Minutes-PC 1963/10/28~, ~ _~ ~~ ~ ~ ';`k
~ ~_ ~,. i
i::' Kdll
• ~ ~hc.im, California
:'-~_•k~or 28~ 1963
A REGULAR N~ETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING - A Regular Meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to
order by Chairman Mungall at 2:00 0'Clock P,Mo, a quorum.being..present,
PRESENf - CHAIRMAN: Mungall
COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sideso
ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: None
PRESEM' - Zoning Coordinator: Martin Kreidt
City Attorney: Joseph Geisler
Office Engineer Representative: Walter Crenshaw
Plannina Commi.ssi.pn Sa~rptarv~ n.,;, x,.e~.~ __
Planning Department Stenographer: Jacqueline Ma Sullivan
INVOCATION - Captain Saunders, representing the Salvation Army, gave the Invocatione
PLEDGE OF - Commissioner Camp led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag,
ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF - Approval of the minutes of the meeting of October 14, 1963, was
TH& MINUfES continued to November 13, 1963~
RECLASSIFICATION - DEMLER FARMS, INCe, 1400 North Acacia Street, Anaheim, California,
N0. 63-64-17 and Owners; TED FISHy 1234 East Lincoln Avenue~ Anaheim~ California,
Agent; property described ass An irregular portion of land having
REVISED TEIJfATIVE a frontage of 650 feet on the east side of Acacia Street, a frontage
MAPS OF TRACT NOSo of (~45 feet on the west side of Baxter Street, the northerly boundary
5267, 5268, 5269, of.said property being approximately 1,211 feet south of the center-
and 5270 line of Orangethorpe Avern~e, and further described as 1400 North Acacia
Streete Proposed classification - R-3, MULTIPL.E FAMILY RESIDENTIAL,
ZONE,. Present classification of subject property M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL,
ZONE.
Subject petition and tract maps were continued from the Commission meeting of October 14,
1963, to provide the Commission an opportunity to review the City Council Minutes of the
meeting of October 1, 1963, and the Interdepartmental Committee and Planning Department
recommendations.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed for the Commission the previous action on subject
petition and tracts taken by the Commission and City Council, noting that the revised plot
plan and tracts being presented, represented a substantial change from those considered by
the Commission at the meeting of August 19, 19630
Th ommis ' asked ttorney J Geisler ~la 'fy whet it ould e ally
ssi o app plans o ion o he iginally de ' ed propert o
~Nr.~ei~.ler stated~~t by law a sse ortion ~operty~could recl ssified it out
The Interdepartmental Committee and Planning Department recommendations for the proposed
tracts were then read for the petitioners' consideratione
Commissioner Chavos stated that if the uniform pattern of the existing industrial zoning was
to be broken by the reclassification and development of subject property for multiple family
purposes, the petitioner might just as well have utilized the entire subject property for
multiple family development, rather than proposing the use of the easterly portion of said
property for a hatchery, since the hatchery and multiple family uses would be in conflict
with one another. Mro Chavos further asked that the petitioner indicate how long he would
use the easierly portion oi subjeci property ior chicken hatchery purposesa
- 1818 -
--__.___ __--- ..- ___ _.. _ _ . _._. __
\ _ _...... _ _ ..._ _ -- ...._
, .
~ ~;; ,'~
i •
~ --- _ .._ __
(,_) ~ _~ ~' ~ ~ ~ .~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 28, 1963, Continued 1819
RECLASSIFICATION - Mro Earl Demler~ owner, stated that all the buildings which presently '
NOe 63-64-17 and housed poultry would be removed by August, 1964, and that the research
building and the hatchery would remain in the industrial area indefi-
RE.VISED TENTATIVH nitely, because it was felt that said use would be a very light type
~;tienS.QF TRACT N4S~ of industr_al use, and ~vould net be an objectionable use to the residen-
5267,-5268, 5269, ~tial area on the.westerly portion of subject property. .
and 5'270
~Continued) Commissioner Gauer offered a mntian to recommend to the City Council
that Revised Tentative Map of Tract Nos. 5267, 5268, 5269, and 5270
- be approved, subject to conditions recommended by the Interdepartmental
Committee and the Planning Department as follows:
Revision No. 1~Tentative Map of Tract No. 5267:
lo .That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision
thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approvalo
2. That this tentative tract is approved subject to the completion of Reclassification
No. 63-64-17.
;i. That Tentative Tract No. 5267 sl:all be developed prior to ientative Tract Noso 5268,
5269, and 5270e
4. That drainage shall be handled in a manner which is satisfactory to the City Engineer.
5. That a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed along the Orange County Flood Control
Channelo This was stipulated to by the developer.
i
6. That the lots for garages on the south.side of the southernmost alley shall be
designated as Lot Nos. 9-a and 10-a as indicated on Revision Noo 1, Exhibit Noe 1 of
Reclassification No. 63-64-17, i
i
Revision No. 1~Tentative Map of Tract No. 5268: '
lo That should this subdivision be developed as more than one~subdivision, each subdivision 1
thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approvala
2. That this tentative tract is approved subject to the completion of Reclassification
No. 63-64-17.
3. That Tentative Tract No< 5268 shall be developed after Tentative Tract Noe 5267 and
prior to Tentative Tra.ct Noa 5270e
4. That the curbs, gutters, and paving on Yia Burton Street shall be installed within the
existing right-of-waye
5. That an alley will be dedicated along the southerly line of Lot No. 6 between the ~
proposed alley and Street "C", as indicated on Revision No. 1, Exhibit Noe 1, of Reclassi- '
fication Noe 63-64-17.
Revision Noe 1, Tentative Map of Tract No. 5269:
1. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, eacb subdivision
thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval.
2. That this tentative tract is approved subject to tt-~e completion of Reclassification
No. 63-64-17.
3. That this tentative tract be developed after Tentative Tract Noe 5267, and prior to
Tentative Tract No. 5270.
4. That the alley between Lot Nos. 8 and 9 shall be rel~cated to between Lot Nos. 10 and
11, as indicated on Revision No. 1, Exhibit Noa 1, of Reclassification Noe 63-64-17.
5. That the alley adjacent to the easterly line of Lot Noo 5 shall be extended northerly
to Street "B", as indicated on Revision No. 1, Exhibit No. 1, of Reclassification No. 63-64-17.
6. That the "Not A Part" shall be included as a lot within the tract<
-.---... _._.._.. - -----_..~..-.._ --~--._ _.._._._.__.~_._..
-. -.~ `- T - ~
~.._~ t.~, , ~~ t _) ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 28, 1963, Continued
RE~'LASSIFICATION - Revision Noa 1, Tentative Map of Tract Noo 52700
NJ.•63-64-17 and
1620
la That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision,
RFYISED TEIJfATIVE each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form.for approvale '
MR~'S OF TRACT NOS.
520~~; 5208, 52b9, 2o That this tentative tract is approved subject to the completion of
and 5270 Reclassification Noe 63-64-17,
(Continued)
3o That Tentative Tract Noso 5268 and 5269 shall be developed prior to
this tentative tracto
Commissioner Pebley seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDo Commissioner.Chavos voted "no".
The Commission reviewed the revised plans and recommendations for Reclassification
Noo.63-64-1'7; but took no further actiono
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARiNG. FANNY SHOWALTER, c~o DECON CORPORATION,
N0. 63-64-8 and 1833 East 17th Street, Santa Ana, California, Owner; DECON CORPORATION,
1833 East 17th Street, Santa Ana, California, Agent; property descrihed
CONDITIONAL USE as: An irregular portion of land having a frontage of 1,266 feet on~
F[) TT A nc ~~~ ~.....a„~,~. •~_ r n•
- - •~~ ~.+Q o~cii~+ Siue 'va ~ile n1V@TS~CiC rie6tNa.y~ `t,.1B WC3~@TOIIIOSL boundary
of subject property being 550 feet east of. the.centerline of Jeffersan
Street, said property being further described as PORTION N0. 1 and
PORTION NOa 2~ PORTION N0. 1 being located in the City of Anaheim, PORTION NOa 2 bein9
located in the County of Orangee Property presently classified as R-A, RESIDENTIAL
AGRICULTURAL, ZONE, '
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3~ MULT;PLE FAMILY RESIDEM'IAL, ZONEo
REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USH: ESTABLISH A ONE AND TWO-STORY MULTIPLE FAMILY PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPN~Nf WITH CARPORTS - WAIVE ONE-STORY
HEIGHT LIMITATIONo
Subject petition was~continued from the meetings of July 22, August 19, and September 16,
1963, in order that the petitioner might have sufficient time to submit revised alans
incorporating suggestions made by the Commissiono
A letter was received from the agent for the petitioner requesting an eight-week extension
of time from the October 28 meeting to the December 23 meetingo
No one appeared to represent the petitionero
Commissioner Camp offered a motion to continue Petitions for Reclassification Noo 63-64-5
and Conditional Use Permit Noe 450 to the meeting of December 23, 1963o Commissioner Sides ~
seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDe
RECLASSIFICATTON - CONfINUED PUBLIC FIEARINGo ALBERT TIKKER, 2914 West Lincoln Avenue,
N0. 63-64-36 and Anaheim, California, Owner; BILLY J. KIKER, 725 Kenmore Street,
Anaheim, California, Agent; property de'scribed ass An irregular parcel
CONDITIONAL•USE of land approximately 185 feet by 600 feet, the westerly boundary of ~
PERMIT N0. 479 said property being 110 feet east of Ridgeway Street, and the northerly
boundary being 396 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, and
further described as 2914 West Lincoln Avenueo Property presently
classified as R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
REQUES'TED CLASSIFICATIONs R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDEDITIAL, 20NE,
REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USEs ESTABLISH A TWO-STORY Ml1LTIPLE FAMILY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT WAIVE OIdF-STORY f-IEIGHT LIMITATION WITHIN
150 FEET OF SINGLE FAMILY ZOAJED PROPERTYo
Subject petition was continued from the meeting of September 16, 1963, ir. order that the
petitioner might have sufficient time to submit revised plans and file a tract mapo
A telephonic message from the agent for the petitioner was received prior to the meeting,
requesting a continuance of subject petition for two weeks, and that a written confirmation
would be submittedo
No one appeared to represent the petitionere
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue Petitions for Reclassification Noe 63-64-3f~
and Conditional Use Permit No. 479 to the meeting of November 13, 1963o Commi.ssioner Gauer
seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDe
,.
l ~
.
f . __~,... ...._.___._.... -'-.._. _ __._..__... .._.. .__.. ...... . _. _._._ .....-'-'-_.
~ _ . ~ ; _..._..._. _... ~
~. .,l ~_~ ~ ~ ..~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 28, 1963, Continued
`. _ l
1821
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. LAWRENCE W, ALLEN, 525 South Gilbert Street, Anaheim,
PERMIT NOe 495 California, Owner; SIGNAL OIL COMPANY, c~o L~ Yi, Weaver, 1221.South
Western Avenue, Los Angeles 6, California, Agen~; requesting permi.ssion
to ESTABLISH A SERVICE STP.TIO*! or. prcperty describad as: .A.re.ctangular
parcel of~land at the northeast corner of Dale and Lincoln Avenues, with frontages o.f-..
155 feet on Lincoln Avenue and 135 feet on Dale Avenueo Property presently classified as
R-A, RESIDEIJTIAL AGRICULTURAL~ ZONE,
Mro L. W, Weaver, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commissinn and stated that
the•location was a logical site for the proposed development,.and..with the.increase in
traffic along Lincoln Avenue, it was a question of time before the neighborhood shopping
center at Dale and Lincoln Avenues was developedo
The Commission noted that some service stations were reversing the opening_f.or.oiling.and
greasing operations, that there were several in Anaheim, and suggested..that.the ~.ommi~sion
consider requiring all new service stations be constructed ir_.the future featuring this
type of~reverse opening, and further inquired whether the agent pxoposed.such.a.structuzea
.__ . ..
.
The. agent in reply stated that the oil companv he_seorese~ted ~?~~ .hrv~ ~^ •~;,,a~_ ;;mi+.=-__ .
opex•at3ons, but it was not their intent to construct this type o£.str.ucture.on..th~ pru~osed
development because the shape ef the pruperty was st:ch that the.rPVer.se type struc.tuze•was
not necessary, and furthermore, that the cost of the structur.E.wauld..be...cnnsiderably more
because most of their structures throughout the State were similar and structures were
ordered in large quantities for standard constructiono .. .
The Commission noted that in a p.~••.,.ous reclessification of property nn the.west side of
Dale Avenue, the multiple family development was required ta.dedicate..l8nd.fnr..street widen-
ing purposes, that subject prorerty was part of one parcel appraved..f.nr_C.:.1,. zoning•, that
dedication should be required ;.or the total Dale Avenue frontage.f.or.str.eet wideniagr.since
it wes the only remaining parcel on Dale Avenue which had not.besn.widened,. and.inqnired of
the City Attorney Joe Geisler, whether the requirement of dedication.fnr..the entire parcel
was.in order since traffic on Dale Avenue nortiherly to the large stores made street widening
a necessitye
Mra Geisler stated that the requirement that Reclassification 59-60~62 be completed would be
the only stipulation necessary to obtain the necessary dedication for street widening purposeso
No one appeared in oppositiono
THE FfEARING WAS CLOSEDo
The Commission discussed the p~ssibility of having street improvements for Dale Avenue, if
traffic warranted it, that the installation of sidewalks mic7ht be considered for completion
at a later datey and that the petitioner be required to file a bond to insure the installation
of sidewalk~ and all improvementso
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution Noo 944, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and ~ '
adoption, seconded by Commissioner Sides to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 495, '
subject to the completion of Reclassification Noo 59~60 62 within six months and other - -
conditionso (See Resolution Booko) ~
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYESt COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sidese
NCES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ~
ABSENT: COAM~fISSIONERS: Nonee
CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUHD PUBLIC HEARINGo CLEN~NTINE PROPERTIES, 420 South Beverly Drive, '
PERMIT NOa 487 Beverly Hills, California, Owners; CARL 0, OLDENKOTT, 213 Evergreen Street,
Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A CLUBHOUSE,
BAR~ RESTAURANT~ BEER GARDEN, DAP.V'ING~ AND THE CONTINUOUS USE OF OFFICE
SPACH on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land having a frontage of 246 feet '
on the east side of Clementine Street and a depth of 254 feet, the southern boundary of said
property being approximately 420 feet north of the ccnterline of Katella Avenue, and further
described as 1742 South Clementine Streeto Property presently classified as M-1, LIGHT '
INDOSTRIAL, ZONE.
Sub~ect peti~iion was continued from the meeting of Octnhor 14, 1963, in order that the
Commission might view subject property again, and make an investigationo
:~ j
. )
_. __..__.___._,.
~~ ~-~_--__ _ _- - - ----- __- ---- - -- -------- __._._---- -
,, -~ r - , ~fi _ .
,
~ ~ - - ,
,
_.__1_____.__..
__~...~....~._.._,_._ __
_____ _._ __ _..--
.: ..,; .
, .
---- --__
(_~ (
~ ~ t .~ ~ .i
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 28, 1963, Continued 1822
CONDITIONAL USE - Mro Krieger appeared to represent the Phoenix Club, and stated that
PERMIT N0. 487 other members of the club were available to answ~r questions for the
SContinued) Commissiono
In.response to Commission questioning regarding the time the Club leased ryuarters in Buena
Park, Mra Krieger stated that during their three years at the E1ks Club, with a membership
of 470, all members had conducted themselves without incident, that their relationship with
the Elks Club had been of the best, that it was the intent of. the Phoenix._CLub.to.pnxahase
subject property and develop it as permanent club auarters of a family..type.rerxeatian,
that although plans did indicate a swimming pool and playgrouad, land was not available at
the present time to develop this recreation areao
The•Commission discussed the possibility of deleting the swimming pool.and.pla.ygrnuad fr.om
the plan of approval, and inquired of the City Attorney, Joe Geisler, if..this should be
required, as well as setting hours that the club could be operated, ar:d a specific type of
club aperationo '
Mra Geisler stated that under a conditional use permit, the use of the nroperty was
Cuil:~if~yeTii. 'vi~ i.iic Nc~1~+~ ~=+5 fi~Gt~^y ~~~ --^'~=±iCnc g±±arhori iP t}~p. COOII~ISS].UR~S approval.
whether agreed to by the petitioners or not, and that a specific.ty}~e..of.club.sho.uld.not
be stipulated but rather limit the club activity to a non-pxof3t organization prohibiting
its~use as a commercial ventureo
It was noted that subject property and its proposed use was located in c2ese..pr.oximi.ty.to.
the Melodyland Theatre and possibly near the new convention center, .tha;...-.c:ivities.fr,om
these uses might increase the traffic problem together with the-pr.opasea ::se.,.and.that..
present zoning of the property would not create any traffic problem if developed with
industrial uses, because working hours would differ from the hour.s.••the•thea.tre.~was opene
Mr> Ed Wright appeared before the Commission and stated that he was a member oi the club,
and the reason the swimming pool was not being constructed at the present time was because
it was to be a part of future expansion cf recreational facilities for club members and
their families, since the club was a family type organizationo
Mro Joseph Wolfe appeared before the Commission and stated he had been a member of the
club for over a year, that the association had been a pleasant experience, and that he
felt the club would be an asset to the areao
Mro Hans Klein, 1972 Greengrove, Orange, stated that in their opinion the proposed parking
would be in accordance with Code requirements, that said parking would be adequate to serve
the needs of the pexsons attending evening functions, that daytime functions would have
approximately 40-50 persons in attendance, that the evening dances which would be held
between 8:00 pama and 2:00 a,mo on Saturdays would have approximately 300-350 persons in
attendance, and that it was proposed to rent to outside organizations for daytime activitiese
THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo
The Commission held a discussion relative to the evidence presented, and noted that the
proposed operation could be a satisfactory one based on the data presented, that the proposal
to rent to other clubs was not unieasbnable, prov3ded that the operation of a social club be
conducted as a non-profit activity and was not open to the general public except for outside
non-profit organizations, and that the parking should conform to Cude requirements for both
Phase 1 and 20
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 945, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to grant retition for Conditional Use Permit
Noa 487, provid~d that the activity be conducted as a non-profit organization, and is not
open to the general public except for rental to outside non-profit organizations, and that
the parking shall conform to Code requirements for both Phase 1 and 2, ana other conditionso
(See Resolution Booko)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sideso •
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Chavosa
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee
Cornmissioner Chavos qualifiad his "NO" vote ~rith the stat?ment his vote was r,o reflection
on the development, but on a planning basis, he felt that a social club was not a compatible
development in the middle of M 1, LIGHT iNDUSTRIAL, ZONEa
r
,..V.---- -- --- - --_.._ _. _ _. _.._.__ . . ..__ _ -- - - .
~ _ ~.-~-----• --------.. _ . - --
~45( ~-~ _
~
l_1 lJ~ ~_~
MINUTES, C7TY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 28, 1963, Continued
1823
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC (-IEARINGo ELBERT L. 8 LIDA SMITH, 12921 Wheeler Place, Santa Ana,
PERMIT h`Oe 493. California, Owners; HARVEY HIERS, et al, 701 East Buffalo Avenue,
Santa Ana, ~alifornia, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A
191-UNIT MOTEL on property described as: A rectangular narcel of. land
at the southeast corner of Harbor Boulevard and Manchester Avenue, with frontages of.253 feet
on Harbor Boulevard and 600 feet on Manchester Avenuee Property presently classified as
R-A~ RESIDcNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
Mra Harvey Hiers, agent for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and.infornoed..the
Commission that the lessees of subject property had held a 55-year lease s.inca.July,..1955,
that after the Planning Department had advised him that an additional 15 fEet.v~ould..ba .
required as dedication for street widening purposes on Manchester Drive, that.the nsiqinal.
request for approval of 191 units was reduced to 186 units, togethex with..the__incoxpoxation
of the 50 foot setback for Harbor Boulevardo The agent further submi.tteri...a.colnxed.xender-
ing of the proposed developmerrt and was asked by the Commission to submit ei.ther a.colored
or black and white reduction of the rendering for the completion o£ the..petition..filea._......
In answer to questioning by the Commission regarding the parking of buses on the ser~ice
statioe rrope:ty in viaiation of Code requirements, the agent..sta.ted tha.t.if..,suhject petition .
was appraved, that the buses would be removed, but t5at presently the rental of.the space for
parking them was necessary for the lessees to take care of obLigations.on..~he pr.opsrty-0..
The Commission inquired of City Attorney Joe Geisler whether it was in order.to.require .that
the existing service station conform to the Service 5tation Minimum Site Development Standards
since the service station property was included in the legal advertisement ni.-sub~sct.pxopertyo
Mro Geisler stated that it was a known fact that the parking of huses on the service.station-
property was in violation of Code requirements, that although the.sexvice station.pr.operty.
was legally advertised as being included in subject petition, that the conformance to standards
which had not been adopted by the Council would not be completely ethical because other exist-
ing service stations were also in violation of these proposed standards, and that when these
standards were adopted by the Council, any parking of buses and heavy equipment would auto-
matically require subject and other service stations to conforme
The petitioner then stipulated to the additional dedication of 15 feet for street widening
purposes on the service station frontage of Munchester Driveo
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono
THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDD
Discussion was held between the City Attorney and the Commission relative to reclassifying
subject property to its proper zone, and it was determined that since subject property was
within the Disneyland area, that any uses for the land would require fili.ng of a Conditional
Use Permit, for the compatibility of the use with the unique development in the area, and
that this method would be utilized until the City had formulated and adopted a code regulation
which would have a specific classification for uses in the Disneyland areao
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that the Planning.Department encourage
the Commission to require the service station to conform to the standards, but that it was not
within the City's jurisdiction to require the petitioner to do so~
Comr,iissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noo 946, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Comrnissioner Sides, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit
No. 493, subject to conditionso (See Resolution Booke)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sidese
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee
__...---~- -- -_.._---- - . __._._. --- -__... _ - ----. __ _._----....----___,. .
- - _--_a'eE ~`i:... . ___._
- ~
i •
Li ; y> ~ ~ '~ . ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 28, 1963, Continued 1824
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING~ M~ R~ INVESTMENT COMPANY, 2037 West 115th Street~
PERMIT NOo 491 Los Angeles 47, Califarn?a, Owner; LOWELL Ao ELLER $ L,.F.o MOEGAN,
Mo Ro INVESTMENT COMPANY, P, Q, Box 381, La Habra, California,.Agents;
requesting permission to ESTABLISH A NEW SERVICE STATION.FACILIIY,
ING'LUDIMG AUTO M14ID7TEAlAPwE AA'D RE°AIR, ON APd £~ISTING SERVICE STATION SITE .on .p:.operty
described ass A triangular parcel of land located at the southeast cornex nf.I3ncoln and
Manchester Avenues and having approximate frontages of 200 feet on Lincoln Avenue and 210 feet
on Manchester Avenue~ Property presently classified as C-2, GENERAL COMA~RCIAL,.ZOI~, ..
Mr< Lowell Eller, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission_to.answ.ex..questionso
The Commission stated several gas stations had been operated at that location, that none were
successful, and further questioned the agent concerning the possibility of preserving the
150-year-old rubber treeo
The agent stated the construction of a new station would require additional space, that
the.roots of the tree extend 20 feet, and that the maintenance of this tree would be a
problemo
Commissioner Rowland was of the opinion that something could be done.to redesign.th~ use
of the property to save the rubber tree, since it had been the City's.polic.y..to_retain al.l
the natural beauty of the City as well as encourage tree planting.in.the_curl~a..and..other.
landscaping along arterial highways and commercial devel~pmen.ts to pxesent.the.touris~.
entering the City of Anaheim with a proper introduction to an.area which not only was the
playground of southern Califo:nia, but was also a place of beautyo
No.one appeared in oppositiono
THE E~ARING WAS CLOSEDo
Commissioner Sides offered Resolution Noo 947., Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and
adoption9 seconded by Commissioner Perry, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit
Noo 491, subject to conditionso (See Resolution Booko)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Sideso
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Chavos, Rowlando
ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
Commissioners Chavos and Rowland qualified their "NO" vo'..e by stating if some eff~rt had
been made to save the tree they would have voted "YES", since they felt the tree could
have been savedo
CONDITIONAL USE -• PUBLIC [-IEARINGo DOYLE 8 SHIELDS, 831 South Manchester Avenue, Anaheim,
PERMIT NOo 490 California, Owners; VOORHEIS-TRINDLE-NELSON, INC~, 13794 Beach Boulevard,
and Westminster, California, Agent; requesting permission to: SUBDIVIDE AN
TENTATIVE MAP OF APPROVED PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPNIEM WITH WAIVEP. OF THE FOLLOWINGs
TRAC1' N0. 5316 (1) LOT AREA AND DIINENSIONS, (2) YARD REQUIRE.MENTS AND REGULATIONS on
. property described as: A rectangular parcel of land having a frontage
of 494 feet on the~east side of Magnolia Street and a frontage of
523 feet on the north side of Winston Road, Property presently classifiec as R-A, RESIDENTIAL
AGRICULTURAL, ZONE (R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE, pending)o
Subject tract located at the northeast corner of Magnolia and Winston Road, is proposed for
subdivision into 21 R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE lotso
Mr. Rudy Woodruff, representing the owner, appeared before the Commission to answer questionse
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt noted the development was not a true condominium since it
was proposed to subdivide the land, and thus create substandard lots, and that access to the
development would be through the carportso
The Commission held a discussion relative to vehicular access, maintenance of the common
green area, ownership of specific lots, and compaz•ed the proposed development with similar
developments which had been considered previouslyo
i The Commission stated subject petition was not a condominium, not a planned unit development,
and not a standard R 3, a~d further that they were+4aE opposed to approving substandard lotso
~ However, the Commission sta•ted that favorable consideration might have been given to the
r subdivision of air space provided that land was not subdividede
.._.._... __.__..,_ . _ _.__.__ __ ._._.__ __....__.__.., .
_-.---~__ -_r_ _ .._ __....._ _ _ .. _ -- .
_ .. . ~ ~
.. g - . .. ~ . , .
_.___..•' ___ . ... _. _.._. _ ._.._ _
. „~ , , -.~ w4-
. ~ ~ . ~ .
- _.__ _ .-~ ~~__._- _- _rr~-}\.-. ~~. ~_-_` - -,-_ . -___._
( ~ ~ . } ~~ ~. ~ ~
MINllTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 28, 1963, Continued 1825
CONDITIONAL USE - City Attorney Joe Geisler advised that some provisions would be.made
PERMIT NU. 490 in the proposed CC&Rs for establishing a funded amount for maintenance
and of the common areao
TENTATIVE MAP OF
TRACT N0. 5316 Mr. Kreidt then asked the Commission whethsr it was their opinion.that
(Contin ed) they approved a true condominium for the s.ubdivision of.land,.and...that
the subject property should be maintained under one.owne~ship.i~ecause
of the fact that the substandard lots would be completely incompatible
ti.o the multiple family development concept originally approved, to which.the Commission voiced
their agreemento
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitione
THE I~ARING WAS CLOSEDo
Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No~ 948, Series 1963 64, and moved for its passage and
adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 490,
based on the fact that the development of subject property had been approved originally as
a one••Uwttership pianned residenl:iai devaiopmant and that subdivis~or was undesi.-ab22 because
of the poor relationship of the majority of the buildings to fully impxoued..streets.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavcs, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sideso
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo .
ABSENf: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to deny Tentative Map of Tract Noo 5316, seconded by
Commissioner Chavos, based on the fact that the Commission did not wish to consider subdivision
of land, but air space only~ MOTION CARRIEDe
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC I-IEARING„ ANAHEIM BULLETIN-FREEDOM NEWSPAPERS, INC., 232 South
NQ..63-64~49 and Lemon Street~ JOE P~ LEMON, MARTIN E~ GEISSLER, 429 South Euciid Street~
ARCHIE M~ HENRY, SRo 8 MARION Co HE1vRY, 885 South Lemon Street, Anaheim,
VARIAI~E NOo 16~ California, Owners; HOWARD LOUDON, Anaheim Bulletin, 232 South Lemon
Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; property described as: A rectangular
parcel of land at the southeast corner of Chestnut and Lemon Streets
with frontages of 140 feet on Chestnut Street and 226 feet on Lemon Street, and further
described as 208, 218, 224, and 232 South Lemon Streeto Property presently classified as
C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE,
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATTON: C 3, [-IEAVY COMMERCIAL, ZONE.,
REQUESTED VARIANCE: (1) WAIVE REQUIRED NUNIDER OF PARKING SPACES,
(2) WAIVE SIZE OF SPACESo
A lette~~ of opposition from Mro Mo Ro Thompson, 132 West Chestnut Street was read to the
Commission which stated that the vibrations could have a damaging effect on the adjacent
structures and that adequate parking should be provided by the petitionero
Mr, Howard Loudon, agent for the petitioners, appeazed before the Commission and stated that
the development plans did not detail the proposed expansion because the proposed expansion
was contingent on receiv3ng the approval of the reclassification, and it was not the
petitioners' desire to expend thousands of dollars for architectural plans which would not
be used, that the present structure would remain with plans for construction of another
floor, and removal of the structures to the north and expansion of the existing structure to
include Lhe composing and press rooms, that it was proposed to have the foundation for the
expansion to the north of sufficient strength so that any future expansion might include a
second~ or second and third floor, that a survey had been made by the newspaper which indicated
that more than adequate parking was available on the street, that an attempt had been made to
purchase additional land for parking purposes, but land in the downtown area was almost impos•-
sible to obtain, and that he had participated in the "in lieu" parking program which had been
proposed several years ago by merchants and members of the Chamber of Commercee
The Commission informed the agent that it was both the Commission°s and the Council's policy
to require adequate plans for an intelligent understanding of any proposed development for
its compatibility ~to the area, and in order to protect the rights of the citizens of the City,
and that other petitions had been recommended for denial on that basis, ana suggested that ihe
Commission was not interested in complete structural plans but a plot plan which indicated the
typo of structure, the front, side, and rear elevations togei;her with building materials to be
usedo
t
,
, --•--r------- - -.._. . ..__ v__~..._._,~..__~
'-...'~'•,._._ _
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 28, 1963, Continued 1826
RECLASSIFICATION - Mro L. Bo Roquet appeared in opposition to subject petition and stated
N~. 63-64-49 and he had appeared before the Commission and the City Council himself
and requested deviatior. from parking, but was informed he would.haue to
VARIA•I~E N0. 1607 meet Code requirements, and that parking in this area was a.probleme
~Contir~ued) However9 a community parking district might be a workable solut3on,.
• and some type of downtown parking should be considered in an effort
to try and solve subject petition's and other area parking prnblemso..
Mrso M, Ro Thompson, 132 West Chestnut Street, appeared in opposition and..stated a_lat.ter
had also been submitted by her husband regarding the vibrations that might be caused and
was concerned about the damaging effect this would have on their property.o
Mro Robert Williams, owner of a business adjacent to subject property, appeared.be£are..the
Commission and stated that the 17 parking spaces proposed by..the petitioner..we~e.suhstandard
and inadequate, that some solution must be reached in the paxking problem,.and.-that.tha
breakdown of 112 parking spaces indicated on the Report to the Commission was not sufficient~
as a minimum of 200 spaces was necessary for adequate parking in the area.
The Commicginn foi± ~h:~ ~:~v~~ ~~ a~~~~ upportuniiy ior the City newspaper office to take
the initiative and improve the downtoWn area with a facility that would.he an.asset to
themselves as well as the Cityo A 2engthy discussion followed concerning parking since
the Commission ~elt the 17 spaces, as proposad by the petitioner, were.inadequate and that
the 217 spaces required by Code were perhaps too rigid in this instance, th•.t the possibility
of a compromise could be considered, that possibly some municipal parking should be considered,
and that uriderground parking as well as possible ramp parking could aiso be contemp?ated>
Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to continue Petitions for Reclassification.Nae 63-64-49
and 'Jariance Noo 1607 to the meeting of November 13, 1963, in~order.that..the.peti.tioner
might be allowed sufficient time to submit more detailed plans, to work..with..the.Planning
staff, and to find a solution to the parking problemo Commissioner Allred seconded the
motione ~dOTION CARRIED.
I
__ _ ---- .. - _ -,r--~- ---------------_._-., ~ . _ .. . _ . ..__. _ __ _
...
:~
.._ .-~ ~ ~ _ _ _ . . _._
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~,~ !~
i
~ .
.. .1
~ ~ `
(. .~ - t._.~ i
~-~ i
MINUTHS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 28, 1963, Continued 182~
i
`
RECLASSIFICAiION - PUBLIC HEARING~ CLAREI~E Lo 8 MARY SUE MIXON, 1244 Palm Lane, ;
NOe 63-64-52 and Anaheim, California, Owners: JAMES Ro MC DONALD, 1518 East Sycamore ~
Avenue, Anaheim, California (new address: 523 East Buckeyewood~Avenue,
CONDITIONAL USE Orange),Agent; property described as: A rectangular parce~l of land '
PERMIT NOo 494 having a frontage of 200 feet on the east side of Palm Lane and a depth 1.
of 150 feet, the northern boundary of said property being approximately ~
572 feet south.of the centerline of Ball fioad, and further described as
124,4 Palm Laneo Property pxesently classified as R•A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL.,.ZONEo
. ;
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3~ MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDE(JI'IAL, ZONE.
REQUES?ED CONDITIONAL USE: CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY '^:1LTIPLE FAMILY PLANNED RESIDENfIAL `,
DEVELOPIufENf WbTH CARPORTS - WAIVE ONE-STOAY HEIGHT.7.IMIIAYION. ;
~
. A.letter from the agent for the petitioner was read to the Commission in which the petitioner
requested that subject petitions be postponed for six weeks due to devel.opmeat_problemso ;
Cc~nissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue Yetiiions ior Recia9siiii.o:w.G„ .::c<. ~3•-5~-5?. i
and Conditional Use Permit Noo 494 to the meeting of December 9,.1963,.in.arder..to.allow the
petitioner sufficient time for formulate development plans as.requestedo Commissioner Sides ~
seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDo
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING~ ARION INCa, LYNN E THOMSEN, Vice President,
td0a 63-64-53 and 420 South Euclid Avenue, Anaiieim, California, Owners; property
described as: A rectangular parcel of land with a f~ontage of 9& feet
VARIANCE NOo 1608 on the south side of Lir.coln Avenue and a depth of.234 feet,...the eastern
boundary of said property being approximately '1325 .feet west..af.the
centerline of Euclid Street, and further•described as approximately
1806 West Lincoln Avenueo Property presently classified as R~A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL,
ZONEo
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMWI~RCIAL, ZONE,.
REQUESTED VARIANCEs WAIVE TWO AND ONE HALF STORY HEIGHT LIMITATION TO PERMIT
CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE-STQRY OFFICE BUILDING~
Mr, Lynn Thomsen, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and ~~aited that
the architect, Mr~ Charles Hiller, would be available to answer any questions i:^.e Commission
might ha•ve o
The Commission noted that the proposed three~story structure would be approximately 136 feet
from the single family development abutting to the south of subject property, that the
structure could be moved forward to align with the structure to the east which was set back
35 feet from the front property line, thus having the structure 14606 feet from the single
family developmento
Mr, Homer Wilson, 1797 Embassy Strer~t, appeared before the Commission and stated that after
having reviewed the plans that it was noted that landscaping was not shown adjacent to the
single family development, that parking would be immediately adjacent to the masonry wall,
that the three story structure should be no less than 150 feet from the south property line,
to insure privacy for the residences adjacent to it, that some buffer should be provided
between the proposed parking and the masonry wall to reduce the noises of automobiles starting
and stopping, that a 20-foot space shouid be required between the rows of parking stalls, and
that the masonry wall should be measured from the highest finish«:d grade level since for
drainage purposes his property was lower than the northerly propertyo
The Commission discussed the possibility of requiring that the structure be moved forward,
and that a portion of the additional space at the rear be landscaped with 5 feet of land-
scaping to insure the privacy of the abutting residential development to the southo
THE HEARING WAS CLOSHDo
~
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution Noe 949, Series 1963-64, and moved far its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry to recommend to the City Council that Petition
for Reclassification Noo 63-64-53 be approved subject to the relocation of the structure
northerly to align with the structure existing to the east, which is 35 feet from the front
property line, and other conditionso (See Resolution Booko}
~.____. __~_~,...
I
.
d~. _ _ . . . . _...._ __ ._._ ._ - -..
~ '
i •
. „ `r
~ :: .~
( ") ~, ~ ~ t..~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 28, 1963, Continued
1828
R~i.ASSIFICATION - On roll call the foregoing resnlution was passed by the following vote:
N0~ 63-64-53 and
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall,.
VA~IAI~E NOo 1608 pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sideso
(~ar.tinued) NOESs COt~iMISSIONERS: Noneo
ABSEN'I: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
Corrnnissioner Camp offered Resolution Noo 950, Series 1963 64, and moved for. its passage and
adoption, se:onded by Commissioner Rowland, to grant Petition far Variance No.o.1608, subject
to construction of a masonry wall measured from the highest grade level, and other conditionso
(See Resolutio~ Booko)
On roll call the ioregoing resolution was passed by the following. vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: All.red, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sideso
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
AB3ENT: COMMISSIONERS: Non~o
RECESS - Commissioner Perry offered a motion to adjourn the meeting for dinner and.to.
reconvene at 7:00 p~mo Cortnnissioner Camp seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDa
The meei:ing recessed at 4:45 pamo
RECOIdVENE: Chairman Mungall reconvened the meeting at 7:05 pomo All Commissioners were
present except Commissioner Gauero
RF~LASSIFICATION ~- PUBLIC HEARINGo HELENA J~ TRAPP AND BAMC OF AMERICA .13I&SA, 801. North
NOo 63-64-48 and Main Street, Santa Ana, California, Owners; DAUMER, INC.o,..117_East
Chapman Avenue, Orange, Cal.ifornia, Agent; oroperty desaribed ass
CONDITIONAL USE An irregularly shaped parcel of land located at the northwest..carner
PERMIT N0~ 492 of Rio Vista Street and Lincoln Avenue, said land being divided into.
Portion "A" and Portion "B" and described as follows: Portio _~n "A"
being irregularly shaped and having a fr.ontage of approxiwately 393 feet
on the north side of Lincoln Avenue and a frontage of 269 feet on the west side o£ Rio Vista
Street; Portion "B" being adjacent to Portion "A" on the north and wes.+., and having a f,-~nt-
ag2 0; 5~4 :eet on the west side of Rio Vista Street and an approximate frontage of 70 feet
on the north side of Lincoln Avenueo Property presently classified as R-A, RESIDENfIAL
AGRICULTURAL, 20NE.
REQUES7ED CLASSIFICATION: C-•1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE ON PORTION "A"
R-3, MULTIPLE FAivfiLY REbIDEMIALy ZONE ON PORTION "B"
REQUESTED ~O~JDi110NAL USE: CONSTRUCT A ONt AND TWO-STORY MULTIPLE FAMILY PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPNLNT WITH CARPORTS AND WAIVER OF THE
ONE STORY E~IGHT LIMITATION WITHIN 150 FEET OF R~A,
RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL~ ZONED PROPERTY ON PORTION "B"o
Mrs. Barbara Durand representing the designer of the proposed development, appeared before
the Commission and reviewed the background and decisions made before the proposed development
was designed, rtoting that the subject property would have the southwesterly edge used as a•
portion of the off-ramp of the proposed Orange Freeway, that the proposed garden-type apart-
ments would be a high prestige type development, that the existing service station facilities
would be incompatible to developing subject property £or single family subdivision, that the
commercial facilities would act as a buffar between the proposed apartments and the service
stations, that alley-type of drives were avoided, that landscaped screening was proposed to
block off the unsightliness of a long line of carports, that two story construction was pro-
posed abutting the commercial development, that adequate circulation for ingress and egress
was provided, and that every effort had been made to design the development in conformance
with Co~e requirementso
The Commission noted that if subject petition were approved, the vacant property between
subject property and the proposed Urange Freeway would be landlocked, since the petitioner
proposed a street which dead-ended on the westerly property line, that if the abutting property
were ultimately developed for single family subdivision, tte proposed development would have
two-story construction within 150 feet of said property, and asked the agent why two-story
construction was proposedo
Mrs. Durand stated that she could not conceive of >r.yone developinq the property to the west
for single family use, when said structures would be adjacent to the proposed freeway~
~
1
/
. _ _ . ._._ _ _--- -- - - --•-------.._._ _ . _ _ .. _ _._._..
_. ...:_ _ .~e9 ~ -- "~4
C :)
1829
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 28, 1963, Co!~tinued
RECLASSIFICATION - Mro Walter Starkey, 2663 East Carnivai Street, representing 35 persons ~
N0..63-64-48 and present in the Council Chamber, and.speaking for the Anaheim.Ria Vista ,
Homeowners Association, appeared before the Commission in opposition to
CONDITIONAL USE subject petition and stated that the single family homeowners were ~;
PERMIT NOo 492 opposed to both commerciai and muitip2e f:mily development because there
(Gontinued) presently existed a shoppinq center at ::he northeast corner. of..Lincoln
Avenue and Ria Vista Street; that less than a mile away a large segional
shopping center more than adequate to 'cake care of the needs of.the
residents was available~ that the need for multiple family development was questionable
because of the high vacancy factor; that the homeown~rs we~~e certain that if. subje~: ^'_citions
were approved this would set a precedent for the ~ltimate cevelopment.of the.vacant pioperty;
that the residents were appalled that multiple family devel~~pment was being.-p.xn~.sed.in.what-
seemed to be the last remaining area which could bP develope.9 for single family.subc3~visiun;
that.two-story construction was being proposed adjacent to a portion~of property wh:ich.wo.uld
be landlocked thus eithsr predetermining the use of the landlocked pxoperty,.or ,lepriving-
the property owner of a choice of development for his property;• that although..the_propexty.
owners had opposed the granting of the service stations at the•three.coxners..of.Lincoln~
Avanu~ in Anaheim; these service stations were still granted, even-though..single..famil.y
development had taken place in close proximity a considerable time. before the.gran.ting of
the service stationss that the propcsed multiple family development pxesented-an•enterin9
wedge for the orderly development of the East Anaheim area fnr low density single:family
subdivision as presented on the General Plan; that the home ownexs.in_that.ar8a•.had...invested
their money, time, efforts and hopes in their homes in an effor•t to help.deuelop•the community
as a highly desirable area :or residential living which could be .verified by dxivi.ng.thiough
the areas presently bein9 developed for sinole family homes; that i.f multiple.family.develop-
ment were approved when in fact these apartments were not needed, because of..the.-discauragingly
low occupancy factor existing in the City, these apartments would~be doomed to.~ailur~e or at
the most a meager success, and as homeowners, they were afraid that failuxe.s.of...this kind
would result in a run•-down residential development which would be a detriment to the community
and the City as a whole; that multiple family development in.the East Anaheim area would spell
the end of the hopes for the development for the City of a fine residential area relatively
free from spot zoning, which the citizens of the City of Anaheim could be proud of~
Mro James Ca Hugo, 212 North Plantation Place, appeared in opposition stating that the existing
school facilities were already fi.lled to capacity, through information he had obtained by
contacting the school authorities, that existing traffic does not permit children using public
thoroughfares to go to and from schools, that if the proposed de•~~lopment were approved,
122 families would occupy an area which would develop considerably fewex single family homes,
thus greatly increasing the £low of traffic to streets not presently developed to handle that
increased volume of traffic and overcrowding the schools, and that the "forgotten man" should
be considered since several precedents had been set by the granting of the shopping center
and the four service stations in an ax•ea which should have been given more consideration,
because the pattern of development had been set two and one-•half years ago by the single
family subdivisionso
Mrso Durand, in rebuttal, stated that she was in agreement that service stations were
incompatible with single family subdivisions, that the proposed development would act as
a buffer between the service stations and the single family subdivisions, that no shopping
center was propt~sed.for the commercial development since ample facilities were available
nearby, that with the growth of East Anaheim and NoFth Orange a professional bl~ilding for
dentists, lawyers, doctors, etco, was needed, that the two-story multiple family develcpment
was several hundred feet from single family development, and would not be near any existing
property which could be developed, in her estimation, for single family subdivision, that the
proposed development would be similar to single family development in close proximity to the
existing subdivisions~ that the traffic problem would he relieved wit.h the City making some
provision to take care of the traffic fiow to Lincoln Avenue from the proposed freeway9
that the number of school children would be less than the number usually projected for single
family subdivision, and that in addition to the professional building a steak house was
proposed which would be architecturally compatible to the areao
Mr. Richard Henning, 15121 East Lincoln Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated
that he owned property across the street from subject property adjoining the shopping center,
that he wanted a few items clarified relative to the highways, that the property owners on
Rio Vista Street little realized that after the paving of the street paid for by these property
owners and the many cars that would be using the street, or the people who used the street
being so unappreciative of this item, that a brfdge was being proposed to er.tend Glassell
Street across the river, which should alleviate the heavy flow of traffic on Rio Vista Street,
; and that the Placentia School District was in the process of obtaining property for a new
't school in the immediate vicinity to take care of the chi.ldreno
-.--.. __..._.._._ . _ __ __ ----__ -_-___.._._..~..
---•----•- ~
_
._.__ . ._~ , . . _. _
c ~'~ ~ t.) ~
i
s
~ ~~ ~: .,~,~
' ( -'} l _~ ~ `_, ~ ,; ;
~ '
,,
MINIJTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 28, 1963, Continued 1830 j
RECLASSIFICATION - Mr~ Starkey then stated that the service stations came after the single
NO< 63-64-48 and family development over the property owners opposition, that tl~e waiyer
of the 150 foot one story height iimitation• should not be permitted,
CONDITIONAL USE that if this were approved a12 single story apartments should be
PERh1IT NOo ~i92 proposed, ihat at the time the single £amily subdivisions to the north
~Continued) and south of Lincoln Avenue ware being developed, it was carefvlly
pointed out to each prospective purchaser thet the proposed Orange
Freeway was to be adjacent to many of the homes, and that the Placentia
Schoal would not be taking the additional children from the proposed development, but would
be transported by bus to other school~ in Anaheimo
The Commission inquired of Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt to indicate the school boundary
for the Placentia School Districto .
Mro Kreidt advised the Commission that the east side of Rio Vista Street northerly of
Lincoln Avenue was the boundary line for the Placentia School Districto
The•-Commission inquired whether the property owner of property adjacent to.the subject
pr.operty westerly to the Orange Freeway was present, since he would be primarily affected
by two-story construction within 150 feet of his propertyo No one was presento
THE.EIEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commission discussed the proposed development in relationship to the surrounding area,
the requirements for a masonry wall if the development were approved, the mason~y.walls
required for the service station on the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and.Bio Vista
Straet, and were of the opinion that if subject petiti~n were approved and 2Q0.homes to
the~north presently developed for single famiiy subdivision,..that.200 actes_.in..the.area.
not presently zoned for other than residentiai agricultural zoned use, that the ultimate
development of all acreage in East Anaheim might be predetermined by this..ap~raualo.
Commis§ioner Sides offered Resolution Noo 951, Series 1963-•64, and moved fox its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp to recommend to the City Council that Petitian.
for Reclassification Noo 63-64-48 be disapproved based on the fact that the area in which
subject property was located had been considered a number of times through planning studies
which indicated low density residential development, that the propoSed reclassification
wouli3 be incompatibie to the establi=hed residential subdivision northerly, that this would
set'a pattern of development of vacant properties in the area totally inconsistent with any
of the Commission`s land use proposals for the area, and that four alternative methoas of
development of the area were presented to thz Commission for their consideration, and it was
deemed that Alternative "A" was the only appropriate alternative for the development of subject
and abutting propertieso (See Resolution Booko)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sidesa
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gauero
Commissioner Sides 8~fered Resolution Noo 952, Series 1963-64, and moved ior its passage ~
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Pexmit
Noo 492, based on finda.ngso (See Resolution Booko)
On roll call the forectoing resolution was passed by the f.ollowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sideso
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nqneo
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gauera
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING~ I.OWEN V~ CASEY 8 FRED Ro BECKHAM, 801 South Los Angeles
N0. 63-64-50 Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; LOWEN V~ CASEY, 801 South Los
Angeles Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that property
described as: A rectangular parcel of land located at the southwest
corner of South Street and Los Angeles Street, and having frontages of approximately 301 feet
on South Street and 263 feet on Los Angeles Street, and further described as 801 South Los
Angeles Street be reclassified from the R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAi, ZONE to the C~3,
HEAVY COMMERCIAL, ZONE to establish a new and used car agency as a conforming use and to
permit its expansiono
I
/
~.._.._._ __ .. _ .
__. ___._. . . .,.,~_._ ___._ , __ .. _._. _---._.__.
_ .,~. .
. -~ , . ~: . . _ _ _ ---
~ 1
, 1
~~ .~ ~~ ~ ~ '1 ~ s~
~. i tiJ
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 28, 1963, Continued 1831
RECLASSIFICATSON ~ Mro Lowen Casey, agent for the petitionex appeared before the Commission
N0. 63-64-50 and reviewed the proposed development, noting that the pe.titianers were ;
~Cnntinued) primarily concerned with proper zoning of the present use, in.or.der to
~~"" properly utilize the existing facilita.eso ,
The~Commission inquired what the conditions of approval were when-the.Vaxiance was gr.anted
to establish the existing use, to which Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt.stated.that.a.b-foot
masonry wall along the south property line was required, a~d•the dedication of 4e25 feet for
the widening of Los Angeles Street adjacent to subject propertyo
Mr; Henry Mang, 107 McArthur Manor, appeared before the Commission and inquised.what the
proposed expansion would consist of if the proposed C-3 zoning was appr.oved, since he realized
that the existing zoning was incompatiblee
Mr. Gasey stated that nothing additional was proposed other than an additional paint booth '
and enlarging an existing structure to store partso '
ivir, ~nang S{:dted ~hd~ es iony as no heavier use than the present U~e rio5 pi~+p"voe~'+ ile •~O~id
not oppose subject petition, and that the reiationship between the petitioners and the
residents in the area was very cordial, and he hoped that it would remain that wayo
THE.HEARING WAS CLOSEDa
Discvssion was held relative to requiring that only C-2, NEIGFIDORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZANE be
apRlied with the filing of a conditiona'1 use permit permitting the existing uses, or whether
the requested reclassification be limited to the existing use or any C 2 usesa
Ci.ty Attorney Joe Geisier advised the Commission that it would be proper to require the
filing of deed restrictions limiting the C-3 use to the existing uses and any C-2 usesa
ihe~~Commission also reviewed the land use of the property noting that subject property was
at one time a service station, and had later been converted into an automobile sales lote
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution Noe 953, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
an.d adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos to recommend to the City Council that Petition
for Reclassification Noe 63-64-50 be approved subject to the filing of deed restrictions
limitin: the use of subject property to the sale of new and used cars only with incidental
services thereto, and any C-2 useso (See Resolution Booke)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Mungall, Pebiey~ Perry, Rowland, Sidesa
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None<
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gauero •n
~.oew.o.,o-,.Pn- I~pu,Q,e~-~ u.~ae-~„td
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARINGo MRS~ Ja E. STEHLY, Po 0. Box 306, Nuevo, California
NOe 63-64-51 and Go M, ISELI, 1413 South Nutwood Street, Anaheim, California, Owners;
. JOHN GULLY, 1771 Beacon Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting
that property described as: A rectangular parcel of laricl having a'
frontage of 146 feet on the west side of Nutwood Street and a frontage of 130 feet on the
south side of Chanticleer Road, and further described as 1407 South Nutwood Street be
reclassified from the R~A, RESIDEA~IAL AGRICULTURAI., ZONE, to the R-1, ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL,
ZONE to ALIGN THE EXISTING PROPERTY LINE AND TO CONSTRl1CT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON A
PORTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTYo
Mro John Gully, agent for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the !
proposed realignment of existing property lines noting that he proposed to construct a single ~
family dweiling in the northerly parcel after said lot split, that the proposed reclassifi- '
cation was necessary because of the Code restriction of not permitting a parcel of R-A,
RESIDEIJI'IAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE property of less than an acre, and that the lot split would be
more than adequate to conform with the 7200 square feet per lot for R-1, ~)NE FAMILY RESIDEMIAL,
ZONE loto.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono
TI-lE HEARING WAS CLOSEDa
i
/
... -- -, -- ._._. __. ._ __... _ __._ . __.. _..._ . _. __ _ _..----- - - ___.._ _.._
_ -~ ~ ~
~ . • ~ . ,
~ --.
i ,
t ,.
.~ ,..._..~_~_--- •~ ---__ _
. - - ----- -
!~ .
~ ~ ( ,~ ~ ~~
~ ~. MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 28, 1963, Continued 1832
RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Camp offered Resolution Noo 954, Series 1963-64, and moved
N0..63-64~51 for its gassage and adoption. «conded by Commissioner Chavns, to
fContinued) recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification
Noo 63-64-51 be approved subject to conditionso (See. Resolu.tinn.Book.a)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:.
AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sides.o
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
ABS~M: COMMISSIONERS: Gauero
AMENDA~IJI TO TITLE - PUBLIC HEARINGo AMENDMENT TO TITLE• EIGHTEEN, CHAPTER 18a04a030
EFGHI'~EN - CHAPTER GENERAL PROVISIONS - USE - PARKING REQUIREMENfS - INITIATED.SY.
18d04 - GENERAL ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION BY THE ADDITION OF (b-11) FURNITURE
PROVISIONS' - USE STORES~ ONE SPACE PER 500 SQUARE FEET~OF GROSS FLOOR AREA....
Zon~ing Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed past action by the Commission relative.to a
petiti,on requesting a waiver of present Code requirements for retail stores; rurtner re.view-
ing the study made by the Staff of similar establishments in Orange,County,.and..the.res~,~+s
of the study indicated t`.at the proposed amendment to Title.l8.would.be..a.xeasonabl.e.require-
ment for any future development within the City, and that the..Commission had requested that
the proposed amendment be set for public hearinge
No one appeared to present evidence against the proposed amendmenta
THE.HEARING WAS CLOSEDo
Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the variations in the requir.ements..of
other cities in Orange County, and were of the opinion that the proposed..nne.space per
500'square feet of gross floor area for furniture stores was an..adequate..requirement, since
the type of retail sales imiolved was dissimilar to the usuaL retail sales facility wherein
fewer customers would patronize a furniture store than other storesa
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noo 955, Series 1963-64, and moved.for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to recommend to the City Council.that
amendment to Title 18, Chapter 18~040030 PARKING by the addition of (b-11) "FURNITURE
STORES - One spaae per each 500 square feet of gross floor area"o (See Resolution Booko)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followinq votes
AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Camp, Chavos, Mungall, Pebley, perry, Rowland, Sidese
NOESs COMMISSIONERSs Nonee
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSs Gauera
REFORTS AND • PLANNING STUDY 61Y,9~~2 ;
BEcor~-~N~NS '
Location North East Street between Romneya Drive and the Riversi~~ f
- Freeway - as requested by the City Council - in consideration of ~
Reclassification Noo 63-64-30
i
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt presented Planning Study 61-92-2 as follows: '
I
i
I, Backaround i
1
Reclassification No. 63•64 3 and Conditicrnal Use Perrt.it Noo 446, requested the ~
rezoning of the northeast corner of Romneya Drive and East Street from the R-i, ~,
ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL and the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONES to the '
C-1, NEIGI~C?HOOD COMMERCTAL, ZONE to permit the establishment of a service stationo
The Planning Commtssion denied the request on the grounds that i~ would be detrimental
to the area and would constitute "spot zoning" on the periphery of a single family
residential area~ On August 13, 1963, the City Council sustained the action of the
Planning Commission and denied Conditional Use Permit No~ 446 for the establishment
of a service station, but continued the reclassification for the C-1 zoning on the
property in question, and referred the matter to the City Planning Commission for
a land use study, including consideration of the highest and best use of the properties
along the East Street frontage from Romneya Drive northerly to the Riverside Freewayo
~
f
~
I
1
, ,
i '
( ,~ ~,..i ~ t~ ``J
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 28, 1963, Continued 1833
REPORTS AND - PLANNING STUDY 61-92:2 (Continued)
II. Findinqs
le The land within the study area is zoned and is presently be:.ng used for single
family purposesa
2. The study area is bounded on the east and southeast by an extensive area of
low density single family homes, and on the north by the Riverside Fxeewayo
To the west of the study area there are a number of existing land..uses. .Within
an area approximately three acres in size there exists: a service.station.,.
a firewood sales operation, a cement contractor, an auto garage..and.two..single.
family dwelling unitsa This land is presently classified into..the-.M=.L,.-LI~HT
INDUSTRZAL, and P-L, PARKING LANDSCAPING, ZONHS. The Raymond Retarding basin
for flood water storage is located southerly of the.above described_.pnopenty~..
There is a service station, a neighborhood shopping center on C-1 property,
and an area of multiple family housing to the south.-of the study...area,..
3a East Street, designated as a secondary highway on the Circulation Element of
the General Plan bounds the study area on the westo
4. The area westerly of the study area on East Street reflects the thinking of
the Commission for low medium residential development, as indicated on the
General Plano
5e The Commission's thinking for that study area and the properties to the east
and southeast have been shown as low density residential development on the
General Plana
r
III. Alternatives
Three basic alternatives or courses of action may be considered for the properties
in question:
Ae TEIE EXISTING RESIDENCES MAY WELL BE CONSIDERED SUITABLE FOR SINGLE FAMILY
PURPOSES, and any such appropriate changes to improve and promote a good
living environment should be encouraged. One such consideration to promote a
better living environment may well incorporate the construction of a six-foot
decorative masonry wall in the front yard area of any lot fronting on an
arterial street or highway, provided that all wall construction would be
located behind the planned highway right-of-way line of the abutting arterial
highway and along the side property lines, provided that all parcels having
driveway access to an abutting arterial highway, adequate sight clearance
would be provided by a ten-foot wall setback as measured from the intersection
of said driveway with the planned highway right-of-way line, and further provided
- that on"all-corner parce~s, adequate sight clearance would be provided by a
15-foot radius wall setback as measured from the corner intersection of the front
and side property lines,
The R-A parcel to the north of the single-family dwellings on East Street is
adjacent to both East Street and the Riverside Freeway on•rampo However, access
is provided this property from Norwood Street, thereby alleviating some of the
inherent problems of the single family dwellings fronting East Street.-
In maintaining the properties within the study area for single family uses, the
following advantages would be of foremost concerns
le That the protection of the integrity of the single family areas to the east
and southeast by separating them £xom.incompatible land uses be maintainedo
2o That existing traffic problems in regard to ingress, egress, f.low, naise,
etc., normally associated with the properties in the study area, would not
be perpetrated and substantially increasedo
The disadvantages of continuing the use of the properties in question for single
family residential purposes would be primarily suffered by the property owners
of said properties due to the loss in living environment orientated around East
Street traffic not experienced by homes located within any R-1 subdivisiono
I
;
-, . ,~
~..._-__ ___-- --... ---....___ __ . _-------- - -- ..._ _._ .__ ~. ----- _ , ___ - --------
~: ~-- ~----.. _.._.._._ .___.__..:.
~~ • ~ .-t ,
" . .-`t?.~• , F:`- ~?S-~ .` . , . -- -_ --
~ ! ~ e
~ ) ~ t~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 28, 1963, Continued 1834
REPORTS AND - PLANNING STUllY 61-92-2 ~Continued
RECOMM@NDATIONS
B. A SECOND ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE THE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTIES IN QUESTION
FOR LOW MEDIUN DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT~ A reasonable approach, upon
reclassification of subject property to the proper zone, would be:
lo The alteration and remodeling of the existing residences for conversion
to duplex or triplex cnnstruction, or
2. The removal of the existing single-family structures and replacement
with new duplex or triplex construction~
. If an economic preblem does exist for th~ property owners by having to utilize
their property for single family residential purposes, then it could be substan-
tially alleviated by providing for one-story, low m~~dium density..construction
on those properties fronting East Street without having a detrimental...ef.iect on
the pxistina._sinple-family dwellings to the easto Any subsequent..action of this
nature, desired by the residents, for low-medium density development should
provide a workable precise plan, incorporating the followin9 factoxs:
lo Adequate provision for vehicular and pedestrian access., preferably by
means of a twenty-•foot alley to the rear of subject proper.ties, thereby
reducing any traffic problems presently associated with the single-family
homes and their individual driveways, and
2o Adequate architectural treatment and~or screening in order that the traffic
noise, offensive conditions, etco, be kept at a m~imum, thereby ensuring
a good residential living environmento
The advantages in allowing the properties in question to develop for low-
med:um density residential uses would be:
1. That of providing a buffering effect, and securing a good living environ-
ment through the means of adequate architectural treatment, etce, where
the residential land use is adjacent to major thoroughfareso
2o Incorporating adequate provision for vehicular access in an overall plan
of development thereby reducing many of the offensive conditions, ioeo,
ingress and egress and general traffic problems associated with the study `•
area, and i
3o Alleviating any e~:onomic problems of utilizing subject properties for a
less intensive land use~
The primary disadvantage would be the difficulty of assembling and redevelop-
ing of the properties in such a manner that they would be a credit to the
individual property ownars, the residents of this general area, and the City
of Anaheimo . _ _
G. A THIRD APPROACH WOUI.A B£ THE USE OF THE PROPERTIES IN QUESTION'FOR CAMM£RCIAL
PURPOS6So An~ consideration of this natu.re would involve one of the following:
le The use of exi.sting single-family structures for commercial,purposes, or
2. The removal of the existing structures and development with new commercial
facilities.
Any development of the properties in question for commercial uses in this area
in all likelihood would substantially increase the amount of traffic flow,
congestion, noise, parking problems and other offensive conditions associated
with this area and reduce the present living environment enjoyed by the single-
family residences to the easto Any commercial usage, where the existing single•-
family residences are proposed to be utilized, would ideally provide a precise
plan incorporating such factors as:
1. Adequate provision for off-street parking, access to be provided by means
of a twenty-foot alley to the rear of subject properties, and
2. The alterat3on and remodeling of the existing structures to commercial
standards.
_ _. _
_.. _.~ -_ _.---- _ _ __~. . _ ___---- ..--- __.___.____ ~.
i •
:
__ _ _ - _.. . .__ _ _ . _ __._ _ .._~._._ _........~~.._.___..._.---__ _ ---..__. .. .~
~' -- _
~ ~? ~ ~, ~~~ ;~ ~ ~
t , , }
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 28, 1963, Continued 1835
REPOR~S AND - PLANNING STUDY 61-92-2 ~Continued)
RECOMMENDATIONS
Given adequate commercial facilities in the general area, the.p.rimary advan.tage
for using said properties for commercial uses u~ould be an economic advantage
directly enjoyed hy the individual.pxoperty owners of the.prapexty.in.questiono
The disadvantages of commercial usage in this area ares
1. The detrimental effect it would have on the living.environment of single-
family residential ureas to the east and southeast, if not developed .
adequatelyo .
2. The increased traffic problems such as traffic flow, ingress and egress,
offensive conditions, etc.
If the properties were to be considered for an overall plan of new commer.cial.
development, given the residential character of Eas.t Street between Lincoln
Avenue on the south and the F.i:~eraid~ Free:~ay cr. the r.or.th, then. the gropr..~ties
might well be considered for development in accordance with Title Section 18<38,
Commercial Office, Zone Uses and Standardso
IIIe Conclusion
The problem encountered in this area is common to many parts of the cityo Single-
family dwellings have been allowed to front on major or primary thoroughfares,
creating areas where continued residential use may be considered desirable or
unrealistic without adequate protection or redevelopmento
In such areas where redevelopment or a transition to more intensive land use is
felt to be desirable, certain factors should be considered:
le That the integrity of adjacent and abutting residential property should
be maintained and preserved, and
2. That a precise plan, incorporating adequate safeguards and development standards
be considered in conjunction with any change in land use proposals, in order
that the functional compatibility of uses, and safe and effic3ent circulation
of pedestrian and vehicular traffic may be maintained and ensux•ede
It should be noted at this time that the treatment of this area may well set a
precedent for other similar areas throughout the city, and that any approach and~or
solution taken here may well establish a pattern for other areas where single-family
residences front on major thoroughfares.
~
~
~
~
s
t
,~
;
~
~
Mro Kreidt further reviewed the two land use maps and existing dwellings and their proximity
to the heavy traffic on East Streeto A comprehensive report from the Traff3c Engineer was
also presented in which the traffic on North East Street was counted for a 24-hour period
ending Friday, August 9, 1963 at 3:00 pom., which indicated a total of 12,550 cars with
-- peak periods between 7:00 and 8:00 aem. and 3:00 to 6r00 p,m.~ had an approximate 34% of the .
total cars, the 12-hour period between 6s00 pomo and 6s00 a.mo had another 27% with the
balance of 39% or 4,899 vehicles traversing the street between 6:00 a.mo and 7:00 a.m. and
8:00 a.mo and 3:00 p.m. It was further noted in the report that there was no substantial
increase in traffic from ihat taken in 1961 during a 12-hour period, that traffic was
interrupted at La Palma Avenue-North Street due to a traffic signal, that construction was
scheduled to start shortly on traffic signals at the freeway off-ramps, which would further
provide gaps ir~ the southbound traffic, and that East Street was not carr.ying more than
one-half of the street's practical capacity. A com^arison was also made of the East Street
traffic with traffic on other arterial highways<
Mr. Kreidt also reviewed for the Commission the property owner's meeting with the Planning
Staff the previous Thursday, at which time the Study and the Exhibits were presentede ~t
was noted that the property owners within the area were aware of the possible implications
a change in zone would be to the property to the east of the lots fronting on East Street,
and then Mro.Kreidt ofrered the services of the Planning Department in assisting the property
owners if they wished to request reclassification, stating that a precise plan would be
presented at the time the reclassification was to be consideredo
-- ----------._. _ ____ _._.
-~; _ _ ~
~
i •
r _ _
i ~ `'.~ ~ ~~5 ~
MINUfES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 28, 1963, Continued 1636
l
~
~
1
Y
~
~
1
RC-PORTS AND - PLANNING STUDY 61-92-2 ~Continued)
RECOMMENDATIONS
The•Commission determined that most of the structures in the tract in the study area were
not more than nine years old, that off-street parking would be at a minimum, if..the
properties were used for other than their present use, that if traffic lights wexe installed
at the freeway off-ramps, some relief in a continuous flow of traffic would..be.noticed, so
that ingress and egress from the East Street frontage would be more practical>_.The C.ortmission
further expressed the thought that it would be economically unfeasible for a developer to
purchase the ten or tweive homes~ remove the structures and then rebuild the lots for either
R-3 or C-1 use, since R-3 vacant property could easily be purchased at $38,OOO.per acr.e,.and.
that with the price of land and economics, together with the statement that khe..living.. .
environment was something to be desired, the only feasible way of utilizing the property for
other than its present use might i;e the conversion of the lots for duplex•-type. homesa.
Commissioner Rowland stated that at the meeting of the City Council, when.c.onsideration was
given to the reclassification of some of the parcels in the study.area,.it.was.the Council.'s
policy not to commLit properties in such a way that it would require that..the-ownexs.g~ to
Go~s*t te p*etp~t t:lpR?Sp~~Ip$ and their rights from an untenable. situation, and therefore,
referred the reclassification petition back to the Commission•fnr..~...laad..~se.study.o...
Mro Richard Hathcock, one of the petitioners in the reclassification petition.stated.that
the land use study was requested to assist the home owners in..resolving.a_problem.in...the
redevelopment of their property fronting East Street, that it.was his opinion_~ha.t Commis-
sianer Chavos le~ the opposition in opposing the reclassification-of_.his.property, and that
he did not want t}ie Commission to formulate words and thoughts for opponents of the reclassi-
ficationo
Commissioner Chavos replied that the home owners had a right to protect their interests
through legal action as citizens, and that he did not represent the people because he was
appointed, and that he was available to give any citizen information at his disposal which
might help him solve his problems so that he would not be forced to sue for his rightso
:Arso Dorothy Peterson, real estate broker, appeared before the Commission and stated that
she had been contacted by eleven or twelve property owners to dispose of their property as
one parcel, or singly, for development for other than its present use, but preferably for
light commercial development utilizing the existing struotures or their removal and replace-
ment, that she had no buyer at present, that it was quite unusual to find so many persons
in agreement in the disposal ot the:.r properties, and presented an agreement between the
brokerage and the property owners, iiidicating what price was being asked for each lota It
was further noted by the agent for thE ~roperty owners that the ultim~te width of East Street
was being increased by five feet on each side, that an additional five feet would be removed
from the frontage, thus bringing the traffic noise that much closere
Mro Walter Crenshaw, representing the City Engineer, advised the Commission that the ultimate
half-width of East Street adjacent to the properties within the study area was proposed for
45 feeta
Mro Kreidt stated that the Planning Staff was not in a position to state a specific type of
solution, that it was the s~aff's duty to present possibilities, but that the Commission must
decide what should be recommended to the City Councilo
Discussion by the Commission was held relative to the constant requests for strip commercial
zoning along arterial highways, that the City had many other areas which had similar problems
of residences along arterial highways, that it was a situation for which no answer could be
given without creating problems for adjacent property owners, and that there was a problem
of deed restrictions on the properties within the tract in which 5196 of the property owners
must approve of the removal of the dea.i resLrictions, although in rare instances it has been
by-passed, and from evidence presented, only twelve property owners within the 48-lot tract
had expressed consideration in the conversion of their propertieso
Mrs. Lucius Galloway, 1326 Norwood Street, inquired what would happen to the values of
properties adjacent to these properties which had combined for possible light commercial
development, such as a restaurant and a motel which were not needed for that area, and that
although she was planning to sell her home, it was not because of the possible influx of
commercial development, but rather that her husband had been transferred to Azusa, which
made commuting impractical, and that if commercial development were approved, traffic would
use residential streetse
..~__. ~
~"._..._ _..'__. .. _.._....~.._.... .. .._~
.. ..__....~~_, ~
i •
~ _ _ _._
~. .1 'i.y ~ ~. ~
~~ .
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 28, 1963, Continued 1837
REPORTS AND - PLANNING STUDY 61-92-2 ~Continued)
RECOh1MENDATIONS.
Mrso Corrine Lundquist, 1323 Norwood Street, stated that there would be no immediate need
to leave the area backing up to the proposed commercial development on East Street, that
a masonry wall higher than six feet should be required with the elimination of access to
the residential street, and that she would be willing to sell her home if all the homes in
the area were in agreement, because she felt that the East Street homeowner.s did.have a.
problem of ingress and egress, and in an emergency would be unable to l.eave..their. drives,
and this problem should be alleviated, and that nine years ago, when the trac.t..was #irst
built, it was surrounded by orange groves, the freeway was not in existence., the manufactur.•-
ing plants on the other side of the freeway were also not in existence, and. it seemed to be
a very logical living environment, but with offensive odors, noises, etce, she could
sympathize with the East Street homeowners in finding the living environment almost.untenablea
Mrso Lydle Bleckert, 1322 North East Street, stated that there was no legal way to leave
her driveway to enter the flow of traffic on East Street according to a police officer.,
that she had been roundly scolded for slowing down to drive into her driveway.,.that ingress
and egress to d*~Y?~A~~YS on East Street became almost an imrossibility at certain.times
during the day, and that she felt some relief should be afforded the residents of the street
so that access to the properties would be a right, rather than a risko ..... .
The Commission expressed their sympathies with the residents on East Street, and stated that
this was a problem which the City had not been foresighted enough to prevent, but that to
propose commercial development was also difficult to visualize~
Mro Don Smith, 1303 Norwood Street, stated that any proposal of alleys to separate the
East Street and Norwood Street rear va.rds to resolve obtaining access to the property from
an alley was impossible, because several of the homes had swimming pools, and any alley
dedication would cut through these swimm'ng pools which represented an investment of several
thousand dollars, that the homeowners on Norwood Street were concerned and wanted to be
considered if commercial de+velopment was going to be recommended by the Commission, because
an alley would be totally impractical and costly, and that if commercial development were
approved, consideration shoLld be given to adjacent properties all along Norwood Street and
Kenwood Avenueo
Mro Rowland, in explaining action by the City, stated that nothing was actually being
proposed; that the Commission was hearing evidence and considering studies made by the
Planning Staff in order to propeily determine what the Commission could recommend as a
possible solution to the traffic problem and poor livinr, environment on East Street, and
that the report of the Staff was very factual, presenting both the good and bad features
of each proposal so that the Commission might evaluate the best solutiono
The Commission further stated that the City was in dire need of moderately priced homes
because of land values, that although the property may have lost its usefulness as a
residential area, it would be a serious mistake to permit spot zoning throughout the City,
and that it seemed that commercial facilities were adequate for the area without encouraging
further commercial developmento
The Commission discussed the possibility of continuing the study until the n~xt meeting,
but wEre informed that the City Council would consider the recommendations from the Commis-
sion ~he day before the Commission was to meet again, due to a holiday falling on the normal
meeting date~
Mro Camp then voiced the thought that no mattei what solution was arrived at, everyone would
not be satisfied, that no matter Whether both tiers of lots were taken for possible commercial
or multiple family development, the same situation wou~d occur with the residents on the east
side of Norwood Street beinq just as unhappy because they would be facing commercial or
apartment developmenty and even with commercial development for doctors and lawyers, a
traffic problem would still existo
Mro Smith further stated he had been informed that if Eact Street was approved for cor~m~rcial
zoning, that all properties i.mmediately east of the irontage would suffer a reduction in the
value of the properties, ano that if commercial development were approved, the residents
easterly would be constantly cleaning the debris blowing into the yards and poolso
, I'
I
~
_ _ _ _ . _:~:
~
i
_ _.
_•;! •
- r.~.~..r,._._. '
= ~`
_ _ . - ------ - -------- ---- -----
-- ---
~. f ~ ~ ~ \ _J
MINUTES, CITY PLr1NNING COMMISSION, Octaber.28, 1963, Continued 1838
REAORTS AND - PLANNING STUDY 61-92-2 ~Continue~,
RECOMMENDATIONS
In discussion with the Commission relative to the alternatives presented hy the Staff,
Mr~ Kzeidt stated that the Gity Gouncil referrsd the reclassificatian peti.tion bacl: to
the Commission for suggestions of alternate development of the single famil.y hemes, since
the new C-0, Commercial Office, Zone ~}~d'not perrait the use of existing residences f.or
cwqnercial use because that type of development would be detrimental to.the.City.in.general.
The~Commission recalled for the property owners that the Commission had appr.o~ed.the use
of residences o~ Ball Road for commercial purposes with the stipulation .tha.t.two_homes.had
't'~~" e oved'~or each home used for commercial development and an alley dedicated at the
rear of these properties in order that adequate parking facilities could he provided,..and
that very few property owners had developed in accordance with this because.commer~ial.
facilities were more readily available elsewhereo Chairman Mungall then clnsed the dis-
cussion after declaring that sufficient evidence had been submitte.d for the.Commission to
ma~ deG c~i~ono.y~ ..... .
Ma~x ~
C manissioner Chavos offered a motion to recommend to the City Council. that the.study..area
anrn~na.g~o~l i~ Pl~~ni.nn Sti~dy 61-92-2 remain in its nresent zonina...hecausa_the..new.C-O..
Commercial Office, Zone specifically prohibited the use of si.ngl.e_samily_.homes..£ox.cemoeer.cial
uses, and the City. Council and Commission had gone on r.ecord-as. appasing..stxip..cnmme.rcial._....
deve~lopment along arterial streets and highways, and that deed.restrictions.were.recorded_
on Tract Ndo 2022 limiting the use of the property to residential..useso..Commissinnex All.ned,
in seconding the motion, stated that if the City were to initiate. a.pxngxam..of...°p~tting.
sfis.ip commercial development as spot zoning, a disorderly appearance.woul~deuelop,.whi.ch.„ .
would not he a calling card for tourists v.isiting Anaheim~ and an exatbple of such type o~ '
development was along State College Boulevard .
On roll call ~he foregoing motion was passed unanimouslya Commissionex.Gauer.aNas.absent,
ADJOURNN~Nf ~ There being no further business to discuss, Commissioaer Camp
ofiered a motion to adjourn the meetingo..Com~issioner Allred
seconded the motione MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 9:35 pome
Respectfully submitted
Li~~~~ ~~~~ i~~-=-"
ANN KREBS, Secratary
Anaheim Planning Commission
I '
i
(.
~
;
_____~~~_--.-.--_ __,.__..-----.._.~._.___...._._..__._.___._.--- /
_...__~____._„
~ ~ . -- - ~_-.-..~---..~_~_~_ . ...: . .