Minutes-PC 1963/04/29City Hall
Anaheim, California
April 29, 1963
RBGUTAR MHETING OP THH ANAHBIM CITY PIANNING CQMMISSION
REGUTAR MHSTING - A Regular Meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was
called to order by Chairman Mungall at 2:00 0'Clock P,M., a quorum
being present.
COh~IISSIONBRS: Alired, Cardp, Chavos, Gauer, Pebley, perry, Sides.
- CObAtISSIONERS: None.
- ZONING CO~tDINATQR: Martin Rreidt, !
DBPUTY CITY ATT~tNHY: Furman Roberts. ~
PL4NNING COt~fISSION SBCR.STARY: Ann Rrebs. ,
- Reverend ,], g, Saville, Pastor of the St. Michael's Episcopal Chur¢h,
gave the Invocation.
- Chairman Sides led the PlEdge of Allegiance to the Plag,
- Minutes of the meeting of April 15, 1963, were approved as submitted.
RBCLASSIFICATION - CONTINUBD PUBLIC HBARING. BMPIRB PINANCIAL CaRPORATION, -
N0. 62-63-64 6750 Van Nuys Boulevard, Van Nuys, California, Owners; property
described as; 1WO rectangular portions of land, Portion "A" having
CONDITIONAL USH a front'age of 333 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, and a
PBRMIT N0. 357 depth of 255 feet; Portion "8" having a width of 333 feet and a
and depth of 7.,019 feet, the northerly boundary of Portion "H" being
TBNTATIVH MAP OF adjacent to the southerly boundary of Portion "A"; and the easterly
1RACT N0. 4230 boundary of Portions "A" and "B" being approximately 660 feet west
of the centerline of Beach Bouievard, property presently classified
R-~A, RBSIDBNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, ZONB.
Subject petitions and Tentative Map of Tract No. 4230 were continued from the meetings
of Pebruary 4, 18, and March 18, and April 15, 1963, at the request of the petitioner.
RBQUBSTSD CLAS$IPICATI~.°.V: Gl, NBIGHBORHOOD C(~hA1BRClAL, ZONE for Portion "A",
and R-3, MULTI~LB PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZOI~ffi for
Portion "S":
RBQUBSTSD CONDITIONAL USB: TO CONSIRUCf A 1W0 S1C)RY PIANNBD MULTIPLB PAMILy ~
RHSIDBNTIAL DHVHLOPMHNT AND WAIVBR OP THB SINGLB
STOitY HSIGHT LIM3TATION POR POATION "B", ~
SUHJBCT TRACT CONTAINS: Thirty-three (33) propose~! R-3, MULTIPLH FAMILY ~•
RHSIDBNTIAL, and one (1) proposed C~,~ NBIGFIDaRH00D
CObAlBRCIAI., ZONS lots. ~
i
~
~
•- 1531 ~
~
~;
!
-- .. ._._._ _ __._._.._ _ _ _ - - -__. _.._.____~''•
____r- ~
_ _~_ 1 __._.~_._.~~. ---~-- ~.____...._ '~ . ,.. .. _ .
/
~
MINUTB3, CITY PLANNING COhUiISSION, April 29, 1963, Continued: 1532
RHCLASSYPICATION - Mr. Jack Hintz, agent for the petitioner appeared before the ~
N0. 62-63-64 Commission and stated he was available to answer any questions the
Commission might have.
CONDITIONAL USB
PBRMIT N0. 357 2oning Coordinator Martin Kreidt, adWised the Commission that the
and Planning Aepartment was concerned about the manner in which
TBNTATIVB MAP OF Lot No. 61 was to be maintained.
TRACT N0. 4230
(Continued) Mr. Howard Prye, an officer of the Bmpire Pinancial Corporation,
- reviewed for the Commission the method of maintenance stating that it
would be part of the deed restrictions through a divided interest,
and maintenance charges would be assessed monthly, and if these assessments were not
paid,the lender could foreclose on the entire apartment unit together with the divided
interest in the recreation area.
The Commission determined through questioning that a non-profit organization would handle
the collection of assessments and maintenance, that ownesship would be reverted to the
lender by default if assessments were not paid, that all property owners within the
apartment tract would have a voice in the manageme:.~ of the non-profit organization as
participating members. and that units would be sold in a similar manner as any other
subdivision, with s 1/30 undivided interest in the space between the buildings,
Deputy City Attorney Purman Roberts, in response'to questioning by the Commission, stated
that the City Attorney's office on occasion had to consider agreements of the maintenance
of properties held under joint ownership,guaranteeing perpetual care through asaessemeats,
that sufficient funds must be maintained to assure this perpetuai care, that he would
suggest that the petitioner submit the pians for collection of the assessments, as weil
as, perpetual maintenance to the City Attorney's office for the clarification of the
City's position in the management of.the functibn, aad that although there were no State
stat ute y supporting the City's position in the proposed perpetual maintenance assessment
and ita disposition, the Commission and the City Council had approved a similar type of
development recently which was made subject #o the City Attorney's ruling on the means of
collection and disposition.
Mrs. A. W. Pfeii, 3064 West Lin~~oln Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated
that she could not present any opposition until plans were presented which were finalized;
that she did oppose two story constructioa and 120 apartments with a common recreation
axea which could become out of hand, and that although she had beett given an offer for
her 35 acres to the west of subject property, the proposed development should be
resolved to the best interests of the City as a whole.
Tfffi HBARING WAS CLOdBD.
The Commission discussed the possibility that the petitioner consult with the City
Attorney's office relative to the proper legal steps that were needed to propesly
adjudicate the perpetual care and assessment, and that the Commission should not render
a final decision until this had been resolved.
Commissioner Allred offered a motion to reopen ihe hearing and continue Pet~...ion~. :ar
Reclassi€icaL•ion No. 62-63-64, Conditional Use Permit No. 357, and Tentative !da~ of
Tract No. 4230 to the meeting of May 27, 1963, in order to allow the petitionc.r :ime to
submit evidence of financial strength, plans and rules for covenents and restrictions for
the assessment and maintenance .>zogram for subject property. Commiasioner Chavos seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
RBCIASSIPICATION - PUBLIC HHARING. OLIVBR G. BAKflR, et al, 147 South Beach Boulevard,
N0. 62-63-108 and Anaheim, Calif~rnia, Owners; R. JAY and/or B. ROCHBLLB, 2966 West
Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agents; requesting that property
TSNTATIVH MAP OP described as: An irr.egular parcel of land having a frontage of
TRACT N0. 5141 795 feet on the west side of Beach Boulevard, and an average depth
of approximately 610 feet; the northerly boundary of said property
being approximately 320 feet south of the cPnterline of Lincoin
Avenue, and further described as 147 South Beach Boulevard be reclassif3ed from the R A,
RHSIDHNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, ZONH to the R-3, MULTIPLB PAMILY RBSIDSNTIAL, ZONH.
Subject tract covers approximately 13.2 acres, is proposed far 42 R-3, Multiple Family
Residential, Zone, lots.
,.----- --------:
__..__ _._....-
~~ ~ ~ ~
\
~
33
ions
the
D
each
amily
n of
s
il
:ct
~
)
i
. _ . : _ "~ . ~~ . . ~ . : ,.~
~ ~ ~
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING CObRtISSION, April 29, 1963, Continued: 1534
RHCLASSIFICATION - 3, Dedication of an easemeat and construction of an underground
N0. 62-63-108 and offsite storm drain system.
THNTATIVB MAP OP 4. "B" Street shall be cul-de-saced entirely within the tract,
7itACT N0. 5141 with a 60 foot dedication and a 40 foot roadway.
(Continued)
5. Streets "A", "C", and "B'° shall be 64 feet wide.
6. improvements sha71 be constructed in front of the "Not A Part"
7. Dedication of access rights to Beach Boulevard, except at street openiags.
8. Subject to the reclassification of suDject property to the R-3, Multiple Family
Residential, Zone, as approved and completed under Reclassification No. 62-63-108.
Commissioner Camp seconded the moti0n. MOTION CARRIBD.
CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUHD PUBLIC HBARING. CHARLIS N, and MAB P. BltOCK, 3133 Orange
PBRMIT N0. 381 Avenue, and MINORU and MATSUH SHIOTA, 3139 Orange Avenue, Anaheim,
California, Owners; CARL SBLVHDBRH, BBMA INVHSIMHIVT COMPANY~ INC.,
2101 West 8dinger, Santa 9na, California, Agent; requesting permission
to CONSTRUCT A SINGLB STORY PLANNBD MULTIPLH PAMILY RBSIDBNT3AL DBVHLOPMffidT WI1H CARPatT3
AND OPBN PARICING ~ WAIVB PRONT YARD AND PARKING RBQUIRBMSNTS on property described as:
T1vo irregular parcels of laad located on the northeast corner of Orange and Western
Avenues. PARCBL N0. 1 having a frontage of 240 feet on the east side of Western A~enue,
and 320 fee# on the north side of the Carbon Cz~ek Plood Control Channel. PARGBL N0. 2
having a frontage of 500 feet on the north side of the Carbon Creek Plood Control Channei,
and an approximate depth of 300 feet, the westeriy boundary of Parcel No. 2 being
adjacent to the easterly boundary of Parcel No. 1, and further described as 3133 & 3139 Orange
Avenue. Property presently classified as R-A, RB3IDHNTlAL AFRICULTURAL, ZONB,
Mr. Don Dodge, real estate agent representittg the petitioners, appeared before the
Commission and stated the proposed development had similar problems as the first
scheduled item of public hearing, that they had contacted the City Attorney's office and
the Rlanning Director relative to solving these problems and that in view of the
forthcoming condiminium meeting, this might give tne City a chance to resolve the
~roblems toward solving planned residential developments and asked that an additional
tv~o weeks be added to the developer~s request in order to resoive all these problems.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Rreidt, stated that the Planning Department would be glad to
meet ~ith the developer's architect,as well as the developer,relative to the cut out
lots being proposed, since the de~eloper was interested in this type of lot development.
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to continue Petition for Conditional Use Permit
No. 381, to the meeting of May 27, 1963~ in order that the Planning Department, the
City Attorney°s office, and the developex and hic architect might meet to resolve any
difficulties relative to the proposed development. Commissioner Chavos seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CONDITIONAL USB ~ CONTINUHD PUBLIC HBARING. PRANK W. SACRBTT, Owner; % L-G-3
PBRMIT N0. 387 Corporation, 2120 South Main Street, Santa Ana, California, Lessee;
CHARLBS G. 3CHLBGHL, 433 West Bighth Street, Santa Ana, California,
Agent; requesting permission to CONSTRUCT A 3ffitVICB 3TATION AND A
DRIVB-IN or WALR-UP RSSTAURANT on property described as; An irregular parcel of land
having a frontage of 200 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, a frontage of 228 feet
on the north side of Wilshire Avenue, and an average depth of 500 feet, plus or minus, the
easterly boundary of said property be3ng approximately 485 feet west of Carleton Avenue.
Property presently ciassified R-A, R:SIDHNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, ZONB.
Mr. Charles Schlegel, agent for the petitioner appeared before the Commisaion and
presented preliminary deveiopment plans which had been reviewed by the Planning Depart-
ment, said plans indicating the proposed street }rattern and the proposed joint dedication
of the street with the other property owners, and requested that the Commission
continue subject petition ir, order that all proper4ies might be considered at one time.
i
_._~....--- ..r.•_.._______~_._~.___._ . -- _ _ . _
. _.. _ ._ _.. _~.'...._.__ ~..___i` . . . . .
.
~ ._. .~ ~ ~ . .. 1 . . ~'~'. ~_--..~ . . . .. _ _. ...._ . ~ .
f ,.
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNTNG COt~lISSION, April 29, 1963, Continued:
1535
CONDITIONAL USB - The Commission reviewed the preiiminary pians presented, and noted ~
PBRMIT N0. 387 that the owner of subject propezty had conceded additional dedication
(Continued) of property for street purposes, and determined that the change in
thinking had occurred because the owner did not wish to develop
subject property in a piecemeal fashion.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the meeting heid between the developers, their
architect, and the Pianning Department for the Commission°s information, and further
stated that three-story c~nstructioa had been contemplated, and that Pearl 3treet was
proposed for extension to the west in order to aliow access for the R-A property to the
north which would be landlocked if this were not done.
Mr. Rreidt further stated that the petitioner was particularly anxious to proceed with
construction of the proposed service station.
Mr. Arthur Daw, representing the Bngineering Department, advised the Commission that
the Traffic Sngineer would not approve ingress and egress from Wilshire Stree# because
of the flow of traffic, and that the traffic, drainage, or both, would be critical if the
traffic and drainage were allowed to flow into Wilshire Street.
The Cortrmission further discussed continuance of the subject petition in order to allow
sufficient time for complete development pians to be submitted.
Mr. Kreidt advised the Commission that the Interdepartmental Committee had not reviewed
the preliminary plan, and it wonld be necessary for them to review the proposed street
pattern before any recommendatioa could be made.
Mr. Lynn Wiseman, 432 Ramona Street, appeared before the Commission and stated that he
was building a home on Dwyer Drive, and people in the area would oppose multipie family
development for the area which abatted one family suburban development to the north,
and that the Wilshire Street frontage should be developed for business and professional
offices, as it had been projected on the proposed General Plan.
In answer to Coamissione~"~havos~ request for clarification of the filing of a conditiona.l
use permit for service stations in the Light Industrial and N.eighborhood Commercial
Zones, Deputy City Attorney Purman Roberts stated that by the filing of a conditional
use permit, this permitted the Commission and Councii to establish controls in order that
it would meet the public health,welfare, and safety standards set up by the City, that
some uses which are aot permitted in a zone might be allowed through a conditional use
permit if the use met the aforementioned standards for the protection of the Citizens of
the City of Anaheim.
Commissioner Chavos then stated that the Conditional Use Permit section of the Code
was nev~r inteaded to ev3de the proper zoning of the City; that the City Council had set
up this section to assist a property owner v~hen his property was so physically set up
that he could not develop hia property under the existing zoning, and that the petitioner
of subject property had not proven that subject property could not be developed for any-
thing other thaa a service station; and that to permzt a light industrial use in a light
commercial zone would be a violatioa of the Code.
Mr. Roberts then stated th~t the City Council established the cenditionai use permit
section to afford protectian, that a service station was permitted in a Heavy Commerciai
Zone and the intent of the conditional use permit in a Light Indusxrial Zone was to
cont~ol it, but also that it would not be harmfui to the industrial facilities adjacent
to the service station, and would be providing a need for the employees of that facility.
Commissioner Gauer offered a mot~~n to continue Petition for Conditiongl Use Permi.t
No. 387 to the meeting of June 10, 1963, in order to allow the petitioner sufficient
time to revise plans to properly present.for thefiling of a reclassification for subject
property. Commissioner Perry se~onded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
Commissioner Yebley left the Council Chamber at 3:45 P.M.
`~
,
;
~
i
I
I
i
I
I
~ ~
i
,---------- ---- _--..._.~____ ----._._~_.____
--_-_.----
---- -- I
/
~ , ~, , . . ~ --_ _ _ ---~-- -"
~ ~ ~
(
~
~
~
MINUTHS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 29, 1963, Continued:
1536
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. R. B. 8 VIRGINlA CLANT4": 30GG5, 1d67
VARIANCB N0. 1560 - Reseda Street, Anahein, California, Owners; requesting ~ermission
to REDUCE~THE SIDE YARD SETSACK FROM FI~'E•(5) FtET.TO ONH (].)"FOOT TO
P~tMIT THH CQMPI.BTION OF A SINGLB FAMI:.Y RSSIDHNCB on r:operty
described as: A rectangular parcel of land having a frontage of 75 feet on the west
side of Reseda Street and a depth of 100 feet, the northerly boundary of said proparty
being approximately 640 feet south of the centerline of Wagner Avenue, and further
described as 1031 Reseda Street. Property presentiy classified as R-1, OAiH PAMILY
RBSIDBNf7AL, ZONB.
Subject petition was continued from the meeting of April 1, 1963, to allow the Ci.ty
Attorney's office time to resolve the legal position of the C~ty relative to subject
petition.
Chairman Mungall inquired whether there was a representative for subject petiticn ~~
the Council Chawber and received no response.
Zoning Coordinator Martia Kreidt, reviewed for the Commission the action taken by the
Chief Building Inspector relati~e to the "Stop Work" order, and advised the Commission
that the City Attorney°s office xecommeno§d that the Commission consicter subject petition
on the reqtlested side yard setback variance ra:her than the reasons for the conflict
between the petitioner and the property owner to the north~and the Chief Building
Inspector's action.
The Commission noted that the subdivision tract had been approved by the Coamission and
the C:ity Council, and had been verified as to boundaries by the Title Company, and that
the Commission should not be conceraed with the requested va='_ance because of this.
a~id that the legal problem shouid be resolved with the City Attorney's office.
THB HBAEtING WAS CLOSBD.
Commissioner Pebley returned to the Coancil ChamUer at 3;50 P.M.
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to approve Petitic~n for Variance No. 1560, Commissiornr
Perry seconded the motion.
The Commission continued discussion with Assistant City At~orne~,~ Purman Roberts, relative
to the method of resolving subject petition, who advised tY.e Coinmission that they had
two alternatives, one to approve subject petition, and if it were fouad to L•e unnecessary
to exercise this variance, nothing would be lost, and that. the Cormnission could deny
subject petition, and the petitioner could continue constr~sctian at his ewn risk, and
in the latter case,the City Attorney's office would contact the Building Depar:R^nt to
remove the "Stop Work" order.
Commissioners Gauer and Perry withdrew their motion and second.
Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution No. 733, Series 1962-63, aad moved foz its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to deny Petition f or Variance
No. 1560, based on the fact that the proposed petition was an improper method 6f
resolvir,g a litigation which should not have been the concern of the Co~nission since
the Pinai Tract Map had been recorded and approved by the City Council. - ~
(See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYB3: COMMISSION8R9: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perr.y, Sides.
NOH9: COhVdISSIONBRS: None.
AHSHNT: COMMISSION~tS: None.
Commissioner Pebley suggested that the filing fee for auriject petition be refunded
since the petitioner should not liave been required to file for the variance.
~
~
i ~
~
~
~~
- _ _._ ~~
~.,. ~. .. ___.
a ~~ '~
MINUT3S, [;Ixli PL:~i'iVING C~:W~?3:'"fD:, April 29, 19b3, Continued:
1537
CONDITIONAL USn - CC~!~"TINUBD PUBLIC iffiARING. C(2UNPRY DEVBLOPMHNT, INC., P. 0. Box 2025;
PERMIT N0. 4'%4 .4r,;~~,:~~eLm, California, Owner; ,jRMHS Wr:_T"_~ OIL COMPANY, fl, 0. Box %2,
brtta;~io, California, Agent; rec;uesting permission to f3STABLISti A
S13RVxCB STATION on property de~°':ribed as: A rectangillar parcel of
land at thc southeast corner of Westchester Driv~ ai:d Lincoln Aver,;%e ra~4t~ frontages of
30'7 feet on. Westchestxr Drive and 266 feet on Lincoln r.•~enue, sai~ g:opv.•_~;• know~.~ :.c
Lot No. 1 of Trac+: N~, :l886, and further descrit;ed as 102 Sou?:~ iYe.titcHester Li °~e.
Property pre~enCly clussified as ~-1, N33iG880RH00D COMMffitCIAL, u,iiv.'a.
S~bject petition was continued from the iaeeting of Aprii 15, i963, since ihere was no
one present to represent the petitionE:r.
Mr. Woody Johu:;on, repr~senting the r~g~ent for the p~titioner, appe:.re3 before t;~e
Commissior. aua sta~ed that there wouic: ~ a iot split of subject property request~d u:,~~r
a separati: ;~etiti~in, and that the entirc~ two acres wculd be developed as a single unit,
b~t by t,~o de;~elopers.
The Commiss:,~n discussed the reclassifi~~ation of ~ubject property which was approved by
Ordinance, Mar,ch 6, 1962, in which deve:!opment plans for the constraction of small sheps
was approved, that to permit the develo~~~ent of a service sta:ion at the outlet of a
residentia7. street would 'oe setiing a pcecedent and patte~n of deveSopment for similar
streets ici the City; az~:t ~_7at tra.iic f:nianating from the service station might caeate a
hazard for children re:urning from thr. s:hool located across the stre~t~f::om ~ubject r,roperty.
THH HPARING WAA CLOS:BD,
Comm~'Lssione Sides offered Resolution No. 734, Seri~s 1y62-~3, anu ~a!:ved for its
passage snd e~daG±'ir; , seconded by Commis.~~ioner perry, to deny Petitio.~ for Conditional
Use Permi.t No. ~504, based on the fact that subject property had been approved for
reclass:ifi~catio,n r'~:~ the development of ama~l ~*ops, aad that the encroachment of a
service s',;atio~i on a residentiai stre<:t wuu13 be sett:.ng a precedent and patter» of
de~~elopme,~t throughout the City. (Se~ Resolution ]3ook.)
On .roll call the fore~oing resolution was passed by ::he ioltowiijg vote;
A7f~S; CCY~4tISSIONP,[tS: Allred, Cump, Chavos, Gauer„ Mungae?1, Pet~ley, Perry, Sides,
NOBS: COMMISSIGNBRS: None.
ABBHNT: GON~tI3SI0NERS: None,
CONDITIU~AL U58 - PUBLIC HBARIN6. COUNTRY DBVHLOPMHNT, INC., 106p~ R.atella Avenue,
F~tMIT N0. 414 Anaheim, Ca+.ifornia, Ownes; WOODli ~OHNSON, 224 'Rest Fifth zitreet,
Santa qna, California, Age-: ; req+iesting permi:ssion to BgTti:+LI3H R
DRIVB-3Y OR WALK-UP R&~T_4'JAANT AND A HOFBRAU on , roperty des~~zii;ad
A.•: A rectangular parcel of land at the southeast corner of Westchest•.r Drive and
Lincoln Avenue, with frontages of 307 feet on Westchester Drive, anci 266 feet on
Lincoln Avenue, said property known ns Lot No. 1 of Tract No. 3886, a:nd further des:ri.bed
as 102 South Westr,hester Drive. ProDerty presently classified as C-1, NBIGHBORH0011
COPoJMHRCIAL, ZONH,
Mr. Woody Johnson, agent for the pet.'tioner, appeared before the Commission and stated
inat ~Lhject property would be develu~;ed as a single unit, but tvould be done by two
dev~alopers.
:iie Commission inquired of the agent whether he was aware that the Alcohoiic Beverage
Control Boazd :iid not permit the sale of alchoholic beverages within 600 €eet of an
existing scho~~l,and that the proposed hofbrau would be located within 300 ~eet of the
Centrn:ia Schaol? The agent replied he knew there were restrictions, but did not know
that it was 60Q E'eet.
A l;.ttei of oppuc.ition from the Ceatralia School District was read to the Commissioa
°lafiive to the sale of aicoholxc beverages in close proximity to the school.
THE HBARING iVAS CLOSBD.
t
- ~ ...~-- -n------ - --- . -_- -- ._. --- -.-- --- -0y = .>..- ..... __.___.'~ ..__. ----
. .. . , i :r
! _ ___ _ _ _ iwa~w...~+.~.~...~~r
S ~
~
, MINUTB3, CITY PLANNING CObAtISSION, April 29, 1963, Cuntinued:
1538
CONDITIONAL USE - Co~rsmissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 735, 3eries 1962-63, and
pBRMIT :i0. 414 moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Sides,
(Continued) to ~ieny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 414, due to the
fac•t that the proposed hofbrau would be lucated within 600 feet of
the Centralia School; that the proposed uses would be detrimental to
the community; ar.d that the petitioner should develop subject property
in accordance with plans which were approved in the reclassification
of subject property. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoir.g resolution was passed by the following vote;
AYHS: COhA~IISSIONSRS: Alired, ;amp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebiey, Perry, Sides.
NOB3: CaMN~IS~IAIVffitS: None.
ABSENT: COMA3ISSIONSRS: None.
VARIANC.t3 NO. 1570 - PJALIC HBARING. RBVBREND JAMBS HBAPS, 2428 Orange Avenue, Anaheim,
and California, Owner; J. C. DBVBLOPMBNT C06lPANY, 2127 Bail Road,
TBNTATIVH MAP OF Suite "B", Anaheim, Califortua, Agent; requesting permission to;
TRACT N0. 5114 RE9BRS8 CORNBR LOTS LBSS THAN 78.6 FBHT IN WIDTH, PERMIT LOTS WITH
LHSS THAN A 7200 SQUARH FOOT ARBA, AND PHRMIT LOTS ON A CUL-DH-$AC
LBSS THAN 60 PBHT WIDE AT THH SHTBACR LENS on pruperty described as:
p rectangalar parcel of land having a front~b° of 354 feet on the east side of Webster
Avenue and a depth of 270 feet, the northerly boundary of said propexty being approxi-
mately 257 feet south of the centerline of Orange Avenue, and further described as
Lot Nos. 1$, 19, and 20 of Tract No. 796. Property presently classified R-A, RHSIDSNTIAL
AGRICULTURAL~ ZONB.
Subject tract is proposed for subdivision into nine (9) R-i, One Pamily Residential, Zone
lots.
Mr. JarvLs Castetter, agent for the petitioner, appeared befere the Commission and
stated that the requested variance was necessary hecause the proposed subQivision created
two lots, :,~hich were 150 feet less than the required 7200 square feeto
The Commis.sion determined that the roof material would be shane, and that the hnmes
average bctween 19G0 and 1900 squaze feet of iivable area.
Mr. Wiiliam Simmons, S37 Soutih Webster Avenue, appeared in opposition to subject
petition, stating thafi his property fronted the entire distance of the proposed
s~bdivision, that to pr:.poye: eingle family deve.topment might jeopardize development of
his ~rooerty for multipie far~ily development since he had received a number of offers by
de.alopers, and that muitipie family Sevelopment was to the south of his property.
The Comxi~sion noted t~iat only Ywo emall parceis on Roanne Street had multiple
3e~~~Ei^p~:_;r.~ ~~n them, $nd that aYl ott~er property was either R-A, or single family develop-
~aen~ :.a ;:l~se ^roximity of snbject property.
Mr. Clifford Swallow, 6~14 South Webster Avenue, appeared befare the Commission and
stated that his property abutted to the south of the propased subdivision and inquixed
whether a six (6) foot masonry wall was being proposed for the southerly boundary of the
tract.
Mr. Castetter advised the (;ommission that a masonry wall was beir.g proposed for the
southerly proper±y line.
'TH3 FIHAhtING WA3 CL0.SHD.
.,
`~,
~ /
/
.~ _~ ~______
^,~ ~ . 1 -- - -. _ _ _ . _
- ~ _ _ . ,.. __.
_
~ O
~
MINUT,~.S, CITY PLANNING CONASISSIOH, April 29, 1963, Continued: 1539
VAP.IANCS N0. 1570 - Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 736, 3eri~s 1962-63, and
and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp,
TBNTATIVB MAP OP to grant Petition fbr Variance No. 1570, subject to cor.ditions.
TRACT N0. 5114 (See Resoiution Book.j
~ (Continued)
Oa roll call the foregoiag resolution was passed by the following vote;
AYB3: CoMMI3SI0Nffit3: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall~ Pebley, Perry, Sides.
NOB3: COMMISSIONBR3: None.
AH9HNT: COMMISSICNffitS: None.
Subject tract was considered in conjunction with the public hearing of Petition for
Variance No. 1570.
The Commissior, reviewad the Interdepartaental Committee recommendations on subject
tract. ~
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 5114, subject
to the following cond3.tions:
1, Requirement that should this subdvision be developed as more than one subdivision,
each subdivision #hereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval.
2. Dedication of thirty-two (32) feet from the monumented centerline of Webster Avenue.
3. Subject to the approval of Petition for Variance No. 1570.
Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
7'ERMINATION OF CONDIT.IONAL USE PERMIT N0. 221
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 737, Series 1962~63, and moved for 3ts
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Sides, to recommend to the City Councii
that Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 221 be terminated, since said pr ~:ion had
ex~ired on October 16, 1962, and that Tentative Tract No. 5114 superseded saia ~:etition.
(See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resoiation was passed by the £ollowing vote:
AYHS: CC.MMISSIONffit3: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry~ Sides.
NOES: CObAlIS3IONBRS: None.
ABSBNT: COhVdISSI0IVffit3: None.
TBNTATIVH MAP OP - SUBDIVIDBR: VILLAGH QtBBN DBVBLOPhffiNT COMPANY, 600 North Buclid
TRACT N0. 5108 Street, Suite 645~ Anaheim, California. ENGINBffit: VOORtffiIS- _
TRINDLB-NBLSON, INC., 1'L794 Beach Boulevard, Westminster, Cali-
fornia; subject tract, iocated on the east side of Dale Avenue
and oa the south side of Orange Avenue, conta3.ns 58 prouosed R-1, Onp Pamily
Residential, 2one, lots.
Mr.Prank Richardson, representing tY.e engineer, appeared before the Commission and
stated that at the time the map was being reviewed at the Interdepartmental Committee meeting,it~+
was brought to his attention that there was a poasible encroachment into the Bdison {
Company powerline right-of-way, that he had contacted the developer who stated he was of I
the opinion that the tract did not encroach upon the Edison Company right-of-way; that ;
the dimensions for the tract were given to them and he had no personal knowledge of this '
discrepency, but that if this were the case, the tentative tract mao would have to be ~i
corrected. I
i
I
l
/
•~ _._.T ~~r-~. . . ... ..'___".'__ ..._
' ~ . ~ ."_ .~ -. ~ .
..~ . ~ . .- ~ . ~ .~ ' . ~ . . . .
A '" .. .. . .. . ; . ~ .. ~: . ~ ~. . ~ . . . .. .
_ . , . .. , . . . ~ ( . - '. . ~ _""'-«.... . _. . . .. .. . _
~ ~
V ~ ~
MIA'ITTSS, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, Apcil 29, 1963, Continued:
1540
TShTATIV$ MAP OP - Zoning Coor.dinator Martin Rreidt advised th~e Commission that before
1RACT N0, 5108 the Final Tract Map could Ue recorded, it would have to be submitted
(Continued) to the Bngineering DeE:artment, who could then verify that there was
no encroachment of the right-of~way, and 4hat Lot Nos. 36 and 38
did not meet Code require:ments because of this encroachment.
The Commission discussed the possibility of approving subject tract subjectto its~meeting all
Code requirements and the submission of a revised map if this encroachment of the right-
of-way ~ere in ac*uality.
Commissioner Perry offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 5108, subject
io the following conditions;
1. Requirement that should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision,
each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval.
2. Streets "A" and "D" shall have a 40 foot roadway within the 60 feet of dedication.
3. The 56 foot dedication and 48 foot radius of MacDuff Circle is acceptable with a
36 foot roadway and 38 foot curb radius, respectively.
4. Dedication of acr..ess rights to Orange Avenue and Dale Avenue, except at street
openings.
5. Construction of a six (6) foot masonry wall on the property line separating
Lot Nos. 58, 1 through 7, 18, 19, 30, and 31 from Dale Avenue and Orange Avenue,
except that on Corner Lot Nos. 58, 1, 30 and 31, said wall shall be stepped down to
24 inches in the front one-half of the front yard setbacs and a height of -}2 inches
in the back one-half of said setback. Reasonable landscaping, including irrigation
facilities shall be installed. in the uncemented portion of the Dale Avenue and
Orange Avenue parkway the full distance uf said wall, plans for said lar.dscaping to
to be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway
Maintenance, and said landscaping f~o be installed prior to Final Buiiding
Inspection. (Pollowing the itistaliation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall
assume the•responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping.)
6. That the subdivision of all lots shail be in accordance wi.th ail requirements of
the Anaheim Municipal Code.
Commissioner Sides seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
TBNTATIVB MAP OP - 3UBDIVIDBR: MOUNT CORPORATION, P. 0. Box 3430, Fullerton, Cali-
TRACT N0. 5113 fornia. ENGINBffit: VOORHHI3-TRINDLB-NHLSON, INC., 13794 Beach
, Suulpvard, Westminster, California, Subject tract is located on
the south side of Crescent Avenue, approximately 274 feet east
of Magnolia Avenue, and is proposed for subdivision into 24 R-1, One Family Residential,
2one, lots.
Mr. Frank Richardson, representing +he engineer, a•:~pe,red before the Commission and
stated that he was available to anstver any questio._~ the Commis:ion might have.
The Commission reviewed the map, noting that subject property had been projected for
the proposed use on the proposed General Plan.
Commissioner Allred offered a moti~n to approve Tentative Map of Tra~ti No. 5113, subject
to the foilowi~g conditions:
1. Requirement that should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision,
each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval.
2. Drainage shall be handled in a manner which is acceptable to the City Engineer.
3. Dedi.catian of access"rights ~o Crescent Rvenue, except ai street openings.
Cotomissioner Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIHD.
-~^.....,._._.....,...-,. - - _.._. _. _
~ ,.~...~
:
~ •
--_
_ . __~ . _.. .~ • ~ _ _ .
~ ~i
~ ~ ~
~
MINUTB3, CITY PIANNING COhNdISSION, April 29, 1963, Continued: 1541 ~
VARIANCS N0. 1568 - PUBLIC HHARING. H. B. W, and ROBffitT S. HARNBS, 310 8merald Bay, ~
Laguna Beach, California, Owners; ROHBRT S, BARNHS, .?.016 North ;
Broadway, Santa F.na, California, Agent; requesting permission to i
WAIVH Ti~ RBQUIRHD RBAR YARD AND WAIVffit OP THH'GARAGB RBQUIRBMBNT TO PffitMIT THB !
CONSTRUCTION OF CARPORTS on pro~;ty described as: A rectangular parcel of land having ~
a frontage of 57 feet on the wes'~: side of West Street and a depth of 140 feet, the ;
southeriy boundary of said pro~~rty being approximately 497 feet north ef the center- ;
line of La Palma Avenue, and further described as 1141 North YYest Street. Property ~
presently classified R-A, RBSIDBNTIAL AGRICLfLTURAL, ZONH, (R-3, MULTIPLH FAMILY ~
gggIDBNTIAL, 20NH, pending.)
Mr. H. B. W. Barnes, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and staied
he was available to answer any questions the Commission might have,
The Cammission reviewed the plans presented and noted that the petitioner proposed rock
roofs.
Chairman Mungall inquired whether there was anyone present in the Council Chamber
opposing subje:.t petition, and received no reply.
THB FiBARING WAS CLOSBD.
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 738, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoptior., seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for
Variance No. 1568, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
pYB3; COMMISSIOr(BRS: a.llred, Camp, Chavos~ Gauer, Mungall, Pebleq, Perry, Sides.
NQ83: COME~lI9SI0DIDR3: None.
AB3BNT: COMMIS3IOIIBRS: None. ~
Commissioners Chavos and Perry 1ef't the Council Chamber at 4:40 P.M.
VAR7ANCB N0. 1569 - PUBLIC HBARING. HAROLD L, RAAB, 2741 Orange Avenue, Anaheim, 3
California, Owner; DORO'fHY R. FULMBR, 2105-A West Ball Road, 1t
Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to WAIVH l
RHQUIRBD RBAR YARD SHTBACR TO PBRMIT THB CONSTRUCTION OP A FAMILY ROOM on property g
described as: A rectangular parcei of land having a frontage of 71 feet on the north
side :° Oraage Av~nue and a depth of 102 feet, the westerly boundary of said property j
being approximately 245 feet east of the centerline of Shields Drive, and further j
described as 2741 West Orange Avenue. Property presently classified as R-1, ONS PAMILY ;
RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONB. +
Mr. Harold Raab, the petitioner appeared before the Commission and stated he wis ~
available to answer any questions the Commission might have. ~
The Commission reviewed the plot plan noting that the ad3ition of a family room was +
being proposed which would connect the garage with'the main building, j
~
Chairman Mungali inquired whether there was anyone Qresent in the Councii Chamber
opposing subject petition, and received no reply.
Tf~ HBARING WAS (w'*.O6BD. .
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 735~, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage
and adoRtion, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1569,
subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
pYBS: COD4IISSI~ISRS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Sides.
NOES: COMMI3SI02~RS: None.
AB9HNT: COhA~lI3SI0NHRS: Chavos, Perry.
_ .ti.__`__ "_'~ .. `
~'
I
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COhAMISSION, April 29, 1963, Continued: 1542
CONDITIONAL U3B - PUBLIC HBARING. CI~tISTINH 0'DONNHLL, 10304 Clancey Avenue, Downey, ~
PBRMIT N0. 398 California, Owner; BDWARD R. CRONAN~ 11752 Garden Grove Boulevard,
Garden Grove, California, Agent; requesting permission to BSTABLI3H
A MOTBL ~~n property described as: An L-shaped portion of land
having a frontage of 146 feet on the south side of Orangewood Avenue, and an average (
depth of 300 feet, plus or minus, the easternmost boundary of said property being 205 ~
feet west of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard, said land consisting of two (2) parcels. ~
Property presently classified R A, RBSIDENTIAL AQtICULTURAL and C-1, NBIGHBORHOOD ~
COMMffitCIAL~ ZONB3. ;~
Mr. Hdward Cronan, agent for the petitiones, appeared before the Commission and stated
that the proposed development will be a considerable improvement to the pxesent
existing structures, that the proposed development would be serving families visiting
the recreational area in and around Anaheim and would be used primarily as a motel and
not as an apartment development.
Commissioner Chavos returned to the Council Chamber at 4:45 P.M.
The Commission reviewed the plot plan and inquired whether the petitioner had a written
easement for ingress and egress to Harbor Boulevard from the southerly property line, to
whi~h r1r. Cronan stated that he would have a written easement for presentation to the
City.
Mr. Cronan stated in answer to the Commission`s questioning that the proposed motel
would offer all the facilities of fresh linen daily, and ciean up daily; that he would
further stipulate that the proposed development would be liceased as a motel; that the
proposed development did not meet multiple family residential requirement because it
was not the intent of the petitioner to use subject property for other than a family
type mo#e?; and that adjacent property owners felt that residential development of
subject prnperty would not be the highest arxl best use for the property.
Ctiairman Mungall inquired if there was anyone present in the Council Chamber opposing
sabject petition, and received no reply.
TI~ HHNRING WA$ CLOSED.
Commissioner Perry returnEd to the Council Chamber at 4;50 P.M.
The Commissioner further questaoned the agent for the petitioner,relative to proposing
a shake roof, and by stipulatiota, the agent for the petitioner agreed to a shake roof.
The Commiysion expressed concern that the proposed motel plans indicated kitchen
facilities it- every unit and mignt possibly be setting a precedent and pattern of
development ior other motels ~n the City.
Commissi.oner Gauer offered Resolution No. 740, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adop#~o,;, seconded by Commissioner Pebley, to grant Petition for
l;~:ditional ~lse Permit No. 398, subject to conditions, (See Resolution Book.)
Commissioner i~iey in seconding"the'foregoing resolution stated that he felt the
Disneylaad are svould benefit by the proposed type of development, in view of the fact
that a new con~rx:;iiun hall was being proposed for construction.
On roll call a;i,e foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYBS: COMMY$SIf~S: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Sides.
NOB3: COh4lI3SIONBRS: None. !
AHSTAIN: CQMMI83ION~tS: Perry.
AB38NT: COMMISSIONBR3: None.
-_._. . - _ ---r~_ ~.~ ___ .____..,---
, ._ ._ . . ~ . . ~ y~~ ~: . ,_ . . _ _ . ~_ .
~~ ~ . ~
~ .
MINUIBS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Aprii 29, 1963, Continued:
CONDITIONAL USH - PUBLIC tffiARING. RHNNHTH R. MILLHR, 1640 Wilshire Boulevard,
PBRMIT NO. 402 Los Angeles 17, California, Owner; DBNNIS MURPHY, 2123 lliest Ball
Road, Suite "B", Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission
to BSTABLISH A FAMILY BILLIARD CBNTBR on property described as;
An irregular parcel of land having frontages of 315 feet, plus or minus, on the east
side of Western Avenue, 290 feet, plus or minus, on the south side of Lincoln Avenue,
and a frontage of 175 feet, plus or minus, on the west side of Topanga Drive, the
southerly boundary of said property being approxiinately 524 feet south of the center-
line of Lincoln Avenue, and further described as 3150 3/4 West Lincoln Avenue.
property presently classified as C-1, NBIGI~ ORHOOD COMhiBRCIAL, ZONE.
Mr. Rito Madrid, 2626 West Elmlawn, representing the agent for the petitioner,
appeared before the Commission and stated that the proposed family billiard center
would be owned by the existing shopping center owner, and reviewed the proposed
development stipulating that alcoholic beverages woald not be served,
Chairman Mungall inquired whether there was anyone present in the Council Chamber
opposing subject petition, and received no reply.
THH HBARING WAS CL03BD.
Commissioner Pebiey offered Resolution No. 741, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to grant Petition for
Conditional Use Permit No. 4q2, subject to findings and conditions. (See Resolution
Hook.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed bq the following vote:
AYBS: CQ~4~lISSiJNB[tS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Sides.
NOB3: COhA~IISSIONBRS: None.
ABSBNT: COi~4lISSIOIVIDtS: Noae.
CONDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC HHARING. RHNNETH C. RANDALL~ 12141 Dunklee Lane, Garden
PBRMIT N0. 409 Grove, California, Os~mer; requesting permission to HSTABLI3H A
BALLBT DANCB 3TUDI0 on prope•rty described as: A rectangular
parcei of land having a frontage of 312 feet on the west side of
Magnolia Avenue, and a frontage of 147 feet on the north side of Rowland Avenue, and
further described as 339 South Magnolia Avenue. Property presently clas~ified as
C-1, NBIGHBORHOOD COhMffitCIAL, ZONB.
Mr. Kenneth Randall, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that
the proposed use would be an asset to the neighborhood children who would not have to
travel any distance for lessons, and that he would be available to answer any
questions the Commission might have.
Upon questioning by the Commission as to the possibility of soundproofing the studio~
t~-protect the adjoining single family residential development to the west, Mrs. Hugh
Glasgow, operator of the ballet dance studio stated that noises emanating from the
school would be minimized, because ballet was done to soft music and without harsh
noises fr~.m the dancers~ but if it was the Commission's desire, this would be done.
Chai=man Muagall inquired whether there was anyone present in the Council Chamber
opposing subject petition, and received no reply.
THB FffiRRING WAS CLOSBD.
Commissioner Sides offered Resolution No. 742, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gaser to gxant Petition for Conditional
Use Permit No. 409, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resoiution was passed t+y the following vote:
1543
AYB3: COV~AtI3SI0IJffit3: Ailred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Sides.
NQSS: COU4~tISSIO~NSR3: None.
AHSHNT: CObMISSICIVBRS: None.
~ ---
~~
~
1
~
'~ . ~,: ____..T . . . _. _ _ ..__ _
~ ~ ~j
" 1 t
I ~.',
, r. .
. ~ ~
:
...;:~
•~ .
~ ~ ~
MINUTB3, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 29, 1963, Continued: 1544
CO~IDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC FffiARING. DUDLSY B. PRANK, 433 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim,
PERM'LT N0. 410 California, Owner; requesting permission to HSI7ABLISH A 3ffitVICH
STATION on property described as a rectangular Earcel of land having
a frontage of 133 feet on the south side of Orange Avenue and a
frontage of 142 feet on the west side of Huclid Street, and further desc;ibed as
601 Huclid Street. Property presently classified as C-1, NHIGHIICRHOOD COM`nlHRCIAL, ZONH.
Mr. Dudley Frank, the petitioner appeared before the Commission and stated that he was
available to answer any questions the Commission might have.
The Co~nission determined through questioning that the petitioner proposed to use the
westerly stsip of land adjacent to the convalescent hospital for parking facilities; that
the petitioner proposed for the future development of the southerly portioa of the
property to be developed as a business and professional building, aad that all he wanted
was the same rights that the property owner to the north had since he operated a service
station.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that subject property had been
reciassified to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone with deed restrictions limiting the
deveiopment to plans which were approved indicating stores and shops, and that the service
station had been~at that time,approved by both the Commission and the Councii,
The Coaimission reviewed the map which indicated a cemetery to the south and single
family development to the southeast, a convalescent home to the west, and beyond that to
the west, single family developmeat as well as singie family development to the north-
west. It was also indicated by the Commission that the most likely development for
subject property would be for business and professional offices, and that the service
station on the northwest corner of Orange Avenue and Euclid Street was in operation
before the development of the single family subdivision.
;.
Mr. Prank Wight~ 517 Palcon Street, appeared in opposition to subject petition, and
stated that the residents of the grea have been opposing incompatible development of
subject propertg for some time; that he represented a majority of the residents in the
area who strenuously opposed a service station since it wouid detraGt from the
appearance and value of the residential environment of the area; that the proposed
service station was in conflict with the approved plaas granting the commercial zoning
of subject property; that restricLions had been plaeed on the property reclassified
in said zone change; that the noise factor wouid be detrimental to the health and general
x~elfare of the elderly persons residing in the convalescent home; and that a great deai
of money and effort and time had been expended by the residents in the area to maintain
and protect this residential environment.
A letter of opposition from the Orangeview Convalescent Hospital, adjacent to the
proposed service station, was read to the i.ammission.
Mr. Prank, in rebuttal, stated that he had received some favorabie comments for a
service station on subject property, and that at the time the owners of the conval.escent
hospical purchased the property, there had been no specific development plans.
THB HBARING WAS CLOSHD.
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 743, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to deny Pexition for Conditional
~Tse Permit No. 410, based on the fact that the convalescent hospital to the west opposed
the service station, and that the reclassification of subject property had been approved,
with the requirement of devel~pment in accordance with plans and limitatioa of subject
property to business and professionai offices oniy. (See Resolution Book.)
On roil call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYE3: COI~A~lI33I0NffitS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Sides.
N~HS: CODAlI9SION&R3: None.
ABSHNT: CQ~IMISSIONBRS: None.
RHCE3S - Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to recess the meeting at 5:30 P.M., for
dinner, and to reconvene again at 7:00 P,M. Commissioner Chavos seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
RHCONVHNS - Chairman pro tem Gauer reconvened the meeting at 7:05 P.M. All members
, being present, except Ch&irman Mungall and Commissioner Sides.
,. _ ,
_^.___ ; ~
~'
, ~ ._ _ .,..---- -_ _ __ y
.--. f~
i ~ . ~ .
MINUTBS, CITY PLpNNING COhAlI3SION, April 29, 1963, Continued:
~
:~
1545
RHCLASSIFICATION - GRIFFITH BROTl~RS, A partnership, 8g7 South Los Angeles Street,
N0. 62-63-98 and MqBgL T. DOUGIAS, 1677 South Ninth Street, Anaheim, California,
and Owners; THOMAS A. RBY, c% Tom Rey Realty Sales, Inc „ 811 South
CONDITIONAL USB Huclid Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; property being considered
PffitMIT N0. 403 described as: An irregular portion of land having a frontage of
1190 feet on the west side of Ninth Street, the westerly boundary
of said property being adjacent to the Orange County Flood Control
Chanael and the southerly boundary being approx:aately 130 feet north of the centerline
of Simberly Avenue. Said property consisting of two (2) parcels, and further described
as 1677 South Ninth Street. Property presently classified R A, RBSIDBNTIAL AQtICULNRAL,
ZONB.
RHQUB$TED CIASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTrPLS FAMILY RBSIDBIVTIAL, ZONB,
RHQUBSTBD CONDITIQdAL USB: CONSIRUC~' A MULTIPLB FAMILy pIANNHD gBSIDBNTIAL DgVgLppMENT _
NIAIVB OPffi (1) S1Y)RY HBIGHT LIMITAITON.
3ubject petitions were continued from the meeting of April 15, 1963, in order that the
City Council might be able to advise the Commission the steps taken to acquire a
port.ion of subject property for a park site.
C;~airman pro tem Gauer inquired whether there was anyone present to represent the petitioner,
and received no reply.
Nu. Cari Prince, 1423 Laster qvenue, a representative of the Buclid-Ratella chap#er of
the Orange County Homeowners Association, appeared before the Commission and stated that
he was the official spokesman for the 65 persons present in the Council Chamber opposing
subject petition, and presented a petition signed by 986 persons who also opposed subject
petition. N,r. Prince stated.that he would reiterate any opposition at the next meeting,
aince revised plans would be surmitted, and he wanted to have all persons who opposed to
view these plans before he could present any intelligent opposition. In summation, he
stated tha4..a11 the residents who had signed the petitions were opposed to multiple family
development of subject property,
TH8 I~ARING WA9 CL0.SBD.
Zoning Coordinat~r Martin Kreidt read a letter from the City Manager's office and also
a letter from t:z.: ugent for the petitioners requestiag that subject petitions be continued
for two weeks.
Commissioner Pebley offered a motion to re-open the hearing and continue Petitions for
Reclassification No. 52~63-98 and Conditional Use Permit No. 403 to the meeting of
May 13, 1963, in order to allow the petitioners sufficient time to revise plans for the
Commission~s cousideration, said plans wouid then eliminate the northerly 4.62 acres whidi
is projected for the park site, and to allow the City time to contact the petitioners to
offer a proposal for the purchase of the northerly 4,62 acres for the park site, Commissioner
Alired seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Commissioner 9ides entered the C'ouncil Chamber at 7:10 o~clock p.m.
CONDITIONAL USS - PUBLIC HSARING..ROSHLIA M. TILTON, 517 Bast Sycamore Street, and gD{VE-gD W,
PBitMIT N0,411 aad VIOIA F,. STFINBRIIVI{~ 502 South Gilbuck, 'Anaheim. California, Owners;
GBRALII L- CASH, 14142 Clarissa Lane, Santa Ana, California, A~ent;
requesting permission to CONSTRUCT A TWp (2) g~y pi,p~p ~ID~TIAL
DBVSLOPMHNT WITH CpRppitTS on property described as: An L-shaped parcei of land having a
froatage of 65 fee± on the north side of Sycamore Street and an average depth of 487 feet~
the easterly boundary of said property being approximately 220 feet west of the centerline
of Pauline Street, and further described as 517 Bast Sycamore Street. Propertq presently
classified R-3, Multiple Family Residential, Zone.
Mr. Gerald Case, agent for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and stated that
he was available to answer any questioas the Commission might have.
The Commission discussed with the agent the possibility of ineeting with the prop~rty owner
of the smail parcel to the west of the 65 foot froatage on Sycamore Street in order to incor-
porate development piaas for the entire strip with a 110 foot fr~ntage for the proposed
mnltiple :sa~ily development, ~ogether with the 12,65 foot alYey which the City tvou2d abandon,
The agent advised the Commission that he had tried to acquire the westerly parcel, but that
the property owner was not very cooperative.
_._-" - ~ . t ~ , .~"""^ ~ - .z ,. _
~'
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING WMMISSION, APRIL 29, 1963, Continueds 1546
.,`
a
?
]
i
1
OONDTTIONAL USE - Mr. G. C. Hahn, 1844 Haster Street, appearedbeforethe Commission, and
PERMIT NJ. 411 stated that he was the so-called uncooperative owner of the parcel of
Continued . land under consideration, that he had purchased the property so that
his sister would have a place to reside, that he had been approach=d by
several people relative to selling this parcel, but he felt that ie
must realize a reasonable return for his property in order to relocate his sister at
another home, that he was not opposed to two-story construction next to his sister's
home, and that he was trying to develop the property to its highest and best use of the
]. and.
Commissioner Allred offered a motion to c~ntinue Petition for Conditional Use Permit No.
411 to the meeting of May 27, 1963, in order to permit the petitioners time to submit
revised plans incorporating the 12a65'abandoneil alley, and also to permit the Planning
Department to meet with the owner of the adjacent property as well as with the developer
to determine the best possible means of developing the parcel with a lower density of
units per net residential acreo Commissio ner Perry seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIID.
O~NIDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARINGo NOEL F. and PALA To HATCH, 2510 West Orange Avenue,
PERMIT NDa a12 Anaheim, California, Jwners; requesting permission to EXPAND AN EXISTING
CHILDREN'S DAY NURSERY on property described ass A rectangular parcel
of land having a frontage of 151 feet on the south side of Orange Avenue and a depth of
215 feet, the easterly boundary of said property being approximately 340 feet west of
the centerline of Webster Avenue, and further described as 2510 West Orange Avenueo Property
presently classified as R-A, Residential Agricultural, Zoneo
Mrs. Nola T. Hatch, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Coirnnission and presented
a colored rendering of the proposed structure which she said would house the additional
children which the petitioners plan ;;o have in their expansion of the facilities, and
reviexted the State's requirements in approving a children's nurseryo The petitioner
further stated that subject development would have three times th~ minimum play area required
by the State, that the noise factor emanating from small children was not as great as it was
with school age children, and that there was a need for additional facilities in the West
Anaheim area.
The Commission determined that the children would be ranging in ages from 2 to 5 years,
and that the hours to be kept by the nursery would be from 7:00 aem. to 5s00 p.m.
Mr. C. L. Black, 2467 West Orange Avenue, appeared in opposition to sub~ect petition, and
stated that the petitioner stipulated less than a year ago she would only have 20 childien,
and this was so st~pulated in the resolution passed by the City Council, that it was the
desire of the reeidents of 1:he area whom he had contacted to maintain the residential integrity
of the area, and that the traffic as a result of this proposed enlargement would substantially
increase, if it were approved to allow SO children the use of the proposed facilitieso ,
Mr. Clyde Spencer, 2471 West Orange Avenue, appearer. before the Commission in opposition
to sub3ect petition, and stated that if the petition~rs intended to increase the proposej
uses of the nursery to BO children, they should have applied for a zone change, since t~iis
would be a businecs, that the proposed structure was not residential in appearance, and that
the residential integrity of the area should be protected from any encroachment of a business
use in the areae
Upon questioning by the Commission relative to the street widening program for Orange Avenue,
Office Engineer Art Daw advised the Commission that paving and wide:iing would take place
upon the completior, of the installation of curb and gutters, and that one additional lane
for driving and one lane for parking would be the extent of the wideningo
THE HEARING WAS CIASED.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed for the Commission the original approval for the
child care nursery for 20 children, noting that the City Council had approved the use after
the Commission had denied the petition, and that the petitioners had the State's approval
to operate a nursery for 20 children.
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 744, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit
No. 412, subject to conditions, am3 the stipulatibn made that the proposed addition together
with the existing facilities be limited to 80 children.(See Resolution Book) •
~:- __: v:: - - . . ; ----~ . _... '
~ ~ ~
.i
~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING ~MMISSION~ APRIL 29, 1963, Continued: 1547
CONDITIONAL USE - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
PERMIT NA. 412
~'Continued) AYES: OOMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Pebley, Perry.
NOESs OOMMISSIONERS: Sides.
i+bSEIJ1's. OOMMISSIONERSt Mungall.
G~DNDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. WILSHIRE OIL ~MPANY, 727 West Sevenl.h Street, Los
PERMIT NOe 413 Angeles, California, Owner; GBJRGE MURPHY, 9476 Pellet Street, Downey,
California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A 5ERVICE STATION
on property described ass A rectangular parcel of land having a frontage
of 210 feet on the south side of Broadway and a frontage of 195 feet on the east side of
Brookhurst Streeto Property presently classified as G 1, NEIGE~ORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ and
C-3, HEAVY WMMERCIAL~ ZONES.
Mro George Murphy, agent for the petitioner, appeared before~the Commission, and stated
that a portion of subject property permits the service station, but that it was necessary
to have an additional 25 foot strip on the easterly portion of the C-1, property.
Chairman pro tem Gauer inquired whether there was anyone present in the Councii Chamber
oppos~ng subject petition, and received no reply.
THE HEARING WAS CIASID.
The Commission determined that 85 feet existed between the easterly property line and the
proposed service station site., that in the reclassification of sub~-ect property under
R~classification No. 59-60-103, the service station was approved with specific landscaping
requirements, that if the expansion of the service station were approved and it permitted
1'ess than that permitted in the reclassification of subject property, it would be necessary
for the Commission to recommend to the City Council an amendment to the ordinance and
resolution of intent incorporating these deviations.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt suggested to the Commission that t}iey might desire that
the proposed service stati:n be sub~ect to the service station site development standards,
and that the lights on the service station might be so located that these lights were
directed away from the single fa:nily development to the north and east of subject property.
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 745, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage
and adoption, s~conded hy Commissioner Camp, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit
No. 413, sub3ect to conditions, and that a finding be made that it be recommended to the
City Council that Resolution No. 6090 be amended to reduce the landscaping requirements
of the service station site onlyo(See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution ~vas passed by the following vote:
A"~S: WMMISSIONERSs Allred, Camp, Gauer, Pebley, Perry, Sides.
NJESs OOMMISSIONERSe Chavos.
ABSENTa CnMMISSIONERSs Mungall.
Commissioner Chavos qualified his vote of "NO" by stating that the proposed development
would adversely affect the single family homes facing subject property which existed to
the north and east, and that the balance of the property had never been developed for
tF~e neighborhood commercial uses for which it was zoned.
ODAIDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. D. OOLLINS, 1077 West Ball P.oad, Anaheim, California,
PERMIT I~A. 415 Owner; RENBAR, INC., 1422 North Central Park Avenue, Anaheim, California,
Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH AUTONbBILE AND TRUCK OVERHAllLING,
PAIMING, MECHAATICAL, BODY AND FEN!)ER REPAIR SERVICE on property described
ass A rectangular parcel of land having a frontage of 80 feet un the north side of Broadway
and a depth of 170 feet, the westerly boundary of said property being approximately 850 feet
east of the centerline of Loara Street, and further described as 1531 West Sroadway.
Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDllSTRIAL, AND P-L, PARKING LAAIDSCAPING, ZANES.
~
i
i
a.,. .. _. _ _ . ._ _ ,:,. - -- __ _ _. _. . _._ _._ _ __ _.
.. _..... •--.___ -
~,:.n:~::~:.r ~-- -
, ... -
, . ~
. _ -. ~ 1 . ..-,.~ . __ . _ _
. ~ ~ . . . ~..~~. :
~~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING ODMMISSION, April 29, 1963, Continueds
1548
WNDITIONAL USE - Mr. Nick Barletta, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared
PERMIT N0. 415 before the Commission and stated that he was available to answer any
SContinued) questions the Commission might have.
In answer to questioning by the Commission relativQ to the parking of damaged cars awaiting
repair in the front setback line, the agent stated that vi=itor parking only would be per-
mitted in the parking area in the front of the proposed structure.
The Commission reviewed the plans and indicated that the proposed st.ructure presented a
rather plain non-descript appearance, which might be incompatible to the attractive industrial
development to the east. The agent stated that scored block was proposed for the front of the
structure, and that the proposed paint booth was not a stationary type an~i was completely
enclosed.
The Commission continued discussion as to specific requirements in the Code for paint booths,
and were advised that the C-3 section of the Code did not provide for it, but it was defined
in the M-1 section of the Code. It was further noted that plans as presented were not com-
plete enough for the Commission to render an impartial decision, that precise plans were
required of all other petitioners, and it should be required of the subject petitioner, that
the proposed development might encourage a heavier type of development which would discourage
possible residential use on the property to the sot•th of sub~ect property, that under a
conditional use permit which allowed the proposed use in the M-1 zone, it stated that all
the proposed type of work and storage of materials, trash, etc.,should be confined in an
enclosed structure, that the proposed structure was somewhat small to accomodate all the
requirements of the M-1 zone, and that the plot plan was too general to indicate the necessary
landscaping and rear parking facilities.
Mr. David Collins, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission, and stated that the'
proposed use was allowable in the zone in which sub3ect property was located.
Chairman pro tem Gauer expressed his feelings relative to the changes which had taken nlace
adjacent to and in close proximity to the subject property, noting that the new Y.M.C.A.
facilities would be located to the west of subject property.
THE HFARING WAS CIASID.
',
1
I
~
~
I
i
':Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that there were certain ::ite
development standards set up for the M-1 zorie which must be complied with, and qu~':e,.d from
Code: Section 18.52~040.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt suggested to the Commission that they might decide on
whether the proposed development would be a compatible use for the area, that the sanding
of cars would have to be done out of doors, and that the M-1 zone required that a11 work
be confined under cover or indoors.
A discussion was held on whether to re-open the hearing and hear additional evidence.
Commissioner Sides offered a motion to re-open the hearing. ~Commissioner Pebley seconded
the motion4 NATION CARRIID. Cammissioner Chavos voted "ND".
THE HFARING WAS R~PENED.
Mr. Barletta stated that his firm had bee~~ in business for sometime, tha± because he was
pressed for time in the filing of subject petition, his plans were submitted which did not
meet with the Commission's or Planning Department's approval, and requested that the Commission
specify what they desired in the way of revisions to the plans.
The Commission then advised the agent that they desired renderings of front elevations, rather
than drawingsy which were more precise and which would indicate the outside~detail and materials
of the structure, and indications of the parking layout together with indication of the ingress
and egress to the property, and suggested that tha petitioner contact the Planning DeparL•ment
for suggestionso
THE HFARING WAS CLOSID.
The Commission continued discussion relative to the compatibility of the proposed use to the
ad3acent land uses, because of the noises and odors emanating from .the refinishing of automobiles.
, ~ ~
~ .` , --.__. . _. _.
. . _.-.._..-~ . ~ ~. : . . . . _ .. . ._...__.
~ ~ ..
~
~
MINUTB3, CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION, April 29, 1963, Continued:
~
1549
CONDITIONAL USB - Commissioner Perry offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue
PHRMIT N0. 415 Petition for Conditionai Use Permit No. 415 to the meeting of May 13,
(Continued) 1963, in order to ailow the petitioner sufficient time to meet with
, the Planning Department and to submit revised plans as indicated by
, the Commission. Commissioner Chavos seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIBD.
RBCIASSIPICATION ~ PUBLIC HHARING. FIDRBflRT F. SHUNtt, 425 North Dale Street, Anaheim,
NQ, 5=-53w1~6 California, Otvster; property described as: A rectangular pascel of
and land having a frontage of 172 feet on the west side of Magnolia
VARIANCB N0. 1567 Avenue and a frontage of 240 feet on the north side of Stonybrook
Drive, and further described as 717 South Magnolia pvenue.
Property presently classified R-A, RHSIDBNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, ZONH.
RBQUBSTBD CLASSIPICATION: R-1, ONti FAMILY RESIDHNTIAL, ZONH.
RBQU&RTED VARIANCB:. WAIVH RBQDIRBD LOT AitBA OP 7200 SQUARB P$BT AND MINIMUM
WIDTH OP 70 PHHT TO PBRMIT TH8 CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR (4)
SINGLH PAMILY RBSIDBNCH3.
Mr. Herbert Shunk, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that he was
available to answer any questions the Commi;,sion might have.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt presented a planning study which indicated the
suggested backup treatment for Magnoiia Avenue, and the cul-de-saced stseet from
Stonybrook Drive, and reviewed the ~eed for prohibiting access to Magnolia Avenue, since
this has been a problem for desirable living environment on majos highways in the City.
Mr. Lloyd Williams, 711 South Magnolia, appeared before the Commission and stated that he
oppose@ substandard de~elopment of subject property; that many of the properties
surrounding subject property had more than the requirement of 7200 square feet for each
lot; that the setback on Magnolia Avenue should be considered with the widening of
Magnolia Avenue; that he opposed the planning study presented because it would require a
masonry wall along side hia driveway which wouid obscure his line of vision when leaving
his property by automobile; that subject property could be developed for three lots,
two facing onto Magnolia Avenue, and one facing onto Stonybrook Drive, which would then
be comparsble to property development adjacent to it, and that to his knowledge there
were no other homes backing up to Magnolia Avenue even though a number of homes had been
built recently adjacent to or in close proximity to his and subject property.
Mr. David Roper, 716 South Kenmore Street, appeared in opposition to the less than
Code sized lots being proposed by the peti#ioner; that he aid. not oppo~e development of
the property with homes, but that most of the homes wer~_ considerably more than the
minimum square foot requirement, and subject property should be divided into three lots
nather than the four bein~ proposed.
Commissioner Chavos stated that propF:rty on Magnolia Avenue did not have to be rezoned
for commercial uses if the property ~wner pu=chased the home with the full knowledge of
the traf£ic noises and hazasds on the street, and although the pioperty owner had the
right to request any commercial zoning, this did not mean that the Commission
automatically gave it because of the incompatible living environment, and that the
purpose of the Commiss?on asking for a possibJ.e means for development was to resolve any
future rezoning request.
Mr. M. Delrandere, 703 South Magnolia Avenue, appeared before the Commission and
stated that his home and the home to the south had been constructed to aliow for the
prope= setback aad avoided the traffic noises; that the petitioner should be required to
develop his property in a similar manner, but that he was opposed to the backup t.reatment
with a wall adjacent to the southerly property, since this wall created a traffic
hazard,as well as,an incompatible alignment of property for residential purposes now
existing on Magnolia Avenue.
., .~
~
5
~
~
!
~
i
3
i
1
~
3
4
1
~
i
1
~
~
i
i
'~ _ ___~~__.._~~T__._._ _. _. _ _._ __.__ _.._ __
.~ 1 ~ -- ___
: _ . ..... .. r.. ~,_ . ~ : -- - . •
9
.~~
/
~
~
` `
1 , . .. .F
~1 ~
V ~ ~. .
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING OOMMISSION~ April 29, 1963, Continued: 1550
RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Jack Cullinane, 734 South Kenmore Avenue, appeared before the
N0. 62-63-106 Commission and stated that he was in favor of the development
and as it was proposed by the petitioner, but that he did not favor the
VARIANCE NOe 1567 Guggested development plans presented by the Planning Department.
~Continued)
Mr. Wilbur Alleny 2622 West Stonybrook Drive, appeared before the
Commission in favor of subject petition as it was proposed, and
stated that the homes proposed for the property were comparable with the existing homes
on Stonybrook Drive and Kenmore Street.
THE HEARING WAS CIASID.
The Commission inquired why street lights were not included in the suggested Inter-
departmental Committee recommendations, to which Mr. Kreidt replied that this had
been discussed, but that street lights had been there, as well as street improvements,
at the time subject property was made a part of the City.
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 746, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council
that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-106 be approv~d, subject to conditions.
(See Resolution Book.)
Said resolution being based on the fact that adjoininy property owners approve of the
proposed development planso
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votea
AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Pebley, Perry, Sides.
NAES: QOMMISSIONERSs None.
'~ ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS: Mungall.
Commissior.er Allred offered Resolution No. 747, Series 1962-63, znd mot~ed for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp to grant Petition for Variance
No. 1567, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes
AYESs OOMMISSIONERSs Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Pebley, Perry, Sides.
NOES: OOMMISSIOtdERSs None.
ABSENT: OOMMISSIONERSa Mungall.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. ROBERT G. WATKINS~ 8542 Garden Grove Boulevard,
~ N0. 62-63-107 Garden Grove, California, Owner; property described ast An ~
and irregular portion of land consisting of two (2) parcels, and
REVISED TENTATIV£ having a frontage of 660 feet on the north side of Anaheim Road
MAP OF and a depth of 650 feet, the easterly boundary of said property
TRACT N0. 4081 being approximately 1,370 feet west of the centerline of Blue Gum
Street. Property presently classified R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL,
aONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIONs R-3~ MIJLTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL? 7ANE.
Subject tract is filed in conjunction with the reclassification, and covers approximately
8.8 acres and is proposed ior subdivision into 26 R-3, Multiple Family Residential,
Zoned, lott.
Mr. Robert Watkins, the petitioner, appeared before mx Comnission and stated that
the proposed development and reclassification was in conformance with the proposed
General Plan, and that due to the fact the inadequate ingress and egress was provided
on the plot plan, he requested a continuance for the purposes of revising plans.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed thei:nadeq~acies of the proposed development, and sta-
t d because of these, it would be impossible to act~upon the Tentative Tract Map, because lot
a~ignments most likely would change.
Chairman prd tem Gauer inquired whether there was anyone present in the Council Chamber who
ppposed subject petition, and received no reply.
~
3
a
~
Y
~
~
,
~
~~._.-~ ~
~
~ . '
~
_._ ;
~'
(
I
i
1
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMA~IIS3I0~T, April 29, 1963, Continued: 1551
THB HBARING WAS CLOSBD.
RBCLASSIPICATION - The Commission discussed the changes and improvements which might
N0. 62-63-107 be made to improve subject development in order that it meet all
and R-3 Code requirements.
RHVISBD TffiVTATIVH
MAP OP Commissioner Camp offered a motion to reopen the hearing and
TRACT N0. 4081 continue Petition for Reciassification No. 62-63-107 and Revised
(Continued) Tentative Map of Tract No. 4081, to the meeting pg May 27, 1963,
in order to allow the petitioner sufficient tzme to prepare
revised plans which meet all R-3 Code requ3rements. Commissioner
Chavos seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIHD.
~~
~~
RBCIA9SIPICATION - PUBLIC HBARING. PHTBR and ANNS DBMANN, 5825 Myrtle, Long Beach,
Nd. ~w-63-109 California, Owners; LYNN THOMPSBN, 420 South Buclid Street, Anaheim,
California, Agent; requesting that property described as: A rec-
tangular parcel of land having a frontage of 132 feet on the east
side of Western Avenue, and a depth of 310 feet, the
northeriy boundary of said property being approximately 264 feet
south of the centeriine of Bali Road, be reclassified from the R A, RBSIDBNTiAL AGRICUL-
TURAL, ZONH to the R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RBSIDHNTIAL, 20NH to permit the construction of
an eighteen (18) unit single story.development.
Mr. Lynn Thompsen, agent for the petitioners, appeared before the ComR~ission and
reviewed what was being proposed for subject property; that he had coatacted other
property ownerc adjatent to subject property with the purpose of expanding the develop-
ment of the proposed apartments, and that he had received negative answess to combining
their properties.
Chairman pro tem Gauer inquired if there was anyone present in the Council Chamber
opposing subject petition, and received no reply.
THH HBARING WA3 CLOSSD.
The Commission discussed the possibility of continuing subject petition in order tc ive
the Planning Department an opportunity to contact adjoining property owners to explain
the development problems of the deep lots adjacent to subject property.
Zoning Coordinator Martin $reidt reviewed for the Commission similar discussions held
in the-Planning Department with property owners, and after exploring the various avenues
of'development for each parcel, the Planning Department was relatively successful in
persuading several property owners in combining several parcels for development of the
land to its highest and best use.
Mr. Thompsen noted that Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Smith, 1234 South. Western Avenue, were
present inthe Council Chamber, and did not desire to sell the~.r property, but were not
opposed to multiple family development.
Mr. Rreidt noted for the Commission that low-medium density development was projected
only for the north side of Ball Road near Western Avenue, and.that the proposed planned
residential standards, would be conside=ed on pascels of odd shapes which were 2~ times
greater in depth than in width, and lots of less than 200 feet in width.
The Commission discussed the possibility of development for any combina4ion of property
adjacent to subject property for single family residential development, since property to
the south, east, and west were already developed subdivisioas.
Commissioner Allred offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for
Reclassification No. 62~63-109 to the meeting of May 13, 1963, in order to permit the
Planning Department time to contact adjacent pro,perty owners in resolving deveiopment of
deep lots. Commissioner Chavos seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIHD.
, , ;.
- -- ~----•--_~_._-._._..---~. ~.-----~.._
. . ~ ____.. _. . _. _
~ , ~ -_ __. ._
MINUTE3, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 29, 1963, Continued;
1552
AMHNDMHNT TO TITLS - PUBLIC HBARING. INITIATBD BY THH CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,
18, RrH, RBSIDENTIAL 204 Hast Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Califarnia, Amendment to
E9TATB. ZONH. Title 18, by the addition of Chapter 18.18, proposing a new
R~B, RBSIDENTIAL BSTATB, ZONB.
Subject petition was continued from the meeting of April 1, 1963, to permit the
Planning Department sufficient time to revise the proposed Ordinance.
Planing Director Richard Reese, advised the Commission, that the proposed new Ordinance
had not been completed, and suggested that the Commission continue the public hearing for
four weeks, in order that a complete and accurate job could be accomplished,
Commissioner Sides offered a motion to continue the public hearing for Amendment to
Title 18, Chapter 18.18 to the meeting of May 27, 1963, to permit the Planning Department
sufficient time to complete the revisions necessary to the new proposed Ordinance.
Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIHD.
AMBNDMBNT TO - PUBLIC HBARING. INITIATBD BY THi3 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,
.^,HAPTffit 18.64 204 Bast Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. Amendment to Title
CONDITIONAL USHS 18, of the Anaheim Municipal Code by the amendment to Chapter
18.64.020 (3~-p) to permit the establishment of plaaned residential de~•elop-
ments . in the R-0, One Family Suburban, R-1, One Family Resi-
dential, R-2, ltvo Pamily Residential, R-3, Multiple Family
Residential, Zones, but to prohibit the establishment of Pianned Residential Development
sn ihe R-A, Residential Agricultural, Zone.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the background and history of the conditional
use permit section of the Code noting that the R-A, Residential Agricultural, Zone was
intended as an agricultural zone and a holding zone prior to urban development, and
that it was not intended as a development zone, since the Anaheim Municipal Code
provided for specific zones to per~it residential development.
Mr. John Wright, 1620 South Euclid Street, appeared before the Commission, and asked
that there be additional clarification on the proposed amendment, that nothing should be de-
prived fro m property being annexed to the City; that development of the property should
be in a manner requested by these new Citizens of the City of Anaheim; that a farmer who
wished to keep his property as residential agricultural at the time of the annexation~
and later decided to develop portions of this property, should not be penalized.
Chairman pro tem Gauer stated that the Commisaion did not want to discourage multiple
family development; that it was interested in the proper development and land use for
the City by the filing of a petitivn for reclassification for the use being proposed; that
the proposed amendment was begun because of recent requests for the establishmerit of
multiple family developments with a maximum density of one dwelling unit per 6~000 square
feet of net land area; that this type of structure was permitted in the R A 2one, but
it further stipulated that a parcel of land must not be less than an acre with R-A,
71~ning, and that substandard single family development might occur if this deficiency in
the conditional use permit section of the Code were not amended.
Commissioner Allred left the Council Chamber at 10:15 P,M.
Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts, again reviewed the results of development in the
Residential pgricultural Zone as it was presently written, indicating that,that section
of the Code did not have development standards,whereas, the R-1, R-2, and R-3 sections
of the Code provided specific development standards.
Commissioner Camp stated that standards should be applied for the appropriate zone when
a petition for development of a Residential Agricultur.al Zone was filed.
, ~ ~
; . _ . _ . ..._. _.
~~ .. _ __"' " "-.'_"' _ _~~' ~_ . . '~ '
~ _ \_ _ _ " '-..~ '1 ' , , , ~ ~ . ~- ..
~
~
I
I
i,
li
I
I
I
i
~ ~ ~
. -- - --
i •
~ ~ ~
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COdAlISSION, April 29, 1963, Continued: 1553
At~NDI~ffiNT TO - Planning Director Richard Reese, stated that many of the developers
CHAPTBR 18.64 were filing a planned residential development standard; that the
CONDITIONAL USBS one family zoae required one unit per 7200 square feet; that upon
(Continued) filing a subdivision map, this automatically becomes R-1, One FamiJ.y
. Residential, Zone; that if the design of 6,000 square feet p,er unit
were accepted for single family development, this would create a substandard
subdivision and would not be in conformance with the State Subdivision Map Act; that it
might be possible to permit the 6,000 square feet per unit in the R-1, One Family
Residential, Zone, upon the filing of a conditional use permit; and that this was to be
defined by the proposed amendment rather than being left open in the R-A,, Residential
Agricultural, Zone section.
Upon questioning by Mr. Wright,relative to developments which have been in the process
of planning;for filing of a petition, Mr. Reese stated tliat appropriate adjustments
might be considered at the time the oetitioner files his petition; and tYat a
time limitation of 90 days might be set up after the amendment was passed~by Ordinance~to
permit the completion of development plans originally projected under the present
section of the Code.
Mr. Wx.ight s~ggested that mar.y of the problems in development were in the Building Code
standards w::ich in his es~i.mation were below standard, and that the City should try to
revise these standards so that development standazds were mainta'ned at that stage.
Commissioner Alired returned to the Council Chamber at 10:25 P.M.
Mr. S. V. Hunsacker, Jr., 206 Barcelona Circle, Fullerton, representing S. V. Hunsacker
and Sons, developers~asked whether the City planned to conform with the State Sub-
division Act.
Mr. Reese replied that the City intended to conform with the law; that the State was
in the process of establishing regulations for condominiums; that the authors of the
bills were to be present at a special builders conference in the CiYy the following
week; that the City did not presently have standards for condominiums, but were in the
pzocess of writing a new section to the Code which would establish standards for
planned residential development, since this type is not permitted in the City without
the filing of a subdivision map, together with a reclassification in the appropriate
zone; that through the media of a conditional use permit, the requirement of City
standrirds for streets, building setbacks, distances between buildings, and reduction
of the number of units which had been based on gross residential acre instead of net
residential acre, would be a means of some method of control in the filing of these
developments; and that there was no reason why anyone could not apply for planned
residential developments,,and if any deviation from the R-3 standards were proposed, these
could then be requested to be waived through the conditional use permit,
Mr. Rusa Borrey, Corona del Mar, appeared before the Coimnission, and stated that the
planned residential developments would be desirable because the cost would be much less
to the City as the control and management care was usually exceedingly good; that
he personally had seen 3Q such developments being constructed which were exceptionally
nice, and the problems of maintenance'for sfreets and alleys was minimized.
In answer to Chairmaa pro tem Gauer`s question, as to the length of time he had been
observing this type of development, Mr. Borrey stated that the first one he had seen was
the Rona Tiki; that most developmen#s when they are new, do not show any deficiences, but
as the developments become 5 to 7 years old, the type of construction begins to show
and poor developments naturally fell below s~andards; and that one of the best he had
seen even thongh it was older, was the development at Crescen•t and Magnolia Avenues.
11jS HFARING WAS CLOSED,
Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the possibility of declaring a
moritorium on planned residential developments until such time as the Planning Department
had completed that section of the Code, which would specify the requirements and zon?ng
regulations relative to the planned residential developments; and that the residential
agricvlturai zone section of the Code should be left as a transitional zone and should
not be open for development of substandard single family development.
--------•- -~..~.~.~_ ~ -- _ .
_- -----
.. ~ i"___ . . . . . . . ~ - ^ . . . .._ . . . ...._.
1
MINUTE3, CITY PLAHIdING COD4(ISSION, April 29~ 1963, Continued; 1554
Ah~NDMSNT TO - Hach Commissioner expressed his opinion relative to the merits of
CHAPTBR 18.64 the amendment to the Code, each deeming it necessary to have a
CONDITIONAL U8E3 set of standards to resolve all the problems they face when
(Continued) _ presented with petitions for condominiums; that a moratorium was
not the answer, since mechanics had been aet up to controi
unfavorable developmeats; Yhat,if at all possible~ it was suggested
that the staadsrds for multipl~ family developmeats be made
availab~le to the Commission as soon as possible; and that the Commisaion should gain
some kaowledge fsom the special bui.lders conference, which each Commissioner should
attend if at all possibie; and that the proposed amendment should be studied by the
Commissiohers and the public bearing continued for two weeks to study all the
ramifications of the proposed amendment.
Mr. Reese stated that the only problems the Planning Department could see, was the
fa,:t that some developers were trying to develop substandard residential living
environments through the use of a conditional use permit without the filing of a
petition for reclassification.
Commissioner Sides offered a motion to continue the public hearing on the Amendment to
Chapter 18.64 of the Anaheim Municipal Code to the meeting of May 13~ 1963, so that the
Commission might have time for further study of information given them. Commissioner
Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
- ITHM N0. 1: 1BRMINATION OP VARIANCB N0.S. 871 and 872
RBPQRTS AND
RHCOINMHNDATION9 SIGN VARIANCBS, NUIWWD PROPSRTIB3, INC., 220 8ast Pacific Coast
Highway, Long Beach, California, issued November 18, 1957, Tract
' No. 2712, located at Nutwood Street and Ball Road:
2oning Coordinator Martin ICreidt advised the Commission that subject variances for signs
advertising Tract No. Z712 were no longer in effect, since they were temporary, the
tract had been completely developed and that the termination of these two variances
was to clear up pending files in the Department.
~Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 748, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos to terminate Yariance Nos. 871 acd
872, because they were no longer in effect. (See Resolution Book.)
'On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the £oilowing vote:
AYBS: CCIMMISSIONHRS: Allred~ Camp, Chavos~ Gauer, Pebley~ Perry, Sidas.
NOBS: CddMISSIONHRS: None.
A&SHNT; CC~lMISSIONSRS: Mungall.
ITBM N0. 2; QUONSBT HU15
Western High School Site for the school year 1963-64
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed with the Commission the letter from
Assistant Superinteadent R. %en Wines, and the accompanying key plan.
1he Commission reviewed the key plan and commented on their observations during the
field inspection trip that morning; and that in consideriag the approval of the
quonset huts, i might be suggested that, if at all possible~ that they be relocated in
one centrai location which wouid be much more in keeping with the surrounding area,
Commissioner Sides offered a motioa to reco~end approval of the temporary faciiities
of quonset huts to be used on the h~stern High School Site, subject to their removal
on or before August 31, 1964. Commissioner Camp seeonded the motion. MOTION CARRIHD.
i
____. _.._~ _ ------ ---- ----------._.,-----_~.~_
------- -'
__ .__. ..._ __
~ , 1~ ~ ~ _. ... . __ .
~ ~
~ ~ ~
MINUTB3, CITY PL9NNING COhAlISSION, April 29, 1963, Continued: 1555
RBPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 3•
RHCOhAfBNDATI0N3 ~`
(Contiaued) Violation of Code, by the di~play of signs in the R-1, One Family
Residential, 2one. CharYes Levy, 719 3outh Harbor Boulevard.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that a field check had been made
relative to the size and number of signs on Subject property, and that Mr. Levy advised
the Planning Department~and the City Attorney's office that he would remove all signs
which were in violation of the Code, and further read a Blue Note from the City Attorney~s
office which stated that the subject property was limited to one sign no larger than
eight (8) feet.
ITBM N0. 4•
CONDITIONAL USH PffitMIT N0. 293, ROBBRT WASSBRMAN, 1123~ I{alle Vista,
Beverly Hills, California; property located between Lincoln Avenue
and Broadway on the east side of Rnott Avenue, development for a
multip~e family planned unit development. ,
A letter addressed to the Commission from the agent for the petitioner, Lloyd 8, Mount
was read to the Commission in w}:ich a request for a six months extension for the
completion of Condition Nos. 1 through 4 of Resolution No. 509, Series 1962-63 was
desired.
Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to grant a 180 day extension of time for the
completion of Conditional Use Permit No. 293. Commissioner Perry seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
ITHM N0. 5•
CONDITIONAL USB PBRMIT N0. 295~ THB CHURCH OP JSSUS Q~tIST OF
IATTBR DAY SAINTS proposed m w church located at 3890 West Orange
Avenue.
A letter was read from Bishop Hugh J, Sorenson, of the above church stating that
although the Commission had grar.tad a 60 day extension of time for the completion of
conditions in the approval of subject petition, it was found necessary to request an
udditional 60 days.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Rreidt advised the Commission that the church had started
dedicat±.on proceedings, and were in the process of completion of the remainder of the
conditions, but because of the proceedings having to be approved by the headquarters in
3alt Lake City, more time was needed, and the church had shown good iaith in starting
the necessary steps for compiiance.
Commiasioner Chavos offered a motion to grant an additional 60 days for the
coi~pletion of conditions in the granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 295. Commissioner
Perry seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. -
ITEM N0. 6•
CASH N0. 626 (Sectional District Map 4-4-9, Bxhibit 8)
Request reclassification from the A-1, General Agricultural
District to the R-1, Single Family Residence, R-2, Group Dwelliag,
and C-1, Local Business Districts on property located on the
northerly side of Santa Ana Canyon Road opposite Peralta Hills
Drive in the Santa Ana Canyon area.
Zoniag Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the past recommendations of the City planning
Commission and Council to the County planning Commission on Tentative Map of Tract
Ne. 4427, Previous Planniag Cammission minutes and letters of transmittal to the
County were reviewed, and the proposed reclassifitation was discussed by the Commission
.
` ------l. ____.,__..~____,____..~. ,------~i
-- _ -r-._ '.
r . , _ ' .~ , i . ~_ --„._._.. __ . _
~
MINUTHS, CITY PIANNING CObAfISSION, April 29, 1963, Continued: 1556
~1
RBPORT3 AND - ITBM N0. 6; (Continued) j
RSC01~4~lENIlATIONS
<Continued). Commissioner Camp offered a motion to recommend to.the Orange County i
Planning Commission that Case No. 626 (Sectional District ?.sap
4-4-9, Hxhibit E) be denied based on the following findings:
!~ ~1. That the reservation of a six-acre parcel for ultimate neighborhood commercial ~
development, constitutes "spot zoning" in an area undergoing single family
~ residential development.
i
~ 2. That the shape of said six-acre parcei encourages "strip commerciai" deveiopment. '
y
3. That the need for neighborhood commercial facilities in the area bounded on the
north by the Santa Ana River, on the west and south by the Riverside Preeway, and
on the east by the Imperial Highway, should be based on general precise plan
studies.
4, That the proposed multiple family residential development constitutes "spot
zoning" in a manner parallel to the proposed commercial development. j
~
Commissioner Sides seconded the motion. MOTI~i CARRIBD. ~
ITEM N0. 7:
USB 'VARIANCB N0. 5150 - JAhffiS H. RUSSBLL, 520A Wilshire Boulevard~
Los Angeles 36, California; permit the construction of a 160-unit
apartment development on a 5.5 acre site in the R-1, Single Family
~ Residence and R-2, Group Dwelling Districts located on the east
side of Gilbert Street, approximately 245 feet south of Bali Road,
in the west Anaheim area. Present use of the property is 7 single
family dwellings and a rest home.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt presented the proposed development plans to the
Commission and reviewed the Commission's thinking as it pertained to the proposed
General Plan, which proposes low density residential development and indicated that
the proposed development projected 20 to 25 units per net residential acre,
Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to recommend to the Orange County planning Com-
mission that Use Variance No, 5150 be denied based on the following findiags:
1. That the proposed development is in conflict with the low density (seven dwelling
units per net acre maximum) residential land use proposals of the General plan
for the area in which subject property is located.
2. That the proposed pian of development does not conform to either existing R~3 Code ~
Standards or proposed planned residential deve?nnment standards which are currently i
under study, but which have not yet been adopted by Ordinance: ~
a. Minimum 40 foot roadway, curb to curb, installation of standard curb, ~
gutters, and parkways, whereas the plan indicated 25 foot accessways ~
and no parkways.
b. That the distances between buildings is substandard. ~
c. That two-story coastruction is propa~ed within 150 feet of the R-1,
~ Single Pamily, Zone, which is contrary to Code. j
!
d. That the coverage of subject property was computed exclusive of
vehicular rights-of-way. I
~ e. That the proposed development does not provide for the separation of 1
vehicular and pedestrian traffic. !
1
-.. _ . -~ __ -~ . ~~ ' , ~'. : .~-_ _ _..___-..~_.. ..--
~..1 ; , ~ . .
~ ~ ~
MINITTBS, CITY PLANNING CCIMMISSION, April 29, 1963, Continued: 1557
RBP~tTS AND - ITBM NO 7: (Continued)
RBGOMMffiVDATIONS
(Continued) f. That all units are not readily accessible to recreation areas,
an essential characteristic of Planned Residential
Developments.
g. That the covered parking spaces are not conveniently located
to the units which they are intended to serve, and are so
designed as to interfere with the normal movement of traffic,
h. That the proposed development does not indicate trash
collection areas.
Commissioner 3ides seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
ITBM N0. 8:
USH VARIANCB N0. 5059. Property located at the northeast corner
of Blue Gum Street and Coronado Street, northeast of Anaheim -
machine shop under construction - request to modify Condition
Nos. 2 and 4 for street dedication and street improvement with
concrete curbs, gutters, drive approaches, and sidewaiks and
paving for ffiue Gum and Coronado Street frontages.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt indicated the location of subject petition, and
further reviewed the past action taken by the Ylanning Commission on subject property.
The Commission reviewed the development proposed for property in close proximity to
subject property, noting that improvements should take place as soon as the building
was available for use.
Commoissioner Allred offered a motion to recommend to the Orange County Planning
Cfl~amission that Use Variance No. 5059, requesting an extension of time for the~
completion of Condition Nos. 2 and 4 be limited, and that said conditions should be
~ompleted prior to Pinal Building Inspection. Commissioner Chavos seconded the motion
MOTION CARRIBD.
ADJOURNMBNT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Camp
offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Chavos
seconded the motion. ;~OTION CARRIED,
The meeting adjourned at 11:20 P.M.
* * *-
Respectfully submitted,_
-~`~
ANN KRBBS, Secreta'r'y --
Anaheim Planning Commission
_ ._ _ _._. __ _ ._...
_._.---- - ~ :
-- r--
~- ~ . ~ _ ... ..~ . . __ ..._.