Minutes-PC 1963/07/22t,.,~ ~ ___...
C~ ~ ~ ~
City Hall ~
Maheim; California
July 22, 1963 {
RBGULAR MBBTING OP THE ANAHBIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ~
. ~
RBGULAR MBBTING - A Regnlar Megting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called ~
to order by Chairman Mungall at 2:00 0'Clock P.M., a quorum being ~
present.
pRgggNT - CHAIRMAN: Mungali.
CQhA4I3SI0NBRS: Allred, Pebiey, Perry, Rowland, Camp, ChF~vos, Gauer,
Sides.
ASSBNT - COMMISSIONBRS: None.
pRgggNT - Zoning Coordinator: Martin Rreidt.
Deputy City Attorney; Purman Roberts.
planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs.
~lanning Department Stenographer; Jacqueline Suliivan.
INVOCATION - Reverend John C. Quatannens, Pastor of St. Boniface Catholic Church,
gave the Invocation.
PLHDGB OP - Commissioner Sides led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Plag.
ALLSGIANCH
APPROVAL OP - 11ie Minutes of the meeting of Ju]y 8, 1963, were approved as
TFffi MINt1TES submitted.
CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUHD PUBLIC HBARING. BMPIRB PINANCIAL CatPQRATION,
pBRMIT N0. 357 6750 Van Nuys Boulevard, Van Nuys, California, Owners; property
described as: 1Wo rectangular portions of land, Portion "A" having
TBNTATIVB MAP OP a frontage of 333 feet on the south side of Lincoin Avenue, and a
TRACT N0. 4230 depth of 255 feet; Portion "B" having a width of 333 feet and a
depth of 1,019 feet, the northerly boundary of Portion "B" being
adjacent to the southerly boundary of Por*_ion "A"; and the easterly
boundary of Portions "A" and "B" being approximately 660 feet west of the centerline of
Beach Boulevard. Property presently ciassified R-A, RBSIDHNT7AL A(~tICULTURAL, ZONB.
_Subject petition and Tentative Map of Tract No, 4230 were continued from the meetings of
Pebruary 4 and 18, March 18, April 15, and 29, and June 24, 1963, in order to give the
petitioner an opportunity to submit plans to conform with the Commission`s wishes.
RHQUH3TBD CONDITIONAL USB: TO CON3TRUCT A TWO S1C1RY PLANNBD MULTIPLB PAMILY RSSIDBNTIAL
DBVBLOPMHNT AND WAIVBR OP THE SINGLB STORY HHIGHT LIMITATION
F(Yt PORTIJN "B".
SUBJHCT TRACT CONTAINS: THIRTY-THRHB (33) PROP03HD R-3, MULTIPLB PAMILY RBSIDHNTIt1L,
AND ONB (1) PROPOSED C-1, NSIC~iBORH00D COMMBRCIAL, ZONS,LOT3.
Mr, 8tephan W. Bradford, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission
and stated he was availabie to answer any questions.
- 1662 -
~ ._ ~.:....._.~...__....w....___ . ,._ ._._._ _ __._-
,_ ~
.-~ii . ~ ~ . _ . . . _ _
O
~
~.
MINUTBS~ CITY PLANNIIVG COMMISSION~ July 22, 1963, Coatinued: 1663
COPIDITIONAL USB - MrS. A. W. Pfile, 3064 West Lincoln Avenue, appeared in opposiLion
PBRMIT N0. 357 to subject petition, noting that the petitioner had been considered
at six (6) prev3ous .`.:ari~gs, that she had not seen the latest
T~+lT?TIVE MAP OP groposal, bnt had been in£ormed that~the origina,l tract map h~d
1RACT N0. 4230 indicated 255 feet for commercial development, and the latest map
~~^^+'^"P`~~ indicated 172 feet with an ad'ditional 20 feet for a dedicated alley,
and inquired of the Commission if the proposed chiange in commerCiai frontage were
approved would her property immediately adjacent ±:o the west be held td a aimilar depth
for commercial, and fuither stated that such a shallow depth for commercial development
on the :,incoln Avenue frontage would be detrimental to the ultimate development of other
properLy having a Lincoln Avenue frontage.
1Y~e Commission invited Mrs. Pfile to view the plans which the Commission had before them
fos consideration.
The Commission noted that the southerly portion of subject property was compatib7.a for
multiple family development since it would be adjacent to neighborhood commercia:l uses.
and that existing commercial development to the east had been developed to a dep~`h of
255 feet.
`r,
4
~
~
~
Mrs. Pfiie then stated that the recreation area on the original map indicated a;73ay
area close to the proposed commercial frontage, that in her opinion this woul~! create
:-- _y~~.. ...,~ ,.;;_i,~_A„ ,.~,n ~nloht not he under any
considerable hazards ior srucs5 u~~u~ ~:~e a ~.... -
supervision, and that the Commission should consider the possibie relocaticn of
chiidren's play area toward to the rear of the "common green".
The Commission then determined that the CC&R's required by the City Attorney*s office to
insure the maintenance of the "common green" had been accepted by the City Attorney,
that subject petition and tract map could now be considered favorably or unfavorably by
the Commission, that sub3ect property had been recommended for R-3 reclassification,
that said reciassification had been approved under the assumption that the northerly
parcel wouid be developed to a depth of 255 feet, that by approving subject petition and
map with the shallower commerciai frontage might create a haxardous angled aliey ea~terly
even to the point of not permitting large truck delivery, that a masonry wall was
recommended for the westerly property line, and inquired of the opposition if she had
any foreseeabie plans for development of the westeriy property.
Mr. Pfile stated that she would like to see the masonry wall constructed because she did
not presently have any development plans and she did not want to have debris and
trespassers on her property from the abutting property, that without a wall cars conld
cut across her property to the street to the west, and that she v,auid like to know the
price of the referred Lot "A" on which the masonry wall would be coastxucted and which
might eventually be removed to permit development of a full street along the easteriy
property line of her property.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Rreidt stated that this information could be obtained by inquir-
ing at the Bngineering Department the agreed upon cost of Lot "A".
Mr. Bradford stated that an agreement cn~ld be worked out with the property owners to the
west for a common street to be used late=i and that a figure had been submitted together
with the CC&R's to the Citq, which was considered an irrevocable price for said lot,
Mr. Bradford further elaborated on the recreation area within the "common green"
noting that they were so located as to be easily accessible to the various units and
children's play areas might be fenced for their protection.
Mr. Sdelson, architect for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and presented
an artist's readering of the "common green" of the proposed development, and noted that
the recreation areas had not been specificaily designated as children's play areas, that
this would be determined later, and ichat if it was determined that a children~s play
area was needed, this could then be fenced off.
The Commission asked that a colored photograph be submitted as a part of the file of the
rendering the architect has presented.
ti _. _ ~ , .,_.... __... ..__. ___-- -
`_. _ ~ -. --~-~~~ ~ i "~ _ _ .
~
MINUTB3, CIT3f PIANNING CODAfI3SI0N, July 22, 1965, Continued: 1664
CONDITIONAL USE - Commissioner Chavos asked the representative if a prosnective buyer
PBRMIT N0. 357 came to the City what reasoa would he be given if he hoped to
develop property for single family use. Mr. Bradford stated that
TBNTnT1JB I~inP OP the price oi iand had o~come so jSYOtl1`~S1~iV2 tha~ i~ wau2d.te
1RACT N0. 4230 economically unfeasible to develop the land for single family
(Continued) development, but this had not been the case 10 or 12 years ago~ that
land at the going market price precluded the useage for other than
R-1, since the average buyer could not develop a livable home under
the present conditions, and that the proposed developiuerit offered many features which
were not present in the area.
THB HBARING WAS CL03HD.
Mr. Kreidt in clarifying a legal question for Commission Chavos who asked why the
petitioner was deviating from the R-3 Code requirements, since he was unable to find it
permitted in the State Code, stated that in Code: Section 18.64.020 (1-e) specific
deviations were permitted by requesting them under a coaditional use permit~ and then the
Commission upon approval might waive these apecific requirements, that the revised tract
map had been•submitted after the Commission requested that the petitioaer.increase his
iot width size to 72 feet, that tY~e General Plan indicated subject property for multiplefamily
development, and that perhaps the xequest for waiver of the one-story height limitation
might not be in the subdivision portion of the State Code.
The Commission discussed the m~trad of administering the collection and maintenance of
the "common green" together with the method of informing the prospective buyer of these
facfs. ,
Deputy City Attorney Purman Roberts stated that these couid be stipulations in the
approval of the conditional use permit.
Considerable discussion was then held by the Commission relative to the reduction of the
commercial frontage, whether.this might be acceptable tu the Commission since the
petition for reclassification was recommended for approval for the larger frontage, that
certain parcels might be landlocked if permitted to develop in an uneven manner~ that a
planning study had been made several years aga which recommended the desirable depth
which had been foliowed in the development of the easterly property, that no circulation
existed from east to west if the proposed alley were developed northerly to the present
alleys, that a new legal description might be necessary if the Commission desired to
consider subject petition favorabiy. ~
Mr. Roberts stated that the Tentative Tract Map could not be approved subject to the
submission of a revised legal.
The Commission then inquired of the representative o~ the petitioner if he was agreeable
to revising the depth of the commercial frontage to increase it to 255 feet, to which
Mr. Bradford replied that he had discussed this phase with the petitioners and it was
their desire to have the 192 foot depth considered by the Commission.
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to grant Petition for Conditional.Use Yermit No. 337,
Commissioner Sides seconded the motion. The motion failed to carsy by a vote of 7-2.
The Commission continued this discussion on the merits of the petition as it was submitted,
noting in their "noes" to the previous motion that the lot depth should remain at 255 feet,
so that a continuity of development could take place to Beach Boulevard, that subject
property had been recommended for approval of R-3 with the 255 foot frontage, that the
petitioner did not desire to develop for other than what was proposed for the commercial
frontage, that there did not seem to be any legai safeguards set up by the City or State
for a prospective buyer, and that although the proposed development was considered a
favorable method of development, it shouid be deve].oped consistantly.
_.-..~_~. __ .__,._
.__._, .. ._...
_ _ .. •-------~
---. ~ , • . . ' "~_.. . . .. .
~~ ~ :~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COhAlI3SI0N, July 22, 1963, Contihued: 1665
COIVDITIONAL US8 - Commissioner Chayos offered Resolution No. 836, Series 1963-64~ and
PBRMIT N0. 357 moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Ailred,
to deny Petition for Cond3,tional Use Permit No. 357, based oa the
1BNTATIVB MAP OF fact that the petitioner had changed the proposed commercial depth
1RACT N0. 4230 to less than had been approved for reclassification.
(Continued) (3ee Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the fo]lowing vote:
AY83: COMMISSIONIDRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Pebley, Perry, Sides.
NOB3: COMMI~^IONHR3: Mungall, Rowland.
ABSBNT: COMMISS:OAIBRS: None.
Subject tract was considered at the heariag in conjunction with Conditional Use
Permit No, 357.
Commissioner Pebley offered a aiotion to deny Tentative Map of Tract No. 4230, based on
the fact that the Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-64 was approved with Portion "A"
of subject property having a 255 foot depth of commercia: property from the Lincoln
Avenue frontage, subject tract was submit~ed sho~ring only a 172 foot depth from f~e
Lincoln Avenue frontage, and that it was the desire of the Planning Commission to
maintain as uniform depth as possible of commercial development for the Lincoin Avenue
frontage, west^_rly to Beach Boulevard, siace the commerciai frontage easterly was
developed with the 255 foot frontage. Commissioner Sides in seconding the motion '
stated that an additional finding should be that the alley to the rear of the commercial
development would have an incompatible ingress and egress to the property abutting to the
east, making the use of the proposed aliey untenable to service trucks~ and that said
alley would then dead-end to the westerly property line. MOTION GIRRIBD.
RSCLASSIPICATION _ CONTINUED PUBLIC HBARING. MQtTBN M, and MA.UDB A. DIZNBX~
N0. 62-63-125 and ~jo Hp~ gq H. ::O:ST=.AD, Attorney at Law~ 61? South Olive 5treet,
Anaheim, California~ Owners; CHIP Q~A3IN~ 15111 Beach Boulevard~
CONDITIONAL U8H Westminster, California, p.gent; property being considered
PBRMIT NO.. 433 described as; An L-shared parcel of iand having a frontage of
313 feet on the south a.td~ of Ball Road, and a depth of 630 feet,
the easterly boundary ~~f said property being approximately 406 feet
west of the centerline of Dale Avenue. Property presently
classified R A, RBSIDHNTIAL A(~tICULT[JRAL~ ZONE.
Subject petitions were continued from the meetiaga of June 10, 1963~ and Julq 8, 1963, in
order to allow the petitioners sufficient time to submit revised plans.
RBQUBSTBD CIASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLB PAMILY RBSID~iTIAL, ZOI~ffi.
RBQUBSTHD CONDITI~IAL USE: B9TABLISH A 3IiVGLB STORY MULTIPLE PAMILY PLANNHD
RBSIDBNTIAL DHVHLOPMSNT WITH CARPORTS.
2oning Coordinator Martin Kreidt read a letter to the Commission in which the petitioners
requested that subject petitions be continued to the meetiag of August 5, 1963, in
order that the petitioner might preaenL revised plans incorporating suggestions made by
the Planning Department. Commissioner Sides offered a motion to continue Petitiona for
Reclassification No, 62-63-125 and Conditioaal Use Permit No. 433, to the meeting of
August 19, 1963. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
~
VARIANCB N0, 1581 - CONTINUHD PUBLIC HBARING. IRA A, and HTTA R~SBB, 1922 South
Los Angeles 3treet, Anaheim, California~ Owners; RENNSTH KHBggg,
849 8outh Clementine Street~ Anaheim, California~ pgent; requesting
permission to WAIVE THS RHQUIRBD M-1, and P-L, 3ITS DHVELOPMHNT 3TANDARD3 an psoperty
described as: An irregular parcel of land having a frontage of 177 feet on :he north-
easterly side of Los Angeles Street, ~nd an average depth of 249 feet, the aorthern
boundary of said property being approximately 1,1?~O feet south of the ceaterline of
Katelia Avenue, and further described as 1942 3outh Los A,ngeles Street. Propexty
presently classified as M-1, LIQiT INDU8IRIAL and p-L, PARgING IANDSCAPING, Z01~ffi,4
.~
~
~
~
~
;
~
i \. _ ,_..._. ~
_~ ---- --- . ! ~._ _ . . . . _...
~ ~ e
~ , ~ ~, ~
MINUTB3, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, July 22, 1963, Continued: '~66
VARIANCB NO. 1581 - Sub,ject petition was continued from the meetiags of June 24, and
(Continued) July 8, 1963, to ailow the Planning Department time to prepare a
study of the satbacks on Los Angeles Street,
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt presented a map of the setbacks and noted that the map
had taken the Bngineering Department almost the entire 4 weeks to prepare, that he had
not had sufficient time to make a complete analysis of the map for a comprehensive report
for the Commission, that the petitioner had proposed a 42 foot dedication although it was
suggested that a 50 foot setback be required which would then give the petitioner a two
foot setback from the property liAe, that this additional 8 feet was needed for a
reasonable setback given the existing buildings and their setbacks in the area, and
requested that the Commission consider an addztional two weeks to complete a comprehettsive
study of the setback map. •
Mr. Ken Keesee, agent for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and stated
that the setback the petitioner proposed was a figure quoted them by the Engineering
Department when plans were being drawn, that the ICatella Avenue substation had a setback
of 138 feet from the sidewaik, and if the petitioner were required to setback his
proposed structure, this would eiiminate the office, that the petitioner woald like to
have the Commission render some decision because since the last heariag, new products
had been developed, that new warehouse space was aeeded, and if subject petition was
continued, the petitioner would be forced to rent space for these products, and would
then compound a situation.
The Commission noted that subject development would be located in an industri~l area,thatthe
existing setbacks south of Ba1lRoad had been there for some time, thatthe proposedand present. uses
in the area were not anticipated, and that some structures were set back'considerably more
than others, thus presenting an irregular setback which might never be uniform.
The Commission then inquired of the agent whether the petitioner would be agreeable to a
setback to conform with the structure to xhe south of subject propezty, namely, the
Hdisoa Buiiding. The agent then agseed to realigning the getback to conform with the
Bdison Building, but commented that 404 square feet of the building area would be given
up .
THS HBARING WAS CLOSHD.
Commissioner pebley offered Resolution No. 837~ geries 1963-64, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Cammissioner Sides, to grant Petition for
Variance No, 1581, subject to increasing ~the setback to 50 feet as stipuiated by the
petitioner~ or 60 feet from the centerline of Los Angeles Street, and that all provisions
of the M-1, Light Industrial, Zone be applicable. ($ee Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
A~: COI~AfISSI0NHR3: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, pebley, perry,Rowland, gides,
NOBS: COhAfISSI0NBR3: None. ~
ABSBNT: COMMISSIONBR3: Noae.
Commissioner Sides offered a motion to direct the Planning Department to prepare a
study which wouid indicate the ultimate development of the existiag setbact locations in
conjunction with the P-L, Parking Landscaping, 2one property on Los Angeles Street,
between Kateila Avenue and State College Boulevard, Commissioner perry seconded the
motion. MOTION Cd~tRIBD.
CONDITIONAL USH - CONTINUBD PUBLIC HBARING. PHRRY HOLLBY, c/o CASUALTY INSURANCB
PBRMIT N0. 438 CQMPANY, 810 South Spring Street, Los Angeles 14, California~ Owner;
1BILLIAM L. RUDOLPH, A.I.A., 2614 West Seventh Street, Los Angeles 57,
California, Agent;.requestxng permission to (1) HSTABLISH AN OPFICB
COMPLBX FO~t AN IN3URANCE HBADQUARTTERS WITH ADDITIONAL RBIATED USBS, (2) BSTABLI3H A
RBSTAURANT WITH COC[tTAiL LOUNGB ON QtOUND FLOoR oa property described as; A triangular
parcel of land having a frontage of 935 feet on the southwest corner of Manchester Avenue,
the westerly boundary of said property being approximately 666 feet east of the centerline
of Harbor Boulevard, and the southerly boundary being approximately 692 feet north of the
centerline of Airo Avenue. Property presently classified as R=A, RHSIDBNTIAL AQ2ICULTURAL,
ZONH,
~ T~~ ~.----..
Subject petition was continued from the meetin~s of June 24, and
July 8, 1963, in order to Qermit the petitioner time to consult with
the Cit~ P_ttorney's offxce, the planning Deoartment; and the
rep=esentatives of Disneyland~ in order to resolve difficulties
relative to the property development of sub3ect property.
Rudolph, agent for the
for the Commission~s c
Zoning Courdinator Martin Kreidt advised the ~omm?saion that plans had been submitted
late, but upon a cursory inspection, it was note~ that the proposed developmeat would be
completed in two phases, and that the four stor~,~ structure would be the first phase of
development.
Mr. Rudoiph in clarifying the intent of the petition stated that the initial 3 acres would
be developed, that the master plan of development consisted of the first 6 exhibits
submitted, which indicated three phases of deveiopment, that this had been subsequently
reduced to two phases, and that the proposed development ,~ad adequate parking.
Mr. Sreidt stated that for the record, the Coamissioa should tie in the plans submitted
and known as Revision No. 1, Bxhibits 1 and 2, which only indicated a portion of the
development phase for the four-story structure, and that Exhibits 1 through 6 wouid
compiete a second portion Of th@ I1iSi pfiase vi uBvciG~A2II~ ~~gc~u22 w~~u ~iE o2CG:,~
phase which covered the proposed high rise structure in accordance with plans s~ibmitted,
and that he had not had an opportunity to review the plans to determine whether they
indicated adequate parking.
After Mr. Kreidt had read the Interdepartmental Committee recoimuendations, Mr. Rudoiph
stated that the zestaurant was planned to be developed during the second phase~ unless
the demands of a possible tenant before the higli rise was proposed for development would
warrant its earlier development, that all signs would only be visible on the site and
could not be directed toward the Freeway, and then asked the Commission if the establish-
ment of the restaurant would be limited to the time the high rise was constructed~ to
which the Commission repiied that the restaurant could not be directed toward outside
the confines of the pro~erty, aince this would be a definite move away fzom the intent of
the Disneyland Policy.
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 838, 3eries 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption~ seconded by ~ommissioner Sides to grant Petition for Conditional Use
Permit No. 438, subject to each phase of development be developed in accordance with
Sectdon 18.38.02Q and 18.38.030 of the C-0, Commercial Office, Zone, except that the
first phase must be developed on not less than a three acre parcel in a.cordance with the
Disneyland policy. (See Resolution Book.)
RBCIASSIPICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HBARING. WALK&R and LBB, INC „ et al, 2580 West
N0. 62-63-126 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; PRANK R. HART, 2580
Weat Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that
property descra.bed as; An L-shaped poxtion of land having a
frontage of 62 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, and a froatage of 89 feet on
the east side of Magnoiia Avenue, the southerly boundary of said property being
approximately 254 feet south of the centerline of Magnolia Avenue be reclassified from
the R A, RBBIDBNTIAL AQtICULTUML, ZONH to the C-1, NBIGHBatH00D CaMMHItCIAL, ZONB Eo
utilize the existing prop~:rty for a real estate office.
MINUTH3~ CITY PLINNING C.OMMISSION, July 22, 1963, Continued: 1668
RHCIASSIPICATION - Subje~:t petition was continued from the meetings of June 10, and
N0. 62-63-126 July J, 1963, in order to allow the petitioner sufficient time to
(Continued) subm.it revised plans.
A letter was read to the Commission from the agent for the
petitioners requesting that subject petition be c"ontinued for a period of two weeks to
allow the petitioners sufficient time to complete revised plans.
Co~emissioner Camp offered a motion to continue netition for Reclassification No. 62-63-126
to the meeting of August 19, 1963, to allow the petitioners sufficient time to complete
revised plans. Commissioner Sides seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
VARIANCB N0. 1586 - PUBLIC HP.ARING. WILSHIRB OIL C~iPANY, 727 West Seventh 3treet,
Los Angeles, California, Owner; GBORGB MURPHY, 9476 Pellet Street,
Downey, California, Agent; requesting permission to HSTASLISH A WALIC-
Up gggTpUgANT pND WAIVffit OP RBQUIRHD PARRING, AND PRONT YARD SBTBACR on property described
as; An irregular portion of land having a frontage of 233 feet on the south side of
I.a Paima Avenue, and a frontage of 182 feet on the east side of bVest Street. Property
presently classified as R-0, One Family Suburban, Zone.
Subject petitiun was continued from the meet3.ng of July 8, 1963, in order to allow the
..~: ~: ±g~P t~, a~~bmit revised Olans.
p~ _ _....__
Zoning Coordinator Martin Rreidt advised the Commission that revised plans had not been
reeeived.
No one was preaent to represent the'petitioner.
Commissioner. Pebley offesed a motion to continue Petition for Variance No. 1586 to the
meetiag of September 4, 1963, since revised plans had not been submitted~ and since no
one was present to represent the petitioner. Cormnissioner Allred seconded the motion.
RSOTYON CARRIBD.
RBCIASSIPICATION - CONTINUHD PUBLIC FffiAItING. JAMHS W. and JOA.*i H. JAMB3, 2704 West
N0. 63~64-2 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; JOHN 8. BACRMAN,
14192 Newport Avenue, Tustin, California, Agent; requesting that
property described as: A rect~ngular shaped portion of land having
a frontage of 264 feet on the south side of Lincaln Avenue and a depth of 600 feet, the
easterly boundary of said property tseing approximately 300 feet west of •the centerline of
Stinson Street, and further described as 2704 West Lincoln Avenue, be reclassified from
the R A, Residential Agricultural, Zone, to the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone. to
construct a smail retail shoe store.
Subject petition was continued from the meeting of July 8, 1963, to allow the petitioner
time to submit revised plans.
Mr. John Saylor, xepresenting the agent fo= the petitioners~ appeared befose the
Commission and stated that the agent was out of towa, that plans had been submi4ted which
conformed with the request by the Commission, by reducing the size of the structuse and
turning the building, and that it was proposed to develop the rear in Che future with
apartments.
The Commission reviewed the revised plans noting that the requested C-1, Zone did not
permit the construct~on of apartments, that the proposed 22 foot drive would be inadequate
for present and future use of the property.
The agent replied that an easement could be obtained from the Bdison Company for use of
a 13 foot portion of their property in order to have proper ingress and egress.
Commissioner Chavos returaed to the Council Chamber at 3:50 P.M.
.
_.._
..... ..,
-i-- --------..-_r._.~.~_~....- . _.. __..~.--
, .
~ ~ ~
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, July 22, 1963~ Continued: 1669
RBCIASSIPICATION - Discussion was held by the Commission relative to future development
N0. 63-64-2 and the best and h3ghest use for the rear portion of subject
CContinued) property, and determined that the proposed structure would be used
by a company whica ma8e and sold their p:oduct, that the proposed
structure was not architecturally acceptable, that it would represent
another eysore similar to another structure oa Lincoin Avenue, and would not be an
improvement to th~ area, and although plans had been reviewed in accordance with the
Commission's request, the requirement of a 30 foot drive was necessary.
The agent replied that the front elevation wouid have: a tilt up facade with lights, and
that the shoe store would compete with another store in the area on a lazge volume basis,
No one opposed subject petition.
1f18 HHARING WAS CLOSED.
Discussion was heid by the Comaission relative to the size of 4he proposed structure, the
stipulation of the agent that the f~cade would be improved, and that a condition shouid
indicate that if the Bdison easemen4 was not obtained, the petitioner would provide the
30 foot access drive if the rear portion were ev~ntually rezoned and developed for
multiple family use.
Commissioner Sides offered Resolution No. 839, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adortion, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, co recommenu cu ~i,e i,.it; C~'sr=c~l ths:
Yetitic~i for Reciassificatioa No. 63-64-2 be approved subject to the stipulation of the
agent :hat the front elevation, would be architecturally improved~ and that in the event
the petitioner was unable tfl obtain an easement to widea the access drive, the plans wouid
be altered to pr~vide a 30 foot access drive on subject property. (See Resolution Book.j
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYB3: CQMMIS3IONHRB: Alired, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Pebiey, Perry, Rowland, Sides.
NOH3: CQ~4YII39IONBR3: Noae.
ABSHNT: COI~AlISSIONBRS: None.
AB3TAIN: COMMISSIONBRS: Chavos.
RECIASSIPICATInN - CONTINUHD PUBLIC HSARING. SAMUEL RATZ, et al, 8. G. and CATFIBItINB
N0. 63-64-5 HBYDBMAN, 2663 Anaheim Road, Anaheim, California, Owners; THB DRAMAN
COMPANY, 9776 Ratella Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; property
CONDITIONAL USB described as: An irregular portion of land having a frontage of
PBRMIT N0. 449 968 feet on the north side of Anaheim Road, and a frontage of 908
feet on the easterly side of the Riverside Preeway, and an average
TBNTATIVH MAP OF depth of 640 feet, and further described as 2663 Anaheim Road.
TRACT N0. 523i ~ Pro~erty presently classified as M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONB. _
RBQUBSTSD CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLS PAMILY 1~ESIDBNT7AL~ ZONB.
ggQUHgTBD COI~DITIONAL USH: GONSIRUCTj A~IH AND TYVO-STORY MUI,TIPLB PAMILY PLANNSD
RHSIDHNTIAL DBYffiOPMHNT WITH C;itPORT3, AND WAIVBR OP
ONB-STORY HHIGHT LIMITATION.
TBNTATIVB TRAC:: PROP08HD 3UBDIVISION INTO 36 R-3, ~LTIPLB PAMILY RHSIDHNT7AL; ZONH LOTS.
(Dgyffi,ppgR; TH8 DRAMAN C0~lPANY, 9776 Katella Avenue, Anaheim, Californi~
BNGIIJffit: M~DANIBL ffiQGYNBffitING COh~ANY, 222 Bast Lincola Avenue,
Anaheim, Caii;ornia.)
3ub3ect petitions and tract map were continued from the meeting of July 8, 1963, at the
request of the petitioner, in order to submit revised plans.
~
,, _.. .. - - - ._ ... _
:---- - --
, _ _ . _:..ti~ ~ . ' "~[
~ ~ ~
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ JulY ZZ~ 1963, Continued:
, ., - .~.~:... - _ ---
_.---~__
`,-__..__..- -- - - _.. __ _ ---.__.__.___._---.~._..----
~ ~
, ._ . .-:~- . _ °"~I
RBCIAS5IPTCATION - Mr. Harold Block, representing the developer of subject property
N0. 63-64-5 appeared before the Comwission and stated that revised plans had
been submitted, and the engineer was a5~ailable to answer any
CONDITIONAL USB questions, and submitted colored renderings of the development.
PffitMIT N0. 4~9
The Commission requested that these renderings be reduced and
TBNTATIVS MAP OP submitted as exhibits in the file. 17ie Comiuission reviewed the
1RACT N0, 5231 revised plaas, noting that the proposed structures were similar to
(Continued) a development at Orangewood Avenue and Haster Streets, and that there
seemed to be some concern relative to ailey accesa.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that a"T" type alley should be
provided between Lot Nos. 24 and 25 and Nos. 35 and 36 so that a 750 foot alley would not
be viewed from Street "A", which was then indicated to the developer on the tract map.
Commissioner 3ides left the Council Chamber at 4:10 P.M.
In answer to questioning by the Commission, the developer stated that the three large lots
would be developed according to plans submitted, and that it was not the intent of the
developer to seli the lots 3ndividuaily, although this might be feasible at some future
date.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
TFffi HBARING WAS CL03ED.
Ca~.missioner Sides returned to the Council Chamber at 4:17 P.M.
Ttie Commisaion reviewed the General Plar. and noted that subject property was located
between light industrial aad multipie family zoned land, that subject property was located
within 150 feet of Residential Agricultural Zoned property on the east and south,
although the easter.ly property had multiple family residential zoning pending, and ~he~
southerly portion was adjacent to the Riverside Preeway, and because of these facts it
would be possible to waive the onestory height limitation.
Commissioner Camp offered Resolution Noe 840, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that
Petition for Reclassification No. 63-64-5 be approved subject to conditions.
CSee Resolution Book.)
On roil call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
Ailred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sides:
Co.mmissioner Pebley, left the Council Chamber.at 4:20 P.M.
Co,mmissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 841, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Sides, to grant Petition for Conditional Use
Yermi.t No. 449, subject to conditions, and the finding that the one story height
limitation was being wai~~ed. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foreg-.~ing resolution was passed by the following vote:
Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungail, Perry, Rowland, Sides.
,. . _ , .
~:;
~ ~ t~
MINUTB3, CIT3f PLANNING COhRiISSION, July 22, 1963, Continued: 1671
RHCL1-.4SIPICATION - SUbject tract was considered in coa3uaction with Petitions for
N0. 63-64-5 Reclassification No, 63-64-5 aad Conditional Use Permit No. 449,
CONDITIONAL USB Zoning Coordinator Martin %reidt ~reviewed the proposed revised tract
PBRMIT N0. 449 noting that Lot Nos. 1, 19a and 20a were not required~ that the
six (6) foot masonry wail could be coastructed on the lot line, that
TENTATIVS MAP OP it had been suggested that the 750 foot long alley located in the
7iWCE N0. 5231 center of the tract could be '~T~d" at Lot AJos. 24-25 and 35-36, in
(Contiaued) order to black from view of Street "A" the long expanse of an alley,
Mr. Kreidt further read the suggested Interdepartmental Committee
recommendations for the Commission's consideration.
Commissioner Allred offered a motioa to approve Revised Tentative Map of Tract No. 5231
subject to the foilowing conditions:
1. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdiviaion, each
subdivision thereof shall be submitted ia tentative form for approval.
2. That Revised Tentative Tract No. 5231 is approved subject to the granting of
Reclassification No. 63-64-5 • -•
3, That the aiignment of Anaheim Road be approved by the $tate Division of Highways.
4• That Lot "C" of Tract No. 4081 be acquired to provide access to the adjoining aliey,
5, That all access rights to Anaheim Road, except at 3treet "A" shall be dedicated to the
City of Anaheim. The half street section for Anaheim Road shali ta thirty-four (34)
feet to property line, curbs to be located twentq-four (24) feet from centeriine, no
~ parking permitted with signs instalied at 'khe developer~s expense. Tree~rells shsll
be provided at approximately fiftq (50) Foot intervals.
6. That the drainage of the tr•act be designed wiCh cousider$tion of the existing
elevations to•the culverts under the Riverside Preeway,
7. That a six (6) foot masonry wall shall be instailed on the north, south~ and west
boundaries of aub,ject property as proposed.
8. That laadacaping aad pianted tree wells at approxi~ately 40-foot intervals shall be
provided in the Anaheim Road parkway abutting aub,~ect property; that plaas for tree
weils and laadscaping therein~ shall be aubmitted to aad approved by the Superintenderrt
of parkway Maintenance, and L•L~at upon the installation and acceptance of same, the
maiatenance of the landscapir~g wiil be handied by the City of Anaheim.
9. That Lot Nos, la, 19a, and 20a as shown on Reviaion No. 2, dated July 12, 1963~ are
deemed unnecessary, and the proposed six (6) foot wall may be installed un the lot
lines.
10. That the alley located betwecn Lot Nos. 24 through 29, and 30 through 36~ as shown
on Revision No. 2, dated July 12, 1963, ahall be"T'd" between Lot Nos. 24 aad 25,
35 and 36, to provided access to Streets "B" and "C" inetead of having access to
Street "A".
Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED,
Commissioner Pebley returned to the Couacil Chamber at 4:25 p,M.
TBNTATIVB MAP OF - DHVffi.OPBR: GAIA7CY CON131RUCTION COMPANY, INC., 450 Hast 17th $treet,
1RACT N0. 5232 Costa Mesa, California, ~EIVGINgffit; J, gffitT WggB, 323 Alva Lane~
Costa Mesa, California, 3ubject tract, located on;the north side of
Anaheim Road, west of the 3enta Fe Railroad, is proposed for
subdivision into 44 M-l, LIGHT INDUSTR7AL, aad P-L, pqRiCING 7AND-
. ~CAPING, ZONB, I.ots.
~
~~~._. -
~,. _ .,,,-,, ~.._.
~_ , .,
~ ~ , - ..
---- --
----- --- - --~, . . _
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 22, 1963, Contiaued:
TBNTATIVB MAP OP - 3ubject tract was ContiAUed fro~ the meeting of July 8~ 1963, in
TRACT N0. 5232 order to ailow the developer tiQe to subinit a revised map
(Continued) increasiQg the iot widths to,a minimum of 50 feet, together with.
Code requireme~4s relative ta PvL, Parkiag~-Landscaping, Zone.
Mr. George Wytel, representing the developer, appeared before the Commission and stated
that the revised map incorporated the Commission's sugge§ted revisions.
2oning Coordinator Martin Rreidt expressed concern that.sub3ect development would be
semi-commercial type of development rather than a light iridustrial development, and that
the Commission should consider access to the loading docks.
The Commission revie~ed the revised map and indicated that the developer had complied
with almost everything the Couwission re~uested, and that the loading docks would be no
problem since the engineer could dimeasion the structures•to incorporate proper loading
docks. '
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 5232, subject
to the following conditxons:
That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdiviaion, each
subdiv3sion thereof shall be aubmitted in tentative form for approval,
That this tentative tract map is granted subject to the completion of •
Reclassification No. 61-62-69 for reclassification of subject property from the
R-A, Residential Agricultural, Zone, to the M-1, Light Industriai, and the P-L,
parking Landscapiag, Zones.
That the access rights from Lot Nos. 1 through 21~ to Anaheim Road shall be
dedicated to the City of Anaheim, exCept that a maximum of four (4) drives as
indicated on the proposed parking lot layout for Tract No. 5232, prepared by the
engineer of subject tract aad dated July 1, 1963, shail be permitted to serve
Lot Nos. 1 through 21.
That landscaping aad parking for sub~ect property shsli be developed in accordance
with the proposed parking lot layout fo•r Tract No. 5232, prepared by J. B. Webb,
Civil $ngineer, on July l~ 1963, and marked, "Bxhibit No. 2" with the exception of
the following:
That 2~ of the parking area shall be devoted to landscaping in accordance with
the provisions of the M-1, Light Tadust=ial, Zone.
That the 3-foot pianting area adjacent to the proposed buildings shall be
increased to 5-fee~`.
That the proposed 5-foot sidewalk adjacent to the bu3ldings shall be Portland
Concrete cement.
That the proposed 10-foot wide parallel par&ing spaces shall~be reduced to
8-feet in width.
That the proposed 20-feet deep perpendicular parking spacea shali be reduced
to 19-feet.
That the propoaed 24~foot access drive shall be increased to 25-feet.
That adequate provision ahall be made for loading docka and vehicular entrance
ways to the proposed buiidings.
That landscaping of~the 13-foot parkway including treewelis be in accordance
with the City Cou~cil policy.
That service station aite shall be aeveloped in accordance with the adopted
Service Station Minimum Site Development Standards.
Commissioner Sides seconded the motion,
~. ..,:. _.____~._.._._
~ 'x - --..__.:...:::~
MINUTB5, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 22, 1963, Continued; 1673
RBVISHD THNTATIVB MAP - DSVSLOPER: BROORMORB INC.~ 1665 Brookhurst Street, Anaheim,
OP 1RACT N0. 5162 California, ffiVGINHffit: McDANiIBL BNGINBBRING COMPANY, 222 8ast
Lir,coln Avenue, Anaheim, Califurnia. Subject tracts are lucated
TBNTATIVB MAP OF on the north side of Ball Road and east of Broothurst Street,
TRACT N0. 5260 and aze proposed for subdivision in~o three (3) R-3, Muitiple
Family Residential, arid eight (8) R-3, Muitipie Pamily
Residential, 2one, lots.
Sub,ject tracts were coasidered in conjunction with eacfi other.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreid4 reviewed the original tentative map noting that one of
the coaditions of approval required the filing of another subdivision tract map if
s~~tj~c± tr.act w~re developed as more than one subdivision, and that the revised tract
aa~i was submitted when the developer found it more practical for financing of subject
development to again subdivide subject property.
Commissioner perry offered a motion to approve Revised Tentative Map of Tract No. 5162,
subject to the fo?lowing conditions:
1. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each
subdivision thereof shall be submitteC in tentative form for approval.
2, That Revised Tentative Tract No. 5162 is approved subject to the completion of
Conditional Use Permit No. 423 and Reclass±fication No. 62-63-113.
3. That alley cut-offs shall be provided on all alleys as required by the City Bngineer.
4. That the vehicular access rights to Bali Road~ except at street and aliey openings,
shail be dedicated to the City of Anaheim.
5. That Lot No. 3 shall be noted on the Final Tract Map for recreational use only, since
said lot is not a buildable site and an exception must be granted, as no alley
serves this lot as required for R-3 lots.
Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION,CARRIBD.
Commissioaer Camp offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No, 5260, subject
to the following conditions:
1. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each
subdivision thereof shall be submitted in ten4ative form for approval.
2. That tentative Tract No. 5260 is approved sub3ect to the completion of Conditional
Use Permit No. 423 and Reclassification No. 62-63~113.
3. That alley cut-offs shall be provided on ali alleys as required by the City Hngineer.
4. That Lot No, 5 shall be noted on the Pina1 Tract Map for recreational use only, ^
since said lot is not a buildarle site, and an exception must be granted, as no
alley serves this lot~ as requ:%red for R-3 lots.
5. That the access rights along tha east line of Lot No. 8 sha11 be dedicated to the
City of Anaheim for the alley an~i Minerva Avenue.
6. That a~odif±ed knuckle shall be provided at the northeast terminus of Minerva Avenue
subject to the approval of the City Bngineer. Hngineering wiil be provided by the
City of Anaheim,and the construction by the developer.
7. That the alley south of Street "A" shail be provided with a turn-arourid which is
satisfactory to the City Bngineer.
Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
____._...._ ___..._._
-- - ---~-._...~___ _.__~_.._.._____.------___~-----
, . , ,
. .
---~ ~ ~---._---•__..., _.._._.::. _-~...a
~ ~ V.
l.~
~
MINUTB3~ CITY PIANNING COhAlI33ION, July 22, 1963, Continued:
TENTATIYH f~41P OP - DBVELOPBR: CUNNINGHAM CQMPA.NY, 10950 Dale Street, $tanton,
TRACT N0. 5262 California. BNGII~ffiffit: CLAYTON p, 3TAPLH3, 12311 Chapman Avenue,
Gardea Grove, California. Subject tract located south of Broadway
aad west of Magnolia Avenue is proposed for subdivision into
22 R-1~ ONB PAMILY RBSIDENTIAL, ZONS, Lots.
Mr. Clayton Stpales, eagineer for the developer~ appeared before the Commission and
stated that subject property was proposed for subdivision into 22 single family lots.
The Commission reviewed the map and aoted that the proposed developanent was a
continuation of property west of the park and being developed for single family
residential development,
Commisaioaer Allred offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of 1Yact No. 5262, subject
to the foliowing conditions:
1. That should this subdivision be developed as more than oae subdivision, each
subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval.
2. That 8treet "A" shall be named 3kywood Place and Street "B" shail be aamed Savoy
Place.
Commissioner Camn secoaded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD~
Commissioner Allred and Perry left the Council Chamber at 4:45 P.M,
VARIANCB N0. 1592 - PUBLIC FffiARING. CAPITOLA A, and HASKHLL &HI.LB'1, 852 North West
3treet, Anaheim~ Califoraia, Owners; BBTTY ROHBRT3, 723 North
Los Angeles Street, Aaaheim, California~ Agent; requesting
permiasion to WAIVB Tf~ 25% PAONT YARD RHQUIRHI~ffiNT~ 10% 3IDH YARD RBQUIRHMBNT~ pNID TFffi
90-POOT MINIMUM IAT WIDTH, TO PPRMIT CONS7RUCTYON OFA STNGZB PAMILY RE3IpENCB on property
deacribed as: A zectangular parcei of land having a frontage of 146 feet on the
essterly side of West Street aad a'depth of 295 feet, the southerly boundary of said
property being approximately 630 feet northwest of f:he centerline of North Street, and
further described as 852 North A'est $treet. Property presently clasaified as R-0, ONB-
FAMILY SUBURBAN,~ 20NB.
Mrs, Betty Roberts. ageat for 4he petitioaer appeared bafore the Commission and reviewed
the proposed development of subject property.
The Commisssion reviewed the plot plans noting that development would occur on the
northerly portioa of sub,ject property, aad that the existing structure on the south
side of subject property would remain.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition,
Tf~ IfBARIIVG WAS CI:OSED". •-
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 842, Series 1963-64, and moved for its
passage aad adoption, secoaded by Commissioner Chavos, to grant Petition for
Variance No, 1592~ subject to development plans as ind;cated on the plot plans for
the northerly 80 feet, and said plans to be subject to Development Review prior to the
issuance of a Building Permit, (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call Yhe foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AXHS: COMMISSIONBRS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebiey, Rowland, Sides,
NOBS: CObIlNISSIOI~ffiRS: None.
ABSBNT: COMMISSIONffitS: Allred, Perry.
Commissioner Gauer left the Council Chamber at 4:30 P.M.
_ _~
~' `
~.
~
~
~
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 22, 1963, Continued: 1675
yARIpNCH NQ. 1593 - PUBLIC F~ARING. J. A. and ALIS TABRIS, 853 North Zeya St=eet,
pnaheim, California, Owners; requesting permission to USB AN
HXISTING Z11V0 3TQRY NONCONPORMING ACCBSSCRY BITILDING FOR ACCSSS~tY
iIYI'rIG QiTAitTSRS on propestq descrxbed ss: A rectang~~lar parcel of land having a
frontage of 5? feet on the west side of Zeyn Street, and a frontage of 114 feet on the
south side of La Verne Street, and furttier described as 853 North 2eyn Street. PropertY
presently classified as R-2, 1W0 FAMILY RBSIDENTIAL~ Z01~ffi.
Mrs. Alis Tabris, one of the petitioners, appeazed before the Commission and stated that
she wished to utilize the area over the garage as additional bedroom space for her
growing family.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Tf~ HBA1tING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Sides of£ered Resolution No. 843, Series 1963-64, and moved for its
passage and adoption, se.conded by Commissioner Chavos, to grant Petition for
Variance No. 1593, subject ta conditions. (See Resolution Boot.)
On roli call the foregoing resolution was passed bj the foilowing vote:
,_.,,, ~.,~,., rt,A.,~c; Muneali. YebleY. Perry, Rowland, Sides.
AYBS: (:UNtN1~jlVivnttS: niiiw~ ..,..rr -
NpH3; CCY`A~IISSIOI~RS: None.
Ag3ENT: CONAtIS3I0NBRS: Gauer.
Commissioner Gauer returned to the Council Chamber at 4:40 P.M.
VpRIANCS N0. 1594 - PUHLIC HBARING. CIARBNCB N1, and IDALBA R. BACSiTS, 53? She=wood
Drive~ Anaheim, Califoiaia, Owners; PRHD C. LANH, 710 South Raitt,
Santa Ana, California, Agent; requesting permission to NAIVB
(1) THS RBQUIRBD 3IDH YARD, C2) RHQUIRHD BUILDING SBPARATION, ABID C3) ~ MINIMUM
LIVABLE PLOQt ARBA. TO pBRMIT CONSatUCTION OP AN t1DDITIONAL DM~BLLING UNIT on property
described as: A rectaaguiar parcei of land having a frontage of 40 feet oa the xest
side cf Melrose Street and a depth of 140 feet, the southerly boundarq of said propezty
being 160 feet north of the centerline of Santa Ana Street, and fu=ther described as
417 South Meirose Street. Property presently classified as R-3, M[ILTIPLB PAMILY
RffiIDBNTIAL, ZONH.
Mr. Pred Lane, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated he
would be available to auswer any questioas the Commisaion might have.
The Commission determined through questioniag the ageat that the existing structure would
remain, that similar developments.to that being proposed were located ia the immediate
vicinity of subject property, and that this was Lhe basic reasoa for-filing a variance..
Mr, Frank Rivera, 4~3 South Melrose Street, appeazed i.n opposition to sub;ect petitioa,
and stated that he oppdsed any construction of a building too ciose to his prr,perty,
that the petitioners should be required to maintaia the miaimum side yard~ that
construction across the street from his property had been to the property line, which
he emphatically opposed since he would be unable to exercise the same privilege as
that afforded the petitioner.
Commiasioner Perry returned to the Council Chamber at 4:50 P.M.
t a _
;„,--_..:~..~.~~.-~ ~
~ ~ l~ ~
i
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COA4rfISSION, July 22, 1963, Continued: 1676
VARIANCB N0. 1594 - The Commission discuseed requirements for structures in the R-3
(Continued) Zone, that the previous approval of encroachments into the side
yard and building separation was due to the fact that garages or
accessory buildings were proposed, whereas the petitioners propose
an additional residential structure, that subject property could be developed within the
Code requirements if the buiider used more thought in proparly locating the structure,
and would not require the variance at all if the added structure were attached to the
existing structure, that the requested 1,225 ~qaa:e foot waiver was a technicality when
constructing single family homes in a Muitiple Pamily Residential,2one~ and that the
petitioner should improve the front elevations a:chitectura]ly of the existing structure
to improve the area.
Mrs. Backus, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and stated that
many improvements had been added to the existing structure, but that most of these were
to the inside of the home.
Commissioner Sides returned to the Council Chamber at 4:52 P.M.
Purther discussion xas held between the Commission and the agent relative to relocation
of the proposed structure with some modifications being made, and that by these changes
the only thing which the Commission would have to be concerned with was the waiver of
411E +~~c~..°i ByuoZc ivG~ a2c'B, i ic o~ciai. noncu ~aio~ ~aic ~iVY114iO0aVTa iAuiGni.E i,v iliu~ i1iiW
this might be accomplished, and was informed that if he contacted the Planning Department
they might well be able to assist him, or he might wish to consult with an architect,
THB HHARING WAS CLCSBD.
Commissioner Rowland offered a motian to deny subject petition, because no hardship had
been pzoven, Commissioner Chavos seconded the motion. MOTION FAILBD TO CARRY by a vote
of 4-3 with one ahsent and one abstention.
In voting against the foregoing resolution, the Commissioners stated that the
petitioners shouid be given an opportuni#y tA submit revised plans for consideration.
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to continue Petition for Variance No, 1594, to the
meeting of August 5, 1963, in order ~to allow the petitioner time to submit revised
plans. Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
Commissioner Alired returned to the Council Chamber at 4:55 P.M.
CONDZTIONAL USB - PUBLIC HBARING. BANK OP AMHRICA, Trustee, and HHI.BNB J, TRApP~
PERMIT NQ, 451 c/o LHONARD SMITH RBAL SSTATE, 125-D South Claudina Street, Anaheim,
Califo•rnia, Owners; LSONARD SMITH, 125-D South Claudina Street,
Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to B3TABLI3H A
SHRVICH 3TATION on property described as: A re~taagular parcel of land having a frontage
of 195 feet on the north side of Lincaln Avenue, and a frontage of 210 feet on the west
side of Rio Vista Street, and further described as 2799 Hast Lincoln Avenue. Property
presently classified as R-1, (County) Siagie Family (Residence), Zone.
Mr. Leonard Smith, agent for the petit3oaers, appeared before the Commission and
stated that subject property was a portion of the proposed Riverview Annexation No. 2,
pending annexation to the City of Anaheim, that zoning of subject property had been
held up by both the County and the City of Anaheim because of its recommendations to the
County to hold any pending actions of proptrty within the Riverview Annexation area
pending its approval, that three ser:•ic= stations presently existed on the remaining
corner of the intersection, that he assumed single family development would occur to the
north and west of the proposed service stati~n, and that possibly a small commercial
~ievelopment might be proposed to buffer the service station.
MINUIBS, CITY :LANNING COMMISSA~N, July 22, 1963~ Continued: 1677
CONDITIONAL USH - The Commission discns'sed past action of the two southerly corners of
PffitMIT N0. 451 the intersection noting that a bond had been posted in lieu of the
(Continued) mssonry ~11, that it was their opinion thet sinole farsily develop-
ment might be deterred if the walis were aot constructed~ that since
the Commission had denied tne southeriy parcels, and the Council had
approved these service stations, it woul~l be unfair to deny the remaining conner, but
in the passible approval, it was the Commsssion's feeling that the masonry wall should
be a condition of approval with a recommenda#ion that ~he bond could not be substituted,
in order to retain the developabie characteristics for single family subdivision of
the abntting property, that the Planning Department should be requested to update
Ylanning Study 47-122-5 as well' as present possible development for the propertiy
abutting to the north :}.nd west with an area of commerCial, or plans backiag single
family development to the masoary wall~ and that it was not the intent of the Commission
to create "strip commercial" development adjacent to potential single family subdivision
of property ti.n Bast Anaheim,
Mrs. Ann Nealey~ 502 Stehley Street, appeared in opposition to subject petition asking
how far the City planned to go in permitting service stations to construct st any
corner available in the City, that development in an orderly manner seemed to be by-passed
and a hodge-podge was being allowed to develop in Hast Anaheim similar to the Weat Anaheim
Azea, that the Commission should seriousiy consider deveiopment of vacant land for
other than commercial purposes, that the Sast time 4he Planning S:~±dy was presented
professional commercial was proposed for the Lincoln Avenue frontage o£ portions of the
southerly property, that she had been a resident of Anaheim since 1956, and oaly wished
she had decided to reside elsewhere, where the living eavironment would have been more
compatible, and that she and her family had moved from the West Anaheim Area to avoid
the verty thing that was now being proposed for Hast Anaheim.
The Commission stated that it was their desire to develop in an orderly manner, that it
felt that service st~t,~ons couid be deveioped at the intersectzon of two major hiqhways~
and that it v~o~sid t: nnfair to deny subject petition since three others had been
approved for the same use.
Mr. Nealey stated it was not a matter of development~ but where would the City draw
the line.to insure the future residential integrity of properties already devaloped for
that use in Hast Anaheim, that at the time the twu southerly service stations were
approved, the requiiement was for a masonry wall, which was later changed to a bond to
insure the coastruction, that one service station was required to install landacaping
whereas the other was not, and that it should be the duty of the Commission to
recommend that the block walis proposed for the two service stations bz constructed so
that dirt, noises and other nuisances might be reduced,
No oae else appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THB HBARING WAS CLOSBD:
The Commission discussed the probab~e uses for adjacent property that it lended itself
for ideal single family subdivi"sion'development an3 should be so maintained, that it
might be possible to develop this for a medical ceater, to which Commiss3oner Rowland
and Camp disagreed stating this would be an incompa•tible use due to traffic problems,
that the Commission should present something concrete for the Council to eons±der in
order to insure the orderly development of vacant property in close proximity to
subject property, that some physical changes might occur when the Orange Preeway was a
reality~ and that if a portion was considered for commercial development this should be
a very limited type of commercial use. ~
Commissiotter Allred offered Resolution No. 849, Series 1963-64, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioaer Pebley to gsant Petition for Conditional
Use Permit No. 451, subject to the requirement that subject property be developed in
accordance with the Service Station Site Development Standards. and that a six (6) foot
wall be constructed along the north and west property line, with.no provision of
substituting a bond in lieu the wall construction., (See Resolution Book.}
On roil call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followiag vote:
AYBS: COMMISSION~t5: A31red, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, perry, Rowland, Sides.
NC1E.4: COhAfIS310IVE[tS: None,
AHSBNT; COhAiI3SIQVffitS: None,
~ ~ ~
~`
~
MINUTH3~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Julq 22, 1963, ;;ontinued:
RHCOhAffiNDATION - Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 8~; Series 1463-64~ and
P~t MASONRY WALL moved for its passage and adoption.-secoaded by Commiss•loner Perry,
CONSTRUCTION 013 to recommend to 4fie Ciiy ~a~incii ih$t the six tb3 ,`c~: wasoa:.~
PROPffitTTB3 AT walls proposed fo= construction on proper~ties approved in
LINCOLN AVBNUB Conditional Use Permit No. 236 - the Alven Holtz property~ and
AND RIO VISTA Conditional Use Permit No. 256 - Che,Ann Paulus property be required
31R8ST, to be constructed in order to encourage the potential single family
residential developmant of adjacent properties~ since viewing a
service station was not conducive to potential sales of said
properties.
On roll call the fosegoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYB3: COMMI3SIONffitS: Allred, Camp, Ch~vos, Gauer, Mungali, Pebley~ Perry, Rowland,
Sides.
NOH3: CONAlISSIONHRS: None.
ABSBNT: COD9~tISSIOI~BRS: None.
RHQUHST TO UPDATB - Commissioner Perry offered a motion to direct the planning
PLANf~TING STUDY Department to update Planning Study No. 47-122-5 to indicate the
N0, 47-122-5 latest development of properties in the Study, and to present
posaible means for the orderly development of property adjacent to
the north and west of the recently approved station on the north-
west corner of Lincoln Avenue and Rio Vista Street, that this study give alternatives of
a very light type commercial development surraunding the service station, and ano+.her
study showing the best means of development of a single family subdivision abutting a
service station with street patterns and lot cuts. Commissioner Rowland seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
CONDITIONAL USH - PUBLIC FIDARING. J• R. SCHOLZ, c/o LBONARD SMITH REAL BSTATB,
PffitMIT N0. 454 125-D South Claudina Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; LRONARD SMI7CH,
125-D South Claudina Street, Anaheim, California~ Agent; requestiag
permission to BSTABLI3H A MOTHL on property described as: An
irregular parcel of laad bouaded on the north by the Santa Aaa Preeway, on the east by
Loara Street, and on the southwest by Menchester Avenue, approximate dimensions of
subject property are 65 feet by 380 feet, and further described as 300 North Manchester
Avenue, property presently classified as C-2, General Commercial, Zone.
Mr. Leonard Smith, agent for the petitioaer, appeared before the Commission and
reviewed the proposed development of subject propertq~ and further noted that although
from all appeazances, subject property did not have ~:ny frontage on Manchester Avenue,
there was, ~:~ fact, a 150 foot frotttage on the Manchesier Avenue property line.
Zoning Coordiaator.Martin Kreidt-•reviewed the Interdepartmeafial Committee and Planning..
Department recommendatioes,
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitioa.
THS HBARING iVA3 CLOSBD.
Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 845, Series 1962-64, and mo.ved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Alired, to grant Petition for Conditional Use
Permit No. 454, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolutioa was passed by the following vote:
AYS3: COD9NI3SIOI~RS: Allred, Camp, Chavos~ Gauer, Mungall, Pebley~ Perry, Rov:land,
Sides.
NOBS: CODAlISSIONBR3: None. ,
AB.RENT: COMMISSIONffitS: None.
~...._ . ---r--____.. _____.__ _,---_'-- ~
. ,, . , . ,
-~- ---.~ . . ~. -------------~
. . . . _. ~
~. .
T w
-;t s
~
1 - ~
,:='
- -~ ~.~ ---
~,. ,
~ ~ .~
MI~vIJTBS~ CITY PLANN~NG COMMISSION, July 22, 1963, Coatinued:
1679
COAIDITIONAL USB - PUPLIC HBARING, TI~ffi AMffitICAN yUTi~RpN ~RQi, 422 South Pifth Street~
PBRMIT_N0. 455 Minneapolis, Minnesota~ (h~mer; IAMg OP GOD LUTF~RpN CHUR(~I~
PRBD D. DQ1~9~1ffit, PAST(~t, 2443 Sast Sonth Street, qttaheim, Califo=nia;
~6~='=~; =zysesti.-,g permissioa to CONSZRUCT ADDITIONAL CHURCH pIV~
land at the northwestCco~nerAofLSouth StreetpaadYSunkist Street~ withcfrontagespofc296 f
iee2 oa South Street~ and 630 feet oa Sunkist Street, aad further described as 2443 Hast
South S~reet. Property presently classif:ied as R A~ RBSIDHNTIAL AGRICULTURAL~ 2pNB,
Mr. Leland Hanson, Secretary of the Church, appeared befoze the Commission and stated
that altho~;gh the Lam of God Lutheran Chur,:h was the official owner of subject property,
the title had not as yet been transferred from the headquarters in Minneapolis, and that
it was hoped to develop a portion of subject property for additional church and school
facilities.
The Commission noted that in the process of viewing subject property during the field
tri+~, the nor4herly portion could very well be developed for a single family subdivision~
although nothing was indicated on the plot plan or in the petition, and inquired of the
ageat whether this was the intention of the ch~rch to effect the sale of the northerly
260 feet with the stipulation that it be developed for single family development ottly~
since this was the Commission•s projections ~n the General Plan that the property be low
density, •
~lr. Hanson, in reply, stated that it was the Board of Trustees of the church*s hope to
develop the entire parcel for church and school purposes~ but that if this was not
economicaliy feasible, they would sell the property for development of single family
homes~ that although the plaas indicated only 250 feet and a subdivision required 260 feet,
the line was flexible, since only parking was proposea for the immediatelq adjacent
property, and that the plot plans presented to the Commission were the same as plans
proposed in 19b1.
No one appeared ia opposition 'to subject petition.
1HH HBARING WAS CLOSHD,
After 2oniag Coordinator Martin Kreidt read the Interdepartmental Commiltee and FlanniAg
Departmettt reeommeadations~ the agent inquired wrether ali conditions stipulated would
2:ave ta be completed witl~in six months~ and the Commission informed him that a bond
co;tld be posted, which could be renewed upon request to insure that ail conditions were
complied with~ and that no structure cnuld be built within 15 feet of the propertq line.
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No, 846, 3eries 1963-64, aad moved for its •.~<~~ge
and adoption, secondedby Commissioner Perry, to graat Petition for Conditional Use
Permit No. 455, subject to the requirement of a masottry wall for the westerly property
line, except for the northerly 260 feet, and that ff the northerly 260 feet were sold
that the stipaelation for developmeat would be for single family subdivision and cond.itioas,
(See Resolution Book.)
On io11 call the foregoiag resolution was passed by the following vote:
A~: COMhiI33I01VffitS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebiey, Perry, Rowland,
Sides,
N~: CO~MAtISSIQV0t3: None,
ABSBNT: CObAtISSI0I~R3: None,
~S - Commisaioner Gauer offered a motion to recess ^'or dinner~ and to reconvene
for th~ balaa=e of the Pubiic Hearing at 7;30 P.M. The meetiag recesaed at
6:15 P.M.
;'s~ :t:: .
~ '- -
, , . . - _- ~
.
i
MINUTBS, CITY PI.ANNING C~4lISSION, July 22, 1963~ CoaLinued: 1680
RSCONVENB - Chairmaa Mungall reconvened the meetiag at 7:42 P.M„ ali Commiav,ioa•.ra
being preaent.
RSCIASSIPICATION - PUBLIC HSARING. INITIATBD 8Y TH8 CITY OP ANAHBIM PIANNING
N0. 63-64-4 COI~lISSION, 204 8aet Lineoia Aveaue~ Ansheim~ California~ proposiag
thst property deacribed as; A rectanguisr portioa of iand having a
frontage of 210 feet on the weaL eide of Ninth Street~ and a
frontage of 392 feot on the aouth aide of 1Cate11~ Aveaue, the we~tesly boundary beiag
ad,~acent to the Or~nge County P1ood Controi Chaanel be reclasaified from the R-+I1, R88I-
DSNTiAL AGRiCULTORAL~ ZONB to the C-1~ NBiaFIBORH00D~COMMBRCIAL, ZONB~ ia aceordanca with
City Couneii Re~olution No. 63lt-239~ dated March 26, 1963.
Zoning Coordiaatos Mastin ICreiGt revi~wad the City Coueeil action relative to ~ub,~ect
petition~ notia~ that the City Attoraey held docament~ for an e~aemant deed for tha
wideain~ of~x.eoii. Aveaue to 60 faet from the ceateriiaa of tha ~traet, and a bond to
as~ure the coa~truetion oF the fuli ~traot improve~ae.nt~ a1on~ 8ateila Avenue, and that
no plaaa had beea ~ubmittad by tha owner of ~ub,~eat property baeauea he had no d~~ira to
develop tha proparty at tha pra~~nt t~.me.
The Commi~~ion raviewed th~ir paot polidy raiativ~ to eonsid~rin~ aey p~bition, that
~qb,~ect patition had aothiea oa whieh !he Commiaa~on couid r~nd~t aey loaieai daeieioe~
and th~t it would bo undair to other propmrty awnerr te Pavorabiy eor~~ide~ =ub~ac~
patit~ea withou# pSo# plaae~ Wh~A Ot~l~ii h&d b46A ~~QY~iO~ ~9 9N~R~~ ~~~AB ~A~ bh@S
reaubwit thg~ i€ th@y ~~d A9t mget ~h~ ~o1lg~i~~iogis s~an(l~rdsw
Mr. Thomas Hgan, 1845 Gail Lane, appeared in opposition to subject petition, stating that
in the interest of the single famaiy aomes in the area the Commission should have plans,
and if a commercial development ~vere proposed, the City should do something to alleviate
a hazardous traffic situation at Ninth 3treet and Ratella Avenue, since a new school and
a neightorhood park would add to the heavy traffic on both streets, but that he feit
tha4 to approve aeighborhood commercial use for subject property would be detrimental to
the arel,the school, and the park.
THB HBARING WAS CL0.SHD.
'The Commission felt that subject propesty coulQ weil be developed for single family
residential use since it was bounded on two sides by single familq residences and a
proposed schooi site, and the Plood Control Channel on the other two sides.
Mr. Kreidt stated that in ti~e Council~s resolution to advertise subject property for its
proposed use~ this was only done because the City agreed to waive the filing fee
for the proposed reclassification, but did not assu=e the property owner that the
property would be reclassified.
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 847, Series 1963-64~ and moved ior its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commisaiocer Sides, to reco~end to the City Couacil that
Petition for 2eclassification No. 63-64-4 be disapproved based on the fact that
development plans for any propased neighboshood commercisl facil3ty had not been submitted,
and t~~at it was contrary to the Commission~s policy to consider petitions without pians
for any developmeni of the property. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the fore~oing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYBS: COMMISSIONERS: Allred~ Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland,
Sides.
NOBB: C0~4dIS3I0I~RS: None,
ABSBNT: CC1NA~fISSIONIDRS: None.
~ ____ __ _ _ __ __ __ .
~_ . .
r ,_ ,
r. C~ ........._..~.-~ . ~ . - , ~ ~ . .... ' . ~ . ~ . . ' , . . . . ~..
t
i
~
~
~ ~ :, ~
~ . ~ ~
MINUTB3, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 22, 1963, Continued:
1681
RHCIASSIPICATION - PUBLIC I~ARING. FANNY 3HC~tALTBR, c/o DHCON CQtPORATION~ 1833 Bast
N0. 63-64-8 17th Street, Santa Ana, California, Owner; DHCON CORPO~RATION, 1833
Hast 1'lth Street, Santa Aaa, California, Agent; property described
CONDITIONAL USB as: An irregular portioa of land haviag a frontage of 1~266 feet
PffitMIT N0. 450 on the westerly side of the Riverside Preeway, the westernmost
boundary of subject property being 550 feet east of the centerline
of Jefferson Street, said property being further described as
Portion No, 1 and Portion No. 2, portion No. 1 being located in the City of Anaheim,
and Portion No. 2 being located in the County of Orange. Property presently ciassified
as R-A, RBSIDENTIAL A(3tICULTURAL, ZONH.
RBQUESTBD CIASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLH PAMILY RBSIDHNTIAL, ZONB.
RHQUESTBD CONDITIONAL USB: HSTABLISH A ONH and 1W0 STORY MULTIPLB FAMILY PIANNSD
RESIDBNTIAL DHVHLOPMBNP WITH CARPQRTS - WAIVH ONB-STORY
I~IG1iT LIMITATION.
Mr. Len Poes, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission
and stated that the entire development was proposed for development under the utility
annexation agreement. that this was aeceasary because sewer, water and o~her utilities
would be obtained from the City of Anaheim, although the major portion of subject
property was located iz~ the County of Orange.
Zoning Coordiaator Martin Kreidt advised the Commissin n that under the utility annexation
agreement, the developer would be required tio develop in accordance with City of Anaheim
standards, because the City would be furnishing utilities and sewer.
The Commission reviewed the plot plan notiag that ~treets beiag proposed were not
acceptable for standard city streets, that 133 apartments were being proposed with an
estimated 250 cars using a periphery access drive only 25 feet wide, that carports and
open parking was being provided for only 210 cars, that subject property would have
only one access and that to the Santa Ana Canyon Road, and that thexe would never be any
access roads available to the City.
Mr. Poes stated that the Commiasion had sent a letter to the Orange County Planning
Commission relative to the proposed reclassification asking that it be single story
and the construction of a masonry wall.
The Commission stated that there was a reciprocal agreement between cities adjacent to
each ot:,er and the County, as well, to make comments when property was contiguous to the
City's boundaries, that the petitioaer shouid provide adequate access ag well as relocatioa
of the carports so that these would be more readily accessible, that although the county
oniy required a narrower street dedication, it was the requirement of the City of Anaheim
to have a 54 foot roadbed along the easteriy line with an extension to 3anta Ana Canyon
Road, and a 40 foot wide road, that ali City of Anaheim atandards should be met~ in the
event subject property were annexed to the City.
[Io one appeared•in opposition to subject petition. .
'1~ FI8A1tING WAS CL03ED.
The Commission discussed the various City standards that must be met by subject develop-
ment, that although the Commission was oaly considering Portion No. 1 for reclassification,
Yortion No. ~ ~fluld, at a future date, be annexed to the City since the City was providing
all utilities iur,the mnltiple family development~ and that the petitioner should consuit
with the 8lanning Department to ascertain the City of Anaheim staadards before submitting
a revised plan.
Commissioner Camp offered a motion to reopea the hearing and contxnue Petitions for
Reciasaification No. 63-64-8 and Conditional Use Permit No. 450 to the meeting of
August 19, 1963, in order to allow the petitioner time to consult with the planning
Department and to submit revised plans incorporating standard street widths aad suggestions
relative to reloca:ion of carports together with providing additionai parking facilities,
Commissioner Chavos seconded the wotion, MOTION CARRIBD.
i
. I
.___ _.. _ _,.._.~,~~~__ ~__ .. _ _ _._._._ __._ .
------.
_ _ -~ . : ~ . __
~
~
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COU4dIS310N, July 22, 1963, Continued:
~
1682
RHCIASSIPIGITION - PUBLIC HBARING. W Y1~ and RUTH HANSBN, 3181 SVest Lincoln Avenue,
N0. 63-64-9 and R, H, and CHAR~OTTS RHODBS, 3177 West Lincoln Avenue~ Anaheim,
California, Owners: GLBNN-HAGBN ffi3TBRPRISHS; 1771 "D" S#xee#,
CONDITIONAL USE San Beraardiao, California, Agent; property describe~l as:
PBRMIT N0. 452 A rectangular portion of land having a frontage of 131 feet on the
north side of Lincoln Avenue, and a froatage of 147 feet on the east
side of Western Avenue, and further described as 3177 and 3181 West
Lincoln Avenue. Property presentiy classified R-1, ONB PAMILY
RHSIDBNTIAL~ 201~.
RBQUBSTBD CIASSIFICATIOh: C-1, NSIGHBORHOOD COI~4~SHRCIAL, ZONB~
RHQU83TBD CONDITIONAL USH: ESTABLISH A SHRVICB STATION.
Mrs. Salley Tompkins, agent for the petitioners appeared before the Commission, and
reviewed the proposed development of a service station on a parcel of land incorporated into
two residential lots, and in response to questioning by the Commission, stated that a
s~x (6) foot masonry wall existed on the north side of the adjacent alley, that the
lessees of the proposed service station did not intend to use the alley, and that 18
property owners adjacent to subject property on Lincoln Avenue approved subject petitions.
•rs. V. W. :~allace, 3180 West Polk Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition
to subjecL peiiiion, and siaied inas io permit a service siaiaon in a single iamily
residential development would be detrimental to the value of her properiy which was
immediately to the north of the corner parcel uader consideration, that trash and debris,
toether with lights and noises from the service station wouid undermine her health and
general welfare, and that she had spent considerable money to maintain her residence,
which she would dislike to see covered with litter and debris,
Mr. Robert Armstrong,3107 West Lincoln Avenue, appeared in fayor of subject petition
and stated that the tract consisted of cheap three bedroom slab type homes, that the
character of the neighborhood had changed in the last several years, and tliat tl:e
Lincoln Avenue frontage from Grand to Western Avenue should be 3eveloped for commercial
purposes.
The Commission iaquired i.f those in favor of the reclassificatioa would be wiiling to
remove the structures and replace them with commerciai structures, that the Commiss?.on
was not in favor of utilizing existing residences for commercial purposes, and in t;
pasthad required the residences removed and replaced with commercial structures.
Mr. Armsicro~replied that he was not particularly intereste3 or desirous of obtaiaSng
commercial zoning, that masonry wails existed to separate the single family residences
fronting on Polk Avenue, and their existence only deiayed the uitimate commercial
development of the Lincoln Avenue frontage.
A petition signed by 25 persons residing on Lincoln Avenue and Western Avenue approving
subject petitions was read to the Commission.
TH8 HBARING WAS CL03HD.
The Commission noted that th1ee other service stations were presently located on the
other corners of the intersection, and that it was the desire of the Commiesion to have
a study made to determine the best land use of the existing Lincola Avenue frontage
between Grand to Western Avenues. with either the removal of all existing structures
prior to any change of zoning or use, or multiple family development.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 848~ 3eries 1963-64~ and maved for its pas3age
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to recommend to the City Council that
Petition for Reclassification No. 63-64-9 be approved subject to development in conformance
with Service Station Minimum Site Development Standards, the construction of a aix (6) foot
masonry wAll on the southerly boundary e: the existing alley, and all lights and signs
be directed away from the single family subdivis~on adjacent to subject property.
(See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
A~: COMMI38IONIDtS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland~ Sides
N~~ CObAtIS3ZAIVBRB: NoAe.
ABSBNT; COh~lI38IONBRS: None.
--- - _. ----- -
. ~; .=::i. -.- .
• I.
~
f
1
~
~',:~
._ -~-_`
~ ~ ~ '
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COMMIS3ION, July 22, 1963, Continued: 1683
ABCLASSIFICATION - Comwissioner Alired offered Resolution No. 849, Series 1963-64,
N0. 63-64-9 and moved for its passage F.nd adoption, seconded by Commissioner
Perry, to ~qrant Petition io= Condiiiaaai Jse Ferwi~ ~Yo. 452~ ss:b,;~ct
CONDITIQ~?AL USB to conditions. (See ResoZution Book.)
pffitMIT N0. 452
(Contiaued) On roll call the foregoiag resolutioa was passed by the following
vote:
AYffi: COihAlISSIONIDR3: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowtand,
Sides.
NOBS: CONAlISSIObffit3: None .
ABSBNT: CObAiISSION~tS: None.
RBClASSIPICATION - PUBLIC HBARING. INITIATBD SY Ti?'3 CITY OP A1vAHBIM PIANNING
N0. 63-64-10 COMMISSION, 204 Bast Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; property
described as: (1) Tract No. 3011, Lot Nos. 1-31. Said tract of
CONDITIONAL USH land being east of Pa1m Street and north of Midway Drive.
PBRMIT NOS. (2) Tract No. 419, Block No. 2, Lot Nos. 1-6 and 21-~6, Block No. 3,
45o niid 45i ;,c: ::~s. ?-b '-^-~? ?1-?~+: A1ock 4, Lot Nos. 1-6 and 21-26. and
IIlock No. 5, Lot Nos. 1-6. Said tract of land being located between
the Santa Ana Preeway on the west, Zeyn Stre~t on the east, and
Midway Drive on the nqrth. (3) PORTION N0. 1, being an irregular portion of land 490 feet
by 1200 feet, and a frontage of 490 feet on the east side of the Santa Ana Preeway,'the
northerly boundary of said portion being adjacent to stubends of Dickel, Clemeatine,
Lemoa, and 2eyn Streets. PORTION N0. 2, being a triang~+lar portion of land having a
frontage of 295 feet on the south side of Midway Drive, and a frontage of 445 feet on
the east side of the Santa Ana Freeway. P~:TION NOS. 1 and 2 being commonly referred to
as Midway Trailer Park. Property presently ciassi~ied as R-A, RBSIDBNTIAL A(3tICULT[IItAL,
and R-1, ONH FAMILY RBSIDENTIAL, ZONBS•
RgQUHSTBD CLASSIPICATION: R-3, MULTIPLB FAMILY RBSIDSNTIAL, ZONB.
RBQUSSTBD CONDITI~TAL USBS: C.U.P. N0. 456 - BSTi,BLISH A 1RAILBR PARg.
C.U.P. N0. 457 - E:CFAND AN BXISTING 1RAILBR PARg.
Zoning Coordinator Martin 1Kreidt reviewed for the Commission events which led up to the
iaitiation of subject petition, that Petitions for Conditionai Use Permit Nos. 344 and 349
had been referred to the Planning Commission for an investigation of ,legaliy permitted
use of parcels by either the Citp or County, together witta a copy' of the report reiative
to this investigation, and t~at the property known as Tract No, 3011~ Lot Nos. 1-31
presented no probiems since permission to construct apartments had been granted through
Variance No. 492, and reclassifacation of this parcel was basically to zone the property
in its proper catagory.
Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution No. 850, Series 1963-64, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissiones A1?red, to recommend to the City Council
tlrat Portion "A" of subject petition be approved for reclassifica~tion: (See Resolutiori
Book.)
On roll cali the foregoing resolutioa was passed by the foilowing vote:
pYBS: CQAMTSSIOI~RS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebiey, Perry, Rowland,
S9.des.
NQH~: COMMISSION~tS: None.
AHSBNT: COMA~IISSIGNBRS: None.
',
~ '
I
/ ,
.. .._._..~_.. .~_ __~_ __...- --•--._._.._ _~
~
~
_ ._ _ _. _.. _ __ _.. W....~..--- --- ---
..__-__....~_____..~ _ - J
'. .
i
' . . . _ ~ . _ i
~ l` ~ _.
~ ... ~ . ~ ~~ .
, ',
MINUTSS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 22, 1963, Continued: 1684
RHCLASSIFICATION - Mr. Rreidt continued with the study made on Portion "B" and
N0. 63-64-10 referred to the maps gresented to each Commissioner together
W?t}! tt12 ~O@P*ehe~s;ye Ariglne_S pf og_c+iZpn 1~:lG~ ::5~ 352~
CONDITIONA.L USB existing laad use permits for the trailer park properties
PBRMIT NOS. prepared by Deputy Caty Attorney Purman Roberts,
456 and 457
(Continued) Mr. Roberts then reviewed for the Gommission all the propertie:s
legally approved for uses as a trailez park, noting that some
doubt did exist on the use of Areas 4, 5, and 7, that even tha~agh
a building permit was issued inadvertently on the easterly portion of Area 8, this did
not bind the City into making this a legal use, thus, llreas 8, 10, and 11 could not
be used for trailer park purposes since Area 10 and 11 had been denied by the
Commission, and were still pending before the Council.
The Commission discussed the variety of evidence prepared by the Plannsng Department
together with their observation of subject property on previous petitions noting the
illegal use of portions of the property, that development had been disorderly in that
any vacant parcel was immediately utilized for the parking of trailers, with or without
permission of the property owners, that sewer connections and other utalities were
started with authorization by the City, and that by so violating the Anaheim
Nunicipal Code, the rxghts of the adjoining property owners was abused and disregarded
by the trailer park owner, Mr. Bostwick.
Mr. Robert G. Starrett, attorney repzesenting four property owners adjacent to the
trailer park, appeared before tHe Commission and stated that the owner of t1e trailer
park parked trailers illegally on pzivate property, that in the initiating of subject
reclassification the City was condoning illegal actions by Mr. Bostwick, a.nd weie
now attempting to legalize all these irregularities, that his clients did not oppose
an orderly transition from the single family uses to trailer park uses, but it was the
flagrant disregard for the rights of the property owners in the area in taking over
vacant parcels of land, digging to provide sewer and water facilities, blocking the
only access to ~arages one property owner had, the encroachment onto private alleys,
and the illegal parking of innumerable trailers that roused the consternation of the
adjacent property owners, and that it was the duty of the City to protect the rights
of these property owners.
The Commission informed Mr. Starrett that its body had been instructed by the City
Council to attempt to clear up misunderstandings, possible illegal uses of property
and requiring the trailer park owner to assume some of the responsibilities for the
maintenance of the City's streets, lights, etc., in this attempt to resolve an
unpleasant situation.
The Commission inquired of Mr, Bostwick, owner of the trailer park,ta explain the
illegal use of vacant property for Yhe Farking of tr.ailers after he had been instru;.ted
to cease auu desist.
Mr. L. V, Sostwick, 2003 Nlest Midway Drive, stateri that tne trailers we=e not being
used, that he had attempted to obtain the keys for the tra±lers from the cwners so
that he could move these to a legal storage space, but had .been unable to do-so, but '
in his opinion, this parking of trailers was not a violation of any law, since they
were not occupied.
Mr. Starrett stated that it was heartbreaking to the other property owners to see such
violations occuring, that trailers were being moved in the eazly hours of the morning
with loud voices, nerve wracking noises going by the residents bedrooms, as well as
having the inconveniences of no privacy,
THH HBARING WAS CL0.iED.
The Commission determined that four lots, namely, Nos. 8, 9, 10, and 11 were being •~sed
illegally, th~± recl=ssification of Portion "B" should oniy cover those parcels whece
some evidence of legal permits were located by the City Attorney's office, that any
parcels should be required to file for a new reclassification and drawiags and plans
must be submitted in order for the Commission to render a decision on its validity.
Commissioner Pebley leEt the Council Chamber at 9:23 P.M.
~
, w..._.r_....____.~........~___._..---..__........_____.._..........-°--------•----- /
_...- --.__..--•-~---......_
~M•', ~. '
~ ~ ~
MINUTB3, CITY PIANNING COhAlISSION, July 22, 1963, Continued: 1685
RHCIASSIFICATION - Mr. Kreidt advised the Commission that some of the recommended
N0. 63-64-10 conditions of approval covered streets which had not been officially
abandoned by the City, that the trailer park owner could request
~O,YIIiTia;~li tTSB ~his abandonment, since his ~railer pork abu«ed the aireets,
PBRMIT NOS. that a six (6) foot masonry wall should be constructed on the
456 and 457 Freeway frontage of the trailer park, an@. that one of the
(Continued) conditions should be the requiremen't that the trailer park owner
pay the filing fee for all three petitions being considered by
the Commission in compliance with the City Council's resolution
on Pebruary 23, 1963.
Commissioner pebley returned to the Council Chamber at 9:25 P.M.
Commissioner Camp offered Resalution No. 850, Series 1963-64, and moved for its i
passage and adoption, seconded by Commi~sioner Chavos, to recommend to the City Council E
that P~rtion "B" of subject reclassification be approved with the exception that '
Parcels 8, 30; and ll be deleted from any reclassification, and that if use of these -
parcels was desired, the property owner would be required to file a new petition ;
reclassifying said psoperty, that all the standard conditions recommended by the i
Interdepaxtmental Committee and rhs Planniag Department be applied, and that the City
Attorney's office be instructed :e enforce the removal of any structure on the parceis
not cuvered by this reclassification. (See Resolution Book,) ,
On roil call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYSS: C(YrhIISSIONERS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland,
Sides.
NOB3: COMMISSIONBRS: None. .
AB3HNT: COMMISSIONBRS: None.
Commissioner Sides offered a motion to terminate Petition for Conditiorial Use
Permit No. 456, seconded by Commission Chavos, said motion was withdr~tim after some
discussion. '
Mr. Kreidt then stated that since the C~mmission had recommended fat approval the
reciassification covering Parcel No. 1, referred to in Conditionai TJse Permit No. 456,
the Commission might consider granting said petition covering the triangi:lax parcel of
land south of Midway Drive, and east of the San~a Ana Freeway.
Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 851, Series 1963~64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, secoaded by Commi9sioner Allred, to grant Petition for Conditional Use
Permit No. 456, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote;
AYHS: COhAlISSIONBRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, N~ungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland,
Sides.
NOBS: CQMMISSIONBRS: None,
AHSHNT: COMMISSIONBRS: None.
Discussion was held by the Commission relative to continuar,ce of Petition for
Conditional Use Yermit No. 457, due to the fact that the Commission wished to ;:~~~e t,.
Planning Department and the City Attorney's office investigate further the le;;~I;.ty of
the exiating structures on Parcels 8, 10, and 11, if any, and to submit this report
to the Commission.
- .. .. .. .. _ ._,_.
_._ ~ ~ .._..-
1
~
I
f
~
MINUTH3, CITY PLANNING COhWIISSION, fuly 22, 1963, Continued:
1686
RBCIASSIP:[CATION - Commissioner Sides offeie d a motion to reopen the~earing and
N0. 63-64-10 continued Petition for Conditional Use Perant No. 457 to the
i'u2C' ~iitg 8i r~iu~iio e i~ ~ 1953~, i21 Oit~a2l ~tlw ~~i12 ~2d'u7iIICr B2~8I i`,i72IIi.
CONDITIONAL USB and the City Attorney's office might investigate the legality of
PBRMIT N0.S. an existing structure on Parcel 8, and since Petition for "
456 and 457 • Conditional Use Permit No. 34~ covered Parcel Nos. 10 and 11,
(Continued) denied by the Comaission and being heid in abeyance by the City
Council until the Commission considers all evidence, and that a
written report be subwitteC to the Commis§ion prior to that time
for their perusal. Commi~~ioner Camp seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIHD.
Commissioner Sides offered Resolution No. 857, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Alired, to recommen3 to the City Council that
the City Attorney's office be instructed to investigate and determine that ail conditions,
restrictions, and zoning Code regulations are complied with as stipulated in the
Anaheim Municipal Code, that a11 alleys, streets, and properties not legally approved
must be ter:ninated within 90 days. •
0~ roli call the foreging resoiution was passed by the following vote:
AY&4: CONA4I3SIONffit3: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland,
Sides.
NOBS: CObW1ISSI0i~1ffitS: None.
AHSHNT: COMMISSIONBR3: None.
CONDITIONAL USB - CONTINUBD PUBLIC F~ARING. JOHN H. KINNBY, JR., 1441 South Los Angeles
PffitMIT N0. 439 Street, Anaheim California, Owner; requesting permission to
BSTABLISH AN BMPLOYHHS' PARRING LOT on property described as:
A rectangular parcel of land having a fronta8e of 100 fe~t on the
west side of 2eyn 3treet, and a depth of 114 feet, the northerly bonndary of said
property being appr~ximately 78 feet south of the centerline of Midway Drive, and further
described as 1443 South Zeyn Street, Property presently classified as R-1, 01~ PAMILY
RHSIDHNTIAL, ZONH.
3ubject petition was continued from the meeting of June 24, 1963, in order to allow
the adjoining property owner to file for a conditionai use permit of property adjacent
to subject property, and to afford the petitioner an opportunity to negotiate a trade
of property and meet with the City~s reprzsentatives to resolve these differences.
Mr. John Rinney, the petitioner appeared before the Cormnission and stated that although
he had attempted to negotiate with the trailer park owner for a possible exchange of
parcels of land, nothing was accompiished, that the parking lot was necessary because
of business expansion aecessitating employing additional help, that it was his desire
to remove the employees cars from the street in order that the street would be safer
for children in the area. - - •
The Commission discussed with the petitioner use of an Pxisting employees' parking
lot approved for the property on which his manufacturing structures were located, that
a storage yard in an M-1 zone must be completely enclosed with a masonry wali~ to
which the petitioner replied that the additional parking facilities would take care of
the additional employees.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THH,HBARING WAS CLOSHD.
Ti:e Conunission was concerned with permitting a parkinq lot in between .~. a~esidentiai
area, that the noise and litter from the iot might c::.~a4r a nuisance fur the ,ad;joi~i3.n~
property owners, that if said parking lot were aporoved, it ehould not have acc~ss to
the alley to the rear and should be enclosed on three sides with a masonry wa11, that
the petitioner had attempted in good faith to negotiste a trad~ of property to permit
all M-1 uses to be located on the east side of 2eyn Street, and that the petitioner
would not be in violation of the M-1, Zone for the storage area, if said storage area
were completeiy encloaed, and that the employee parking area would be a compatible use
in ciose proximity to trailer park q8e being made of the southeriy parcels.
~
~
, ~,., _~..-...__..- -- ....__ _ _____ __..._.._ ~ __----- ....__-
. ~ ~_ . _ _ _ ~ . --- --.._. _ . .__. , . ~
~ ~
~
~
MINUTB3, CITY PIATPIING CObAiIS3I0N, July 22, 1963, Continued:
~
1687
CONDITIONAL USB - Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 452, Series 1963-64, and
PBRMIT N0. 439 moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Sides,
;Con:ia;:~d) to grant Petition for Condifionai Use Yermit No. 439, subject to
construction of a six (6) foot masonry wa11 r~.ing constructed on
the north, west, and south propeity lines. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYBS: CONAtIS3I0NBRS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungail, Pebley, Perry, Rowland,
Sides.
NOB3: COMMISSIONHRS: None.
ABSBNT: COMMISSIONBFtS: None.
RBCB33 - Commissioner Allred moved for a ten (i0) minute recess. Commissioner Pebley
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED,
The meeting recessed at 10:15 P.M.
RECONVENB - Chairman Mungall r~convened the meeting at 10:25 P.M., all Commissioners
being present.
RBCIASSIPICATION - PUBLIC HBARING. BLSIB M, and WILLIAM B. PURDY, 12q3 Placentia
N0. 63-64-11 Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; JIM HODGBS, 1709 3outh
Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; property described
OONDITIONAL USE as; An irregular shaped parcel of ].and having a frontage of 255 .
pffitMIT N0. 453 feet, the western boundary of said property being approximately
450 feet east of the centerline of State College Boulevard, and
further described as 1243 North Piacentia Avenue. Property presently
classified as R A, RBSIDBNTIAL A(3tICULTURAL, ZOPffi.
RBQUBSTHD CIASSIPICATICYd: R-3, MULTZPLB FAMILY RH9IDENTTAL, ZONB.
RHQUBSTBD CONDITIONAL USH: BSTABLISH A 1W0-STOFcY MULTIPLH PAMILY PLAHIVBD R$SIDBNTIAL
DBVBLOPMSNT WITH CARPQitTS AND WAIVBR OF THH ONB-STORY HHIGHT
LIMITATION.
Mr. Jim Hodges~ agent for.. the petitioner appeared before theCommission and reviewed the
proposed development, that a new concept had been proposed by providing access to the
dwelling units from covered carports, and submitted a colored rendering of the proposed
development. The Commission then requested that the agent reduce said rendering for i
use as an exhibit in the petition files.
Mr. Hodges further stated that he had been informed what the staff report covered ca his
proposed layout, that fhe p=oposed type of carport and cas parking was not permitr~:.l
in the existing mul":iple family residential zone, aad that he wouid have to provide
vehicular access through a peripheral access.
The Commission feit that the proposed carp~rt tseatment for a multiple family development
•~;as too similar to a motel~ that the ~iving environment desired for dweiling units
was lost, that the petitioner should provide a common green area down the center
rather than a drive and carports, and that the proposed development was not a planned
residential development, but a modified R-3, and would require an alley, whefeas a
planned residenti.al required a commnn green.
Mr. Raymond H. Plynn, 2200 Briarvale Avrnue, appeared before the Co~ission in
opposition to the request for waiver of the one story height limitation, stating that ~
several of the single family r~s9dents aiso opposed two story construction, that the
apartments to the southwest of the single famtly development were required to construct
one story structures, and this woul~ be ur.cair to them if two story were permitted,
and that he was not opposed to multi.;,ie family deveiopment, but requested that the
Commission consider requiring that one story height be maintained.
_ _ _ __ __ -- - -- --- ------- -- --- - -._.._... _ _ __._.__..---. ..
_--~ --- --- __...___._.....~ __.._..
~
~
i
,
f
~
,
1
~
i
i
I
t
~
I
i
i
~
~~
MINTUHS~ CITY PIANNING COMMISSIOH, July 22, 1963, Continued; 1688
RBCLA3SIFIGITION - Zoning Cooridnator Martin Kreid+c stated that the Anaheim Municipal
N0. 63-64-11 Code prohibited two story const~ruction within 150 feet of aay
single family sbudivision, that the petitioner was request:.ag the
COAIDITIONAL USB one story height limdtation because it was within 150 feet of ,
PBRMIT N0. 453 residential agricultural zoned property, anli that two story
(Continued) construct~.on wouid be more than 1T0 feet away from the singie
family subdivision to the southeast of subject property.
The Commission in viewing the plans stated that the second atory windows would in mo
way be able to face out onto the single story structures to the south and east.
Mr. William Purdy, one of the petitioners, ~tated thaL the trailer park owners had
indicated to him that theyplan to sell their property, that the property owner to the
northeast also planned to develop for multiple falnily uae, and that traffic on the street
was only congested when the schooi buses would park at the eorner to pickup children
for school •
TNB HHARING WAS CLOSHD.
Mr. Kreidt then suggested to the Commission that the adjacent owners and the petitioners
might meet with the Planning Department to have a meeting of minds for possible
incorporation of all properties for a larger multiple family development.
Commissioner Sides offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for
Reclassification No. 63-64-11 and Conditional Use Permit No. 453'to the ineeting of
August 19~ 1963, in order to allow the petitibner time to submit revised plans and for
the Planning Department to meet with adjacent property ownars for possibie development
of their properties in conjunction with subject petition. Commissioner Perry seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
P.HCLASSIFIf:ATION - FUBLIC HBARING. BUILDBRS BXCHANGB, A Limited Partnership,
N0. 63-64-12 2001 Haster Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; V. L. N. COPf31RUC-
TION COI~ANY, INC., 8431 Monroe Avenue, Stanton, California, Ageat;
TBNTATIVE MAP OP requesting that property described as: An L-shaped;po~tion of laffi
TRACT N0. 5155 having a frontage of 197 feet on the south side of Or~~,ewcad Avenue
and a depth of 1,060 feet, the westeriy boundary of iq~~aQ property
being approximately 660 feet east of the centerline o~~ Haster 3treet
be reclassified from the A A, RHSIDBNTIAL AGRICULTURAL~ ZONS, to the R-2, 11V0 PAMILY
RBSIDBNTLli, ZGrin, to permii tne subdivision of a ttvo famiiy planned residential
development,
SUSJBCT 1R~^.T: Located on the south side of Orangewood Street, approximately 660 feet
east oF the easterly line of Haster Street, covering approximately
7.12 acsea, is proposed for subdivisioa into 24 - R-2, i^wo Pamily
Reaidential, 2one, ~,ats.
Mr. Harry I{nisely, attorney for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and
reviewed the proposed development, noting that subject pzopesty had a histo=y of
petitions filed on it which had been denied because of the high density proposed, that
subject property had ~r;ltiple family zoning or development to the north and west, and
that ~roperty owners to the south favored the proposed development.
The Commission determined that the proposed development would have a density of
seven (7) dwelling units per net residential acres.
Mrs. Nancy Small, 108 Ciiffwood Avenue, appeared in opposition to subject petition, '
noting that she was only concerned with the proposed zoning, that since it had been the
Commission's previous policy to deny multiple faroily development south of Orangewood
Avenue, the proposed R-2, 1Wo Family Residential, Zone might be construed as multiple
family development and asked where the line could be drawn between two family and ~
multiple famiiy development, that the single family residents adjacent to the southeast
and east did not wish to see tlie City approve any more multipie iamily development for'
that area, because it was saturated already, that the traffic situation wi~h multiple
family units would become so congested to make it undesirable to have a quiet
residential environment, and that the Commission should keep this in mind when making :
their decision on subyect petition.
. ~~~__.._ _ .. --- ----.._._- --- _. _ _ . _..___..._ _ _ _ . .._. ....._._
~ r . ----. _ __ -- ° ~~ ~
I
l
~
~ ~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CalMISSION, July 22, 1963, Continued: 1689
RHCIASSIPICATION - Mrs, Bert=am Velten, 2141 Spinnaker, appeared in opposition to
N0. 63,lti4-12 subject petitioa, noted that the owners of subject property had
first applied for multiple family development, that now a request
T3B;TATZ:'B k_eD qp for R-2, Two Pamily Residential development was proposed~ that the
TRACT N0. 5~.55 density problem was a concern for the schools in sne area ixcau~e
(Continued) of the number of multiFie family dwellings already in existence
in the area, that if subject petition were approved it was possible
that residents of Spinnaker would ask for muitiple family
residential zoning for their property, and that in previous zoning actions south of
Orangewood Avenue the Commission ha3 proposed low density development, and that t~
develop subject property for single family subdivision, no problem would be invoived in
selling these homes, and that the Commission should continue their policy of limiting
multiple family development to the north side of Orangewood Avenue.
In rebuttal, Mr. Knisely stated that the proposed development would have the studio
apartments adjacent to the parksite, that although many apartment owners contributed
their share of taxes for the schools, many of them did nat permit children, that subject
property was not conducive to a high type single family r`esidentiai development, and
that the proposed development would be a high caliber low density development of not
more than 7 dwelling units per acre.
1H8 tIBARING WA3 CLOSHD:
The Commission discussed ~he extension of Mountain View ~-venue inrou~ii 3Uu,j2C2 prog~r:;
noting that it st~b ended at the southerly property line, and that there seemed to be
a slight discrepancy between the width af the proposed street, the tract map indicating
a 60 foot street and the pla~s indicated a 64 foot st:~et. The Commission also
determined that the "not a part" was not owned by the petitioner, and that the petitioner
agreed to improve the street frontage of this parcel if the dedication could be obtai~ed.
Cowmissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 853, Series 1963-64, and moved for ifs passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that
petition for Reclassification No. 63-64-12 be approved, subject to requiring a masonry
wail across the entire southerly property line as weli as on the west and east property
lines, and other conditions.: (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following
pY83: COhAlISSIONBR3: Allred, Camp, Cnavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland,
Sides.
NOHS: COMMISSTONBRS: None.
ABSBNT: CaMMISSIOD:HRS: None.
$ubject tract was considered in conjunction with the publ3.c hearing of Petition for
Reclassification No. 63-64-12. • •
' The Commission reviewed the Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. ,
Commissioner Camp offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 5155, sub3ect
to the following co~ditions:
1. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each
subdivision thereof shail be submitted in tentative form for approval.
2, That this tentative tract is approved subject to the completion of
Reclassification No. 63-64-12, proceediugs now pending.
3, That Mountain View Avenue be a 64 foot wide street with a 40 foot roadway.
4. That the vehicular access rights to Orai~gewood Avenue, except at street
intersections, shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim.
5. That the developer improve the Orangewood Avenue frontage of "Not A Part" if the
City of Anaheim can acquire the dedication.
Commissioner Sides seconded the motion'. MOTION CARRIHD.
~ E
f ~
. _~.___._. ._.___ ...___.__... . _._.. ..._._.~_.___.._..._ _.__.._ ._......_.~..,,~ .
. _._. _-•'_T-._ . .. . _. ..
~ ~ _.
- ~.u .. ~ . . __._.___
l
I
i
;
i
i
l,
~
i
~
~
~
.,
:'
i
a
i
~
e
1
.
~
i
i
i
I
~
'
i
f
~
~
~
~ ~
RBCIA9SIPICATION - PUBLIC HBARING. EUGHNIH CURRIB, 1727 West Catalpa Aveaue,
N0. 63-64-13 Anaheim, Califoraia, Owner; JOHId D. VON DBR I~IDIDB, 924 North
Buclid Strer.t, Anaheim, California,'Ageat; property described
VARIANCB I~. 1595 as: A rectanguiar parcel of land with a frontage of 138 feet
on ine weai aide oi 'nuciid Stireei and & depin ai 327 ieei, 'sne
northeriy boundarq of said p~operty being approximately 250 feet
south of the cettterline of Catherine Drive, and further described as 835 and 839 Nor~ch
Euciid Street. Property presently elassified as R-A, RSSIDHNTIAL AQtICULTIJRNL~ sud
R-3, MULTIPLB,NAMILY RBSIDENTIAL, ZON$S. •
OP RBQUIRBD PARAING.
Mr. Joha Von der Heide, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Coma~ieaion snd
stated he would reserve comment on the reclaeaification~ but that the proposed
developmeat wouid be a conaiderable ia~proveaent of eub,ject property~ that ~k,e
atructure would coasiat of a 18,600 aqusre foot two atory buildiag to houae the
combined Puliertoa and AnaFeim branehea of McMahans Purniture Store, and th~-t the
waiver of the required parkiag waa bsaed oa paet experience that farniture atorea do
aot have the number of p4trona that sma11 neighborhood atores would have.
The Commiaeion revi~wed the plaas and aoted that the proposed aetbarir wes not ia
accordaace wiia sne exiaiing aeib~cka aiready e~labiisned, and wouid be detsia-eats,l
to exiating commercial etructurea~ that evidence preeented ia writiag indicatod that
the maximum parking sp~cea seqaired for'employaea custoaer~yand iacideatal variablea
totaied 17 which w~a ia axcese of the aormai~ tha~ the proposed ~tructusa would be
so constructed aa to b~ suitable'only for~ furai:ure atore, and that ia the avent
the petitioaer vaeated iub3eet property, the propoaed atraatura would ~till only
hou~m a retail furaiture stora.
zhe a~or.t rapliad that at the time the buildias war de~i~ned it waa detormie0d to hrv~a
the propoeed aebbscl~ beeaaae tha erchiboct ~aw no raaaon Eor ott-ar thae :ho propo~ed
aetb~ck~ aad trat the ~hRpo of the parc~i made it dif!'ieuit bo darign ~ rtrueturo other
thaa vns propo~ed.
Mr. pat ~Payna, ona aE tha ownera oF #he prapoae~i deve.~opmaat e#Ated that th~y v-ora
oausl~y c9n~erned ~bAUi ~a~k~n~ Ese~.~.~t~e+t ~e~d #h@ a~E~ck~ ~~~t #h@Y wou~~ be ~h~
owners of the property when constr~uted no# ~.gas~nQ it, that a portion of the area
normally used for parking in the rear would h~ needed to ~aneuver the tracks delivering
furniture and taking out customers purchases, that if subject structure were required
to setback as £ar as the California Pederal Building~ this maneuverabiliLy would be
lost.
The Co~muission suggested that the petitioner consider parking facilities in the front
setback, that the architect could view another furniture store in the area which
provided parking facilities in the front setback for suggestions as to proper alignment
of the proposed structure.
Mr. Richard Blair, a=chitect for the Qetitioner, appeared befo=e the Comatiss:ion to
discuss the proposed changes suggested by ~Che Commission, stated that after several
proposed designs and methods of location of the structure the one presented seemed to
be the most acceptable, because of the maneuverabiiity of the rear area~ and the
fact that a furniture store had their displays in the froat windows for sales purposes.
The Commisson continued discussion relative to requiring a mere compatible setback,
that if the petitioner were to invest auch a large sum of money and incorporating some of
the ~ommission's snggestions, might creat a more attractive structure, that landacaping
cou2d be used attractively to enhance the setback, and that the petitioner should
consider all :suggestioas in revising a plaa of development,.
i
I
~
!
~ ' .
' i
,..
~ ;,~
-----~..~~_ _.......__.;~--------___ .
__ _------------°..------•- .._..--- ~- - '.._~~
~1 ~ ~ i
3
MINUTB3, CITY PIANNING COMMI3SION, July 22, 1963, Continued: 1691 ~
~
i
RHCIASSIPICATION - Commissione: Camp offered a motion to reopen the hearing ar.3 ~
N0. 63-64-13 continue Petition for Reclassification No. 63-64-13 to the
~ meeting of August S, 1963, in„order '.1iat the petitioner might ;
VARIANCB N0. 1595 submit revised plans with a comparable setback from the property ~
(Continued) line.~ Commissioner Sides seconded Lne u~oiion. MGiTO'r1 ~nnitlnD. ~
•
t
RBCLA83IPICATION - PUBLIC HHAFtING. INITIATED BY THB CITY C~P ANAHBIM PLANNE:~Cz 4
N0. 63-64-14 COhAlISSION, 204 Bast Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Califo*nia; ~
proposed that property described as: TWo porti.ons of land: i
PO~2TION N0. 1; beiag a rectangular parcel of land having fro:~!:ages
of 555 feet on the south side of Broadway, 761 feet on the west side of Y.arbor Houlevaxd ~
and 555 feet on the north side of Santa Ana Stzeet - known as City proper•~y, a
PORTION N0. 2 being a rectangular parcel of land and having frontages of 323 fcet on '
the east side of Harbor Boulevard, 333 feet on the south side of Chestnut 5treet be
reclassifaed from the R-3, MULTIPLB FAMILY RBSIDENTIAL, ZONB to the C-0, C~7~lMBItCIAL
OPPICS, ZONB.
The Commission reviewed t'r.e map covering subject property, noting that the present
central library and the police facilities were located on Portion No. 1, and that
Portion No. 2 consisted of the former Masywood Girls° School property.
No one anoeared in oooosition to subject petition.
THB HBAItING WAS CLOSHD.
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 854, 3er3.es 196?-64, snd moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, te recommend to the City Council
that Petition for Reclassification No. 63-64-14 be approved subject to conditions.
(See Resolution Book.)
On roli call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foliowing vote:
AYBS: COMMISSIONBR3: Allred, Camp, Chavos~ Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, '?erry, Rowland,
Sides.
NOH3: COhAlISSIODffiR3: None.
ABSENT: COhAMIS3I0NHRS: None.
~ RBCLASSIPICATION - PUBLIC HBARING. PRANK S. and AGNSS B. STSVHNS, 2578 West 1?ome '
N0. 63-64-15 Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting that property
described as: A rectangular parcel of land having a frontage of ~
95 feet on the east side of Magnolia Street, and a frontage of 7'7 ~
feet on the south side of Rome Avenue, and further described as 2578 West Rome Avenue
be reclassified from the R-1, ONfi PAMILY RSSIDHNTIAL, ZONB, to the CW1, NBIGHBORHOOD ~
COMMBRCIAL, ZONH, to permit the expansion of a home occupation. ~
~ ~ Mr. Frank Stevens, one of the pe4itioners, appeared before the Commission and stated ~ ~
!~ that subject property was being used as a residence and cake decorating classes were i
~ conducted by his wife in order to provide living expenses for the family, due to his '
~ disability in being unable to work, that the proposed reclassification was to permit i
the petitioner to use subject property for its present uses, but also to erect a sign ~
on the Buclid Avenue frontage to advertise the location of the home occupation }
business his wife conducted. . 1
~
Mr. Doris Polley, 2574 West Rome Avenue, appeared in opposition to subjer.t petition ~
stating that she represented 62 property owners who had signed a petition of opposition
~ to subject petition, that the approval of aubject petition would disintegrate the
~ present character of the neighborhood which was residential, that any change would x~ot ~
be consistent with well planned and long established City planning, that Yffe proposed i
E change would substantially increase the vehicular and pedestrian traffic and encourage #
~ ~ accidents injurious to persons and property, together with creating a nuisance with ~
noise and traffic, that sufficient commercial proper.ty was available im trie City which ~
could be usen and :o justification existed for the unwarranted encroachment of . ~
~~~ commercial ope*.ations in a single family resident:ial area, that the neighbors in the ~
~ area were proud of thc~:,r hom~s of theirs with an F~verage value of $30,000, that the ~
~ { proposa-~ commercial zoning would encourage the Pstablishment of grocery stores, hardware ~
~ 1 store , meat markets, ete „ aa weil as permit the construction of a?.~ story structure, ~
f p that at was the h~pe of all the siugle iamily residents in the aree that the Commission
E ; considar all tiie evidence presented in oppoaition, attd deny subject petition. ~
r ~
` t ~
i 1 ---.._._,.~.__ _._....___.____-____---..___._...__.....~___.___.._. _._._._ _.....-f
y ` ~ f"' . .. _ _"•~ ~ . . "
..._...... - ~7 ` . . ~
MIi.'L~TBS, CITY P7ANNF.NG ~~OMM?SSION„ Jc.'L, 22•. 1963, Continued: 1692
~:~ L1.~3IrYCATION -~~r. P:a+i Snr~rler, 820 South Magnolia appeared in favor of subject
N~. :•~-64-15 pr.titivn stating that Magnolia had turned from chicken ranches to
(Coni`.inued) residentisJ.e.~•,d now was developing comm°rcial:, or with multip?e
fami:y devclo;~ment, and that he had ope.cated under a county pez-eit
::625 t1~S t:4S~E f4S S9V9II ~°oS5 $^d WAG ~=.ceently o~erati.ng 8
business froni nis home.
Mrs. R. L. Jahnkc, ~374 West ~',oeae appeared in op?n~_Cion and stated tha's ~ubjact
propezty and all .hotues in the 1:ract did not face ~nto Magnolia, but onto ko^~e A~°:aie,
and thus created a-aore fami:Ly living environmenl;,
:3leven persons :in the audieau~ indicated tY:eir presence in. opposition to s~bject
petition.
Tn rebuLtal, Mr. Str.~ens st-Ated that nothing otller ~uan a:.ake decorating sehool was
being ~;ondu^ted, and that the sign was only beirrg provided to direct customers to the
correct address, and that if subject petition we:re approved, th~ entrance to the
school would be from '•'agiiolia and that he would :atill be ma~ntaining the single family
residential environment of the street.
THB HEARING WAS CLOS7iB.
C~mmissioner Siderf offered Resol:~tion No. 855, 'aesies 1963-64, and moved for its
passage and adopcion, seconde~' `:y Commissioner ~h•.svos, 4o rc.:oromended to thr City
Council that Petition fcr Rec.Lassification No. os-54-iS ba disapproved L•,se.~l on th~~
fact that the proposed asae would be incompatible to the 47 single fam.f.7.y home:• ad,jacent
to subject prr~perty~ and that this would crzate au "island" of comme*:ial de•relopuent in
a sinqle fami.ly tract. ~Se~ Resolution Book.)
;1n r~il cali th° for~~oi.ng ~esolution was passed hy the foliowing cote:
AYBS: COr9dISSI(;WBRS: Allzed, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, M~:ng~ll, Yebley, Perry, Ro~:lcnd,
Sides.
NQHS: COMNISSI~VHRS: None.
ABSHNT: COMMiSSI0NHR3: None.
k°•.i~IAS3IPICATION - PUBLIC HBARING. PRANK H.LBNDrrt, 2?54 West Eall Road, WILL DEB PICK73Rffi,
N0. 63•-64-16 2752 We3t Ball 1:oad, P.nahei.:u, Cnlifornia, Owrers; ROBSRT L. WURGAPT
and WILLIAM L. RHBV.HS, 2A0 North Wilshire, Suite A08,Anaheim,
CONLYTIONAL U3B CaYifornia, Agents; property describP6 a~- Rn ':.-st:aped p^rtion o;F
°ffitMIT N0. 458 land having a frontabe of 198 feet an thf south s3cle of Baxi Road,
~~ and an average deFch of 630 fr.~et, the westerly bouniary of said
properi:y beia:n approximately 350 f,eet east of the cen:erline of
Dale Street, and further descsibed as 2764 West Ball Rosd.
Property presently classified as R-A, RBSIDBNTIAL AGAi:ULi"URAL, 7.ONH.
RBQUBSTBD CIA$SIPICA.TiON: K-3, MIILTIPLB PAMILY RHSIDHN'~IAL, ZONH. '
RHQU83T2tn ('.~NDITIONAL USB: GOf:;;1RUCT A ONH AND 7W0 3TORY blULTIPLB PAMI~.Y PIANNED
RBSIDBNTIAL DHVE?.OPMHNT WITH CARPORTS - WAIVE THB
ONH STORY HBIQiT LIMITATION.
Mz. Robert dJurgaft, one of Yhe agents for the petitioner apgeared before the Coauaission
anri rev?~wed the proposed development noting that subject property was somau~hat
difficult to develop, t;-at it was his understanding that there wae oppoaition to the
waiver of the singie sto:y heightlimi~ation, that xhis might be worked out by the
rel:,cation af structuses for single story, and that the proposed development would not
be sold, therefore, wa:~ aot considered a condomimum type of development.
~
~
i.
~
1
~
~ . _..__......_ _.._ _ ___.~._ _...~._- --- ----..--...,. - ---• ,._ _. _ _
, - - - _ . .. -~edti ^ ', _ - . _'_" ~ ... _ __ _.
~ ~ ~
MINUTB3, CITY PLANNING COMMIS3ION, July 22, 1963, Cuatinued:
1693
RBCIASSIPICATION - Mr. Michael Johnson, 8571 Lola avenue, Stanton, appeared in
N0. 63-64-16 opposition to,subject petitio~ :epresenting 6 persons in the
Council Chamber~ and preser-ted a petition signed by 32 adjacent
CONu3110NAL 'u3B properiy ownets opposing suujecti pe~ition, 3taied i}~aE Bi~gle fBwily
PBRMIT N0. 458 property owner.s did not oppose multiple fa~ily flevelopment of
(Continued) subject property, but were opposed to waiver of the single story
height linitation, that souad and basic building principal~ were
being viol3ted in the plans of subject petition, that cazpor~s and
trash were located within 26 feet of the single family homes to the south, that the
noise, fiies, and odors from trash storage areas would be very objectionabie, chat the
Commission should require single story within 150 feet of the single family homes,
tha~ the proposed 3 t,edroom apartments would add to th° bUYd21 of the schools since
that meant at least two and possibly more children, and that if sub3ect petitions were
approved, the Commission should consider requiring the masonry wall separating the
single fami.ly development from the proposed multiple family development to be constructed
prior to any excavation and construction on subject property so that noise, dust, dirt,
debris, and closiag the proptrty t4 children was a prime importance for the health,
safety and general welfazc of the adjacent property owners.
In rebuttal, #he agent stated thlt they would like to have subject petition continued
in order that plans might be revised, and that any problems which aroused the property
owners cuight be resoived.
THH HBARiNG WA8 CLOS}3L.
The ~ommission discussed all the red marks on the plot plans which indicated the
tio~ations to the Anaheim Municipal Code, and d:rected that the agent contact the
planning Department to receive concrete advise on resolving these.
Commissioner Allred offered a motion to reopen the tiearing and continue Petitions for
Reclassification 1.Qo. 53-64-16 and Conditi~nal Use Permit No. 458, to the meeting of
A!igc,st 5, 1963, in order that revised plans might be submitted incorporating ali
~uggested chan~e<, atter a consultation witih the Planning DPpaztment. Commissioner Sides
seconded Lhe motion. MOTION CARRIHD.
R8CU133:FICATION ~ PUBL7C HBARING. DHMLBR PARMS, INC., 1400 North Acacia Streat,
hJ. 63~64-17 ~tnaheim, ^a?ifornia, Owner; TBD PIBH, 1234 Bast Lincoln Avenue,
Anaheim, Califa_nia, Agen'~; property descrided as: An irregular
'CBNTA'TIVE MAF OP portion o. land having a frontage of 650 feet on the east side of
:CR4CT NCLS. 52~57, Acacia 8trr:et, a ~rontage of 645 feet on the west side of Baxter
5268, 52694 a:id Street, the nort:herly boundsry of said property being approximately
5~'•70 ., 1,211 feet souL•h of ttie .:enterline of Orangethorpe Avenue, and
further c~escribed as 14U0 North Acacia Street. Property presently
classifia.! as M-1, LI.riHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONS.
Mr. Lagan !~inocc,, 97?8 Kxtella Avenne, representing the agent, appeared before the
Commisaiori t~ answer any qucstions,. • -
The Comwissior. noted that the proposed mu2tiple family development was proposed in the
industrial area, north of the Riverside Preeway, and extending to the City l:mits.
Mr Moore stated t'_iat the proposed multiple family development was propose3 to serve as
a temporary and permanent dwelling space for the industs•y being developed in the City,
thai a homelib.e residential environ~eent for new residr.nts in the area, that three outlets
w~ere pr~poseQ for the subject property, that the development would be self-contained,
that adequate par&xng was being previded, and then presented a colored renderin6 of the
proposed deve.topment.
The Commission discussed the fact that any previous multiple family residential development
proposed iti the 1?ght indvstrial zone, either in the County or City, and surrovnding
cities, had been discouzaged or disapproved, that work sessions had been held by the
~ i
~
~
r t
t
9
'~;.
~ ~---..
.._~__-.,-_._.i~... ..__.._______.._.._ -.-- ----.._.__._.__-.,--__.~_..__~`..___._..
. - .
,
_. ..__ _ _..
- ~'i . ~ ~ . . . . ' . ,_ ._. - . ~ . . . . . _ ..
~~
~
MINU:BS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 22, 1963, Continued:
RBCIASSIFICATION - Commission at the time the Industrial Area Analysis was adopted L•y
N0. 63-64-17 the Commission and Councilr that the land set aside for industrial
development should be msintained as such, since development could
TBNTATIVB MAP OF not be at the rapid pace residential development had taken place,
TRACT N0.S. 5267, and that the Commission in ali fairness io ihe neiiiioner anG tlie
5268, 5269, and future industrial development could not give final consideration
5270 to subject petition until the seport from the Planaing Department
which the Commission had requested two months ago for a reaaalysis
of the industrial area was cnmpleted and presented to them,
Mr. Hdmund Demle1, the petitione~ appeared before th~ Commissi~ n and stated ihat he had
been trying to develop subject property, that he had been in contact with the housing
departments of the various industries in and around Anaheim relative to the type of
developmer.t most desired, and that the industries expressed the desire to have the
dwelling units as near as posszble to the industrial areas as possib].e, and that the
proposed development was the result of these special desires of industry.
THB HEARING WAS CLOSED.
A letter of opposition was received and read from the City of Pullertin, opposing
subject petition. The Commission in their discussion relative to subject petition
stated that the City Council and the Commission did not anticipate that the industrial
area would develop in its entirety over a short period of time* but was the projection
of a number of years, and that it was the Commission'~ desire to giv? every
consideration to the requests for multiple family development in the area, but felt
the requested reanalysis report should be considered before any decision could be
rendered.
Commissioner Sides offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for
Reclassification No. 63-64-17 and Tenative Maps of Tract Nos. 5267, 5258, 5269, and
3270 to the meeting of August 19, 1?.~3, .in order that the Commission might consider the
rear,alysis report being prepared. ~ommissioner Perry seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIBD.
The agent for the petitioner stipulated that it was his desire to have the tentative
tract maps filed in conjunction with subject petition continued u~iti.l th~e
reclassification was considered,
PUBLIC HHARING - INITIATBD BY 1I~IE ANAH&IM PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 Bast Lincoln
AMBNDMBNT TO Avenue, Anaheim, California,
CHAPTHR 18.64
Subject public hearing and amendment to Chapter 18.64, Conditional
Uses relative to deletion of "Planned Residential Developwents"
from the conditional uses of the R A, Code.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kzeidt asked that the Commission consider the proposed
amendment at a future meeting and work session,, when the agenda was not as heavy as it
had been.
Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to continue the pnblic hearing on Amendment to
Chapter 18.64, Conditional Uses, deletion of Planned Resi3enfial Developments to the
meeting of September 4, 1963. Commissioner Sides seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIBD.
~ . .~._.__..... _..~.'___._.._'_"'
~ ~
i
i
!
i
1
!
i
. . .._.... . _... .. __._... ___
'__^ . ' . _' ~. _ _ . ..~
. . . ,
. ,
i •
~ ~ ~~
_ --_..._..---- -----_. ._ .------_._ ~__ - ._.._.~_.~---------~--,~._.___
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING C01~UNISSION, July 22, 1963, Contirueds
~
1695
REPO~TS AND - ITEM N0. 1
f~.FCiSNIP~h~L.".TIQA~S COP:DITIOhTRL 'JSE PEIL`~IT NU. 340
Delos G. Patttrson, establish a walk-up restaurant on prooP•rty located
at 2790 West Lincoln Avenue - granted by the Commission in Reac~lut:or~
No. 584, Series 1962-63, dated December 27, 1962.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt presented Conditional Use Permit No. 340, together w3th
a building permit application and plans with a request from the owner of sub~ect property
that the propased construction plan be approv9d in lieu of those plans approved in
Resolution No. 584, Series 1962-63, dated Der,ember 27, 1962.
The ~ommission notod that the conatruction plans did not incorporate the landscaping
required by the plans originally approved by the Commiasion.
Commissioner Chavos offered a motlon that the developers request for approval of revised
plans be denied, and that subject property be developed substantially in accordance wi.th
plans originally approved in Conditional Use Permit No. 340; Resolution No. 584, Series
1962-63, dated December 27, 1962. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CA~RIED.
ITEM N0. 2
VARIAI~E NOS. 1584 and 1585
ANAVIL CORP.~
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt presented a lett6r from Mr< Harry F. G•riffith, requesti;~
that the Planning Commissio~i initia'te petitions for reclassification from the R-A, Resi-
dential Agricultural, Zone to the R-1, One Family Reside~tial, Zone of properties previously
approved for development under Yariance Nos. 1584 and 1:,85. It was noted that subject
variances were appr~ved upon the condition that the petitioner initiate petitions for
reclassification of sub~ect properties prior to the issuance of a finai building inspection
for the proposed conetruction.
Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to deny the request of Mr. Griffith for the initia-
tion of two reclassifications to assist him in the compliance of condi,tions attached
in the approval of Variance Nos. 1584 and 1585. Commissioner Perry oeconded the motion.
MOTZON CARRIED.
ITEM N0. 3
REQUEST TO THE PLANNING ;~EPARTMENT
Planning Study No. 58-8-1 - Lincoln Avenue north side, between Grand
Street and Western Avenue.
Discussion was held by the Commission upon the recommendation for approval o: Rer.lassifi-
cation No. 63-64-9 and Conditional Use Permit No. 452, relative to redevelopment of the
single family dwellings between Grand Streei and Western Avenue on the north side of
Lincoln Avenue.
Comnissioner Pebley offered a motion directing the Planning Derartment to p.~epare Planning
Study 58-8-1 incorporating the properties on the north side of Lincoln Avenue between
Grand and Western Avenue for the ultimats use of the single family homes for pos:{,ble
multiple family residential development or commercial development, and requiring the
removal of all exieting structurea prior to any change of zoning classification or use.
Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM N0. 4
Orange County Case No. 678 (Sectional Aistrict Map 1-4-10~ Exhibit "E")~
reclassif3cation frem the A-1, General Agricultural District to the
R-2, Group Dwellings District.
Zonfng Coordinator Martin Kreidt presented Orange County Case No. 678 (Sectional District
Map 1-4-10, Ex~~.~bit "E") for the reclassification cf a parcel of propert~~ on the north
side of La Pal:~a Avenue westerly of the proposed Orange Freeway, from the A-1, General
Aqricultural District to the R-2, Group Dwellings Diatrict.
-~'i ' ._ ___.__._._._..
------ -- --._ ____..._ ----- - --- ------ - ~----. ._ __ ,_-- --...
.
_. .
I
I
I
i
~
i •
'~ -~~~_._ .
_ _._ ___ . ..___---' - - --
C~~ ~ •
MINUTES, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, July 22, 1963, Continued: 1696
RHPaiT3 AND - ITBM N0. 4(Continued)
RBCOt~RdBNDATI0N3
(Continuedi The Commission discussed the General Plan designation for low-medium
residentiel density e^ t:aat s•rea bo~_n~ed by L~ Palsz Aaer_ue on the
south, the Riverside Ps:ee::_~ on the north and northeast, and
Sunkist Avenue on the west, and noted that subject property was
immediately west of the proposed Orange or Route 19 Preeway.
Commissioner Sides offered a motion to recommend to the Orange County Planning
Commission that Case No. 678 (Sectional District Map ~-4-10, Hxhitdt "E") be approved,
provided that the density established on subject property ba limited to one dwelling
unit per 2400 square feet, rather than the one dwelling unit per 1000 square feet
permitted by the County in the R-2, Group Dwelling District. Cominissioner Chavos
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
ITBM N0. 5
Orai~ge County Use Variance No. 5018.
Continued Use of a Temporary Construction Office and Bquipment
Storage Yard Por a Period of 1 Year.
Zonino Coordinator Mz*tin Kreidt presented County Use Vari~nce No. 5018, to permit the
continued use of an equipment storage yard and construction office for one year on
property located at the northwest corner of Orangethorpe and Linda Vista Avenses,
southeast of Placentia.
Commissioner Allred offered a mo~ion to recommend to the Orange County Planning
Commission that Use Variance No. 5018 be aypproved. Co~missioner Camp seconded the
motion. MO'FIQN CARRIBD.
ITBM N0. 6
Grangc County Conditiona.: Permit No. 1045 '
Bnlarge an Hxhisting Busiaess fo: :he Boz*c~3~o snd ~
Grooming of Dogs in the M-1, Light Industrial District ~
Zoning Coordinator Martin ICreidt presented to the Commission, Conditional Permit ,
No, 1045, requesting permission to enloarge an existaag business for the boarding
and grooming of dogs in the M-1, Ligh Industrial DisCrict on the northerly side of
Coronado Street approximate:y 500 feet easterly of Red C~~ Street, northeast of Anaheim.
The Commission discussed the existence of a dog boarding and groomping facility on
subject property, and then requested that the Commission Secretary inform the Orange
Co~tnty Planning Commission that the Anaheim Planning Commission was taking '~NO ACTION"
on subject petition.
ITBM N0.2
Orange County Use Variance No. 5150
Re-location of the Buildings, Recreation Area and Parking in
connection with the Construction of'a 146-unit Apartment Development
in the R-2, Group Dwelling, and R-1, Single Family Residential District:,
located on the east side of Gilbert Street about 245 feet south of Ball
Road in the west Anaheim area.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt presented to the Planning Commission a plot plan which
indicated the proposed development of subject property noting that subject development
consisted of 20 buildings witb carports, a rerr?ation building and sti~imming pool on
property located on the east side of Gilbert Street about 245 feet south of Ball Road
in the west Ai:aheim area, and also presented the Planning St~ff Report containing an
analysis of the oroposed development by comparison with the City of Anaheim proposed
planned residential development standards.
Commissioner Perry offered a motion to instruct the Commission Secretary to submit the
Staff Report comparing the site development standards of the proposed development with
the City of Anaheim proposed Planned Residentia,l Development Standards to the Orange
County planning Commission for their consideration to wit:
I
~
~
. i ;,;-~
..,.
.
_.
~
: ~
~
- --------. _._
~ ~ . A
MTNUTS3~ CI'TY PIANNING COhalISSION, July 22, 1963, Continued:
1697
RHP~tTS AND - ITBM N0. 7
RHCOMMENDATION9 Orange County Use Va>:iance No. 5150
(Continued)
Proposed Development Proposed PRD Standards
1. Parking: 147 covered Required covered 183
40 guest guest 109
Total 187 Total 292
2. Vehicular Accessways;
Designed for one-way circulation
with 20 foot wide roadway - no
parkways - direct access to park-
ing from accessway.
3. Building 3etbacks:
No building setback from one-way
vehicular accessway. Setback on
Giibert Street adequa2e.
Required 54} foot street cross
section with a 40 foot roadway.
Curb and gutter required, No
direct access to parking from
accessway,
Required 10 foot setback for one
story abutting a local street,
and 15 feet for two stories.
~. Distance Buiiding to Par~Cing Space:
In excess of 500 feet.
Require that in no case shall
covered parking spaces be further
than 120 feet from units to be
served.
5. Distance Between Huildiags (2 Stories):
Pront to Pront 20 feet to 40 feet.
Hnd to Rear 20 feet to 23 feet.
Rear to Rear 10 feet to 15 feet.
Hnd to Hnd 20 feet
6. Density:
238,700 square feet Grns~ Area
45,500 Accessway~ i,0~~,~prox. )
193,200 Net Area '
193 ~200 + 146 units _:~::3 square feet
~ 1,sfimum 1ot area
~;t:r awelling unit
43,560+1323 =33 ur.i,~:s per net acre
7. Coverage:
102,100 + 103,200 = 53%
Pront to Pront 35 feet
8nd to Rear 20 feet
Rear to Rear 30 feet
Had to 8nd 12~ feet
General P1aa proposal for this
area shows a density of 1-7 units
per net residential acre.
Maximum of 40% net ailowed.
Recreation: ~
i
~
In excess of 30,000 square feet Required 200 squase feet per unit: ~
200 Sq. Pt,X 146 units = 29,200
Condominium: ~
i
Sale of each building (?) Require minimum floor area per unit ~
of 1225 square feet and zach canda~i~iu~ ~f
ahall be within'100 fe.et of a public I
dedicated street.
_-_---r-- --.___..._._.__.__~._._.-, • - -- _ . .. _ _ __ _._,
. .~
_~ , . . .. • ~.
~
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 22, 1963, Continued: 1698
RffiCRTS AND - Other Remarks:
RHCOAAlBNDATIONS
t~oniinued) 1, Site is surrounded on two sides by R-1, One Family Resideatial
,(County). If the requirement that within 150 ieet of R-1
construction was limit~d to one story, 12-13 two story building
would have to be eliminated.
2. The above figures pertaining to the development are estimates
only, since the scale bears little resemblance ta the plot plan.
3, Development originally app:•oved by the County - this
applicatioa is a revision to said development.
Commissioner Sides seconded the motion. MOTION CA,RRIHD,
ITBM N0. 8
CONDITIONAL U3B PBRMIT N0. 328
Geria#rics and Rehabilitation Hospital
Ruott Avenue south of Liacoln Avenue
Granted Resolution No. 659, Series 1962-63 - February 18, 1963,
2oning Coordinator Martin Rreidt presented a letter fxom Aaron Graham regardiag Commission
approval of Conditional~Use Permit N~:. 328.
The letter was carefully rea.d aad compared with the previous letter of b:ay 21~ 1963~ aad
with planning Cpmmission Resolution No. 659, Series 1962-63, dated February 18, 1963,
Commissioner 3ides offered a motion that Mr. Graham be informed that it is the intent of
the planning Commission that a six <6) foot masonry yoall, measured from the finished
grade level of subject or abutting properties (as per City Council and Commission Policy)
shall w installed on the wes} and sou4h boqadaries of sc~bject property prior ~o final :
buildi~g inspec4ion, and that the request for substii;ution of a six (6) foot higls solid
redwood fence along the south boundary be denied, aa.d further, that the request that a
substitutioa of a five (5) foot high masonry wall along the west boundary be made in
lieu of the required six (6) foot wall be deaied. Commissioner Chavos seconded the meti~n,
MOTION CARRIBD, ,
~JOURNMSNT - There being no further business #o discuss, Commissioner pebley offered
a motion to adjourn: Commissioner Rowiand seconded the motion.
MOTIQV CARRIED,
Meetiag adjourned at 1:15 A,M.
Respectfully sutxaitted,
, ecre a y
Anaheim Planning Commission
i
/
~
~ ~'