Minutes-PC 1963/09/04~~
City Hall
Anaheim, California
3eptember ~i, 1963
A RHGULAR MBBTING OF TH8 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI3SION
RHGULf~t MBBTING - A Regular Meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was
called to order by Chairman Mungall at 2;00 0'Clock P.M., a quorum
being present.
PRBSffiiT - CHAIRMAN: Mungall.
CO1~UlISSIONBR3: Chavos, Gauer, Pebley, Rowland.
ABSBNT - CO[~9dISSIONBRS; Al,ixed, Camp, Perry, Sides.
PRH38NT - 2oning Coordinator: Martin Kreidt.
Deputy City Attor:~ey; Purman Roberts.
Planning Commission Secretary; Ann grebs.
Pianning Department Stenographer: Jacqueline M. 3ullivan.
TNVOCATION - Reverend Hugh 0'Connor, Pastor of 3t. Justin Martyr Roman
Catholic Church, gave the Invocation.
~
PLEDGB OP - Commissioner Gauer led thc Fledge of Allegiance to the Plag.
ALLHGIANCB
APPROVAL OF - Commissioner Pebiey requested the following corrections be made
T1~ffi MINUTHS in the minutes of August 19, 1963:
~
Page No. 1729 - Paragraph 8-~ir. Reese....as submitted for their
/consideration. Deiete the remainder of this paragraph.
~ Page No, 1732 - Paragraph 6- insert at the end of the paragraph:
Purther, that the basis for this thinking wa;, due to the present
population of 135,000~ and the future projection of 280,000
persons who would benefit ia the end by the maiAtenance of an
equitable tax basis.
v Pa
e N
1739
It
g
o,
-
em No. 2, Paragraph 3, Line 2-!he words
"comparabie zoning" be transposed to read: "zoning comparable"
and that the words foliowing Bxhibit A, in this same paragraph be
deleted.
VAR7ANCB N0. 1586 - CONTINUHD pUBLIC HBARxNG, WILSHIRB OIL COMPANY. 727 West 3eventh
Street, Los Angeles, Califoraia, Owner; GBORGB MURpHy, g476 Pellet
Otreet, Downey, California, Agent; requesting permiasion to
&STABLI3H A WALIC-U? RESTAURANT AND WAIVHR OP REQUIRBD pARR~ING, AND
FRONT YARD gBTHp(~t on property deacribed as: An irreguJ . portion of land having a~
frontage of 233 feet on the south siAe of Ln Palma Avenue, and a frontage of 182 feet
on the east side of West Street. Property presertiy cleasified as R-0, 0:~ffi PAMILY
3UBURBAN, ZONB.
Mr. George Murphy, agent for the petitioner, submitted reviaed pians, as previously
requested, for the Commission~s consideration. Mr, Murphy stated theae plans are
basically the same architecturally, however, one indicated an ail metal building, aad
the other showe '•tnck being used as the exterior material.
- 1741 -
_ _. __.__... _____._....------.--
___~. ..__...... _ .
~ - . - -r- .
~
i
/
..___.__.r ...__~/
-~~:. _._..__. . . . _ .
1~~ ~~
~ ~.
MINUTSS, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, September 4. 1963, Continued:
1742
VARIANCB N0. 1586 ~ Mr. James Proctor, representing Wilshire Oil Company, presented
(Continued) colored senderings noting how a similar facility at another
location would appear in block with sheet metal facade.
Mr. Jack Chambers, representing the proposed drive-in restaurant developers, appeared
before the Commission aad stated that the proposed restaurant would be, in his opinion,
an asset to the area for a number of reasons, ncmely, after hours accommodation to the
hospital`s visitors, medical, business and professional offices in the vicinity,
seating capacity to serve 23-40 persons, and that its appearance would be compatible
with surrounding area, because they proposed a soft color decorative scheme, incorpo-
rating within neat and clean appearing operation.
The Commission discussed at length the factors on the revised plans such as the appear-
ance of the proposed exterior materials, waiver of the minimum parking requirements,
development from the rear 30 feet, compatibility of the proposed use with adjacent
properties, ommission of landscaping, and the requirement of xeclassifying subject and
abutting property to the C~1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone, incompatible of any metal
construction, masonry walls, and that all these factors should be incorporated in the
revision of plans.
In response to questioning by the Commission, the agent stated that the landscaping
omitted from the plans had been an oyersight, since similar developments included
iandscapicig, itlltl `Lillii. aiivjci.i. kIC414iVtt i'voo iiicu iia ii2u '~i w icCZa.oaii±Co~i~ia ucCoiio2
of the length of time it took to process a reclassification, because the existing
service station had been established through a variance petition, and because the
zoning representative suggested the proposed method.
The Commission advised the petitioner that it was not within its jurisdiction to
legs~lly approve subject petition under the present zoning regulations.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the basis of reasoning by which the Planning
Department might have suggested establishing the proposed use by a variance since the
use couid not be established under a conditional use permit in the R-0, Suburban '
Residential, Zone.
A Setter of opposition from the Anaheim Memorial Hospitai opposing the requested waiver
of parkiag requirements was read, '
Tf~ HHRRING WA3 CLOSHD.
Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for
Variance No. 1586 to the meeting of October 14, 1963, in order xo allow the petitioner
sufficient tiace to submit revised pla.is incorporating the masonry wall, adequate
parking facilities which meet Code requirement, elevations incorporati-g other than
metal construction, and building setback plans which meet Code requirement.
Commissioner Gauer seconded'the motion. MOTIQN CARRIHD. '
INI~IATB _ -. Commissioner Gau~r offered a motion to direct the Planning
RBCIJIS3IP3CATION Department to initiate reclassification proceedings in behalf of
pROCHBDING3 the Commission reclassifying property on the south side of
I.a Palma Avenue, extending easterly of West Street, to the f1~od
control channel, and southerly on West 9treet to the flood
control channel. Commissioner Chavos seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIBD.
CONDITIONAL USH - CONTINUHD PUBLIC FIDARING. JOHN D. ARDIAZ, et ux, 1008 North
PSRMIT N0. :~2 Highland Avenue, Pullerton, California~ bwners; RICHPIHLD OIL
CORPO~RATION,, G45 South Mariposa AvenuP, Los.eingeles 5, Californi~a,
Agent; requesting permission to CON3IRUCT 3TBffi, CAPIOPIH3 OVffit 1HB
HXISTING FUMP ISIAND9 on property described as'; A square parcel of lrud having a
frontage of 135 feet on the east side of Huclid Street and a frontage of 135 feet on:
the north side of Ratella Avenue, and further deacribed as 1780 3ou:h Buclid Street.~
Property presentiy ciassitied as C-1, NHI(~iB0RH00D CQMMffitCIAL, Z01~, •
Ted Crone, representing the owners, appeared before the Comroission to answer questions,
and in response to a queation by the Commission stated. that the service sta:ion was
approved under an old variance through the County, and the proposed canopiea were not
required.
. _._..
---- --, ------------•--.--..
~ .... .
~
I
. ~
~_\' ~ . ' ~
~
~J ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 3eptember 4, 1963, Continued: 1743
CONDITIONAL USH - No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
PHRMIT N0. 462
CContinued) THB HBARING WAS CLOSBD.
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 889, Series 1963-64, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gaaer, to grant Petition for
Conditional Use Permit No. 462, subject to ccnditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYSS: CObA~IISSIONBRS: Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Rowland.
NOBS: COh~tISSIONffitS: None.
AH3BNT: COMMISSIONBRS: Allred, Camp, Perry, Sides.
CONDITIONAL US& - CONTINUBD PUBLIC F~ARING. ALBBRT IANB PBCHTffit, 16411 Heim Avenue,
PffiiMIT N0, 463 Ro~te No, 2, Orange, California, Owner; RICHPIBLD OIL CQRPCRATION,
645 Suuth Mariposa Avenue, Los Angeles 5, California, Agent;
requesting permission to CONSTRUCT STEHL CANOPT~g npmi m~r_ ___
EX7STING PUMP ISLANDS on property described as: A square parcei of land having a
frontage of 132 feet on the south side af La Palma Avenue, and a frontage of 132 feet
on the west side of Magnoiia Avenue, and further described as 2604 West La Paima Avenue.
Property presently classified as C~1, NBIGHBORHOOD COA9~lBRCIAL, ZONB.
Ted Crone, representing the owners, appeared before the Commission, and stated he was
available to answer any questions.
No one appeazed in opposition to subject petition.
'THH HBARING VIAS CL03BD.
Cpmmissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 890, Series 1963-64, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to grant Petition for
Conditional Use Permit No. 463, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On'roil call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYHS: COhAlI3SIONBRS: Chavos, Gauer, Mungnll, Pebley, Rowland.
N083: COMMISSIONBRS: None.
ABSBNT: COMMISSIONBR3: Allred, Camp, Perry, Sides,
CONDITIONAL USB - CONTINUBD PUBLIC HBARING. TITLB INSURANCH AND TRUST COMPANY, •
PERMIT N0. 464 -'1911 Beach•Boulevard, Buena Pazk, California, Owner; -
HffitBBRT N, BAIR, 12550 Brookhurst Street, Garden Grove, California,
Agent; requesting permission to C~iSTRUCT A 21 BY 24 POOT
DIRECTIONAL SIGN PACING BBACH BOULSVARD on property described as: A rectangular
shaped parcel of land having a frontage of 441 feet on the east side of Beach Boulevard
and an average depth of 302 feet, the southeriy boundary of said property being
approximately 750 feet north of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue. Property presently
classified as C~1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMBRCIAL, ZONB. ~
Mr. Richard Parr, representing the Movieland Wax Museum, who will be erecting and
advertising their museum on the proposed sign, appeared before the Commission and
noted during the 30 day continuance allowed at the previous meeting, one sign had been
removed, and in an effort to legal9.ze the othes, the Orange County Title Company was
contacted in order to obtain a title report. The petitioner further stated he
expected to file application no later than Priday, geptember 6, 1963,
The Commission reviewed past history oi` the reasons why the illegal signs had been
installed,
I
~
~
~
i
, ~.__..__~_---.--..-----__.______.___.____.,._~_._..__~.--.-----.-__._----•-----•
_ _.- ------~.
~~ . . .
MINUT$S, CITY PLANNING COMMI3SION, September 4, 1963, Continued:
1744
CONDITIONAL USS - Petitioner requested consideration to legalize the sign under
PffitMIT N0. 464 subject coi~ditionai qse permit since the season would end in
(Continued) approximately two weeks. The Commission felt petitioner had not
complied wi~h their conditions although ample time had been
allofted.
No one appeared in opptisition.
1HB H&ARING WA3 CL0.SED.
Commissioner Pebley offeced a motion to reopen khe hearing and continue Petition for
Conditional Use Permit No. 464 until the meeting of September 30, 1963, in order that
subject petition might be considered in conjunction with a new petition legalizing
existing signs. Commissioner Chavos seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
--- --- ~
,~
1
,
~
t
i
!
1
i
'
RBCIASSIPICATION - CONTINUHD PUBLIC HHARING, BUGSNIB CURRIB, 1727 Wes# Catalpa
N0. 63-64-13 Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; JOHN D. VON DBR FffiIDB,
924 North 8uclid Street, Anaheim, CaTifornia, Agent; property
VARlANCB N0. 1595 descrit+ed as; A rectangular parcel of land with a frontage of
138 feet on the west side of Buclid Street and a depth of 327
feet, the northerly boundary of said property beina aooroxim.a.tely
25U feet south of the centerliae of Catherine Drive, and further described as 835 and
839 North Buclid. Street. Property presentiy classified as R-A, tESIDHNTIFiL AGRICULTURAL,
and R-3, MULTIFLfi FAMILF RBSIDHNTIAL, 20?.1~8S.
REQUBST'BD CLASSIPICATIONa C-1, NB?GHB~tH00D COMMBRCIAL, ZONB.
RHQUHSTBD VARIANCH: WAIVER OP RHQUIRBD PARRING.
Subject petitiones were continued from the meetings of July 22 and August 5, 1963, to
allow the petitioner time to submit revised plans incorporating an increase in the
building setback to canform with existing setbacks established to the north and, if
possible, provide additional parking space.
Air. Robert Payne, one of the owners of the furniture store, appeared before the
Commission and stated he was a.vailable to answer questions.
Mr. Richard Blair, architect for the pro2osed development, gave a brief analysis and
detailed statistic of the proposed structuze.
The Commission expressed an opinion that the petitioner had been cooperative by
incorporating their recommendations regarding the required building setback, and also
agrees to construct a smaller structure. The Commigsion further stated that perhaps
the Code parking •requirements for a furniture store might be too rigid.
In response to the Commission°s question regarding future expanaion, the owner stated
this was improbable because the structu=e was designed for the size aad shape of
subject property. The owner further stated tliat,'if possible, he would like assurance
from the Gity that the setback line along Buclid Street to the south of snbject
property would be uniform so as not to jeopardize his structnre.
Mr. A. M. Schinn, owner of the commercial development to the north, app~ared before
the Commission and withdrew his previous opposition to the parking requirements, since
he had observed that less parking spaces were required to accommodate furniture
store operations than other commercial establi~hmeats.
Depty City Attorney Furman Roberts, advised the Cotimission in respoase to their
question, that in the event the use changed from a furniture store. thet the Aew use
should•be reviewed by the Commisaion and the City Council in ordei to determine that
the parking, as it existed then, would meet Code requirementa prior to the issuance of
a business license.
No one appeared ir. opposition to subject petition,
THS HBARING WAS CLOSBD.
_,.._._ ..__----~._._._.._ _--._ ___._..
-.,~ ~
_ .. . _
~ _ .. _ .._____._,
~-•~ ~~, ~
~~f ~ *~
MINUTE3, CITY PIANNING COM~lISSION, 3eptember 4, 1963, Continued; 1745
RBCIASSIFICATION - Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 891, Series 1963-64,
N0. 63-64-13 and moved for xts passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner
Pebley, to recommend to the City Coancil that Petition for
VARIANCS N0. 1595 Reclassification No, 63-64-13 be approved, subject to conditions.
(Cnntinued) (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolutiot- was passed by the following vote:
AYBS: COhA4I83I0NBRS: Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, PeUley, Rowland.
NOHS: COMMI33IONBRS: None.
ABSBNT: COMMISSIOI~RS: Alired, Camp, Perry, Sides.
,,~
Y
~
)
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No, 892, Series 1963-64~ and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos to graat Petition for
Variance No. 1595, subject to a review of any proposed new use 4o determine whether ~
the new use met Gode parkYng requirements, and conditions. (See Resolution Book.) k
C~n roll cal! the Ep*r±o°p=•^•e =~sclntion was passed "oy the following vote:
AXBS: COhA~IISSI0NSR8: Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Rowland. "
i
NOB3: C(lM1A1IS9IQNBRS: None. ~
AH3~NT`: COI~AfYSST4JIDtS: Allred, Camp, Perry, 3ides.
DIRBCTIVS TO Th'S - Commissioner Pebley offered a motion to direct the Pianning `
PLANNIIvG DHPARTMSNT~ Department to set for public hearing a proposed amendment to
the parking requirements for specific types of commercial uses,
'since the petition for Variance No. 1595 z~as not to be
interpreted as setting a precedent for waiver of parking requirements, and that his
suggestion of one parking space per 500 square feet instead of the presently required
one p~rking space for e.ach 150 square feet of gross floor space. Commissioner Gauer
seconded the mo#ion. MOTION CARRIHD. .
RBCIASSIPICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HBARING. DHMLHR PARM3, INC,, 1400 North Acacia
N0. 63-64~17 and Street, Anaheim, Californza, Owner; TBD PISH, 1234 Bast Lincoln
Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; property described as;
TBNTATIVB MAP OP An irregular portion of land having a frontage of 650 feet on the
TRACT N08. 5267, east side of Acacia 3treet, a frontage of 645 feet on the west
5268, 5269, and side of Baxter Street, the northerly boundary of said property
5270 being approximately 1,211 feet south of the centerline of
Orangethorpe Avenue, and further described as 1400 North Acacia
Street. Property presently classified as M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL,
~ ZONS. -
Subject petition was continued f:om the meetings of July 22, and August 19, 1963, in
order that the planning Department contact adjacent industrial property owners for
their views of the proposed reaiucntaal development.
Mr. Logan Moore, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the
Commission and asked that a report be presented by Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt
in reference to the rneeting held with the indus~rial property owners.
Mr. Kreidt advised the Commission that a raeeting was held after 15 letters were sent J
to adjacent industries, that three p.±zsons representing iadustry attended t2Y'e ~oeeting, ~
that several of the recorded owners c: industrial ~
property had addressed on the 8ast i
Coast~ and that several let•~ars had been received which indicated that some interegted
o+xners were unable ta attend.
- ••««.•r:. ^:e•a.. ..r.*.~; .... ,~~R~:, . . .,.. ,,,. ., ......... .,.~:,, . . I
__^_..r_.----•.. ____-----_ _....__..--- -•--._..... .....---
~-~dii '~ --..-«....__... ------_.__....._.___.__~. ~-
~ ; t ti ~.
,~>
~
~
i
MTNUTHS, CITY PLANN
RfiCLASSIPICATION -
N0. 63-64-17 3nd
THNTATIVS NinP GF
': TRACT NOS. 5267,
.5268, 5269, and
:.'•270
~Continued)
ING COhIMISSION, S~eptember 4, 1963, Continued: ::746
iNr. Kreidt cor~tinued that in the discussion *he proposed resi..~ntial
development w:~s discussed together with the ,oresent use of subjeci•
property, and the problems which might arise from any change~ in the
use of the property, and that i:,:e owner, Donald Shaw, expreased the
feeling that many probS..ems existed relat3ve to traffic and
stree~ }attesn~ and the proposed development might offer a n:easure
~f relief fsc+m i:hes~ probiems because access would be tc Ar.acia
Avenue.
Mr. Dora?ci Heaney, xepresenting ~,i4e C~lson and Scientific Gla;.s Company lncated on ~ia
Burton kiace northerly ~f subject preperty, appeared before the Commission ia opposi.`ion
tv the proposed reaidensial develo~;menfi ?.n the industriai area, th?~ the glass ccar~any hud
mno:d their operation fcom Torrance t~ecause of the residenti.al enc::uachment nea,: ~heir
manufacturing c~ncern, and many comp:aints had been received because o; the rzoise, dust
and traffic, thst Anaheim was selected because of it~ previously stated policy to ma:ir.tain
areas f~r iadustrial deve~.~pment, that the glas~ company proposed to expand their aper-
ation a2 s:s present location to manufacture blinds, windows and doors, antl that adc:itianal
personnel ;~auld be hired, but that this would be almost impossible if the proposed res~
idan~ial devalopmeat were approved, because of added traffic using the existing streets
fer both residential and manufac.turing purposes, and that it was difficult now ~o gain
access to the street from tk: industr3a?. tract.
Mz. Heaney in response to question:ag by the Commission .+tated that at the time their
property had been purchase3~if they tiad aay idea that the adjacent pro.perty° would be
rEZOned to multiple family residential use, the glass piant would no~t have been ~ cated
in that area, because at their previous location,tor, many probleme and coripla__nts hac!
made it impossible to operate their concern with tlie encroachment oi reside~ntiaJ usea ie~
the area.
Mr. Adolph Schoepe, president of t;~e Pluidmaster Compauy., located easter:Ly of !;,~bject
property appeared in opposition :;, s~ibject property a..1d stated tb.at all i:he :aanuiacturing
concerns located :n ciose ~roxin.ity to subject property wouid be greatly hampered if any
residential use were approved witk:~n tkie industrial area, and that if the City desired to
i::crease their indnsxri:~ devel^p^ent, the guarantee of keeping the areas oresentiy pro-
posed~ aad those :soned for :ndustrial use as such~ should be given all indust,ry in order
that they can be r;ss!irrd that any expansion of fnaar concerns would not be hampered by
residential encroachm~~nt.
.~'•r. 1~9. P. Ball, 1440 Fturtor,, appeared before the Commission in or~poaition, and sta,ted
that his company has a 2400 foat building on which a lease was sig~n~r3 for 15 years, and
tha•t said prope•cty was owned by Mr, Shaw, who dfd not oppose s~~b,je:t pet~.tion, riut ~`hat
he v3.gorously opposed any residential encrc,achmeat becaure his company had moved froa;
Burbank where a similar =esidential enc-oachment madE :.t ~c~gossible for tb,em to operate,
that children from the reaiclential devek~oment weuld use the industrial a.rea for a
play~i•~~und, and becor~e a hazard, and their. ~,:,:; reason fo.*, moving io *_heir present loc::-
tion was because it !iad been zoned for manufar,tur?ng purposes, and it was his urgent
wish that the Corimission consider suUject pr~perty gnd adjacent property for manufact~~rinq
purposes only.
Letters of oppos:ition ::om the Anahe3.m Chamber of Coau:lerce, Pluidmast~~: <:ompany, .nd the
City of Pullerton were :ee~3, e~coura.giag the Coa~mi~sion to n,aintair, t.he industrial in-
tegrity of the rwrea. One telegram approvir.g the proposed devel~~pment was xead.
In rebattal, Mr, Dtoore stafied chet the Comm3.ssion faced a problem with t!ae existence of a
non-conforming uae bei~; sd~ace~~t to a s3ngle fami~ly de~re lopmeat, arid ~aid owners of
the single family homes were in tavor o: Lhe proposed devel3~ment which wouid act aa a
buffer between the induat*ial aevelepment and the s3ngle fattily re:iidential development•~
that traffic probiems would exist even if the pro~osed deve2opmenc did not ~Yist, aad
that the single family development was only boun3ed on two si.de by industrial devclop-
~dent .
__. _._ .. ___.~_~_._... . ._. ._~:: __~__ _ _ .__.. _._ _._.._.. _. - - __ _ _ --.... ... ... _ ;~
,. .. _ '
_..
~ ~; _._
, . .. _
~. ~ ~ ~
~ ) ~~ ~
MINUTB3, CIT1' PIANNING COMMI38EON, 9eptember 4, 1463, Continued: 1747
RHCIA3SIP?:J-TId.~ - Mr. B~imund Demler, the petitioner, stated that they faced the evez
A'0. ~3-6~}-17 axoC incres.~::~g problem with the County Health Commission, as the chicken
industry ~range County was constantly harassed by complaints as to
TBNTATIVH MAP ~1P odors and .~iea,an,~ although his chicken farm was operated in the
1RACT N03. 526'l, b.st i~ealth standards, he could not guaraniee that flies were eliminated,
5':bb, 52b?, and and that if the pr~posed multiple family development were approved,
SZ7u the chacken ranch wuuld be moved to IrVine, where there was no chance
(Continued) ,~ for eapansion.
Mr.. Schoepe stated tl~at a.in~:~e the chicker; industry had been located in the area~it was
considered a permanen: u=~•, and that if the proposed land use were approved, Acacia St:eetwould
bear a considerably in~,-rea~ed traffic load with ihe only access easterly,by way of Via
Surton •~ State Colleg:e p~vd,
TH13 fik'si~RING HU~3 CLOS3?!'i,
The Ccmmiasi.on revie~aed the previoUS factors brouaht for considezation namel}~ that the
City was obiigated to give some aasurance to indust:al investments, that industry cou!~
expand without any residentisl encroachment and harassment to their operaiion, that
ad,jacent incluatry d3.d oppose the proposed development, that Lhe City of Pullerton opposed
resid2ntiei encrr~ac~menx, und that the requested re-analysis of the Yndustrial Areas in
the City re-af~ir~ae the original posit9.on of the Cit~• in projecting and maintaining cer-
taa.n °reas for irdustr~al development.
Commissioner ~apei offered Resolution No. 89~, Seric•s 1963••64, :~nd moved for its passage
anG adoption, seeond~d by Commissioner Chavos, to reco~ :end to the City Council that
petition for Reclasaification 63-64-17 be disapproved based on the incompatibility of
the proposed use to the existing use noztherly and easterly, that no physical change had
occurred to ,justify any prop~;~c;.'•. change, that industries adjacent to subject property
opposed any sesidentiRl encroacfiment, and the the Commission re-affirms its original
~oosition ~n •.;he maintenance of areas covered by tha Industrial Areas Analysi,; poZicy
aphrove6 by the Commission anG the City Council for industria.l d~velopment. ~;9ee Resolution
BaokJ
On roll caYl the foregoing resolution was passed by xhc following vote:
Aqes: COMMI99IONBRB: Chavos, Gauer, Mun~all, Pebley, Rowland,.
Noes: COMMI9$IONffit9: None.
Absent: t;w~MI99I(1NHRS: Allred, Carp, Perry, Sides,
Commissioner Gaaer offered a motion to deny Tentr.tive Map of 2'rar.t Nc+s. 5267~ S?.68~ 5,269,
and 5270, seconded by Commisaioner Chavos, based on the facta t•hat tka~:- wera co physical
r.~anges wh?.ch would justify approval of aubject tracta, that pre~ased tiavelorsaent was an
i:~scompa~ible land use, and that the Commission re-affirma ita pos.t4ioa i~y r5~~,.~~ir.p, :he
mnintcnance of ,roperti~•s in the Northeast Iaduatrial Area for £niluatr~r•1 ~~.ryo~ea.
R8~7IA$BIPICATION - CONTINUBD PUBLIC HBARING, RA8 f~A,~Clg~ 748 Piamoi~d, NCVCport BesCh~
N0. h3-5~-20 and Cslifornia, Owner; ARTIiUR RC'JAC[C, 1442 9outh 8uclid 8treet,
Pul:.erton, California, Agent; pro~erty deacsibed as: An irregular
CONDITIONAL USB parc~l of land located at the nor4;~ast cnraer of the iat;sra=ction
P~iMIT N0. 46S of the Newport and Riveraide Preeways, and having a froatage of
approximately 988 feet sd3acent to the Newpor.t Preewiy off-ramp,
said proE~erty covering appro~;t:aately :4 acrea of lnnd. Property
presently clasnified as A-A, RB3IDZ+NTIAL AG'dtICUL'l[):SP.L, 20NE.
RBQUBSTHD CLA8:3tPICATION: R-3, MULTYPLB P~IMILY REBIDSNTIAL, 20N8.
REQUHBT$D CONDITiONAL U9H: HBTABL'1'9H A 3INGL$ ~TCRY h1ULTIPLB PAMILY PLANNHD P,u$IDBI~iTlAL
DBVBLOPMBNT WITH CARPOItTS,
8ub,~ect petitiona ~vere continued from the wtetinga of Aug~sgt ~ and 19, 1463, at the
req~aest of the petitioner ln order to auh~tt revised plxna.
~
~ _ ., _. ._ _
__,
. - ..-- -..___ . ~i ~, ~i
. ,
i •
; . _ . :: .;
( j '~ ~
MINUTSS, CITY FIANNING COMMI33ION, September 4, 1963, Continued; 1748
RBCLASSIPICATION - Mr. Richard Hintz, repxesentitlg the agen* for the peti.tionert
N0. 63-64-20 and appeared before the Commission and asked that subje•:t petitions be
continued because the designer for subject development was an
CONDITIOML USH vacation, and although the plans were complEte, the revisions had I
'~ffitMIT N0, 465 not been reviewed by the Planning Department to determine if the
(Continued) proposed development conformed to Code requirements.
The Commission discussed the location of subjett pioperty noting that subject and
abutting properties were located in the "nill and canyon area", said area being studied
for later incorporation into the Geaeral Plan approved by the Commission.
Mr. Hintz stated that subject property was in escrow, and he was unable to determine
how much continaance of time would be permitted by the owner in order that the Commission
might consider a study being prepared by the Planning Department for subject property.
Discussion was held by the Commission whether subject property should be considered
without the study, if subject propertv w.:: suitable for s3ngle family develoQment, since it was
adjacent to a portion of the freeway ~if-r+mp, that development of the proparty might be
difficuJ.t because the proposed acce:;s for subject nronerty was Ratavia gtr.eet; which waa
only a tentative road and ~re~:ntly did r.at exist, and that the proposed street would
have no ~ngress or egress until the State constructed an overczossing oF the Riverside
Freeway.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that the Planning Department would
be able to present the '°hill and canyon°" report within 90 days if the Commission wished
to consider the report in conjunction with subject and abutting propexties.
Commissioner Pebley offered a motion to continue Petitions for ReclassificAtion
No. 63-64-20 an~l Conditional Use Permit No, 465, to the meeting of December 9, 1963, in
order that the Commission might consider subject and abutting propezties in conjunction
with the "hill and~canyon ar.a" study. Commissioner Chavos seconded t:ze motion.
MOTION CARRIBD.
RBCIASSIFICATION - CONTINUBD PUBLIC HBARING. RINKBR DBVBLOPMHNT CORPORATION,
N0. W34-64-21 and 10600 Katella Avenue, and CHARLHS J. BIDDLfi, c/o RINRER DHVBLOFMENT
CQRPORATION, 10600 Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners;
CONDITIONAL USH DEVELOPMENT COORDINATORS, 4100 West Commonwealth Avenue, Pullerton,
PBRMIT N0. 466 California, Agent; property described as: An irregular parcel of
land on the northeast corner of the intersecticn of the ~tiverside
and Newport Freeways and having a frontage of 1,030 feet on the r.orth
side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, and an average depth of 1,850 feet,
and covering approximately 47.6 acres, the easterly boundary of said iand being adjacent
to the Anaheim City Limits. Property presently classified as R-A, RHSIDBNTIAL
AQtICULTIJRAL, ZONH.
RBQUHSIBD CIASSIt~ICATION: R-3, MULTIPLB PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONB.
RSQUHSTBD CONDITIONAL UBB: CONSTRUCT TWO-ST(~tY MifLTIPLB FAMILY PLANNED RHSIDBNTIAL
DBVBLOPMSNT - WAIVH ONB-S1bRY HEIGHT LIMITATION.
Mr. Walter Froemke, representing the developer, appeared before the Commissian to answer
questions, and further stated that the proposed developmeat would be similar to o'ther
developments constructed by the developer.
The Commission expressed dissatisfaction with a number of the developments which the
developer had constructed in the West Anaheim Area, noting that these had aot added
materially to the beauty of the City.
Zonfng Coordinator Mattin Kneidt inquired whether the proposed development was
projected to be a one ownership. The agent replied that the proposEd development woald
be a condominium type deve],opment with the sale of individual dweliing units and the
common area to be under joint ownership with a tract map and lot cuts.
._,._.____._ _... ._.-......__ _. _._ . _. _._ _ ...
_ - -.. _.__. .__._. _.. ....___.__. .
~
~~ , ~~t-_ _
' T ` _ - ,~_ " ,
` .
i ...~
~ . . '. . . . .. . . .
l i ~ ~
MIiJUTB3. CIT3t PIANNING COMMISSION, Se~tember 4, 1963, Continued: 1749
RBCLA3SIPICIATION N0.- The Comolission iaformed tt~e agent that if a condo~inium was proposed
63-64-2p} and the Commission co~.ld n:.t tonsider the petitions until a tract map
had been filed and CC&R's had been submitted and approved by the
CONDITIONAL USH City Attorney's office.
PffitMIT N0. 46~
(Continued) Mr. Proemke stated that other cities accepted the filing of a tract
map and the submission of CC&R's after reclassification had been
approved.
Mr. ICreidt stated that the plot plan submitted was not preCise enough to make an analysis
of the density, that Batavia Street was shown as being an access road, but street is only
~ narrow road, not a fuily dedicated street needed to handle the prnposed type of traffic
emanating from the deveiopment, and then proceeded to read a letter o£ opposition from the
Orange County Planning Commission, and a letter from the County Surveyor which had advised
the developer that a substandard horizontal alignment containing several curves of less
than the minimum 1000 foot radius and insufficient lengths of tangent between the curves,
and that the plans presently being considered by the Commission were at variance with the
County's original plan of alignment.
:::° .~.Q«^t.'~..1.°.31^.^. ~::5'h°S .~n~efl ~ha4~ auh~e~± n~tlhPr~V_?}1t~~+~il~,n__±h`u~a+~_~F_o_ne.~.ra1__.'..a+-~------'--~--_----~
_.~.__~.__ ~- r.._...._ J....' ~ ,
considered by the Commission and continued for 90 days to await a precise study for the
"hili and can~on Area", and that in fairness to the othe~ petitioner, subject petition -
should aiso be continued to await s:id study, and that this continuance would give the
petitioner an oppor~unity to file a tract map and present CC&R's to the City Attorney's
office for approval. .
Mr. Kreidt advised the Commission that the Planning Department was not aware that the
proposed deveiopment was a condominium type development until the agent ha:i stated it.
,Commissionex Gauer offered a motion to continue Petitions for Reclas;~ification No. 63-64-21
and Conditional Use Permit No. 466 to the meeting of December 9, 1963, in order that a
precise study of the "hill and canyon area" :night be completed for the Commission's con-
sideration, and for the developer to submit a Tentative Tract Map and CC&R"s for the City
Attorney's consideration. Commissioner Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
TBNTATIVB MAP OP DEVSLOPBR: 30UTf~A3T MORTGAGB CQMPANY, 1801 West Kateila venue,
TRHCT N0. 5302 Anaheim, California. SNGINHBR: Lander Bngineering, S' "B" 9Q5
North Buclid Avenue, Anaheim, California, Subject t=act is located
at the southeast corner of Orangewood and Harbor Soulevard, and cdptaxns one Q-1, Neigh-
borhood Commerciai, and 3 R-3, Multiple Pamily Residential, Zone ]:ots. Subject tract was
filed as a condition of approval of Reclassification No; 62-63-131. No one was present
to represent the developer. .
Zoning Coordinator Martin Rreidt presented the tract map to the Commission, indicating
to the Commission that the required parkways had been reduced in order to permit some ~
additional area to be incorporated into the common area of the pianned residential dev- '
elopment. ~
The Com.mission reviewed the r~commended conditions for subject tract. ~
i
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of TraCt No. 5302. subject
to the following cor.ditions: j
i
,1. That s~ould this subdivision be de'veloped as more than one subdivision, each sub- i
division thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval.
2. That vehicular access rights, except at street and/or a11ey openings to Orangewood
Avenue, shall be dedicated to the Ci.ty of Anaheim.
3. That a modified cul-de-sac be proviu.~ at the terminus of Tiara 3treet, Troy Street
and Bluebell Avenue. The engineering to be provided by the City and construction by
the developer, subject to the apprc~al of the City Bagineer.
t
t
. ~
. ~ ~
, .
-----------__......_ ____--- ___. _......_----_..__ _.._.___.__.__.___._ .. '\
. '
~ ~. i~ __.. ....--
i _1
~
r <_
~. ~
~~
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COMMISDION, September 4, 1963, Continued
~
~
175~
TSNTATIVE MAP 4. That Lots 2-A, 3-A, and 4-A, shall be incorporated on the fina.l map.
OF TRACT N0. 5302 These lots will be one (1) foot wide along the sAUtherly and easterly
limits of Streets "E" and "D" and to be designated as non-buiIdable
lots for the construction of a masonry wall onlv.
5. That the owners of subject property pay to the Cit•y of Anaheim, ::~n cents per front
foot along Harbor Soulevard, Orangewood Avenue, and Streets "A", "B", "C", "D", and
"H". (The normal charge of $10.00 per lot is not adequate due to the nature of dev-
elopment.)
6. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 5302 is granted subject to the approval
of Reclassification No. 62-63-131 and Conditional Use Permit Nos. 440 and 441.
Commissioner Rowiand seconded the motion. MOTION CARRISD.
VARIANCS ~ PUBLIC HBARING. MR. AND MRS. C. SISSON, 119 3outh Ohio Street, Anaheim,
N0. 1601 California, Owners; Mr. R. S. Heald, 1142 West Broadway, Apt. No. 1, Anaheim.
California, Agent; requesting permission to (1) WAIVB RBQUIRED (1'~) 3PACE PAR
DWHLLING UNIT IN A GARAGB, (2) WAIVS SIDfi YARD RFC~~JIRBh~NT, (3) WAIVB RBQUIRBD GARAGH WIDTH,
~~ ~ iU~~CattMil ilYII 1.V14J1riUl.liV17 VI' n Y~ulvli NCMtlilnCl\i DuiiLii~v riiil'i R i.ni~sVa~io~ Gu Eliv~J2iiy uco~
cribed as: A rectangular parcel of land having a frontage of 40 feet on the west side of
Ohio Street and a depth of 158 feet, the northerly boundary of said property being approx-
imately 250 feet south of the centeriine of Lincoln Avenue, and further described as 119
South Ohio Street. Property presently classified as P-1, AUTOMOBILB PARKING, ZONS.
Mr. Robert Heald, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed
the proposed development noting that only a small portion of the development would require
the waiver of the minimum side yard requirement.
The Commission noted that the trash area was inaccessible to t•cash .*..ruck pickup from the
a11ey to the west, and inquired how the petitioner proposed ta remove the trash. 11ie
agent replied that a double door area through the manager's garage would be available for
removal of the trash through the alley, and that the long narrow lots were difficult to
develop to meet all the Code requirements.
The Commission was of the opinion that 4 dwelling unit~ and comparable garages was
creating too high a density for the parcel.
The agent then stated that subject property was near the center city area and 3hould be
considered for high density development, that 1~ garages weze required but only 4 would
be used~ that previous plans submitted inr~.':cated 5 garages with an angle entrance, '.•+t
the Planning Department suggested that a variance might be approved to waive the r.:.,~ired
Sth garage,
The Commission reviewed the plot plan noting that apartments would be 800 square feet
and 1,000 s~uare feet, that although the petitioner requested parking waiver it was the
experien=e of other cities to require more parking in the center city area than elsewhere,
that apartments in the center city area were not being rented because of inadequate parking
facilities.
The agent in answer stated that additional pasking was not necessary because o£ the dev-
elopment's close proximity to a shopping center and easy walking distance to a number of
churches and schools.
A letter of opposition was read to the Commission relative to the waiver of side yard set-
backs.
TH8 HFARING WAS CLOSBD.
The Commission discussed the logical density for the na~row deep lot anu were of the opinion '
that ,ne three units should be permitte~i, that the petitioner should revise plans to eliminate ~
the request for the waiver of the setbacw, an~ further redesign would eiiminate the re~uest
for garage waiver, and that there did not ~~em to be any hardship to subject propert~ that
adjacent property was afforded relief.
Commissioner Pebley left the Council Chamber at 5:05 P,M.
~
~ ~
[ ,
[ ~
~ t
i.
',
e
.
,. ,~
___ _.._.. _. . ... . _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~ , --_.__.
_ _. . ........
~
~ ~ ~
MINUTE3, CITY PIANNING COMMISSYON, September 4, 1963, Continued: 1751
VARIANCB N0. 1601 - Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt suggested tliat the petitioner
(Continued) discuss with hita or oae of his assistants in tHe Planning
DepaEtment possible means of developmen't to conform with Code
requiremer.:s, islcorporating all the Commission's suggestions.
Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for
Variance No. 1601 to the meeting of September 30, 1963, in order that the petitioner
might consuit with the Pianning Departmeat and to submit revised plans, Commissioner
Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Commissioaer Pebley returned to the Council Chamber at 5:15 P.M.
~
. 1
, . . . i
~
i
~
~
~ 1
:
i
...~...~.~~.rw..-..._. ~.~.. ~~..~'~.....~......~. ..~. ..~...., .~...~...~.~......._..~.." "~~~~
. . ~~~~.~...__~~ _, ,
. ~.-_._.._ ._ ~ ~ ~' .. . . . . ~ --_"__ _
MINUTES, CITY PIANNING COMMI3SION, September 4, 1963, Continued: 1752
CONDITIONAL US8 - PUBLIC HHARING. PRHDRICR C, AND JBANNH HOWARD, 145 South Western
PBRMIT NO. 467 Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; GAIL 3. SIMS, Lincoln West
Professional Mail, 1782 West Lincoln Avenue, Suite G, Anaheim,
TBNTATIVB MAP OF California, Agent; requesting permission to CON3'LRUCT A 1W0-3TORY
1RACT N0. 5299 MULTTPLB PAMILY PLANNBD RESIDENTIAI. DHVBLOPMBNT WI1H CARPatTS -
WAIVH ONH-STORY HSIGHT LIMI:hiION on property described as:
An L-shaped parcel of land with a frontage of ~p feet on the west
side of Western Avenue, and a maximum dapth ox 645 feet, the
norther],y bAUndary of said property being 672 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln
Avenue, and further described as 145 South Western Avenue. Property presentiy
classified as R-3, MUT.TIPLB FAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONB.
3UBJBCT 1RACT - located on the west side of Western Avenue approximately 606 feet sout:i
of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, and cove*ing approximately 2.5
acres, is proposed for subdivision into eleven R-3, Multiple Pamily
Residential, Zone, lots.
Mr. Leo Sims, agent for the petitioners appeared before the Commission and stated he
was available t~ answer any questions.
Zoning Coordinator Martin ICreidt reviewed for the Commission the proposed subdivision
of subject property into separate parcels for :.esale, and that the plot plan did not
indicate a typical example of one of the proposed R-3 lots.
The Commission reviewec~ the plans and noted that Lot No, 11 was considered the common
area, that approved CC&R~s had not been submitted, that the trash area was located
adjacent to one of the alYeys which the petitioners proposed to use for pedestrian and
vehicular ingress and egress, and then inquired of .Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts
if preliminary CC6tR's had been submitted.
Mr. Roberts stated that he had just recently been made aware that subject property was
proposed for a condominium type development, that he had then been contacted by the
agent~ and that altriough a meeting of minds had resulted, the proposed CC&R's had not
been submitted for the City At.orney~s consideration.
Tt~e Commission expressed concern because the proposed developmeat had not been
sUbmitted as a complete package, that the Commission was not desirous of considering aa
ineomplete petition, that the plot plan presented was not indicative of an adequate
living environment with only alleys being used for ingress and egress, and that subjecfi
petition stiould be complete relative to approved CC&R~s and adequate development plans
show~ag an improved living environment adequate pedestrian accessways.
It wes further noted by the Commission that subject property had been approved for
reclassification with development plans proposing a staadard planned unit development,
under one ownership. .
Mr. Predrick Howard, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and
- stated that the-pi•evious plans approved had not been proven to be financialiy
developable becaus~~ c,f the removal of two units, that twe-~tory ccnstruction had been
aqpsoved fos property to the aoith and thus depr3ving the one-story units oxiginally
a;*~roved on subject property of any privacy fhey might wish to have, aad that tha income
f~:om the originally proposed development wovld apt justify approval of a loan.
Mr. Howard further asked that the Commission indicate what might be acceptable for
possible development. The Commission replied that the density and coverage were
adequate, but that adequate ingress and egress for pedestrians,;snd vehicles and the
submission of approved CC&R's were needed before the Commission could consider subject
petition.
The Commisaion further stated that it was the responsibility of the City to insure the
pubiic welfare and safety to require adequate ingress and egress, and that the
proposed develop{aent did not meet R-3 requirements and was inadequate from the planning
standpoint.
THB t~ARING WA3 CL09$D.
~ -..--- , "_'_._~.,__~.__._..'_ . . -.-..^-_._.._ . . . . . -•.:~.
`i"'
~~
~
~
~
iNINUTB3, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 4, 1963, Continued: 1753
CONDITIONAL USH - Mr. Rreidt suggested a possible modified street section of one-
PBRMIT N0. 467 haif or one-third of the way into the proposed development for
pedestrian access and guest parkiag, since the alleys would serve
TBNTATIVB MAP OP the needs of parking of the tenents, although this might create
TRACT N0. 5299 a nuisance in the alley if cars were parked there all the time.
(Continued)
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to reopen the hearing and
continae Petition for Conditionai Use Permit No. 467 and Tentative Map of Tract No. 5299
to the meeting of October 14, 1963, and directed the petitioners to submit revised plans
to the Planning Department and consult them for suggestions and that approved CCScR's be
submitted to the City Attorney's office. Commissioner Chavos seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIBD.
CONDITIONAL USS - PUBLIC HBARING. LAND BSTATBS INCQRPORATBD, P. 0. BOX 2250, Orcutt,
PffitMIT N0. 471 California, Owners; AUTOMATHD SPORTS CBNTBRS, INC., 545 West
Valeacia Drive, Pullerton, California, Agent; requesting
permission to HSTASLISH AN BXISTING BOWLING CHNTBR, RBSTAURATT AND
COCBTAIL LOUNGB AS A CONPQRMING USB, AND TO CON37RUCT AN
ADDITION FOR USB A3 A PIAYROOM AND A MBHTING ROOM on pzoperty described as: A rectangular
parcel nf land with a frontage of 450 feet on the weot side of Brookhurst Street and a
depth of 270 feet, the northerlp boundary of said property being 216 feet south of the
centerline of Lincoln Avenue, and further described as 201 South Brookhurst Street.
Property presentiy classified as R-A, RB3IDHNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONS.
Mr. Leslie Thorenson, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission to
answer questions and stated that a six (6) foot wall presently existed on the south
property line, that he was aware of the untidiness of subject property, but that there
had been a change in management, aad the present operators had not been able to clean
up the piace because of lack of time.
No one apFeared in opposition to subject petition.
THH HHARING WAS CIA3BD.
Discussion was held by the Commission relative toieclassification of subject property,
the use having been established in the County, and that str2et lights and sidewalks
should be required to be installed in acc~~rdaace with Code requirements for lights a.nd
sidewalks on C-.L, Neighborhood Commercial c:evelopment property.
Zoning Coo=dinator Martin Kreidt informed the Commission that approval of subject
petition would establish a bowling alley and restaurant as a conforming use.
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 894, 3eries 1963-64~ and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioaer Rowland to grant Petition for
Conditional Use Permit No. 4T1, subje~t to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll cr.~l the fore3oing resolutioa was passed by the following vote:
AY83: COhAfI3SI0NBR8: Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Rowland.
NOffi: C0~4d13SI0NBR3: None .
ABSSNT: COhMI33I0Nffit3: Camp, Perry, Sides.
INITIATB - Com-aissioner Gauer offered a motioa to direct the Planning
RBCIASSIPICATION Department to initiate rec.lassification proceedings in behalf
OP PROPffitTY located of the Commission on property located at 201 South Brookhurst
at 201 South Street to the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone. Commiss3oner
Brookhurst $treet Rowlaad eeconded the motion. MOTION CARRIHD.
' •• 1
;
i
i
'1
i
i
~ "__'.:-~.,._~~.~___~_-... ~ _.. ...._.
. . ~_ ~ . .. .._. ....___.._._..__..,_
. _
' ~ f
~
~~! ~
-: . J
~
~
MINUTB3, CITY PIANNING CQMMISSION, September 4, 1963, Continued:
1754
CONDITIONAL USH - PUBLIC HBARING. TFffi OWHN COMPANY, 621 South Hope Street,
PBRMIT NO. 472 Los Angeles 17, California, Owner; INTS(1tATBD, INC., Attention
Mr. William R. Baker, 7668 Telegraph Road, Los Angeles 22,
Califoraia, Agent; requesting permission to BSTABLISH AN AUTti.'40BILB
AGBtiCY (NHW AND USHD, INCLUDING ALL SBRVICING INCIDHNTIAL THHR8T0)
on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land having a frontage of 280 feet
on the easterly side of Los Angeles Street and a depth of 332 feet, the northwest
corner of said property being approximately 730 feet south of the centerliae of Ball
Road. Property presently classified as M-1, LIGHT INDUSTR7AL, and P-L, PARRING IAND-
SCAPING, 20NB3.
Mr. lYilliam Haker, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commissiaa and stated
that the owner of subject proper~ky was also present to answer any questions.
Discussion was held by the Coamission and the petitioner relative to the landscaping for
adjoining property to the south and the bank to the north, that said landscaping had
been a condition of approvai and should be installed, and that the blacktop presently
existing in the front setback of the bank property should be removed. .
Mr. Baker replied that tliz property tc the south was not owned by the petitioner~ but
that the bank property was within their jurisdication.
2oning Coordinator Martin ICrea.dt advised the Commission that revised plans weze to be
submitted which would incorporate changes indicated on the plot plan, since additional
landscaping was needed in the parkway.
Mr. LeRoy Owen, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and expressed hi.s
appreciation of the Commission~s courtesies, that the southerly property had h;;en sold
to operators of another automobile agency, that he was unaware that landscaping had been
omitted in the front setback of the property to the north, t5at he favored beautification
of properties with landscaping and wou13 comply with the Commission~a request for
iandscaping on any properties he proposed to sfevelop ox which had been developed, and
that he would appreciate being advised if said 2~ar.dacaping was not installed.
The Commission expressed their appreciation of ~he petitioner~s desire to iastall
landscaping on properties developed in close proxim3ty to subject property~ as well as,
sub,ject property,
TFIS HBARING lVAB CLOSBD.
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 895, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Pebleq, to grant Petition for Conditional Use
Permit No, 472~ subject to condiQ~tons. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll cali the foreging resolution was passed by the following vote:
AY83: COi~AfI3SI0NBR3: C.havos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Rowland.
NQSS: COblMI33IfHV~t3: None.
ABSBNT: CCwAfISSIONffit3: Allred, Camp, Perry, Sides.
DIRHCTIVH TO TI~ffi - Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to direct the Planning
pIANNING D8PARIMSNT Depart'ment to investigate property known as the Lincoln-Mercury
Automobile Ageacy to the south of property considered in
~ Conditional Use Permit No. 472, to determine when the laadscaping
as required in the P-L, Parking Landscaping, Code sectioa was to be installed, since no
waiver was requested in the original petition for the sutomot~ile agency, and thus
landscaping and sidewalks should be instalied. Co~nmissioner Chavos seconded the motion.
MOTION G4RRISD,
~.,. .________,_...__.--~---~__..__ _----~-----_-----~--------- ----
~ _._., ~..
~
i
I
i
i •
~ - ---.__.....~ ------ -
~_J
i~1
~~
.~
'e
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING CaMMI9SI0N, September 4, 1963, Continued: 1755
RBCB3S Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to recess the meeting for dinner and to
reconvene at 7:30 P.M. Commissioner Pebley seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIRD.
The meeting recessed at 6:03 P.M.
RBCONVSNH Chairman Mungail reconvened the meeting at 7:50 P.M., Commissioners Chavos,
Gauer, Mungall, Pebley~ and Rowland being prese:.t.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HHARING. HBNRY KLAUSING AND JOSBPHINH HUNT, c/o
N0. 63-64-26 and HAROLD MCCABE, 3460 North Harbor Boulevard, Fullerton, California,
Owners; CHARLSS A. HIRSI~AfAN, Suite 3, 12431 Oxnard Street,
TENTATIVB MAP OP Morth Hollywood, California, Agent; requestiag that property
1RACT N0. 5307 described as: An L-shaped parcel of land, covering approximately
30 acres, having a frontage of 660 feet on the south side of
La Jolla Street, snd a frontage of 1,320 feet on the north side of
Anaheim Road, the easterly boundary of said property being approximately 2,002 feet
west of the centerline of Dowling Street, be reclassified from the R-A, RffiIDBNTIAL
AQtICULTtIltAL, ZONH to the R~3, MULTIPLH FAMILY RHSIDHNTIAL, ZONS to permit the ~
construction of a multiple family subdivision.
SUBJHCT TRACT: DHVffiOPER: CALIFQRNIA PACIPIC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, 16609 Ventura
Boulevard. Bncino, California, HNGINBffit: HBRBERT W. PHILLIPS AND
ASSOCIAT83, 316 South Main Street, Corona, California; located on the
south side of La Jolla Street, the north side of Anaheim Road,
easterly of Blue Gum Street, and covering approximatPly 30 acres, is
proposed for subdivision into 97 R-3, MULTIPLB FAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL,
ZONB, lots.
Mr, Phillip Krakover, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and
reviewed the proposed General Plan for the area in which subject property is located
noting the suitabiiity of the proposed development to the industrial developmeat, and
gave his concept of what should be cansidered b;~ the cities of Orange County relative
to industrial development, He ferther noted that Los Angeles County had recently
rezoned industrial zoned land for residential purposes after said land had been
zoned for indastrial development a number of. years, that sufficient access roads were
avaiiable to permit the flow of *raffic aevay from the iadustrial developmeat to the
east, and then further reviewed the proposed development stating that the proposed
density wouid be 12 units per acre with one acre b~eing devoted to recreational
purposes, and that many industries were desirpus af having adequate housing,availabie
for employees~ located not to far from their plancs.
The Commission discussed with the agent the figures he quoted notiag that said acreage
was the gross~acreage,that 1596 would be required for stieets, that the total represented
the amount for the County, that Anaheim had a total of 1,780 acres set aside for
industrial,development, 1,300 acres of which had already been developed~ that 4 ac=es
of iad~strial iand was needed to support one acre of housing, that this was an ~
important factor to conside= to support any dwellings ia a city, and that one of the
important factors arisiag'from the Planning Commission's request for a reanalysis of
the Industrial Areas of the City was that the Co;~nty reaffirmed the City of Aaaheim`s
previous position in the projection of lands for industrial development.
Mr. Henry Rlausing, one of the petitioners, appear~:d before the Commission and reviewed
the ownership of subject property being in the fav;ily since 1916, that subject
property had been annexed into the City three yea:rs ago, that subject property was no
longer suitabie for farming purposes, and it was his desire to develop the land with the
best possibie offer, and that~ in response to the Commission's questions stated that he
had had no firm offer other than speculators for six (6) months ti,dth prices which had
been unacceptable. ~
The Commission noted that.46 acres of propoaed light industrial property located at
White Star and La Palma Avenue had been purchased for industrial development ia the
past month for $25,000 per acre.
~
i
i
i
i
i
i
e
~ I
~ ~ i
E ~ ..---- -----.~._. _~,.,~;~-----~.___ . -,..
,~ . - "_"-i '- ----. _----..._..-'-- ---'--- -- - ----
l _'___......_... -d~ . ~ ~. . . . ._
I
~ ~
i ~,
1 : .1
C_~~
~
i
~
MINUTB3, CITY PIANNING COMMIS3ION, September 4, 1963, Continued:
1756
RHCLASSIPICATION - Mr. Dale Caznder, 501 Catalina Road, Fullerton, appeared in
N0, 63W64-26 and opposition to subject petition ani stated that his industrial
structure was located on the north side of La Joila 3treet
TBNTATIVH MAP OP opposite subject property, that he had purchased the property
1RACT N0. 5307 consisting of 2~ acres under the assumption that subject and
(Continued) adjoining properties would be developed for industrial purposes,
that another industry was completing construction of their
structure immediately adjacent to his property, that the
proposed residential development wouid be incompatible to the
already estabiished industry due to the dirt, noises, and traffic resulting from any
industry, and that to approve any residential development adjacent to industry would
be to invite trouble and conflict with the future residents of these developments.
I.etters were read from the Gity of Placenti,a, Orange County Planning Commission, the
Planning and Zoning Committees of #he Anaheim Chamber of Commerce and the Board of
Realtors opposing any change in the proposed zoning of land in the Northeast Industrial
Area. _ _
In rebuttai, the agent submitted an article from a national magazine, said article
commenting on the development of the Irvine Ranch which indicated a progressive type
of thinking in combining various types of developments, and requested that the '
Commission consider the implications that the limitations proposed for property
development in the east Anaheim area.
THH HBARING WA$ CLOSHD.
Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution No. 896, Series 1963~64, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland to recommend to the City Council
that Petition for Reclassification No. 63-64-26 be disapproved based on the fact that
subject property was located in Anaheim's industrial area, that no evidence had been
submitted which indicated that physical changes would warrent the cIIange in zone, that
an industrial property owner adjacent to subject property, and four letters were
received,in opposition; and that the proposed residential development would be
incomr,,atible to the industriai development presently existing in close proximity to
sub;ect property. (3ee Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AY83: CO'alISSIONBR9: Chavos,•Gauer, Mungall, 3ebley, Rowland.
KOH3: COMMI33IONffit3: None.
ABSHNT: CC1A~AfI39xQdffit3: Alired, Camp, Perry, 3ides.
Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to deny Tentative Map of Tract No. 5307 based on
the following facts:
1. That subject property is designate~ for industrial development on the Genezal Plan
adopted by the Commission,
2. That no physical change had~taken place which would justify any deviation from the
designated zoning.
3, That an existing industrial development presently exists, and another is under
construction in close proximity to subject property, making the proposed
residential development incompatible to existing uses estabiished.
4. That the Commisaion reaffirms its position in maintaining subject and other
properties in the Northeast Industrial Area~ for industrial purposes,
5. That one person appeared and 4 letters were received in opposition to the proposed
development.
Commissioner Rowiand seconded the motion. MOTION CARRISD.
.~
~
a
i
I
t
;1
~
,
------~--- ----------- ------._....___...------- ---__,_._._. .
, _-----------_--,
__. ... __ ._ ----
~ ° . ~ ~" . . _ ..
~
; ~` ~ ~ ~
11INUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 4, 1963, Continued: 1757
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. COASTWISE INVHSTMENT COMPANY, 146 East Orangethorpe, i
N0. 63-64-27 Avenue, Anaheim, California, Ownert LARRY GOLDEN, 110 :dest First ~
' Street, Santa Ana, California, Agent; requesting that property j
described as: A rectangular parcel of land consisting•of twa paxtions:
Pqrtion A__having a frontage of 85 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue.and.a depth.of ;
350 feeto Portion B being ad3acent to "portion A" on the nortfi and. ha~ing. a..deptl~..of_... ;
382 feet, the westerly boundary of said described parcel being approx.imately..b90...feat. ;
RFRTflFNI'.TQT. . ...
east of the centerline of Brook.hurst Street, be reclassified from the R-A,.
AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMA~RCIAL, ZONE .for Po~_r,_tion A,.and.P~-1,
Automobile Parking, Zone for Port~i ~on B, to construct a 6~unit office and commercial .
building with parking.
Mr, Larry Golden, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission..and_.descxihed. ;
the proposed development and the location of subject propeity, noting.tha.t..suhject..pr.opesty ~
was a narrow 90-foot strip with a depth of 732 feet, that subject property was located ;
_,._,__~_~___~a,,..~_t~, .~e,.vi.,.+mo.,±;.__t,hat_indu_strial development of subject property would <
aG,Ja~r~~o w -~ ~u~o~.~... .......-..~..._.. ---... ' - -... _. ____...._
be impxactical, and that the proposed development seemed i,o be the only method of devel--- - i --
opment for an unusual shaped parcela
The Commission discussed the possibility of contacting adjacent property owners for the ~
possible development for subject and abutting properties, that the requested p-1 Automobile ;
Parking, Zone could be developed for multiple family residential use, that subject property ~
should be developed as one commercial parcel, and that because of the size and shape of i
the parcel, proper development was almost impracticala ~
The agent for the petitioner stated that he was not oppo5ed to commercial zoning for the ~
entire parcel, and that he had not contacted adjacent property owners for possibly combin-
ing the properties for a larger commercial developmente ~
;
A spectator in the Council Chamber stated that she was not opposed to commercial development i
for subject property. ;
TI-~ IiEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commission expressed the desire to have a special planning study made of the deep ~
lots ad3acent to sub3ect property together wi+.h subject property to determine the best ~
land use for said properties, that if the proposed automobile parking were approved, a ~
later request for a variance might be filed indicating hardship in the use and develop- ~
ment of Portion B, and then requesting multiple family development for the rear portion `
of the long narrow loto ~
The agent inquired whether the Commission should be concerned with the excess parking ~
space being proposed, to which the Commission replied that the City was more Goncerned :
with the possible creation of a hardship in the future development of the proposed 1
automobile parking portiona
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt suggested to ~tha Commission that the Planning Department i
contact ali property owners except the single family ho:ne owners to the west,to meet and i
discuss the possible land use for the long narrow parcels of land adjacent to subject !
property, and the possibility of canbining subject and abutting properties for a compatible 1
development plan, but tha•i a 4-wee~C continuance would be needed to schedule said meeting I
and to formulate a report to the Commission relative to the proposed planning study of ,
the area. i
The agent informed the Commission that he had been advised that.the proper method of ~
applying for the use of sub~ect property was through method in which he applied, namely ~
neighborhoc~d commercial and automobile parking developmenta
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to re-open the hearing and continue Petition for
Reclassification No. 63-64-27 to the meeting of September 30, 1963, and directed that
the Planning Department contact adjacent property owners to the north and to the Qast
to discuss the best possible land use for the deep lots of which subject and abutting p:ropa~ties',
are comprised. Commissioner Chavos sec.onded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
PREPARATION OF A- Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to direct the Planning Department
PLANNING STUDY BY to prepare Planning Study Noo 60-39-1 covering properties composed of .
TI~ PLANNING deep lots easterly of the single family development on the east side
DEFARTNiENf of Brookhur~t Street, and locatsd on the nortY~ side of Lincoln Avenue, ~
for possible land use for property considered in con9unction with i
Reclassification 63-64-27, and ad~acent properties easterly of sub~ect ~
propertye Commissioner Rowland secorided the motiona MOTION CARRIED. I
i
~
~
----------r-_._ . .---- - ----- • -- --- --._.__._._..._ _.-- -- ------_ __-_~__.
d~n . ~ _ . .. . . -- -----
. : ~
i
:~' •
~_ ~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 4, 1963, Contiqued:
1758
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC EiEARING. JOSEPH GLEASON, Mo D., 6189 La Palma Avenue, Buena
N~. 63-64-28 and Park~ California, Owner; JkCK J. STRICKLAND, Aa I. A.,.9012 Garden.
Grove Boulevard, Garden Grove, California, Agent; property descr3bed
CONDITIONAL USE as: A rectangular parcel of land with a frontage of 220 feet.on.th,e.
PERMIT N0. 468 . east side of Magnolia Avenue and a depth of 613 feet, the northerly~
boundary of said property being 366 feet south of the center.line_of.
La Palma Avenue, and further described as 1020.North Magnolia
Avenuee Property.presently classified as C-1, NEIGFIDORHOOD COMMEfiCIAL,
' ZONEo
REQUESTED CLASSIFI~:ATION: R-3, MULTIPI.E FAMILY RESIDENI'IAL, ZONE ~
REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: CONSTRi1CT A ONE AND TWO-STORY MULTIPi_F FAMILY PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPIu~Ni' WITH CARPORTS, WAII/ER OF TFIE
ONE-STORY FIEIGHT LIMITATION
b-r. Jack Strickland, agent for the petitioner, appQared before the CQ~;~~i~„ a~„
raviewed th~ nr.,~~~~~ ~~.._,
- ~~~cpment, iurther indicating that the propused..land.~tse._would
be a~ cnnsiderable improvement over the existing zoning. of tt~ pzope.nty_.which. tiad never
been developed, and that the multiple family development woui,d act as a buffer to the
cemmercial development to the north of subject propertyo
It-was noted by the Commission that the petitioner proposed two-story constr~ction
witfiin 150 feet of the single family development to the south, and said waiver of
single story height limitation was not permissible by the Cod~, and that a waiver could
only be applied to the church property to the east, which was still zoned as residential
agricultural,
The Commission in reviewing the plot plan, noted that the p~~titione.r proposed two
_ separate 300-foot long structures. connected with an open-type roof, that structures
,,.. wer@ separated by a distance ot 20 feet when 25 feet was required, that the density
proposed was somewhat high, that the recreation area was appro:imately 4,000 square
~fset.short of the desired 200 square feet per dwelling unit, that although the concept
was different from any that had been proposed, it might be more compatible if the
development were more closely in conformance with Code requirementse
The agent then stated that the petitioner had made a financial study of the possible
development and financing of any proposed structures, that upon learning that a standard
stx•eet-was required, it was decided to increase the density, that if the petitioner were
required to reduce the density, the necessary financing fox the development of sub~ect
property would not be obtained, that attempts had been made to sell subject property for
commercial development, but the petitioner had been unsuccessful in this attempt in more
than a year, that competition from other shopping centers reduced the chances for devel-
opmcnt for subject property, and that the proposed 60-foot wide street would only be used
by the residents of the proposed davelopment, because it would deadend to the easto
The Commission inquired whether the proposed street was wider than that approved recently
on the south side of Ball Road, and was advised by Zoning Coordinator N,artir. Kreidt that
the street approved on Ball Road would eventually be a standard street, when property to
the east of the 44-foot street was developed, and that the proposed development would
have ihe same street widthe
TN.E fiEa~ING WAS CLOSEDa
The Commission discussed the possibility of continuance of subject petitions in order
that revised plans could be submitted, incorporating the required building separation,
reduction of the densit;•, increasing the recreation area, and the reduction of the
structural height limiation to one story within 150 feet of the single family development
to the southo
~ Dr. Josepi~ Gleason, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated ~hat sub-
~ ject prope.rty had originally been purchased to construct a hospital in the West Anaheim
1 area, that he had been delayed in :the eonstruction because he was unable ta obtain
~ sufficient land for proper development, and when said land was available, it became
~ impractical to construct the hospital, because severai others had already been approved
and started, that if subject petition was approved, the apartments would remain under
~~
0
~
r
f
~ -
_-. _ .. _._ _ ___
--.. _~ . ___._~_....-- r-- -------------- ------- --- ----- "~
i -. _
~ ,-
•
~
_ __..._...---- ..._. --
- - _ . ~ ,~
~-
(_~ ~..~ ~
MINUTB3, CITY PLANNING COMMI33ION, 3eptember 4, 1963, Continued: 1759
RHCIASSIPICATION - his ownership as an investment, that the proposed developement ~
N0. 63-64-28 and would be more compatible to the residential environmeat to the south ;
than a 2~ story commercial structure, and then asked that the ;
C01~11DITIONAL USE Commission s~ipulate the maximum number of units that could be +
pBRMIT N0. 468 developed for subject property, and any additional revisions which ,
(Continued) would make the proposed development more in conformance with Code ;
requirements and be considered favorably by the Commission. ~
i
The Commission advised the petitioner that a maximum of 50 units should be proposed, :
that any planned unit development faced similar problems in the requirement of a i
standard dedicated street, that it would uggest that the petitioner consult with the ~
Planning Depa~tment as to the best possib e development for subject property, that the ~
Commission at one time approved alleys ar und the periphery of a development, but that ,'
experience had proven this to be impracti al, and that one~sto=y construction within
150 feet of any single family development was a Code requirement which could not be
xmi;red.
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petitions for
Reclassification No. 63-64-28 and Conditiunai Use Permit No. 468 to the meeting of
October 14, 1963, in order to allow the petitioner sufficiznt time to consult with the
Planning Department and to submit revised plans incorporating development of one-story
within 150 feet of single family development, reduction of the density to a maximum of
50 dwelling units, increasing the buildiag separation to 25 feet and increasing the
recseation area to 200 square feet per dwelling unit. Coatmissioner Chavos seconded thc
motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
RHCLASSIFICATION PUBLIC HBARING. ffi.SIH M. and WILLIAM B. PURDY, 1243 North Placentia
N0. 63-64-29 and Avenue~ C. F. KOHI.BNBBRGBR, 1229 North Placen#ia Avenue, and
~HpRI,gg g, PRANlC, 325 North Yine Street. Anaheim, California, (hmersy
CONDITIONAL USB JIM HODGB3, 1709 South Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, Califoinia,
FHRMIT N0. 469 Agent; property described as: An irregular parcei of land having a
frontage of 255 feet on the north side of Placentia Avenue and a
deptli of 250 feet, the southwesternmost corner of said property
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, RH3IDBNTIAL AGRICULTITRAL, ZONS.
;QBQUBSTHD CLASSIPICATION: R-3, MULTIPLB PAMILY RSSIDHNTIAL, ZONH.
R$ZUB~TBD CONDITIOIdAL USB: CON3TRUCT A TWO-STORY MULTIPLB FAMILY PTANNBD RBSIDENTIAL j
DHVBLOFMBNT WITH CARPORTS - WAI~ft OP THB ONH-3TORY HSIGHT j
LIMITATION, SIDH AND RBAR YARD RHQUIRHNIBNTS. j
Mr, Jim Hodges, agent for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and reviewed ~
the proposed development in comparision to a previous reclassification request filed for ~
a portion of subject property, aoting that two additional parcesl were obtained thsough ~
succesafui confe=ences with adjacent property owners, and the Planning Department, and ~
that, it was hia opinion that the psoposed development was a considerable improvement ;
over the original plans submitted. '
i
The Commisaion noted that a parcel to the southwest of subject propertq would result in
a less than an acre of R-A, Residential Agricultural, Zone land in violation of Code
requirements, that a mod:fied cul-de-sac was proposed for the easterl} 40 feet of
subject property, that multiple family development existed to the south, and that the
proposed coverage was slightly more than that pro~+osed on other planned multiple family
residential developments.
Mr. Hodges stated that he had been unable to incorp~rate the "Not A Part" into subject
development that he had been able to resolve the strtet dedication and improvements
for said part, if the Commission might approve a variance for the less than an acre
parcel, that many complex problems had been resolved with so many different property
owners, and that he had attempted to purchase the property to the east but the price had
been prohibitive.
THS HHAAING WA3 CLOSSD.
~
I
___.._ ._. . _ _..____-'~~/
.
,~
,
~'"~
~
MINUTHS, CITY PLANNdNG COMMI5CION, September 4, 1963, Contin~ied:
RHCIASSIPICATION - continued~
N0. 63-64-29 and
'../
1760
After sowe discussion by the Commission i4 was noted that the proposed
CONDITIONAL USH development was higher in deasity than the C:ommission desired, that it
PBRMIT N0,469 offered an improvement to the City concidering the fact that a trailer
park existed to the north, that a number of odd shaped parcels were
now combined for an acceptable aevelopment, and that additional street
dedication and improvement had been obtained through efforts of the
agent for the petitioner.
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 897, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Yetition
for Reclassification No. 63-64-29 be approved, subject to conditions.(See Resolution Book)
On ro11 ca11 the foregoing resolution v~as passed by the foliowing vote:
AYBS: COMMI3SIONER3: Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Rowland.
NOBS: COL4~lI3SI0NBR3: None,
ABSBNT: COMMI3SION&R3: Allred, Camp, Perry, Sides.
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 898, Series 1963~64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Pebley, to grant Petition for Conditional Use
permit No 4699 subject to conditions.(See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
A~~ COhAfiSSIONBRS: Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Rowland.
NOBS: COMMI3SIONHRS: None.
ABSBNT: COhAlI3SIONHRS: Allred, Camp, Perry, Sides.
RBCIASSIPICATION - PUBLIC HEARdNG. PRANK W. 8c EDI1H R03B 3ACRHTT, c/o L.G.3. Corporation,
NO. 63-64-30 and 2120 South Main Street, 3anta Ana, California, Owners; CHARLBS G.
3CHLSGBL, 433 West Eighth Street, Santa Ana, California, Agent; property
CONDITIONAL U3B described as: An irregular shaped parcel of land consisting of two
PBRMIT N0. 470 portions. PQRTION '°A" having a frontage of approxicnately 200 feet on
the north side of Lincoln Avenue, 230 feet on the north side of Wilshire
Avenue, and an average depth of 2U0 feet. PORTION "B" being approximately
364 feet by 352 feet, and being adjacent and northerly of Portion "A". The easteriy boundary
of said described property being approximately 485 feet west of the centerliae of Carleton
Avenue, property presently classified in the R A, RESIDBNTIAL AGRICULTURAL_~ Z01~ffi.
kHQUH3TED QASSIPICATION: PORTION A- C-1, NSIGHBORHOOD CON.MBItCIAL', ZONB. ~
PCYtTION B- R-3, MULTIPLB PAMILY RHSIDBNTTAL~ ZOI~ffi.
RBQUB3TBD CONDITIONAL USB: PCYtTION A- BSTABLISH A SffitVIGB STATION AND RBSTAURANT
PORTION B- BSTABLISH A THRBB~STORY APARTMHNT COMPLBX-.
WAIVBR OP THB ONB-STORY HBIGHT LIMITATION
AND THS 1~ PAR&ING SPACB P~! DWHLLING UNIT
IN A GARAGB ~t PARKING STALL, PARKING STALL
SIZE, TO PBRMIT UTILIZATION OP UNDBRQtOUND
PARRIIQG
Mr. Charles Schlegel, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed
the proposed development, comparing it to the original deveiopment fiied under a previous
conditional use permit, that the extension of Diamond Street into subject property would
end in a cul-de-sac, that Pearl Street on the north property line had been extended through
the cooperation o£ the property owner to the north, that this then eliminated the possibility
of landlocked property to the north, that the lessees of suSject property had a 99-year lease
and proposed to develop the property for investment purposes, that traf£ic problems hack been
discussed with the traffic engineer of the City in an attempt to submit an acceptabie pian,
and that the architect aad the property owners to the north and east were also present, if
*_!:e Coa~3ssion tyished to ~~~ ~~A~*+oas,
~-----
~
/
~ -----. _ _ __.._..---.__..... _.
____._._._.____._.__..__---------..---._.....__....--------_....--- --
;
~f ~ . ~
(..~' , '~
i '~
`. J
MINUTHS, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, September 4, 1963, Continued: ,9.761
RBCIASSIPICATION - The Commission inquired of Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt whether '
No. 63-64-30 and the proposed high density development was more than anything that
the Commission had previously considezed. Mr. Kreidt replied that
CONDITIONAL USH abutting property to the east was two family az~d multiple fawily i
P~tMIT N0. 470 zoning, that subject property was adjacent to medium density 18-36 S
(Contiaued) dwel?ing units per net acre, and that the proposed 30 dwelling units
per net acre was considered to be consistent wiih established i
development to the east.
Mr. Vernon L. Prederick, owner of commercial property fronting on Lincoln Avenue
abutting to the east of subject property inquired what the petitioner proposed for the
existing alley to the east and northerly of the Lincoln Avenue commercial development,.
that a drainage problem presently existed, and upon being advised by the Commission
that the alley would be barricaded, sfated that this barricade would create a dead end
alley, and might compound the drainage problem. The Commission then stated that drainage
wuuld not enter the a?ley from the north, that vehicles would not use the alley since ;
Diamond S.~.«3~ ~C ~aic ii'vli.ai iV'viiiu Cui-uc-baG iliiG SVUjCCL properiy.
The Comalission expressed some concern that the petitioner proposed three-story develop-
ment in close proximity tu the suburban residential development to the north, that the
line of sight might be objectionable to the property owners, and were advised by the
Com~.ssion Secretary that a number of property owners on Wedgewood and Birchmont ;
Avenues had been sent legal notices of subject petition.
Mr. Lewis Weir re resentin the lessees of the `•
, p g proposed service station appeared to
inform the Commission tlaat studies had been made which indicated that service station a
locations adjacent to the on or off-ramps of a freeway, were considered very desirable, ~
and that considerable study had been made regarding the flow of traffic, and that the
City's traffic engineer expressed the opinion that no serious hazard would result in the ~
prbposed locatian of the service station.
i
THB HBARING WA3 CLOSHD. '
Discussion was heid by the Commission relative to the requested variance from parking ;
requirements, th~t experience had proven that high density residential deyelcpment ~..
required more rather than less parking space, that the petitioner could prov3de adequate ~
space if the operr parking spaces were converted into carports where ad,~acent to the ~
Diamond Street cul~de-sac, that more ingress and egress should be provided into the ~
subterranean parking area, and that the Commission would like to see written reports ,
froar the Pire pepartment and the Traffic Hngineer which would verify that the i
barricadiag of the alley located at the southeasterly boundary of subject property would ~
not affect adequate fire portection, and that the flow of traffic into Wilshire 3treet ;
would not create a serious hazard, ~
i
t
Mr, Schlegel. advised the Commission that since the lessees of subject property wouid have :
the use of the property for 94 years, they would be glad to sefer the plans to their i
architect to resolve a possible additional ingress and egeress to the sUbterranean
parking area, converting the open parking area ad,jacent to the Diamond Street cul-de-sac, - - -
an~ have the plans available fo= the Commission by the next meeting when the reports ~
from the Fire Department and Traffic Bngineer would be submitted. I
s
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to .ceopen the hearing and continue Petitions for ~
Reclassificatioa No. 63-64-30 and Conditional Use Permit No. 470 to the tneeting of " ;
September 14, 1963, in order that the petitioner might submit revised plans incorporating i
an additional ingress and egress to the subterranean parking, covering the open parking ~
area, and a report from the Pire Department and Traffic Hngineer. Commissioner Pebley }
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD. ,
RBCIASSIPIG4.TION - PUBLIC HBARING. GLBN B. AND BLIZABBTH B. BOYLBS~ 942 Hot Springs
N0. 63-64-31 and Road, Santa Barbara, California, and WALLACB CARTBR, 86-35 Queens
Boulevard, Blmhurst 73, New Yor&, Owners; RAYMOND SPE[~NR~ 1027 North
VARlANCE N0. 1602 Huclid Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; property described as:
A rectangular parcel of iand with a frontage of 132 feet on the
east side of Huclid Street and a depth of 608 feet, the southerly
boundary of said property being 876 feet north of the centerline of
Crescent Avenue, and further described as 728 and 732 North Buclid
3treet. Property presently classified as R A, RBSIDBNTIAL
AQtICULTURAL, 20NH.
---- _ .. . , ._ __-..._--- - ~-- .~.~_.___ _.------------- . . . . . . . _ _ _ _ .
_~ r ~i
~ r
~~ ~
C.~)
D9INUTBS. CITY PIANNING COMMI3SI~i, September 4, ).963, Continued:
17~2
RHCIASSIPICATION - RHQUB9TBD CIA93IFICAiION: C~-1, NEIQiBQRH00D CaMMHRCIAL, ZONB. i
N0. 63-64-31 and R~~TBD VARIANCB: (1) WAIVB 'IWO AND ONB-HALF (2~) STORY HBIGHT ~
VAR7ANC8 N0. 1602 LIMITATION, AND ~
SContinued) (2) WAIVE RHQUIRBD AMOUNT OF PARKING. a
~
3
Mr. Raymond Spehar, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and 1
reviewed the proposed deveiopment, noting thatthe proposed parking requirement waiver was ~
necessary because it was based on the gross square foot size of the structure, but if ;
said parking were calculated on the net usable square foot available in the stiucture, i
the proposed parking would be in excesa, since epproximately 7,000 square feet was ~
devoted to unrentable space, and then submitted the breakdown of unrentable space, and
asked what the difference between the variance petition and a conditionai use permit was. ~
Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts explained for the agent the different uses that were
applicable to each, but that the variance required the showing of undue hardship of the ~;
proposed use if the waiver were not applied for. `
i
In response to Commission questioning regarding the air conditioning ducts, the agent {
replied that although the air-conditioning units were located on the roof, they were +
encloaed by a fence towards the rear of the buildings and would not be visible from the ?
street, and that the building setback would conform with the existing commercial structur..s
in ciose proximity to subject property. 3
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
;
THB HBARING WA3 CLOSED. .
The Commission discussed the difference between the 2~ story or 35-foot height limitation
as it pertained to any property in ciose proximity to single family development, that the
Commission should consider possible changes to the Code when a ~ommercial structure was
-proposed within the line of sight of any single family development, and that the study
requested for building setbacks for the west side of Euclid 3treet should incorporate
the east side of the street as well.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 899, Series 1963-64, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Co~nissioner Gauer, to recoc~end to the City Council that
Petition for Reclassification No. 63-64-31, be approved subject to conditions.
(3ee Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing reyolution was passed by the following vote:
AYBS: COMMII3SIONIDt9: Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Rowland.
NOBS: CODAiIS3I0NBR8: None.
AB3HNT: COhA~IISSIONffitS: Allred, Camp, Perry, Sides.
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 900, 3eries 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconed by Commissioner Rowland, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1602,
sub3ect to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
AYBS: COMNIISSIOPIDRB: Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
NOH3: COtdMISSIONHRS: None.
ABSBNT: COMMISSIONffitS: Allred, Camp, Perry; Sides.
pMBNDMBNT TO - CONTINUBD PUBLIC HBARING. INITIATHD BY THS CITY PIANNING COMMI33ION,
CHAPTffit 18.64 204 Sast Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Amendmeat to Title 18,
CONDITIONAL USBS of the Anaheim Municipal Code, by the amendment to Chapter
18.64.020 (3-pl, to permit the estabiishment of a planned residential
develapment in the R-0, One Pamily Suburban, R-1, One Family
Residential, R-2, TWo Fam~ly Residential, and R-3, Maltiple Pamiiy Residential, Zones, but
to prohibit the establishment of Planned Residential Development in the R-A, Residential
Agriculturai, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-0, or M-1, M-2, Zones,
Subject proposed amendment was continued from the meetings of April 29, May 13, June 24~
and July 22, 1963, in order that the Planning Department might obtain additional
information to present to the Commi.ssion.
e•
----_-.,~ ..__._ ... _. _ ...
------~- •--- ---. ___ ---- ---- _...------ --- -----_. __.--- _ _ _ -- ---
~ ~~
~
•,
i
MINUTB3, CITY PIANNING COAMISSION, 3eptember 4, 1963, Continued; 1762-p
~
AMBNDMBNT TO - Zoning Coordinator Martin Rreidt reviewed the Commission~s past ?
CHAPTER 18.64 consideration of the proposed amendment, further noting that the j
CONAITIONAL USB3 Planning Department had in first draft form the revision to the ~
R A, Residential Agricultural, Zone section of the Anaheim ~
Municipal Code, and, therefore, the proposed amendment would be i
unnecessary because it was being incorporated in the revision, ~
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to terminate all proceedings on the Amendment to i
Chapter 18.64, Conditional Uses, Section 18.64.020 (3-p). Commissioner Pebley ~
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD. !
_ ~ ~. .~ ,_.-.._--- --- ------- _ ~
,
~ j
i
i a
----- '
.. .._. ~
~ ~'
~ ~
~_,t ~ '~
MINUTB3, CITY PLANNING CQ~4(18SION, September 4, 1963, Continued: 1763
RSPOitT3 AND - ITHM N0. 1 ±
RBC~iMHNDATIONS ~
CONDITIONAL USB PHRMIT N0. 364 ~~
Request for extension of 180 days to complete conditions on ;
a 40-unit motel located at 1610 South Harbor Boulevard.
A request for an extension of 180 days was read to the Commission.
Mr. Irvin Keener, agent for the petitioners, appeased before L•he Commission and reviewed ~
the circumstances r~lative to the request of additional time noting that the property
had been sold to other interested persons, because the or+.ginal owners failed to comply
with Conditions, and that subject property was in escrow, but the time had lapsed for
completion of conditions originally stipulated, and that plans had not been chaaged
from those originally submitted, i
Cammissioner Pebley offered a motioa to grant an additional 180 days in which to j
complete conditions stipulated in Resolutioa No. 636, Series 1962-63, dated
Pebruary 18, 1963, said additional 180 days to extend to Pebruary 18, 1964, i
Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD, ~
;
~
ITBM N0. 2 i
~
CaNDITIONAL USH PffitMIT N0. 115 i
Grace Missionary Baptist Church ~
Request for approval of revised plans and extension of time. ~
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt presented the revised plans for subject petition to ~
the Commission, and reviewed with the Commission the findings Development Review r
preseated in conjunction with the revised plans. !
The Cominission reviewed the plans and compared them with the original plans approved
for subject property, furthez noting that one of the conditions stipuiated that tbe
existing structure be utilized for a period of two years.
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to approve the revised plans with the exception
that the building setback be maintained at 30 feet as originally proposed, and the
ten (10) foot strip of landscaping abutting the froat property line shall also be
retained, further that an extension of 180 days for the ese of the exisLing structure
for church purposes also be granted. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIBD,
ITEM N0. 3
C~VDITIONAL USB PBRMIT N0. 231
Linbrook Pamily Billiard Center, 2220 West Lincoln Avenue
Request for approval of revised plans.
Zoning Coordinator Martia Kreidt presented revised plans for subject petition together
with the findings and recommendations of Development Review to the Co~ission.
A letter of expianation was read relative to the proposed small grill and kitchen
facilities being proposed on the revised plans.
Mr.~Prank Carson, the petitioner appeared before the Commission to answer any questions
tl}e Commission might have.
The Commission noted that the proposed use was the second additional reguest to that
originally approved by the Commission.
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to approve the revised plans of Conditional Use
Permit No. 231, Commissioner Pebley aeconded the atotion. MOTION CARRIBD.
", . .. ~:~.: `•.
..f~;A1. .':j~:;•. •
`~" t i ~1`~'.
~ ' ., f~S'.' ~.S
~ ' ' __ '_. _..____.
' ~.r_"__. _.~...~.___"._"'~'"'__""'~._."'_'
..._. ....-~ . ~ _ '" . ~ . . ~~~.-.
__.. . - ~ ~ ._
~
~.._ ~
L. f
-
~
MINUTES, CITY PIANNING COD9~1I59ION, 3eptember 4, 1963, Continued: 1764
.
y
~
i
RgppRT9 AND - IT~I N0. 4
RHCOMMHNLIATIONS
(Continued) COIvDITIONAL USE PffitMIT N0. 443,
Anaheim Mission of Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter Day Saints - expa;~d existing church and related
facilities located at 82'T South Walnut Street.
~
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt, reviewed action by the Commission in two separate '
resolutions approving subject petition, and further read a request for the Commission j
to waive the construct±on of the masonry wall as required in Condition No. 3 of
Resolution No. 870, 3eries 1963-64, until the new sanctuary was constructed or the
alternative of construction of only 64 feet of the wall adjacent to the proposed
classroom building.
Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the requests made by the petitioner y
and lT W38 IIUTCU LIl£il. i.ilc c~iib~iia~ Zcurivv.a+ i~:•~~ :.'~.J.°...~R: ~O S~_'.~1,j°Ct P*eperty was 171 8
state of disrepair, and that the required masonry wall should be installed prior to the
completion of the first phase of development. ~j
f
Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to deny the r~quest for waivez of the required
five and one-half (5~) foot masonry wall along the south property line as stipulated in
Resolution No, 870, Series 1963-64, Condition No. 3, and that said masonry wall shall
be constructed prior to final buiiding inspection of the first phase of development. +
Commissioner Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION CARRISD. t
a
ITBM N0. 5 ~
i
Amendment proposais to the General Plan, State College Boulevard ~
and Placentia Avenue, and the south side of Orangewood Avenue,
east of Harbor Boulevard. . '
• • i
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to direct the Planning Department to consider an s
amendment to the General Plan at the first annual review relative to a change
incorporating the Commission~s approval of R-3, Multiple Family,Zone, development on !
the south side of Orangewood Aventse, east of Harbor Boulevard, and the northeast '
corner of State College Boulevard and Piacentia Avenue. Commissioner Rowland setonded
the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
ITBM N0. 6
RBCIAS51PICATION N0. 63-64-3
Hast Street, Renwood Avenue, and Romneya Drive.
Zontng Coordinator Martin I{reidt, read a letter submitted by the City Clerk`s office
tu property owners of the proposed seclassification, in wrich the City Council iadicated
that said petition had been referred back to the Planning Commission for further study
for best possible land use of the Hast 3treet frontage, from Romneya Drive to the
Riverside Preeway. •
Chairman Mungall disected that said correspondence be received and filed in tFe preposed
plaaning study for Bast Street.
ITBM N0. 7
CASB N0. 711 (Sectional District Map 'i-4-10, Bxhibit G)~
proposing a change from the A-1, Gene:^ai Agricultusal District
to the M-1, Light Industrial District on property iocated on the
r~eatside of Blue Gum Street, about 330 feet south of Anaheim Road
in the northeast Anaheim area. .
t ~
~ 2oning Coordinator Martin Rreidt presented to the Commission Case No. 711 proposing
reclassification of property locating on Biue Gum 3treet, south of Anaheim Road, from
the A-1, General Agricultural District to the M-1. Light Industrial District, and
~ _:___ noted its relationship to the Anaheim Northeast Industrial Area. ,.
e
A
~ ~ ' „ ~i
t .~I
~ i
I
~
~
; _ ._ . .__ ... . ...........
~ __ ~
~. ~~ .~~--- ---~---__._.._ _. ._..__~.._._.-.'-- .. .. . . ~,. _
. ~ ......__..
, .__ i ' ~ ' . . . ._ .
i
.t __. ,,
- •
:F.
~..,} ~ ~
MINipTB3, CITY PLANNING COAAlISSION, September 4, 1963, Continued: 1765
RHPCRTS AA1D - ITBM N0. ? (Continued)
RECOMMEYDATION$
(Continued) The Commission reviewed the Plarniing Department's recommended
coasiderations for the County and nated that said recommendations
we:e comparable to requirements in the M~1, section of the Code,
namely, that the landscaping and building setbacks comparable to
the City's M-1 aad P-L, Zones, be required, that the ultimate street width for Blue Gum
Street was 106 feet, and to accommodate said street widening it be required that
dedication be made for a 53 foot half-width street, aad that site development plans be
subject to review by the County.
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange
County planning Commission be advised that the proposed rec~assification in Case No. 711
was in conformance with the City of Anaheim°s development plans for the northeast
Anaheim area, and further that the County consider requirin~ the proposed development to
be consistent with thr City of Anaheim's M-l, Light Industrial and P-L, Farking Land-
scaping, Zones, regulations for the establishment of laadscaping an3 building setback
provisions~ that a 53-foot half width street dedication be required, ir. addition to site
plan review prior to issuance of a building permit, Commissioner Chavos seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRISD.
ITBM N0. 8
ANAI$Ih1 UNION HIQi SCHOOL - proposed junior high school site
located between Ball Road and Cerritos Avenue, on Knott Avenue.
Zoning Coordiaator Martin Kreidt reviewed for the Commission the proposed location of
the new junior high school sate on the west side of I{nott Avenue, easterly of a single
family development, between Ball Road and Cerritos Avenue. It wss further noted that
said school had not been indicated on the General Plan adopted by the Commission, due
to the'fact that the gchool District thought a junior high school would most likely be
located outside of the City of qnaheim planning area.
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to inform the Anaheim Union High 3chool District +
that the proposed site for a junior high school be a '
southwest area of the City and ad,joiniag areas; and further, hatdatntheetimed of the
development plans are preparEd, the District confer with the City Engineer relative to '
provid3ng modified cul-de-sacs for Ringsway and Myra Avenues which d
;
into sub,ject properiy from the west. Commissioner Chavos seconded theemotion,stub ~
MOTION CARRIHD,
~
ITBM N0. 9
~
ZONB CHANGB N0. 306 AND PRBCI3B BITE pIAN 101 !
Requesting reclassificatioa from the R~1, Single Pamily Residentia], j
6000 square foot lots to the R-3, Multiple Pamily Residential, Zone ~
to construct a one and two-story 93 unit apartment development on
property described as; An irregular shaped parcel of land situated ~
on the north side of Chapman Avenue, 615 feet east of Haster Street, 1
containing 6.96 acres with froatage on ChaPman Avenue of 340 feet ;
and a depth of 621 feet. ,
2oning Coordinator ldartin Kreidt reviewed the proposed zone change and location of
subject property,
The Commissioa discussed the zoning and land use of subject and abutting properties,
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to advise the Orange City Planning Commission
that the Commisaioners appreciated their consideratin~ in notifying the City of Anaheim,
but that no comment would be made relative to the proposed development, because the
Commission was unfamiliar with current development in the area in which aubject
property was located. Commissioner Gauer aeconded the motion. MOTION CARgIgD,
-r-.._._....__._.___._______ ___--- ------..._...---- - --- ------------~ ~-
(~ ~ ~
MINUTEg~ CITY PIANNING CQMMISSION, September 4, 1963, Cont3nued; 1766
RBPORTS AND ~ ITEM N0. 10 ,
RBCOMMSN1lpTI0NS
(Continued) CoRRBSPONDHNCB from Attorney John Rent regarding reconsideration
by the Anaheim Planning Commission of their recommendation to
the Oraaqe County Pianning Commission on Case No. 678,
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt read Mr, Rent°s letter and reviewed the Commission
and City Council~s action on Orange County Case Nos, 678 and 700.
The Co~ission discussed their original recommendation limiting the development of
subject property to a maximum density of one dwelling unit per 2,400 square feet, and
that this was based upon the low-medium residential designation for subject and
abutting properties on the General Plan adopted by the Commission, and recommend for
the adoption to the Cit~ Council.
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to reaffirm the r,~~isa;QZ~s p:evious recomatend-
ation3 on Orange County Case No. 678, and to reaffirm the proposed low-medium
residential density for subject and abutting properties as indicated on the General
Plan, presently under consideration by the City Council, and that said action be
transmitted to the City Council for their consideration, and referral to Mr, ,john %ent
and to the Orange County Planning Coamission. Commissioner Rowland seconded the
motion. MOTION CARItIBD.
ITBM N0, il
GARDHN QtOVH CONDITIONAL USB PBRMIT N0. 109-63
Requesting permission to ESTABLISH A CAR WASH on property zoned
C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, located on the south side of
Katella Avenue, between approximately 703 feet and 1008 feet
westerly from Brookhurst Street with an approximate depth of 495
feet.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Rreidi presented subject petition to the Commission and
reviewed the location of subject property and land use of abutting properties,
The Commission discussed the City~s position relative to the proposed use, and the
proximity of subject property to the City of Anaheim,
Commisaioner Rowland offered a motion to advise the Garden Grove Planning Commission
that the Anaheim Planning Commission had no comment relative to Conditional Use
Permit No. 109-63. Commissioner Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
ITEM N0~12,
CA88 N0, 701 (Sectiunai District Map 1-4-9, Bxhibit I, and
2-4-9, 8xhibit I}, proposing reclassification of subject property
from the 80-qr-10,000 Agricultural Residentss~l District and the
100-B4-15,000, Small Estates District to the R-1, 8,000 Single
Pamily Residence District on property located on the south side
of the 3anta Ana Canyon Road, about 2,000 feet east of Imperial
Highway in the 3anta Ana Canyon area of the County of Orange,
Zuning Coordinator Martin ICreidt presented Case No, 701, Noting the locatioa of subject
property in addition to the existing and proposed land use and zoaing,
Commisaioner Gauer affered a motion to recommand to the City Council that they
encourage the Orange County Planning Commisaion to consider the following action:
1. That the proposed reclassification to R-1-8,000 be approved on the basis that
subject and abutting psoperties within aa area bounded on the north by the
3anta Ana Canyon Road, on the west by the Imperial Highway extended~ on the south
l~y Lincoln Avenue extended, and on the east by Walnut Canyon, embody a gently
sloping topography unique to the hill and canyon areas southerly of $aata pna Caayon
Road,
, . _. _---- - ___.._.-- - ---- __.. __ _._ _.. ...- --._.___._---
--- --...~.._~.~__.-~.
' - -- _ _
_..
_1lE~.9 ,
MINUTHS, CITY PIANNNING COMMISSION, September 4, 1963, Continued: 1767
RSPORTS AND - ITBM N0. 12 (Continued)
RBCOhA!ffiVDATIONS
(Continued) 2, That the responsible jurisdiction prepare an area development
plan considering the multipie ownership, the limited arteriai
highway access, and drainage and sewerage problems of the
area outlined above.
3. That any tentative map approved for subject proper~y be based upon an approved
area development plan.
4. That it be made a matter of record that the developer has offered the contingency
that the approval of a tentative map by the City of Anaheim, and the provisions
of sewers by the City of Anaheim be subject to the installation of all street
improvements in accordance with City of Anaheim standards, and sub~r~t to develop-
ment of the property substantially in accordance with pians submi.tted ~o the r.;ty
of Anaheim! which plans indicated two~story single family residential development
with a minimum livable floor area of 2,000 square feet per dwelling unit.
(The ~:eveloper has represented the proposrd dwelling units as having a market
value in excess of $35,000.)
Commissioner Chavos secoaded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD,
ITFiM N0. 13
CQMMISSION ACTIdN ON THB RSANALYSIS JF THH INDUS7RIAL ARBAS.
Commissioner Gauer offered Resoiution No. 901, Series 1963-64, and moved for a.ts •
passage and adoptio^, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, that the proposed 2~280 net
acres of industrial laad reserves lying within the preaent City limits and "area of
probable expansion" (south of Ba11 Road~ west of the Santa Ana River; and west of
Dwoling Street, north of the Riverside Preeway), and the policy concerning Anaheim's
industrial area is reaffirmed by the Anaheim City planning Commission and recommend
to the C~tj~ ~ouncii ~i ~7e Ci4y of Anaheim that said policy be reaffirmed,
(See Resolution Book.)
Cm roll call the foregoing reaolution was passed by the followiag vote:
AYFS: Cd~AlIS3I0N~tS: Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Febley, Rowland,
NOB3: COI~AfISSI0NHR8: None. .
ABSBNT: COhAlISSIONBR3: A.ilred, Camp, Perry, Sides.
ADJWRNMHNT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Rowland
offered a motion to adjourn the meeting, .Commissioner Pebley seconded _
the motion. MOTION CARR'IBD.
The meeting adjourned at 12;22 0'C~ock P,M.
Respectfully submitted,
ANN , e ary
Anaheim Planning Commission
, - --- - ~-
C~ ~ ~