Minutes-PC 1963/08/19~.J
City Hali
Aaaheim~ Caiifornia
August 19, 1963
A RHGUTAR MBSTING OP TF~ ANAHBIM CITY PIANNING COhNlISSION ' i
RHGUTAR MHBTING - A Regular Meeting of the Anaheim City Ylanning Commission was called ~
to order by Chairman Mungall at 2:00 0'Clock P.M., a quorfif~being j
present.
PRBSENT - CHAIAMAN: Munga2l, j
COhA~lI3SI0NBRS: Chavos, Pebley, perry, Rowland, Gauer, Sides.
i
AH3SNT - COhQ~lI39IOU1BR9: Alired, Camp. ~
i
PRE9HNT - 2oning Coordinator:. Martin K=eidt. ~
Deputy City Attorney: Purman Roberts. ;
Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Rrebs. ;
Pianning Department Stenographer: Jacqueline 3ullivan. '
INVOCATION - Reverend Pioyd 8. Mitten~ Pastor of Church of Christ, gave the
Inrrocation,
PLBDGB OP - Commissioner Perry led the Pledge of Aliegiance to the Plag.
ALLBGIANCB
APPROVAL OP - The Minutes of the meetingsof July 22, and August 5~ 1963, were ?
~ MINUTES approved as submitted. ~
~ ~
!..". : Z
RBG7ASSIPICATION - CONTINUBD PUBLIC HHARING. MQRTBN M. and MAUDE A. DIZNBY, ~~~
N0. 62-63-125 c/o HARRy M. HOLSTBAD, Attorney at Law~ 617 South Olive Street,
Anaheim, California, Owners; CHIP CHASIN, 15111 Beach Boulevard, ~
CONDITIONAL USB Westminster, California, Agent; property being considered described
PBRMIT N0. 433 as: An L-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of 313 feet on the ~
south side of Ball Road, and a depth of 630 feet, the easterly ~
boundary of said property being approximately 406 feet west of the ~
centerline of Dale Avenue. Property presently classified R-A,
RHSIDBNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, ZONB. ~
RBQUB3TBD CIA3SIPICATION: R-3, MULTIPLB PAMILY RBSIDffiVTIAL, ZONB. ~
3
RBQUBSTBD CONDITIONAL USB: ESTABLISH A SINGLfi STOgY MULTIPLB FAMILY PIANNHD ~
RBSIDHNTIAL DBVffiOPMBNT WITH .^ARP~ITS. - ,
Subject petitions were continued from the meetings of June 10, 1963, and July 8 and 22,
1963, in order to allow the petitioners sufficient time to submit revised plans.
Mx. Ray Mercado, representing the petitioner, appea*ed bQfore the Commission and
reviewed the revisions to the plans as requested by the Commission at the meeting of
June 10, 1963.
2oning Coordinator Martin Itreidt suggested to the Commission that the petitione=!s
representative clarify the intent of dedication of the proposed street.
Mr. Mercado stated that the agent was the leaseholder, that the owner would construct the
proposed street to City standards, but that the stre~t wouid not be dedicated to the City
at this time. •
- 1T14 - •
. • .~~•' ~ .
_ ` .._.._ --- -----.._-----.___- ,_ _...._._ _ _.. _ _ .___..
r
__ _;l~1 , , ~.. _ _ . . . _.
,~ .. ~ ..
{~
MINUTB3, CITY PIANNING CO[~AlI3SI~1, August 19, 1963, Continued: 1715
RBCIAS3IFICATION -~eputy City Attorney Purman Rolierts stated that if dedication of the
N0. 62-63-125 proposed street were offered to the City later, the street would
have to comply with City standards, and that if the street were not
CONDITIONAL USB dedicated, it would be the responsibility of the owner and lessee to
PHRMIT NO. 433 maintain the street.
(Continued)
Mr. Kreidt advised the Commission that *he proposed development had
a Coverage of 17.4 units per net residential acre or 35qo.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitio:,.
THB HBARING WA3 CLOSBD.
The Commission determined that adopted standards did not exist relative to the recreation
areas for planned residential developments; that the proposed development did offer more
recreational area than others that had been considered; that the proposed development.was
a valid method of developing a livabie area sufficient recreation area and would have
greater utility than a standard R-3 subdivision; that the lease for the proposed develop-
ment was in excess of 50 years; that a trust agreement had hot been established to
maintain the common area, but this would be available in time for the public hearing
before the City Council; that the proposed use of the property would be a one lot
ownership and lease, and would no*_ require CC&R`s; that the amount of paved area had been
redaced from 80,000 to 38,000 feet, therefore making it possable to have ~ greater ~reen
area, that due to the fact that the subject property would remain under one ownership, and
tlie street would not be a dedicated street, the necessity for filing a tract map would be
eliminated; and that the original coverage was reduced from 5396 to 35.996
The Commission compared the original plans with the revised plans.
Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that if subject petitions were approved, that a
condition could be attached requiring that the street be constructed to Cit~ standards,
and that the said street could be posted indicating that it was not a through street,
but was a private street, and that street lights installed could be metered.
Mr. Areidt noted that under the State Subdivision Map Act the proposed cul-de saced
street of more than 500 feet would be in violation of said Act, and m±ght ~ orounds for
denial if the proposed development were later subdivided. '
The Commission expressed concern that the City would be contacted by the reisdents of the
proposed developaent if the subject property were not maintained and trash were not
picked up.
The Commission questioned the possibiiity of inadequate fire protection, to which
Mr. Rreidt stated that this had been considered at the Interdepartmental Committee, and
that Office Sngineer Ar•~ Daw might be able to clarify the possibility of approving a
cul-de-sac in excess of 500 feet in a tract.
M.:. Daw advised the Commission that other tracts had been approved with cul-de-saced
streets in excess of 500 feet, if it had been impossible to develop an'acceptable street
pattern.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 871, Series 1963-64, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Sides, to recommend to the City Council
that Yetitzon for Reclassification No. 62-63-125 be approved subject to installation of
metered street lights on the private street, and the posting of signs on the Ball Road
entrance identifying the private street as such, as well as, it not being a through
street, and the requirement of inetered street lights, together with other conditions,
(3ee Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYHS: COMMISSION~tS: Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sides.
NOH3: COMMISSIONSRS: None.
AHSBNT: COMMISSIONBRS: Allred, Camp.
,~~
~
~
~
i
,
~
;
~
~
!
t
1
i
i
~
~
i
5
i
;
_ _._._..... --- __ ----- -- _ ... _ _.
. . ~ ~ ~.
~' .
~ ~~ ~
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COhAfISSION, August 19~ 1963, Continued: 1716
RBCLASSIPICATION - Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 872, 3eries 1963-64, and
N0. 62-63-125 moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Pebley,
to grant Petition for Coaditional Use Permit No. 433, subject to
CONDITIONAL USB conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
rn'RLiIT ~0. 433
(Continued) On roll call the foregoing resolution was psssed by the follotving
vote:
AYH3: COMMISSIONBRS: Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sides.
NOBS: COMMISSIONSR3: None.
AB3BNT: COMMISSIOI~RS: Alired, Camp.
RHCIASSIPICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC }~ARING. WALBBR and I.BB, INC., et al, 2580 West
N0. 62-63-126 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; FRANR R. HART~ 2580
West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that
property described as: An L-shaped portion of land having a
frontage of 62 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, and a frontage of 89 feet on
the east side of Magnolia Avenue, the southerly boundary of said property being
approximately 254 feet south of the centerline of Magaolia Aveaue be reclassified from
the R-A, RBSIDHNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONB to the C-1, NBIGHB~tH00D COMMffitC1AL, ZONH to
utilize the existing property for a real estate office.
3ubject petition was continued from the meetings of June 10, July 8, and 22, 1963, in
order to allow the petitioner sufficient time to submit revised plans.
Mr. Prank Hart, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed
the extensive changes being proposed for use of the existing structure, and in respoase
to Commission questions stated that he proposed to use the existing structure for two
years.
The agent further stated that he had received a request f=om the property owner to the east
who expressed the desire to have the required wall at a height of five (5) feet instead of
the usuai six (6) feet, that the property owner to the south stated he wanted a six (6)
foot wall with a gate in order to have access to the southerly 50 feet, that he wouid
like to satisfy the adjacent property owners if the Commission would permit him to, and
that no signs and flags would be displayed because the structure would be used for
administrative purposes only.
Commissioner Sides left the Council Chamber at 2;45 P.M.
The Commission reviewed the revised plaas noting the changes to the oziginal.
No one appeared in opposition,
THB HBARING WAS CLOSBD.
Commissioner 8ides returned to the Council Chamber at 2:55 P.M.
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 5T3, Series 1963-64, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend to the City Council
that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-126 be approved, subject to reducing the
required masonry wall to five (5) feet on the east property line as requested by the
abutting property owner to the east, and conditions, ~See Resolution Book,)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYBS: COMMISSIONERS: Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sides.
NOBS: COhA9ISSI0NBRS: None.
ABSffi1T: CObAlISSIONFRS: Ailred, Camp.
i
~
~ 1:
k t . ~
, >,.. •
~ _ - ~ -- ._._ _.___..._... -
~ ''~ , ~ . ,.._--
~ ~ ~ ------_-- . ~~ __. ._ ~
MINUTB3, CITY PLANNING COb9dISSION, August 19, 1963, Continued;
1717
RBCLASSIPICATION - CONTINUSD PUBLIC HBARING. PANNY SHOWALTER, c/o DBCON C~tPG?ATION,
N0. 63-64-8 1833 Bast 17th Street, Santa Ana, California, Owner; DSCON CORPO-
RATION, 1833 Bast 17th Street, Santa Ana, California, Agent;
CONpIlIONAL USS property described as: An irregular portion of land having a
PffithII T N0. 450 frontage of 1,266 feet on th~ westerly side of the Riverside
Freeway, the westernmost boundary of subject property being 550
feet east o.f the centerline of Jefferson Street, said property
being further described as PORTION N0. 1 and PORTION N0. 2, portion No. 1 being located
in the City of :lnaheim, and Portion No. 2 being located in the County of O~ange.
Property presently classified as R A, RHSIDHNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZOI~.
RHQUBSTBD CLASSIPICATION: R-3, MULTIPLH PAMILY RESIDBNTIAL~ ZONH.
RBQUBSTHD CONDITIONIAL USB: BSTABLISH A ONE AND 1W0 STORY MULTIPLH PAMILY PLANNHD
RBSIDBNTlAL DEVBLOPMHNT WITH CARPQRTS - WAIVB ONB-STORY
HBIGHT LIMITATION,
Subject petition was continued from the meeting of July 22, 1963, in order that the
petitioner migt-t have sufficient time to submit revised plans incorporating suggestions
made by the Commission.
A letter was read from L•he aqent for the petitioner requesting that subject oetitionc
be continued for an additional four (4) weeks in order that plans might be completed,
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue petitions for Reclassification
No. 62-63-8 and Conditional Use permit No. 450 to the meeting of September S6, 1963, in
order thEt the petitioner might have sufficient time to submit revised plans.
Commissioner Chavos seconded the mot~on. MOTION CARRIBD.
CONDITIONAL USS - CONTINUED PUBLIC HBARING. INITIATBD BY THB CITY OP ANAHSIM PIANNING
PBRMIT N0. 457 CC~lMISSION, 204 Hast Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, requesting
the HXPANSION OF AN BXISTING TRAILBR PARR on property described as:
Four rectangular parcels of land: PARCHL N0. 1 having a frontage of
114 feet on the south side of Midway Drive, and a frontage of 50 feet on the west side
of Zeyn Street, pARCHL N0. 2 having a frontage of 50 feet on the west side of Zeyn
Street and a depth of 114 feet, the northezly boundary of Parcel No, 2 being
approximately 279 feet south of the centerline of Midway Drive. PARCHL N0. 3 having a
frontage of 50 feet on the east side of Lemon Street and a depth of 114 feet, the
northerly boundary of Parcel No. 3 being approximately 278 feet south of the centerline
of Midway Drive. Parcel No. 4 having a frontage of 50 feet on the west side of Lzmon
Street and a depth of 114 feet, the northerly boundary of Parcel No. ~; being approximately
78 feet south of the centerline of Midway Drive. Property presently classified R-1, ONB
PAMILY RBSIDBNT.iAL, ZONB.
8ubject petition was filed in conjunction with Reclassification No. 63-64-10 and
Conditional Use Permit No. 456.
Subject petition was continued from the meeting of July 22, 1963, in order to allow the
Planning Department and the City Attorney's office time to investigate the legality of
an existing structure on Parcel Na. 3,
Zoning Coordinator Martin Breidt reviewed for the Commission the property in question,
together with previous action still pending before the City Council on Parcel Nos. 1 and
4, and advised the Commission thafi the owner-manager of the trailer park had submitted
plans for the northerly two parcels for the Commission`s consideration, that no plans
had been submitted for Parcel Nos. 2 and 3 which abut each other, but there presently
existed overnight trailer spaces, that no written evidence of land use permits were
found for the latter parcels, that the City Attorney's office had formulated a statement
for the Commission's consideration which would be an assumption and giving the property
owner the benefit of a doubt that possible iand use permits had been obtained sometime
in the past, trnt through Sack of proper bookkeeping this evidence was not available, and
that the history and use of these tv~o parcels indicated in Speciar Use Permit No. 69
that overnight parking spaces mighi have been permitted.
_ ~_~~_.--- ---- ---~.___---- ___--- . . .. _._...._
---._..... _._...____ _ _ - -------- ---__-..._._.
_. _~ ' ~._
V
~~
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COhA~tISSION, August 19, 1963, Continued:
~
1718
CONDITIONAL USH - Mr. L. V. Bostwick, owner-manager of subject property appeared before
PBRMIT N0. 457 the Commission, and reviewed the proposed development plans for
~Con~ir~ued) Parcel Nos. 1 zad 4, ?nd st~ted that he honed to resolve all the
probelms in connection with the remaining parcels under consideration
by the Commission, since he had been accused of illegally using
properties, that the alley to the west of Lemon Street had been paved and a six (6) foot
masonry wall had been constructed between the northerly property adjacent to Parcel Nos.
and 3, that these improvements had been approved by the City Engineer and the Building
inspector's offices, and that he proposed to establish a play ground for Parcel No. 1.
The Commission noted in their field trip to subject property that Parcel No. 4 had
sewerage connections and other attachments which were in violation of the Code since the
Commission had denied Conditional Use Permit No, 349, and the City Council had referred
this petition back to the Commission, therefore no actual approval by the City to
establish these connections on the property was apparant.
Deputy City Attorney Purman Roberts stated that these items had been "red-tagged" by
the City, that a Planning Department representative had talked with the 3uperintendent
of Division of Streets relat~ve to the improper drainage to adjacent lots after the
ailey to the west of iemon Stseet had been pavEd, and it was his opinion that the flow
of the drainage would be in a northerly d3.rection and would not create. flooded
conditions to adjacent properties, al4hough com~iasr,t~ ha3 he2a r~ceived that th~ P?Gt:
from the paved alley would flood the property to the east of said alley.
Further discussion was held by the Commission relative to proper drainage of the ailey,
the existing six (6) foot masonry wall which was constructed without the required front
yard setbaek, the possible legally permitted use of Parcel Nos. 2 and 3 for overnight
trailer facilities, and the proposed use of land adjacent ta single family homes for
trailer parking purposes. .
Mr. Robert Sterrett, attorney for the property owners adjacent to the property being
considered appeared before the Co~amission, and asked that thE Conmission consider the
reason for the continuance w::ich he understood was to ascertain the legality of the use
of Parcels 2 and 3, that any proposed use for Parcel Nos. 1 and 4 should be denied for
several reasons, mainly because these lots were widely separated from the balance of
the trailer park complex, and this might predetermine the future uses of adjaceni lots,
that the trailer park owner had illegally established trailer facilities on Parcel Nos.
and 4 without obtaining ;~ermits, that the Segal ri.ghts of other property owners in the
area had been violated, that the use of Parcel Nos. 2 and 3 had not been legally
established in his estimation through any application to the State or County e~ven though
the petition had been continued to determine whether the trailer park use of these
parcels was legal, and he then further urged the Commission to cdeny any trailer park use
for Parcel Nos. 1 and 4.
Mrs. D. B. Adams, 1439 South Lemon Street, appeared before the Commission and stated that
she owned property abutting to the north of Parcel No. 4, that trailers were parked
illegally on this parcel coming and going at all hours with noises, fumes and other
nuisences were detrimental to her health because her sleep was constantly being
disturbed, and that the trailer park owner stated he intended to establish a playground
on the northwest parcel on Zeyn Street, thus creating additional noises from the
children using these facilities, that the noises have become so unbearable that she had
to stay with a neighbor in order to get some rest, and that the City should investigate
the illegal use of these lots and limit the expansion of the trailer park to the southerly
part of Lemon Street.
The Commission expressed concern that there seemed to be aome evidence that the trailer
park expansion was made by the constant annoyance to adjacent property owners who were
forced to sell their property in order not to be annoyed by all the noises.
Mrs. M. L. Coley, 1454 South Lemon Street, appeared before the Commission and stated that
a six (6) foot masonry wall from the westerly property line to the south of her property
had been constructed without her consent, that air had been cut off fzom any rooms
facing this masonry wall, and that the wall was extended to the end of the alley, making
it impossible to see pedestrians or autos coming from the trailer park through the alley.
.
~.
i
}
s
_._~_.____--- -.-- ___._.._ __. _._ _. ___._._._--- ---
. _ - .,._-- - ----- ------__, ~ _
~ . _ .__ _
~ ~ __ --. . --
~
MINUTB3, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 19, 1963, Continued: 1719
CONIDITIONAL USB - Mrs. S. D. Hastings, 1447 3outh Lemon Street, appeared before the
PBRMIT N0. 457 Commission and stated that her property wouid be the parcel which
(Continued) would be flooded because the ailey to the west had been constructed
' in such a manner that a one (1) foot slope existed to her property
line; that she was unable to nrooerly oQen her ¢araae door, and it
was almost impossibie to try to use the alley because of the extreme drop from the
property line to the alley without a curb or gutter, that the property owners had
resided in the area for over 30 years and it was their hope to live the remainder of
their lives there without any additional annoyances from trailers encroaching on the
northerly portion of Lemon 3treet south of Midway Drive.
Mr. Hd Cronan, one of the representatives of Mr. Bostwick, appeared before the
Commission and stated that he would like to clarify and help resolve the problems which
had been considered by the Comroission by reviewing the approved State uses of the
various properties in question, and fusther noted that the trailer park had per~ission to
operate~spaces for 272 trailers, and that at the time the subject property had become
annexed by the City of Anaheim, the State did all the approval and inspection of trailer
parks because the City did not have a trailer park ordinance.
Mr. Randolph, legal advisor to Mr. Bostwick, appeared before the Commission and stated
that he had been associated with Mr. Bostwick for 17 years, that homes were removed
from these lots purchased by Mr. Bostwick since the homes could not be utilized because
they were of substandard construction, and by utiiizing the lots as an area for trailer
spaces, fiye area had ixea maintained as aa a~s:: tc :he Ci*_y instead of allowing the
homes ~o become deteriorated.
THB HHARING WAS CL03BD.
, .~ .
Discussion was heid between the Commissioners relative to the solut~on of the proposed
uses of subject properties, that since~,there seemed tn.be some~evidence that
Parcel Nos. 2 and 3 having had a legal right to the use of the property, it would be
required that the existing structare be removed, and plans submitted for its future
development, that the six (6) foot masonry walls constructed adjacent to subject
propertic!s t~e stepped down in the front yard setback in accordance with Code requirements;
that the Commission should Consider the legal rights of the single family residents in
the area adjacent to subject properties in not permitting any'further encroachment of
traiier spaces nartherly on Lemon S#reet; that the alley recently paved i~e resurveyed to
determine whether the flow of water for drainage might not affect adjacent property,
and that if aa~+ portion of the subject petitian might be disapproved that any existing
sewer and water connections be reduced to ground level and capped off.
Commissionei Perry offered Resolution No. 874, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passag?
and~adoption, seconded by Commissioner Pebley, who later withdrew his §econd, and
then seconded by CommissionFr Gauer, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 457
fot Parcei Nos. 2 and 3, but to deny Parcei Nos. 1 and 4, subject to remoyal of the
existing structure on Parcel No. 3, requirement of plans to be submitted for us~e of
Parcei No. 3 as an overnight trailer parking area within six (6) months, that tlte alley
existing to tne west of Lemon Street be resurveyed and provide proper drainage away
from the property adjscent to the east, southerly of Parcei No. 4; that the six (6) foot
masonry wali constructed on the north property line.of Parcei 1Vo. 4 be stepped d~own to
42 inches in the front yard setback;;.and the six (6) foot masonry wa11 presentl~y
existing on the north prope=t,y line of Parcel No. 3 shall also be stepped down to
42 inches in the.front yard setback in the event abandonment proceedings have been
requested through the City Council and have not been approved, for the southeriy stub
end of Lemon Street and the alley to the east of .~emon Street, that existing plumbing
and water facilities on Parcel No. 4 be reduced to ground level and capped off, and
additional conditions. (3ee Resolution Book.)
On roil cali the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
pyBg; COMMI3SIONBR3: Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
NOH3: COMMISSION&R3: Chavos, Pebley, Sides.
AHSENT: COiNMI3510NBR3: Allred, Camp. ,
In voting "NO" Commissioners Chavos, Pebiey, and Sides stated that the owner of subject
property had been in gross violation of a number of requirements of the Anaheim Municipal
Code,-and to approve any such violations would be granting something to a propesty owner
not shared by othe;s in the City, and denying rights, general weifare, heaith and safety
which residents in the area were entitled to:
___... _..,;i
~
~ ~ .
t~
~
MINUTB3, CITY PLANNING COI~AMISSION, August 19, 1963, Continued;
1720
TSRMINATION OF - Commissioner Perry offered Resdlution No, 88~, 3eries 1963-64, and
CONDITIONAL U3E moved for its passage and adcption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer,
P~IIT N0.9. 344 to recommend to the City Council termination of Petition for
and 349 Conditional Use Permit No, 344; based on khe f?ct that the 2etitioae*
' intends to use aubject property £or a business office, a compatible
use in the M-1 Zone, and Conditional Use Permitt No. 349, based on the
actiou taken by the Commission in Conditional Use Permit No. 457,
covering subject property.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYE3: CQMMISSIONER9: Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, ~`ebley, Perry, Rowland, SideS.
NQSS: COhAiI33I0I~IDR3: None.
ABSHNT: COhMI9SI0NBRS: Alired, Camp. ~
RBCIASSIFICATION - CONTINUHD PUBLIC HBARING. BLSIH M, and Y~ILLIAM B. PURDY,
N0. 63-64-11 1243 Placentia Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; JIM HODGBS,
1709 South Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; property
CONDITIONAL USH described as: An irregular shAped parcel of land having a frontage
P~tMIT N0. 453 255 feet, the western boundary of caid p*operty being approximately
450 feet east of the centerline of State College Boulevard, and
• further described as 1243 North Placentia Avenue. Property
presentiy classified as R-A, RESIDBNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONB.
REQUHSTBD CLASSIPICATION: R-3, MULTIPLF FAMILY RHSIDffiVTIAL, ZONS.
RHQUBSTBD CONDITIONAL USB: H3TABLISH A TWO-STORY MULTIPLE FAMILY PIANNHD RE3IDBNTIAL
DBVffiOPMHNT WITH CARPORTS AND WAIVffit OF 1HB ONH-STORY
HBIGHT'LIMITATI~iN.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Rt~.:~t advised the Commission that the petitioners had
succeeded in acquiring additional parcels of land and had incorporated subject property
with said parcels in a new petition for reclassification to be considered at the
September 4, 1963 meeting, and that it was the desire of the petitioners to continue
subject petitions until after the Commission had considered the new petitions.
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue Petitions for Reclassification
No. 63-64-11 and Conditional Use Permit No. 453 to the meeting of September 16, 1963, as
requested by the petitioners, Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
RHCLA3SIPICATION - CONTINUHD PUBLIC HSARING. FRANK BLSNDBR, 2764 West Ball Road,
N0. 63-64-16 WILL D88 PICRHRBL, 2752 West Ball Road, Anaheim, California, Owners;
ROHffiZT L. WURGAPT and WILLIAM L. RBEVHS, 280 Torth Wilshire,
CONDITIONAL USH 3uite 108, Anaheim, California, Agents; property described as:
PBRMIT N0. 458 An L-shaped portion of land having a frontage of 198 feet on the
south side of Bali Road, and an average depth of 630 feet, the
westerly boundary of said property being approximately 350 feet east
of the centerline of Dale Street, and further described as 2764 West Ball Road.
Yroperty presentiy classified as R-A, RBSIDHNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, ZONB.
RHQUBSTSD CIASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLB FAMILY RESIDBNT7AL, ZONH. ~
RBQU83THD CONDITIONAL USH: CONSTRUCT A ONB ANID 1W0 STORY MULTIPLH PAMILY PLANNBD i
RB3IDBNTIAL DHVBLOPMHNT WI1H CARPORTS - WAIVB 1H8 i
ONH-3TORY HEIGHT LIMITATION. . i
Subject petition was continued from the meetings of July 22, and August 5, 1963, in j
order to allow the petitioners sufficient time to submit revised plans incorporating a
54-foot street and other suggestions made by the Commission, j
i
Mr. Robert Wurgaft, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated ~
that the revised piot plan submitted was the deisgner's attempt to incorporate the
Commission's requests Eor subject property. ,~
;
~
~
. ~
_ .._ . ---.. _.. _ _ ______.
... _.~~---- --•--_ .._.....---------- -._ - -- - -
~ --~
. ___.-
~-~
.---J
~ ._..._...___. ._ .
_----------. _..- --_.__... ..~~ __ ;
_ __ _.._
~~ ~ ~ ~
,
MINUTB3, CITY PIANNING COMMIS3ION, August 19, 1963, Continued: 1721
RBCLAS°':ICATION - The Commission reviewed the revised plans noting that the proposed
N0. P-u4-16 street was only 44 feet in width aad that the cul-de-sac was
inadequate to provide an adequate turning radius for fire and trash
CONDITIONAL USH equipment.
PHRMIT N0. 458
(Continued) Mrs. Helen 811is, 8591 Lola Avenue, Stanton, appeared in opposition
to subject petition and stated that she opposed the location of the
proposed trash bins, which seemed to be located within 26 feet of
her residence immediately to the south of subject pxoperty, that she had spent 5 years
enduring the odors and flys from the chicken ranch and the trash bins would be a
similar problem.
~The Commission discussed the difference between a standard planned unit development as
provided in the R-3 section of the Code and the proposed planned residential develoF~ent.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that a standard planned unit
development was a subdivision with streets and alleys adjacent to the units, that the
proposed development left something to be desired in the circulation element, and a good
living environment, that adequate vehicular and pedestrian access was not provided, that
the proposed periphery drive should be set in such a manner to provide parking areas for
the convenience of the dweiling unit, that the proposed development di~ *_:ot provide
sufficent open areas and recreation space in comparison to the proposed pianned
residential development standards, that said standards are being developed county-wide,
and that the proposed development in comparision to a standard subdivision development
was excuse for providing more units on the property, not providing any alleys, and also
not providing the requested 54 foot minimum street and cul-de-sac as requested by the
Commission.
In response to the Commission~s questioning relative to continuance of subject petition
to provide the petitioner time to submit revised plans incorporating the required 54 foot
street and the correct cul-de-sac, the petitioner statied that the revised plan as
presented to the Commission was the best that could be offered incorporating requirements
of the lessee of subject property and the Commission~s requests, that six different plans ,
had been made for the subject property, that the first attempts had been discouraged by
the plAnning Department, the second time the adjoining residents had opposed two-story
construction, and then the Commission asked that the first pian presented to them be
revised to incorporate the recommended suggestions, that the plans as submitted for this '
meeting were the best that could be offered for the Commission's consideration, and that ~
the Commission had recently approved a multipie family developmc~r-t to the east of
subject praperty, said plans having incorporated less than the standard 54-foot street
~and a 38-foot cul-de-sac. •
y; The Commission in reply stated that the proposed development was different in size and
shape to the previously approved development in that a"Not A Part" parcel should have
been included, that commercial development would not take place on the Bali Road frontage,
and that the easterly parcel approved for less than the minimum street width was
predicated on the fact that at a future date the long narrow parcel to the east of the
44-foot street would develop with the additional street dedication to conform with the
standard street widths of the City.
In further~questioning by th~ Coinmissioa-, the pet3tioner stated 4hat the subject property
had not been purchased but was in escrow, and that it was hoped to purchase the
"Not A Part" within 3 years.
THB HBARING WA3 CLOS~D.
The Commi~sion discussed the fact that subject property could be developed with a
standard street width, that the "Not A Part" if not developed concurrently or jointly
with the proposed petition might later ciaim a hardship in development if a standard
street were not available, that the proposed development had a 44.696 coverage which was
in excess of the proposed Planned Residential Development Standards, and that the
petition stated that revisions incorporating a standard street width and cul-de-sac were
not available to the designer of subject property, although subject property could well
be developed for a standard R-3 development.
~ ,
. t:
_ - - _ -- --- _ __ ~ - _ _ _ _ __ '~_--- _ _ __ _
~~
~
MINUTB3, CIT1 PLANNING COMMISSION, August 19, 1963, Continued:
1722
RHCIASSIFICATION - Co~omissioner Rowland offered Resoiution No. 875, Series 1963-64,
N0. 63-54-16 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner
Sides, to recommend to ihe City Council that petition for
~QNDITION!!L U3B Reclass±€ication N.o. 63-54-16 ba disapp:av2d based on the iati
PffitMTI N0. 458 that the proposed development of subject property could be developed
(Continued) for a standard R-3 subdivision, that the "Not A Part" might later
ask for reclassification and claim a hardship in its development
because a standard street was unavailable to it, and that after
three hearings before the Commission in an attempt to obtain an adequate circulation
element, the petitioner, by atipulation, stated he was unable to develop subject property
for other than the most recent revised plot plans, (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYSS: CQMMISSIONffitS: Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perr.y, Rowland, Sides.
NOHS; COMMISSIONHRS: None,
ABSBNT: CCNlMISSIONffitS: Allred, Camp.
Commissioner gides offered Resolution No. 876, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to deny Petition for Conditional Use
Permit No. 458, based on findings. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYBS: CCIMMISSIONBRS: Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowiand, Sides.
NOE3: COMMISSIONHRS: None.
!-BSHNT: COMMISSIONBRS: Allred, Camp.
RBCLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUHLIC HBARING. A, M. RODRIQUHZ, 334 East Julianna,
N0. 63-6Q-18 and Anaheim, California, Owner; MASON BNTBRPRI3BS, INC., 2500 West
Orangethorpe Avenue, Pullerton, California, Agent; property
VARIANCH N0. 1591 described as: An L-shaped portion of land having a frontage of
60 feet on the east side of West Street and a depth of 343 feet,
the southerly boundary of said property being approximately
541 feet north of the centerline of La Palma Avenue. Property
presently classified as R-A~ RBSIDBNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, and R-3,
MULTIPLE FAMILY RHSIDHNTIAL, ZONBS.
RBQUB3TBD CLASSIPICATION: R-3, MULTIPLB FAMILY RBSID9NT7AL, ZONB.
RBQUBSTBD VARlANCB: WAIVE ~VH-STORY HHIGHT LIMITATION AND WAIVB GARAGB
RBQUIRBMHNTS 11D PBRMIT CONSIP,UCTION OF CARp~tTS,
Subject petition was continued fsom the meeting of August 5, 1963, to a11ow the City
Attorney~s office time to review the legality of the ten (10) foot easement on the
northerly part of subject property,
Mrs, Marian Thomas, representing the agent for th~: petitioner, appeared before the
Commission and stated that she would be giad to a.nswer any questions.
Deputy City Attorney Purman Roberts advised the Commission that the ten <10) foot
easement on the northerly property line, after investigation was an access for road
purposes to the easterly property line and was in accordance with legal requirements.
Commissioner Pebley left the Council Chamber at 5:18 P.M.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Rreidt rev3ewed for the CoRnnission the fact that the proposed
development was 750 feet short of the proposed recxeation area r.equirements, and that the
vast expanse of asphalt would present an unfavorable living environment for aubject
property,
.._...._.. . ..
~~..... ..~~"
~
!
i
f
~
f
~
MINUTBS~ CITY PIANNING CONAlISSION, August 19, 1963, Continued: 1723
RHCIA33IPICATION - The Commission expressed tfie opinion that subject property could be
N0. 63-54-18 and developed for a more livabie environment, that the units should be
separated with more green and recreation area, that the proposed
v?R?9N~ N0. 1591 acceac dr9,ve shoulc~ be i.ncre~sed~ that the groposed carports mioht
(Continued) be relocated nearer to the stseet, and that a fire wall should be
constructed within the propocPd v~alis to prevent fire spreading if
subject development were allowed to be developed in accordance with
plans,
Commissioner Pebley returned at 5:25 P.M.
No one opposed subject petition.
THB F18A1tING WAS LC0.SED.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 877, 3eries 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Side:, to recommend to the City Council that
~Betition for Reclassification No. 63-64-15 be approved, subject to the wi3ening of the
entrance to 24 feet, inclusive of the ten (10) foot easement, increasing the recreation
~area to 750 square feet or a minimum of 200 square feet per dwelling unit, and other
conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On rolx call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYBS: COAAiISSI0NBR3: Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sides.
NOH3: COMMISSIOI~R3: None.
At~-'nt~Tt: Ciim4ISSi0iv'iutS: Ailred, Camp.
Commissioner Sides offered Resolution No. 878, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowiand, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1591,
subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) ~
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYBS: C(Y~9dTSSI0NBR8: Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sides.
NOSS: C(1NhQ3SI0NffitS: None.
ABSENT: COMMI3SIOI~R3: A~lred, Camp.
RHCIASSIPICATION - CONTINUBD PUBLIC HHARING. RAS OAKES, 748 Diamond, Newport Beach,
N0. 63-64-20 and California, Owner; ARTHUR KOVACK, 1442 South Buclid Street, ;
. Fullerton, California, Ageat; property described as: An irregular ;
CONDITIONAL USB parcel of land located at the northeast corner of the intersection ~
PffitMIT N0. 465 of the Newport and Riverside Preeways, and having a frontage of 5
-approximately 988 feet adjacent to the.Newport P=ee~rray off-=amp, ~
said property covers approximately 14 acres of land. Property
preseatly classified as R A, RB3IDHNT7AL AQtICULT[AtAL, ZONH. ~
RHQUSSTED CIASSIPICATION: R-3, MULTIPLB PAhII LY RB3IDHNTIAL, ZONS.
RBQUHSTBD CONDITIONAL USB: HSTABLISH A SINGLB 3TORY MULTIPLB FAMILY PLANI~ffiD
RBSIDBNTIAL DBVSLOPMBNT WITH CARPORTS, s
Subject petitions were continued from the meeting of August 5, 1963, at the request of
the petitioner, in order that revised plans might indicate more adequate ingress and
egress. ~
A letter was read to the Commission in which the petitioner requested an additionai }
continuance of two weeks to complete the revised plans. ~
Commissioner Pebley offered a motion to continue Petitions for Reclassification
No. 63-64-20 and Conditional Use permit No. 465, to the meeting of September 4, 1963, as ;
requested by the petitioner to allow adequate time to complete revised plans. ~
Commissioner Perry seconded the motion. MOTIO~T CARRIBD. i
I
1
- --- -
' ---~ -- -.. ---,-._--,-..._.__-___~ _.._.. :
_~ - ~~~
~ ~
~~ . ~ ~
~INUT83~ CITY PLANNING CCr1MISSION, August 19, 1963, Continued: 1724
RBVI3BD TffidTATIVB MAP - qNNBR: LUSK CORPORATION, 10522 Santa Gestrudes Avenue,
OF 1RACT N0. 4689 Whit~ier, California. BNGINSBR: BOYLE BNGINBSRING, 412 $outh
:.qan ~tr~et, Sa^:° 1:na, Ca2ifarnie. :".:e :r»~: _,. 1cca:ed e^
the north side of~the future extension of Lincoln Avenue and
adjacent to tlie City of Orange boundary, and contains 48
proposed R-1, One Family Residential, Zone, lots.
Mr. Williatn Lusk appeared before the Commission, and stated that because of the steep
grade on Lot Nos. 1 through 4, it would be necessary to increase the lot size, but reduce
the pad size below 7,000 square feet, that special soil tests would be made to prohibit
fill slippage, and that the grading far these steep lots would be done in the best
practices known.
The Commissian expressed coricern relative to the possibility that the proposed lots would
be the first steep lots in the City, and zt was their desire to see that there would be
no soil recession to cause homes to slide from their foundations.
Mr. Prank Pahey, representing the engineer~ appeared before the Commission aad stated
that special soil and geological tests and engineering surveys riad be,en applied to these
steep lots which were similar to lots in the City of Oru~ge and adjoining subject property.
TiSu vO.wL71.~.s~v :::.°.i2 ~°.Cj::..°~°G~. :tla°.w .::.°. ...:^pt•2~,.~~^.b ~SS:C $L'bw1: :::~ ..^.p^S ..ar.:g aepC:: ai
soil and geological testsVbe made a part of the tract file for future reference purposes
to which the engineer and developer agreed.
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to approve :tevised Tentative Map ok Tract No. 4689,
subject to the following conditions:
(1) That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each
subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval,
(2) That the average lot size shall be 10,000 square feet, with no lot less than
8,000 square feet.
(3) That the area •,vithin ttie City of Anaheim contributing to the drainage district in
the City of Orange shall be responsible for the drainage charge, which shail be
paid prior to approval of the final map. The area shall be the net area draining
into the City of Orange.
(4) That the grading plan is to be reviewed with the State Division of Highways as
to the area adjacent to the frontage road and shall be approved by the City Bngineer
prior to the approval of the final map.
(5) That an off-site storm drain system or other improvements may be required pending
further investigations and checking of improvement plans.
(6) That tlie minimum pad size of Lot Nos. 5 through 48 shali be 7000 square feet.
(7) That the engineering reports of soil and geological tests made relative to subject
tract be submitted to the City of Anaheim to be made a part of the tract file, and
to be used for future reference, prior to approvai of a final tract map,
Commissioner Chavos seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
VARIANCB N0. 1597 - PUBLIC I~ARING. GS~tGB R. AUGUST, 6005 Lida Lane, Long Beach,
California, Owner; LYNN B. 1HOMgBN, 420 South Buclid Street,
Anaheim, California, Agent; property described as: A rectangular
parcel of land having a frontage c: 100 feet on the south side of
Romneya Drive and a depth of ~18 feet east of the centerline of West S*reet, and further
descritrrd as 420 West Romneya Dzive, Property prese~tly classified as R-3, MULTIPLfi
PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONB.
Mr. Harold Weirich 420 3outh Huclid 3treet re resentin the a ent for the ~ j
+ + P B 8 petitioners,
appeared before the Commission and stated that he hoped the proposed plan would meet with a
the Commisaion*s'approval, that the only problem encountered by the developer was the ~
iocation of the proposed garages, that due to the heavy traffic on Romneya Drive, in ~ ,~
~ comparison with the possible lesser traffic utiiizing the proposed new street, it was more i
feasible to have the garages facing onto the proposed new atreet. ` '
i
I
~ .;
, _~____._,_____ __ _. .~__.__ _._ __._ _ . . _. _.~_ _ ~.~ ,_ _ _ _. __ , ~
_ - _ __-_ __ :.
_~ . ~_ . ._ _. ~
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COMMIS3ION, August 19, 1963, Continued:
1725
VARIANCB N0. 1597 - The Commission agreed that a problem did exist relative to garage
(Continued) locations, that the Commission object to the 25 feet of asphalt
as indicat2~ a~ th~ plars, and stgoested tha# a front yard
tseatment of the property fronting on the proposed new street would
be necessary before the Commission could consider approval of the
proposed developmeat.
The petitioner suggested a decorative 42 inch masonry wall be located on the south
property line with shrubbery planted, thus eliminating the possibility of having the
garages face residents of apartments to the south of said garages.
2oning Coordinator Martin Rreidt advised the Commission that after the abutting property
to the east was developed, if the proposed wall on the front property line was
permitted, this then would constitute a 15-foot encroachment'into the front yard setback.
The Commiasion discussed the plot plan, the relocation of the vast expanse of garages,
the excess3ve amount oF asphalt visible by the newly constructed apartment residents to
the south, the suggested decorative masonry wall and its possible encroachment to the
front yard setback if the property to the east developed, the provision of landscaping
of the southerly front yard setback for a more compatible appearance to the existing
residential development to the south, and the maintenance of a minimum 10-foot acceasway
besween Ti1C WSiII y[rqC~iii2 aTiu ~ai2 'yICj.OSe~ b'3:8$~8 ~~S p°-C~.°9?'_T~BII 11SE OOlV.
No one ar~peared in opposition to subject petition.
Tt~ffi HBARING WAS CLOSHD.
Co~amissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 879, 8eries 1963-64~ and moved for ifs
passage and adoption~ seconded by Commissioner Sides to grant Petition for
Variance No. 1597, aub,ject to the relocation of the proposed garages and setback 15 feet
from the southerly property Sine so as to expose the garage eads to the southerly street~
provision of adequate turning radius for iagress and egress into the garages, inatallation
of a 15-foot strip of landscaping in the front yard setback of the soatherly street in
order to present a more eompatible appearance to property developing to the south, a
minimum 10-foot accessway be maintained between the main structure and the garages for
pedestrian use only, and that any development plans be subject to the approval of
Development Review prior to the issuance of a building permit, together with other
conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYB3: CODAlISSIONHRS: Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sides.
NOB3: COMMISSIONBRS: None.
pBSBNT: COMMISSIONHR3: Allred, Camp.
~
,
~
~
a
I
;~
VARIANCS N0. 1598 - PUBLIC HHARING. GIACOMO AND AGOSTINA LUGARO, 582 North Magaolia
Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; ROHffiiT W.'MACMAHON,
RBVI3HD TBN'TATIVH 1695 West Crescent Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting
MAP OP permission to WAIVB PRONT YARD SHTBAQC RHQUIRBMHNT TO PBRMIT Ttffi
TRACT N0._ 5113 CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLS PAMILY 3UBDIVI3ION on property described
as; An irregular parcel of land having a frontage of 271 feet on the south side of
Crescent Avenue, and an average depth of 850 feet, the western boundary of said property
being approximately 277 feet east of the centerline of Magnolia Avenue, and further
described as 2A90 Crescent Avenue. Property presently classified as R-A, RS3IDHNTTAL
A(3tICULTURAL, ZONB.
SUgJBCT TRACT: DBVffiOPffit: JACR M~LBAN, 310 Rosebay Street, Anaheim, California.
BN~INggR: gTgpHHN W, BRADPOAD, 125 3outh Claudine 3treet, Anaheim,
Ca7ifornia, covers 5.6 ac=es, and is proposed for subdivision
int:, 24 R-1, ONH PAMILY RS3IDBNTIAL, ZONB, Lots.
_. _ _ _ .. ...
~ - , - -.__ _---.---------
~ , . ~t - .
~
1
%
~~ ~ ~
R . . . . . . " ` .~,t 1~ -~ - ~~
~ ~
. ,~' t
..... .. ._.... . .. _...._.. ...... _'___~...._...__ ,
~` ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ^, ~
~
MINUTE3, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 19, 1963, C~ntinued: 1726 ~
i
~
VARIANCB N0, 1598 - Mr. Robert MacMahen, abent for the patitioners, appeared before ~
the Commission and reviewed the proposed development noting that ~
RBVI3BD TBNTATIVB the front yard waiver was compensated for in a larger rear yard, a
MAP OP that the develonment was self-contained, and that he had d
TRACT N0, 5113 submitted a petition signed by 42 property ovmers adjacent to ~
subject property in support of subject petition.
~
i
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition, ~
The Commission reviewed the plans together with the tract map. ~
Commissioner pebley offered Resolution No. 880, Series 1963-64, and moved for its ~
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to grant Petition for
Variance No, 1598, subject co conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On roli call tS~e foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYB3: CObAfISSIONBRS: Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, 3ides.
NOE3: CQbAlISSIONERS: None.
ABSffiVT: COMMI5SIONFRS: Allred, Camp.
Subject tract was considered at the public hearing in conjunction with Petition for
Variance No. 1598.
The Commission reviewed the Interdepartmental Committee recommendations for subject
tract.
Commissioner Side+s offered a motion to approve Revised Tentative Map of Tract No. 5113,
subject to the follo;ving conditions:
(1) That•should this subdivision be d~veloped as more than one subdivision, each
subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval.
(2) That the vehicular access rxghts, except at street and/or alley openings,
to Crescent Avenue shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim,
;3) Tha.t an underground storm drain system shall be ir.stalled to thz satisfaction of
the City Bngineer.
Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD,
VARIANCB N0. 1599 - PUBLIC HBARING. OLIN L, an3 RU1H M. CRAMBR, 815 South Nutwood
Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; LYNN B, THOMSBN, 420 South
TENTATIVB MAP OP Huclid Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission
TRACT N0. 5250 to WANB THB MINTMUM WIDTH OP NOT LBS~ 1HAN 70 PBST ON R-1, ONB
~ PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONB, LOTS TO Pffi2MIT THB SUBDIVISION of
proQerty described as; A rectangular parcel of land haviag a
frontage of 254 feet on the west side of Nutwood Street, a frontage of 254 feet on the
east side of Agate Street, and a de~th of 647 fee+., the southerly boundary of said
property being approximately 130 feet north of the centerline of Beacon Avenue, and
further described as 815 3outh Nutwood Street. Property presently classified as
R A, RBSIDBNTIAL pQtICULTIJRAL, ZONH.
SUBJBCT TRACT: DBVBLOP.ffit: LYNN E. THOMSBN, 420 3outh Buclid Street, pnaheim,
California. BNGINB~t: IANDBR HNGINBffitING, 905 North Buclid Street,
Anaheim, California, covezing 2.6 acres is proposed for subdivision
into 11 R-1, ON8 PAMILY RESIDBNTIAL, ZONB, Lots.
Mr. Lynn Thomsen, agent for the pe4itioners, appeared before the Commission and
reviewed the pre~;oa~d rlevelopment and subject tract, indicating that the "Not A part"
could present some difficulty in the property dedication of the proposed new street.
_. ______ _ _ . - __ _.. ._. _.._-._ __.~ _ _..
_ . . s~; . ..._--r---- , ~
,
--- -~! i ~
~ ~ ~
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING CaMMI33I0N, August 19, 1963, Continued: Y727
VAR7ANCH N0. 1599 - Zoning Goordinator Martin Kreidt referred to a memorandum from
the Director of Parks and Recreation, suggesting the possibility
TBNTATIVH MAP OP of requiring the dev~loper to construct a six (6) foot masonry
TR~C' N0. 5250 wa11 along the northerly property line of subject progerty.
<Ccntinued) Mr. Areidt further advised the Commission that the wall•had
been discussed by the Interdepartmental Committee, and it was
concluded that the developer could not be required to construct
a masonry wall along the park site,
The Commission after some discussion agreed with the Interdepartmental Committee that
tre masonry wall construction was not the r~sponsibility of the developer, However,
the petitioner stated the wall construction might be a wise investment and art
important selling factor, but no commitment was made by either the petitioner or the
Commission relative to said wall construction.
Mr. William Martin, 1417 West Beacon Avenue, owner of property on the southeast of
subject property, appeared before the Commission in conditional opposition only~ and
stated his concern was relative to the possibility of zestricting the southerly seven
lots to ane story, The Commission advised Mr. Martin that this restriction was
impossible, that two story struetures presently existed in the area~ that the
restriction of singie story was more applicable to a multiple family development, that
single family development was never restricted to either a one or two story, but that
at the time of the issuance of a buiiding permit~ plans might be reviewed for a
possible minimum aa~ount of visibility from the second story c:f these proposed structures.
The Commission reviewed the plans and confirmed that the 80-foot width of the
northerly lots met Code requirements, that the requested waiver to permit a 60-foot
width for lots applied only to the southerly lots, aad that this was a reasonable
request given the fact that said lots would be in conformity with the ad,~aceat single
family development.
TN8 HBARING WAS CL0.9ED,
Commisaioner Sides offered Reaolution No. 881~ Series 1963-64, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, t. grant petitioa for
Vaziance No, 1599, sub,~ect to conditiona. (3ee Reso]s.tion Book.)
On ro.il caYl the foregoing resolution was passed by i;.~ :vllowing vote;
AYB3: COMMISSIOI~t9: Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Aowland~ Sides.
NOES: COMMI88IdNffit9: None.
ABSBNT: CC~hiMI33I0I~tt8: Allred, Camp,
Sub,~ect tract was conaidered at the public hearing in con,~unction with Petition for
Variance No. 1599.
The Co~aisaion reviEwed the Iaterdepartmental Committee recomsaendations.
Commissioner 8idea offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 5250,
sub3ect to the foiiowing conditiona:
(1) That shoqld this aubdiviaion be developed as more than one aubdiviaion, each
subdivision thereof ahai,l be submitted in tentative form for approval.
(2) That the approvai of Tentative Map of Tract No. 5250 is granted aub3ect +o the
approval of Varisnce No. 1599.
(3) That Street "A" ahali be named Chateau Avenue,
(4) That Chateau Aveaue ahall be a 60 foot right-of-way except ad,~acent to the
"Not A Part" whese a 51-foot right-of-way will be per~nitted. The atreet aection
ad3acent to the "Nat A Part" ahall be a 30-foot parkway ott the aouth, a 36-foot
roadway and a 5-foot parkway with a full aidewalk on the north,
Commisaioaer Perry aeconded the motion. MOTION CARAIBD,
~ ---------_.._ _ __ __ _ ~ .
1728
~t ,
ern
~s
hat
ot
ts
or
~a,
~r
~t
0
AL,
iN.
B•
tIFSD.
~,~
, ,_~~ _ _ .
, _ --- -_ _ _. __._ ...__._ .. _..
, ~. ` ..~ , . , , . - ' ~.
(~
~~
MINUTB3, CITY PIANNING CQbAfI83I0N~ August 19, 1963~ Continued:
~ t~
~' ~
~
7
~
i~a9 #
3
RBANALYSI3 OP THB NatTH- - Planning Cirector Richard Reese reviewed the request of
BAST INDUS11tIAL ARBA the Commission on May 13, 1963, relative to a reanalysis
of the industriai areas in the City of Anaheim, further
aa:ing ::s~: tha b^ is c: the ~o.-is~ic:,'~ ~i6j2:.~~II$ laad
for ind~strial purposes in their approval of theJGeneral P~an on July 15, 1963~ was
predicated on the original Industriai Areas Analysis, and further summarized the
Planning Department~s recommeadations as follows;
"1. Industrial lands lying within the present city limits and areas of
probable future expansioa south of Bail Road and west of Dwliag Avenue, and,
2. The County iadustrial area lying east of Jefferson Street and extending to
the Imperial Preeway,
Based on the findings of this reanalysis, it is felt that the Anaheim southeast
and northeast industrial areas area as competitive and desirable as any industrial area
existing within the County, and it is recommended that the proposed 2,280 net acres of
industrial reserves lying within the present city limits and areas of probable expansion
south of Sall Road and west of Dowling Avenue ue reaffirmed by the Anaheim Planning
Commission and the City Council.
The 960 net acre county industrial area now zoned M-1, lying east of
JeffCr9on Sireei ib iilc 3ui7jCCi cii a siuuy oy iil~ Coun4y aGBru Gi 3uprrvi~Gr3 a~ ~icr a
letter from,the Orange County Planning Department dated Augast 7, 1963,
It is recommended that the County be encouraged to undertake this county-wide
industrial analysis to entablish a regional framework within which individual co~nunities
can more accurately formulate their long-range industrial programs.
Ia addition, it is requested that the County be encouraged to hold in abeyance
applications for residentiai development within this area pending completion of the
stU:iy. " •
Mr. Reese referred the Commission's attention to the camplete report (available in the
Planning Department) as submitted for their cons3deration, - - _
rlavalnaiR6At CF f.~ifl .ZAild SG't 8S'de fn~ indtlSt'Ll'~Lpn~pna h A.,~t~ee~a= '.~=d
~ 81~~-d8t8-&
w4 ..~ 41~ /":1~ ..1..a' • L' C ~}n L_-
op o ~.s-p'~p :wvscvn-irrojcozia r~rov~~~wTOi S7II0.
Commissioner Rowland noted that the General Plan now indicated the City`s limits, and
that of all the industrial area shown on the map, the City had only about 50~ within
its limits.
In summation, Mr. Reese gave the followi~g recommendations:
1. That the proposal for 2280 net acres of industrial land reserves lying within the
present city Simits and areas of probable expansion south of Ball Roadn and west
of Dowli.~g Street be reaffirmed by the Anaheim Planning Commission and the City
Council. • -.
2. That theCity of Anaheim support the Board of Supervisors proposal to conduct a
county-wide industriai areas analysis to establish a regionai framewor~ with
which individual communities can more accurately formuiate their loag-range
industrial programs.
That the County of Orange be requested to give consideration to the following
factors in the scope of their study;
a. Detailed projection of industrial land use demands and employee deasities by
major industrial classificatioa to 1980.
b. A quantitative and qualitive analysis of existing iadustrial lan3 use.
c. Review of industrial zoning and trends in industrial land use policies withia
the various jurisdictions.
__ .. _ . _ . _-- _ _- -
~. ~ _. ~-- --~-•---- - -- ------>~
pi
/
_.._ ..__.__ _.__.._.i
~..r ~~ , r
MINUTB3, CITY PIANNING CObA~tI3SI0N, August 19, 1963, Continued: 1730
RBANALYSIS OP THB *IfttTH- - d. The analysis of the types of industry attracted the
BAST INDUS2RIAL ARBA various areas, the types of owners or developers
(Continued) (such as railroads, industrial tracts or large develop-
ment companies, individual industrial sites, etc.),
and the ratio of size of site purchased to size of
site initially developed,
e. Determination of basic factors which have influenced the type of industry
locating in the various areas.
f. Determination of various areas which, due to the existence of certain basic
factors, are likely to attract specific types of industry.
g. An analysis and projection of the acreage demand for various types of
industxy.
h, An inventory of sound industrial practices and techniques which might be
drawn upon by the various communities in formulating their individual
industrial land policies and development programs.
3, That the County be requested to huld in abeyance applications for residential
fIOVP~f~t~I11P1f~' 1T1 ~'}1C ar00~ AOQ~' llF 7oFFora~+g Q±~oo± ~~M±~~ *{~A ~~Tw~p}inn nF ~}~~~~
~t~~.~~ v~~~~~.. ~ ~.Y~...~.... ..
county-wide analysis, and that with respect to interested property owners in the
area, the count}• be urged to complete such a study in as short a time as possible
A resolution from the City of Placentia relative to a zoning action in the northeast
industrial area was read to the Commission.
A resolution from the Orange County Associated Chambers of Commerce was read recoamending
that all Communities in Orange County refrain from rezoning presently zoned industrial
land for other usage until such time as the County Board of Supervisors~ special report
xras completed and submitted.
Commissioner Sides offered a motion to submit recommendations 2 and 3 from the report of
the Planning Department recommendations to the Orange County Planning Commission for
their perusal in the County~s Industrial Areas Analysis, Commissinner Chavos seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
The Commission then deferred action on the recommendation to the City Council reiative
to the reanalysis untii after a joint Commission-Council meeting to be held
August 21, 1963,
RBCLASSIFICATION - CONTINUHD PUBLIC iiBARING. ROBBRT R. DOWLING, et al, 15622 Placentia-
N0, 62-63-112 Yorba Boulevard, Placentia, California, Owners; HBRITAGH CONBTR:JCTION
CORPORATION, 4100 West Commonwealth Avenue, Fullerton, California,
CONDITIONAL USB Agent; property described as: An irregular portion of iand
PBRMIT N0. 422 consisting of three (3) parcels and having frontage of 1,370 feet on
the south side of Piacentia-Yorba Boulevard, 1,195 feet on the
east side of Dowling, and :,355 feet on the r.orth side of Orangethorpe
Ave.aue. Property presently classified R-", RBSIDHNTIAL AQtICULTURAL,
ZONH.
RHQUBSTBD CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLB PAMILY RBSIDHNTIAL, ZONB.
RBQUSSTBD CONDITIONAL U3B: CONSIRUCT A 2W0-3TORY MULTIPLH PAMILY PIANNHD RSSIDBNTIAL
DHVffi.OPMBNT WI1H CARPORTS - WAIVH ONE-STORY I~IG.'yT
LIMITATION.
Subject petitions were continued from the meeting of May 13, 1963, in order to aiiow
the Pianning Department time to present a reanalysis of the Northeast Industrial Area
and the industrial needs of the City.
I
I
I
I
1
~„~,_ .~~„~r,,,,....~ ._ .. .. ............ .-~` .
__ _.
.... _~ : '_.~~._.~~_ _..._~.__.~... .
.,
_ _...... . . ~ . . . . . .. . .. ._.._ . _~
i~i s~ .~
4~g ~--~ (~ 7
MINUTB3, CITY PIANHING COhAtI3SI0N, Aagust 19, 1963, Continued: 1731
RBCIAS3IFICATION - Mr. Robert Ralston, representing the agent ~cr the petitioners,
N0. 62-63-112 appeared before the Commission and stated that although the report
given by the Planning Director covered the entire industrial area,
CQND_TTIORiPT Uw his c2iezts partion representeQ only a. very minor portion, that
PffitMIT N0. 422 58.9°,6 of the workers ia Orange County earned less than $7,000 per
(Continued} year, that the cost of homes in Anaheim was more than these
workers could afford or Qualify for a loan, that the report
projected industrial needs to 1980, whereas, the petitioners wished
to realize an income during their lifetime, that many of the workers in Anaheim lived
outside of the City because of this inability to purchase a home in the City in which
they worked~ that the proposed development would not be a blight in years to come,
because a trus: was aet up to maintain the structqres and the ~reas within the proposed
development, that each apartment otemer would be assessed $26 per month for this upkeep,
that the only contact the City had made with him relative to the reanalysis was a
contact made by the City Attorney~s office relative to C(;~R's, that a private study
made for the developer relative to needs in Orange County indicated that 946 families
who worked in the City lived within a 25 mile radiua of their work, that it would be
more beneficial to the Cifiy if these familiea spent the money they earned in the City
in which they worked, that the proposed developmeat was no different than the propoaed
5-story hotel being proposed directly west of subject property, said development also
being located in the industrial area, and that he hoped tha± he would be able to obtain
reciassification on what he considered a needed development for the City,
The Commission in casual perusal of the ~ubmitted study noted that figures were quoted
for Orange County, that figures as preaeated to the Commission by the Planning
Department were derived from Government figurea which indicated that the City had the
highest per capita earning of the County, said figure representiag more than 6096 of the
City~s workers makiag more than $7,000 per year~ and that the petitioners were
proposiag a multiple family development rather than a condowiniur~.
Mr. Ralston in clarifying the proposed development stated that he proposed to sell to
pro3pective persons earning between $5,000 aad $6,000 per year~ and that these people
might be able to financa through PHA a comparable apartment unit.
The Commission informed the agent that the State, the County, and the City did not have
adequate safeguards to protect prospective purchasers of property in condominium type
developments, to which Mr. Ralston stated that the proposed development could not be
compared to small substandard dwellings of the high-rise type, that the petitioaer
proposed to develop a high quality type of development.
The Commission discussed the proposed deveiopment and its possible adverse affect upon
the future development of industrial lands in the northeast area, that it had been
proven in other cities of comparable size, that residential encroachment in an industriai
area did not permit future expansion of established industries in these areas, and that
the living environment left something to be desired when in such close proximity to
odozs, noises, traffic, and other hazards associated with an industrial complex.
In further discussion by the Commission as to the possible encroachment of residential
uses in the azeas set aside for industrial purposes, it was noted 4hat expansion of
lands for industrial development had not developed as readily as had been anticipated,
but that past experience had indicated that Industry did not consider the cost of land
when it purchased property, that property was often purchased on a long range development
plan, but was not developed for a number of years, sometimes extending up to 50 years,
that the Coaimission should consider the possible impact if the Commission favorably
considered even a small parcei for development as residential, that this wouid set a
pattern of development, since one person could not enjoy privileges not afforded to
others, that it was the responsibility of the Commission and County to protect the
community by discouraging the breakdown of the industrial area for other than the
intended purpose of development, that in order to encourage furture expansion of
existing industry, and potential industry, that the industrial area should remain intact,
and that the long range planning setup by the C,-'.ty should be maintained, if the City
hoped to encourage future industrial developmenl.
.: -
--._.._ ~___ _.,__-----____..------~----•
-- - _.. Y'a~ , ~ ~--------
• ;
. ,.5.
1
.~
•
-- --...._.
r~ ~ ~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CO~A~lI38I~i, August 19, 1963, Continued: 1732
RBCLA98IPIG-,TION - Mr. Lou i:erbst, represeating the industrial division of the ~
N0. 62-63-112 Chamber of Commerce, appeared in opposition to subject petitions, ~
and stated that many smali industries would welcome the chance to• i
CONDxTIONAL U8H purchase a small parcel of laad at equitable prices in the #
n
PHRMIT N0. 422 industrial area, that subject property should remain for future ~
(Continued) industrial use, that the City needed all the property it had set y
aside for industriai development with the projected population ~
expansioa, that subject property was located along a major corner ~
and was along the access route to industrial property to the east, that psojected
traffic in this area from a possible mixture of both industrial and residential ;
development would further create hazards since industriai traffic together with trucks
would be coming and going, and access to any proposed residential developments vrould
be extremely difficuit without taking hazarclous chances, that the noises and odors from ~
industrial complexes would be objectionabie to residents of any development in close ~
proximity, that the approved hotel in the industriai azea was a complimentary use for a
visitors to these industriai compiexes, and that said property had commercial zoning ~
prior to the City~s setting aside the noztheast area for industrial purposes. ~
Mr. Robert Dowling, one of the petitionP~s, stated that at the time hearings were held ''+
relative to reserving the northeast ar . for industriaY purpos~s, he had opposed !
reserving these properties because he was sure industrial use would be the only type 5
of zoning approved, that he was desirous of developing the property, that as a longtime
__~_,~o~± ~f ±hA r;+y t,P fPtt h~ was entitled to develonment in the most profitable ;
manner, that subject property was more or less isolated from both Anaheim and Ylacentia,
that the only opposition came from other than the immediate neighbors, and he urged ,
the Commission to favosably consider his petition for muitiple family residential zoning, ~
A resolution from the City of Placeatia opposing subject petition was read to the
Commission.
1HS HHARING WA3 CL03HD.
Commissioner Gauer offered the opinion that if the subject property were approved for
residential development, this entering wedge would open the door for a complete
breakdown of the industrial area set aside for the purpose by the Commission and Council,
and that he felt that prospective tenants might not desire to live so near an
industrial'area.
Commissioner Pebley felt that i£ the City was desirous of maintaining certain areas for
industriai development, the City should spend money in public relations to advertise the
fact that land was available for industrial development, this being by means of
parsonal or written contact with eastern industry, that although the Chamber of Commerce
was doing a fine job in bringing industry to the City, it was still the City's
responsibility to encourage industrial development, and that property owners should no~
~h ve q w~t.until 1980 o e ze the sale of tk~~rop/e_r~t,ies. r~x~-~. ,c ~~
0~f o, c o '.u-ue~~~~r ~~' 't'~'Q `~ ~w .~'~~~ ~~~ .!~ (~.~r_,
Cb~ion~ concurred with C missioner Pebley.V ~
Commissione= Rowland offesed the opinion that the City should offer the Qropert} owners
of the potential industrial land some incentive to hold their land for industrial
development, and that residential uses were incompatible in close proximity to
industrial complexes.
Commissioner Perry expressed the opinion Autonetics would never have located in the
Northeast Industrial Area if they thought that the City would break down the area for
other than industrial purposes, that this company had left Compton and Downey because
of their inability to expand their facilities because of the residentiai encroachment,
that if the City held a firm line of any residential encroa~hment, this would be
incentive to the big industrfes for the assurance needed for future expansion, and that
the City should not break down the industrial integrity of the area, by considering the
economics of land use.
Chairman Mungall stated that the cost of land was a minor factor to large industry,
that la~d was purchased at high prices if it was suitable for their development
purposes, and that he feit the area should remain industrial.
- •~-- ---- ---. _--- , _ _ _ . .. .. ....
__... -_:i~ --i---- - ~l.
'ti
~
~
l
MIIVUTBB, CITY PIANNING CObA~IISSION, August 19, 1963, Continued: 1733
RHCLASSIPICATION - Commissioner Chavos stated the City of Commerce set aside specified
N0. 62-63-112 acreage for industrial purposes, that Industry was appreciative of
the fact th at expansion couid be made in an area without any
CONDITIONAL USB residential encroachment ?: that city, and that the City of Anaheim
PBRMIT N0. 422 had made a similar commitment to indus try, which he felt should be
(Continued) maintained for a similar assurance to any potential industry for the
City.
Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution No. 883, Series 1963-64, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner 3ides to recommend to •the City Council
that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-112 be disapproved based on the facts
that subject property has AI-•1, :.ight Indus~trxal, zon3.ng pendi.ng in
Reclassification No. 61~62-69, that to permit the encroachment of residential development
in this industrial area woqld be incompatible, that no physical or economic changes had
taken place to justify such a change, that the Commission had recommended disapproval
of previous requests for res~dential development in the industrial area, that to permit
this encroachment would prohibit any future industrial development and expansion in the
area, that to peratit this encroachment would prohibit any future industrial development
and expansion in the area, and that the City Council on June 25, 1963, reaffirmed the
position of prohibiting residential develapment, including trailer parks, in the
industrial area. (3ee Resolution Book.)
n~ rnll ~alt the fpregoing reso].ution was nassed by the followin¢ vote:
AYB3: COMMI33ION$R3: Ch3vos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sides.
NOBS: COMMI33IONHR3: None.
ABSHNT: COMMI3SIONBR3: Al.tred, Camp.
Commissioner Sides offered Resolution No. 884, Series 1963~64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to deny Petition for Conditional Use
Permit No. 422, b,ased on findings. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolntion was passed by the following vote:
AYES: C~1MIS9IONffit9: Chavos, Gauez, Aiungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, :tides.
NQES: COMMIS9IOIVBRS: None.
ABSHNT: COMMI3SIONHRS: Allred, Camp.
RBCLAS3IFICATION - PUBLIC HBARING. DEMLHR PARM3, INC., 1400 North Acacia Street,
N0. 63-64-17 and Anaheim, California, Owner; TED FISH, 1234 Hast Lincoin Aven;ie,
Anaheim, California, Agent; property described as; An irregu.lar
TBNTATIVB MAP OP portion of land having a frontage of 650 feet on the east side of
TRACT NOS. 5267, Acacia 5treet, a frontage of 645 feet on the west side of Baxter
5268, 5269, and . 3tieet,_the aoxthezly.boundary of said propeztq being approximately
5270 1,211 feet south of the centerlineof Orangethorpe Avenue, and
further described as 1400 North Acacia Street. Property presently
classified as M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONB.
Subject petition was continued from the meeting of July 22, 1963, in order that it might
be considered in conjunction with the reanalysis of :he Industrial Areas in Anaheim.
Mr. Hdmund Demler, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that the
chicken ranch had been a non-conforming use in the City, that the ranch covered
20 acres with 10,000 chickens and facilities for 15,000 to 20,000 male birds, and
specia~ facilities for breeding and all other facilities needed on the ranch, that the
City of Fullerton was located to the north with industrial zoning and a similar zoning
to the east of subject property, that over the past 7 years the number of poultry
ranches had decreased considerably in the City because of zoning changes, County health
regulations, and general complaints by residents abutting these ranches, that it was a
matter of time before his facilities would be forced to close because of these
regulations, that he had tried to interest industrie.; in the purchase of subject property
for development, but any interest quickly subsided when it was noted that the streets
were too narrow for adequate trucking facilities because of not having a railroad spur
nearby, that the only offer made to him was for possible multiple family development,
and that if the pruposed *2classification were approved, all the chickens would be
removed by the summer of 1964 to the irvine area.
.....~ .__ _,., _~ _--- -...__ _ .
_. _______
_... ~ • ~ I~
i
i
i
I
I
~) ~ ~
~_~
~
~
MINI3THS, CITY PLANNING COMMI3SION, August 19, 1963, Continued: 1734
RHCLA3SIPICATION - In response to Commission questioning the petitioner stated that
N0. 63-64-17 and he planned to reside in his present home for another 4 years, that
only 17 of the 20 acres wonld be developed, and that he had
TENTATIVB ,1lAP OP contacted the industrial Qroperty owners, but no answer had taeen
TRACT N03. 5267, received to his letters.
5268, 5269, and
5270 The Commissiot, noted that single family development existed to
(Continued) the south of subject property, and no opposition had been received,
that in~lustrial development had taken place east of subject
property in which a great deal of money had been expended to meet
Code requirements, and that it was an unknown factor that the adjacent industrial
complexes would approve or disapprove multiple family encroachment into the area.
The petitioner stated that he thought the residents to the south of subject property
should be considered by construction of a buffer of multiple family development
between the single family development and the industrial development to the north and
east.
Mr. Lou Herbst, representing the industrial division of the Chamber of Commerce,
appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject petition, stating that to
propose multiple family development was a buffer between the industr.ial and single
family development would be incompatible planning, that the freeway offered a natural
buffer, tha# the ~etzti.oner's chicken ranch was one of the ~s± ope:a:ad facilities he
had ever seen, that the subject property was an ideal location for industry because of
the Freeway and free advertising visible fsom the F~=eway, and that he urged the
Commission to reserve all land set aside for industrial purposes for that use oniy, and
to consider the existing industrial development to the north and the east of subject
property.
The petitioner stated he felt the removal ~f the poultry ranch would solve any
potential health problems and satisfy all people adjacent to the ranch, and in response
to a question by the Commission stated that the ranch would only be moved if the
Commission and Council approved multiple family zoning for the subject property, fhat
the only facilities to then be moved would be the one located on Caroline Street.
Mr. William Moore, representing the developers, appeared before the Commission and
stated that deveiopment plans were considered by the Commission at the previous
meeting, the Commission seemed impressed, that the only problem seemed to be proper
land use, and that it seemed incongruous to have iadustrial uses adjacent to single
family development, that it seemed to him the only property owners v~ho should be
considered were the single family residents to the south, that any changes of land use
from the oresent chicken ranch should be supported by the Chamber of Commerce and the
City fo• th~ health and welfare a: the single family residents, that if the City does
not de~, ~~ from any present zoning, some ordinance should be adopted to eliminate any
future r~ ,uests of the proposed nature, that the proposed development and land use
was somewhat different, that the prcvious hearing on the Dowling p:one*ty because of
its location on the fznge of an industrial area, and that two things would be accom-
plished by approving subject petition, namely, removal of a nonconforming use, and the
creation of a buffer between the existing single family residential and industrial
development presently existing.
Mr. Paul Sems, 461 Via Burton, appeared in favor of subject petition and stated that at
the time the industrial zoning was approved the Mayor of the City stated that the
Demler property would be there a long time to act as a buffer between the R-1 and the
M-1, zone, that because of the narrow streets, no on or off-ramp to the Riverside
Freewey, hea:ry trucks, etc., it was the concern of the residents that small stalls
rather than an acceptable industzial development would result on subject property, and
that he had submitted a petition signed by 24 property owners in the area approving
subject petition,
THB HHARING WAS CLOSHD.
~°- - . _
3
~
~
~
_ '
r ~~ , ~`~ ~
~.. -
MINUTAS, CITY PIANNING COMMI3SION, August 19, 1963, Continued: 1735
RBCLASSIPICATION - Discussion was held by the Cormnission relative to the proposed
N0. u3•-64-17 and petition presenting a different circumstance in that it was not in
the heart of an industrial 3rea, that the removal of the chicken
iBNTATIV.B MAP OP ranch would be an improvement to the health of the City, that the
TRACT NOS. 5267, single family homes had been consiructed after the owa~ezs Ueing aware
5268, 5269, and that a chicken ranch did exist adjacent to said homes, that no
5270 complaints had been received relative to the chicken ranch, that
(Continued) the p.roposed development had precise plans for development, that
the Commission might consider the two facts that the chicken ranch
would be removed and improve the heaYth standards of the City, and
the proposed development might act as a buffer between the single
family residential and industrial developments existing.
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to recommend for ap~roval subject petition,
seconded by Commissioner Pebley, and after considerable discussion as to any opposition
beiag presented by the industrial firms adjacent to subject property, that the
Commission should not vacillate from denial to approval on two similar items,
Commissioner Pebley withdrew his motion, and the motion died for want of a second.
Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for
Reclassification No. 63-64-17, and Tentative Map of Tract Nos. 5267, 5268, 5269, and
5270 to the meeting of September 4, 1963, and directed the Planning Department to
constact ail the industrial p~operty owners south of the Plood Control Channel and
easterly to State College Houlevard to meet and discuss or present any opposition to
the subject petition. Commissioner Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Sreidt stated that the petitioner had requested in writing
that the Tentative Tract Maps be considered in conjunction with Petition for
Reclassification No. 63-64-17, and thus, the Commission need not act on it at this time,
but wou ld be considered at the meeting of Septermber 4, 1963.
RSCBSS - Commissioner Sides offered a motion to recess for ten minutes,
Commissioner Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION GARRIBD.
Meeting recessed at 10:15 P.M.
RBCONV.*3NH - Chairman Mungall reconvened the meeting at 10:28 P.M., all Commissioners
being pzesent,except Commissioners Allred and Camp.
RBCIASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HBARING. ~STATB OF TILLIH PLUBGGB, c/o Talt, MacMahon, and
N0. 63-64-22 Nelson, 1695 West Crescent Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner;
TALT, MacMAHON, AND NELSON, 1695 West Czescent Avenue, Anaheim,
California, Agent:; requesting that property described as:
A rectangular pazcel of land having a frontage of 330 feet on the
east side of Huclid Street, and a depth of 1,269 feet, the southerly boundary of said
property being adjacent to the Anaheim City limixs boundary, and the nor~herly boundary
being approximately 660 feet south of the centerline of Katella Avenue be reclassified
from the R-A, RBSIDHNTIAL AGRICULTtTRAL, ZONE to the R-3, MULTIPLS FAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL,
ZONB.
Mr. Robert MacMahon agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated
that he was unable to present development plans, because he had to show cause to thE
Probate Court, that such an expenditure would assure the proposed zoning, that subject
property had no buyer, was nct in escrow, that the estate had many psoblems relative to
taxes, that the proposed classification would be the best method of development by the
heirs, that it was requested that the Commission give conditional approval subject to
any development plans requiring the approval of the Commission and Council before final
approval of the Ordinance was made, that if necessary another public hearing could be
held at the time development or precise plans were submitted for approval, that he was
aware that the Commission°s policy was not to consider or approve any petition without
development plans, that the General Plan proposed low-medium density for a portion of
subj~ct property with the Huclid Street frontage for business professional zoning, and
that he had discussed the proposed reclassification with a number of property owners in
the subdivision in Garden Grove immediately adjacent to subject property.
i
i
i
i
i
i
!
i
~:_.-.._-------•--------~------- ___..... _ . .__ ~__. ... . __--
~
-~ i ~ ~:, __ __ . _. _ .
Zoaing Coozdinator Martin Sreidt stated that the policy of the Commission was clear cut,
said policy being administrated by the Planning Staff, and that the petitioner was
appealing this policy by requesting the Commission to amend the policy of requiring
develop~eat plans. '
~ --
~
1736
gH(~J1,ggIpICATION - T6e Commission noted that the single family development to the south
iip. 63-64-22 had developed stub streets abutting subject property, and this was
(Qoatinned) done in aticipatioa that subject property would develop for single
f~ilq subdivision, that subject propertq could easily be developed
for single familq subdivision with eight (8) homes fronting on each
of the stub streets, that the Commission could never consider any
petition rithout some form of development plans, that to approve zoning as requested, it
~ras snggested that the agent contact the Court and inform them this expenditure was
necessazy before any coasideratioa cculd be made, that to propose multiple family
developvent traffic to tie in with single family development would create a traffic
bazard. a~ that it was not feasible to request of the Commission to recommend approval
of a recla~sificatioa to the Commission to recommend approval of a reclassification to
tbe City Council bq bqpassing a firm poli~y the Commiasion had established requiring
development plans with aay petition. •
llr. F1oyd Fe=-ano, 1881 Hileen Drive~ appeared before the Commission and stated he
repr~sen#ed a nt;mber of pzoperty owners adjacent to subject pr.op~.r.ty oQpesing subject
petitioa. but only because no deveiopment pians were avaiiabie, zna4 nu iugic:ai
oppositioa tonld be made because s:id plans were no~ submitted, that a blanket approval
of a zec2assification seemed to be contrary to anything the Coromission had granted
previonsly, that as an attorney, he could appreciate the predicament the estate was
facing, a~ that the Commi.ssion was to be congratulated on maintaining the stand that
consideration could not be given to a petition without adequate development plans.
rir. Don F/i2san, 1l192 Lida Lane, Garden Grove, appeared in opposition to the proposed
petition, and stated that he would oppose any type of development in which two-story
construction vas propo°ad, and that the majority of the residents opposed subject
petition because no development gtans were submitted.
Mr. Clande Wiseman, 1833 Bayless, appeared in oppositiun to subject petition stating
that he did not oppose either R-3 or R-1 development, but did oppose the fact that plans
had not beea submitted, and that if plans haci been submitted a solution might have
beea reached relative to develupment of the land.
~
:~
MIlIQ~'sS, QTY pL1NNING C0I~9rlIS310N, August 1~ 1963, Continued;
lfr. S. R. Vodhand, 11201 Fostoria Street, Garden Gxove, appeared in opposi:ion to
subaect petition aad stated that the Garden Grove schools were presently operating on
tLe basis of the present zoning of the property, that no plans had be2n made tor an
iafleiz of childzen from a large muitiple family devrlopment, that development should
be ~ade in a manner that the school districts might be able to project requests for
fi.nancial aid for the construction of additional facilities to take care of a large
iaflux of childrea, aad that there was an insufficient amount of public facilities to
tate care of ad3itiona2 childzen in the re4reation areas adjacent to subject property.
Mr. MacMahon, in zebuttal stated he understood feelings of the residents,~but 'that he
still maintained that he vras trying to obtain some evidence that subject property
ronld be deve2opable for multiple family use~so that he could present this to the
tburt in order to obtain funds for development plans, and that he understood that under
ertenuating circumstances the requirement of development plans could be waived.
~
~~
~ Fff,ARING KAS CL03&I1.
Co~issioner Sides offered Resoiution No. 885, Series 1963~64, and maved ior its passage
and adoption, secoaded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council t hat
petition for Reclassification No. 63-64-22 be 3isapproved based on the facts that the
petitioner rras unable to submit development plans in accordance with Commission and
Council policy, that by this recommendation of disapproval the Commission was
reaffirsing tbeir ~position on the policy of requiring developmeat pians, and that
sab,ject property could easily be developed foz a single family residential subdivision.
(See 8esolutioa Book.)
On ro12 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYFS: (.'OFWIS3IO1~R3: Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Yebley, Perry, Rowland, $ides.
Ii~3: CQY/ISSIUNRlt3: None .
ABSffirP: C0~8tI33I0NP1t3: Alired, Camp.
----- . _ ___ _
~~
~~
~
MINUT4S, CITY PIANNING COMMI3SION, August 19, .1963, Continued:
1737
RHCLA33IFICATION - PUBLIC FIDARING. GIACOMO and AGd9TINA LUGARO, 532 North Magnolia
N0. 63-64-23 lvenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; TALT, MACMAHON, as•d N8L30N,
1695 West Crescent Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agents; requesting
that property described as: A rectangular parcel of land having a
f*_o:~tage of 270 feet on the east side of hiagnolia Avenue, and a depth of 247 feet, the
northerly boundary of said property be:ng approximately 658 feet south of the centerline
of Crescent Avenue bc reclassified from the R-A, RHSIDBNTIAL AGRICULT[JR.AL, ZONB to the
C°1, NBIGHB~HOOD CQ~CIAL, 20NB.
Mr. Robert MacMahon, agent for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and
stated that subject petition had been filed ~oncurrentiy with the single family tract
map, that plans were not submitted because the petitionezs were on an extended trip
abroad, that the neighbo~hood commercial development would be similar to that presently
existing to the no*4h of subject property, that he was aware that the Commission had a
policy not to consider any petition without development plans, and that the pefitioners
proposed to relocate an existing xesidence to the sonth of subject property on the
remainder of the R-A parcel.
Deputy ~ity Attorney Purm3n RobeYt~ in r~sponse to a qqestion by the Commission stated
that Chere was no time limitation when a peta.tion was continued for submission of plans,
and tha: if the pctitione: requests a cont~nuance ha may also stipulate an indefinite
pe.~iod of time.
MT. MacMahon SuKEd ine-Commission~~ii~iney~~we:C upp~~ed ~O iici~il`vuiia'vGu C'uGuTiEiCiai
development, since sub,ject property did abut a similar zoning. The Commissi.on replied
that sinr,e subject pcoperty abutted a new single family t;a:t, that definite plans of
development must be subm_itted before the Ccmmission could render any ~ecision either way,
THS HBA,2ING WAS CLOSBD.
Zoning Coordina~tor Martin Kreidt ad~iseZ the Commission that the petitioneis had
submitted a revised 7ega1 descrzption, and that it was the opinion of 41~e City Attorney°s
representative that s.ince subject property had not been correctly ad~ertisect, that if it
were to be contiaued the propezty would have to be readvertised, and the expense borne
by the petitioner, because said descriptioa had been submitt,ed erronously at the time
the petition ~vas filed, and that it was possible that the remainder of the parcel would
result in less than an acre of Aesiden4ial agxicultural, Zoned property which would be a
Code v~olation, which would further necessitate proper classification for the small
parcel.
Mr. MacMahon was agreeable to bearing the expense of z~advertising subject property, and
stated that the less than an acre parcel might then be resolved, when development could
be submitted.
Commissioner Sides offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for
Reclassification No. 63-64-23 to the meeting of December 23, 1963, and direct that the
property be readvertised and the expense for the readvertiszng be borne by the petitioner
as stipulated by the agent, and that 2t that tic.a the petitioner nas to aubmit
development plans for the property, incorporating the "Not A Part" which would be less
than an acre in said development plans. Commissioner Rowland ~econded the motion.
MOTION CARRIBD.
RHCLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HBARING. ANAVIL CQRPORATION, 887 Sou4h Los Angeles Street,
N0. 63-64-24 Anaheim, California, Owners; HARRY F. QtIPPITH, 887 South
Los Angeles Street, Anaheim, Calif~rnia, Agent; requesting that
property described as: A rer,tangnlar parcel of land having a
frontage of 160 Ceet on the east side of Alvy Street and a depth of 100 feet, the
southern boundary of said land being approximate~y 345 feet north of the centerline of
Alomar Avenue, and furthLr described as 601 anG 605 Alvy Street be reclassified from
the R A, RH±iIDBNTIAL AGRICUL'TURAL, ZONE, to the R-1, ONB FAMILY RBSIDSNTIAL, ZONB.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that at the July 8 meeting
Variance No. 158^ was approved subject to the condition that the petitioner initiated
reclassification pro:.eedings requesting subj~ct groperty be rezuned from the R~A,
Resident.ial Agiicultural, Zone, to the R-l, One. Family Residential, Zone, and that the
petitioner through this petition had complied with the condition.
i
.
~J
___.._ _......__.___..,._._.___~.,..----..__._.____,__..~.._..
_~ ..--- , ~
f~ ~"4~ :~
~ ~ ~
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COMMI53ION, August 19, 1963, Continued: 1738
RHCLASSIFICATION ~ No one appeared representing the petitioner.
N0. 63-64-24
CContinued) THE HBARING WAS CLOSBD.
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 886, Series 1963-6~, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Per.ry, to recommend ±o~the City Council that
Yetition for Reclassification No. 63~64-2~i be approved subject to completion of
Variance No. 1584
On rol: call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote;
AYBS: COMMISSIONBRS: Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sides.
NOBS: COMMISSIONBRS: None.
AB3HNT: COMMISSIONHRS: Allred, Camp.
RHCTARCTATC.ATTQN .. DttRTTf HRAATNf_ ANAVTT rrwpnoem:~u a~7 ~~~~~ ~~? ~ ~__
••~ ~I6GiCJ 041CCL~
N0. 63-64-25 Anaheim, California, Owner; HARRY P. GRIFFITH, 887 South Los Angeles
Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that property
described as: A r~ctangular parcel of land having a frontage of
132 feet on the west side of Trident Street and a depth of 117 feet,
the northerly boundary of said property being approximately 100 feet south of the
centeriine of Beacon Avenue, and further described as 905-909 Trident Street, be
reclassified from the R.4, RBSIDHNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONH, to the R-1, ONB FAMILY
RHSIDBNTIAL, ZONH.
Zoning (;oordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that at the July 8th meeting,
Varianct No, 1585 was approved subject to the condition that the petitioner initiate
reciassification proceedings requesting subject property be rezoned from ihe R-A,
Residential Agricultural, ~one, to the R-1, One Family Residential, Zone, and that the
petitioner through this petition had now complied with the condition.
No one appeared representing the petitioner.
TI~Id HBARING WAS CL0.4HD.
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 887, Series 1963-64, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Sidea, to recommend to sut City Council
that Petition for Reclassification No. 63-64~25 be approved subject to the com~+letion of
Variance No. 1585.
On roll ca,ll the foregoing reaolution was passed by the following vote: • ~
AYB3: COMMISSIONBRS: Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sides.
NOB3: COMMIS3IONBR3: None.
ABSBNT: COMMISSIONBR3: Allred, Camp.
F
,`
,
~
.
~. ~"
. ._.... .. _. ._ _.,_.. _....,.«n
.- ~_.... .~ ~' .._'•' .rwuwP.w~..,.~...........r...,...__..~...._ ,...,~...... ~._
1739
MINUIES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 19, 1963, Continued:
REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1
RECOMMENDATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 292 - First Presbyterian Church, 310 West
Broadway, Anaheim, California; approved in Planning Commission
Resolution No. 468, Series 1962-63, August 20, 1962e
A request for an extension of time was received from John M, Kent, agent for the
petitioner. Said request noted that demolition of the structures on the property..had.
begun, but tt~at the extension of time granted previously by the Commission would expire
before all conditions could be mete
Commissioner Sides offered a motion to grant an extension of 180 additional.days in
the completion of all conditions stipuiated in Resolution Noo 468, Series 1962-63, dated
August 20, 1962 in the Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit Noe 292e
Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion, MOTION CARRIED,
ITEM NOo 2
RIVERVIEW ANNEXATION ##2
Westerly boundary Sunkist Street, easterly to 1,290± east of Rio
Vista Street, and bounded on the south by Lincoln Avenue.
Planning Coordi~~ator Allan Shoff reviewed for the Commission the annexation boundaries,
and r.oted that s,.cor.d raading a: the Ordina~~c~ cccJrr~d c~ JulSr 30, 1S53e 4I~G4 tiie
Council had recently adopted an amendment to the Code on annexation in which the Planning
Commission would initiate studies to determine the comparable zoning in the City to that
which the annexed property had in the County, that after these studies were completed, the
Commission was to transmit a repor*_ of its findings to the City Council, that this then
would insure the continuity of the prevailing zoning for said property, and that this was
a deviation from the former method of placing all annexed lands into the R-A, Residential
Agricultural, Zonee
Mr. Shoff further advised the Commiss'on that t~e Planning Department had made the
necessary studies relative to ~om~a~~~~ and that the Commission now had to
submit these findings to the City Council, namely that the County zoning of subject
property was comparable to our R-1, One Family Residential and C-1, Neighborhood Commercial,
Zonas.
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to recommend to the City C il hat al roperties
included in the Riverview Annexation be considered as having ~' " ng to the
City of Anaheim's R-1, One Family Residential and C-1, Neighborhoo Co unercial, Zones
as indicated on Exhibit "A", d
iR-+h" "i. e ^j;~ "'^ Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion~ MOTION
CARRIED.
ITEM N0, 3
ORANGE COUNTY CASE N0. 700 (Sectional Distric,t Map Noe 1-4-10, Bxhibit F)
Located west of Rio Vista Street, north of La Palma Avenue,
bounded on the north by the Riverside Freeway, and on the west
by the proposed Orange Freeway, ~
2oning Coordinator Martin Kreidt presented Orange County Case Noo 700 (Sectional District
Map 1-4-10,73x.P ), for the reclassification of a parcel of property bounded on the north
by the Riverside Freeway, on the south by La Palma Avenue, on the east by Rio Vista
Street, and on the west by the proposed Orange Freeway, from A-1, General Aaricultural,
District to the R-2, Group Dwellings District, and Orange County Case No, 678 abutting
to the west of subject property, westerly of the proposed Orange Freeway recently referred
to the Anaheim Planning Commission and the City Council for review~
It was noted that the County R-2 Zone permitted a density in excess of the Anaheim R-3,
Zone, and of the General Plan proposal for this are~e An area map showing the proposed
right-of-way line of the Orange Freeway and the La Palma Avenue overcrossing in relation-
ship to sub3ect property was reviewedo
Commissioner Sides offered a motion to recommend that the Orange County Planning Commission
be encouraged to consider the net developable area of sub3ect property following more
acquisition of property by the State of California and the County of Orange for road
improvement purposes, and further to consider the Anaheim General Plan designation for
this area of a maximum of 18 dwelling units per net residential acre, and further that
consideration should be given that the zoning of subject property be limited to one
dwelling unit per 2400 square feet through a limi.trd R-2, Group Dwelling District
realassifir,ation of subject property~or to the R-•4, Zone which prohibits a density
i. ~
~ -.
__ ... ,_.. __~_. ___~
. - _~1 . ~ ,~ _ _. .
f~l ~''!
~ ~
~~
~ ~~a,. .,~.m,m+irilp :nf~dfi~^
~.w~ ~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 19, 1963„ Continued:
1740
~ REPORTS AND ITEM N0. 3- continued
RECOMMENDATIONS ~
Continued of more than one dwelling unit per 3000 square feet, and finally that
any two-story construction being proposed not be permitted within
150 feet of the one family residential development to the south of
subject pruperty. Commissioner Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
ITEM N0. 4
URBAN RENE ~ ADVISORY COMMITTEE
A copy of a letter of transmittal,to the City Council from the chairman af the Urban
• Renewal Committee,relative to the Committee's role in considering davelopmen~ prob.Lems
relative to the narrow, deep lots existing in the City which might be considered for
possible zoning action, was read to the Commissione
Chairman Mungall directed that said letter be recorded as having been received and filed.
AATOURNMENf - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Pebley offered
a motion to adjourn the meeting to Wednesday August 21, 1963 at 7s00 p.m.
to review the proposed General Plan with City Council in 2 joint meeting.
Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion> MOTION CARkIED.
The meeting adjourned at 11:30 o'clock pem.
Paspectfully submitted,
!~
A N KREBS, Secretary
An.aiieim Planning Commission
y!~
~
i;
:~
~
'~
f
~
i
__.------- ___ _._. _..._ . _ - -..._ _ . .__. _.. _ .. . ___...
~. ..__._. . .. __ __ _. .. _.._. _ .
_~i ~ .