rtmental Committee reconnaendatioas aa~ tt~ P1an:;u.:q Departmeat recosmendationa ~
for'sub3ect propertg. r
` Chairman.Gaper inquired if any.one was in the C.ouncil Chamber to oppoae auh,~er,t
~ petition~~aad receivea no reapoase, ~ ~
~' 1
ti ~y , T'F~ I~BARING WAS CLO6BD.. •
''~~ ~1L 11
~
t
~ . ~ . . . . . . .~~ -
. . . ~
.
.(~~
~(T 1~1
M~'if(ac . .
~ ' ~ .
~ . . . . . ~. . - ~ . . ~ ' -
. "~.~
. -'~I
~
;
~
~
~
C ~f . . ~ . ' ' ' . .. . . .
~
a
q
~fI~
~
ry~~ . . . . ~. ' . . . . .
~ ~ ~
.
-
l. ~• . ..
.
. ~ . ~ . . . . ' ~ . . . .
. . ~ . . . , - . . . . . .~
~~"
~
I :~• .. . .,, 9
.~ 4
,n
~ '{ ~,~ ~. ~. .'. ' ( '
'
hP''~A
r
1 S.i+•
~`
e.
,
~.i: y. ee F f' r '.~'..T r~ ,~ ~~F,h YL~S s}Y 1 wlYd ---- ~
. . ~~ ~., 5'~ " , i, a~.r'~~' i > ~~ ~5:.~ _ .~ .f..,~ ~ . ~ ...:~ ' m~~ ~,~_.~, ~ .:^i...... ,,,:` 1.:3vr.,~-.~l~~.t~`. i ~,a,~~rt.~-..,,,_=,..~x .,.....~~ . ~ ~` .
. ,.,~.~~...... ,~ ~_ .. . , . . . , . ~k. f'.., .. ,~. , .1 ~
1
•r-.
. . . . . . _ .... ,
~ FBCIA,QSIPICATION - Th~e Cammission not~d thrxt Gondition No. 5 required the inetal-
., n0. 62=63-29 ati:on of a s:x (6) foot: masonry wa11 with a tir.e limitatioa of
~ '<.'ontinued) omb hundrer: aad eightq (180) d"ays; tha` ~sid natitioa had beea
ir~itiated bq the P1ann3.ng Commission; . that it.ahouid not be
~ r~{~ui.red of the reside~}ts of sab3e::t propertp to build a
~ masonry rvai~ un~. ~i sa~r: s?,me ar,, i.~.e N::+perty xouid be asEd €or cc'merciai purpoaea.
~ I~t waa furtuer .o#eC uy the Commisaioa thr,t an ai3ey Lo the weat of a portioa of
~ anb3ect property ~ight c~eate,a "bottieneck''q3f` prcoertq abuttir.; ssi~ alley were
~, uaed, for ingre~s aad eg=~~.~s of #rucka to del±ver Qupplidq ba e:.y com~.•rcial deveiop-
a m~ent aiong 4he tiYley; that a study ahould be made :~y t;~~ 8ngineer:~ng Departmeat with
~ 1:he posai~ility .~f pro~ectir~q the preaent a11ey •:u.;tala~ Callege Boulevard, said
~~ a11eq to be conairucted between Parc~l Nos. 8 and (~; a.r.;~ that dedicatioa of propcrty
~ i' - fnr said aileq would be one of ±he ="luiremects of 7-:cce1 Nos. 8 and 9; that p;.sns
~ ~, ab.uuld be aubmi~ted showing the .ia~cated 3ngseas ar~i egress to the propoaed extenaioa
~' cf`aw ailey; and tlrat no businesa could be opers,te~d until said alley was cottstructed
t for 3ngresa and egresa for Parcel Noso 8 and 9a
t t .
t
~,,, ' ?~nin~~ Coordinator Ma=titt Kreidt, reviewe~ for the a^,om.is$ion the possibilitq lhat
E reclserr~ific.ation of aub,~ect proper4les might be on a"piecemeal~~bases; thet the
~ develop.!eat of any porti.on o~ sub3ect Qz~~er~~.es could not:be uaed for C-l, Neiphbor-
~~ hood Commerc~nl purposes:unti2 a1.1 canditio~-s for Parcel Nos. 8 and 9 arere compl3ed
~~ :,ith; and tkat i.~ ~,e recoma~,:nded to fihe Gi.t~r Counaii that it might be posaible to
~~ read the Ctrd'_aa.~c,~ on s•espective 1. •operties as th~a necessary' conditiona were met.
~ I /
Commisaic+r~r Chavc~s of:e;ed Resolution No, 541~ 8eries 1962-63~ aad mo~eu for ita
paseage ~and a~:,ptic~n, seconded by Commiasioner Persy, to recommend to the City
~ : i. Couneii 4hat Pe+~itioa for Reciaeaification No. 62-63-29 be app=oved sub~ect to
~ coadibi~sna. (Sce Reaolution Book.)
~
1Le coaditioris as stia:°d ia the Reao].~iti~n Book were recited at the meeting and
t.. wer-a faund`to .*r.~ a neceasarq prerequ,s.site to the use of thr, propertq ia order ta
~ preaerve .the eafety and :veifare of the uitizena of the Citp of Anaheim.
r O;z ro21 cail the foregoix-g ~resolut3on was pasaed bq Lhe foliodving vote: .
~ AY~43>; COMrlI3SIONHRS: Ai.lred~ CamQ, Chavoe, Gaue.~~ Marcoux~ Mungali, pe5ley, P~rrp,.
- I ,
~. I NO~B9z COMMIe3I0~i8RS: Na~ne.
;
AHSBNT: C0~4rfI3SI0AIDRS: Hs~pgood.
SPBCI/!L STUD~ ~ Co~issianer:Kurcoux nffered a motion to direct the Planning
Uepartmea~, to make a fur~h~r sttsdy of property on the we<^t side of
State Col.leGe Bouletiard beLween'.Lincoln Avenue and Bali Road for
Lhe CommissioL•~a coasideration ia recommending an amendment to•t~e
Gen~.ral Plan, Comaiasioner Al.ired seeonded the motion,
' MOTION CARRTit~ ~ . . . .
t;; -
~ ;,. -
~ ~ RHCIASSIFICATYON - CONTINUHD PIJBLIC HHARING. CHARI.H3 V. AMADQR, 2628 West 7tfth Street~
N0. 62-63-32 Inglewood, California, and t~IIt, and !~4tS. B. L, OVIHDO, 1627 IIact
Sqcamore Street,.Anaheim, Califorxiia, Ownera; BIAS -lARRON, ?41
North Pnuliae, Aaaheim, California, A~zent; requesting that property.
~ deacribed as: A rectangular parcel of la:ad with a 124 foo~ frontage on the north.side
L
a
of 8qcamore 3treet, and a depth of 175 feet, the southweat c~rner of said property
• being 320 feet.east of the aortheast corner of Bast.Centurq,D.:ivE attd taycamore 5itreet~
and further described as`1627 Sycamore 3treet be reclassified .fzom the R A,~RBS2D8NTIAL
AQtICULTVRAL~.ZONH, to the,R-3, MULTIPLB PAt'ILY RBSIDBNTIAL,.ZG'IYB, to conatri~ct a fovr- ;
plex o.ae-etory,apartment.
Sub3ect petition was continucd from the meetings of October 13~ andl October 29, 1962,
:at the.request of the agent for,the petitio.^.er in order.that a moie complete set of
I' piane ~e3ght be aubmi.tted.
` , ~ ~
, ~.
~'
„ i.
l " ' ,
t 'i .. f' "' ,"•"""1w~"'!'
~So.,...._.....--.~~~"'7''~ fwr r._~ . ,~1..~^_,~. ., 4 fi", .., r .t ~ ~ ~'~ rtF?"y..;Y f F4~~.. n~_rCi, ~ ~~~ ~. x.'~~~~~kx":w~i f.'.''hi~ ~~':n.`i..i.u ,. .. +`..;~,~I . ' ~~ t l ~~'ya,e:
_
~
~ MINUTBS; CITY PIANNING COh~fISSION, November 26, 1962, Continued:
,.
RBCLASSIFICATI~JIV - Zoning C~ordinator Martin Rreiclt, =eviewed for the Commission
N0. 62-63-~"t the results of a meeting held in the Planning Department with
CConti~-ued) the petitioners aad the agent for the petitioners; that during
the conference it was disconered that the #wo parcels of land
incorporated in subject property had been illegall~ spiit;
that a variance would have to be filed for processing with the R-3 petition; and that
- Mr. Amador was of the opinion that the owner of property to the east of subject
propertq was proposing to construct garages over an easement gxanted for the ingress
and eg;esa to subject property; and that he would further check with ni~ father
, concerning said ensement.
Mr. Rreidt further suggested to the Co~~mission f~nat a two to four wees continuance be
provided for the petitioners in order that the petitioners might have an addifional
opportunity to submit complete deveiopment plans.
Commissioner AYlred offer~~d a motion to cantinue Petitioa for Reclassification
No. 62-63-32 to the meeti:ng of January 7, 1963, in order to permit the petitioners
sufficient time to present complete development plans for subject property.
Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD. ~
RHCT-PSSIPICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HBARING. ROY LSB BURROUGHS, et al, 213 $nott
N0. 62-63-35 Avenue, Anaheim, Caiifornia, Owners; BAd.RRAPT BUILDHRS, INC.,
' 254 South Rosemead Bcalevard, Pasadena, California, Ageat;
~a~'~ requesting that property described as: A rectangular parcel of
land with a 13~ foot frontage on the west side of Bnott Avenue, ~} md~~ depth of 600
feet, the northeast corner of sai3 property beiag approximately 8`#~'feet south of #Ye
southwest coraer of Lincaln aad Bnott Avenues, and further described as 209 and 213
Snott Avenue (descripiion incl~:.des two (2) parcels of land), be reclassified from the
R-A, RESIDBNTIAL AGRICiJLTURAL, ZONH to the R-3, ':'JLTIPLB FAMILY RBSIDHNTIAL, ZONR to
construct a planned-unit deve~opmeat.
Sabject petition was filed in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 313.
~
a
~
~
R
: ~ . ~
Subject petitioa was con~iaued from the m~eeting of October 29, 1962, in order to
allow the Planning Department sufficieat time to prepare a Plannin~ 3tudq and coatact
abutting propertq owners regarding any proposed development of their abutting s~bject
ProPertY•
Zoning Coord3nator Martin Kreidt, zeviewed for the Commission the re3ults of a meeting
held in the Planning Bepartment on P:~vember 19, 1962, with al~ property owners abuttiag
to the north af subject pxc~pccty pre,se:.t, and as a result of the meeti:.g, subjeet petition
would be readvertised to cover a total of four t4) parcels of 2xnd for the Commission*s
consideration on December 10, 1962; and that the agent for the petitioners had sub-
mitted a lettex requesting an additional continuance ef subject petition until the
meeting of Decemhez 10, 1962.
Chairman Gauer iaquired if any one in the Council Chamber apposed sub3ect petition~
aad received no seply,
THB F~ARING WAS CLOSBD.
A letter from the Planning Commission of Buena Park was received and read to the
Co~isaion~ whi:.h approved subs4antialiy the propoaed use of subject property, with the
request that the development be limited to siagle storq within one hundred and fifty
C150) feet of the •ingle family development to the west of subject property.
- Commiasioner Perry ofiered a motioa to reopen the hearing and co::einue petition for
Reclassif3cation No. 62-63-35 to the meeting of Det::mber 10, 1962, in order that the
d~velopers be given an opportunity to present plans ittcorporating the other parcels
being proposed for development. Commissioner Chavos seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIBD.
,.. i:i
:~, :
~~
. -^r ~ ..,; y~~ : ~
. . ' ~ . . ~ - - .. . ~ ; ~ ...y,i
~ . . ~ . ~ ~ . . . ~ - . .
MINUIBS~ CITY PIAI~NING CODDtIS3I0N, November 26, 1962, Coatinued: 1271
CONDITiONAL.U38 ~ CONTINUBD PUBLIC FffiARING. ROY LS8 BURROUGH3~ et a1~.213 Suott
pBRMIT N0. 313 Avenue~ Anahein, Ga'.iforala~ Ownera; SALBRAPT BUILDBRS, INC.~
2S4 3outh Roaemead e~exe.vard,~Pasadeaa. California, Agent;
requesting per~i~>,iaa to CQNS7RUCr A PIANfiHD-UNIT DBVffi~T,
AND WAIVS 7W0-SToitY FffiIGHT LIMITATION oa propertq deacribed as: A rectangular parcel
of land with a 132 foot frontage on the weat aide of Ynott Avenue and a depth of 600
feet, the aortheast corner of said property being approximateiq 810 feet eouth of the
southweat corner of L3acola aad Ynott Avenues~ aA3 further described as 209 aad 213
Ynott Avenue. Property preseatiq clasaif.ied R-A, R8SID8NTIAL A(RICULTURIIL, ZON~.
Sub,~eet petition wae filed in coa,~uactioa with Recisesificatioa No, 62-63-33.
9ub,~ect petition wae cotttiaued from the meetiag of October 29, 1962~ in order to aliaw
the agent for the petitioner aufficieat time to anbmit reviaed piot ~iaas~ ~ad that it
might be hesrd ia con,~unctioa with Aeelasaificatioa No, t2-63-33.
Co~iseioner Perry offered a motioa to continue petitioa for Coaditionai U~e
Permit No. 313~ to the meetitig of December 10~ 1962~ ia order th~t it mfght be heard
ia con,~unetioa with Recisseificabion No. 62-63~33~ aad to pesmit the deveioper~
euffici~snt tine to'present revided plot plaae incosporsLiag ~dditiow~i property
abutting ~ub,~eet property. Coamiaeioner Chavos aecoaded the motion. MOTION GRRIBD.
i i
i
! 3
i 7
~
~. ~
~ -.~
! '
i
strucbure.for uae as profesaional oFficee. ~
8ub ect bition vras continued from the meetiag of November 14, 1962, in order to' ~
3 a ~
permit #he petitioaer time :to contact the Plaaaing,Departmeat to.deterniae the:aeceasary . •
requirem.~ate for #he;uae of spb,ject property ae weii se the proposed setbact for
d6dication. . _ ;
Chairman Gauer iaquired whether any oae was ia the Council Chamber to repreemat the . ~
petifioner,,and received ao responae. ~
;~
j ` .
, .,
• !' _
' '
~
;.:
~
~'; . . ~~....~ r~xv~:..!... ,_~ ~~..:.j ,',~~ ~ .~:~ . . ."!.~:...,~ _. ~ l,~ LsT~/,. .. .b.21"Sr.~~..::'' r';~;ci.°j,n'~n~i~~CY_,~szi:._. ... ~~- . . _ .._... ,_,~._._..._....._~_ t" i~:''
ABCIA88IPICATIC~1 ~ CONTINUBD PIUBLIC I~ARIN4. ROH~HRT G. ROBB, 1707 South Sticlid
N0. 62W63-37 Aveaue~ Ansheim, Csiiforai~, Owner; reqaeetiag ttnt proparty
dnecribed abs A reetanaular pareei of l~ad located oA tha aorth-
weet coraes of 9ueiid 8lreet ~ad ~u~aRC x,ane, aaid nroperty
haviu~ an ap~roximate frontage of 306 feet oa the weat ~ide of Suciid ttreat~ ~ad an
approximate frontage of 49 feet oa the aorth side of bumac Laae~ aad,further da~eribed
a~ 1703 aum~c.Lane~` be reeiaeeified f~rom the R-1~ ON8 PAMILY RBaID'8NT7AL~ ZONB to the
C-1, N8IdHBqtH00D.COt~tCIAL~ Z0~N8. ,
aub,~ect petitioa wa~ coatiaaed from ~:h~~, meetia~ of November i4~ 1968~ ia order to
ailow the petitioaer '~uffieieat fime i~o ~ubmit compiete plot'pl~a~,iadicati~ the
remodaliu~ of sa exi~tius ~tructure to pre~eat'a aoaaerei~i appearaace.
Zosais~ Coordinator Martia Lreidt~ read ~ ietter from the petitioaer,ia which ha
saque~t~d ~a additioaal tMto weet~ time ia wrdes to compTete the required piot pian~.
Commi,ieioaes Muu~sil offered a motioa to conti:sae Petitioa for Reclaasifieatioa
I~o.'68-63-37 to the meetin~ of December 27~ 19~2, in order bo parmit the petitiones
aufficient time to prerea~ compiete plot piaa~. Commi~oioaer Chavo~ ~ecoadad tha
motion. ~:OTION GRRIBD.
j;~,.
RHCIASSIPIGTI~1 - CONTIMIBD PUBLIC HBARIH(i. R88D S. aad DIANB I. l?'LOVBR, ''`. .
*10. 62-63-39 ` 4627.Pni;field, Corons De1 Mdr~ Califoraia~ 0~aera= RBNBAR INCOR-
P~ATBD, 1422 North Ceutrsl Perk Aveaue, Aaaluim, Caiiforuia~
Aaeati rcque~tiag thst property deecribed se: A recta~ular
psrceL of iand aith an approximate depth of 250 feet~ snd an spproz{mate width of 90
feet~ said property~having a 90 foot fsontage oa the eouth aide of Hroadpa~r~,aad Lhe .
esstera bound~ry beiag approxiu4ely ~l0 feet weat of the centesiine.of Loar~ atseet~
snd fusther described se 1632 Weet~Broadwsy~ be reclaeeified.ffrom the R-A~ RBRIDBNTIAL
AQtICIJI.TURAL 2~18 to the C-1 " AIDI(~~HOOD CQbO~IDRCIAL 20N8, 4o re~uadei an exiatiag
~
~
~
=~ ;
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ November 26, 1962, Continued:
1272
RBCLA3SIPICATION - Zoning Coordinator Martin Sreidt, advised the Commisaion that
N0. 62-63-39 =evised plans had been submi.tted; that the plaas were quite
(Continued) adequa+ce~ except that the plot plans did not adequately show
the t•reatment of the front yard area.
Chairnaa Gauer inquired whether any one ia the Councii Chamber opposed subject
petition~ and received no repiy.
1R~ HBARING lOA.S CL06HD.
Th~ Comceieaioa diacusaed the uae of aa exiatiag atrncture by the petitioner for uae
as a buaiaesa office; that tF~e qae was incompatible to the area with maay fiae homes
beiag deveioped and new constructioa; that the petitioner atated previonaly that
aub,ject strncture would only be used for 18 moaths at which time it would be
demoliahed and a new atructure incorporating commercial featurea would be coastructed;
that it was poasibie~that upoa expiratioa of said 18 montha~the petitioner might
sequest a coatiauance for the uae of aub3ect property in ita preaeat atatua; aad that
the uee of eaid atructure would be a detrimeat to the area.
Commieaioaer Perrq offered Reaoiutioa No. 342~ Seriea 1962-63~ aad moved for ite
paseage san sdoption~ aeeoaded by Commiaeioaer Ailred~ to recommead to the City
Couacii that Petition for Reciaaaific4tion No. 62-63-39 be denied baeed on fiadiuga.
(8ee Reaoiution HookJ
Oa roli caii the foregoiag resoiutioa wae pasaed bq the foilowing vote;
pyBg; C0~9dI38I0N8R8: Aiired~ Csmp~ Chavos, Gauer~ Marcoux, Muagall, Pebiey~ Persy.
NOiBB: COMlI~1~IW~8lt8s None. ~
ABSBNT: COaWIa8I01~[ts: Hapgood.
Mr. Reud 8. diover~ the petitioaer~.arrived in the Council Chaaber some time aftes
aub,~ect petitioa had beea heard~ and requeit thst the Commi~aioa aote ia the
miaute~ of record that his tardiae~s in repreaeatiag hie petitioa wa~ due to a Aia- I
under~taadiug~ in that he under~tood the heariag rra~ coatinued uatii the meetin~ of
November 28~ 1962~ which wa~ t~eo C2) weeka ~fter the la~t Commisaion mee:ing.
~
A~CIA88IPICATION - CONTINUBD PUBLIC F~ARINa. INITIATBD SY TF~ ANAI~IM PLANNIN(i ~
N0. 62-63-41 CObAlI9SION, 204 Saet Liacoln Aveaua~ Anaheim~ Califoraia;
~ proposiag thats, A eeries of Lot Noa. 1 through 31 in ~
TraeL No. 483~ aub,~eet propertiea having ~- combiaed froatage of
approximateiy 1,000 feet oa the north ~ide of Ls Palm~ Aveaue,, snd an avera~e of ~a
approximatr ilepth of 13Q feet~ esid propert~.es beia~ located on the aortbwest coraer
of La Paima ,\venue and 8uelid Stree! be reelaeaified from thc~ R-A~ RBSIDBNTIAL
AQtICULTURIIL~ ^•-~; i,_°IGHB~tH00D CO~CIAI.~ C-2~ GHNBRAL Cd~MBRCIAL~ C-3, }~AAVY COM-
1~(ffitCIAL~ ZON83 t,c 'elte G-1, NBIGd~iB0itH00D COI~E~tCIAL~ ZqVE to provide for proper .
classification oi' ~tuueel~ cnntained withia r,n area pro,jected for commercisi developmehL~.~
Sub,~ect petitiaa ~:.~~i; continuec fros the m~eetiag of November 14. 1962~ ia order to ~ '
psovide the Pianui,ao Departaeat s. oppoetunity to psepare aug~eatiye coaditioAS of
approval for the s•ea~pective 31 parceia.
Zoning Coordi:ut~oc Martia treidt~ revieMed for the Commieeioa the recom~ended
conditione f•or tJa. ~oamissioa'a coaaideratioa~ aad etnted that.foliowiag she
.recomaended coa6itione the atatua of eseh parcel xaa indicated for zonin~~and i~ad use;
and thab eRCh pucel had been individuaily fieid checked~ in order to•re:onunend ths specific
eoaditione sa noted for esch parcei.
. ~
~
~_ .
MINUTB3, CITY PIANNING CObAlISSION, November 26, 1962, Continued:
1273
RBCLASSIPICATION - Mr. Lewis Disinger, 1815 West La Palma Avenue. owner of
N0. 62-63-41 Parcel No. 24 of subject petition, appeared before the Commission
(Continued) and stated tha.t he would 13k~ to have the specified conditiona
which apply to his parcel of land read.
Mr. Rreidt, thereupon read all conditioas agplicable to Parcel No. 24.
ldr. Disinger further stated that he could noL comprehend any reason for the City of
Anaheim requiring additional dedication of three (3) feet oa La Palma Avenue, and
inquired of the Commission whether or not an Engineering survey had been made of the
subject property.
Mr. Art Daw~ City Bngineer, advi~ed the Coamisaion that the proposed atreet deveiop-
ment of La Palma Avenue indicated a one-hundred asd six (106) foot wide street which
meant that fifty-three (53) feet from the centerline be the necessary dedicatioa
required; that curbs were located at forty-three (43) feet; that some curbs presently
existed uader the old staadard of fif*y C50) feet; and that the additional footage
was necessary to construct a wider psrkway with sidewalks.
The Commissioa further discussed with Mr. Disinger the setback for all properties on
I.a Palna Avenue; that a sixty (60) fc.:: setback was required for ail properties up to
but not including Parcel Nos. 22 and <3, which was the swimming school; that the
buildiag setback from the swimming s:1oo1 to the end of the 31 parcels bein projected
for reclass3fication were required tc have a fifteen (15) foot setback; that the
revised specifications for parking s~-ces on commercial developments had been reduced;
and that the City was not trying to ~ceate a hardship with the requirements of an
additional three (3) feet for dedic:.Yion.
Mr. Rreidt informed Mr. Disinger tha* the purpose of the proposed reclassifieation of
the 31 parcels of Tract No. 483 was .i;stituted so that each individua]. property owner
would not be sequired to file a separ.~t~ reclassification for use of their property
since Reclassification No. 62-63~41 pi:~•ided this reclassification if conditions
were met as specified fos each respecti~° ,:~rcel or parcels.
THB HHARING WAS CLOSHD.
Commissioner Camp informed Mr. Disinger that, for his clarification, if tn::° (3) !'~eet
were dedicated to the City and commercial property owners had signs w3tihin the
dedicated three (3) feet, the City wouid incur the expense of moving the sign to
another spot on the property owner's property; and that a variance could be applied
for and passed to relieve aaq property owner who could not meet the parking
requirements of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution No. 543, Series 1962-63, aad moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall to recommend to the City
Couacil that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-41 be approved sub,ject to
conditions. (See Resolution Sook.)
The conditions as stated in the l~esol~tion Book were recited at the meeting and were
fouad to be a necesserq prerequisite to the use of the progerty in order to preserve '
the safety and welfare of the Citizena of the City of Anaheim. ,
On roll call the foregoing sesolation was pasaed bq the following vote;
AYBS: COM~lISSIOI~IDItB: Allred, Chavos, Gaues~ Marconx, Mungall~ Pebiey, Perry.
NOHS: Ct3yMT3SI0NHRS: Camp.
ABSENT: CQMMISSIOIJffitS: Hapgood.
Commissioner Camp quaiified his vote bp stating that he felt that the City had not
spent sufficient time and field iavestigation to solve all the problems involved in
subject petition, and that bv qrantiag aub3ect petition a considerable expense wouid
be created for the City, an~ ~ ~i~L~the ',~raper~.;•:~~:•..~~~'~~ l:ad 'oeen con#acted *eraonally,
this expense to the City might have been alleviatede
_~._: _-. -- •
--~= ,- ---- _
- . . ~`~:....
V ~ ~
~
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 26, 1962, Continued: 1274
.~
f
~
~
RBVISBD TSNT.ATIVH MAP - SUBDIVIDffif: RINKBR DSVBLOPMffiVT CQRP~tkTION, 10600 $atella
OP TRACT N0. 4476 Avenue, Aaaheim, California. BNGINBffit: MC DANIBL
BNGII~tING COMPANY, 222 8a~t Lincoln Avenue, Anai:eim,
California. Subject tract is located between the $anta Ana
River and the Newport Preeway at the northeast corner of the intersection of the
Newport Preeway and the Riverside Preeway, and contains 185 proposed R-1, One Pamily
Residential, Zone, lots.
Mr, Praak Richardson, representing the E~ngineer, appeared before the Commiseion and stated t~ai
had nothing further to say, but would be glad to aaswer any questions the Commission
might have.
1he Commission discussed the Warious recommended conditions for the proposed develop-
ment of the single family tract.
Commissioner Camp offered a motion to approve Revised Tentative Map of Tract No. 4476
sub3ect to the following conditions; I
I
1. Requirement that should this subdivision be developed as more than oae subdivision, i
each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. ~
2. Dedication of access rights from Lot 161 and Lot3 32 through 41 to Batavxa Street. ~
i
3, Drainage across Batavia Street, a secondary highway, shall be by means of an under- i
ground system. ,
4. Drainage shall be discharged into the Santa Ana River with the approvai of the
Orange County Plood Control District and the ~Jrange County Water District.
5. Finai design in cross section of the service road adjacent to Batavia Street and
Batav3 . Street itself, shall be subject to the approval of the City Sngineer.
6. Temporary access road south of Addington Drive ahown as connecting to old
Santa Ana Canyon Road~ shall be used as a temporary means of access, until
Addington Drive is extended easterly as a public street,
7, The offsite access road, the old Santa Ana Canyon Road, shall be widened to ~'
provide a twenty-four (24) foot travelway, with the approvai of the Orange County
Road Department.
8, Inatallation of inedian landscaping strip between Batavia Street aad the service
road; plans for said landscaping shall include adequate watering facilities, and
pians for said landscaping shall be submitted to and sub3ect to the approval of
the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance~ and said landscapiag shall be installed
prior to acceptance of tract improvements.
9. In accordance with the policy of the City Couacil, adopted October 9, 1962,
construction of a six (6) foot masonry wall on the property line separating
Lot Nos. 3z through 41, and Lot No. 161 from Batavia Street, a.nd Lot Nos. 3 through
16 from the Riverside Freeway, ea.cept that on corner Lot Nos. :'i2, 33, 40, 41, and
161, said wail shail be stepdowu to tweatq-four (24) inches ia the front one-half
of the front yard setback and a heighth of forty-two (42) inches in the back
one-half of said setback.
10. Reasonable landacaping, including irrigation fecilities, shall be installed in the
uncemented portion of the Batavia Stree4 parkway the full distance of said wa11,
pians for said landscaping to be submitted to and subject to the approval of the
Superintendeat of Parkway Maintenance. (Pollotaing the installation acceptance~
the Citq of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for mainteaance of said
landscaping.)
Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARR.IBD.
~ :
~ ; ':: ~
~ i
~
~
MINUTB3, CITY PIAHIdING COhAlISSION, November 26, 1962, Continued:
: .
~ ;I
r
c
~~
~ :i
1275
YARIANCB N0. 1333 - PIJBLIC F~AitING. CARL P. BURAIDTP, 705 West La Vertte Stree~~
Aaaheim, Califoraia, Owner; requesting permisaion to SPLIT
SUBJECP PROPffitTY INTO TWO (2) PARCBLS~ QN8 WITH A PRONTAGB OP
72 PBBT AND ANi01f1BR PARCBL WITH A PRONTAGH OP 20 PSST ON
IA Vffitl~ SYRBBT on psopertq described as: A rectaagular parcei of land'with a
92 foot froatage oa the northeriq side of La Verne Street~ and a depth of 200 feet~
the southweateriy cosner of said property beiag approximateiy 207 feet~ the ceater-
liae of North Citron Street, aad further described as 705 Weat La Verae Street.
propertp presently ciasaified R-1~ OI~ PAMILY RBSIDHNTIAL, Z~1B.
Mr. Cari Hurnett~ the petitianer~ appeared before the Commiasioa and atated that he
had nothiag further to add for the Co~isaioa's coasideration~ but wouid be pieased
to aaswer aay queations the Commissioa might have,
Chairman Gauer inquired if there wae anq oae ia the Conncil Chamber oppoaing sub,~ect
petition, and received no reapoase.
T!~ I~ffiARING WAS CLOSBD.
The Commisaion reviewed the piot plana aad noted that with the propoaed iot-aplit esch
parcel wouid contaia more than the minimum aquare feet required in a R-1, One Paaiiq
Reaideatial~ Zone.
Conmisaioaer Alired offered Reaolution No. 544~ 9eriea 1962-63, aad moved for its
paeaage a:td adoptioa, seconded by Commieaioaer Mungall~ to graa! Petition for
Vasiance No. 1333, aub~ect to coaditioas, (See Reaolatioa Book.)
On roli ca11 the foregoing reaolution waa passed by the followiag vote:
AYBS: CObAlISSIONHR9: Ailre..~ CRmp, Chevos, Gsuer, Msrcoux~ MunQali, pebley. Perry.
N~S : C~I33I~IDtS t Noae .
ABSBNTt COMlIS3IONB~t3: }~.~pgood.
YARIANCB N0. 133~: ~ p[TBLIC I~AARINa. MSL-1C8N CORPatiATI0P1, 2966 Liacoln Avenue,
Aaaheim~ Califoraia~ Ownera; M. L. MC,OAUOIiY~ 2966 :incoin Aveaue~
Anaheim~ Califorais, Agea#; sequestiag permiesioa to MAIVB R-3
SIX (6) POaT MA30NRY WALL ASQUIRBMSNT on property described a~: A rectangular parcei
of lu-d hawiag 4a ~ppzoximate frontsge of 340 feet oa the aouth aide of Lincola Avettue~
aad s depbh of spproximately 1,270 feet~ the westera boundary of aaid property being
approximateiy 333 feet esat of the centerliAe of Beach Boulevsrd~ aad further
described as Traet No. 4261. Property preaeatiy cla~sified C-1~ NBIOHHat1i00D ~-
CIAL~ ZONB~ aad R-3, M'~JLTIPLS PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL~ 20NH.
Chaira~sa Gauer iaquired if any one was ia the Councii Chsmber to repreeeat the
petitioner~ tad reeeived ao reply.
- Zonia~ Coerdia~tor Martia 1Creidt~ reniexed for the Coamiasioa•the•poseibie ~olutioa for~
subject petitioa aiaee a iarge aubdiviaioa bond had beea posted ia con,~unctioa with
the constructioa'of Trsct No. 4261; aad thst to approve the Maiver of the aasoary xali
vrouid be predetermiaing the land use of tho propertq abuttiag to the east.
Commi~aioner Perry offered Resalut~.oa No. 343, Seriem 1962-63, aad moved for its
paeeage aad adoptioa, secoaded bq Comsieaiotter Marcoux, to deaq Petition for
Variaace No. 1334 based on fiadings. (3ee Reaolution Boot.)
On roii csll the foregoiag reeolution was pasaed bq the foliowing vote:
A1~3: CObAlISSIWVBRS: Aiired, Camp, Chavoe, Gauer, Msrcoux, Mqagsll, Pebiey, Perry.
NOB6s COI~-lISSION8R3s None.
AB6ffi~: COMlI38ICN8R8: HeDBood.
,~~1
1
~
i
~::
~.
~.
;
/~, .
~;:
~ v
~.. ... . ~ - . . - ~ . ~ .
~l7
;\ . .
~~ ~ ,
'; ~
',' ' i
,i
,,~
V
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COi~4lISS.ION, Novenber 26, 1962, Continued: 1276
CONDITIONAL U3B - PUBLIC F~iARING. JO~NI$ P• aad HUGBNIA IdAY gNY~~R+ 1240 North
pBRMIT N0. 323 State Coliege Boulevard, Aaaheim, California~ Owners; LBO~N NINBURG,
1600 West Broadway~ Anaheim, Califoraia, Ageat; requesting
permisaion to BSTABLISH AN AMBUTANCB SSRVICB oa property deacribed
as: A rectangular parcel of laad with an approximate depth of 165 feet~ and a frontage
120 feet on the east side of State College Boulevard, the northweat corner of subject
propertq beiag iocated approximately 410 feet north of the corner of State College
8oulevard aad Placentia Aveaue, aad further described as 1244 North State Coliege
Boulevard. Propertq pxesentiy classified R-A, ~HSIDHNTIAL AGR3CULTURAL~ 20I~.
Mr. Leon Niaburg~ ageat for the petitioaer, appeared before the Co~iasion aad atated
that the existiag structure on aub3ect property wouid be uaed for the residence of the
driver and the attendant; that the property would be uaed as a base for Lhe ambulance
not as a businesa per se;and that the only thiag that would be stored on aub3ect
propertq would be ene ambulance.
Chairwan Gauer inquired if aay one in the Couacii Chamber opposed sub3ect petition~
aad received no reply.
TH8 fffiARING WAS CLOSHD.
The Co~issioa discussed the use of sub3ect property aad its possible value in
iocating an ambulance seroice on the east side of Anaheim ia close proximity to the
R~verside Preeway; that a medicai facility on the abuttiag property to the aouth had
been approved recentiy and requeated 2oning Coordiaator, Martia &reidt, to read the
corditiona for approvai of sub~ect petitioa.
AfLer Mr. 1Creidt had completed readiag the coaditioas required for the approvsi of
Coaditioaai Use Permit No. 323, the a~rnt for the petitioaer ateted that he thought the
ownesa of eub,~ect property ha~ eatered iato an agreemeat with the CiLy aometime ago
in which the Ci4y would conatru.i curba and guttera.
Deputy Aasiatant City attorney, Purmaa Roberta, informed the ageat for the petitioner~
that if euch aa agreemeat had. been entared into ~y the Citq~ that the City would abide
by say sg:~esrnt thet it he,d made with the owners of aub,~ect property.
Commieaioner Pebley offea._d Reaolution No. 546, Seriea 1962-63, aad moved for its
passagt aad adoptioa~ aecortded by Cominisaioaer Marcoux to grant Petition for
Coaditional Uee Permit No. 323 for a two year period aub,~ect to conditione. (aae
Resolutioa Hook.)
Oa ro11 cail the faregoiag reaoiution was pasaed by the foliowing vote: '
pY83; CONAlIS3Ic3NH(t9: Alired~ Camp, Chsvoa, Gauer~ Mareoux, Mungali, Pebiey~ Perry.
NOB.S: COD9dI33I0NHRS: None.
AHSffiVT: CObAlISSIONBRS: Hapgood.
Comwisaioner Camp left the Couaeil Chember at 3:40 P,M.
ABCLASSIPICATION - PUHLIC HBARING. TBD MAR ~OMPAN7~, 1234 Bsst Liacoln Avenue~
N0. 62-63-44 Anaheim, Califosaia~ Ownera; TBD PISH, 1234 Baet L3acoln Avettue~
Aaaheim, California, Agettt; requeating that property deacribed
as: An irregular parcei of land heving an approximate frontage
of 40 feet on 3antu Ar-a Caayott Road, aad an average approximate depth of 110 feet~ the
southwesterly, corne; of sub3ect property being 225 feet southeast of the ceaterline of
Jefferaon 9treet be reclassified from the R-A, RESIDBNTIAL AGRYCULTURAL~ 20I~ (R-3~
MULTIPLB PAMILY RBSIDHNTIAL, ZONH, pending) to the C-1~ I~IGFiBatFi00D COMdffitCIAL, ZONB
to permit the eatablishment of a bmail coffee ahop reatauraat on aubject p=operty.
~l
~:~ ._.. .~
i
`: ;
------
.... ... ,
`~,
~_~ . ~ ~
~
(
MINUTB3, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, November 26, 1962~ Continued: 1277 I
~
RBCIA3SIPICATION - Ted Pish, agent for the petitioner, s~peared before the Co~xiasioa ~
N0. 62-63-44 and stated that the development of subject property was ia
(Continued) connection with a pre~ious reclassification whi~ch had been approved.
Mr. Pish further stated that all comments being made at tl~t time '
weze also to be considered for Reclassification No, 62-63-45, in that Pstiti.oa for
Reclasaification No. 62-63-44 was for the coffee shop restaurant. and pe#ition for
Reclassafication No. 62~63-45 xas for additional parking spaces for the coffee shop. ~
Mr. Pish informed the Commission that s•ubject development would be the secoad stage of
the development ia the Peralta Hills area; that the multiple fartily devalopment was
planned first; and that additional plans would be compieted for review by the
Plaaning Department within two weeks.
Chairman Gauer inquired i£ any one in the Council Chamber opposed subject petition, !
and recei~ved no reply.
Zoning Coordinator Martin greidt, advised the Commissioa that tne basie problem facing
the Commissioa was that an amendment could be proposed to Reclassification Iio. 61-62-107
and Conditional Use Permit No. 243,
The Commisaion inquired of the agent for the petitioner what plans were beiag proposed
for the completion of property under Reclassification No. 61-62-107.
Mr. Pish repiied that development a~f the acre of land which abutted to the ea~t of the
proposed coffee ahop might be developed within one or two years; and that a twentyr-fovr
(24) planaed-unit development was being proposed to be constructed immediately,
Commisaioner Mungall offered Resoiution No. 547, Series 1962-63, and moved for i~g
paseage and adoption, seconded bq Commisaioner pebiey to recommend to the City Couacil
that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-44 be approved subject to conditioas.
(See Resolntion Book.)
The conditions as stated in the Resolution Book were recited at tae meeting and were
found to be a necessary pserequisite to the uae of the proper#y ia order to preserve
the safety and vteJfare of t~e Citizans of the City of Anaheim.
On rolY cali the foregoiag resol~.tion was passed by the,following vote:
Ailred, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungail, Pebley, Perry.
RHCLAS3IPICA;^ION - PUSLIC FIDAitING: RANCHO IANB RBpLTy, INC., 1234 Bast Lincoia Avenue~
N0. 62-63-45 Anaheim~ California~ Owness; T8D PI3H, 1234 Bast Liacoln Avenue~
Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that propertq deacribed as:
An irregular parcel of land having a frotttage of 65 feet on the
east aide of Jefferson Street, and an approximate average denth of 128 feet~ the aouth-
west corner of subject property being approximately 270 feet northeriy of the corner of
Jeffcrsoa Street and 3anta paa Canyon Road be reclassified frow the R A, R&SIDBNTIAL
AQtICULTURAL, 20NB~ (R-3, MULTIPLB PAMILY RHSIDHN'x.[AL, ZONB, pending) to the G1,
NBIGFIDORHOOD COhAfARCIAL, 20d~iS to ~rovide parking faciiities for a propoaed coffee ahop
restaurant to the east of subject property.
Mr. Ted Piah, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commisaion and stated that
he had nothing further to add for the Commission~s eoasideration; that all hia commenta
had beea made oa the previoua petition.
,
,~
:
~
~
~
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING CObY~lISSIOH, November 26, 1962, Continued; 1278
RBCIASSIPICATION - Chairman Gauer inquired if any one in the Council Chamber opposed
N0. 62-63~45 subject petition, and received no repiy.
(Contiaued)
THB HBARING WAS CLOSBD.
2oning Coordinator Martin Kreidt, read all the recommended conditions for approva: of
subject petition to the Commission and the ag..nt for the petitioner.
Commissioner Perry offexed Resolution No. 548, Series 1962-53, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commaissioner Pebley, ta recommend to ~he City Council
that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-45 be approved subject to conditions.
(See Resolution Book.)
The conditions as stated in the Resolution Book were recited at the meeting and were
found to be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to preserve
the safety and welfare of the Citizens of the Citq of Anaheim.
On roll cali the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYBS: COMMI3SIONERS: Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
NOES: CObAfISSIONEIiS: None.
ABSffiVTa COMMISSIONBRS: Camp, Hapgood.
RHCBSS: Commissiocer Allred o€fered a motioa to recess the meeting of the
Pianning Commission to 4:00 P.M., Commissioner Pebiey seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIHD.
Meeting :ecessed at 3:48 P.M.
RHCONVBNB Chairman G.~.uer reconvene/the meeting of the Anaheim Planning Commission at
4;00 P.M., all membecs being present except Commissioner Hapgood.
RIiCLASSIPICATION - PUBLIC F~ARING. ROBBRT S. and ANNB T. UNGBR, 2008 Bast Lincoln
N0. 62-63-46 Avenr~e, Anaheim, California, Owness; WILLIAM P. WOLSB~tN,
' 1731 South Baclid Street "P", Anaheim, California, Ageat;
sQquesting that property described as: A rectangular parcel of
land with a frontage af 200 feet on the south side of Romneya.Drive, and a depth of
330 feet, the easterly buundary being approximately 460 feet west of the centerline of
State College Boulevard, and further described as 1826 and 1830 8ast Romneya Drive be
reclassified from the R A, RESIDPVTIAL AQtICULTURAL, ZONB to the R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY
RHSIDHNTIAL ZIIVr to construct a multiple family planned-unit development.
Sub,ject petitio.n was filed in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 324.
M=. Har=y Rnisel•y, attorney fo= the petitioner, appeaxed befose the Commission and
stated that the petitioner had previously requested the same reclassification which
had been approved by the Commission but deni'ed by the City Council; that the plans as
presented were identical; and that the architect for the development was availablP to
answer questions.
Zoning Coordinator Martir Rrei3t, indicated on the General Plan Map on the Council
Chamber wall~the location of sub,ject property.
Mr. Robert Penrod, 1813 Briarvale, appeared before the Commission in opposition to I
subject petition and stated that he opposed the development on general principlea; ~
that he represented a number of residents residing on Romueya Drive ad3acent to
sub,ject property who were unable to aLtend because of illnesa, care of children, and
working hours; that he visited the Plaaning Department aad the B:-gineering Deoartment
.to determine what had been presented pa^suteu~Yy-.by.~+the ~pai~k•ioners.~o~~sub3ect property~and whyl
tke City CouaciS had disapproved the previous petition; that the irregularly shaped parcel ~
I
~ ~ ,. . . . -^
~ ~ ~s
o i .
;
~
_._ ___ . _ __._ . __ .
._----._--~--- - ----- ,
,,
;
(_ } (_.~ ~
MINUTES, CITY 1~UiNNING CaMMISSION, November 26, 1962, Continued: 1279 '
RHCIASSIFICATION - of land with narrow deept lots did present a problem for develop-
N0. 62-63-46 ment; that he did not Sike the vacaat land or the existing
(Continued) structures on subject property; that property owners in close
proximity to subject property had considerable equity in their
property; that if subject property were combined with property
extending to State College Boulevard to present a large parcei of property and possibly
construction of a planned-unit development similar to the Sherwood Riviera that the
residents in the area would not object to that type of multiple family development in
the area; that a chain reaction might occur if subject property were developed as
proposed; that subject property combined with properties to State College Boulevard
consisted of approximately 30 acres; that property to the north of subject property had
been developed for single family homes, but that not ali the property had been
completely developed; that speculaters might propose property on the north of Romneya
Drive for multiple family development; and that he had checked with the Board of
Realtors as to the possibility of a change in Sand valuation, that he had been
informed that construction of a planned~unit development would greatly devaluate the
property, but it would depend entirely on the type of development being proposed,
Chairman Gauer read a letter of opposition to ~ubject petition to the Commission.
8ubject petition had been signed by fifteen (15) persons covering seven (7) parcels of
property.
Mr. ~nisely, in rebuttal, stated that the proposed development would be a high
caliber type of development and would enhance the neighborhood of Romneya Drive.
THB HBARING WAS Q.OSHD.
Commissioner Pebley noted that subject property had been approved by the Commission,
but that the City Couacil had disapproved a previous petition for reclassification
because of inadequai:e development plans, and not the land use of sub3ect property.
Mr. James Sioan, 10Y5 North Acacia, appeared before the Commission and stated that he
nad property to the east of subject property proposed for R-3, Multiple Pamily development
which had been denied by both the Commissioa and the Council; and that he was
planning to combine together ~rith another property owner adjacent to his to the east
to develop a 122 foot frontage on Romneqa Drive for a planned-unit development.
The Commission noted th~.t the preliminary General Plan proposes a low-density
residential development for subject property which wouid limit the development to
six i6) dwelling units; that with a high school proposed south of subject property, it
might be feasible to develop R-3 to State College Boulevard, but that it should be
low to medium density development.
The Commission further noted that it would suggest that the petitioner contact the
property owners to the east of subject property for development iato something more
compatible to the area~ and to meet wi•th the Planning Departmer.t to resolve any problems.
Commissiener Chavos commented that development of subject property and property adjacent
to it for multiple family developmeat would M contrary to the uge as ~roposed on the
preliminary Geaeral Planr and to muke an exception for subject property~would mean the
continu~us deletion from the preliminary Generul Plan for the use propoaed for subject
property.
Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to deny Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-46,
because it did not conform with the General Plan which proposed low-density residential
development for subject property. The motion lost for want of a second.
The Commission further discussed the possibility of low medium density for subject
property; that if this type of development were proposed that the Commission might
recommend to the Planning Department that the preliminary General Plan be changed; that
the line be held for single family development to the nor.th of Romneya Drive.
~
I '
I
--- - - . . - ..~.,.._...._....~
'-" ~- . . . . .__ . __.
~~
MINUT83, CIT'Y PIANNING CCY~4~lISSION, November 26, 1962, Continued: 1280
~ RBCIASSIPICATION - Mr, Sloan advised the Commission that he had tried to encourage
N0. 62-63-46 the property owaer of property between subject propertq and his
(Coatinued) proparty to the east to develop fo.r multiple family development ;
atoag wixh him aad had received a aegative answer; and that~the ;
owner of that proper.ty stated she planned to hold it for future
use by her heirs,
T3:a Commisaion continued div~ussion on the chaages for the preliminary General Plan;
that the e were many areas in Anaheim where traffic was considerably heavier than
Romneya ~rive; that these areas were all residential areas and a possibility for their
continued use as residential areas; that the property to the north of subject
property might have a similar problem for developmen~ if subject property were
developed for multiple famiYy use with an increase burden of traffic on Romneya Drive.
The Commissioa noted then that there would be two (2) separate parcels of land with a '
sixty-six (66) foot strip of land separating them, thus again creating a land use
hardship for future developmeut of this sixty-six (66) foot strip of 1and,which wou1B.
not be conducive to a good planned-unit development.
~ommissioner Mungall offered a motion to reopen and continue Petition £or
Reclassification No. 6?.~63-46 to the meeting of January 7, 1962, and recommended that ~
the petitioner contact property owners of the parcels of property to the east of
subject property in order to resoive possible development, and to meet with the
Planaing Department staff to determine what could be developed for subject property
and abutting properties to the east to State Callege Boulevard, Commissioner Pebley
seconded the a~tion. MOTION CARRIBD.
GENERAL PLAt~ iJIt3EC'- Commissioner Pebley offered a motion to direct the Planning
TIV'~.' TO THE Department to change the preliminary Generai Plan on Romeieya
PIANNING D~PARTDffiNT Dzine approximately 630 feet west of State Coilcge Boulevard
from low density single family de~elopment to low merii~.:.
density one~story family development. Coaunissioner Muagall
seconded the motion. .
On roll call the foregoing motion was approved by the foliowing vote; j
AYBS: . COhMISSIONBRS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mascoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
NOBS: OOhPlIS3IQNffitS: Chavos.
ABSffiVT: COhMISSIOI~RS: Hapgood. ~
~
' CONDITIONAL USH - PUBLIC HBARING. ROHBRT S, and ANNS T. UNGBR, 2008 Bast Lincoln ~
; PffitMIT N0. 324 Avenue, Anaheim, California~ Owners; WILLIAM P. WOLSBUAN, ~
1731 3outh Huclid 3treet "F", Anaheim, California, Agent; ~ ~
~` requesting permission to CONSIRUCT A MUL'IIPLH FAMILY PLANNBD-UNIT
~ DBY'BLOPMBNT on property described as: A rectanguiar parcel of land with a frontage .
of 200 feet on the south side of Romneya D=~.ve, and a deptti of 530 feet, the easteriq
boundary being approximately 460 feet west of the centerline of State Coilege Boule- .
vard, and further described as 1826 and 1830 Bast Romnepa Drive. Yroperty preaently
classified R A~ RHSIDHNTIAL A(1tICfJLNRAL, Z~VS.
3ub3ect pet.ition w$s filed in conjuaction with Reclassification No. 62-63-46.
Mr. Ha=ry Bnisely~ attorney for the petitioner, appeared before the C~mmission and
stated that he would like to have Petiiion for Conditional Use Permit No. 324
~heard in con3uaction with Reciassification No. 62-63-46.
Commissioner Mungail offered a motion to continue Petition for Conditional Use
~~ Permit No, 324 to the ~eeting of January 7, 1963, in order that it might be heard in
~ conjunction with Recla~asification No. 62-63-46. Ccmmissioner pebley seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRYB-~.
~
~
'I ~
I
~ ,~
-
~
.•~... i
. twy ,,,.~-r
. . ~
. ... . _ , . .. ._,.~ .~,_....,.
V ~
0
MINUTBS, CITY.PIANNING CO~AtIS5I0N, November 26, 1962, Coatinued: 1281
RBCIASSIPICATION - PUBLIC FIBARING. RAYIdOND J. YOUPG, 236 North Normandy, Anaheim,
N0. 62-63-47 California, Owner; JOHANNA &. }IDGHL, 855 3outh 3tate College
Boulevard, Anaheim, California,,Agent; requesting that property
described as: A rectangular parcel of land having an approximate
frontage of 62 feet on the east side of State Gollege Boulevard, and an approximate
frontage of.117 feet on the north side of Sycamore Street, and further deacribed as
504 North State College Boulevard be reclassified'fiom the R A, RESIDffiVTIAL AQtI-
CULTURAL, ZONB to the C-1, I~IGHB~tH00D CQhalBRCIAL, 20NB to permit the establishment
of a real estate office ia an existing residence on subject property.
Mrs. Johanaa Hegel, agent for the petitioaer, appeared before the Cammission and
stated that she had estabiished a real estate office on sub,ject property with the
permission of the City Council; that the City Counci2 had given her six (6) months
tim: '_a granting the variaace in order that she might obtain a reclassification of
sub,~ect property; and that ahe had aothing further to add for the Commission~s
consideration but would be glad to answer any questions.
Chairman Gauer inquired if anq one in the Council Chamber oppoaed aubject petitioa,
and received no reply.
THB HBA.RING WA3 CLOSSD.
The Commissian iaquired of the petitioaer what she planaed to do with the existing
structure on subject property.
Mrs. Hegel repl.ied that nothing was plaaned to convert the structure on
sub3ect property; that it would be blscktopped and landscaped in the front only; and
that the block wall to the south of subject pr.operty would be removed,
It was noted by the City Bngineer's representative, Art Daw, that the masonry wall,
which the petitioner proposed to remove, was constructed by the developer of the
tract to beautify ~he tract only; and that the wall was conatruct on City of Anaheim
property.
The Commission noted that upon field inspection of aubject property the existing
stsucture would nat be an asset to the commercial development to the north of
aubject propextq w5ir..h ~:~cluded manq fine aew bu£ldings.
The Commission further noted, that ia order to be consistant with their ruling on
zoning of sub,~ect propertq~ any commercial use of the property would require the
removal of the exiating home aad coastructioa of a coamercial type building to
conform with the development to the north; and that to permit the existence of the
structure on subject property for commercial use would be a detriment to the City of
Anaheim.
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 549, 3eries 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption,seconded by Commiasioner Marcoux, to recommend to the City
Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-47 be denied based oa findings.
(See Resolution Book.)
Oa roll call the foregoittg resolution Aas passed by the followiag vote:
AYBS: COi~9~[ISSIONHRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos~ Gauer, Marcoux~ Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
NQBS: COhAIISSI01dBRS: None.
AB38NT: COI~AlISSIONHRS: Hapgood.
CONDITIONAL USB - CONTINUED PUBLIC FffiARING. l~fftS. ARIHUR H. Fffi6MffitLINB~ et aI, ~
pBRMIT N0. 320 114 Caffmaa Street, Anaheim, Californis, Owuer; LLOYD B, MOUNT~
600 North 8uclid 3treet, $uite 609~ Anaheim, California, pgent;
requesting peraissioa to BSTABLISH ! YLANNHD-UNIT DBVELO~I~NT,
'''~ WAIVB 2} STQRY R-3 RBQUIitBMSNT~ WAIVB 2?~ STORY C-1..RBQUIRBMBNT, WAIVS GARAGR4~-PER~
"`'' ' CATipatTS, AND WAIVH C-1 DEBD RBSTRICTIOiV3 on pfoperty described as; A recta~^I"ss
parcel of land on the west aide of Buciid 3treet exteading south from Lincoln Aveaue
, ...r; ~..~..-.. ...<... . . r.t::.
C..
1
~
~
~.
~
~
~ .
MINUTB3~ CITY PIAPAIING COI~9dISSI~I, ~Noi-ember 26, 1962, Continued:
1282
CONDITIONAL USE - to Broadway,with a depth of 610 feet. Property preseatlq
PffitMIT N0. 320 classified R A, AHSIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL. 20NB, (C-1~ I~ffiIGHBat-
(Continued) HOOD COMMIBRClAL, ZONB, and C-3, F~AVY CODM!ffitC1AL, 20NH, peAding).
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt, advised the Commissioa that
incamplete development plans for the proposed muitiple family development had been
submitted to the Planning Department too late to ailow the Interdepartmentai Committee
and the Planning Department sufficieat time to analyze the reviaed plans.
Mr. Lloyd Mount, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commiasioa and
presented colored renderings and pians for the proposed development of a muitiple
family plaaned-unit development groposed for a portion of subject property~ and
reviewed for the Commission the renderings and the elevations,explaining what was
proposed; and that trees would be planted along the rear of the property to
beautify it.
The Commission aoted that s~~b3ect petitioa requested that the Commisaion coneider
R-3 multiple famiiy zoning for a portion of the 20 acres of subject property~or the
poasibiiitq of developing the property for commercial use; that the agent for the
petitioner was given an opportuaity to select the date for hearing by the Coamisaion,
aad that he had selected the November 26, 1962 date, instead of the December 10, 1962
date.
Mr. Kreidt inquired whether the Commission recalled the Commission°s policy oa
revised plot plana being submitted to the Planning Departmeat by 9:00 A.M. the
Mondaq prior to the Coma-ission meeting; and that the agent for the petitioner had
been informed this was the deadline which he had not met~ and the Comonission concurred.
The CommiAsion further noted that sub,~ect property was one of the few parcels of,_
land large enoqgh to accommodate commercial devele~pmeat in the City of Anaheim; tY~at•:,.;.,..
multiple gamily developmeat would aot be the proper land uae for development o~, ~
sub,ject property; that development of aub3ect property wouid be under a Ses-~e~aittce
propertq was not sold; and that fiaanciag of the proposed development of aub3ect
property would have a leagthy time limitation before financing wouid be approved..
Mr. Mount adviaed the Commission that sub,~ect property was less lite another
property in Anaheim; that he had been assured that a tweaty-four (24) year ioan'
would be the requirement if aubject property were approved for deveiopment; and that
at the.time the buildings were torn down~at ihe expiratioa of the tweaty-four (24)
year limit,conatruction of high-riae commercial development wouYd then take piace.
The Commisaion noted that there was no asaurance that the multiple famiiy develop-
ment atructurea wouid be removed upon expiration of the twenty-fou= (24) yeara~
and that it aeemed hardly likely that high-riae wouid be built on aub,~ect property
at that time.
~~
!
I
i
~~ Chairman Gauer iafosmed Mr. Mount that the Pianniag Commiasioa had approved five (5) j •
high-riaed buildinga in th~ City of Anaheim, but that oalq two (2) had been conatructed. ~
Commiasioner Camp atated that he peraonaliy felt that the petit3oners statement that ~
the muitiple fawily developmeat being proposed for sub,ject propezty would be removed _
at its expiration dst., and refinanciag of the property for high-riae conatructioa
whea the iand became more valraable; that the tweaty (20).story buildings wouid never
be conatructed~and the apartments might be in auch a atate of disrepair that they ~~
would fail dowu; and that the atatemeat mede by Mr. Mount that sub,~ect property
wouid be vrorth oae-huadred thousand (s100,000) doliars per acre was not a realiatic
figure if aub,~ect property were piaced on the opea marteL for a buyer.
ldr. Arthur Horaman, 1760 Weat Lincoia Aveaue, appcssed before the Com~eisaion and
atated that whea the firat plana were p'resented, the propoaed deveiopmeat waa not a
conciae plaa; that he then did aot ob,~ect becauae he preferred .to aee compiete piaaa
- before he could make a coacrete.ob3ectio~i to the propoaed deveiopment; and that ;
upoa mating two (2) tripa to the Plantting Department to view the reviaed piaaa, he
had been i.nformed they were aot availabie for the meetiag. ~
r~ ` ;
I~ . ;
I , ~
I
. . ': .. `.. ~.,,,~ ~ ;~.. 4,~,y ~ i ,
.. ..,: .. . a. ~_~. . .,~
. ~: ~ ;;~:.. 5~' . ; :> ""'l_.,. - . . . ,.. ._,..._. ...... .......~. ..... .._ .. .. ..~
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING CObASI3SI0N, November 25, 1962, Coatinued:
1283
CONDITIONAL U3E - A letter of opposition was read to the Commission sigtted by five
PffitMiT N0. 320 (5) peraons opposing aub,~ect petition.
(Coatinued) ,
T'Fffi HBARING 1VAS CIASBD.
~' I
~,
~ ~:-~ ~'~
The Commiasioa aoted that the best use for subject propertq wouid be C-J., Neighborhood
Commercial use because of the locatioa and the value placed oa the property as noted
at the hearing; and that the parcel should remain for C-1 developmeat as it had beea
originaliq reclassifi~d under Reclassification No. 56-57~39, oa which only one
condition on Resolution of Intent No. 3702 for subject property reclassif ying to
C-1, Neighborhood Commercial use was still to be complied with.
Commissioner Per•ry offered Resolution No. 530, 3eries 1962-63~ and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioaer Chavos, to deny Petition for
Conditional Uae Permit No. 320 based on findings. (3ee Resolution Boot.)
On roll call the foregoing reaolution was passed by the following vote:
AYBS: COI~AlISSIOI~EtS: Alired, Camp, Chavos~ Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
NQBS: COD44ISSIOI~ffiRS: None.
ABSBNT: COi~AlISSIONIDtS: Hapgood.
CONDITIONAL U3H - Mr. Lloyd Mount, agent for the petitioaer, appeared before the
PERMIT N0. 293 Commission and stated that he had discussed with the Planning
(Continued) Department many revisions to the proposed multiple family
Qevelopment for subject property; and that he felt that a two (2)
hour delay which occurred between the deadline and the time he submitted hia revised
plans was an insufficient reason for denial of, his petition.
Zoning Coordinator Martia %reidt, advised the Commissioa that if subject developmeat
had beea preseated to the Planning Department with complete pians~ the continuance would
aot have been made on subject petition; that many meetings had been held with
Mr. Mount with specific notations on the piot plaas, and diacussions informing
Mr. Mouat the desired type of development of subject property as required by the
Planning Commiasion; and that Mr. Mount had had sufficient time ia each continuaace
to present the proper plot pians.
Mr. Richard Reese, Planning Director, appeared before the Commission and stated that
considerable progreas had been made between Mr. Mount and the Department~ and that
there was no animosity between any memb~ers of the Planning Department and Mr. Mount,
as far as he could see.
Commiasioner Chavoa informed Mr. Mount,that ia his discussion in which he stated possible rea-
sons for denial of Petition for Couditional Use Permit No. 293~ thez+easrns were based m the
Commisaion's continuance of subject petition~with a request for revised plans, alldwing
the petitioner sufficieat time to submit Lhese revised plaas; aad that subject
petition had beea continued five (5) different times; in which andne expenae had beea
incurred by the Citq through these continuaaces.
The Commiasion inquired of Mr. Mouat his reasons fos not being in the Couacil Chamber
at the tiae the petition was heard origiaally.
Mr. Mouat stated that he had beea adviaed that incompiete piaas had beea aubmitted,
aad that scale eievatioas were required; that he was propoaing a Buccola-type of
developmeat; and that aiace his plaas were not accepted or considered complete~
c;.e of tt-e ataff in the Planning Department informed him that sub,~eot petition wouid
automaticaliy be contiaued; aad he bad assumed that he did not have to appear
before the Commisaioa to request this contiauance.
The Commisaion adviaed Mr. Mouat that the Pianaiug Department ataff was trqiag to
adminiater the policiea of the Commission and~ the Citq Coaacii, ra4her thaa waste
the tise of both bodiea by requiring the piot plans to be as compiete sa x+aa
requized on the aupplement to the petition, aad other information required of the
petitioaer.
~ ~ •
~ - F i~
~
F-'~i_
,:~
,1
~ • .
MINUTH9, CITY PLANNING COt~lISSION, November 26, 1962, Continued: 1~4
CONDITIONAL.U3B - The Commission iaquired of Deputy Assitant City Attoraey,
PBRMIT N0. 293 Furman Roberts, wha~ could be done to possibly chaage the actioa
(Continued) of the Piaaaing Commission earlier in the meetiag.
Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that~ the Commission couid
recormead that the City Coucii hear aub3ect petition at the time it was preseated for
review, with a atatemeat that the petitioaer failed to preaeat fihe plaas as
required by the Commisaioa, that it wae the City Councii and the Commiasioa`s policq
tl~at piaas ahoaid be reviewed by both thc Iaterdepartmental Committee and the
Plaaniag Department staff before beiag preaeated to the Commisaion or Council; and
that piaas had beea aubmitted too iate for any Developaeat Review of it,
Mr. Aoberte further stated that, if the Commieaion deaired to coatinue aub,~ect
petitioa, the previous motion aad aecond for deaial of sub,~ect petition would have to
be withdrawn, ana the motioa for withdrawal approved by a ma,jority af the Comm3aeion.
After conaiderabie diacusaioa by the Commissioa as to the posaibility of reacinding
the original motioa~ and the possibility that the City Councii might refer bact to
the Planning Conmiasion the plane that might be preaented to them; and that the land
couid be developed for a suitabie multiple family deveiopmeat, it might be to the
Commisaion's intesest to reopea the hearing.
Commisaion Marcoux offered a motioa to reaeind earlier actioa on Petitioa for
Coaditional Use Permit No. 293~ at which time denial was made. Commisaioner Mungall
seconded the motion.
On roli cali the foregoing motioa was approved by 7he foilowing vqte:
pYBS: COMrtISSIQiHRS: Allred~ Cam~, Chavos~ Gauer~ Marcoux, Mungali~ Pebley~ 4erry.
NaHg; COI~IISSIONHitS: None.
AHSBNT: CObAlIS3IONffitS: Hapgood.
Comm3.saio~aer Pebleq offered a moLion to reopen 4he heariug snd coatiaue petition for
Coaditioaai Uae Permit No. 293 to the meeting of January 7, 1963~ and that the. ~
petitioner have revised plot plane in the Plaaaing Departaeat ao later thaa 9s00 A.1~.~
December 31, 1902. Commieaioner A31red aecoaded the motioa. MOTI Qi CARRIBD.
gBpdtTS AND - ITBM N0. 1: VARIANCB N0. 7.323t NILL7AM H. atid MARY~C. DILLCM ~nd
ggCO~A~VD~pTYpN~ CIARBNCB aad AHBAL 1~DDOCa~ 1844 Hnater 3treet~
- Anaheim, California; Ownera; C-1~ Nei~hborhood Com-
mereial, zoned property eait of 1Cateiia and Ha~ter
9tzeet.
8nb,~eet petition Rpproved by the Pianaiag Commisaioa uader Re~olution No. 300,
8eries 1962-63~ oa November 26, 1902 aub,~ect to eoaditione. ~
Mr. N.~5. 3mede~aard~ repreaenti~ the petitioner~ ~ppeare0 before thtt Cosmin~ioa and
aaked that the~Commiasion reviea Coaditions Noa. 2~ 3 Rad 4~ and pra~r~nted a plot plaa
which indicated?the proposed 1sad~capi~ L'or the aub,~ect property.
Mr. Smedegasrd further advised the CosRiesion that apoa applicaLioa £or a buiidin~
perAit for aub~ect property~ Bevelop~aat Reviex rtouid aot Rpprove piaa~ bec~nre
Coadition No. 3 required a six (6) foot iaadscapiag atrip abuttin~ the ~Cateila Aveaue
hiQh~ray sight-of-waq; Lhat if eaid landscaping atrip wexe required~ the patitioaer
xould tuve to rsdicaily reviae hi.s plot pia~~s .and reduce the'~ize of the oomserciai
development to compiy with Conditioa No. 3~ sad reque~ted that the Comm3aaioa considar
the piot pisns se he pre~eated; ind that the piot piaa~ aa he preseated iadic~tad a
msaoary ~rali xhich exteaded aloAg side a postfon of the acceo~ drive~ but did aot
eompieteiq aeparate the acces4 drive froe the service atatioa. `-,
.~
~
~
~
i
~
{
-~,-
-_.,.,~.-;... .. ,..
~
~
~.l
_~
MINUTE3, CIT7t PLANNING COt~YrlISSION, November 26, 1962~ Coatinued:
:?~
~2s5
(Contiaued) 2oning Coordiaator Martia %reidt, advised the Commission if they
wish to approve the piot plan as presented to the Commisaion.
that Resolution No. 500 be rescinded aad a new resolction be
adopted to ineorporate installation of landscaping as indicated on
Sxhibit No. 2;n amendin g Condition No. 3, and installation of the 3} foot masonry wali
along the southerly portic+n of the service station as indicated on Hxhibit No. 1.
Commissio~er Martoux offe=ed Resolution No. 551. Series 1962~63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Co~nissioaer ?ebley, to rescind Resolutioa No. 500,
Series 1962-63~ and approve Petition for Variance No, 1523 aub,~ect to Exhibit
Noa 2 a$ $ubmitted, which indicated landacapiag for Coadition No. 3, and the 3+} foot
high masonry walP as indicated on Bxhibit Yo. 1 revised.
On roll cal: the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
pYB3: COI~MISSIONBRS: Alired~ Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungail, pebley, perry.
NpBg: C01~lIS3I01~ffiRS: Noae.
ggi'~tTS pNa ITBM N0. 1: (Contiaued)
gBCOMMffiV~ATIONS
pHSBNT; Cd~1ISSI01~IDEtS: Hapgood.
I1BM N0. 2: USH VARIANCH N0. 4870 Ameadment
Coatinued uae of aa auto Repair buaiaesa aad wreckiag
yard ia the M-1 (0) Light Iadustrial (Oil Production
District located at Van Burea Street~ SO feeL aosth
of Cherry 3treet.
Zoniag Coordinator Martia Breidt, reviewed for the r~,;mieaioa the infoxmstfori cont~r~aed
in sub,~ect Uae Variaace.
r.,.'•.
Mr. greidt further advised the Commisaioa thet sab,~ect ~ropertp wsa iocated in an ~rea
poasibiy pro,~ected for aanexation to ~he City of Anaheim, aad that it waa the
recou+mendation of the Pinaaing Department that a time 13.mitation be recommeaded to the
Orange Couaty PlanaiAg Comm.isaion.
Commiasioner Marcoux offered a motioa to recor.~tad to the Orange County Pisastitfg
Comaiasion that Uae Variaace No. 4870 be spproved~ bu4 for one yesr or a maximum of
two (2) yesra, ia ozder to provide the goveraing ,~ariadictioa st the tiae of said
expirati~a. an oppor4uai4y to review the comp~tibiiity of eaid uae, givea the
transitioaai asture of the development of eaid area. Cosmieeioner Chavo~ eecoa¢ad.the
motion~ ~ad requeeteG thst a copy of the aew M-1 Ordiaance approved by the Cot~leiitiion
be iaciuded with this trenemittai. MOTION CARRIBD.
~ ITBM N0. 3s Orange Couatq Plaaaing Commiasion, Sectional
~ Diatrict Map No. 24-4-10, Bxhibit "C"~ propoaea to
~ ~ • • change from A-1, General Agrieultursl.Dist,tict to the .,1
~`~ M-1~ Light Iaduatrial Distriet, cesl~ia psopesty
iocated at the northesat corntr of xatell~s Avenue.tad
Douglaa Street, eoutheaet of Aa~heim extendiAg to the
~anta Ans Aivez.
2oaiug Coordiuator Niaztia Kreidt, reviewed for the Commieanaathat thep°aed use for
iaad ad~acent or in cloae proxi~aity to aubject psoperty;• manufacturing
developmeat would be iocated ia ciose proximitq to the propoaed Orange Preexay.
l+lr. 1Creidt further atated that if !he Commiaeion approved the uae of sab~ect propertq~ ~
th~-t it be secomaeaded to the Orange Couaty`Pianning Commiasion that oae of the
eonditions of approv~i be s fiftq (SO) foot Parking-Landacaping„ 2oae on tstella Ave-
, ~ aue; that a aixty (60) foot reservation from the monumented ceatesline of xateila l1~l~+~-'
aue abuttiag aub,~ect property be 4nother oae of the conditioa~; that thie propoaeQ
aixty (60)"feet from the monumented ceateriiae was for future widening to t&e••nitia~te~ "~'
i-; :.r
r::~
~ . .. , , ,
I
~:~~~~ ~' ... ..':~.. .~. .~t .~. . r''.: ~~~_ . ,.,. . ~~ . , ~ .+.^-/i r .3;` ~~
kti
+
I
I
~ ~~
`J
~1
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING CAMdISSION, Novembez 26, 1962, Continded:
r;;7; ~
RBPCitTS AND ITBM N0. 3: (Continued)
RHCOhAlBNDATION3
(Contiaued) width of 120 feet propoaed for Sateila Aveaue; and that f,;rr+:s~:
reaervation of thizty-two (32) feet from the monumeated centerline
of Douglas Street, this beiag the west side of subject property
for the ultimate width of sixty-four (64) feet of Douglas Street.
Commissioner Camp offered a motion to recommend to.the Orange County Planning Commission the
Commission'S aPProval of Amendmeni to Sectional District Map 24-4-10, Bxhibit '~C",
from tne A-1, General Agricultural District t~o the M-1, Light Industrial District
subject to the following recommended conditions:
1. That there be a provision of a fifty (50) foot P-L zone along the north side of
Katella Aveaue from Douglas Street to the Santa Ana River easterly.
2. That provision be made for a sixty (60) ~foot dedication from the centerline of
I{atella Avenue for future widening to thie ultimate width of 120 feet proposed for
Katella Avenue..
3, provision of thrity~two (32) feet from the centerline of Dougias Street, the
westerly boundary of subject property for the ultimate development to sixty-four
(64) fe~_t fc~i Do!rglas Street.
Commissioner AlYred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
ITBM N~, 4: M-1, Light Industrial, and M-2, Heavy Industrial,
Zones, >mendments to the proposed Ordinance.
Pianning Director Richard Reese, reviewed for the Commission, the changes as proposed
on the M-1 and M-2 Ordinance, and stated that the City Council on advice of the
City Attuzne~~, recommended that the Planning Commission review the substantial changes in
proposed ozdinance, and via Reports and Recommendations advise the Council the Commission's
findi.ngso
Commissioners Mungail and Marcoux stated that they had attended the hearings on all the
proposed changes and wexe in accord with the changes as presented on the proposed
Ordinance.
Commissioner Maiccux offered a motion to accept the revisions to the M-1 and M-2
Ordinance of the Anaheim Municipal Code as presented in Hxhibit "A", dated • ~
November 20, 1962p and recommend to the City Council the adoption of said Amendment.to
Titie 18, Chapter 18.52 aad Chapter 18.56 of the Anaheim Muncipal Code. Commissioner
Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
ITBM N0. 5: "On-sale" Heor L,icense, Aipha Beta Shopping Center,
northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Rio Vista
Street.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt, read a ietter to tfie Planning Commission received by
the City Manager fxum Ciaudia Feters, a resident in the East Anaheim area, opposing
the application pending before the Alcohol Beverage Control Board for the "on-sale of
beer" license at the Alpha Beta Shopping Ceater.
Mr. Rreidt further advised the Commission that the Advanced Planning Division of the
Planning Department had reviewed Mrs. Peters letter, and noted that subject property
would not be in conformance with Anaheim~s C-l zoning for "on-sale of beer", but it would
be permissibl~ under a County reguiation; and that subject area was presently uader
armexation, which might be of some concern to the Commission.
The Commisaion noted that aay pending application before the Aicoholic Beverage Control
Board for the "on-sale of beer" would be under the jurisdiction of the City Council,
and instructed the Commission Secretarq to accept and file the copy of Mrs. Peters
letter, as weil as the Advanced Planning Diwision~s observationg of the same.
/ :
t;::
~ . ' ~ .
(_;) ~ ~
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COM~SI3SION, November 26, 1962, Continued: 1287
A RBVISION TO - S4udy Area involves property south of Ball Road, west of '
~ PIANNING S1VDY Dale Avenue.
; N0. 1-15-2
Assistant Planner Ronald Grudzinski, appeared before the '
~ Commission and iaformed the Commission, that the Ptanning Depart-
ment had been directed by the Citq Councii to prepare a Planning Study for the
' Commission to review and comment.
i.
~: Mr. Grudzins&i further reviewed the area noting that to the south,in the City of y j
Stanton, land uae was for Singie Family Residential property, to the east Single Pamily
`. ~ Residential property, and a small commercial development to the north; and that a
private school was also situated to the north of Ball Road, and to the west subject i
area was developed as iow-density deveiopment, as weil as to the southwest, and that !
apartments were located to the northeast.
Mr. Grudz9.nski furthex displayed three (3) exhibits indicating the possible land use
for the Study Area, with Hxhibit No. 1 proposing low-density development, Bxhibit
No. 2 single family development to the rear, and low-medium development to the
~; BaYl Road frontage, Bxhibit No. 3 proposed low-medium density development on Ball Road,
Commissioner Camp offe•red a motion to recommend to the City Council the following:
"ThN~ the properties involved in the Study Area, south of Ball Road, west of.Dale
' , Avenue, be developed substantiaily as residential properties, as shown on Hxhibit No. 3
of P.evised Planning Study No. 1-15-2.
The low-medium density residential classification, which is shown on the General Plaa,
would include a planned-unit development of a type proposed under Conditional Use
, Permit No. 309.
The Commi~sion feels that the development proposed by Conditional Use Permit No. 309
constitutes an extention to the south from Ball Road of the low-medium deasity
residential ~ise~ which has been projected for the Ball Road frontage of these propertiea
and was, th~sefAre, acceptable to the Commission, as foilowing within the intent of
the General P1an and proposais; the Commission does not feel that the granting of '
Conditional Use Permit No. 309 was in variance to the established Commission policq of
encouraging a bcack-up treaYment of low-deasity residentiai development along major
arterial hig5wavs on those pareeis suitable for single famiiy development, due to the
present Ger.eral Ylan proposals.
3PBCIAL NOTE: The Commission feels that the proposed convalescent home (Conditionai
Use Permit No. 322) could be compatibie with the projected low-medium
density residential use; and that 4he absence of the petitioner and
lack of adequate plans were the basis for Commission denial of
Conditional Use Permit Ho. 322.
Commissioner Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.,
ADJOURNMBNT
There being no further business to t=ansact, the Chair mov~d for a
motion to adjourn.
Commissioner Ailred offered a motion to adjourn the meeting of the
Planning Commission. Commissioner Chavos seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIBD.
The meeting adjourned at 6;03 0'Clock P.M.
Respectfuily submitted,
ANN BREBB~ Secr.etasq
Anaheim Plaaning Commisaion
. ~
~
__._.._.......--!
~ ._~..--.-
----- .--~
:~.. : ~.;..: _ ...