Minutes-PC 1965/01/18City Hall
Anaheim, California
January 18, 1965
A REGULAR N~ETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI5SION
REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called
to order by Chairman Mungall at 2:00 o'clock p.m., a quorum being
present.
PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Mungall.
- COMMISSIONERS: Ailred, Camp, Gauer, Perry, Rowland.
ABSENT - C;OMMISSIONERS: None.
PRESENT - Zoning Coordinator: Robert Mickelson
Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts
Office Engineer: Arthur Daw
Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs
Planning Department Stenographer: Carolyn Grogg
PLED(~ OF
F~LI.EGIANCE - Commissioner Gauer led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
APPROVAL OF
THE MINUTES - The Minutes of the meeting of January 4, 1965, were approved as
submitted.
AECLASSI:ICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ROBERT W. AND LOUISE M. KRATZ, 1252 North
N0. 64-65-52 Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; property described as:
A rectangular parcel of land with a frontage of 61 feet on the east
CONDITIONAL USE side of Brookhurst Street and a depth of 103 feet, the southern boundary
PERMIT N:;. 41 of said property being approximately 336 feet north of the centerline of
Huntington Avenue, and further described as 1252 North Brookhurst Street.
GENERAL PLAN Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDEMIAL, ZONE.
AA~NDMENT N0. 45
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-0, COMMERCIAL OFFICE, ZONE.
REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTARLISH AN ACCOUNTING OFFICE
IN AN EXISTfNG RESIDENCE.
i '
~
~ *
Subject petitions and General Plan Amendment were continued from the meeting of November 9,
1964, for further study by the Commission of the front-on and side-on problems which subject
property would encounter, and to permit the petitioner to cun`ine his existing business as
a homeowner's occupation, namely, as a secondary use not as a primary use.
Mr. Robert Kratz, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and reviewed a
meeting he held with interested property owners in close proximity to subject property,
further submitting a petition which indicated the signers were opposed to reclassification,
but not to the existing use.
Mr. J. W. Davis, 1246 North Brookhurst Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition
to subject petition and stated that at the last meeting, 50 persons had signed petitions
stating they were not interested in commercial zoning, either for their property or any
property adjacent to theirss that the petitioner was operating a commercial business in an
R-1 Zone since July 1, 1964s that at the last meeting the Commission requested that Deputy
City Attorney Furman Roberts determine that the petitioner was operating as a home occupa-
tion-type~business only; that the petitioner had harassed him in a number of ways since the
last meeting, and this was the first problem he, or any of his neighbors, had e~er experienced
in the nino years of living in the area~ that if subject petition were approved, this would
mean the petitioner would destroy the residential appearance of the area in order to provide
off-street parkir,y in accordance with Code requirements; that if subject petition were ap-
proved, thie would per.,nit any type of commercial development to occupy subject property~
that he opposed any zoning which would disrupt the residential environment of the neighbor-
hood; that if access from Brookhurst Street were to take place, the driveway would be located
within four feet of his living room, and six feet from the master bedroom.- this would,
therefore, be detrimental to the peace, health and general welfare of a citizen of the City
of Anaheimt that the petitioner stated it was cheaper to oFerate in the home than to rent
regular commercial facilities; that to his knowledge, the petitioner had not contacted the
adjoining property owners,with the exception of one, to determine if the use would be
--2452--
~.
r
MII1UfFS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 18, 1965
2453
RECLASSIFICATION - acceptable t.o them; and that no change had taken place in the area -
NOo 64-65-52 therefore, the previous objections remained.
CONDITIONAL USE Mr. Ken Plollenweber, 2219 Clover Avenue, appeared before the Commission
PERMII N0. 641 in opposition to subject petitions and presented a petition signed by
an additional 32 persons opposing subject petitions, and stated that if
GENERAL PLAN subject petitions were approved, this would add to an already hazardous
F~MENDA~NT N0. 45 traffic problem on Brookhurst Street; that the comm_rcial use of subject
(Continued) property would have a detrimental affect on adjacent property owners;
and that the commercial gain of properties on BrookhUrst Street would
~~~ be offset by a loss in the value of the properties adjacent to those
~;;; properties fronting on Brookhurst Stre?t.
Mrs. Norma Herrick, 1252 North Brookhurst Street, 3ppeared before the Commission and stated
she wished to clarify any misunderstanding the petitioner might have regarding the state-
ments made at the last hearing, namely that a real estate firm asked whether she was interested
in selling her home for :ommercial purposes, ar.d she had replied at that time she was not
interested since it was he: and her husband's intent to rear their children there; that later
Mr, Kratz came as a prospective buyer of subject property, and she had informed hin that the
neighbors had discussed the possibility of the Brookhurst frontage being eventually developed
for commercial uses, but that none of the neighbors had expressed any particular desire to
sell their homes for commercial returns at that time; and that the stateme~t made by Mre
Kratz was erroneous since she did not favor rezoning of her, or other property adjacent to
her, propertye
Mr. E. R. Shively, 1303 North Catalpa Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated he
was one of the property owners who had met with Mr. Kratz to discuss the existing use of
subject property; that he was opposed to any rezoning of the property, but did not necessarily
oppose the e~cisting useS that he was speaking for a number of the residents in the area since
their pr~~perties were purchased on the assumption that the area was residential in character;
that they had no intent to sell their properties for commercial uses, and he was definitely
against the rezoning of the property since it would have a detrimental effect upon adjacent
property values; and that one lot extended from Catalpa to Brookhurst Street, northerly of
subject property, which would be seriously affected if the Brookhurst Street frontage were
reclassified for commercial uses.
Mr. Kratz, in rebuttal, stated that there seemed to have been a change in thinking from the
time the conversations he had with the property owners and the meetin9, and in response to
Commission questionin9, stated that he had had several small offices, but that since his
business v~as growing, he needed more space, and subject property suited his purposes ideally.
Mr. Shively again appeared and stated that Mr. Kratz had eJ~ised him he had purchased the
property for financial arrangements, because it was cheaper than some of the frontages on
Euclid Street, and that he was of the personal opinion that to grant the rezoning of subject
property would be the first step in the continuation of commercial development and would
reduce in value considerably all properties in the area.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Discussion was held by the Commission relative to th•~~ fact that the petitioner was utilizing
a residence for a primary use, rather than a secondary use; that the City might establish
some policy whereby any commercial uses of residential property would reouire the removai
of the structure and the construction of a commercial building in its place.
Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts stated that the petitioner had requested a homeowner's
occupation, and at the time this was requested, it was fully explained to him the definition
of a"home occupation", and he would be required to show proof that the use was only secondary;
that since the last meetin9 the Planning Department had investigated subject property and had
determined that the use was not a secondary use, but was a primary use, since the only
iurniture in the building was a cot and all commercial equipment.
CoRmissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1488, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition
for Reclassification No. 64-65-52 be disapprovecJ, based on the fact that the proposed use
would be incompatible to the existing land uses; that subject property could not meet the
requirements of the C-0 Zone, since any signs permitted by the C-0 Zone would have an
irtumediate detrimental effect upon the existing residential environment of the area; ar.d
that at this time the property owners adjacent Lo subject property w.ere not interested in
reciassification, either individually or collectively, of their properties. (See Resolution
Book.)
~x
~:NUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January i8, 1965 2454
RECLASSIFICATION - On roll call t;ie foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
N0. 64-65-52
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
CONDITIONAL USE NOES: COMfAISSIONERS: None.
PERMIT N0. 641 ABSEM : COMMISSIONERS: l~cne.
GENERAL PLAN Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1489, Series 1964-65, and
AMENDN~NT N0. 45 moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred,
(Cor,±inued) to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 649. (See Resolution
Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
I AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
~ NOES: COMMISSIONERSs None.
ABSEM's COMMISSIONERSs None.
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noe 1490, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissior.er Rowland, to recommer~d to the City Council that
General Plan Amendment Noo 45 be disapprovedo (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resoluiion was passed by the following votes
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perz•y, Rowland.
N~ES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSEM : COMMISSIONERS: None.
CONDITIOrIAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. CONSOLIDATED ROCK PRODUCTS COMPANY, P, 0, Box 295U,
PERMIT N0. 665_ Terminal Annex, Los Angeles, California, Owner; Go H. WEBER, P, 0. Box
2950, Terminal Annex, Los Angeles, California, Agent; requesting
permission to expand operations existing to the south of subject
property which involve the excavation, processing, storage, wholesaling, and distribution
of sand, gravel, and other non-fuel minerals excavated on the premises only on property
descri.bed as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately
419 feet on the west side oi Richfield Road, and a maximum death of approximately 916 feet,
the northern boundary of said property being appi•oxirtiate?y 1,090 feet south of the center-
line of N'alnut Street, Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INUUSTRIAL, ZONc.
Mr. H. Ro Stokes,attorney for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated
the use was similar to that being proposed in the NRC Zone; that he had discussed the
propased use with Howard Crooke of the Orange County Water District; and that Mr.Crooke had
advised him to request continuance of subject petition until the Anaheim City Council
acted on the NRC Zone.
Mr. Victor Peltzer, 7002 South Richfield Road, appeared before the Commission and stated
he would not oppose the proposed development if all the regular conditions attached to a
conditional use permit were provided, but not those as presently indicated in the NRC Zone.
Mr. Stok~ stated he was willing to adhere to anf specific conditions attached to the
approval of subject petition, but not necessarily those of the NRC Zone, but it would
be of considerable heip to the industry if some form of guidance in the form of the zone
or policy could be established so that the sand anci gravel operators would be able to
operate with less restrict~ve conditiors than they were presently operating under~ further,
in response to Commission questioning, stated they had r~ad the most recent draft of the
NRC Zone, and they were opposed to the new draft since tlie Orange County Water District
would control this matter which was recently incorporated into the zone; that as far as his
clients were concerned, they were willing to go ahead with the development subject to
adherence to the requirements of the NRC Zone, but Mr. Crooke recommended that the Commission
have these recommendations confirmed by the Council before considering subject petition.
r_" 'I Discussion was then held by the Commission whether or not to consider approving subject
petition, or continuing said petition until the meeting of February 1, 1965, in order
' that the Commission might determin2 what action the Gity Council would take on the NRC
,' Zone; that it was important ihat Mr. Crooke's comments be presented to the Commission so
that a proper determination might be made in the event no action was taken by the City
Council on the NRC Zone; that the owners of prope~ty in that area, as well as the petitioner,
'u j were uncertain as to the proper procedure relative to sand and gravel operations alony the
Santa Ana River; and if the Commission approved subject petition, there might be some :orm
- _ of violation of an ordinance if the NRC Zone were not passed.
!~ 1,
~:~•~f .~ I ~
F
MINUTES,, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 18, 1965 2455
CONDITIONAL USE - Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to continue the hearing of Petition
PERMIT N0. 065 for Conditional Use Permit 'Noe 665 to the meeting of February 1, 1965,
(Continued) in order that the Commission m~ght hear evidence presented to them by
Mr. Crooke, Secretary of the Orange County Water District, and for the
City Council to determine what action to take relative to the ~roposed
NRC Zone. Commissioner Perry seconded t~8 motion. MOTION C.ARRIED.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARINGo ASSOCIATES FUNDING, INCOR?ORATED, 914 East Katella
PERMIT NOe 666 Avenue, Anaheim, California, Ownerg CHARLES GLAZER, 138G1 York Street,
Garden Grove, California, Agent; proposing to establish a hofbrau with
on-sale beer, and at a future cate establish industrial units on the
rear of subject property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a
} frontage of zpproximately 90 feet on the ea=t side of Lewis Street and a depth of approxi-
mately 273 feet, the northern boundary of said property being approximately 550 feet south
of the centerline of Katella Avenue, and further described as 1844 South Lewis Street,
property presently ciassified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE.
Mre Charles Glazer, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed
the praposed use of subject p_operty, noting its location, and reviewed the showings
required to substantiate approval of a conditional use permit.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the size of the proposed hofbrau, the
locatian of the kitchen, noting for the petitioner that the size was inadequate to permit
all of the various apparatuses proposed, as well as the large stage.
Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that two floor plans were sub-
~ mitted, and for clarification purposes it was desired that the petitioner stipulate which
plan he proposed,
Mr. Glazer then stated the floor plan which indicated a kitchen where a former office was
proposed, was the plan the Commission should conside.r.
The Commission reviewed the olan, noting that the hofurau would be the only structure in
existence in the industrial tract, to which the petitioner replied tha': at a future date
it was proposed to develop industrial buildings, and that since the present land use in
~'jacent areas indicated hoibraus in the industrial area, it was proFosed to construct
subject petition's request ii approved~
It was further noted by the Commis5ion that an industrial tract would be difficult to
police if any policing action was necessary because of the proposed location of the hofbrau,
and that the proposed use was not the highest and best use for the land.
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1491, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit
Noo 666, based on the fact that the proposed use was not the highest and best use for the
land; that the size and shape of the proposed hofbrau was inadequate to zllow full develop-
ment of its proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area, nor to the
peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim; and that
because of the proposed location of the hofbrau, it would be difficult to police the area,
thereby creating a hazard for the best interests of the public health and welfare~ (See
Resolution Book>)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungali, Perry, Rowlande
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
r~ ~
:` i ~x
~,
F
MINUI'ES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January '_8, 1965 2456
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. WILLIA'.".C. AND PATRICIA J. 0'REILLY, 3610 North
N0. 64-65-79 Harbor Boulevard, Fullerton, California, Owners; requesting that
property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with
a frontage of approximately 78 feet on the east side o: Harbor Boulevard
and a depth of approximately 117 feet, the northern boundary of said property being approxi-
mately 63 feet south of the centerline of Santa Ana Street, and further described as 504-
506 South Harbor Boulevard, be reclassified from the R-2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDE M IAL,
ZONE to the C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMNIERCIAL, ZONE, to utilize suqject property for a parking
lot in conjunction with a commercial office building to be located at the southwest corner
of Santa Ana Street and Harbor Boulevard.
Mr. Marko Botich, architect r'or the property owner, aopeared before the Commission and
stated the owner was available to answer questions and ;urther reviewed the purpose of
requesting the proposed zoningo
Zcning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that the proposed parking lot
could have been permitted in the C-0 Zone, but that an Area Development Plan for the general
area on the e3st side of Harbor Boulevard had not been prepared or adver.tised for public
hearin93 further that a check had been made by the Right-of-Way Division of the Engineering
Department relative to dedication o.' the alley to the east of subject property, and it was
determined that no dedication had taken placee
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THE HEARING ~AS CLOSED.
Discussion was held by the Commission relative to recommending to the City Council that
subject property be reciassified to the C-0 `Lone; that the Planning Department prepare an Area
Development Plan in time for consideration by the City Council in conjunction with subject
petition; and that at some future date, if the petitioner desired to develop the property
for C-0 use, provided however that the parking requirements for the parcel on the southwest
corner were comFlied with, reclassification proceedings would not be necessary.
Commissioner Gauer offered Resoluiion Noo 1492, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to recommend to the City Council that Petition
for Reclassification No, 64-65-79 for C-1, Neighborhood Commerciai, Zone be disapproved,
but that the Commission further recommend that the C-0, Commercial Office, Zone was more
appropriate, and that a finding be made that the Planning Department would prepare an
Area Develo~ment Plan Noa 16 to be heard in conjunction with subject reclassification,
and conditions. (See Resolution Buuk,)
On ro11 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland,
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COM;~~ISSIOt~ERS: None~
DIRECTIVE TO THE - Commissioner Camp offered a motion to direct the Planning Department
PLANNING DEPARTINENT to prepare an Area Development Plan encompassin9 properties on the
east side of Harbor Boulevard, between Santa Hna and ovater Streets
to be set for public hearing at the February lst meeting in order
that tiie Commission's action on the Area Development Plan ~TiighL be
considered by the City Council at the time subject petitiort was heardo
Commissioner Ailred seco~ded the motion- MOTION CARRIED.
Commissioner Rowland ~eft the Council Chamuer at 3:20 p.m,
RECLHSSlr'ICATION - PUBLIC HEARIhG. COVINGTON BROTHERS IIJVESTMENT, 841 North Harbor Boulevard,
N0. b4-65-77 Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting that property described as: A
rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately
148 feet on the east side of Knott Avenue and a dspth of approximately
130 feet, the southern boundary of said property being approximately 195 feet north of the
centerline of Orange Avenue, be reclassified from the R-3, MULTIPLE-FA~u1ILY RESICENTIAL, ZOitiE
to the C-1, IJEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE to develop for : proposed restaurant and/or small
commercial stores.
Mr. Dudley Frank, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, appeared
stated he was available to answer nuestions; that the basic reason
the Commission's consideration was because it was more desirous to
negotiating with a prospective restaurant operator; and that plans
the Commission or Council's review when finalized.
before the i.ommissior. and
for not having plans for
have leases, as well as
would be submitted for
~
MINUIES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 18, 1965 2457
RECLASSIFICATION - Zoning Coordinator .°.obert Mickelson advised the Commission that the
N0. 64-65-77 first reading of the new C-1 Zone incorporated all of the site develop-
(Continued) ment standards necessary to determine if plans of development were
acceptable to the City.
Discussion was then held by the Commission relative to whether or not elevations should be
required, or whether the new C-1 Zone was adequate to control any development on subject
property, and after discussion it wa: felt no plans would be necessary on a straight zoning
action, but if a conditional use permit were required, plans should be submitted.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Rowland returned to the Coun~il Chamber at 3:25 p~me
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1493, 5eries 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissione: Camp, to recommend to the City Council that Petition
for Reclassification No. 64-55-77 be approved, subject to cunditions. (See Resolution Book.)
Or roli call t~e foregoing resol~tion was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry,
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: IJone.
ABSEM : COMMISSIONERS: None,
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Rowlando
RECLASSIFICATION •- PUBLIC HEARiNG~ HAZEL R. EPKENS, 821 South Knott Avenue, Anaheim,
N0. 54~5_-78~_ California, Owner; GREGORY E. JAMES, 9611 Maureen Drive, Garden Grova,
California, Agent; property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel
CONDITIONAL USE of land ai the northwest corner of Knott Avenue and Savanra Street, with
PERMIT N0~~4 _ frontages of approximately 230 feet on Knott Avenue and approximately
150 feet on Savanna Street, and further described as 821 South Knott
Avenuea Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: G-1, NcIGHBORH00D COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED COiVDITIONAL USE: L"STABLISH A COIN-OPERATED CAR WASH AND A FUTURE SERVICE
STATION LOCATED AT THE 1NTERSECTION OF A PRIMARY HIGf-SNAY
AND A LGCAL STREET AND WITHIN 75 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL
STRUCTURE IN THE R•-A ZONE.
Mr. Gregory James, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated he
was available to ~nswer questions,
Upon reviewing the plans, the Commission inquired of the agent what type of a service
st3tion was proposed on such a small parcel of land, which would be only 83 by 137 feet.
Mr. James replied it was anticipated to have a two-pump servic;e station with no obstructions
between the service station and the proposed car wash, and that at the present time, no oil
company had been sclicited for the siteo
It was noted by the Commission that if a service station were located on subject property,
w:th the r..=.;c;ity of the service station being oriented to a local street, this would be
seLting a precedent for use of properties in similar situations throughout the city<
Znning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that minimum site requirements
in the Site Development Standards had beeri projected, but this was now eliminated, in order
to permit analysis of properties of lesser dimensions to be approved for the uses, if the
Commission and Council deemed it a favorable development.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED~
It was further noted by the Commission that the plans submitted by the petitioner were for
the car wash only, and no olans of development for the service station had been submitted;
that the Commission had no opposition to recommending C-1 Zoning, but that the site proposed
for the service station was inadequate.
l{ - In response to Commission questioning, Office Engineer Art Daw advised the Corunission that
« *
';~ on previous coin-operated car washes the Traffic Engineer had submitted the report indicating
,,~ the maximum allowable curb cut for the proposed type of use; that at the T~terdepartmental
i;j Committee Meeting, subject petition had noi been reviewed as to adequate circulation because
it was felt this was not a critical areao
~
MINU?ES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIO~, January 18, 1965
2458
RECLASSIFFCATION - The recommendation of the lraffic Engineer relative to curb cuts on
N0. 64-65-78 previous coin-operated car washes was reviewed by the Commission in
connection with the circulat,ion element of the car wash on subject
CONDITIONAL USE property, and it was noted by the Comm4ssion that although the inter-
PERMIT_N0. 6b4 section of subject property was not a busy area now, in future years
(Contiruedl this might not be soo
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1494, Series 1954-65, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend to the
City Covncil that Petition for Reclassification No. 64-65-78 be approved, subject to
conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
~ On roll call tne forec+oing resolution was passed by the following vote:
,a --,=~19~ _ ~
~~~
~ AYES: COMMISSIONE,2S: Allred, Camp, Gauer, ~Nungall, Aerry, Rowland.
!, NOES: COMMISSIONEftS: None.
~i' ABSENT: COMMISSIONE:~S: Noneo
.~
'.~~ ' Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noe 1495, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
,`~ i and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit
'1. No. 664 for the car wash only, and deny the request for the service station since plans of
j - development were not submitted for the service station site, and, further, because the
~' proposed service station site was too small to adequately provide the facility; further,
'~' that one of the access drives be eliminated on the proposed car wash, and the provision
'I of a 36-foot access drive in accordance with the recommended findings of the Traffic
~~ Department, and conditions. (See Resolution Book,)
~~
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the iollowing vote:
!i AYESe COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
,.~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: iJone.
ABSENT: COtiIMISSI0IJERS: tJone,
~
~ RECESS - Commissioner Ailred offered a motion to recess the Cortunission hearing
for ten minutes~ Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. 'dOTION CARRIED,
. The meeting recessed at 3:45 o'clock p.m.
;,
'~'~ _ REC9NVENE - Chai:man Mungall reconvened the Commission hearing at 3:55 o'clock p.m.,
( - all Commissioners being presente
Thp foilowing Reclassification petitions and Conditional Use Permits are part of the
continuing program for reclassifying properties into their most appropriate zones:
RECI.RSSIFICATION - PUBLIC HC-ARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East
-~-~~_____
N0. 4- 5-SO Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; Fred Miller, 2109 North Mary 6Yay,
Placentia, California, Owner; property described as: A rectangulariy
CONDITIONAL USE shaped parcel of land with a frontage of 110 feet on the south side of
PERMIT N0, 667 Ball Road and a depth of approximately 430 feet, the western boundary
of said property being approximately 344 feet east of the centerline of
Brookhurst Street, and further described as 2162-2170 West Ball Roado
Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
PROPOSED CLkSSIFICATION: C-1, WEIGHHORHGOD COMM,ERCIRL, ZONE.
PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE: PERMIT THE OPERATION OF AN EXISTING RESTAURANT
WITH ON-SALE EEER AND WINE.
No one appeared to represent the owner.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions.
THE I-~ARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Perry oifered Resolution Noo 1496, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that Petition
for Reclassification No. 54-65-80 be approved, unconditionally, (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
° AY~S~ COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
~ ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
~ ~ AHSE(v'T: COMMISSIONERS: IJone.
I
I .~Y
E
~dINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 18, 1965 2459
RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1497, Series 1964-65, and
N0. 64-65-80 moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred,
to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 667. (See Resolution
CONDITIONAL USE Booka)
PERMIT N0. 667
;~~a;itinued) On roll call the foragoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
~
.
~~~
R
~
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; [Jone.
i2ECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATE:D BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East
N0~ 64-65-B1 Lincoin Avenue, Anaheim, Californias W, W. Freestone, 2601 East Brown
Road, Mesa, Arizona, Owner; prooosing that property described as: A
rectangularly shaped parcel of land at the southeast corner of Ball
Road and Brooki,urst Street, with frontages of approximately 150 feet on Ball Road and
approximately 150 feet on Brookhurst Street, be reclassified from the C-3, HEAVY COkU~ RCIAL,
Z~NE, dPed restricted to a service station only, to the C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE,
to place an existing service station in its most appropriate zone.
No one appeared to represent the owner.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1498, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adop`'^=~, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that
Petitio~ :or Reclassification No. 54-65~-81 be appr,ved, unconditionally, (See Resolution
Book~)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer., ~dungall, Perry, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Wr~ne.
ABSEM : COMMISSIONERS: None.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INiTIATED BY THE CITY PLANNItdG COMMISSIOIJ, 204 East
N0. 64-55 84 ___ Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim. California; Ball Investmerit Group, 3350 West
Ball Road, Anaheim, California, Owner; proposing that, property described
as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a froiitage of approximately
416 feet on the south side of Ball Road and a maximum depth of approximately 1,125 feet -
the southern boundary of said property runs parallel with and coircidental f~ the r.ortherly
boundary of the Pacific Electric Railway right-of-way, and the western bcundary of said
property being approximate?y 900 feet east of the centerline cf Knott Street, a~;d furtlier
described as 3350 West Bali Road-, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURRL, Z6NE, to the
C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD CO~ERCIAL, ZOiVE.
Zonin9 Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that subject petition was initiated
after the Commission had recommended C-0 Zoning for the hospital site under Reclassification
No. 64-65-70, with the finding that the Commission would initiate C-1 Zoning as being more
appropriateo
In response to l:ommission questioning, Office Engineer Art Daw advised the Commission that
Finding No. 3 was a carry-over from a previous reclassification, and that the standard
Ir,terdepartmentaJ Committ.ee recommendations were suggested in the event the City Council
withheld consideration of Reclassification Noo 64-65-70 and Conditional Use Permit No. 265
until subject petition was submitted to theme
T4E HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1499, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Al~red, to recommend to the City Council that Petition
for Reclassification No. 64-65-84 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONER~c Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: [done.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 18, 1965 2460
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING, INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East
N0. 64-65-82 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; Ben J. Hess, 11912 Della Lane,
Garden Grove, California, Uwner; proposing that property described as:
A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately
58 feet on the west side of Euclid Street and a depth of approximately 311 feet, the
southern boundary of said property being approximately 437 feet north of the centerline
of Lincoln Avenue, and further described as 237 North Euclid Street, be reclassified from
the R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE, to place
an existing container manufacturing company and automobile repair shop in the most aFpropriate
zone.
,;~ Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that subject property was the
Ep ; only remaining property in the central M-1 area not reclassified to the M-1 Zone, although
~~~s , it was being utilized for M-1 uses.
~'7 ~ i ~:
~~` No one appeared to represent the property owner.
~I
~~ No one a eared in o
~.I pp pposition to subject petition.
i;
;:l THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
:I -
~~ Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1500, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
'~I and adoption, seconded by Corunissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that
'~.~ Petition for Reciassification No. 64-65-82 be approved, unconditionally. (See Resolution
~j Book.)
,~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
i
;i AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Cam~, C;~er~ Mungall, Perry, Rowlarid,
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: IJoneo
ABSEM : COMMISSIONERS: None.
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. AGAJANIAN INVESTMENT CGRPORATION, 13571 Harbor
, N0. 64-65-62 Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Owner. Property described as: A
: rectangular parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 280 feet
~: CONDITIONAL USc on the west side of Haster Street and a depth of approximately 630 feet,
~ PERMIT N0~ 553 the northern boundary of subject property being approximately 150 feet
i~~ '_ south of the centerline of Wilken Way, and further described as 2229 South
i_~ GENERAL PLAN Haster Street. Property presently lassified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
Ii AMENDMENT N0. 49
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIOIJ: R-3, h;ULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDE M IAL, ZONE.
I REQUESTED CO"~DITIOI~~AL USE: ESTABLISH A ONE AND TWO-STORY MUL'iIPLE-FAMILY PLANNED
~ RESIDEIJTIAL DEVELOPN~NT WITH CARPpRTS AND WAIVER OF TF~
-I FOLLOWING PROVISIONS OF THE CODEs (1) SINGLE-STORY HEIGHT
7 LINITATION WITHIN 150 FEET OF R-A AND R-1 ZONED PROPERTYq
(2) MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREM~NTS; (3) MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONT
:,~ YARD SETBACK; AND (4) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS.
i
Subject petitions and General Plan Amendment were continued from the meeting of December 21,
~.~ I 1964, at the request of the petitioner and for the submission of revised plans.
Zoning Coordinator Robert ~/:ickelson advised the Commission that no revised plans had been
. received in the department.
~ It was noted by the Commission that the representative of the petitioner was not present in
i the Council Chamber and declared that opposition would be heard until such time as the
' representative was present.
I
i i Mrs. Mary McWilliams, 124 West Tiller, appeared before the Commission in opposition to
~,• i, subject petitions, stating that subject property was bounded on three sides by sin9le-
family subdivision development; that if two-story multipie-family development were approved,
~• the privacy of the single-family homes would be in
jeopardy; that propezty values would be
f~ reduced by the proposed development, and it would be setting a precedent for further en-
croachment of multipie-family uses to the east of subject property; that the traffic created
by two-story multiple-family development would be hazardous to the children in the area;
;~ that apartment dwellers did not evince any concern relative to the overcrowding of schools
or creation of traffic hazards as did homeowners in the area; and that subject property was
~i _ easily developable for single-tamily subdivision.
1
,
,~ ~ Six persons in the Council Chamber indicated their opposition to subject petition.
+i ~
' r.'-R
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 18, 1965 2461
~
.
{;i
.~1
~ _
~ *
~a
~a ~
i~
4•
E ~
RECLASSIFICATION - The Commission then discussed the location of the proposed development
N0~ 64~65-62 and noted that consideration should be given to the land use, rather
than any revised plan that might be submitted, and again inquired if
CO!~DITIONAL USE the representative of the petitioner was present, and received no
PERMIT N0. 653 response.
C£NERAL PLAN THE I-~ARING WAS CLOSED.
AMENDMEN7 N0, 49
(Continued) Comn;issioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 150?, Series 1964-65, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry,
to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification
No. 64-65-62 be disapproved, based on the fact that the property was bounded on three
sides by R-1 subdivision development; that subject property was developable for single-
family residential subdivision as indicated on a sketch prepared by the Planning Depart-
ment; and thatthe proposed reclassification ofthe propert~• was not necessary or desirable
for the orderly and proper development of the community. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by th? following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
Com~nissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1502, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit
No. b53, based on the fact that subject property was developable for comparable single-
family residential subdivision; that the proposed use would adversely affect the adjoining
land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it was proposed to be located;
and that subject property was surrounded by single-family subdivision, thereby making the
proposed use incompatible. (See Resolui:ion Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resoiution was passed by the followin~ vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlande
NOF.S : CUMMISS IOIJERS : None e
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None~
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noe 1503, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that
General Pian Amendment No. 49 be disapproved. (See Resolution Hooko)
On roil call the foregoing rssolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando
NOES: COMMISSIOI~ERS: IJone,
ABSENT: COMrd:SSIONERS: Nonea
REPORTS AND - ITEM iJO, 1
RECOMMENDATIONS Anaheim Municipal Code, Title 18, Chapter 18.61,
NRC, Natural Resources and Conservation, Zone.
Zoning Coordinator Allan Shor'f reviewed for the Commission the new draft of the NRC
Ordinance, noting that a number of changes had been made incorporating recommendations
made by the Orange County Water District and che Flood Control District, after consider-
able concern had been expressed by their representatives. Recommended changes made by
the City Attorney's office also were reviewed.
Mr. Howard Crooke, Secretary of the Orange County Water District, Mr. H. R. Stokes,
representing Consolidated Rock Products Company, Messrs. J. Lillywhite and D. Michaels,
representing Sully-Miller Contracting Company, sand and gravel operators, and Mr. Victor
Peltzer, owner of property in close proximity to the sand and gravel operations adjacent
to the Santa Ana River, appeared before the Commission to give testimony on the recommended
changes.
Commissione: Perry offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the latest draft
of the NRC, IJatural Resources and Conservation, Zone be amended as iollows:
1. That Sections 18e61.010, 18.61.020, and 18.61.030 be deleted and made a part of
Chapter 18.64, Conditional Use Permit.
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMAtISSION, January 18, 1965 2462
REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1~Continued)
RECOMMENDATIONS
2. That Section 18.61.040, Site Development Standards be included as part of
Title 17 subject to the following amendments:
(a) (5-b) Maximum Building Height - all reference to commercial or
industrial zones to be deleted.
(b) (lOb-5) Cuts or Slopes ar,~ Excavations - reference should be made
"adopted by the Bcard of Supervisors or the Board of Directors of
the Orancae County Water District shall be: ".
(c) (12) Should read:
"Posting of Signs. Upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit as
provided in this Chapter, the owner, l.essee, or operator of any
such property may post signs indicating that the property may be
used for the purposes granted in said Conditional Use Permit.
"Such signs shall be for the express purpose of notifying surround-
:,,3 property owners of said Conditional Use Permit, and shall be in
addition to signs permitted in Chap±er 18062 oi the Anaheim Municipal
Code, There shall be no limit to the number of such signs, but the
maximum size of each snall be four square feet."
(d) (15) Should read:
"Hours of Operation.
(a) Uses govern~d by this Chapter shall be limited to the followino
hours of operation, except as provided in paragraph (b) below:
when located
lo Within 600 feet of residential zones,such operations shall be
limited to the hours of 6~00 a.m. to 7:00 pemo, Mondays
through Saturdays (including trucking operations).
2. When located more than 600 feet away from residential zones, such
operations shall be limited to the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.,
Mondays thrcugh Saturdays (excluding trucking operations).
(,b) The above hours shall prevail, except:
lo Where required by public authoritiesa
2~ Where work requires a continuous pour of concrete.
3~ Where necessary due to public emergencies.
4. Where any necessary and reasonable repairs to equipment are required.
5. Where the City Planning Commission and/or the City Council, as part
of a Conditional Use Permit, has by resolution specified greater or
lesser hours of operation."
Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM N0. 2
lluplication of street names: Walnut Street, Sevoy Street,
and Marian Way.
~.
~:~ ` ~
r+ ' I
~ a "~~ I:!
Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that the Post O:fice Department
had contacted the Planning Department regarding the duplication of Walnut Street, Savoy
Street and Marian Way, b~t that Marian Way was in a new tract and designated as such by
tne developer at the time nego:iations were made with the former property owner, and it
was reco~~ended no change be made to the duplication of Marian Way, but that public hear-
ing should be set for Walnui Street and Savoy Street.
Commissioner Can,p offered a motion to direct the Planning Department to set for public
hearing consideration of name changes for Walnut Street in the east Anaheim area and
F..avoy Street, between Magnc~lia and Dale and Broadway and Orange Avenue, said hearing to
be s~heduled for the meeiing of February 15, 1965. Commissioner Rowland seconded the
motion. MOTIOid CARRIED.
~
NINUTES, CITY PLAN~ING COMMISSION, January 18, 1965 2463
REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 3
RECOMMENDATIO~S Correction of Anaheim ~dunicipal Code, Title 17,
Land Development ar.d Resources. Chapter 17.04.190(d-2).
Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that a memo had been received
from the Engineering Department indicating a typographical omission of Title 17, L2nd
Development and Resources, ChaH~~r 17.04.190(d-2) covering land fills, as follows:
~:.~~
~~3 ~ '
~ ~
:+, ~x
"All filling shall be done with 9ood sound earth or gravel and oil cake,
macadam bituminous pavement, concrete, or other lumpy m~+terial shall be
used in the fill unless the same i> scattered and lumps do not exceed
four (4) inches in diameter and are not placed within one (1) foot of
sub-grade."
It was n.o~ed that the word "not" had bean omitted, an~ since this had been in effect
since 1957, and had come to light only since one of the engineers was making a study
of the Title 17, and had not been previously questioned or challenged by developers,
it was assumed that the word "not" had been zaad into the interpretation.
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that Title 17,
Land Development and Resources, Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 17e08.190(d-2), Land
Fill, be amended to read as follows:
"Ail filling =ha11 be done with good sound earth or gravel. Oil cake,
macadam bituminous pavement, concreie, or other lumpy material shail not
be used in the fill unless the same is scattered and lumps do not exceed
four (4) inches in diameter and are not placed within one (1) foot of
sub-gradeo"
Commiss?oner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM N0. 4
Proposed joint session with ~• County Assessor's Office
relative to "not a buildable :ot"o
, Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that it had recently been
brought to his attention that aeparate tax assessment and bills were prepared on sub-
divisions in the City of Anaheim designating lots as "not a buildable site or lot", and
that the expenditure tcward this assessing and billing might be eliminated if the
Commission met with the County Assessor's Office to determine what steps could be taken
to combine said non-buildable lotso
Commissioner Camp offered a motion to request a joir~t meeting with the Orange County
Assessor's Office to determine remedial steps tc be :aken in the handling of "not a
buildable lot" in subdivisions in the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Allred seconded
the motion~ MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM M0. 5
Reclassification No. 61-62-69 - Northeast Industrial Area.
Amendment to resolution of intent to include street tree
feeso
Zoning Coordinator P.obert Mickelson advised the Commission that at the time reclassification
by resolution of int~nt of the N~rtlieast Industrial Area had taken place, the City's street
tree planting and beautifying program had not been in effect, and since this was causing
some problem relative to the billing of street trees in the Northeast Industrial Area, it
was recornmended the Commissior, consider recommending to the City Council the amendment to
Resolution of Intent 62R-355 to include the requirement of paying street tree fees.
Commissioner Camp o:fered a motion to direct the Planning Department to set for public
'~ hearing on February 15, 1965, consideration ef an amendment to Reclassification No. 61-62-69,
; Resolution of In~ent No. 62R-355, reclassifying certain areas in the northeast knaheim area
: as industrial pro!~erty to include street tree fees in conditions of approval. Commissioner
Allred seconded che motion. MOTION CARRIED.
~
MINUI'ES, CITY PLANN.iNG COMMISSION, January 18, 1965
2464
REPORTS ANC - I"CEM N0. 6
RECOMM~NDATIONS Orange County Conditional Permit Nos. 1153 and 1154 - Placentia
Unified School District proposing two elementary schools at
Orchard Drive approximately 500 feet south of Imperial Highway
ir~ Yorba Linda and Rio Vista Street between Jackson Street and
Lincoln Avenue in the east Anaheim area,
Zoning Coordinator Robert hiickelson presented to the Commission Orange County Conditional
Permit Nose 1153 and 1154, noting the locatio~~ of the proposed sites and iurther indicat-
ing that the Rio Vis:a Street site was generally in conformance with the Genera?. Plan;
and that the Yorba Linda site was located in an area between two boundaries of property
recently annexed to the City,
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to :ecummend to the City Council that the Orange
County Planning Commission be encouraged to approve Conditional Permit Nos. 1153 and
1154 For two elementary schools. Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM N0. 7
~I Reclassification Noa 64-65-72 - Properties fronting on the north
side of Lincoln Avenue easterly of Brookhurst Street,
Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that in the preparation of
Reclassification Noe 64-65-72,the property owner of Parcel No. 6 was erroneously indicated,
and, thereforF. the resolution recommending approval to the City Council in Resolution
No. 1482, S?ries 1964-55, indicated a Donna Ro Feldhaus, 8822 Brookhurst Street, Anaheim,
California, as owr,ar of Parcel Noo 6, whereas it should have been Standard Erands Paint
Company, Incorporated, Torrance, Californiae
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution N~~ 1507, Series 1964-65, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded 'py Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council
thai Resolution No, 1482, Series 1954-65, recommending approval of Reclassification
No~ 64-65-72 be amended to delete reference to Donna R. Feldhaus, 8822 Brookhurst Street,
Anaheim, California, and the substitution thereof of Standard Brands Paint Company,
lncorporated, Torrance, Caliiorniae (See Resolution Book.)
On roli call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ivone.
ABSENT: COMMISSICNERS: None.
ITEM N0~_8
Conditional Use Permit ~!o. 293 - Fobert Wasserman,
11232 Kalle Vista, Beverly Hills, California, Owner<
I_loyd M~unc, Agent. Property located on the ezst side
of Knott Avenue, southerly of Lincoln Avenue.
Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that subject petition had been
granted by the Commission January 7, 1963, in Resolution No. 589, Series 14o2-G3; that
no action had been taken by the City Council; that a time extension of 180 days was granted
by the Planning Commission on April 29, 1963; that the petitioner requested ~ 90-day exten-
sion of time on the improvement bond which reclassified subject property from the R-A to the
C-1 Zone in Reclassification No. 56-57-49; that on January 15, 1964, the petitioner was
notified ihat conditions which were to be complied with ~rior to the Commission's action
being final had r~ot been complied with, namely street dedication and payment of street lightin9 fees;
that an attempt had been made to contact the petitioner on January 6, 1965, but nc reply
had been received; and that since subject petition had been granted the legal 180-day time
extension, and this having expired April 24, 1964, it was recommended that the Commission
terminate all proceedings on Conditional Use Permit No. 293, based on the fact that the
cunditional use permit was for the development of a planned unit development in a C-1 Zone
which was no longer permissible, and the fact that no development had taken place on subject
property.
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 1506, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Comrti:ssioner Allred, to ierminate ail proceedings on Conditional
Use Permit No. 293, based on the fact that a time extension had expired on April 24, 1964,
and no indication had been received from Lhe petitioner he would exercise his rights as
granted by the Commission under said conditional use permit. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call tha foregcing resolution was passed by the foliowing vote:
~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
"~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION, January 18, 1965
2465
REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 9
RECOM~NpATIONS Variance Noa o99 - Temporary subdivision sign located 214 feet
east of the southeast corner of Brookhurst Street and Lincoln
Avenue, covering subdivision Tract Noo 3067.
Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that subject petition was
qranted by the Planning Commission on February 18, 1957, in Resolution No. 158, Series
1956-57; that the purpose of this petition was for the erection of temporary directional
signs advertising the sale oi lots and homes in Tract No. 3C67 which was located on the
northeast corner of Orange Avenue and Trident Street; and that the signs were no longer in
existence, and, therefore, termination was in ordero
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noo 1504, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Con~issioner Allred, to terminate Petition for Variar.ce No. 699,
based on the fact that Tract No. 3007 was full~ developed, and that the signs were no longer
in existence. ~See Resolution Booke)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
NOES: CUP+iMISSIONERS: IJone.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONeRS: PJone.
ITEM N0. 10
Variance Noo 870 - Temporary directional sign located at the
northeast corner of Brookhurst Street and Orange Avenue,
advertising the sale of lots and homes in Tract No, 2712,
located on the south side of Orange Avenue between Nutwood
Street and Brookhurst Street,
Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickeison advised the Commission that subject variance was
granted by the Planning Commission on November 18, 1957,in Resolution Noe 118, Series
1957-58, for the purpose oi erection of a temporary directional sign advertising the
sale of lots and homes in Tract No. 2712, which was located on the south side of Orange
Avenue between Nutwood Streei and Brookhurst Street, and that Tract No. 2712 was fully
developed, and the sign was no longer in existencee
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noe 1505, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to terminate Variance Noe 870, based on
the fact that the tract which the sigr. advertised was fully developed, and the s:gn was
no longer in existence, (See Resolution Book.)
AYES: CONJ~AISS:ONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followinq vote:
ITEA1 N0. 11
Area Development Plan No. 13 - Front-on and side-on of homes on
La Palma Avenue, easterly of Brookhurst Street.
Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson inquired of the Com~nission whethe.r they were de:;irous
of having Area llevelopment Plan No, 13 reviewed for them, covering a portion of the City-
wide study being made of residential homes fronting on arterial highwayse
The Commiss:~~n was of the opinion that any consideration of studies regarding commercial
use of residential homes fronting on arterial highways be held in abeyance until the
Commission met with the City Council to determine a policy for the entire City.
ADJOURNMENT -"fhere being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Allred offered
a mo±ion to temporarily adjourn the meeting to January 19, 1965, at
10:00 o'clock a.m., to meet in a work session with the City Council to
discuss a policy for the front-on and side-on of residential homes on
arterial s~reets and highways in the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Camp
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 5:15
o'clock p.m,
Respectfully submitted,
~
~
A N hREBS, Secretary
Anaheim Planning Commission
2
h
~x