Minutes-PC 1965/03/01City Hall
Anaheim, California
March 1, 1965
A REGULAR Iu~ETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
RHGULAR N~ETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Comniission was called
to order by Chairman Mungall at 2:00 o'clock pom,, a quorum being
present~
PRESENT - CHAIRMA~: Mungallo
I - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowlanda
' ABSEM - COMMISSIONERS: 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
' PLEpGE OF
ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Rowland led the Pledge of Allegianca to the Flag.
NEW COMMISSIONER - Chairman Mungall introduced the newly appointed Commissioner,
Lewis Herbstj to those present in the Council Chambero
ELEC'f ION OF
1965 OFFICERS - Chairm3n MLngaii appointed Commissioner Perry as temporary chairman
during ~he election of a new chairman~
Co~unissioner Gauer nominated Comm~ssioner ldungail as chairman of
the Commission for the following year.. Commissioner Rowland
seconded the motlon.,
Co~rissione~ Ai;red nominated ~ommissioner Ca~r.p as chairman of
; the Co;tanissior~ fo:- the fo.lowing year. Commissioner Mungall
seconded the ~notion.
Corr;missione_ Rowiand n,oved tl~iat the nominations be closed~
Corrmissioner A::red seconded the motion~ MOTIUN CARRI=D,
Upon [a:iying tne ~otes~ the Commission secretar•, c~eciar~d that
CoR~niss~o:,e_ htunga:: was 3gain voted chairman by ~ vote of 4 to 3~
Commissfoner Nowiand ofiered a motion to elect Commissioner h1unga1l
unanimously Corrui~issioner Gauer seconded the motion~ MOTION
CARRIED UIJq!dI~,h:,1151_Y.,
Chai:man f+i,,ngaii resumed the chairmanship and asked ror nominations
for chairman pro temo Commissior,er Rllred nominated Commissioner
Car.~,r, for chairman p:o tem, Conmissioner Rowland seconded the motion.
Tnere beir,g no more nominations, Cnairman Mungall declared the
nominations c:osed~
Commissione: Rowl:nd ofiered a motion to declare Commissioner Camp
elected un3r,irr,ouslyo Cor,missioner Gauer seconded the motion,
N~TION CARRIED UNANIMUUSI.Y.,
Conmissioner Gauer nominated Ann Krebs ior secretary for the coming
year~ Commissioner Perry seconded tt,e motion~ Commissioner Rowland
then moved to elect Anr Krebs ~.:r,:~~i~r;ously foi secretary~ Commissioner
Gau~r seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED UN:-:VIMOUSLY~
APPROVAL OF
THE MINUTES - The Minutes of the meeting of Febi•uary 15, 1965, were approved as
submitted~
1 '
~ ~
°f ~
- 25U3 -
~
...
MINUTES, CITY PLANNI!vG COMMISSION, MarGh 1, 1965
2504
CONDITIONkL l'SE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING~ SULLY-MILLER CONTRACTING COMPANY, P. 0~ Box 432,
PeRMIY N0, b~g_ ~*ange, California, Owner; requesting permission to produce and manufacture
~:~neral aggregates for building and road construction on property described
as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land with frontages of approximately
75 feet ~n the we•st side of Fee Ana Street, approximately 620 feet on the east side of Rich-
field Road, anr3 a,}~~roximately 187 feet on the west side of Richfield Road. Subject property
has a r~aximum east-west dimension of aFproximately 2,250 feet and contains approximately
40 acres o€ la~do Subject ~roperty is bounded on the south by the Santa Ana River and the
nor~her.nmost boundary lies approximately 1,180 feet south of the centerline of Walnut Street.
Propesty presently classified M-i, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONEe
~ubject petition was continued from the meeting of February 15, 1965, at the request of the
petitionero
Mr. Don Michaels, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the
zoning aciion on subject propez•ty from their first application in the Spring of 1963 with
the County to the present petition; it was further noted that 40 acres of the ~roperty were
annexed into the City, and the :emaining 25 acres had been zoned by the County into the Sand
and Gravel Zone, and that the proposed request for establishment of the excavation of the
sand and gravel was necessa=y bec:~use the river was rapidly being depleted of those minerals.
Mro Victor Peltzer, 7002 South Richfield Road, appeared before the Commission, stating he
was desirous of having the petitioner abide with the same hours of operation as the Commission
had imposed on Consolidated Rock Products Companya
No one else appeared in opposition to subject petitiono
Letters from the Yorba-Linda W3te. Dist=icC and the Orange County Water Distrir..t~were iead
by Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson.
A letter from the petitioner was a:so read to the Commission, requesting that street dedica-
tion and street improvement :e,~.~irements be waived by the Commission at this time.
It was noted by Mro Mickeison that Consolidated Rock Products Company, located adjacent to
subject property, was granied a±emporary waiver of street improvements by the posting of
a two-year bond rathe: than the normai six•-month bond~
In response to Cortmission q;,FSrioning, Mr~ Michaels st3ted ihat the materials were transported
along the Santa Ana River ch.3nne:,having access to Fee Ana Street~
THE FIEARING WAS CLOSE'J,.
Commissioner Pei•ry offered Resolution Noo 1543, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauery to grant Petition for Condi;,ional Use Permit
No. 675, subject to conditions; and the rec~uirement of a two~year bond to insure the installa-
tion of street improver.ients, rathez• tran the normal six-month bondo (See Resolution Book~)
On roll call the foregoing resclution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMAII5SIONERS: Ail~ed, Cart~p, Gauer9 Herbst, Mungail, Perry, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
ABSENT: COM".4ISSIONERS: A~one~
RESOLUTIONS OF APPRECIATIO~;
A RESOLUI'ION OF TI-~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF TE-¢ CITY OF ANAI~.IM EXPRE5SING APPRECIATION
ON BENAL.F OF TI-~ PLANNING COMMISSION TO
RICHARD REESE FOR HIS SERVICES TO Tl-!E CITY OF ANAHEIM
WHEREAS, RICHARD REESE has been Planning Director for five years and a memioer
of the Planning Department of the City of Anaheim for seven years; and
WIiEREAS, Mr. Reese is voluntarily leaving the service of the City of Anaheira
to assume the duties of employment in private industry; and
WI-lEREAS, during said years of service to the City Mr, Reese has served as
Planning Director o:nd adviser to the Planninq Commission of the City of Anaheim and
has performed such advisory duties faithfully and well; and
;; ~ ~
i~ ~
n.~
,,:1 .1x
~ ~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANRING COM~ISSION, March 1~ 1965 2505
RESOLUfIONS OF APPRECIATIO~: (Continued)
W!-~RL-AS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim is deeply appreciative
of the services performed by Mr~ Reeseo
NOW, TFIEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Flanning Commission of the City of
Anaheim that the appreciat9.on and gratitude of the Planning Commission be conveyed
and expressed to RICHARD A~ REESE for his many years of faithful and loyal service
to the City of Anaheim and the Planning Commission, and that a copy of this resolu-
tion be placed in the Minutes of the Planning Commission and a copy presented to
Mro Reeseo
On roll call the foregoing Resolution of Appreciation was approved UNANIMOUSLY by
Commissioners Allred, Camp, Gauer, Nerbst, Mungall, Perry, and Rowland.
A RESOLUI'ION OF Tf-~ CITY PLqNNING COMNISSION
OF TI-IE CI'iY OF A[JAHEIM EXPRESSING APPRECIATION
ON BENALF OF T!-IE PLANNING COMMISSION TO
ALLAN SHOFF FOR HIS SERVICES TO Tf-~ CITY OF ANA!-IEIM
" WHEREAS, ALLAN SHOFF has been a member of the Planning Department of the
City of Anaheim for four years; and
W!-IEREAS, h1r~ Shoff is voluntarily leaving the service of the City of Anaheim
to assume the duties of employment in private industry; and
WHEREAS, during said years of service to the City Mr. Shoff has served as
Planning Coordinatoz and adviser on Advanced Planning to the Planning Commission
of the City of Anaheim and has performed such advisory duties faithfully and weli;
and
WF~REAS, the Pianning Commission of the City of Anaheim is deeply appreciative
of the services performed by Mr~ Sl~~off~
NOW9 T1-~REFORE, BE IT RESOL.VEU by the Planning Commission of the City of
Anaheim that the appreciation and gratitude of the Pianning Commission be conveyed
~ and expressed to ALLAN SHOFF for his many years of faithful and loyal service to
_ the City of Anaheim and the Planning Co:mission9 and that a copy of this resolution
be placed in the Minutes of the Planniny Commission and a copy presented to Mro Shoff.
On roll call the foregoing Resoiution of Appreciation was approved UNANIMOUSLY by
Commissioners Allred, Camp,. Gauers Herbst, Mungal~, Perry, and Rowlando
SPECIAI. REPORT - Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson reviewed for the Commission information
or Richfield Road, noting that at the time La Palma Avenue was approved
for a general alignment, extending to Imperial Highway, Richfield Road was
ttien designated as a collector street southerly of said extension of
La Palma Avenue; further, ihat in the future the Staff would present a study indicating how
Richfield Road might be connected with Dowling Street~
f CODIDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC FiEARING.. ROY E, FIELD9 538~ South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim,
• E PERMIT NOo f~76 .:alifornia, Owner; requesting permission to establish additional office
~ and storage facilities by the addition of a second story to an existing
building on property descrihed as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of
i land at the northeast corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Ellsworth Street, with frontages of
'~ ' approximately 60 feet on Anaheim Boulevard and approximately 155 feet on Ellsworth Street,
~I and further described as 538~ South Anaheim Boulevardo Pro ert
LIGHT iN~USTRIAL, ZONE~ P Y presently classified M-1,
,
~ Mr. Roy Field, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that the proposed
office and storage facilities would be for the existing business on subject property, and
'~ would not bP for rent or lease~
No one appeared in upposition to subject petitione
! ` Tf-Tt HEARING WAS CLOSED~
,
~ Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No, 1544, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
'f '~ and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Ailred, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit
; ~~ No. 676, subject to conditionso (See Resolution Book~)
~ ~x
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNI~G COMMISSIODI, March 1~ 1965 2506
'J
.~x
~ ~
~
;
~ ._
CONDITIONAL USE - On roll c311 the foiegoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
PERMIT NO_ 67ti
(Continued) AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Campy Gauer, Herbst, Mungali, Perry,
Rowlando
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
CONDITIONAL U5E - PUBLIC HEARING„ RAWLINS INVESTMENT CORPORATION, Box 2382 Terminal Annex,
PERMIT N0. 678 Los Angeles, California, and ROBERT AND MARY D~ NEWTON, 411 East 20th
Street, Santa Ana, California, Owners; CHARLES B~ FRANK, 300 Wilshire
Avenue, An+~heim, California, Agent; requesting permission to establish a
service station within 75 feet of a residential structure in an R-A Zone, on property
described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 45 feet
on the south side of Katella Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 214 feet; subject
property is bounded on the west by Mountain View Avenue and on the northeast by Manchester
Avenue, and having frontages on these streets of approximately 178 feet and 135 feet
respectively, Propesty presentiy ciassified R~-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONEo
No one was present to represent the petitionez~
Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson reviewed for the Commission the fact that a reclassi-
fication had 'oeen recommended ior approvai, and a conditionai of approval was the require-
ment of the filing of z conditior~al use permit~
Mro John Barker9 1818 South Mountain 'Jiew Aven~e~ appeared before the Commission and stated
he was not opposed to t:~e service statior, coristructions but inquired whether a six-foot
masonry wall wouid bp a condi±ion of approvai to separate the commercial property from his
propertyo
The Commission advised hL~ Larkei that a requirement of the C-1 Zone was a six-foot masonry
wall to separate the commercial and tr,e R-•A p,~rcel to the south~
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED,~
Commissioner Perry offered Reso?~:;.ion lVo~ ~5-15y Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit
No< 678, subject to conditions~ fSee Resolution Booko)
On roll cal: the fo:egoing resolution w3s passed by the following vote:
AYES: CGMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gaueri Herbst9 M,ingali, Perry, Rowland.
NOES: COMkIISSIO~'ERS: iJone~
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None~
R£CLASSIFiCATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC ~ARI~G~ I~~ITIATED BY Tf-IE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,
~0~ 64-65•20 W_ 204 East Lincoln Avenuey Anaheim, California; propos;ng the reclassi-
fication of property described as: All that certain property situated
AREA DEVELOPN,ENT on the south side of Ball Road extending from Iris Street westerly to
PLAN l~0~ 8_~r_ 128 feet west of the centerline of Palm Street and having a maximum
depth oi approximately 116 feet, from the R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL,
R-a, AGRICUi.TURAL.~ and C~O, COMN~RCIAL OFFICE, ZONES, to the C-1,
GENERAL CGMA~ RCI.AL, ZOAEe
Subject petition and Area Development Plan were continued from the meetings of AugUSt 17,
October 19, ar.d December 7, 1964, and Febr~iary 1, 1965, to allow time for the Commission to
meet jointly with the City Council to determine a nolicy and possible plans for the 2,700
homes which front-on and side-on arLerial streets and highways within the Cityo
Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advise~ the Commission that subject petition and Area
Developmpnt Plan had been continued a ~umber of times :lwaiting completion of the "fiont-on
and side-on" study on arterial streets ++nd highways, and because of the shortage of personnel
in the Planning Department, ihis study had not been completed, and thers was no idea of when
it would be coinpleied9 pending the acquisition of new personnel; that the Commission could
decide whether or not the petition should be recommended for disapproval at this time, or
the continuance for a considerable length of time,with the possibility if subject petition
were disapproved, a new petition could be initiated when the study was completed.
The Commission was of the opinion that in order to eliminate the possibility of an indefinite
delay, or continuance of subject petition, that the Cortmission recommend disapproval without
prejudice, and the initiation of a new reclassification when the study was complete, in order
that property owners of property under consideration would be notified when the study was
complete, without having to attend Commission hearings each time it was contir.uedo
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING C~~MMISSION, March 1, 1965 2507
[: .-e-_'iE~f
~I~
RECLASSIFICATION - One pezson in the Council Chamber indicated his concern about the
D10, 64-b5-20 _ ultimate davelopment of the properties fronting on the south side
of Ball Road between Iris and Palm Streetso
AREA DEVELOPN~NT
PLAN NOa 8 Commissioner Rowland o;fered Resolution Noo 1547, Series 1964-65, and
(Continued) moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to
recortimerd to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification Noo
64-65•-20 be disapproved, based on the fact that data necessary for the
Commission to render a recommendation to the Council, namely the front-on and side-on study
of 2,700 homes located on arteriai streets and highways, was a neiessary document; that
innurierable continuances had 'oeen made awaiting said docu,nent; that the Planning llepart-
ment had indicated the study could not be completed for some time, but could not give a
specific date; and that at t}~e time the planning study was completed, the Commission could
again iriitiate recb~ssification pro~eedings in order that all property owners might be
notified at that time regarding the study and reclassification of their propertiese (See
Resolution Booko)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Hilred, Camp, Gauer, Nerbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: IJoneo
ABSENT: COMMISSIO~ERS. t~oneo
Commissioner Camp offered Resol~ition Noo 1546, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
~nd adoptiony seconded by Con;rt;issioner Ailred, to recommend to the City Councii that Area
Development Plan No~ 8, Exhibit "B", be adopted as a feasible means of providir~g secondary
access for properties which r~iiyiit possibly be reciassified for commercial use; further
based on the fact that ~.rie ;~*_opei•ty reclassified under Reclassification Noo 63•-64-121 for
C-0, Commercial Ofi•iceY Zone re!~ui:ed the approva"; of an Area Development Plan, ;See
Resolution Aook..l
On roll call the foregoing resoi~tion was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland~
NOES: COMMISSIO!~ERS: None~
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None,
~• ~
~
~.
EJ -
4~ ~
; ~ „ax
i~
;'i
i'
,r
~
( _, - .
CONDITIONAL USE •- PUBLIC 1-1EARING~ ~SSOCIATES FUNDING, IIJCORPORATED, 914 East Katella
PERMIT N0~ 679_ Avenue, .Anaheim, California, Owner; NANDLEY J. WALKER, 1406 N,'est
Baker Avenue, Fullerton, California, Agent; requesting permission to
estabiish an industriai••office complex on a site of less than five
acres on pzo~erty described .~s: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of
approximately 100 feet on the e~st side of 1.ewis Street and a maximum depth of 274 feet,
the northern boundary of said property being approximately 335 feet south of the center-
line o.' Kateila Avenue, and iurth~r describea as 1828 Lewis Street~ Property presently
classified M-ly LTGF?T INDUST2IAL~ ZONE~
Mr~ Handley Walker, agent for the petitionery appeared before the Commission and reviewed
the proposed development, noting that the property was already divided into M-1 lnts of
100 by 273 feet; that indust:ially oriented office space was necessary to provide comple-
mentary facilities for ~he industi•ial development in the areaq and further, in resoonse
to Commission questioning, stated that the proFosed type of space avlilable would be
similar to engineers, archittcis, and drafting facilities~
No one appeared in oppositi~~n to subject petition~
TFlE I-~AFTNG 'N.AS C1~SED.
Discussion was ther. held by the Comrrission to determine whether stipulations by conditions in
approving subject petit~.on should be indicated, to which Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson
stated it was not riecessar.y since any zppiication for a business license was processed
through the department to determine whether the property was zoned for said use, and that
any proposed office use v;ould have to be in conformance with the stipulations of the M-1 Zone.
Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No~ 1548, Series 1964-65, and moved for its pass~ge and
adoption, seconded by Cr~~issioner Rowland, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permi.t
No. 679, (See Resolution Book~)
~n roll call the forsr~oing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIC'NERS: Ailred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland~
NOES: COMMISSIUNERS: None>
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
MINUfES, CITY PLA~NI\G COMMISSION, March 1~ 1965 2508
VARIANCE N0~ 1 87 - PUBLIC HEARING~ LEO A. AND BESS C~ ELI<INS, 932 South Lemon Street,
Anaheimy Ca~iforni~y Owners; xequesting permission to establish two
tN~o-s±ory ap~r•±mer,t units by adding one unit each to two existing
buildings; waive:• of the one-story height limitation within 150 feet of R-1 Zoned property;
waiver of required landscaping in side yard; waiver of minimum required parking; and waiver
of minimum requix•ed side yards on pr.operty des~~ibed a5: A rectangularly shaped parcel of
land with a frontaqe of approximately 137 feet on the east side of Lemon Street and a depth
of approximately 180 feet, the nozthern boundary of subject property being approximately
418 feet south of the centerline of Vermont AvenueY and further described as 932-938 South
Lemon Streeto Property presently classified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE~
_ Mr. Leo Elkins, the petitioner, appeared before the Com~ission and reviewed the condition
~~~ of subject property at Lime of purchase and asked that he be permitted to utilize the fr~nt
;i portion of his property by being granted the required setback of 15 feet as opposed to the
~~ ~ present 26•-foot setback in ozder to utilize the unused land and to eliminate unnecessary
~ maintenance costs; furthet, Lhat last year he had built eight new apartments on*.o rear of
.
~ subject property, and in coniorcnance with Code requirements, had constructed 20 garages;
! that since some of the older tenants preferred not to use the garage and park in the street
i instead, an oversupply of garages was avaiiable; and that they were asking for F?rmission
~ to pave the 10~-foot strip on the north side of the existing buildings in order to utilize
~ , it for three additional parking spaces if saree were ever needed, The petitioner further
i 'I stated that he w3s asking for withdrawal of the waiver for the one-story height limitation
i as he had determined he could construct the two proposed units as one-story at a lower
construction cost.
In response to Conmission ?uestioning, the petitioner stated that employees of the Steffy
Buick Company werz parking 't.neir c3rs on *he vacant lot to the rear of subject property;
that he nad oniy one vic3r,cy at pzesent; that he had always maintained a lower rental
than other apartm=nts in ihe 3rea; and that the two trees in front would not be removed~
Mr. H, R, Sherwood, 1013 Souih ~en:on, appeared before the CoTUnissior. in opposition to the
waiver of minimum ~e?u~~ed pa;ki;g and suggested that maybe designated pai•king spaces
could be marked for usage~~
Ueputy Ci.ty Attor-~ey Fu:~n=.n Robe_ts ~dvised tt:e Comrnission that the matter of charging
for garages could not be coniroi~ed by the City; only that the Code required that a parking
space be provided witn each apartment:
THE HFARING INAS C1.OS[D.
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No~ 1549, Series 1964-•65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Con,missioner Perry, to approve Variance No, 1087, subject to
co~ditions, and, further, that the waiver of the single-story height limitation be deleted
as requested by the petitioner.,
On roll call the foiegoing resoiu±ior was passed by the following •rote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ~~11red, Camp, Gauer, F!erbst, t~lungal.l, Perry, Rowland.
NOES: CQMMISSIGNERS: tJone~
ABSENf: COMJdISSIC~!ERS: Noneo
VARIANCE_h0~i~t 88 •- PiBLIC f-IEAFING. LLOYD !.o Af~D VIOLA SPIRES, 915 IJorth Janss Street,
Aniheimy Califo.nia, Owners~ J01-iN D. VON DER ~IDE, 924 IJorth Euclid
Stxee±, Araheim, California, Agent; requesting pern~ission to waive the
sinnle-story height limit~tior, wilhin 150 feet of R-1 Zoned property on property descri6ed
as: F rectangul3i~ly stiaped parcel of land with a frontage of a~proximateJy 49 feet on the
west side of Lemon S±reet and a deotl~ of approximately 109 feec, the southern boundary of
said E~roperty being approximately 484 feet ncrth of the centerline of North Streei;, and
furtF.er describEd as 837 Nortt~ Lemon Street~ Property presently classified R-3, MULTIPLE-
FAMI:.Y RESIUtNTIAL., ZONE.
Mro John Von der Neide, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and
reviewed the basis for requesting the variance, and in conclusion stated the property
immediately adjacent and in close proximity to subject property enjoyed the right which
the owner of subject property did not, and that ±he proposed use was in conformance with
the ~eneral Plan~
No one appea;ed in opposi*ion to subject petition~
Tf-IE HEARING 'NAS CLOSED~
~
MINUTES~ CTTY PLAl~NIPJG COMMISSION, March 1, 1965 2gpq
VARIANCE N0~ 1688 - Commissioner Rowland offezed Resolution No> 1550, Series 19C:•~-65,
(Continued) and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner
Allred, to grant Petition for Variance Noo 1688, subject to conditions.
(See Resolution Booko)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland~
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
~~ . RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING~ FINANCIAL FEDERATION, IM:ORPORATED, 921 West Beverly
N0. 4-65•-94 Boulevard, Montebello, California, Gwner; requesting that property
----~-----------
' d5scribed as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land situated nort}ierly
! TENTATIVE MAP OF of the Santa Ana Canyon Road and westerly of Imperial Nighway, the
j. TRACT N0~ 5844 _ southeriy boundary of said property coincides with the northerly right-
,' of•way bound3ry of the Santa Ana Valley irrigation canal, and the east-
I ern boundary lies approximately 270 feet west of the centerline of
i" Imperial Highway; the northern boundary of subject property is the easterly prolongation
_i of the northern boundary of Tract No~ 5229 which lies immediately west of subject property,
from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZO~E, ±o the R•-2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONEo
I:
! Subject tract, located northeriy of 5anta Ana Canyon Road and westerly of Imperial Highway,
i and r_overirig approximately 12 acresy is proposed for subdivision into 44 R-2, MULTIPLE-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZOlVED lots-,
Mr, Edward Jo Tell, =epresenting the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and
stated subject tract was fiied for t;E possible ultimate development for the property;
that the tract would have to be modified if additi.onal land was ultimately taken for the
Imperiai F:eeway inte*change; that it was proposed to have a~iaue type of developrc~ent;
that the Genera: Pian did noi indic~te t;at subject property sho~ld be developed for
single-family usey oniy for iow de~sity developmentq that in conjunction with the single-
family residentia? subdivision deve:opment to the west and the freeway development to the
eastY the p:oposed dnplexes was ccnsidered a more compatible zoning than the single-family
' residential zor,e wo~:id be9 adj~cent to the freew3y, and that to propose a lower density
; for s~bject property wovld be inccmpatible with the commerciai development-recently con-
_ sidered by the Commission-~d;acent to subject property~ and that the attorney for the
_ petitione: would 3nswer any othez technzcai questions~
In response to Commission Guest:oning; M: Teil stated it was proposed to have both one
and two-story eievations witi~ the lots being deve:oped as attractively as possible. and that
it was planned to seil the lots for uitimate deveiopment..
~ The Commission 3gain emphasized for the a ent for the
~ 9 petitioner that since the State had
not determined the ultimate freew3y ~lignment of which subject property might become a
` part, tt;e comr.;ercial deveiopment to the east had been continued for three months to await
an answer from the State Highway ~i~`_s:on..
Mr~ Tell state: they had obtained a gerera; alignment for the highway from the Highway
Department, and if this hecame p:ecise~ it would be necessary to modify the tzact map to
incorporate the new alignment9 and there w~s a possibility of sixteen lots being eliminated
from the subdivision~ In .`urther re::ponse to Cornmission questioning, Mr~ Tell stated a
90-day extension would have a detrimental effect on possible construction of the property
since their development program provided for imn;edi?te construction upon receiving approval
of the reciassification from the City, and that the City of Anaheim could condition their
app.roval on obtaining the S~jte Highway approvzl of the precise alignment for the inter-
changeo
i Mr, Terrence McGovern, attorney for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission, stating
~ that the firm he represented deveioped 160 homes to the west; that from conversation when
selling these homes, it was determined the highest and best use of subject property would
, be to build duplexesp that considerable property had already been assigned to the State
for highway constr~,ction; that it was the developer"s desire to continue their program of
devr:lopment of subject tract upon the completion of Tract Noa 4958 to the west; that,
in his opinion, the State Nigt~way was not desii•ous of obtaining any additional property
~ since he felt they would have asked for the property before this; that many interested
~ persons visiting the R-1 tract to the west had expressed a desire to have a less expensive
~ housing development than the R-1 because of the high payments; and that because the City had
_ recently approved C-1, General Corr~niercial, Zone for the southerly boundaries of the inter-
A, section of the Imperial and Riverside Freeways, a higher density sh,ould be of more interest
than low family residential~
~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNINC COMMISSIO!J; M3rch ly 1965 2510
,. .-~.:~1~
;'~ ~ ,
~;,
i~,
RECLASSIFICATION - In response to Commission questioning, Mra McGovern stated that 80% of
NOo 64-55-94 the houses constructed on Tract Noo 4958 had been sold, and 25% of the
tract was still under construction; that Lots Nos~ 12 through 15 were
TENTATIVE MAP OF model homesY and the balanc2 of those were sold where they were within
TRACT N0~ 5844 150 feet of the proposed developmenta
(Continued)
After considerabie discussion by the Commission, Zoning Coordinator
Robert Mickelson, and the representativesof the petitioner, the Commission
was of the opinion that since the Commission had required the Newport Construction Company to
continue consideration of their petition to ascertain the ultimate alignment of the proposed
freeway interchange of Imperial and Riverside, that the petitioner should also have these
answers and preciss pians drawn to ir.dicate such~
Mr, Mickelson stated that it was possible the Staff would have a reply from the Highway
Deoartment, but in order to have the Commission consider a revised tract of the proposed
dev~lopment, a revised map would have to be filed by March 3, for Staff analysiso
The agent for the petitioner then stated that a four-week continuance would be acceptableo
No one appeared in opposition to subject petit:ons<
Commissioner Perry offered a motion to continue the hearing of Petitionsfor Reclassification
Noe 64-65-94 and Tentative Map of Tract No, 5844 to the meeting of March 29, 1964, in order
to determine from the State Highway Department the ultimate alignment of the freeway inter-
change of which subject prope*ty might become a part, and for submission of a revised
tentative tract to incorporate the ~':ghNay Department's recommendations~ Commissioner
Allred seconded the motion, MOTION CARRIED.,
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC hF ARII~G., BILL T~ ASAW49 720 South Beach Boulevard, Anaheim,
NOe~4_C~g-~5~ California, Ownerg recuest ng that property described as: A rectangularly
shaped parcel of :and at the southwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Ball
Road9 with frontages of aoproxir~ately 277 feet on Beach Boulevard and
225 feet on Ball Roady and furtner described as ~205 South Eeach Boulevard, be :eclassified
from the R-A, AGRICtJLTURAI., ZONE, to the C-2, GENF.RAL COMN~RCIAL, ZONE~
Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickeison 3dvised the Commission that a letter had been submitted
by the petitioner requesting amendment of his original request for C•-2, General Commercial,
Zone, to C-i, Generai Cor~merciai, Zone, since approval of C-1 for a service station was in
accordance with Code requirernents~ 3nd that plans for the stores and offices were not in
conformance with the C-i Zone, bui: the petitioner had stipulated that all development plans
would be in confor.r~~nce wiih a11 C i Code requirements when these structures were established~
Mr.. Bi11 Asawa, the petitioner, appe3ied before the Commission and reviewed Che proposed
development, noting that h.e was p;.oposing to eliminate the large market presently existing
on subject property, and in response to Conunission questioning, stated that he was planning
to constzuct the se:vice station oniy at present.
In response to Commission nuest:~ning relutive to any draina9e p:oblem which might exist
if a service station were the on,y parcei to be developed, h1~•, Mickelson stated that if
approval were gianted ior the entire p:opeity, the petitioner would have to bond for dedi-
cation and improvements.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition
THE F{EARING 'NAS CL,OSEU.
~ ~
•
?i .~
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1551, Series i964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, =_econded by Cemmissioner Perry, to recommend to the City Council that Petition
for Reclassification No~ 64--b5-95 be disapproved for C-2 Zoning, but that it be amended and
be approved :or C-1 Zoning as tne petitioner had requested in an amended request, and
conditions~ ~See Resolution Book~%
On ro11 call the foregoing resolUtion was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred9 Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland~
NOES: COMMISSIOfQERS: ;~oneo
ABSEN~: COMMISSICNERS: :Joneo
_.. _ .;_.,_ ..: „_..
. _ . , _.:___., .
~r ~ _
i '
: - - .,~.,~...
__ ~_~ . ~ ^~ ~ .:1~..
~
MINUTES, C1TY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 1, 1965 2511
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. WILLIAM C. AND DORIS GARRETT, 1202 North East Street,
N0. 64-65-96 Anzheim, California, and RICHARD AND ZEDITH HATI-COCK, 1202 Kenwood,
Anaheim, California, Owners; DEVELOPA~NT COORDINATORS, 4100 West Common-
CONDITIONAL USE wealth, Fulierton, California, Agent; property described as: An "L"
PERMIT NOe 677 shaped parcel of land composed of two adjoinin9 rectangulaily shaped
parcels of land located between Kenwood Avenue and Romneya Drive, and
whose westernmost dimension fronts on East Streeto Parcel 1: A
rectangular parcel of land at the northeast corner of East Street and Romneya Drive with
frontages of approximately 171 feet on Romneya Drive and 105 feet on East Street. Parcel 2:
A rectangvlar parcel at the southeast corner of Kenwood Avenue and East Street with frontages
of approximately 81 feet on Kenwood Avenue and 100 feet on East Street - and further described
as 1202 North East Street and 1202 East Kenwood Drive~ Property presently classified R-A,
AGRICULTURAL, ZONE for Parcel 1, and R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE for Parcel 2.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1~ GENERAL COMA~ RCIAL, ZOiUE.
P.EQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A SERVICE STATION AT Tl-~ INTERSECTION OF A
SECONDARY HIGFNJAX AIJD A LOCAL STREET AIJD WITHIN 75 FEET
OF R••1 Z0f4ED PROPERTY.
Mr. John Braden, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission
and reviewed the proposed development, further taking issue with the Report to the Commission
relative to deed restrictions filed on one parcel of subject property since the Title Insur-
ance Company in their preliminary title report indicated they would indemnify any violation
of any deed restrictions from traditional ruling on the best use of the property; that all
conditions would be complied with as indicated in the Report to the Commission; and that
the petitioner was of the opinion that utilization of subject property for residential
purposes was almost unbearableq that if the p=esent street widt.h was widened to 90 feet,
this would mean the street wouid be within one foot of the dining room window of one parcel.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions~
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED~
The Commission was of the opinion th~t the single-family property owners adjacent to
subject property have felt that the Commission and Council°s past action has been con-
sistent in denial of comr.iercial repuests; that no change in zoning or economic factors
had taken place to wa:rant consideration of the Commission for recommending approval;
that the location of a service station in conjunction with a local street was incompatible
to the adjoining properties, and in tl:e Commission's opinion, the deed restrictions estab-
lished on one portion of subject pzoperty should be honored by tl~e Commission.
Commissioner Al:red offered Reso"1;ition No, 1552, Series 1964•-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption9 seconded by Gommissioner E'e:bst,to recommend to the City Council that Fetition
for Reclassification No~ 64•-65~-96 be disapproved, based on the fact that the proposed service
station would be bounded on two sides by local streets and would, therefore, be incompatible
to the existing single•-famiiy residential subdivision development surrounding said property;
that deed lestrictions were filed on e portion of subject property which limited the use to
single-family residential use only, and the Commission was of the opinion that the homeowners
adjacent to subject property assumed the City would protect their property rights by honoring
these deed restrictions$ and that no economic or physical change had transpired since the
Commission last considered and recommended disapproval of a service station site for subject
property to now warrant recommendirg to the City Council their approval~ (See Resolution
Book.)
On roll cali the foregoing resol~tion was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gau~r, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonea
ABSENT: COMMISSIOtdERS: Noneo
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No~ 1553, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit
No. 677, based on findingso (See Resolution Booko)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowlanda
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
2
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March ly 19b5 2512
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC F~„RING~ LEONARD AND MARY JO SOUTH, 1426 West Beverly Drive,
NOo 64-65-97_ MARCUS P~ AND iiNZEL SOUfH, 1218 Rowan ~treet, and CARL AND FLORENCE
LAWLER, 401 North East Street, Anaheim, California, Owners~ LARRY F.
GENERAL PLAN KLANG, AJ.bertson's, Incorpurated, 7814 East Firestone Boulevard, Downey,
AN~NDN~NT N0. 52 California, Agent; requesting that property descr'ibed as: A rectangularly
shaped parcel of land at thc southwest corner cf Sycamore Street and East
Street, with frontages of approximately 236 feet on Sycamore St~eet and
360 feet on East Street, and furtner described a<, 401 and 419 North East Street, be rzclassi-
fied from the R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the C-1, GENERAL COMA~RCIAL, ZONE,
to establish a supermarket on subject propertyo
Mro Larry Klang, agent for tne petitioner, appeared before the Commission and advised that
the proposed development was similar to the "All American Markets"; that Albertsons had
consolidated with All American A!arkets and were planning to develop on subject property,
noting that the proposed location was ideall;~ suited because of the number of apartment
developments adjaceni to it~ that because of the traffic and circulation, the area would
adapt itself for a supermarkei location; and it was their plan to provide adequate parking.
Mro Klang then sub~iitted coior.ed renderings indicating the screening and landscaping plans,
and typical layout of plantings they proposed to have on their development, which he stated
were similar to those adjacent to a Tacoma, Washington apartment area; that a six-foot
masonry a~all wouid be constructed a?ong the Rose Street and alley frontage; that land use
patterns of the area indicated commercial zone changes; that they would attempt to do every-
thing possible to render the proposed market as comoatible as possible to the area; and that
all of the recommendations of condit:ons for approval indicated in the Report to the Commis-
sion could be abided with,
The Commission noted that the petitioner proposed to have access to Rose Street - since
this street was such a narrow street, this would create a traffic hindrance to this
residential area, and no access sho~ld be granted to Rose Street or ~he alle~~ but a
solid block wall for both tne west ~nd south property lines should be required,
The petitioner then agreed !o the requirements the Ccmmission had just stipulated, and it
was further noted fer the pet.~tioner's consideration by the Commission that air conditioning
units must be complete:y contained within the interior of the structure and not be visible
from the roof or street, to which the •=_gent repiied the architect had advised him that only
one air vent would be necessary, and this could be adequately screeneda
Mr. Terry Clark, owner of ?3rcels 49, 50, and 51 on Rose Street, appeared before the
Commission and stated he was opposed to the proposed supermarket and the fact that a
six-foot masonry wall w3s being recommended across ttie street from his property;
that adequate supermarket f~ciiitiea were availabie within one-thiro of a mile of the
property; that because C•-1 Zoning was approved for service staiions at two of the inter-
sections, did not indicate chis would be a successful venture; that. adequate C-1 land was
available at Lincoln and East Street which had not been utilized; that if parking facilities
were proposed adjacent to ine Rose Street frontage, this would create noises from parking of
cars, blowing oi waste materials from the parking lot into the properties on Rose Street,
which were residential, and would further nave a detrimental effect on the value of the
residential properties immediately adjacen: to the proposed supermarket~
Mr. Ludie Grizzle, 401-407 North Rose, stated he was in cuncurrence with Mr. Clark's
statements~
Mre Frank Koss, owner of property at all North Rose, appeared before the Commicsion and
stated he was also in opposition, as stated by Mr, Clark~
Mr. William Allen, 1762 Wesi Crescent Street, appeared before the Commission and stated he
owned property at 328 North Rose Slreet, and had objection to any reclassification of
property facing Rose Street, but did not. oppose the rezoning of property on the East Street
side, but if the Commission consid~red reclassification of the Rose Street frontage, that
ingress and egress of vehicles to a residential street should be prohibited because it would
create a traffic hazard, and that a six•-foot maso~ry wall 6e constructed along the length of
the property on Rose Street, together with one on the north side of the alley which extends
southerly of subject property.
In response to Commission ques*ioning relative to the exact location of structures within
any proximity of Rose Street, Mro Allen stated any structures should be limited to the
east side o; the extensian of tne existing alley,
Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Corturiission that subject property was not
divided by an alley, but was one parcel, and to use the measuring device, the opposition
requested that structures be limited easterly of the boundary of this alleyway,
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 1, 1965
2513
RECLASSIFICATION •- In rebu`tal, ~"r~ Klang stated that the success of the service stations
NOo~64-65-97 had no relevan~e as far as the proposed development was concerned;
that his firm had operated a number of markets and had never had an
GENERAL PLAN occasion to close them; that they were satis.fied that the location of
Af~NDMENT N0. 5~ the proposed market at 5ycamore and East Streets would be successful,
(Continued) and all other factors of opposition could be controiled with adequate
screening, and it was his opinion the proposed market would be an asset
to the area and would be considerably more quiet than other operations
at the intersection of busy streetso
~: ..,,_ %+~~
s ,
~
c,~,
i, ~
~I ~
~,~ ~*
THE !-~ARING WAS CLOSEDo
In resportse to Commission questioning, Mr. Mickelson replied that the proposed setback
from Rose Street was 40 feet, and from East Street 50 feet; that the General Plan Circula-
tion Element did not indicate any street widening for East Street, but if additl~r..al
commercial uses were established in the area, it might be necessary to reconsider the
circulation element and require the widening of this street from Lincoln Avenue to the
freeway at some later date; and that the street widening to 90 feet extended from North
Street to the freeway at the present timea Further, that the C-1 Code requires a three-
foot strip of landscaping alongside the sidewalk on Rose Street~
Office Engineer Arthur Daw, in response to Commission questioning, stated the curbs would
be located 22 to 24 feet in ozder to provide four moving laneso
Discussion was then held by the Commission relative to the General Plan, and it was their
opinion this should be referred for Annual r~eview9 at which time a report on the circulation
element should be made for the possible widening of East Streeta
Commi~sioner Perry offezed Resolution No„ 1554, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Cortmissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that
Petitien for Reclassification No~ 64-65-9? be approved, based on the fact that the land
use submitted by the petitioner would be the highest and best use of the land, if not
developed for R-3 purposes, since the C-1 uses were ;ilr=ady developed on two adjacE~nt
corners, and conditionse (See Resolution Booka)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland~
NOES : CONPuIISS IONERS : None o
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No~ 1555, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to recommend to the City Council that General
Plan Amendment Noa 52 be disapproved and submitted for Annual Review by the Staff to con-
sider a possible change in the circulation elemento (See Resolution Booke)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the iollowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Fterbst, hlungall, Perry, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
RECESS - Commissioner Perry offered a motion to recess the meeting for
ter. minutes~ Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIEDa
The meeting recessed at 4:05 pom.
RECONVENE - Chairman Munqall reconvened the meeting at 4:15 pam., all
Commissioners being present.
- -..:.~.:., ... _:. _ .. . _ _
...... .~ ~ ~ ~ ,-~-~~ . ..
- ' ~
. _---------.~..
~` --- ___._..
P
~ '`I
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ March 1, 1965
2514
AREA DEVELOPA~NT - CONTINUED P~BLIC 'r~ARINGo INITIATED BY TI~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,
PLAN N0~ 16 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposing a feasible
means of development for those properties on the east side of Hsrbor
Boulevard, between Santa Ana and Water Streets~
Subject Area Dev~lopment Plan was continued from the meeting of February 1, 1965, ir. order
to allow time fo: the property owners concerned in said Area Development Plan to st:~~9y the
data presenteo at the hearing~
Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson reviewed for the Commission the previous action of
two parcels on the east side of Harbor Houlevard, noting that since the City Council had
appxoved reclassification of those parcels to C-0 Zone, the Area Development Plan was
necessary because of Code requirements of parcels zoned C-0 having less than 20,000 sq~are
feet must have an approved Area Development Plana Further, that properties along Harbor
Bou2evard could develop for C-0 use provided the aliey were widened to meet City standards,
and dedication of the balance to Santa Ana Street which would offer secondary circulaticn.
Commissioner Rowland inquired whether any thought had been given to provi~ing access
points for traffic to enter from Harbor Boulevard to the parking areas to the rear, and
if all access rights to Harbor Boulevard would have to be dedicated, since in his opinion,if
these openings were not provided, there would be insufficient appeal for development of the
parcelso
Mra Mickelson stated the Staff in their study had not taken exception to the statement that
two access points could be provided to Harbor Boulevard, but the Traffic Engineer might
have some opposition because his problem was to reduce as many access points to Harbor
Boulevard as was feasible~
Office Engineer Arthur Daw stated he did not know the Traffic Engineer's viewpoints on this,
but he would venture an opinion he would not object if two access points were dedicated to
the City to control access to the street and the alleyo
No interested property owners were present to voice an opiniono
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED~
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noo 1556, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and•adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that Area
Development Plan No~ 16, Exhibit "A"s be adopted as a feasible means of providing secondary
circulation for those properties fronting on the east side of Harbor Boulevard between
Santa Ana and Water Streets; further, that Exhibit "B" be used as a reFerence document in
the event future evidence was submitted which might alter the use of those properties other
than that indicated on Exhibit A'~ (See Resolution Booko)
On roll call the foregoing resoiution was passed by the following vote:
AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, ,r,3uer, Herbsty Mungall, Perry, Rowland~
NOES: COMMISSiO\ERS: Idone.
ABSENT: COMMISSIO;~!ERS: ~~!one ,
STREET NAh'~ ;HANGE, - CONTIiiUED PUBLIC HEARING. iiJITIATEU BY THe CITY PLAtJNING COMMISSION,
WALNUT STRFc,__ 204 East I.incoln Avenue, ;;naheim, California
for Walnut Streety localed between Jefferson~Street5and RichfieldaRoad
in the east Nnahein area.,
Subject street name change was continued from the meeting of February 15, 1965, in order
to allow the Planning Departmeni to submit additional suggested nameso
Zoning Coordinator Roberi Nickelson reviewed for the Commission the location of the duplicate
names oi Walnut Street within the City of Anaheim, and suggested the names of Zephyr 6Vay or
Mallory 'Nay in lieu of the previously recommended Manzanita.
I Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the various names suggested, and the fact
that upon the precise alignment and extension of La Palma Avenue easterly to Imperial Highway,
a major portion of the presently existing Walnut Street would become La Palma Avenue, and the
consideration the Commission should give to a name change would be that portion extending
from Jefferson Sti•eet easterly to a point approximately 500 feet east of Van Buren Street.
In response to Commission questioning relative to the possibility of the extension westerly
_ from Jefferson Street, Office Engineer F~rthur Daw stated that to his knowledge, there was
nc plan in the foreseeable future for that extensione
~
...~_-1
€
MINUTES, CITY PLANNIIJG COMMISSION, March 1, 1965 2515
STREET NAME CHANGE, - Upon reviewing the General Plan map, it was noted if Walnut Street
WALNUT STREET ~were extend2d westerly on a parallel line with La Palma Avenue, it
(Continued) would connect with Coronado Streete
THE 1-~ARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No, 1557, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to recommend to the City Council that Walnut
Street located between Jefferson Street on ;,he west and a point approximately 500 feet east
of Van,Buren Street, which w~uld be the ultimate termination of the easterly extension upon
the future extension of La Palma Avenue to Imperial Freeway, be renamed "Coronado Street".
' ~ (See Resolution Booko)
c .i
~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
~+~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
~~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~
~~ ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS: None~
i:.. ~
'~ Ak~NDIu~NT TO A~'A!-~IM - PUBLIC HEARING~ INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East
~•I MUNICIPAL CODE Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposing an amendment to Title
~ 18, Chapter 18062 Signs and Advertising Signs9 Section 18a62v020(d)
;.I Nameplates; Section 18o62e030(1); Section 18062o090(b-1); Section
~1 18~62~090(i); and the addition of Section 1Bo62o155~
';, i
;'~~ Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts reviewed the proposed changes to the Sign Ordinance.
In response to Commission questionings Mro Roberts stated Lhe changes to Section 18062.090(b-1)
would still be considered as "free standing signs"~ that the lighting intensity will notlimit
the signs to certain light Lamberts; further9 tha~ the provisions were now in a very general
status; that he had attempted to obtain knowiedge from various light manufacturers relative
to the light Lamberts snd theiz• intensity in order to determine the approximate distance
certain lights should be kept from residential structures; that he had met wi' . the sign
industry chemists and had been informed that they did not feel one formula would be accept-
able to the industry, and that there was a difference in lights when checked by the light
meter in the field as compared to the measurement of the same light at the experimental
shope
hlro cd Cronan, Secretary of the California Electric Sign Association, appeared before the
Co~unission and reviewed the ir.formation received from Generai Electric regardin9 the standards
of control for light intensity in ±he sign industry; that the industry had attempted to obtain
an answer or a solution, but had not been able to arrive at a basic formula which could be
written i.nto the zoning code~
Discussion was then held by the Commission, Mr.. Cronan, and N~r~ Roberts relative to the
lumens of light, and after the completion of said discussion, it was determined by the
Commissior that Mr~ Robezts redraft th~t section of the Sign Grdinance to require that all
lights be marked as to their intensii/, nar,~ely that they could not be more than 200-foot
candlepower as they w?re checked in Lhe Underwriters' Laboratorya
Cummissioner Rowland offered a moCion to c~~ntinue the public hearin9 of Amendment to
Title 18, Chapter 18052 Signs and Advertising Signs, to the meeting of March 15, 1965, in
order to allow the City Attorney's effice time to draft the amendment to the light intensity
formula of the proposed signs~ Commissioner Camp seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED~
P.EPORTS AND - ITEM N0. i
RECOMNENDATIONS Conditional Use Fermit No, 598 - Adeline Thompson Fechter, et alo
Proposed miniature golf course and restaurant at the southeast corner
of La Palma Avenue and Magnolia Avenue~ Request for approval of
revised plans for the restaurant, marked Revision No. 2, Exhibits
1 through 3.
Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson reviewed for the Commission the Development Review
of the revised plans, notin9 that the walk-up restaurant had been increased from 706
square feet to 1,020 square feet; that the property was zoned C-1; and that the p3rkino
spaces required were 62 ior the ori9inal 706 square `oot rest~urant and golf cou*se, as
compared to the 77 parking spaces now being providedo
i
MINUfES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 1, 1965 2516
REPORTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM NOa 1 (Continued)
.: ~;^mmission reviewed the plans, noting that the walk-up restaurant was a considerable
~ `^'^~~~t to that originally proposeda
,. .•`~~r Perry offered a motion to approve Revision No. 2, Exhibits 1 through 3, plans
>.~,~:attons ~f Conditional ~Jse Permit Noo 598o Commissioner Allred seconded the motion.
r - ~i:,; ;,A;:~:iED,
ITEM N0. 2
Southern CaliLornia Program entitled "City Beautiful".
Assistant Planner ~ack Christofferson reviewed the data submitted to the Commission for
~ ' thair consideration, noting th=_t the presentation was presented at one of the Southern
, California Planning Congress meetings; that after he had perused the various documents,
he noted the program proposed was an excellent one which the City of Anaheim might partici-
pate in in the future, similar to that which the City of Los Angeles had accomplished; that
the program was basically designed for civic groupsy and that it was hoped to obtain some
affirmative response from the civic groups since the City could not itsel: pa.rticipate in
_ the projecto
The Commission advised Mro Christofferson that perhaps the Women's Division :,: the Chamber
of Commerce would be interested in these documents since they have, in the past, had various
programs for beautifying the Cityo
Mr. Christofferson stated the Parks and Recreation Department had alrea~ly received a copy
of the documents `~~: Commission had receivedo
The Cortmission stated they would prefer having the data submitted to them on file for
possible future useo
ITcM NO_ 3
Southern California Planning Congress in the Cicy of Commerca,
Marcn :i, 19,5.•
~ Commissioners Perry, Rowland, Allred9 ~lerbst, and Gauer indicated they would a+.tend the
_ Planning Congress meeting, Deputy City At+ornf~}• F~;rman Roberts alsc stat~d I,e •rr~uld
attend~ It was ;urther sugges;ed that Public Works Director Thornton Piersall, Ci+y
Engineer ,iames Maddox, and Assistant City Enqineer Ralph Pease might be interested in
i the program, and to contact them relative to possible attendance~
ADJUURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Allred
offered a motion to ad~:;urn the meeting to March 8, 1965, for a
joint work session with the Urange County Planning Commission.
Commissioner Perry seconcJed the motion•. MOTION CARRIEDo
The meeting adjourned at 5:25 pam~
Respectfully submitted,
/i~~
I/~`~"?~~ / -J".~p~
ANN KREHS, Secretary
Anaheim Planning Commission
-,~ `
I -
,~i *
i,~ ~
. __ ~-
F
~x~