Minutes-PC 1963/09/30_ _ ,..
i _. _ ~ .
_ .. . , _
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :~. :~.
i City Hall
~ Anaheim, California
September 30, 1963
A RBGUTAR MEBTING OF THH ANAHBIM CITY PIANNING COI~A9ISSION
~
S
~ RHGUI.AR MBHTING - 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.
~
i
~ PRESBNT - CHAIRMAN: Mungall.
i
COMMISSIONBRS: Camp, Gauer, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, 3ides, Allred, Chavos.
ABSHNT - COMMISSIONffitS: None.
PRBSHNT _ Zoning Coordinator:, Martin Kreidt.
Deputy City Attorney; Furman Roberts.
Office Engineer: Art Daw.
PlanninQ Commission Secretarv: Ann Krebs.
planning Department Stenographer: Jacqueline M. Sullivan.
INVOCATION - Reverend Truett Stovell, Pastox of the Crescent Avenue Southern Baptist
Church, gave the Invocation.
PLHDGB OP - Commissioner Allred led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Plag.
ALLBGIANCH
~ APPROVAL OF - J Minutes of the meeting of July 15, 1963, General Plan Public Hearing,
r THS MINUTHS were approved with the following corrections:
! Page 1661-d-2 Table Retail and Business and Professional,column 4
~ should be (5.2); Industrial,column 3 should be 3240, column 4, should
! be 57.7.
F
~ Minutes of the meeting of September 4, 1963 were approved as submitted.
~ Minutes of the meeting of September 16, 1963 were approved with the following corrections:
! Page 1779 -- last paragraph added to read: Commissioner Pebley returned to the Council
~ Chamber at 8:12 p.m,
, Page 1785, paragraph 3 should read: Commissioner Pebley stated that he assumed tha~k
! Mr. Owen, the owner of some of the parcels, was in favor of the 20-foot landscaping~
because he presented no opposition at the September 4, 1963 meeting.
CONDITIONAL USH - PUBLIC H89RING. MORTON G. RODIN, 252 South Robertson, Beverly Hilis,
PHRMIT N0. 283 California, Qwner; xequesting permission to consider the ADDITIONAL
WAIVffit OP (1) GARAGH RBQUIRBMBNT TO PBP,MIT 1HB CONSTRUCTION OP CARPORTS,
THNTATIVH MAP OP (2) RHQUIRBD LOT WIDTH, (3) RHQUIRBD LOT ARBA, AND (4) RHQUIRED ACCBSS
TRACT N0. 4946 ' TO LOTS PROM Pi1BLIC STR~HT~ Oit ALLBYS on property desciibed as: A '
rectangular Qarcei of land with a 330 foot frontage on the west side of
Haster Street and a depth of 630 feet, the southerty boundary of said
property being 330 feet north of the centerline of Orangewood Avenue, and further described
as 2041-2051 Haster Street. Property presently classified as R-3, MULTIYLB PAMILY RBSID$NTIAL,
ZONB.
Subject tract, located on the west side of Haster Street approximately 300 feet north of
Orangewood Avenue, covers approximately 5 acres, is proposQd for division of air space over
subject property into 252 cubicles of air.
~ 1786 -
!
k
f
i
,~,~~
e,~'
~'
~
~~
~~
'~
-.i
~
~x
~
i
-- ~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 30, 1963, Continued; l~g~
COIv~ITIONAL USE - Subject petition and tentative map were continued from the meeting of
PffitMIT N0. 283 September 16, 1963, at the request of the petitioner ia order to determine
whether the tentative map proposed the subdivision of lot area or air
TBNTATIVE MAP OF space, and to provide the petitioner an additional opportunity to submit
TRACT N0. 4996 the required CC&R•s to the attorney's ofiice.
CContinued)
Mr. Morton G. Rodin, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and
stated that the tentative map proposed the subdivision of air space, and
that he wished to withdraw the requests for waiver of the required lot
width, required lot area, and the required access to lots from public
streets or alleys.
Discussion was held between the Commission and Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts relative
to receipt of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restzictions if subject property was proposed
to be subdivided instead of having said property under one ownership, and whether under the
present State Subdivision Map qct, the subda.vision of air space was within the jurisdiction
of the Commission.
Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that the subdivision of air space was not within the
n..--' - - ~ - - r - _. --~ --- - -- --
.-~~u~~~~~~~~„ a juri~uicfion, and-iiiai tne suomission of approved CC&R's could be a condition
of approval of the tentative map,
THB HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Camp ente.red the Council Chamber at 2~14 p,m.
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 916, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and
adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland to zescind Resolution No. 911, Series 1963-64,
and approve Cond.itional Use Permit No. 283, for the waiver of garages and in lieu thereof~
grant the existing carports,provided that said carports shall be stuccoed~storage cabinets
and adequate bumper gua.rds be provided, and the gzanting of the petitioner's request for tl~e
withdrawal of the waiver of the required lot width, required lot area, and the requized access
to lots from public streets and alleys. (See Resolution BookJ
AYHS: COMMI53IONffitS: Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sides.
NOBS: COh9dISSI0NBR5: None.
ABSBNT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIOYBRS: Camp,
The Commission re•viewed the Interdepa~tmental Committee and Planning Department recommenda-
tions of the tentative map.
Commissioner Perry offered a motion to approved Tentat::ve Map of Tract No. 4496, subject to
the following conditions:
J.. That,should this subdivision be developed as more than one ~ubd~vision,-•each
subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval.
2. That the approval of Tantative Map of Tract No. 4496 is granted subject to
the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 283,
3. That the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions shall be approved by the
City Attorney°s office, and shall be recorded on subject property prior to
or concurrentiy with the recordation of the Final Tract Map.
Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD with Commissioner Chavos voting "NO".
~ ~
~.
~ i
i
C ~
I
;
~ _ __ .._.__
.. _ _ ._._...._..
~
.~
i
;
~
S
~
7
b
t~
5
:y
:~
~g
3
~r.
.1
:a
e
~.
~.'4
;"
-k
~ ~
~ ~.
i •
, ,,....... , ,,:: - . ,- ,.~,_,. ..
..'"'"...'...____...".' .. .__'.......~..~_..._._...__ . . ~~~q , .'....
V
{ s ~ ~. ~
, ~~f ~ ~
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,. September 30, Y963, Continued: l~gg
CONDITIONAL USH - CONTINUBD PUBLIC HHARING. TITLB INSURANCB AND ZRU3T COMPANY,
PBRMIT N0. 464 7711 Beach Boulevard, Buena Park, California, Owner;
HBRBBRT N. HAIR, 12550 Brookhurst Street, Garden Grove, California,
Agent; requesting permission to CONSIRUCT A 21 By 24 FOOT DIRBCTIONAL
SIGN PACING BBACH BOULBVARD on property described as: A rectangular shaped parcel of
land having a f*ontage 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, ZONH.
Subject petition was continued from the meetings of August 5 and September 4, 1963 in order
that it might be considered in conjunction with a new petition being filed which would
legalize other existing advertising signs.
%~Ay~
~
Mr. Richard Parr, representing the Movieland Wax Museum~the proposed sign erectors, appeared
before the Commission and stated that during the past several weeks the sign facing onto
Ratella Avenue had been deleted, but the removal of the sign was not within their jurisdic-
tion, since the property was under the ownership of a Mr. Tietz, and that the only other
sign erected and not legalized, was to be considered in Conditional Use Permit No. 483.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition,
THH HHARING Wi:5 CLQSSD.
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 917, Series 1963~64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit
No. 464, subject to conditiuns. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYBS: COMMISSIONffitS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sides.
NOHS: COMMISSIONSR3: Dlone.
ABSHNT: COMMISSIONBRS: None.
VARIANCB - PUBLIC HHARING. MR. AND NIltS. C. SISSON, 119 South Ohio 3treet, Anaheim,
N0. 1601 Californ~.a, Owrters; Mr. R. S. Heald, 1142 West Broadway, Apt. No. 1,
Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to (1) WAIVB RHQUIRBD
(1~) SPACB PHR DWHLLING UNIT IN A GARAGH, C2) WAIVB 3IDfi YARD RBOi1IRBMHNT, (3) WAIVB RHQUIRED
GARAGB WIDTH, TO PBRMIT THB CONSTRUCTION OF A 4-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING WITH 4 CARPORT3, on
property described 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
approximately 250 feet south of the centerline of Lincoin Avenue, and further described as
119 South Ohio Street. Property presently classified as P-1, AUTOMOBILB PARSING, 20NH.
Subject petition was contir.ued from the meeting of September 4, 1963, to allow the petitioner
time to contact the Planning Department prior to submission of revised plans.
" A telephonic message from the agent for the petitioner was received just prior to the meeting,
requesting a continuance of subject petition for 6 weeks, and that a written confirmation
would be sent.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiorr,
THB HHAEtING WAS CLOSHD.
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition £or
Variance No, 1601 to the meeting of November 13, 1963, and noted both the petitioner and
his representative should appear at this time. Commissioner Sides seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIBD.
~ t
!
!
C _ _ ..__.
i ~
_ _..__ ___.
~
't
~
i
.
~
.`
f
;~.
~
a
;~,
~~''~~
_:::~N"'
JuF!'
~
i
~
.. v ..+~..._. . ..._ ..t....f.:Y:~
\J
~ .
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 30, 1963, Continueds
~
1789
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARINGo COASIWISE INVESTN~NT CUMPANY, 146 East Orangethorpe
NOo 63-64-27 Avenue, Anaheim, Californiay Owner; LARRY GOLDEN, 110 West First Street9
Santa Ana, California9 Agent; requesting that property described asa
A rectangular parcel of land consisting of two portionss Portion 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 north and having a depth of 382 feet, the
westerly boundary of said described parcel being approximately 690 feet east of the center-
line of Brookhurst Street, be reclassified from the R-A9 RESIDENTIAL AGRICIJLTURAL, ZONE to
the C-1, NEIGHHORHWD CONN~RCIAL, ZONE for Portion A, and P-ly AUTOMOBIIE PARKING, ZONE
for Portion B, to construct a 6-unit office and commercial building with parkingo
Subject petition,was continued from the meeting of September 4, 19639 in order that the
Plann3ng Department might prepare a planning study covering the deep lots and to contact
adjacent praperty owners for possible land use of said deep lotso
Mro Larry Goldeny agent for the petitionery appeared before the Commission and stated that
all the ad~acent property owners had met for discussion of the possible development of subject
property and ad3acent property, and that the Planning Department had also presented Planning
Study Noo 60-39-2, which he asked that it also be presented +o the Commissiano
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kre3dt presented Planning Study Noo 60-39-•2, said study indicating
two possible development plans, one with codunercial frontage on the front 312 feet and a
cul-de-sac street into a multiple family development to the north; the other with the same
commercial frontage, but two cul-de-sac streets with single family subdivision of the north-
erly portiona Said study covering sub~ect property and the 4 deep lot parcels to the east
located between Tract Noo 1851 on the west, Tract Noo 2878 on the north, and Tract No> 1642
on the east9 all single family subdivisionso
Mro Kreidt further stated that both plans had been presented to the interested property
owners, that no indication had been made that the ad3acent deep lot property owners planned
to develop in con~unction with sub3ect property, that the petitioner had submitted revised
plans ':~corporating the 312 foot frontage for commercial purposes, and that a 400 fnot drive
along one side of the property was the only means of development, since adjacent property
owners were unable at the present time to develop their propertq>
The Commission reviewed both Exhibits of the Planning Study9 and the revised plot plan, and
then inquired of the agent what was proposed for the northerly portior. of sub3ect property
as indicated on the revisiono
Mre Golden stated that nothing was planned for the northerly portion9 but at the time the
ad3acent property owner proposed development that parcel would then be available, but that
the parcel would be left open without developmereta
Mro Kreidt in clarifying for the Commission attempts made to obtain the cooperation of the
ad3acent property owners stated that the owners expressed interest in the future development
of the property, but were urnrilling to commit themselves at the present timeo
The Commission then asked that the Minutes so indicate that the Planning Department had met
with ad~acent property owners of the deep lote in an attempt to present problems involved
in future development, that altheugh they expressed interest in the deep lot future develop-
ment, stated that they were unable to release the land for development purposes at the'
present time, and that if development was proposed in the future of any landlocked parcels,
the claim of hardahfp in the development of these landlocked parcels coald not be conaidered
in view of the lack of interest in the immediate development of these parcels, since the City
acted in good faith by its presentation of possible land development in order to cooperate
with the property ownerso
Mro Golden stated that at the meeting all the property owners did agree on the 312 foot
depth for commercial development, and he could see no parcels which would be landlocked by
the approval of sub~ect petitlono
4
.. . __..__.,,__-'f__.... __ _.__._ ...._.__.__ . _...._....._ _ _..._._.. _ . . ..-_..__. _ . _.-___"" __.._-.__.... ..
~ ~ ~ - . . ~ . . ~- -~-.
,{I~'~
~
tl
~
.~
..i;u_
._.._.~._a
I •
~~ _.. , -,., ., .,. , d"~~:~_ ,. ,...._. __ ~ o ~. _ . .
~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLAIJNING COMMISSION, September 30, 1963, Continued:
1790
RECLASSIFICATION - The Commission continued discussion of the possible development of sub-
NOo 63-64-27 ject prcperty in con~unctiqn with ~djacent properties, the landlocking
C~ntinued) of the northerly portionsy that the parcel for parking purposes was
needed by the owners of the paint sto•re to the west of subject pr;~;~rty
that no opposition had beert made by the single family property owners,
and inquired of Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts whether it was possible to require deed
rFStrictions limiting the use of the requ~sted P-1, AUiOMOBIIE PARKING, ZONE to automobile
parking onlyo ~ -
Mro Roberts stated that he had just received confirmation from the City Attorney that deFd
restrictions could be attached limiting the use of Portion '~B" to automobile parking only,
and that this restsiction could be based on the fact that the peitioner stated he had no
intention or desire to use Portion "B" for multiple family developmento
TME HEARING WAS CLOSEDo
The Commission then reviewed the origina2 p2ans submitted, and requested that Mr. Rqberts
explain the difference between parking requ3=ements and uses in the C-1 Zone in comparison
with the P~1, AUTOMOBIIE PARKING, ZONHa
Mre Kreidt exp~a~ne~ t!+ the Comm;ss~or. tha~ ;,;~ri:age oi tne required space for parking if
the original plan were approved for Portion "A" together with a comparison of the required
•~arking space if only 312 feet were approved for p~•esent development, that it would not be
necessary to pave the entire Portion "B" and it could be paved as it became necessary or
unless objection was expressed relative to dust, dirt and the general nuisance createdo
Mro Dan Greenberg, one of the owners of the prop,~rty to the west developed commercially
asked that the Commission consider hearin~~ •
Chairman Mungall reopened the hearin9o
Mro Greenberg stated that the paint store had been quite successful, that the presen: facil-
ities had been o!~tgrown and they wish~d to expand into the sub~ect property by providing
parking for employees and overflow parking from the paint store, that other property owners
had been contacted for any opposition, and all ad~acent property o-rners expressed their
approval, that the increase in business made it neces6ary that some immediate action be taken
rather than to wait for speculation of price af land by the other property owners, and that
the petitioner was willing to pave the entire ~arking area and construct a masonry wall on
the northerly boundary or leave.it open for later development, and that no opposition or
approval had been made for a specific land deve2opment program as presented by the Planning
Department~
The Commission stated that it was the desire of the Cf'ty to develop tha land adjacent to
sub~ect prflperty in a manner that would benefit the petitioner and the City as wello
Mro Greenberg stated that the petitioner was witling to cooperate with development plans
now or at a future date for the ad3acent parcels>
TFiE I-~ARING WAS CLOSED<
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution Noo 918, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption9 seconded by Commissioner ~aues~i to reco~ner.c~ to the City Council that PEtition
for Reclassification Noo 63-64-27 be approved on the urfgfnal'plans presented, and further
subject to the paving„and striping of the Portion "B*9-filing"of deed restrictions limiting
the use of Portion B to parking purposes only9 constructivn af a masonry wall along the
north and west ~ortion of subject property abutting R-190NE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONED
property, but that a bond might be posted to insure the cotis~Cxvction of the masonry wall on
the east property line in the event the pro,~erty is developed for other than cormnercial
purposeso (See Resolution Book:)
AYESs COtdMISSI~iVERSa Allred, Camp, Chavosy ~auer, MungalTy Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sidese
NOESs COMMISSIONERS: Nonee
aBSENT: COMMISSIONERSa Noneo
,
, _ _ _ _--- -----r-____.._._.....~ __^.---------- ---~~..---.~_ _
~_ _:iEi~ , ~1
'`~
~
~
i
.:
~
~~
1
l Y
~i
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONy September 30~ 1963, Continueda
1791
:~
7
ti
VARIANCE NOo 1603 - PUBLIC fiEARINGa DELBERT CLUFF, ET AL9~514 Dwyer Drive, Anaheim9 California,'•
Owner; requesting permission to WAIVE GARAGE REQUIREN~NT TO PERMIT CON-
STRUCTION OF CARPORTS on propert~ described as: A rectangular parcel of
land having a frontage of 100 feet on the souih side of Romneya Drive, a frontage of 100 feet
on the north side of Lodge Avenue, and a depth of 218 feet9 the westerly boundary of said
property being approximately 265 feet east of the centerline of West Street, and further ;
described as 920 West Romneya Dr~veo Property classified as R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL'
ZONEa
Mro Delbert Cluffy one o£ the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and stated that
plans originally sub^!i~ied an~ approved by the Commission under Variance Noo 1597 did not
inclLCie the request to waive construction of garages, and that the present plans indicated
carports for the southerly portion of subject propertyo
The Commission reviewed the plans noting that there seemed 'co be some clarification needed
as to accessibility to the trash storage areas, and that no indication on tha plans was noted
to finishing the interior of the carportsa
The petitioner advised the Commission that access to the trash storage area would be made
from either side of the carport area via a sidewalko
Three letters were read opposing carport construction on a new apartment developmento
THE IiEARING WAS CLOS£Do
The Commission discussed the opposition to carports and stated that it was their opinion that
carport construction would not be detrimental to the area~ since it would be more likely that
the carparts would be used to park the vehicleso
Commissioner Perry of£ered Resolution Noo 919y Ser:es 1963-649 and moved for its passage and
adopt;on, seconded by Commissioner Camp to grant Petition for Variance Noo 1603 subject to
conditionso (See Resolution Booko)
On roll ca119 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYESs CUMMISSIONERS~ Allred., Camp9 Chavosy Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland9 Sidesa
NOES= CUhVNISSIONERSx Noneo
ABSENTs COMMISSIONERSa Noneo
CUNDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC F~ARINGo DILLOW 8 Iu~DDUCK, 1844 Haster Street9 Anaheim,
PERMIT N0~ 482 California9 Owners; CLARENCE b~DDOCK, 1844 Haster Street9 Anaheim,
California9 Agenti requesting pe-Tission to ESTABL'!SH AN OUTDOOR
STORAGE AREA FUR TRAVEL TRAILERS, SMALL BOATS AND BUAT TRAIIFRS FOR
THE SATELLITE M~BIIE HUME TENANTS on property described ass .4 rectangular parcel of land
having a frontage of 56 feet on the west side of.Mountain Vierr Ayenue and a depth of 360 feet,
the northerly boundaxy of said property being approximately 362 £eet south of the centerline
of Katella Avenueo Property Uresen~ly classified as R-A, RESID~NTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONEo
Mra Clarence Meddocky agent for the petitioners9 appeared before the Commission and reviewed
the proposed use of the land, and in response to Commission questioning stated that he planned
to level off the drainage ditcho
No one appeared in oppositiono
THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDe
~,
' ..__ _.....^._._.__~ __ '__.... ...
~-_. .._'_.._ _. .. .~ ...'__._.. ..._.__. _. . ._. .
~ .. ~ . . _... _......._,.._
~ ~~ 1, ~
~
~
}
3
1
i
~
i
s
i
7
f
{
'f
3
~
`
~
~
~
~
i •
• E
; , . . ,~
~
~_~ ~ ~
MINVfES, CTTY PLANNING COMMTSSION, September 30, 1963, Continueds 1'7~2
CONDITIONAL USE - THe Commission discussed at length the method of development of the
PERMTT N0~ 482 tTeiler park area, and determined that the requests for change were
(Continued) being handled in~a legal manner; that development of lots in piece-
meal fashion did not pre-determine the use of ad3acent property; that
a time limitation :or the use as proposed should be set; that it should
be determined whether or not the trailers being stored would be uninhabited; that during the
field check of sub3ect property, the adjacent neighbor asked that a masonry wall with a
possible setback be a condition of.approval; and that the masonry wall should extend to the
property line on the north, south and east sides in order that boats with detachable motors
might be protected from outside tamperingo
Commissioner Sides offered Resolution Noo 920, Series 1963-649 and moved for its passaye and
adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland9 to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit
Noo 482, sub$ect to a time limitation of 2 years for the proposed use to be revietYed at the
expiration of the time by the Cortmission for po~sible,extension of time for the use' a masonry
wall on the north, south9 and east property lines and other conditionso (See Resolution Booke)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos9 Gas.~er, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sidese
NOESs COMMISSIONERSs Noneo
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSa Noneo
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC IitARING„ HUGI-~S MARKETS, INCo 2716 San Fernando Road,
PERMIT NOo 483 Los Angeles 65, California, Owners; MOVIELAND WAX MUSEUM,
7711 Beach Boulevard, Buena Park, California, Agent; requesting
permission to IEGALIZE AN EXISTING 8 BY 12 FOOT DIRECTIONAL SIGN
on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land having a frontage of 572 feet on the
south side of Orange Avenue, and a frontage of B15 feet on the east side of Beach Boulevardo
Property presently classified as C-19 NEIGHB~RHOOD COAM~RCIAL, ZONEo
Mro Richar~ Farr, representing the Movieland Wax Museum9 appeared before the Commission to
answer any questionse
The Commission reviewed the past history of illegal signs wh3ch had been instal2ed to advertise
the museumo
No one appeared in opposition to sub3ect petitione
THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution Noo 921, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and
adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noa 483,
sub3ect to conditionso (See Resolut~on ~Booko) • - - • .
On roll call the foregoing resolut~on was passed by the following vote:
AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowl4nd, Sides~
NOESs COMMISSIONERS: Nonea
ABSENTs CUMMISSIONERSc Noneo
~
k '
~ ~
~ ! `
~
~ 1
~
_.._.__ ..,,.._.... _1...__.. ...
~ _ '."'._......_ ._ .... ...._..._..._.. _.. _ .._... .._.. .. .._._ ...... _ . ... __.._ ..__..,--_.-- Sd
~ ~ YYt,;
~~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 30S
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARINGa JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE, 200 Beakeley Street,
PERMIT NOo 484 Boston, Massachusetts, Owner; RICHFIELD OIL CORPORATIUN, 645 South Mariposa
Avenue, Los Angeles 5, California, ~~gent; requesting permission to IEGALI7.E
THE EXISTING SERVICE STATION AND °ERMTT THE CONSTRUCTION OF STEEL CANOPIES
OVER EXISTING PUMP ISLANDS on property described as: A square parcel of land having a frontage
of 130 feet on the west side of Euclid Street, and a fruntage of 130 feet on the south side of
La Palma Avenue, and further described as 1700 La Palma Avenuea Property prpsently classified
as R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONEe
Mro Ted Crr-~, representing the owners, appeared before the Commission to answer questions,
and in res .ise to a question by the Commission stat.ed that the service station was approved
i under an uid variance through the County, and the proposed canopies were not a requirement in
its approvalo
Zoning Coordinator Ma•rtin Kreidt in explaining why it would not be practical to require that
landscaping be installed in accordance ;~rith the Service Station Minimum Site Development
Standards stated that this would mean the unnecessary tearing up of cement, but when actual
zoning of the property took place on all non-conforming uses as many of the requirements that
were practical would be applied to all service statior,so
No one appeared in ~~pposition to sub~ect petitione
THE HEAR:NG WAS CLOSEDo
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No~ 9229 Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and
adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 484,
subject to conditionso (See Resolution Booko)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes
AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp9 Chavos, Gauer, Mungall9 Pebley, Perry9 Rowland, Sideso
NOESs COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
ABSENTs COMMISSIONERSs Noneo ~
~
i
;
,
t
S
i
i
1
;
t
~
~..
i
~
RFsVISED TENTATIVE MAP - DEVELONER ARDMORE DEVELOPNI~NT COMPANY, 1129 Westwood Boulevard,
OF~ TRACT NOSo 4620 and Los Angeies 24, Californiao ENGINEER: Engineering Service Corporation,
4E2~ 1127 Wes'~. Washington Bouleva_rd9 Los Angeles 15, Californiae Subject ;
tracts iucated at the intersection of the Flood Control Channel and the z
Santa Ana Freeway northwesterly of the intersection of Crescent Avenue f
and the Sani:a Ana Freeway covering approximately 207 and 607 acres and are proposed for sub- ~
division into one and three R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE lotse ~
7
Zoning Coordinator presented subject tract maps to the Commission9 and noted the changes from `'•
that originally proposed for subject_prooerty from the coopesative type apartment to a lower ~ j
density multiple family development with recreation areaso ~
The Commission reviewed the Interdepartmental Committee and Planning Department racommendationse ~
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to approve Revised Tentative Map of Tract D:aso 4620 and j
4621,sub~ect to the following conditions= y
~
Tract Noe 4620 -
I
(1) That provisions shall be made for drainage water to be ultimately discharged into '
the Flood Control Channel which shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineere ~
~
(2) That the required parkway and easement planting areas shall be subject to the approval `
of the Superintendent of Parkway Ma:ntenanceo Trees to be planted along the north !
property line of sub3ect property shall be of such varie:y to avoid electric and ~
telephone lineso .
~'"
~
~
~ (~~
I MINpTES, CITY PLANNINIG COMMISSION, September 309 1963, Continued:
I REVISED TENTRTIVE, MA'r
OF TRACT NOSo 4620 and
4621
Tract Noo 4620
(Continued)
,'-~
v~
a
1794 j
(3) That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract Noo 4620 is granted sub~ect to the
appro~al of Conditional Use Permit Noe 2190
(4) That an easement shall be provided for a 64-foot street running north and south
between the two east and west streets9 at ttie vrest er.d of each tract filed in order
to provide ±he City with a circulation plan and access for the remaining~land in
the event the total pro~ect is not completedo As each succeeding tract map is
recorded, the easement shall be returned to the property awnere
(5) That this tract shall be recorded after or concurrensly with Tract Noo 4621a
Tract Noo 4621 - ~"
_J.\_ ry..a ti....ia ~ti~,. ..y~a.~i~i_~ Y,n .ie~,ulnnnri ~a mnra ±han 4P.? c~thri.~.vjgi~Tl; each .
_ \y~.._-t-~a~"o~~vuaw .a $.. . .. -~-_... .
subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approvala
(2) That a modified cul-de-sac be provided at the terminus of Fern Street sub3ect ;
to the approval of the City Engineero ;
;
(3) That provisions sha~l be made for drainage water to be ultimately discharged y
into the Flood Control Channel which shall be to the satisfaction of the City s
Engineero ~
(4) That required parkway and easement planting areas shall be subject to the approval ~
of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenanceo Trees planted along the north ;
property line of sub~ect property shall be of such variety to avoid electric and j
telephone lineso '
3
i
(5) That this tract shall be i~ecorded prior to or concurrently with Tract Noe 4620o i
(6) That the approval af Tentative Map of Tract Noo 4621 is granted sub~ect to the
approval of Conditional Use Permit Noo 2190
Commissioner Perry seconded the motiono MOTION CkFCRIEDo
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC f-IEARINGo ARDMORE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 11?9 Westwood Boulevard,
PERMIT NOo 485 Los Angeles 24, California, Owners; RAYMOND ROUGH, 741 North Euclid
and Street9 Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH
TENTATIVE MAP OF A PLANNED TOWNHUUSE DEVELOPN~NT BY lu~ANS OF A RE-SUBDIVISION OF AN
TRACT NOo 5226 EXISTING R-3 TRACTe WAIVER UF TI-IE (1) GARAGES TU CONSTRUCT CARPORTS;
~ (2) MINIMUM SIDE YARD REQUIREII~NTS; (3) MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK .
REQUIREA~NTS ON IAT NOSo 1 TI-fftOUGH 11; (4) MINIMUM LOT AREA AND WIDTH;
AND (5) ONE-STURY FIEIGHT LIMITATION V~ITHIN 150 FEET OF SINGIE FAMILY ZONED PROPERTY, on
property described as Traci 2517, Lot Noso 1-11 and 15-52, and being located on the north
and south side of Glenoaks Avenue, on the north and south side of Greenleaf Avenue, and on
the east and west side of Fairhaven Streeto The above described property being westerly of
Euclid Street, easterly af Chippewa Avem~e, and north of the Orange County Flood Controlo
Property presently classified as R-3, Ml iPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIA7., ZONEa
Subject tract maps DEVELOPERs HRDMORE DEVELOPNI~NT COMPANY~ 1129 Westwood Boulevard,
Los Angeles 24, Californiao ENGINEER: ENGINtERING SERVICE CORPORATION, 1127 West Washington
Boulevard, Los Angeles 15, California; proposes subject pr~perty for subdivision into 154
R-3, MULTIPIE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE lotse
" letter from ~he agent for the petitioner was read to the Commission requesting that sub~ect
_:tition be continued 2 weeks in order to present adequate development planso
i
i
f
i
J~
.~__------ -_....______.. ----..~___~.... ----..-.
-~ - ---~ ~- ~
~ ~
--z~
~ l ~. ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CUMMISSIUN, September 30y 1963, Continued: 1795
CONDITIONAL USE - Mro Edward 0"Brian9 910 Iroquois Avenue, appeared in ~:~position to subject
PERMIT NOo 485 petition, representing 53 property owners adjacent and in close proximity
and to subject propeity oppos3ng the requested waiver of single story height
TENTATIVE MAP OF limitation within 150 feet of single family zoned property, and stated
TRACT NOo 5226 that when subject property was rezoned to multiple family use, one of the
(Continued) conditions of approval by the City Council was the requirement that single
story construction bn maintained within 150 feet of the single family
residences to the north of subject property, that no changes had taken
place to warrant the approval of the request for said waiver, that upon discussion with the
sales office of the proposed development he had~been informed tha•`. two-story construction was
proposed for most of the area, that it was the desire of the singl~~ family property owners to
maintain the residential int~grity of the area9 but the proposed type of development was
contrary to a living environment compatible to the area and the City, that carports were
being proposed with no provisions being made for adequately storing of items normally placed
in garages, and that if the Commission intended to keep faith with the single family property
owners with a buffer zone to protect their properties to the north9 the single story height
limitation should be adhered toa
Zonirg Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission and the opposition that the legal
...._. ---IIG'L'~tie vVaS-~ri~~ei~u'eii ~"v .~T~~~ii, a:lu~L'2T 0; th.°. ~~^^y2£ `~CT~ ti°2C~~':± tirnit~~ipn fnr ±he R-A
parcel easterly of subject property between two neighborhood commercial zoned parcels, and
was a potential C-1 area, and was not intended to request waiver of the single story height
limitation ad~acent to the single family homes to the northo
The Commission reviewed the plans prese~tedo noting that two-story construction was not
proposed within 150 feet of the R-ly ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the north, but that
the requested use as advertised seemed quite misleading, and if approved without Commission
clariiication, might perroit two-story construction within the homes to the northo
Commissioner Pebley left the Council Chamber at 4:01 pomo
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt suggested that perhaps the Conditional Use Permit should
be readvertised to cerrectly indicate that the requested waiver of the one-story height
limitation should apply to the R~A parcel fronting on Euclid Streeto
Mre 0°BrYan asked that the Commission consider the request of continuing sub~ect petit3on
for longer than 2 weeks9 since he represented all the single family resic;ence property owners
and would be unable to represent these property owners at the October 14 meeting because of a
commitment to appear in Federal Courto
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to continue Petition for Conditional Use Permit No< 485
and Tentative Map of Tract Noo 5226 to the meeting of November 14, 19~53, in response to a
request for continuance by the opposition for longer ~han the two weP'.cs requested by the
petitionero Commissioner Sides seconded the motiono ~NOTION CARRTEDo
CONDTTIONAL USE - PUBLIC I-IEARINGo BANK OF AMERICA, 801 North Main Street, Saqta Ana,
PERMIT~NO~ 486 California, Owner; TIDEWA'fER OIL COMPANY, 1644 Wilshire Boulevard,
Los Angeles 179 California, Agent; requesting permission to CUNSTRUCT
NEW SERVICE STATION FACILITIES ON THE SITE OF AN EXISTING SERVICE STATION
on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land having a frontage of 90 feet on the
south side of Broadway, and a frontaga of 135 feet on the east side of Los Angeles Street,
and further described as 300 South Los Angeles Street> Property presently classified as
C-2~ GENERAL COMM1~RCIAL, ZONE,
Mro Charles Blumberg9 representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission
to answer questions, and stated that the entire facilities presently existing would be removed
including the tanks and pump islands and new equipment installedo
The Commission reviewed the plot plan and discussed w%th the agent the location of the proposed
pump islands, the agent stating that it was the oil company"s desire to have a 14 foot sepa-
ration between the pump islandso
Commissia:~er Pebley returned to the Council Cham6er at 4:12 pomo
~ •
; ._ .~
~'~ (- ~ i, ~ ~_°_J
;
i
MINUf~S, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 30, 19b39 Continued: 1796
CONDITIONAL ~JSE - After Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt had read the recommended conditions ,
PERMTT NOo 486 of approva.lo the agei~t asked that the landscaping requirement be explainedo
(Gontinued) Mro Kreidt then stated that if the pump islands were to have a 14-iooi
separation, the minimum setback would be 56 feet from the centerline of
Los Angeles Street, this included a 2-foot landscaped plantero
Discussion was held by the Commission as to the feasibility of requiring a landscaped area
on the Los Angeles Street frontage, that the improvement of a new facility at that intersection
together with no landscaping being required on the other service station facilities at that
intersection might create a hardship for the service station operators, that eince it was the
desire of the oil company to have a 14-foot separation they should not be required to install
landscaping on the Los Angeles Stree+, frontage, but should be required on the intersect4on and
Broadway frontage, said landscaping being needed to continue the program of upgrading the
downtown area and any commercial area being completely rebuilt, where at all practicale
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono
T1iE f~ARING WAS CLOSEDo
Office Er.gineer Arthur Daw reviewed for the Commission discussions held with Mre Blumberg
relative to the 50 foot driveway on Broadway, that Code requirements limited the width to
30 feet sin~e any wider width would create a pedestrian hazard, and that if two driveways
were proposed for the Broadway frontage a 22-foot separation would be requiredo
Commissioner Rowland offered Reso2ution Noo 486, Series 1963-64 and moved for its passage and
adoption, seconded by Commissioner Pebley, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit
Noo 4869 sub3ect to waiver of the landscaping area on the Los Angeles Street frontagey and
conditionso (See Resolution Hooko)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes
AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, PeUley, Perry, Rowland, Sideso
NOESz COMMISSIONERS: None~
ABSENTs COMMISSIONERSa Noneo
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING~ NICHOLAS J< DOVALIS, 9281 Harriet Lane, Anaheim,
NOo 63-64-37 California9 Owner; CHARLES Jo HINCKLEY, JRo,1921 Lodi Place, Anaheim,
Californiay Agent: requesting that property described ass A rectangular
parcel uf land having a frontage of 136 feet on the north side of Lincoln
Avenue, and an average depth of 135 feet, the easterly boundary of said property being approxi-
mately 163 feet west of the centerline of Western Avenue be reclassified from the R-A,
RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMN~RCIAL, ZONE to establish a
16-unit office building on subject property~
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that sub~ect petition w.as a condition
of approval of a reclassification of the ad3acent northerly property of which sub~ect property
was originally a part and eliminated the R-A parcel of less than an acre created by the sepa-
ration of subject property from the northerly parcel in the pxevions reclassification.
No one appeared to represent the petitionero
No one appeared in opposition to sub~ect petitiono
TI-~ HEARING WAS CLOSEDo
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution Noe 924, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and
adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that Petation
for Reclassification Noo 63-64-37 be approved sub3ect to conditionse (See Resolution Booka)
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by tfie following votee
AYES? COMMISSIONEF~: Allred, Camp9 Chavos, Gauery Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sideso
NOES: COMMISSIONERS; Nonea
ABSENTs COMMISSiONERS: None~
~ '
~
i
~
~ ~
'.. _ _.._.._. _._._... ___ __ . _ .. . ... _ _ .. ._.... ..
~
~ -~r==, ~,'•, ~ _-
~'
1
i.
I
~
~~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 30, 1963, Continued.
1797
RECLASSIFICaTION - PUBLIC HEARINGo INIiIATED BY THE ANAI-~ IM PIANNING COMMISSION, 204 East
NOo 63-64-38 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing that property descrioed
ass A triangu2ar shapaci ~,arcel of ianc; having a frontage of o20 i~ei; dn
the south side of La Palma Avenue, and a frontage of 182 feet on the east
side of West Street, the southerly boundary of said property being ad3acent +,o the Carbon
Creek Flood Control Channe: be reclassified from the R-0, ONE FAMILY SUBURBAIV, ZONE to the
C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMN~RCTAL,.ZONE to place said property in the most appropriate zoneo
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt xeviewed for the Commission the location of sLb3ect property
together with past zoning action of the property and the development of a service station on
the southeast corner of 4Yest and La Palma Avenue and the Boy Scout headquarters developed on
ano±her parcel of sub3ect propertyo It was further noted that the flood control channel and
;.ne City Reservoir acted as a natural barrier between the proposed commercial development
and the R-0 property to the south, and east~
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono
Mro Jay Iawler representing the service station property owner stated that pending action
for developmant of tne balance of the property was being withdxawn in view of the fact that
commercial zoning was being proposedo
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED~ ~
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noo 925, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and
adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for
Reclassification Noo 63-64-37 be approvedo (See Resolution Booko)
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
A1lES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos~ Gauer9 Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Sideso
NOES: COhMAISSIONERS: Noneo
ABSEIJTi COMMISSIONERSs Noneo
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Rowlando
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING~ INITIATED BY TiIE /~NA(-IEIM PLANNING COMMISSION9
NOo 63-64-39 204 East Lincoln Avenue9 Anaheim9 California; proposing that property
described as~ A rectangular parcel of land having a frontage of 450 feet
on the west side of Brookhurst Street, and a depth of 270 feet, the
norl:i~erly boundary of said property being 216 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue,
and further described as 201 South Brookhurst Street be reclassified from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL
AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMN~RCIAL, ZONEo
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreid~c reviewed previous Commission action on subject propexty,
further not3ng that the present commercial use of•subject property had been approved by the
County prior to its annexat3on into the Cityo
No one appeared in oppesition to subject petition, and one letter approving the proposed
reclassification was receivedo
TFIH HEARING WAS CLOSEDo
Commissioner Rawland offered Resolution Noo 926, Series 1963-64, and moved for its pas;age
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend to the City Council that Petition
for Reclassification No~ 63-64-39 be apprc~~ed based on the fact that sub~ect property was
established for commercial use prior to its annexaiion into the City of Anaheim, and to
place sub~ect property into its proper zoneo (SE~; Resolution Booko)
On roll call, the fcregoing resolution was passed by the following votes
AY°S: COMP."ISSIONERS: Hllred, Can~p, Chevos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sidese
NOESs CODM~IISSIONERS: Noneo
~ ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None~
'r
~ k
~
~
~
~ __--~--._. ;___ _---___ ..__ ..__ ...._____ __ __..... .,- -__ ._....__. .---.___
-a._.~~ .~:~~ ~ . ~ ~lil`t~.
~
,_J
i
E
i
~ :i ~
' - - -.._.__~_._---'--- =~ ___._..__._-
__.._----~-----" '
'! ~
~ ~ .~ ~~~
~
i
MINUfES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 309 1963, Continued= 1798
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC fiHARINGo M6SABURO 8 HARU NAKAMURA, 2623 West Lincoln Avenue,
NOo 63-64-40 Anaheim, California9 Owner,s; RICHARD Lo TOM9 AoIoAo, 1665 West Katella
Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that property described
ass An irregular shaped parcel of land having a frontage of 620 feet
on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, and a frontage of 288 feet on the west side of Magnolia
Avenue, the westerly boundary of said property being ad~acent to the Orange County Flood
Control Channel, and further described as 2623 West Lincoln Avenue be reclassified from the
R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL and C-2, GENERAL COMh~RCIAL, ZONES to the C-2, GENERAL
COMNN~RCIAL, ZONE to nstablish two one-story commercial office buildings and one two-story
professional office buildingo
Mr, Richard Tom, agenE for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that
he was available to answer questionso
The Commission reviewed the plot plans and inquired of the agent the approximate time the
existing store huilding on the Lincoln Avenue frontage would ba removed9 to which Mro Tom
stated the structure would be removed when 75% of the proposed stores were leasedo
Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts reviewed for the Cammission the permitted uses in the
C-2 Zone and stating that plant food and potted plants were permissible to be sold in the
C-1 Zouea but thai the oneration of a nursery was a use in the C-2 zone9 sub3ect to a
conditional use perm3t~
The agent stated that the request of C-2 zoning was based on the fact that the petitioner
did nut wish to be limited to those uses applicable to the neighborhood commercial zone,
since the petitioner w.as operating a nursery at presen: and planned to extend this into
one of the stores later on~
The Cortunission then discussed the fact that general commercial zoning existed on the
Magnolia Avenue frontage northerly of the service station to permit the operation of a
bar9 that the general commercial uses might not be compatible to the professional office
structure be:ng proposedy and that a clear and concise commercial development pattern
should be established in this areaa
Zoning Coordinator Mart3n Kreidt advised the Commission that the Planning Department in
their revision of 73t1e 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code proposed to make the present general
commercial zoning part of the heavy commercial portion of the Code, and if the requested C-2
zoning we~ approved this would later permit a heavier commercial development than the
Commission might propose for the areao
I Mre Roberts in clarifying steps to be taken if the nursery were moved into one of the shops
~ stated this might then be controlled through the filing of a conditional use permito
~ Discussion by the Commission to determine the most compatible commercial zoning applicable
to the area was continuedo
Commissioner Pebley left the Council Chamber at 4s40 pamo
The Commission noted that ;.f neighborhood commercial zoning were approved this would eliminate
the.outside display of plants and shrubbery9 and the ,-.one did permit the sale of plants and
flowerso -
No one appeared 'r. opposition to subject petitiono
TF1E HEARING WAS CiOSED>
Discussion was held relative to reqviring landscaping For the presently existing service
station in compliar,~•.~ with the service station standards, but Mro Kreidt stated that the
service station standards could not be a practical application in its entirety but would
apply to all existing staiions relative to storage of equipment and trash areaso
_ . _..__. _ _.._ _ . _ .. _ .. ..... _ _. . ....._~,_._._.~..._. _.._.. ~ _ _
___~_... .
,,~}
~
MINllTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 309 19639 Continued: 1799
RECLASSIFICATION •• Commissioner Rowland nfi'ered Resolu±ion Noo 927; Se::l.::s 195~?••ti4, and
NOo 63-64-40 moved for its passaae anci adlc±~l,ion, seccnded b~~ Commissi.oner Perry
Continued; to recommend to the Ci•~~~• C!>~nc~l that Petit~on ~~r F.~~;7a;sification
Noo 63-64-40 be approved for G1, NEIGHBORF_:~D C;OMM,~Fc';t/:L, ZONE for
the R-AY parcelsY and thafi. the existing zrsnir.g of C-•2, ,~ENERAL CO?7h~RCIAL,
ZONE remain as is together with conditionso (See Ftesolution .Booko)
1~.<!1, the foregoing r~solution was passed by the following votc:
C~a?at:ISSIUNf.RS: Allred, Camp, Chavosy Gauer, Muuga~.ly Perry, Ftowland, Sideso
~a°dMIc:~TONERSs None>
s CO',~,iISSI0NI:RS: Pebleyo
SIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARINGo INITIAI'ED BY 1'HE ANAf-~Irv1 PI.ANN?NG COMMISSIONy ! ~
-64-~1 204 East Lincoln P.venue, Anaheims Caiifornia; riroposing the reclassi- ~
ficatien of property described ast Tract Noa 30519 Lot Noso 1 througl~ g
22, said tract having frontages on both.the F~ast and west side of Mavi.s ~
Street, between North Street and Wilhelmina Street9 and further described ` ~
-759 North Mavi.s StrPet frnm #he R-A; RFSInENTTAT ArR_TCITLTURAL; ZCI~!E tn ±hn_R-3~_ _.__- ~~______-~
~LE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE, in order to place sub~ect prope:rty in~~~ ±~e proper zon~~>> j ;
i Coord!.nator Martin Kreidt rev3Ewed for the Commission the past ^~~ion taken by the
sion in !~ari.ance Noo 530 permitti.r~g the development of apartment=: which are now eai:,ting
~~ect propt~rtyo
sioner Pebley •returned to the Cowicxl Chamber at 4s45 po~pa
Ea Swanson9 629 North Bush St:••~et, a~apc ered be•iore iF~~: Go:r.~,<r<:.ion and stated that if
ie~ided approval of the propes?d .r+-^:~.;;sifica;,ion were c,iven thati i~ ha a requiremerit
ub3ect property be required +~~ ~iaari up the premises rahich has been allawed to rur~ down
slum an;earance, that a her_lth problem seemed to be involved in ~hat children ran
I unkenat, one room apartments had threF~ to four children living w:[th their parents in
and that :n tiis opinion a fire hazard ~vas being created by all th~ debris being allowed
umulat~ in the vicinity of these apartmentsa '
~ City Attorney Furmar. Rok~rts advised the Commissi~n and Mro Siuanson that the City
~ey"s office would have the County Health Departmenty and the Fire Department make an
,igat:on of the conditians descrir~dy and that althou9;~ the City gave the ~wners ~f
;t proper~Ey the right to operate an epaxtmant house this did not give the~ the *ight
~rate in violation uf health and safety regulationsa
:e Eo Swanson stated to the Commissfnn that sFe had received information that '.he owners
~ apartments ~lanned to sell thc•, but were unab?c to do so until the proper zoning was
~d to subject p~opertyo
immission discussed the camplaint made, •and-~oted that if the proper zoning were granted
iight be an 1,^.~enti~~a to ~agrade the dwellingsy that undex a variance the Commission
hava better controly and that the complaint of large famiiies wa~ to be considered as
if a State law violationa
ranson furtfier stated th~~ Mavis Street had been turned into a"drag strip", that
,biles raced up ar9 down I.ne strea:t, and askad that the Police Department also be
!d of thi~so
'sAR?C:3 WAS CLOSED o
~sioner Gauer ofiered Resolution No: 928, Series 1963-6~t, and moved for its passage
ioption, seconded by Commissior;sr Ranlan., to reconmend to the City Council that
lon for Reclassific:;ti~m No~ 63-64-41 ra approvedo (See Re;:~lution Booko)
ll call9 the foregoing resolution was passed ~;~ the Followin; votee
CUMFAISSiONERS: Allred, Campy ~auer, Mun nlly Pabley, Perry; Rowland, Sideso
COMMISSIONERS: Chavoso
C: COMMISSIOIJERSe Noneo
;sioner Chavos qualifie~ his vote of "NO~~ by sta~iny tt~at under a vartance tiie City had
Legal authority to control detrimentai .^.ondit::~:,s of r~.<rtain properctese
a
. ---_ ___ ___._-•--~-- -- .~..___._..~...__._-.._._._.,._. . ._ _ _ ..
--~i ~__.~__~-~---- .. ~ ~
~~ ~ . ~
I~
~
~
~
i
~~ ~
MINUTH3, CITY PLANNING COh11MIS3I0N, September 30, 1963, Continued:
1800
RBPOitT3 AI1D - ITBM N0. 1
RHCOMMHND~+T:vNR Froposed Amendment to Title 18, Section 18.32.120(1)
for carports in Iieu of garages.
Discussion wa. .,did by the Commission relative to asking that the Planning Department set for
public hearing ~the praposed amendment to Section 18.32.120(1) to require carports instead of
garages~ since so many requests for waiver of this section of the Code was being considered
by the Commission.
]'lar,:,~ne Director Fcicbard Reese advised the Commission that the timing for the proposed amend-
mere•S m~_~ht be such that it could be ir.corporated in the discussion the Commission would have
when thP;•~s:et at a work session to consider the new Muitiple Family Zones currently being
dr~ft~rd ;,}• the Department.
The h?story of the change from g<rages to carports was also reviewed by the Commission.
Comm+.ssioner Gauer being of the oFinion that blanket approval of carports was not desirable
bec;.use entrance to carports fr4n an alley often encouraged pett;r theft, that requests for
car,ports should be made to the Commission for them to deternine if the t;aiver was compatible
to the area. Commissiuner Chavos was of the opinion that developers :re saving money in
multiple .family developments by proposing carports and the Commission should determine whether
~..~.,....+o ..~e~e .....,..~~:i.~e ...,~~,A.. +h~~-~,,..,:.,,._+_~~;~_....o..+~.~ s....r_..h+ _~ ~,A~.~_.,e +t,A r~~A
v::~- ..~t...~-..~....~-~ .....~.»..~..~..-..~.,-.....~-.. .....~..e 6~.......... ..~.. e•" -... "o •
~..hairman Mungall stated 4hat any action on a change to the Code should be considered at a
tvork session, and declar^d that no a~.ti n would be taken at this time.
C~u,missioner Pebley lef~ the Council Chamber ai 5:10 p.m.
ITBM N0. 2
VARIANCB NO.. 1417
920 North West Street -~ Waive minimum lot width and lot area.
Request for extension of time.
A letter fror~ the petitioner, Mr. Hd. L. Hund requesting tha•t the Commission consider a
six-months extension of time to comply wi.th insxallation of sideNalks ana payment of street
Lights.
It was noted on review of the fiie +,hat subject pe*itior. nad been granted by the Commission
November 13, 1461, that a:equest s~:: waiver of the si.dewalks ?.ad been made to the Gity Council
January 16, 1962, and had been der.ied their ~equest, and r:iat a reminder hat the street li.~hts
had n.*. been paid was mailed September _2, 3.963.
Commissioner CY,avos offered a motion to grant an additicnal 180 aays for thz completion of
conditions in the approval of Variance No. 1417 •Eo expirE: March 28, 1964. Commissioner Ca:np
seconded t:~e motion. MOTION CAF.RIHD.
xTBM N0. 3
Letter from the Hercules Constr~ic*i~~ Co.
' regarding the City's conv~°ntion fa..i1?.i?es.
IA letter addressed to the City Council with a copy to the Planning Commission was read to the
iCom~.ission regarding the proposed convention facil+.ties, and the writer offering their services
~when :he City planned the conveni~ion facilities.
Chairman Mungall directed the Commisaion Secretary to note rer,eipt of letter in the minutes
and file the letter.
ITBM N0. ti
Orange County Planning Commission joint meeting
wi#h the Anaheim P]anning Commis~ion.
Planning Director Richard Reese adVlsed thQ Commi~sion tha} the Orange County Planning
Commission was de:,irous o~ holding a jcint wp~k session with the Anaheim Planning Cocmnission
to seview developme~nt plans and studxes whiCh both the OranRe County Planning Department and
,the Planning Departiaeat had been making relxtive to the "hi11 and canyon" area in the area
~east of Anaheim, and that a date had been sr.~ed+_led for NaVembcr 4, 1963 at 7:00 p.m. in the
Cuuncil Chamber. The Commissicn wou~d me6t ~'ox d~.nndr at S`00 p,m.
l
f
51
G
~
!~~-
~a
_,~
;
f
s
i
i'
1
$ /i
1 "~~.~_ ". _ _"'__._..._ _ . ._ . _._ .. ... _ _ ..... ..__. _.._ ._. _._ ... . _ . _._._ . .._ __" _...-~.
, .._..._.._.. ...._... ~ . ~
.~r..` _"~ . 1 . ~.. _ .. _ . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .
i
~ ' '~..,~ '~.J
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, September 3~, 1963, Continued: 1801
RBP(YtTS AND ITBM N0. 5
RBCOH4~NDATION3 Reclassification No. 62-63-113, Conditional Use Permit
(Continuod) t1o. 423, and Revised Tentative Map of Tract Nos. 5162 and 5260.
~
,t
~
Zoning Coordinator Martin Rreiclt reviewed the action taken by the Commission relative to the
tentative tracts and the reclassifi~ation and conditional use permit, noting that in the
Commission's approval of the conditional use permit no mention was made of the waiver of the
lot frontage and the lot area as proposed on the tract maps.
Cotimissioner Alired offered Resolution No. 929, Series 19os-64, and moved for its passage and
adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to amend Resolution No. 768, Series 1962-63~
Conditior, No. 7 by the addition of Condition No. 9, as follows:
That it is the intent of the Planning Commission to waive the
minimum lot width and frontage as indicated on Bxhibit Nos. 1
through 21, previously approved by the Commission, said waiver
being permitted under the authority of Secfiion 18.64.070 of
the Anaheim Municipal Code.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYB3: COMMISSIONHR3: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Munga:;l, Perry, Rowland, Sides.
NOE3: COMMISSIONBRS: None.
AB3HNT: COMMISSIONFRS: Pebley.
ITHM N0. 6
PLANNING SiJDY - setbacks and landscaping on Los Angeies 3treet
between Vermont and Cerritos Avenues.
Zoning Coordinator Martin I{reidt presented to the Commission the zoning and land use study of
the Los Angel.es Street frontage from Vermont to Cerritos Avenaes.
Discussion u-as held by the Commission relative to the percentage oE ares which would be most
practical to the existi~g commercial and industrial uses in the aiea, an3 it was further
noted that Steffy Buick had a 6-foot landscapin~ strip in a commercial zone.
In response to Commission questioning, Plann€ng Director Richard Reese stated that the
M-1, Zone required 10 feet of landscaping instead of the 20 feet pr~jected on South Los Angeles
Street, that the Department was working on a uniform plan of landscaping requirements for
various zones, that landscaping was originally proposed for the City through their landscaping
zones, and because the Commission in their adoption of the General Plan proposed landscaping
along arterial highways, that the landscaping was intended as a general policy along arterial
highways to act as a"calling card" to tourists to the City, and the first impression a visitor
to the City recpived was along arterial highways Seading into the heart of a City.
Commissioner Camp inquired what o`hes areas of the City had as landscaping on the frontage of
commercial development.
Mr. Reese stated that in the drafting of the new C-1 Zone changes, a 6-foot strip of 2andscaping
was incorporated, that the present C-2 Zone encompassed the Center City area, whGre development
had been in effect for some time, and landscapinE would be almost an impossibility, that the
new C-0 Zone did require landscaping, that in any redevelopment plan regardless of the area, it
would be the recommendation of certain setbacks and landscaping strips, and that at the third
public hearing of the General plan he had inquired whether the Commission wished to consider the
change of the light industrial designation for the South Los Angeles Street area to a commerciai
ftesignation, and the.Commission expressed the desire to keep the industrial designation to
encourage site development standards and any proposed uses other than iadustrial should be
considered by 4he Commiesion through the filing of a conditional use permit in order that each
site development received a thorough study before any conditions were attached.
Commissioner Sides stated that he was in favor of setbacks and landscaping to beautify the
City, but these factors should be coneidezed in conjunction with the businesses requesting use
of the properties on South Los Angeles Street,
Mr. Reese asked the ~oc~rafsoion not to con3ider the 20 foot landscaping because this would be
changed in the cummercial zone, that the width ehouid be conaidered for 6 feet as the minimum
for landscaping along the front of the setback, but to aliow anyone desiring to do so to develop
to the 20 feet.
0
-----• ---- .__ __._ --- - . _..___.__ __.._..._._. ,.._.__ _..
~ - . .. . _ __ ---- --
-~.: , g-..
~,
e
f
:
~
~`
~~;
MINUTS3, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, September 30, 1963, Continued:
1802
F.B'PORT3 AND ITBM N0. 6(Continued) ~
RHCOMMfiNDATI0N3, ~,, aI, onsa.ct,u~ °
~'t~~~ ~' Cammissioner Rowland wondexed whether the i~ °=y
(Continued) ~, ..t.,a~'', ' ~~~,rv .kw
~~ '•ry ~'~ of the requirement of the 20-foot area desi ~, , ,
'°' C:,,~~; as landscaped zone, 30% of this area must b fn'' ~'-~I ~
~t. __.._;:
row' g .~9aseen growing materials; however, this 30% need not be continuo~as
o a~~s~~ acress the front, and may be at the option of the property own~rs.
dt again reviewed past Commission action on the P-L 2one on South Los Angeles Street
evious setbacks prevented the orderly parking landscaping area being maintained and
~nsiderable study, the Commission reduced the 60-foot P-L Zone to 50-feet on South
~1~3 ~#=°~+.
~s stated that all he was concerned with was the lack of uniformity in the required
~ing in the City.
~and stated that the petitioner should be allowed flexibility in developing his
~ed area, but Mr, Reese stated that this flexibility was often used to circumvent
~isions of the Codle.
~ expressed the idea of requiring the 6 foot landscaping adjacent to the front property
id if any additional landscaping were desired this would be ati the discretion of the
~er.
se then stated that these ideas all sounded good in principal, but he would like to
ae for the planning Department to make studies of other aseas.
land then asked that Mr. Reese analyze all the methods which a petitioner might use
umvent the requirements of the Code during his study of the areas.
se then asi~ed whether the Commission would like the Department to draw a type of
necessary to result in the installation of sidewalks between Ball Road and Cerritos,
6-foot strip of landscaping contiguous to the sidewalk or the alternative of a uniform
landscaping strip together with the same amount of square feet of landscaping, and not
g any perpendicular landscaping more than 20 feet, together Srith the suggestion that
tion be so drawn up to eliminate all possible methods of circumventing the r.quirements
Code, and that the absolute minimum could not be less than 3 feet fronting the entire area.
n Mungall then referred the study back to the Planning llapartmp^~`for fuzther study along -
es outlined by Mr. Reese.
ITBM N0. 7
30UTHHRN CALIF~NIA PIANNING CONQtS3S ~ Host: City of Anaheim,
Thursday, October 10, 1963 - Charterhouse Hotel.
iedule of the October meeting of the 3cuthern California Planning Congress, hoste' by the
' Anaheim was read to the Commission. The Commission discussed the arrangements and
~tions together with the desire of having the City Council attend the meeting.
;ioner Gauer asked that reservations for the meeting be made through the Commission
iry no later than Thursday, October 3, 1963, in order that the reservations for the
might be finalized.
iioner Gauer of'•ered a motion to extend an invitation to the City Council to att2nd the
~ 10, 1963 meetiLng of the 3outhern California Planning Congress as guests of the Planning
sion. Commissi~ner Perry seconded the mo#ion. MOTION CARRIBD.
iML- M' :
There heing no further business to discuss,Respectfully submitted,
Commissioner Allred offered a motion to L~~~+~ %~i~~P / /
adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Perry ~~'Q~
seconded the mction. MOTION CP.RR?ED. ANN KREB3, Secretary
The meeting adjourned at 5:46 p.m. Anaheim Planning Commission
~
Mr. Reese :•:tated that the philosophy had been used on Ball Road, but had not worked too
successfully because thxs eventually ended up hidden behind cars, and deviations from the
intent of the landscaped arez was extensively made, defeating the purpose of landscaping
along arterial highways, tha! the confusion presently existed because of no appropriate
zone for commercial landscaping, that the Commission might wish to consi~ter landscaping
in terms of a 6~foot lzndscaping strip developed in .:ommercial manner with the pre~ent
waivers revoked and sidewalks, curbs and the usual commercial requirements required
reduction of the landscaping to 6 feet, and although haviag the parkway green seemed
omething most commercial developments preferred that the parkway be cemented as well,
ly near automobile agencies.
~