Minutes-PC 1963/01/21~ C) ~
City Hall
Anaheim, California
Januarq 21, 1963
RBGUTAR M88TIN~ Oi+ Tf~ ANAHSIM CITY PIANNING CQMMISSION
REGULAR MHETING - A Regular Meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was
called to order by Chairmaa Gauer at 2:00 0'C?ock p,M.~ a quorum j
being present. ,
PR&gBNT - CF'IP-IRMANa Gauer.
COhA4ISSI0I~FBRS: Allred, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. ~
AB3BNT - COAfMISSIONBRS: Chavos, Camp, Hapgood.
PRBSENT - 20NING COORDINATtR: Martin Sreidt.
DHPUTY ASSISTANT CITY ATTCYtNHY: Purman Roberts.
PIANNING C01~9~lISSIaN SHCRBTARY: Ann grebs.
INVOCATION - Reverend B. W, Matthias, pasLor of Zion Lutheran Church, gave the
Invocatiqn.
PLBDGH OP - Commissioaer Perrq led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Plag.
ALLEGIANCB
APPROVAL OP - The Minutes of the meeting of December 27, 1962, were approved
MINUTHS with the following correctioa;
Page 1321, paragraph 2, liae 5 and 6 ahould read: "professional
type offices only; that ail the orooertv owners but two of
Tract No. 3326 sianed a oetition anurovin¢ the prouosed develooment;
and that Lot Nos. 9".
The Minutes of the meeting of Jaauary 7~ 1963, were approved as
submitted. .
Commissioaer Camp entered the Councii Chamber at 2:05 P.M.
Commisaioner Chavos entered the Council Chamber at 2;15 p,M.
A ~c0i?~'?ON OP CONDO .s+xcR ~
WF~RBAS,.we are deeply saddened by the passing from our midst of Sugene p, Hapgood,
oqr faithful and highly respected Planning Commissioner; and
WFIDABAS, "Hap"~ as he was affectionateiy tno•~m to his maay friends, fa3thfully
secved the City of Anaheim for tweaty-eix years as a City Bngineer, and as a pianning
Commissioner for twelve qears with a de~otion unaurpasaed and rareiy equalled in public
serviee, and endeared himseif ta aii wtio kaew him; and
WHSRBAS, the Sosa of "Hap" as a friend and as a faithful and devoted member of the
Planning Commissioa will be keenly feit by the City Planning Commisaion, the Planning
Department, and his many friends.
Nahi, Tl~tBPoRH, HB IT RBSOLVBD by the Citq Planaing Commissioa of the Citq of
Anaheim that it deeply wourns the passing of Bugene P. Hapgood on behaif of the People
of the City of Anaheim, and extends ita d~epest sympathy to his wife, Genevieve, and
other members of his family.
- 1353 -
i
~ .
~
~
---. _--._...,.~,_~__._.__ ~
- , , ,~... _ ~ ~
~ ~._. . ,. . . ~:. .... _..._. , _ _._.._._ .
~
`~ .
MINUTB3, CITY PLANNING CaMMIS3I0N, Jaauary 21, 1963, Continued: 1354
A RESOLUTION OF CONDOLHNCB (Continued)
AND BE IT PURTHBR RBSOLVHD THAT THI3 RBSOLUTION be spread upon the minutes of the
City Planning Commission and a copy thereof be forwarded to his wife, Genevieve.
THH FQRHGOING RBSOLUTION is approved and signed by me this 21st day of January,
1963.
,~
ATTBST:
(Signed) Ann Krebs
, ecre.ary
Anaheim Pianni.ng Commissioa
(SiRned) Melbourne A. Gauer
CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
(SiRned) Albert A. Marcoux
CQMMIS320NER
(Signed) Robert W. Mungall
COMMISSIONBlt
(Signed) Herbert I. Perry
COI~AlISSIONffit
~Si¢ned) Tames F. Chavos
COih4~SISSI0N8R
(Signed) Horace S. Camp
COI~A~fISSIONHR
(Si¢ned) Calvin L. Pebley
CO[~9dISSIONHR
~3igned) Lenzi Allred
COhAIISSION&R
CONDITIONAL USH - THBODatB J, and JQAN H. PIBTROK, 905 South Lemon 9treet, Anaheim,
PBRMIT N0. 326 California, Owners; requestiag permission to construct a four-unit
apartment on property described as; An L-shaped parcei of land
with a frontage of 75 feet oa the south side of Vermoat Avenue,
108 feet, plus or minus, west of Lemon Street, and 60 feet, plus or minus, on the west
side of Lemon Street, 95 feet south of Vermont Avenue, and further described as
208 West Vermont and 903 3outh Lemon Street. Property preseatiq ciassified as R-3,
MULTIPLB PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONS.
Subjecf p~:ition was continued from the meeting of December 10, 1962, to ailow the
petitioner sufficient time to submit revised plans incorporating the suggestions
offered by the Commission.
Mr. Kendeth Lae, representing the applicant, appeared before the Commission, and
stated that revised plans had been submitted for the Commission~s consideration incorpo-
rating the suggested changes made by the Commission, and that he would be glad to
answer any questions the Commission might have.
~
~ .__._~. ----------~ ~
--r '~ -- -
~---~; ` ~ ~ . ~ , , .. ~--'..:... _ .. . . , . _.__ .... _. , .... _
C)
~
,.,.~ '
MINUTE3, CITY PIANNING C~ISSION, Jariuary 21, 1963~ Continued: 1355
r~
~ ~
~
C , I
~:~~n~
CONDITI~IAL USB - Mrs. Robert H. Perryman, 210 West Vermont Avenue, appeared before
pffitMIT H0. 326 the Commission and stated that the proposed two-story structures
(Continued) abutiing her property would be an invasioa of her privacy because
residents of the apartments could look down into her home; that
,aid two-story apartments should be relocated on the Lemon Street
frontage of s~bject property with the garages located abutting her property; and that
she suggested the Commission recommend a six (6) foot masonry wali abutting the
westerly boun~lary of subject property to eliminate the workmen using her property for
ingress and egress to subject property.
Mrs. George Baraes, 220 West Vermoat Avenue, appeared before the Co~ission in
opposit3.on to subject petitioa, and stated that she opposed the proposed "box-lika
structures" for subject property, that the two-story structures would be incompatible
wiih 2iie single s2orr st.;sctu:~s oa Yesrsoat A~+enae; that the anartmen+~ 3 shouid Ue
located on the Lemon Street frontage or dver the garages, and that tue proposed
development would not be aa asset to the neighborhood as iadica4ed on the plot plans.
Mr. Lae, in rebuttal, stated that the suggested chaages by the opposition would be in
direct conflict with the changes reco mmended by the Co~omissioa, and that waiver of single
story structures was granted last year.
THH HBARING WAS CLOSHD.
It was noted by the Commission that the waiver of single story construction had been
denied by the Commission, when it had been heard by the Commission originally,.
The Commission inquired of the petitioner whether he proposed frosted glass for the
westerly w.i.ndows of subject propertq, and Mr. Pietrok stated that frosted ~iass was
only proposed for the bathrooms, and that he was opposed to a requirement that frosted
glass be placed on the westerly side of subject two-story structures, since the windows
would be open a great deai of the time, which wauld negate their purpose of shieldiag
the residence to the west. ~
The Commission also noted that property to the west of subject property was zoned for
multiple family development, and that if ti-e Commission denied subject petition, the
property owner to the west might come in and request something similar since zoning
had already been accomplished which agaia would present a continuity of the present
problem.
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 607, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Aiired, to grant Petition for
Coaditioaal Use Permit No. 326, subject to conditioas. CSee Resolution Book.)
On roii cail the foregoing resolutioa was passed by the following vote:
AYH3: CONAlISSI01~ffitS: Allred~ Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungail, Pebley, Perry.
NOHS: COD9`IISSIONBRS: None.
pB3ENT: COl~9dIS3I0NIDRS: Hapgood.
CONDITIONAL USB -' CONTINUBD PUBLIC IiBARING. CAPITOLA A. and HASRHLL A. SHLI.BY,
pEAMIT N0. 329 852 North Y!est Street, and M. PRANCIS MRNN. 900 North West 3treet,
Anaheim, Caiiforni~,, Owners; WILLIAM DTTZHA2Y, 855 North West
Street, Anaheim, Califoraia, Agent; reqnesting permission to
CONBTRUCT A PLANNHD-UNIT DHVBLOPMSNT on propertq descriued as: A rectangular parcel of
'].and having a frontage of 213 feet on the easterly side of West Street and a depth
of 295 feet, the southerly boundary of said propertq being approximately 630 feet north-
westerly of the centerline of North Street, and further described as 852 and 860 North
West Street. Property presently classified as R-0, ONB PAMILY SUIIUABAN, ZOI~.
Subject petition was continued from the meeting of December 10, 1962, to provide the
petitioner an opportunity to submit revised plot plans.
~---
- >'~
~ I n1 ~
k ~':'
V ~ ~ : ~~' .. O
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COllIl~!I3SION~ January 21, 1963, Contiaued: 1356
CONDITIONAL USE - ZoniAg Coordinator Martin Kreidt, advised the Commission that no
PffitMIT N0. 329 revised plans had been received in the Planning Department, and
(Continued) that the engineer who was designated to draw the subdivision plans
advised him that the petitioaers had not contacted him to iadicate
their desires for'the revisioa of aay plans.
Mr. William Ditzhazy~ agent for the petitioners~ appeared before the Commiss;on and
stated that no revised plans had beea submitted, because the finaacing of the proposed
development had been withdrawn be~suse they felt ~hat the revised plans as required by
the Commissioa wduld not be ecoaomically feasible; aad that he desired to have the
Commission consider the plans as submitted orig3aaliq for their ruliag.
Chs3rmaa Ganer iny~ireG whefher anyone was present ia the Council Chamber, opposing
sub,~ect petition, aad received no reply,
Tt~ HBA1tING WAS CLOSED.
The Commission discussed the plans and aoted that substaadard facilities would be
provided for the pr.oposed homes, and iaquired of the agent for the petitioner why the
financiers for the proposed development desired to finaace a substandard development
which the Commissioa indicated would be ia violatioa to the Aaaheim Municipal Code.
Mr. Ditzhazy replied that the financiers thought that only the street should be cunsidered
substaadar3~ and that the development as originally proposed was the only ecoaomically
feasible method in the development of subject property,
The Commission stated that the recommendations made at the previous hearing were made
for the benefit of the petitioner~ tha: subject development would not be the high
quality of the many residential developmeats in Anaheim, aad that if the petitioner had
proceeded with the recommeaded c~anges, the improvement would be both beneficial to the
petitioner as well as the City.
Commissioner Chavos offered Resolutioa No. 608~ Series 1962-63~ and moved for its
paasage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to deny PetitiOa for Conditional
Use permit No. 329~ based on findinga. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll cail the foregoing resolution was passed bq the following vote:
AYBS: COl`AlISSIOIVBRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marctlux, Muagall, Pebley, perry,
NOB3: COhMI3SI0IVBR3; None.
AB3HNT: COAAfTSSIONBRS: Hapgood.
RBCIASSIPICATION - CONTINUBD PUBLIC F~ARING. CRIS A~NZIH and DR. WILLIAM C, 0•RHILLY,
N0. 62-63-51 417 North Herbor Boulevard, Aaaheim, California, Owners;
RICHARD IAYNg TOM~ p,I,A., 1665 West gatella Avenue, Anaheim,
California, Agent; requesting that property described as;
A rectaagular parcei'of Iaad having a frontage of 163 feet oa the south side of Santa
Ana 5treet, and haviag a froatage of 139 feet on the w~st side of Harbor Boulevard, and
further described as 503-507 Harbor Boulevard, be reclassified from the R-3, M[JI,TIPLB
PAMILY RB3IDffiVTIAL, Z01~ to the C-2~ GffiJBRpL COAA~RCIAL, 201~ to permit the construction
of a three (3) story professional office building an@ adjoining parking structure on
aubject property,
3ubject petition was coatinued from the meeting of December 27, 1962, to provide the
petitioner an opportunity to submit complete development plaas and file foz a petition
for VariaACe.
Snbject petition now filed in coajunction with Petition for Variaace No. 1545,
Mr. Richard L. Tom~ agent for the petitioners~appeared before the Commissioa and stated
that the petitioners no longer desired the General Commercial, Zoaing siace a variance
had beea filed to waive the height limitatioa, and that he would be glad to answer any
questions the Commission might have.
~
MINUTBS~ CITY PLANNING COhAlI3SION, JanUarY 21~ 1963, Continued:
1357
RHCLASSIPICATION - Qtairmaa Gauer iaquired whether there was anyone in the Councii
N0. 62-63-51 . Chamber opposiag subject petitioa, and received no reply.
(Continued)
Tl~ffi I~ffiARING WA3 CLOSBD. .
The Cominission again reviewed the plot plans, as well as the colored rendering, wfiich
indicated the architecttlral compatibility of the proposed structure with the civic
building aow under construction to the aorth of subject property.
Commisaioner Mungall offered Resolution No. 609, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage aad addFtion~ §econded by Commissioaer Chavos, to recommend to the Citq Council
that Petifibn for Reclassification No. 62-63-51 be approved subject to conditions.
(See Resolution Book.j
12~e conditioae as stated in the Resofutioa Book were recited at the meeting ar.d were
~ound to he a necessarq prerequisite to the use of the property in order to preserve
the safety and general welfare of the Citizeas of the City of Anaheim.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followiag vote:
pygg; COMMIS3IOI~It3: Alired~ Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
NOH3: COMMIS3IONIDt3: None.
pB3HNT: CObAlIS3IONBRS: Hapgood.
VARIANCH N0. 1545 - PUBLIC F~ARING. CRIS I~N2IH aad DR. WILLIAM C. 0'RIHLT.Y,
417 North Harbor Boulevard, Ar.aheim, California~ Owners;
RICFIARD lAYNB TOM, A.I.A., 1665 West Ratella Avenue, Anaheim,
. California, Agent; requesting permission to WAIVB 2+~ ST~tY I~IGHT
LIMITATI~i TO PBRMIT CONSTAUCTION OP A THItEB (3) ST(1RY PROFBSSIONAL OPFICB BUILDING~
3UBJ8Cf BUILDING NOT TO BXCSHD 50 PBET IN I~ffiI(~iT on property described as: A rectaa-
guiar parcel of land containing Parcels 1, 2, and 3 having a frontage of 163 feet on
the south side of Santa Ana Street~ and having a frontage of 139 feet on the west side
of Harbor Boulevard, and further described as 503-507 Harbor Boulevard. Property
presentiy classified as R-3, MULTIPLB PAMILY RHSIDBNTIAL, ZONH.
Subject petition was filed in coa3unction with Petitioa for Reclassification No. 62-63-51.
Mr. Richard L. Tom, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Comaisaion, and stated
that subject petition was filed at the suggestion of the Commission, and all commeats
made in the Reclassification No. 62-63-51 were applicable to subject petition.
Chairman Gauer inquired whether there was anyone in the Councii Chamber opposiag
subject petition, and received no reply.
THS HBARING WAS CLUSBD.
Commissione= Mungall offered Resolution No. 610~ Series 1962-63~ and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Alired, to grant Petitioa for
Variance No. 1545, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoiag resolution was passed by the followiag vote:
pYBS: COhMI3SI0NHRS: Aiired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer. Marcoux, Muagall, Pebley, Perry.
NOSS: COhalISSIONffitS: None.
AHSffiVT: CQh~lI3SI01~ffiRS: Hapgood.
~ ~
~
I ;
~
I ~
~• 1
,~
_._ J
V ~ .
~~
~.l
~, .~
MIN[JTBS, CITY PIANNING COMMI3SION, January 21, 1963, Continued; 1358
CONDITIONAL US$ - CONTINUHA PUBLIC FIDARING. WOODBN SHOE RANCH, INC., 8431 Monroe
PffitMIT Ni). 346 Avenue, Stanton, California~ Owners; HARRY LINDffiTBBRG or
HARRY &NISLBY, 8431 Moaroe Aveaue, Stanton, California, Agents;
requesting permission to CONSTRUCT A SINGLH ST(YtY PIANNHD-UNIT
DHVELOPMBNT on property described as: A rectaagular parcel of
land having a frontage of 380 feet on t~e east side of Nntwood Avenue, and a depth of
640 feet, the southern boundary of said property being approximately 290 feet north of
Bali Road, and further described as 906 South Nutwood Avenue. Property presently
classified R A, RBSIDBNTIAL AQtICULTUIdAL, ZONB~ (R-3, MULTIPLB PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONB
peading).
Subject petitioa was continued from the meetiag of January 7, 1963, in order to provide
the netitioner an oooortunity to meet with the bwners of•property in the vicinity of
subject property, with the Planniag Departrent staff, and to prepare revised development
plans~ if they elected to do so as a resuit of these meetings.
Mr. Harry Knisley, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission, and
stated that as a result of the meeting with the property owners, and the planning
Department, the plot plans as submitted, could be revised slightly to iacorporate the
findings of the meeting.
2oning Coordinator Martin Kreidt, reviewed for the Commission the resuits of the
meeting held on January 9, 1963, and also presented the report on the possible use
of ~he dedicate@ alley being extended through subject property to Nutwood Street by
residents of multiple family units to the east of subject property as well as singie
family residents.
The Commission di3cussed the possible expense to the developer of subject property if
ingress and egress were permitted on the private street proposed for subject development;
that it would be desirable to review revised plans which would indicate a self-contained
multiple family development with masonry walls on three sides and iagress and egress to
Nutwood Street.
Mr. Rni.slpq thea presented to the Co~;~mission a revised plot pian~ in which he moted
that the chaages m~de were the reduction of the patio area from 20 feet to 18,6 feet,
the eiimination of e~? garage on the rear of each side~ and to make subject development
seif-contained, it was necessary to reduce the courtyard from 30 feet to 25 feet which
was the minimum required in the Code; that the iast eight units would not contain
patios; and that there would be only 18} feet between the rear of the buildings which
would be less than that required by the Code.
The Commission noted that the revised plot plans had not been reviewed by either the
Interdepartmental Committee or the Development Review functxoa prior to being reviewed
by the Commission.
Mrs. Mary Andrews, 927 Nutwood Street, appeared before the Commission and stated that
she approved the proposed plot plans, but she expressed concern that improvements for
Nutwood Street fronting the proposed development, as well as extending to Ball Road
might not be completed; that there were ten (10) homes on tke westerly side of Nutwood
Street facing the multiple family development who might be subjected to the residents -..
of the development parking their cars on the curb side of their homes; that 40 children
lived within the one block whose lives xrould be in jeopardy if the improvements for the
entire parcel of laad were not improved; that she had contacted the City Bngineer and
learned that the large tree at the coraer of Nutwood and Ball Road was on dedicated
City property; and that removal of the tree was aa important factor in preventing any
accidents to children as weil as sutomobiles since the proposed development would have
at least an additional °0 cars using the facilities of Nutwood 3treet.
Mrs. John Nethery, 911 Nutwood 3treet~ appeared before the Commission, and stated that
the alley behind the multiple family development to the east terminated at the edge of
her garage; that she was not opposed to an attractive development for subject property~
but woyld aot like to see a hazardous conditioa created by extendiag the aiiey to
Nutwood Street, that the development should be self-contained; and that with a better
quality development being proposed the quaiity of persoas renting the apartments would .
be an asset to the community~ i~ the street improvements were reguired to be complete by
the time the development was ready to be reated. ,
i
i
~ •
~.:
I
I
~
~
.._ _
~ - -~--i----- , , . .: --__~
,..
~! -.--~._._~. ~ ,. ; ~:.:_:. ..._ :. .. .:._..__
;, ;
~
,.~ _ . _._-_--------------_ ,~ .:
~ ~~ ~
MINUT83, CIT7t PIANNIIZG COMMIS9ION, Janusry 21, 1963, Coatinued:
1359
CONDITIONAT. U9B - Several other iaterested peraona expre.ased a deaire to see the
~BRMIT N0. 346 revised plot plana~ and upoa~being g~yen•a brief reaume~ of the
<Continued) chaagea made on the reviaed piot p1aKa, all expresaed their general
agreemeat that a preeeatabie development would be a decided improve-
meat for the neighborhood,
TFffi I~ffiAItING WA3 CLA38D.
Commisaioner Chavoa then atated thet if eub3ect petitioa tvere approved the Commisaion
ahould be fully aware of the traffic hazerd at the corner of Nutwood 3treet and Ba11
Road, that the City should not apare aay expenae to preveat accideats to children, and
that the Commissioa ahould urge the City Council to require complete atreet improwementa
as weil as sidewalts axtendiag to Bali Road, ia order to minimize the hazards ca.il~ren
wi11 be sub,~ected to when ueiag Nutwood Street.
The Coaimisaioa continued discusaion as to the feasibility of a self-coataiaed developnentwith
posaible extenaion of the dedicated a:ley to Nutwood Street, the findiags of the
Traffic Bngiaeer relative to the posaible increase of use of the aiiey which would
extend through private property of the propoaed developmeat; and that improvementa for
the frontage of the propoaed deveiopment oa Nutwood Street as weil as extension of said
improvement to Bali Road ahould be a prime coasideration of the Comiaiasion in their
recommendation of said improvemeata.
Mr. 1Creidt informed the Commission that a iocal eagiaeering concern was in the process
of preparing street widening plans for the City for that area under discus93oa, but
that it was no indicatioa that said street wideniag and improvemeats would be made
within six C6) months.
Commisaioaer Chavoa offered Reaolutioa No. 611, Seriea 1962-63~ and moved for ita
passage and a3option, seconded by Commisaion Pebley~ to grant Petition for Conditionai
Use permit No. 346~ sub3eet to conditioae. (See Reaolution Book.)
On roli call the foregoing reaolution was passed by the foliowing vote:
AY83: Ca9dIS9I0NBR3: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Muagall, Pebley, Perry.
NOBS: COMAlISSIONHRS: None.
AHSBNT: COM~lISSIONHRS: Hapgood.
R8CQ1Al8NDATIONS TO - The Commiasion diacusaed the possibility of a special
TFffi CITY COUNCIL RH: recommeadation to the City Council relative to requiring that
RBCLASSIPICATION boads posted for the improvement of Nutwood Street spproxi-
N0. 60-61-38 mately 262 feet to the centerline of Hali Road, es weli as,
the Bail Road frontage for approximetely 628 feet not be
renewed at the time of their expiretion; and that the improve-
menta and sidewalts be iastalled~ ao Lhat a neat and orderiq developmeat for that
property frontiag oa Bali Road and Nutwood Street might tate place upon the compietioa
of the multipie family developmenfi spproved by the Comm3asion today~ Jaauary 21, 1963.
The aidewalks wouid be easential as a protectioa to the maay childrea uaing Nutwood
Street aad Ba11 Road to go to schools, playgrounds and parka.
Commisaioner Chavos offered a motioa to recommend fco the City Councii that ao time
continuances, if requested, be,,~raated oa either of the two boads posted for the
improvemeat of Nutwoed 3treet and Bail Road under Reciasaification No. 60-61-38, but
that ail improvemeuts be inatailed prior to pinai 8uiidiag Iaspectioa of the deveidpment
approved under Reciasaificatioa No. 60-61-38 and Conditioaai Use Permit No, 346.
Commisaioner Pebiey seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIHD:
~ a
_ , ,....__::.:~
CJ ~ C~ . ; B
MINUTB3~ CITY PLANNING COF~ISSION, Januarq 21, 1963, Continued: 1360
CONDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC F~ARING. BLVBB INC., 200 West Midway Drive~ Maheim,.
PHRMIT N0. 349 California, Owner; L. V. B061WICK~ 200 West Midway Drive, Anaheim~
Califoraia, Agent; requesting permission to B7~ANA AN BXISTIIiG
1RAILBR PARIC on property described as: 1~w Parcels of land.
Parcel '~p" having a froatage of 114 feet on the south side of Midway Drive, and a
frontage of SO feet oa the west side of Zeyn Street. Parcei "8" having a frontage or
50 feet on the west side of Lemon Street and a depth of 114 feet, the northern boundary
of parcel "B" being approximately 78 feet south of the centerline of Midway Drive.
Property presently classified as R-1, ONH-PAMILY RBSIllffiVTIAL~ ZONB.
No one appeared to represent the petitioner.
Mrs. 3ara H~s#ings, 144'7 South Lemon Street, appeared before the Commission in oppo-
sition to subject petition, and stated that propertq on Lemon Street consisted of
single family homes of people who had resided in that area for a number of years; that
the trailer park had been started as a war emergency in the 1940's; that it had coatinued
to expand using lots which did not belong to the owner of the txailer park; that the
map as presented on subject petition indicated a aumber of trailer lots which were in
error; that if the sub,ject petition were approved, trailers would be moving in aad out
of the trailer spaces at all hours of the day and night; that subject property abutted
the side of her home where the bedrooms were located, thus the noise from the trailer
movements would be detrimental to her health and safety; and that approval of subject peti-
tion wonld not be a benefit to the area, but vrould be a nuisance to the residents.
Upon being questioned by the Commission as to the number of lots upon which trailers
were legaliy stored, Mrs. Hastings stated that there were five parcels of property
which were not occupied by trailers; that those lots upon which trailers were stored
were not owned by the petitioner, aad Lhat several property owners permitted the
petitioner the use of their lots for temporary storage of empty trailers, but aould not
consider this as a permanent measure.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt, advised the Commissioa that the Planning Department
would make a field in~spection of the property, as well as, checking with the County
Assessor to determine which lots were legaily being used for trailers.
Diana Adams, 1439 South Lemon Street, appeared before the Coaimission opposing subject
petition, and stated that the Commission should require that the petitioner develop the
property in an orderly fashion, rather than presenting a hodge-nodge of dev~lopment by
developiag two entirely separate parcels of land with homes cons4ructed betweo.n these
proposed trailer lots, and that if the development for expansion of any trailer
facilities were being considered favorabiy by the Commission, only parcels immediately
adjacent to the present facilities shouid be considered.
THB FIBARING WAS CLOSBD.
The Commission discussed the size of the two separate parcels of land noting that each
was approximately 50 feet by 114 feet; that three trailers per lot could be parked on
an overnight ba~is; that if the trailer court was proposing to expand, that it be done
izt an orderiy manner; and that the Plannirtg Department upon makiag their inrrestigation
of the trailer parking in~the area located aout7n of Mxdway Arive, between Zeyn and Lemon
Streets, to note whether the area was being used in conformance with Code requirements
that it report to the Commission its findings.
Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 612, Series 1962~63, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rebley, to deny Petition for Conditional Use
Permit No. 349, based on findings. (Se~e Resolution Book.)
On Yoil call the foregoing resolution xras passed by the following vote:
AYBS: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
NOHS: CObAfISSIONBRS: Noae.
ABSBNT: COhAtISSIONERS: Hapgood.
CONDITIONAL U3B - PUBLIC FIDARING. WAYNS DAVIDSON, 1769 West Broadway, Anaheim, Cali-
PffitMIT N0. 350 fornia, awner; 1~t3. HARVHY WALIC, 1873 Castle Avenue, Anaheim, Cali-
fornia, Agent; requesting permission to BSTAHLISH A GIRL SCOUT
COUNCIL HBADQUARTERS AND TRAINING CHNTBR on property described as:
An irregular parcel of land having a 55 foot frontage on the north side of Broadway and a
depti: of 303 feet, the western boundary of said property being approximately 165 feet
east of the centerline of Brentwood Place, and further described as 1769 West B=oadway.
~roperty presently classified as R A, RHSIDBNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, ZON.r,
Mrs. Harvey Walk, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated
that no structural .;hanges were being proposed; that adequate parking facilities would be
~ provided on the property; that the only other change proposed would be to beautify the
area with shrubs and other landscaping; that she had not received any opposition to the
~; ~;*oposed use of the property, bnt it was the most suitable parcel of land and building
; for the use proposed; and that she planned to contact the church adjoining subject
&~ propezty to resolve any differences.
~ Chairman Gauer inquired if there was anyone in the Council Chamber opposing subject
~ petition, and received no reply.
h
~ TF18 HHARING WAS CLOSHD.
~ Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 613, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage
j and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux, to grant Petition for Conditional Use
~ , Permit No. 350, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution ~s passed by {he following vote:
f
i; AYB3: COMh(ISSIONBRS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
~
~ NOBS: COMMISSIONBRS: None,
ABSENT: COMAfISSIONBRS: Hapgood.
CONDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC HBARING. WBSLHY B. DIBRBBRGBR, 1215 Bast Santa Ana Street.
PffitMIT N0. 351 pnaheim, California, Owner; ROBHRT DBDIC, 127 West Broadway, Anaheim,
California, Agent; requesting permission to CONSTRUCT A SINGLS STORY
PLANNHD MULTIPLH PAMILY RBSIDENTIAL DBVHLOPI~NT on property described
as: Fi rectanguiar parcel of land having a frontage of 101 feet on the north side of
Santa Ana Street and a depth of 23'L feet, the western boundary of said property being
approximately 143 feet east of the centerline of Bast Street, and furthes described as
1215 Hast Santa Ana Street. Property presently classified as R-2, TWO PAMILY RHSIDBNTIAL,
ZUNB.
Mr. Robert Dedic, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission, and stated
he had nothing further to add for the Commission°s coasideration, but that he tvould be
glad to answer any questions the Commission might have.
Mr. Robert Justice, 502 Sovth Dawn Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition
to subject petition, and stated tltat subject property was inadequate in size to propose
a well glanned development; that subject property had onYy a 100 foot frontage which was
too narrow for proper ingress and egress, and that eubject development would be a
detriment to the neighborhood causing property values to decxease.
A number of interested neighbors asked that the plans be reviewed for them by the agent,
which was then done.
THH HBA1tING WAS CLOSED.
The Commission reviewed the piot plans noting that the subject property was zoned for two-
family development, and ~aked that Deputy Assistant City Attorney Furman Roberts,
interpret the R-2, 1Wo Pamily Dweiling, Zone.
Mr. Roberts stated that apartments could be constructed on subject property, and ihat
normally most people construct additional rooms but do not develop as the peti4ioner
proposes. ,
2oning Ceordinator Martin Kreidfi, advised the Commission that the R-2 zoning Code did not
require more than a parking space for an automobile, whereas the use was for multiple ',
family develnpment and m3ght be Considered as §uch, which would then require the ~ -
minimum Code requirement of 1~ garage space per dwelliag unit. ~ ''
,; ti-
• ~ ;;Q:~
, '
-
, i
---
. . .._ ._ ---- Y
~
---_..__ _ ,
,
( ~~ ~,~ e
MINUTB3, CITY PIANNING COhMI3SI0N, January 21, 1963, Continued: 1362
CONDITIONAL U3E - Mr. Kreidt further stated that the R-2 zoning permitted 3,600
PHRMIT N0. 351 square feet per dwelling unit, whereas subject development proposed
(Continued) 3,900 sguare feet, and that pians as presented did not meet the
approval of the Pire Department for ingress and egress to subject
property.
The Commission noted that subject pet3tion still proposed the R-2, TS~vo Family Resi- ~
dential, Zone~ that said zone did not Have the stringent requirements of the multiple '
family development zoae, and it might be an item to take iato consideration in order
to improve the proposed development for the benefit of the petitioner, as well as,
the City.
~ Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 614, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Comm3ssioner A1.ired, to grant Petition for Conditional Use
Permit No. 351, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On roli ca11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYBS: CO~M ISSIONBRS: Ailred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall~ Pebley, Perry.
NOBS: COMMISSIONBRS: None.
ABSBNT: CObAfISSIONHRS: Hapgood,
CONDITIONAL USH - pUBLIC HHAttING. MILTON NHIMAN, RBUBBN TUCKBR, AND JAQC LAZARUS,
PffitMIT N0. 352 1140 North Hast Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting
permission to CONSTRUCT A S~tVICE STATION on property described
as: An irregular parcel of land having a frontage of 140 feet,
plus or minus, on the east side of East Street, a frontage of 190 feet, nlus or minus,
on the south side of Romneya Drive, and a frontage of 85 feet, plus or minus, on the
west side of Briarwood Street, and further described as 1172 North 8ast Street.
Subject property pr.esently classified C-1, NSIGHB~tH00D COMMBRCIAL, ZONH.
Mr. Iiarry Knisely, attorney for the petitioners, appeared before the Comraission and
stated that subject property, although all of it was not proposed to be utilized
for the service station development was included in the legal description; that if the
Commission ~lesired, it might continue subject petition for two weeks in order to
ailow sufficient time to present a revised legal or revised plans incnrporating the
use of the 45 f?et to the east of the proposed service station site.
The Commission noted that if the Commission did not consider the easterly 45 feet with
any conditions attached, subject property for that easterly portion might be developed
in such a manner to be detrimental to the single family residences on the opposite
side of Briarwood Street, and inquired of Mr. &nisely whether the entire parcei of
land was under one ownership with the commercial development.
Mr. Knisely advised the Commission that the entire parcel of land xvas under one
ownership~ and to his knowiedge would remaia that way.
Chairman Gauer inquired if there was anyone in the Council Chamber opposing subject
petition, and received no reply.
THB HBARING WA3 CLOSBD.
The Commission further discussed the proposed development for the easteriy 45 feet,
whether it would be advantageous for the shopping center to extend parking facilities
if this portion of aub~ect property were blacktopped and striped; that if the porticn
of property not being utilized were submitted in a separate legal description, it
might be used with proper metes and bounds stipulated for the use of parking facilite~~
only in a condition of approval, and then inquired of Deputy Assistant City Attorney,
Furman Roberts, the legal procedure the Commiasicn. should use in order to regulate the
use of the property.
,
. ,_ _ , , . , ,
;
' ~_~-=~ .,..,---...--,-~- ~ _._._~ ~'"~._:
, ~. . .,. . . ..~:. _ . ...:
r _,~ ~
~ ' ' ; - - A
>
; ~1
,
. • i ~`.~; ~
~~.
F4 \
.
~'._~'"~~_~~..__." ". .. "_'_"'_"__'.____`~._~-. .~ .~~ . .. .
'. . . ....__'_ _'___ _..._ ... .. ..
1~;
U ~~ ~ . i
•~ r 21 1963 Continued: 1363 j
MINUTBS, CIT7t PIAId~IING COI~dISSION~ Janua y , ,
~
CONDETIONAL USB - Mr. RoberLs stated,that a condition of approval could specify the ~
pERMIT N0. 352 exact property deseription, !he specified ua=, and the zoning to ~
~ (Continued) which said use was applicabie. ~
i
Mr. Roberts further stated that the C-1, Neighborhood Commcrcial~ 2oning does ao3 permit i
outside trailer reatais, and that all busineas muat be cobfined withia the buildinge j
located on the property.
Commisaioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 615~ Seriea 1962-63, and moved for ita '
passage and adoption~ seconded by Commissioner Perry~ to grant PetiLion for Conditionsl i
Use Permit No. 352, subJect to conditioas. C3ee Reaolutioa Boot.) ~
On roli call the foregoing resolution was passed 'oy ihe iailawisg vote; ~
p1~S; COd9dI3SI0NBRS: Alired~ Camp. Chavos~ Gauer. Marcoux, Mungall~ Pebley, Perry. f
1
NOH3: CObAlISSIONBR3: Noae.
AHSBNT: COtYA~IISSI0NHR3: Hapgood.
CONDITIONAL U8E - PUBLIC FIDARING. MULLBR HOLDING and INV8S1T1BNP COMPANY, 10850 River-
PBRMIT N0. 3S3 aide Drive, No. ~O7~.North Iiollywood~ California~ Ownera; C. P.
WOLPH~ 629 South Spring Street~ Loa Aagelea, Caiifornia~ Ageat;
requeating permiasion to CONSIRUCT A DRIVB-IN AND WAL.g-UP R85TAt1RNP1T on property
deacribed as: A rectangular parcel of iand having a froatage of 140 feet on the north
side of Liacoln Aveaae~ and a frontege of 170 fee! on the eaat aide of Creecent Wsy.
Property preaeatiy clasaified as R-A~ RBSIDBNTIAL AGRICULTIAtAL~ 20N8.
Zoaiag Coordiaator Martin Breidt informed the Comaiasioa that a telephone call had been
received from the agent for the petitioner,Mr. Cliff Wolfe~ ia which he atated thdt he
requested persisaion to withdraw sub3ect petition becauae the sale of tlae real eatste
for sub,~ect deveiopment had beea reacinded, and therefore~ the petitioners would be
unabie to proceed ia the development of the proposed uae of aub3ect property, and thaL
a let4er wouid be submitted for the file confirmiag the telephoaic wi4hdrawal of aub,~eet
petition.
Commisaioner Marcoux offered a motion to grant the petitioner permissioa to withdraw
Petition for Coaditional Use Permit No. 353, Commisaioner Mungall aeconded !he motioa,
MOTION CARRIBD,
RBCLASSIPICATION - PUBLIC FIDARING. DJIVID S, and MARION G. COLLINS~ 1077 Weat Hall
N0. 62-63-61 Road, Anaheim~ Califoraia~ Owuere; JOHN T. 0'NBILL~ 602 3outh
Buciid Street, Anaheim~ Califoraia, AgeAt; rcqueating thst property
deacribed as: A rectangular p~rcei of laad having a frontage of
180 feet on the north aide of Brosdway snd e dep*.~ of 18S feet~ the westera bouadary of
said property being approxima#ely 668 feet east of the centerline of Loars atreet~ nnd
further_described as 1541•Weat-Hrosdway be reciasaified fsom the M~1, LIaHT MANtTPACTURINd,
p•L~ pARBING IANDSCAPING, 20DiB,! to the C-3, tffiAVY CaMMffiICIAL, 20NS to permit the'
coastruction of a motel and a one-atory commescisl buildiag on sub3ecL property.
Mr. Joha T. O~Naill, ageat for the petitioner, appeared before the Commissioa and stated
4hat the petitioner propoaed to conatruct a first quaiity office building togethes
' with a motei which would be located ad3acent to the office buildiagi that property to
the south of aubject property coasisting of eome 40 acrea would be more easiiy developed
for commercial than for iaduetrisl purpoeee~ and that the uee as propoaed would thea
be more compa±ibie.
Chairmaa Gauer inquired if there vrae aayone ia the Council Chamber oppoeing sub,~ect
petition, and received ao reply.
.;'~
, ..
~
'
.
C
- ~ '. ' _ _ ~ . ~~':~---~-~---. _
RECIASS~FICATION - Mr. DaVid Collins. one of the petitioners~ appeared before the
N0. 62-63-61 Commission~ aad stated that h~ upproved the proposed development
(Continued) because the use would be more compatible for the ares; that if the
Cownis:ion approved subjecx petition, he hoped to purchase an
additional 180 feet easterly of subject property; that the proposed
office buil3ing would be an architecturally designed structure, and that the proposed
development would be an attempt to upgrade the entire neighborhood in which subject
property was iocated,
TH8 HBARING WAS CLOSSD.
The Commission aoted that the proposed General Plan projected sub3ect property for
indas:risl development, that subject property was flroperly zoned for said iadustrial
use; that requests for similar deviations from the proposed General Plan had been
denied or recommeaded for disapproval; that no physical changes had taken place which
might be a basis for considering any change from the present zone of subject property
and that Lincoln Avenue to the north had been developed for business and professional
offices and motel facilities as well as to the west of Huciid Avenue; that a aubstan-
tial amount of "vacant acreage existed on Lincoln Avenue which conld be developed for
commercic.l uaea; and that the proposed use might, in the long run, prove incompatible
to the area.
Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution No. 616, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoptioa~ seconded by Commissioner Allred, te recommend to the City
Council that Petition for Reciassification No. 62-63-61 be denied based on findings.
(3ee Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed try the fallowiag vote:
AYES: COI~fISSIONSRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
NOHS : COhV~1I33I0A1ffitS : Noae .
ABSBNT: COhA~tISSIONERS: Hapgood.
RBCLA33IPICATION - PUBLIC HBARING. DALS Po4VL8R, 1417 North Ross, Santa Ana, Cali-
N0. 62-63-62 fornia, Owner; requesting that proper~y descsibed as: A rectan-
gular parcel of land having a frontage of 135 feet on the north
side of Ball Road~ and a frontage of 242 feet on the east side of
Webster Avenue, be reclass.ified from the R-A, RHSIDHNTIAL A~tICULTURAL, .ZONH to the
R-3, MULTIPLB PA~MILY RHSIDI3NTIAL, ZOAB to develop subject property with a two-story
planned unit multiple family resideatial development.
Subject petition was filed in conjunction with Variance No. 1544.
Mr. Dale Powler, thc petitioner, appes=ed bafore the Co~ission and stated that subject
properRy was more than 30,000 square ~eet; that two~-story construction would be the
most logical form for development of subject property for the improvement of the vacsnt
prope=ty still semaining east of Webster Avenue and f=onting a portii.n of Ball Road,
Mrs. Katherine Plickinger, 934 South Webster Aveaue, appeared before the Commission,
and stated Lhat she opposed two-story construction fo~ the proposed development; that
the development would abut the entire southerly boundary of her property which would be
an encroachment on her privacy; and that a six l6) foot maaonry wall should be one of
the requirements in order to separate single family usage of property abutting to the
north of subject property.
' Mr. Powler, in rebuttal, stated that the southerly boundary of subject property abutted
Ball Road, a well traveled atreet; that ingresa aad egress would be to Webster Aven~e
a less traveled streete that he inter_ded to maintain the residential integrity of the
area by not continuing the commerciai development along Ball Road;,that the proposed
development would be far superior to existing structures foz ~aultiple family use along
Ball Road; and that the proposed development would be a considerable improvement to the
iand as it now existed.
~ . ._ _.
1
1
i,
~
~~
~~
MIMITBB, CIT3( PIANNING C0I~41I3SION, Jaauary 21, 1963, Coatitiued:
1364
RHC7J1S3IPICATION - The Comaission inquired whether the petitioner would be receptive
N0. 62-63-62 to conatruction of siagie atory gardea type apartments for eubject
~;oatinued) propertq, to which tHe petitioner replied that a garden type
multiple famiiq development was not practical for subject
property, aad that the two=story development he proposed would be a
more complete type §uitabie to the area.
The Commiasion further reviewed the plot plana aoting that the front elevatioas
preaented a~~box-like'~ appearance; that the proposed dettsity wes more than the
Commiseion desired for aubject property in the area; that the Commiasioa had learned
through its mistakes in the past to recommead a more desirabie development than was
being psopoaed~ and then inquired of 2oniag Coordiaator Martia Hreidt whether the
petitioner had been made cogaizant of the precise planning study which the Commiasion
and thc Citp Cauacil had appraved. Mr, greidt stated that the petitioaer had not beea
informed of said pianning atudy.
The petitioaer infarmed the Commission that he wae interested in developmeat of
subject property, whether from the Webster Avenue side or frc+m Ball Road side ingresa
and egresa; and that a contiauance to revise plot plans to incorporate any of the
Commission's suggestions might be a solution.
The Commisaion diacuased the possibility of reviewiag plaaniag Study No. 33-28-3 to
determine whether any phqsical chaages had taken place which might indicate a chaage
from the recommended uses of busineas and professioaal type buildings to residential
use, e~ither low or !ow-medium deasity.
Senior Planner Allen Shoff, ia clarifying the use for subject property ~hat had been
projected on the proposed Genera2 plaa stated that~ although the Commission and City
Council had approved a precise plaa for the area in which aubject property was located,
no development had been propoaed or had taken place, and that projectiona on the
General Plan did not preclude a request to rezone to the reatricted uae, but that it
appeared more iogical to deaigaate sub3ect aad abutting property in the most restricted
use of siagie famiiy development, whea idess finaliy had bten crystailized,
Mr. Don Roth, repreaenting Mr, aad Mra. Waiter 8vaas, property ownera of over two
acres of land in the study area,approved six moatha ago, appeared before the Comciisaioa
and atated that at the time reclassificatioa of propertq ia the atudy area was heerd,
many peraone had appeared in oppoaition; that the chickea ranches had beea preaenting
a continuous problem with the health authoritiea, and that previoua oppoaition has
changed conaiderably which might be a reason for the Commisaioa to make a reanalysis of
the projected uae for propertq adjacent aad ia close proximity to sub,ject pro;~rty.
TFffi FIDARIIaG WA3 CLOBED.
Commiasioner Camp noted that sub3ect property couid posaibiy be deveioped for one-atory
muitiple family developmeat; that a buaiaesa and profesaioaai office facility was not
a compatible uae within a ahort distaace from a high achool, but that plot plana as
preaented were iaadequate to coaform with the ataadarda the Com~isaion widhed to
maintaia for single stozy multiple ~amily development.
Commiasi~o~er Chavoa auggested that the petitivner contact the membera of the~Pia~niag
Department to determ~ne what wae the moat deairabie developmeat for sub,~ect property~
and that upoa esaessing ail the requiremeats if he atili deaired to develop in
accordance with the Commisaioa's deaires, revised plot plans should be aubmitted
iacorporating ail the suggeated changes.
Commisaioner Pebiey offer'ed a motion to reopen the heariag aad contiAUe Petition for
Reclasaificatioa.No, 62=63-62 to the meeting of March 4~ 1963, fd permit the petitioner
time to submit revised.plot plaas in accordance with the recomnendations of the
Planniag Departmettt and,thq Plaaniag Commisaioa. Commisaioner Camp aeconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIBD.
~
~ ~.___ --~__~j..~~,
~;
~ ~
MINUTB3, CITY PLANNING COMdISSION, January 21, 1963, Continued: 1365
VARIANCH N0. 1544 - PUBLIC IiBAttING. DALH PdWLHR~ 1417 North Ross~ Santa Ana, Cali-
fornia. Owner; requeating permission to CON5TRUCT A TWO-STOitY
PIANNSD UNIT MULTIPLH PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL DHVBIAPh~iT - WAIVB ONS-
STQtY HBIQiT LIMITATION on property described as: A rectangular
parcel of land having a frontage of 135 feet on the north side of Sail Road, and a
frontage of 242 feet ott the east side of Webster Avenue. Property presently classified
as R A, RBSID~iTIAL AQtICULTURAL, ZONS.
Subject petition was filed in conjunction with Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-62.
The Commission discussed the request for waiver of the single story height limitation
adjacent to R-A, and in close proximity to single family development.
THH HBAAING WAS CLOSHD.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 617, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Coarmissioner Muagall, to deny Petition for
Variance No. 15•~"-, based on findings. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll cali the foregoing zesolution was passed by the foilowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONBR3: A1'.red, Gamp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
NOE3: CObMISSIONBRS: None.
ABSHNT: COA4IISSIONffitS: Hapgood.
RBVISW OF PLANNING - Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to review Pianning Study
STUDY N0. 33-28-3 No. 33-28-3, approved by the Commission and Council in March of
1962, at the meeting of Pebruary 4, 1963, to determiae whether
or not the uses proposed for property covered in subject study
were still applicable, or whether a recommendation should be made to revise the
proposed General Plan incorporating any changes which would make development of the
vacant land more compatible to t2ie environment of the adjacent properties.
Commissi~ner °~~2ey seconded the motion. bSOTION CARRIBD.
AMENDMBNT TO - PUBLIC HEARING. Addition to Title 18, Chapter 18.04 of the Anaheim
CHAPTffit 18.04 Muaicipal Code by the Addit~on of Section 18.04,090 (2-j) DBC~tATIVB
MASONRY WALL, a maximum oF :~ix (6) feet in height, may be constructed
in the front yard area of any lot fronting on an arteriai street or highway, as
designated on the circulation element of the G~neral Plan.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt, reviewed for the Commission the studies made by the
Planning Department of properties along arterial streets and highways which were still
being used for residential purposes, the possible alternatives for the relief of noises
created by traffic fronting residential property, and the purposes for setting the
public hearing to consider these alternatives.
Mr. $reidt further stated that many arterial streets had "strip co~cmerciai" zoning,
which through studies made during the time of the drafting of the proposed General Plan
indicated that "strip commercial" zoning was no longer the proper vehicle for the proper
development of property aloag arterial streeta and highways, and that many letters had
been received requesting that the ]'laaning Commission and the Planning Department give
consideration to developing 9tate College Boulevard residential frontages for
commercial purposes.
Chairman Gauer reviewed for interested persons in the Council Chamber various cities in
California who had faced similar p:oblems an6 aoted that the City of Saliaas hnd
several residentiai subdivisione in which a masonry wali enclosed these many new homes
fronting aiong busy streets, and had received highly favorabie reception of this
treatment of a difficult situation.
. ,,,- -
MINUTS3, CITY PLANRTING COMAiISSION, January 21, 1963, Continued; 136b
ANffiNDMHNT TO - Chairman Gauer further stated that the public hearing was being heTd
CHAPTffit 18.04 to determine the desires of the property owners concerned with the
(Continued) noises and dirt of a highly traveled street, and that their
expressions wouid be taken into consideration for continued study by
the Commission and the Planning Department to resolve the most amicable means to
alleviate the inconveniences the property owners had because of traffic conditions.
Mr. William Hushaw, 632 South State College Boulevard, appeared before the Commission
and stated that he was as concerned as the Commission as to the development of property
on State College Boulevard; that some decision should be made for development by
refusing anymore conversion of homes for business purposes, or maintain the residential
integrity of the street; that the homes and surrounding alley and property were
gradually deteriorating with tzash and litter being dumped into the alley, unauthorized
bar*±e*s sre ese~ted, many homes are unocc~p_~d, and the situ~.tion x~as *apidly becoming
worse. Mr Hushaw further stated that he personally preferred commercial zoning,
because the area was more predominately commercial than residential.
Commissioner Chavos stated that the City of La Mirada had a very attractive development
with a six t6) foot masonry wail extending 4he entire length of the development front-
ing on Imperial Highway, and that the homes were being sold because the wall did afford
a measure of privacy.
Mrs. Margaret Lindrock, 624 ~outh State College Boulevard, appeared before the
Commission and stated that a day nursery was petitioaed for at 628 South State College
Boulevard~ which had been denied and at the time she opposed this use, but she was now
in favor of commercial development; 4hat "spot" zoning had been granted on the west
side of the street; that the block in which she resided was the oniy one not zoned for
commercial uses; and that it was impossible to sell propezty for residential purposes
because families with children would be reluctant to buy on a b~~sy tho:oughfare,
The Conmission noted that they were reluctant to continue commerciai devel~pment ia an
area which had originally been projected for neighborhood commerciai use; that many
stores and offices were vacant in the shopping areas, because the homes were being
utilized for small offices, and the Commission recommended approval of the removal of
any existing structvre before propc:rty could be used for commercial developmer.t; and
that the Commission was trying to ~~esolve a situation which had occurred by the best
possible remedy it could find, the masonry wall was one of the many suggest'_ons being
pursued to help resolve,this unfortunate situation which took place.
i,ommissioner Allred inquired of Mr. Kreidt whether a study had been made of the entire
frontage of State College Boulevard, as well as having a meeting with the property
owners along the street to determine their desires, and whether the removal of existing
structures had been one of the recommendations for an orderiy development.
Mr. Kreidt stated that State College Boulevard had been a state highway for some :ime;
~iiat many persons had purchased homes at considerably less than they were being offered
if commercial development were c7proved; and that studies did not seem to be the answer
since the majority of the people naturall~~ wanted commercial development, but that this
was not the answer to eliminating "strip commercial" zoniag along arterial streets and
highways. •
A letter addressed to the Commission signed by Mr. and Mrs. Robert Croft, 638 South
State College Boulevard, which stated their opposition to a masonry wall on the front
yard property line; that the cost would be prohibitive, especially on their lot~ since
it was a corner lot; and that a masonry wall might be ideal for lasge lots, but not for
the small city lots on State College Boulevard.
The Commission discussed the method which might be employed, if oae property owner
wished to construct a masonry wail, whether approval of just the property owner on
either side of the petitioner~s property should be required, whether 4he Commiasion
should begin processiag a variance when a property owner requested a building permit to
construct the blo~~k wali, so that a pubiic hearing could be held and the development
of the walis irs the block would be compatible #o each other, if the majority of the
property owness agreed to a wall; and that at least three considu=ationa should be
applied, namelJ, tl) cloaeness of the home to the sidewalks~ (2) vacant lots adjacent
to property, and (3) if commercial were proposed the possibie removal of the existing
structures.
~ . ~
r .T.. _~I
- - _- --------~ ~~-..
.
C; ~ •
~ ~
~ " ~
`~
MINUTB3~ CITY PIANNING COM~SI3SION, Jaauary 21, 1963, Continued: 1367
A!~ffiNpMgNT TO - Commiesioaer Chavos offered a motion to contiaue the public hearing
CHAM~R 18.04 of the Amendment to Chaptez 18.04, masonry walls ia the front yard
(Coatinued) of reaidential areas abuttiag arteriai stseeta aad highways to the
meetiag of Pebruary 4, 1963, Commisaioaer Allred aeconded the motion
with a request that the Plaaning Department preseat further atudiea
foz the Commisaion and aay intereated citizen. MOTION GlRRIBD.
RHPatTS AND - ITBM N0. 1: CONDITIONAL U8B PBRMTT N0, 300~ Global Van L3nea,
ABC01~18NDATION3 approvai of -reviaed plot plans and extension of time
limitation.
2oning Coordinator Martia Kreidt, preaented revised plot piana for the propoaed
natioaal headquar~exs o€ Glabal Van ;.3nes fo: the Co~ission'e consideration and
approval, and noted that the petitioners requtsted an extension of aix C6) montha for
the completion of ail conditione stipulated in Resolution No. 488, Series 1962-63.
The Cnmmisaion noted that the plot plana as preaented, were a conaidereble improvement
to the originally approv~:d plans, but that parkiag requirements did not meet Code
requirements, and 3nquired of Mr. Paraao, sepreaenting Global Vaa Linea, whether plana
could be reviaed to indicate compliance with the Code requ:lzementa for p3rking.
Mr. Psrano atated that the company would be glad to cooperate and conform with any Code
requirementa deemed necessary for Huilding Permit approval, and then stated thst reason
for a requeat for an extenaion of time was becauae the reviaed plana repreaented a~
considerable increaae in the original budget for conatruction, and thst thie addition
had been approved but not in time to meet the ti.me limitation impoaed under the granting
of the petition.
C~amisaioaer Marcoux offered a motion to approve Reviaioa No. 1: 8xhibit Noa. 1 through
S aubmitted by Global Van T.inea for Conditional Uae Permit No. 300, and to grsnt an
extension o£ time to September 27, 1963, for the completion of conditiona impoeed.•
Commissioher Camp eeconded the motion. MOTION CARRIHD,
ITSM N0. 2: CONDITIONAL U9B PBRMIT N0. 239, Repair Garage and
Hofbrau - Helsam, weat of Baet 3treet anG Roatneya
Drlvt.
2oaing Coordinator Martin Kreidt, reviewed for the Commieaion the aub,~ect property,
the condiLion whieh required a maaonry wail on the north, weat, snd east boundaries of
sub,~ect property, and etated that the Qetitioner had requested of the City Council e
weiver of the meaonsy wall.
The Commieeioa discueaed the reaaon for requiriag a mssonry wa11, that a great deal of
the repair work would be viewed from Stat Street, but that the aorth ead weat side•
faced onLo Light Manufacturing, zoaed property.
Commiieioaer Mungail offered a motion to recommend to the City Couacil that it be
required that a eix (6) foot maeonry wall be constructed oa 4he e~atesly boundary of
aub,~ect property to ahield from view the wrected ears awaitiag repsir, and that the
north aad weab aaeonry walla be waived. Commieaioner Chavos seconded the motion,
MOTION CARRISD. ~
ITBM N0. 3: ~tANGB COUNTY USB VP~RiANCS N0. 3091. 8etabiieh a
Termite Coatrol office ia an exieting etructure in the
RP, Resideatiai Profeeeionai Dietrict~ Socated on the
east side of 8rookhurat 8treet, approxSa-ately 300 feet
nortk- of Lincola Avenue.
Zoning Coordiastor Martin Rreidt, reviewed sub,~ecb Use Varisace which wouid e~tabii~h
a termite control office in the Re~identiai Profesaionnl ares on the eaet aide of
Brookhurst Street, north of Lincoln Avenue.
I
~
~
----- _ _ __
_ --- --
-- ..-r---r--
---- , . .
• ,
~.- ..' _ ;
.. . .- -~" . .. \
~ ~~ ....~~.~~ .
MINUTBS, CITY pIANNING CO[~U~IISSION, January 21, 1963, Continued: 1368
RHPORTS AND ITEM N0, 3; (Continued)
RACObAlBNDATIONS -'~~
(Continued) The Commission c;iscussed the general appearance of the area in
question and the desirabilitv of a time limitation for the proposed
uae, developing the residen:iil appearance of the strucutres in
question with limitation of signs, and the desirability of removal
of the existing structures and replacement with commercial faciiities.
Commissioner Alired offered a motion to recommead to the Orange County planning
Commission that the study of the ReQidential Professional properties aorth of Lincoln
Avenue, on the east side of Brookhurst Street, be continued by the County to determine a
revised set of standards for the continued use of said structures, to enhance the
residential apnearance of said structn*es, and/or their rena-ral and their repiacement
with commercial facilities; said standards might be applicable itt connection with new use
variances on the properties in question. The Commission further recommends that z
time limitation be considered for thr~ uses proposed, limitation on the size and the
muaber of signs, and the limitation of parking to the rear of the structures should be
incorporated in these standards, Commissioner Clzavos seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
ITBM N0. 4: OgpNGg COUNTY USB VARIANCS N0. 5093, permit the
continued use of a farm labor camp and a farm implement
storage and the establishment of a horticultural
storage warehouse in the A1 (0) General Agricultural
(Oil Production District) on property located at the
northeast corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Richfield
Road, east of Atwood, ,
Zoning Cooridnator Martin Kreidt, reviewed the area in which subject use was located,
noting that it was located in close proximity to the area being proposed for annexation;
that the use had been established originally in October 1957, that an extension of time
for the continued use of the storage area for yams was approved October 1961; and that
the proposed use would include accomodations for a maximum of 135 laborers ir. :he
sections of an existing buildiag as indicated.
The Commisaion discussed the use as having been at subject location approximateiy thirty
years, and that the addional use would not be incompatible, but that a time limitaiion
should be estabiished for said use.
Commissioner Pebley offered a motion to recommend to the Orange County planning
Commisaion approval of the continued use of property described in Orange County Use
Variance No. 5093, for a maximum of two years. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIBD,
WOR_ K SBSSION. - 3enior Planner Allan Shoff advised the Commiasion that a work session
would be held jointly with the City Council at 1;00 P,M., Jaauary
22~ 1963, at which time a preview of the Preliminary Generai Plan would
be given.
ADJdURNMEPIT - There being no further business to discuss, Co~issioner Camp offered a
motion to adjourn the meeting to 7;00 0'Clock P.M.~ Monday, January
28, 1963~ at which time the first public hearing for coasideration of
the General Pla~ would be held. Commisaioner Pebley seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIHD.
Meeting ad,journed at 5:22 0'Clock P,M,
Respectfuliy submitted,
/J../.7.,; ~ '~. / J I
ANN ARBBS, Secre ~ar~ y'-- i
ANAHSIM PIANNING C01~9dIS3I0N
~
~ i
I
i
~ ,_ ___~__..._._ ~_.-.__.,.~.. ___..~~ ~_
,~
, .. , . -.-