Minutes-PC 1965/05/10.. .~ _ ~
City Hali
Anaheim, California
May 10, 1965
A REGULAR MEETING OF TI-IE ANAFIEI61 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR fu1EETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called
to order by Chairman Mungall at 2:00 p.m~, a quorum being present~
PRESENT - CHAIR~dAN: Mungall~
- COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland~
ABSENT ~- COMMISSIONERS: None~
PRESENT - Zoning Coordinator: Robert Mickelson
Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts
Off;ce Engineer: Arthur Daw
_ Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs
Plann?ng Department Stenographer: Carolyn Grogg
INVOCATION - Reverend Fred Dommer, Lamb of God Lutheran Church, gave the Invocatione
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Camp ied the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flago
APPROVAL OF
TI~ ININUTES - The Minutes of the meeting of April 26, 19659 were approved as submittedo
TENTATIVE MAp OF - GNNER AND SUBDIVIDER: EMPIRE SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, 6750 Van
TRACT_N0~ 5958 Nuys Boulevard, Van Nuys, California~ SURVEYOR: Bradford, Neil 8
Associates, 125 South Claudina Street, Anaheim9 Californza. Subject
tract is iocated approximately 1,356 feet easterly of Brookhurst Street
and northeri;~ of Lincoln Avenue and contains 35 proposed R-3, Multiple-
Family Residential, Zoned lots,
Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson presented Tentative Map of Tract No~ 5958 to the
Commission, noting that in order to obtain the release of the improvement bond for the
developed portion of T:act Noa 5053, a new tract map was submitted, which would mean
posting of an improvement bond of a lesser amount for any subsequent street i.mprovemente
Office Engineer Arthur Daw noted for the Commission that a discrepancy existed between
the northerly boundary (Alameda St:eet) of Tract No> 5053 and the present Tentative Map
of Tract Noo 5958, this change being made in order to avoid the signature of the original
owner of the propertyo Further, that the Engineering Department suggested that the developer
stipulate to fuli street improvements for Alameda Street as a condition of approval,
The representative ior the subdivider then stated they would stipulate to completion of
street improvements being completed~
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of ?ract No. 5956, subject
to the following conditions:
(1) That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each
subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approvale
(2) That a modified cul-de-sac be prov3ded at the terminus of Aladdin Drive, Bernice
Street and Carol I'irive, subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
(3) That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract Noa 5958 is granted subject to the
completion of Reclassification Noo 62-63-91 and Conditional Use Permit No~ 396~
~_ (4) bhat the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions shall be submitted to and approved
~~ y the City Attorney s Office prior to City Council approval of the final tract map,
~;~ and, further, that the approved Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions shall be
' recorded concurrently with the final tract mapa
~
;) ' (5) That all street improvements originally required on Tract Noe 5053 be completed
~~ ~ as stipulated by the representative of the developersa
'~~ "~ Commissioner Allred seconded the mution~ MOTION CARRIED~
'`s.7 .
~' i
! - 2573 w
P
" .. _.j 1
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, N~ay 10, 1965
257q
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC FIEARINGo WILLIAM D~ PROCOPIOy 410 South Euclid Street,
NOo 64-65-111 Suite 6, Anaheim, California, Owner; property descxibed as: A rectangularly
shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 64 feet on the east
VARIANCE NOe 1 97 side of Euclid Street and a maximum depth of approximately 100 feet9 the
southern boundary of said property being approximately 160 feet north of
j AREA DEVELOPMENT the centerlinE ;;F Alomar Avenues and further descrikied as 624 South Euclid
PLAN N0~ 20 Street~ Property presently classified R-l9 ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE~
GENERAL PLAN REQI~;TED CLASSIFICATION: C-1
AMENDMENT N0. 58 r~ENERAL G~11N~RCIAL, ZONH,.
_ REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF REQUIRED LANDSCAPING IN FRONT SETBACKo
~ Subject Reclassification Noo 64-65-111 and Variance Noo 1697 were continued fram the meeting
~ of April 129 1965~ in order to allow the Planning Staff time to prepare and advertise an
area development plan.
.
Associate Planner Ronald Thompson appeared before the Commission and presented sub,ject Area
Development Plan No„ 20 as follows:
BACKGROUND
~ Area Development Plan Noo 20 is part of the continuing City-wide program for studying
situations of residential homes fronting-on arterial highways~ The subject properties are
~ the residential lots fronting on the east side of Euclid Street on either side of Alomar
Avenue9 south of the intersection of Oran9e Avenue and Euclid Streeto
At the public hearing of Aprii 12, 1965, tt~e Planning Commission directed the Planning
Department to prepare and advertise an area development pian encompassing the above mentioned
R-1 lots~
The area development pian has been prepared and the •-2sults a:e as follows:
FINDINGSt
1~ Subject propert3es are presently developed for iow-density, single-family residential
land usea
2o The iand uses surrounding subject properties consist of: (See land use quarter section
map Noo 48 and 55y and Exhib~t A)o
ao North - Comme:cial office buiidin9s
bo East - Occupied, good quality single-family residential homes
co South - Undeveioped R-1 zoned parcels
do West - A cemetery, commercial office building, undeveloped C-1 zoned property and
a serv±ce station
3o Subject properties front-on a primary highway which is presently carrying 28,600 vehicles
per day9 and is pro,~ected to carry 40,600 vehicles per day within the next 10 yearso
4, Vehicular access needs of sub,ject properties are served by 20-foot wide alleys to the
rear of the lotso Said alleys provide access and circulation northerly and southerly
from Alomar Avenue and easterly to and from A1~y Streeto The residential area to the
east of subject properties have vehicular access to Alvy Street, except for one loto
(See Exhibit A)
~
5= Due tu the existing and projected vehicular capacity of Euclid Street, additional access
points would reduce the highway's capacity to function efficiently, as well as create
additional traffic hazardso
6o The parcels have be~n ~eveloped with curbs9 gutters, sidewalks, street trees, and a
parkway of approximately 12 feet in widthe Euclid Street is classified as a primary
highway on the Circulation Element of the General Plan with a dedicated half-width of
50 feet (53 feet required for primary)o
7o All seven of the parcels of subject property are less than 70 feet in width with lot
depths of 100 feeto
8. The General Plan has projected a large area for commercial land use less than a mile north
of subject properties which would seem to negate any necessity for additional commercial
land use in such close proximityo If sub~ect properties are considered favorably for com-
mercial land use, then the General Plan Amendment would indicate the area along Euclid
Street which could reasonably be expected to develop in a similar mannero
e
;,
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMh1ISSI0N, May 10, 1965
2575
RECLASSIFICATION - kLTERN.ATIVES FOR CONSIDERATION:
._____~~-----------------
N0~64_¢5-111 __
1.. Retention of subject~r~erties ror iow=density single-familv land useo
VARIANCE N0~_!(~Q7
Cue to the s~~~ of the parcels, their location on a F•rimary arterial,
AREA DEVELOPA~ NT the surrounding land use, it is not likely that future environment
PLAN NO~, 20 __ will enhance subject properties and encourage their retention for
(Continued) single-family land use, unless a concerted effort could be undertaken
by both the City and the private property owners to provide pro~tection
for these existing residential uses and insure a good environment in
the futu*e,
2. Pe~-use of subiect oroqerties for hiqhway related commercial or
commercial-professional office useo
Proposals of this natu:e would not be in line with the concept of
°'planned unified commercial centers" upon which the Commercial
Elemer.t of ihe General Plan is basede Uses of this type have been
histo:ical?y ar,d economically better located in the central core of
the community or in close proximity to outlying commercial concentra-
tions such as regional or community shopping centers or commercial
oftice centers„
CONCLUSIONSs
The main .:esidenti~i-highway conf:ict occurs in areas where single-family dwellings front-on,
side•-on snd/oz have vehicular access on arterial highwayso Owner~-zesidents or tenants in
these partzcular cases are in an unfortunate position~, They watch the construction of needed
street widenings and have to face the impact of heavier t:affic volumes, roise vibration and
not least of ~'ti the difficulties of vehicular access to and from their homeso From these
circumstances home owners c~nclude that their particular property is no longer suitable for
low-density or sir.gle-famiiy residentiel use~ At the same time, they observe that the environ-
ment is being depreciated~ Further, ±he highway value is also being reduced as its capacity to
function efficientiy is limited as venicles are permitted to back out of driveways and obstruct
the normal flow of traffica The danger of life and property under these conditions is greater
than in those instances where conflicts do not exist,
The consequences o£ these conditions induce people to auggest a land .:se alternative to low
density~, This alternative takes ~he form of a request for either non-residentiai or multiple-
family use> This ?atter proposa: is truly one to conjure with, and probabiy can best be answer-
ed with a o~estion, If the area is unsuitable for one family, what iogic or justification can
one use to indicate that it would be p:oper to intensify the situation by ailowing a greater
number of f3a~iiies to be exposed to the same undesirable conditions?
In other cases reiief takes the form of a reauest for commercial land useo If the City ignores
the question of true need for commercial uses, which should be demonstratedy it would still
have to recognize that such types of development produce problems of their owne Conmercial
uses are heavier traffic ger.erators than residential useso In a situation such as Area Develop-
ment Plan No~ 20 presents, commer~ial uses would more than likely iead to greater problems of
poor access and excessive hignway conflicts and congestion, The other 3spects of "strip" com-
merical uses involve economic9 fiscaiy and esthetic considerations that are well knowne
The Planning Department9 in studying situations of residential homes fronting on arteriai
highways, is attempti^g to analyze measures that could be employed throughout the City to
minimize the problems confronting these areas to assure their livabillty, and at the same time
encourage development that wiil not impede the traffic carrying capacity of the City streets~
A number of techniques could be employed to give protection to these existing residential
useso For example, the City's Zoning Ordinance does not permit high fences, walls or hedges
in residential front yardse This maintains a pleasant open feeling on residential streets as
well as preserving light and air~ In the case of highway frontage residential lots, however,
six-foot high walls and fences could be allowed six to ten feet from the front property line,
or as a:ubstitute, to permit dense landscaping to a similar heighta Regulation of height
would be necessary, to permit full visibility at an intersection of a driveway and the front
property lineo Walls, fences, landscaping or a combination of these can be immensely effect-
ive in screening out the noise, dirt, and constant awarene~s of heavy traffic, and can make
the front yard usabley private, and safe for childrene It would be imperative that a coordi-
nated wall and landscape treatment be used for each block frontage if this technique is to be
effective and create an attractive a~,pearance for the streete
The above described technique would have to be designed to meet a special need, and along with
other ideas that are currently under study, may provide a means of creating a private livable
residential environment along a busy highwayo
., ,~ ' €
,.
MINUTES, CTTY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 10, 1965 2576
RECLASSIFICATION - RECOMN~NDATIONS:
N0~ 64-65-111
The reclassificat.ion of subject properties for commercial land use covered
VARIANCE NOo 1697 under Area Development Plan No. 20 may be premature at the present timeo
If subject properties are considered favorably for commercial land use,
AREA DEVELOPA~NT the Planning Commission may wish to consider the follow_ng:
PLAN NOo 20
(Continued) la That the subject properties under Area Development Plan No~ 20 be
reclassified from R-1, One-Family Residential, Zone to the C-0,
Commercial Office, Zone as depicted on either Exhibit B or Co
2o That the alleys at the rear of subject properties be retained sub-
stantially as they presently exist in order to provide through
circulation for vehicles, trash collection, and fire protectione
3. Prohibit parking in front of subject properties and require all
pa:king in the rear of subject propertieso If Exhibit B(utilization
of existing structures) is adopted, 90 degree parking should be re-
qui=ed., This would help keep commercial traffic through the residential
areas at a minimumo Exhibit C depicts commercial land use with removal
of the existing structuresa Parking areas under this alternative should
also be designed so as not to funnel commercial traffic through the
existing residential area to the east>
4o All development proposals within the bounds of Area Development Plan
Noo 20 shall be subject to review by the Development Review Committeeo
Mro Harry Knisely, Attorney representing the petitioner, appeared before the Conunission and
reviewed the proposed conversion of single-family home into a dental office, noting that all
recent development in that area had been commercial.
Mre Joe Bradiey, 707 Alvy Street, appeared before the Commission to review his reasons for
objection to subject petition, stating that it would be hazardous for the children in the
area; further, that a similar request was denied by the Commission three or four years ago,
and that no changes had taken place to warrant the proposed reclassificationo
Mro Robert Panek, owner of property at 630 South Euclid, appeared before the Commission to
present a chart showing the daily traffic flow of cars on Euclid Street between Ball Road
and Broadway Street for the years of 1963 and 1964, noting that an official count had not
been made as of yet for 1965, stating that some 1,000,000 cars passed before subject proper-
ties yearly, Mr, Panek further stated that he had originally purchased his property with
the intention of using it as his permanent residence, but had since found it to be unsafe for
his children and decided to buy elsewhere, and renting his property on Euclid Street~ that he
had trouble keeping subject property rented as people moved in and out because of the commo-
tion created by the traffic on Euclid Streets and that, in conclusion, he found subject property
no longer suitable for residential use because of the foregoing facts.
Mi•s~ Barbara Flanagan, 605 South Alvy Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition to
sub~ect petition, stating she was concerned about the added traffic congestion that would
result in the alley at the rear af sub~ect property if commercial zoning were approved.
In response to Mr, Knisely's question concerning deed restrictions on subject property,
Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised that this was a private matter between the R-1
waspnotYboundTby saidhdeedtrestrictionst~ Mr,rKnisely further statedPthatdthe~property owners
along Euclid Street were in favor of commercial zoning and that the property would be used by
one dentist and two dental assistants, which would not cause an added traffic problem, and
then proposed that the alley be blocked off to prevent any traffic hazardso
Mrse Eleanor Giblin, 616 South Euclid Street, appeared before the Commission in favor of
subiect petition, stating that the office building next door to her property was a great
improvement over the vacant property that used to be there, and that the proposed dental
office would be an asset to the neighborhood.
Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission of a letter received from Mrsa
- Giblin, requesting that she be permitted to use her residence for her accounting businesse
~; In response to Commission questioning, Mr. Mickelson further stated that it would be undesir-
able to block off sub,~ect alley to prohi.bit return of commercial traffic to Alvy Street and
_ still maintain access to a new home loca;:ed in that vicinity~ and that to create a hammer-
head at the end of the alley would require takin9 soma property from the last lot, with a
~1 ~
'' ~ resultant traffic conflict being too clo~a to Euclid~ Orange, Alomar and Alvy Str~etso
1
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 10, 1965
2577
RECLASSIFICATION - The Commission expressed their concern over strip comrt!ercial zoning -
NO_ 64_65_ill ~ that if subject request was approved, the same would happen across the
strret, and to the south, further noting that from past experience in
VARIANCE N0,~1697 this community, the traffic congestion would be too great as people would
AREA DEVELOPh~NT not go up into the alley to find parking spar,e on the norti~ end.
PLAN N0~ 20 _~ In rebuttal, Mr~ Knisely stated that Dr~ Procopio had a clientele which
(Continued) had been built up over the years and, therefcre, would not cause a
traffic congestion~
In response to the Commission`s question concerning the proposed development next door to
~ his client relative to Mrs. Giblin's request to establish an accounting office in her
residencey Mr, Knisely stated that she would not have clients calling at her business -
, therefore, would not affect the traffic flow.
Commissioner Gauer stated that possibly Anaheim should consider six-foot masonry walls in
front of residences fronting on heavily traveled streets which would provide a safe place
for children to play, etc~, such as that employed by other areas~
Commissioner Herbst stated a precedent for commercial had already been started when the
real estate office across the street from subject property was established; that upon
driving down Euclid Street in this particular block, it was apparent commercial uses had
already started on both sides of the street; and that Euclid Street would soon become one
of the County~s main thoroughfares~
THE i-~ARING WAS CLOSED.
In response to Commission ouestioning, Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts stated that a
recommendation could be made to the City Council to include C-0 Zoning within the request
for C-1 and that no development could be made unless an area development plan were approved;
that it was further determined that a residential structure could not be used in the C-0
Zone without the approval of a conditional use permito
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to deny C-1 Zoning, but to consider C-0 Zoning along
with approval of a conditionai use permit, in order to provide a basis for regulating the
use~ The motion died for lack of a secondo
_~ Commissioner Ailred discussed land assembly of the various R-1 parcels, wherein a group of
homeowners could combine and sell their land to be used for commercial development, noting
that it had been considered in the past, but that it had never deveioped; and further, that
subject properties presPnted an ideal situation.
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No~1512A, ;eries 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that Petition
for Reclassification No. 64-65-lllbe disapproved, based on the fact that a common alley vrould
serve both residential and commercial uses; that access rights were denied subject property;
that utilization of a residence with complete conversion to commercial-type structure wc,iid
be detrimental; and that land assembly of parcels might be a better means of providing the
development of the property, making it more compatibleo (See Resolution Book~)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland,
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None~
In denying subject petition, Commissioner Camp stated that he did not approve recommending
disapproval of C-1 Eor subject property since the owners were not given alternatives in this
particular area which were different from other places in the City; that he felt they were
only prolonging a problam; and that the property owners should be instructed or given some
guidance on what they could ultimately do with their properties to develop them to their
highest and best uses.
Commissioners Herbst and Mungall stated that they, too, agreed with Commissioner Camp, but
since a lesser zone was not presently the answer, alternative development plans should be
suggested to these property ownerso
~`;~ T In response to Commission questions in relation to a lesser zone being permitted as a lesser
~_ use, Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised there could be no development in the C-0
; Zone of less than 20,000 square feet without approval of an area development plan, and at
~~ ~• this point they were not considering an ordinance, but rather a resolution of intent, and
:„~ that the use should not be allowed until conditions are
~ is passed and a conditional use proven upon. After the ordinance
permit approved, at that time tnere could be C-0 uses allowed,
,~ i
_._
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 10, 1965 ~
2578
RECLASSIFICATION •- Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1613, Series 1964-65, and
NOa 64-65-111 moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to
deny Petition for Variance Noo 1697. (See Resolution Book.)
VARIANCE N0. 1697
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AREA DEVELOPA~NT
PLAN NOo 20 AYES:
--------,. COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry,
(Continued) Rowland.
NOES: CONVuIISSIONERS: Nonee
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None,
Commissioner :,llred offered Resolution No. 1614, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
.~;y~T and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition
for Area Development Plan Noo 20 be disapprovede (See Resolution Book.)
~
, On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the fallowing vote:
aYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowlande
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonea
ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
' CommissionEr Perry offered Resolution No. 1615, Series 1964-65, and muved for its passage
, and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland~ to recommend to the City Council that
General Plan Amendment Noo 58 be disapproved. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votee
A~S~ COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland~
NOES: COMMISSIONERSs None,
AHSENTs COMMISSIONERSs Noneo
V.4RIANCE NO 170 - PUBLIC HEARINGa M. R. INVESTMENT COMPANY, LOWELL A, ELLER~ PRESIDENT~
1851 West Imperial Highway, Suite 3, Los Angeles 47, California, Owner;
E. BRIESEMEISTER, [-IEATH AND COMPpNy~ 3225 Lacy Street, Los Angeles,
~ California, Agent; requesting a waiver of maximum height and property line location of a
free-standing sign on property described ass A triangularly shaped parcel of land located
' at the southeast corner o.f Lincoln Avenue and Manchester Avenue, with frontages of approxi-
_ mately 183 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and a
side of Manchester Avenue, and further described as 1440 WestXLincoln ABenueet Propertyorth
presently classified C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONEa
Mre E, Briesemeister, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed
subject request, stating that the requested height waiver was necessary to maintain proper
identification of subject property because of its proximity to the freeway, and that the
traffic,btherefore~makingditYatnecessity~thattitrbecidentified fromdthenma,~orUthoroughfares
as well as the freeway.
i In response to Commission questioning as to how many people would attempt to leave the free-
~ way to patronize subject service station, since there were no off-ramps at that particular
site, Mr. Briesemeister stated that it was a common
with a particular station because of credit cards andrvariousfother~reasonsprandrthatdthe
proposed sign would enable them to do so by directing them from the freeway.
~ No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THE I-lEARING WAS CLOSED.
~i ~
Discussion was held by the Camnission relative to the newly adopted Sign Ordinance in which
it was determined that as a result of public hearings held over several months in which
sign ordinance experts participa{ed, it was found to be a snund ordinance, and that it was
the opinion of the Commission that it should remain as is withput granting innumerable
waivers from the Codee
Commi.ssioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1616, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to deny Petition for Variance No. 1702, based
on the fact that the raquested variance would not serve the purpose for which a variance
is intended~ that the Sign Ordinance had been fully tes~ed and was found to be a sound
ordinance~ and that the petitioner was requesting not one, but three different waivers of
the principal parts of the newly adopted Sign Ordinance. (See Resolution Booke)
On roll call the forcgoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYESt CO,WutISSIONERSs Allred~ Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowlanda
NOES~ COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENTe COMMISSIQIJERS: Nonee
~
:+1INUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 10, 1965 2g~g
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC IiEARINGa CLARENCE H~ MINERY, 1002 South Shelton, Santa Ana,
PERMIT N0~ 703 California, Owner; JAMES J. WOODS, 3067 West Orange Avenue, Anaheim,
California, Agent; requesting permission to establish a guest home for
the aged on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land
with a frontage of approximately 180 feet on the east side of Stinson Street and a maximum
depth of approximately 123 feet, the curved northern boundary of said property is coincident
with the southern boundary of the Orange County Flood Control District channel°s southern
boundary9 and the southern boundary of said property is approximately 647 feet south of the
centerline of Lincoln Avenue, and further described as 134-142 South Stinson Streeto
Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE (Resolution of Intent to reclassify
to R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE pending)<
Mro James J~ Woods, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed
the proposed~developments noting that subject property had a resolution of intent tc re-
classify to the R-3, Multiple-Family Residential, Zoney and at the time the resolution of
intent had been approved, a 20-foot alley was required on the southerly boundary of ,ubject
property; that the petitioner was no longer desirous of having the alley because of the
hardship it might create for elderly people living in the proposed guest home; that if the
City determir,ed it was necessary to have an alley to serve the deep lots to the east,
a 20•-foot easement couid be provided, but that plans could be revised to relocate the
structures in order to provide said easement~
Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that dedication for the 20-foot
alley had already been obtained by the City of Anaheim, and it would be necessary to request
abandonment~procedures througi~ pubiic hearing before the City Council, and that a bond had
been posted for the compietion of said alley by the petitioner~
Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that at the time subject property had
teen 3pproved for muitiple-family residential development, plans of development had not
beer, s~bmir±ed for the property to the east, and the City felt it was preferable to have
an alley to se*ve tnt deep lo:s if property to the east was developed for multiple-family
residential puz•poses to provide adeouate fire protection and secondary circulation; furthery
that ail that was necessary for the completion of the resolution of intent to rezone subject
property to the R•-3 Zone was completion of the improvements of the alley, since all other
requirements had been met.
The Commission was of the opinion that the properties to the east of subject property could
not develop unless a secondary access was provided, and that if an ailey was provided, this
.vould permit the petitioner to have his trash storage areas along the alley which might be
a more des~rable method of handling trash~
Mr~ Woods stated that if the Commission was desirous of having an alley, they would accept
it as a condition of approval of subjer,t petition.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition~
THE I~ARING WAS CLOSED„
Mr, Mickelson advised the Commission that all that was necessary as far as revision te plans
was to require as a condition of approval that the structures be relocated northerly approxi-~
mately 20 feet to accommodate the alley, since there was adequate space between the proposed
structures to pr~vide for this additional 20 feet.
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No~ 1617, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded 6y Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition £or Conditional UsF i'ei^+it.
Noa 703, suUject to relocation of the proposed structures northerly to provide fc,:• an alley
on tiie south property line, and conditions~ (See Resolution Book~)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
A1'ES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland~
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
ABSENT: COMMISSIO^:ERS: Noneo
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING~ UNION BANK, 760 South Hill Street, Los Angeles,
N0~ 64-65-126 California, Owner; ALVARO ALVAREZ, 11420 Court, Apartment No~ 6,
Stanton, California, Agent; property described as: An irregularly shaped
VARIANCE N0. 1703 parcei of land with a frontage of approximately 59 feet on the east side
of Knott Street and a maximum depth of approximately 150 feet, the northern
GENERAL PLAN boundary of said property is coincident with the southern boundary of the
AN~NDMENT NU,. 56 Carbon Creek flood control channei, and the southern boundary is approxi•-
mately 300 feet north of the centerline of Rome Avenue, and further des-
cribed as 722 South Knott Street~
MINUTES, CITY PLANDIING COMMISSION, May 10, 1965 2580
RECLASSIFICRTIOD! - Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONEo
NOo 64-65-126
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
VARIANCE NO„ 1703
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF TI?" FOLiOWING: ~1) MINIMUM SETBACK
GENERAL PLAN ABUTTING R-1 ZONED PROPERTY, AND (2) MAXIMUM
AIuIENDN~NT N0~ 56 STRUCTURE l~IGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF R-1 ZONED
(Continued) PROPERTY.
No one appeared to represen± the petitionero
Mro William Pierce, 3429 Rome Avenue, appeared bEfore the Commission in opposition to
subject petition and steted subject piuperty wa= located within an R-1 tract only four
years old; that a cul-de-sac alley existed to the southeast of subject property which
was utilized by residents since their gzrages were located on the ailey; and that if
subject petition were granted, this woulc set a precedent for development of commercial
uses along Knot.t Street in an area not noN• so developedo
The Commission advised the opposition the pet?tioner was proposing to utilize subject
property for living purposes as well as a beauty shop, and that parking was proposed at
the rear, but this would create some problem because of a drainge ditch which existed
there~
Mr~ Pierce then stated the property owner adjacent to subject property did not oppose
the proposed reclassificat~on because this would be an opening wedge for a request by
him to rezone his pro;:ertyy but that the adjacent property owners were not desirous of
heving any commercial intru:;ior. into the residential area, since this would be detrimental
to :he entire a~e-a.. Mr, Pierca further presented a petition signed by 46 property owners
opposing subject petition~
THF HEARIKG WAS CLOSED.,
Ciscussion w3s held by the Commission, and it was noted by Commissioner Camp that subject
proper±y could not be classifi=d in the same category as the properties previously con-
sidered by the Commission on Euclid Street, because adjacent properties on the east, west
~ and south were single-family residential developments.
_ Commissioner Camp offered rTesoluticn P'o., 1618, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
- and adoption9 seconded by Commissioner Allred~ to recommend to the City Council that
Petition for Reclassification No. 64-65-126 be disapproved, based on the fact that it
would set an undesirable precedent for commercial uses in a residential area, and that
subject p;operty was surrounded on three sides, and was a part of a single-family tract,
and that any ccmmercial use of the property and the adjacent alley would be detrimental
to the single•-family residential environment of the area. (See Resolution Book,)
On roll cail the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
~ NOESo COMMISSIONERS: Nonea
~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee
~ Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 1619, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to deny Petition for Variance No. 1703, based
, on the fact there were no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable
to the propertyy and the use would be incompatible to the area. (See Resolution Book~)
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.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nonea
p • I
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1620, Series 1964-65, and mo•/ed for its passage
~• and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend to the City Council that General
Plan Amendment t4oe 56 be disapproved, (See Resolution Book.)
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.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
'.y5~ *
'.i .r~
t
~ ~ ` j 1
/
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMh;ISSION, May 10, 1965 2581
REi;LASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. JAMES STANFORD AND ANNA L. MORRIS, 1624 East Nutwood,
I~O.,Y64-65-123 Anaheim, California, Owners; LARRY F. KLANG, 7814 East Firestone Boulevard,
Downey9 California, A9ent; requesting that property described as: A
rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately
40 feet on the south side of Orange Avenue and a maximum depi;h of approximately 128 feet,
the western boundary of said property being approximately 230 feet east of the centerline
of Brookhurst Street, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE, to the C-1, GENERAL
COMNERCIAL, ZONE, to utilize subject property for access purposes and parking in conjunction
with a shopping center on property adjacent to the east.
Mro Larry Klang, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated it was
...~~ necessary t~o•have additional parking for the proposed smali shopping center since plans of
development indicated a larger structure was needed; therefore, more parking requirement was
neededs and in response to Commission questioning, stated the property was proposed to be
~ i~sed for ingress and egress and parking in conjurction with the overall development of the
shopping centero
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono
THE I-IEARING WAS CLOSED~
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution Noo 1621~ Series 1964-65~ and moved for its passage
and ado~tion, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition
for Reclassification No. 64-65•-123 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Booko)
On roll call the foregoin.g resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee
RECLASS<"ICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. BYRON Ae AND LUETTA F. DAHL, 1600 Crone Avenue, Anaheim,
NO_ 64-65•~127,Y_ California, Owners; JAMES A. BAKER, 411 South Ohio Street, Anaheim,
California, Agent; requesting that property described as: A rectangularly
; shaped parcPl of land located at the southwest corner of Harbor Boulevard
and South Street, with frontages of approximately 183 feet on the west side of Harbor Boule-
_ vard and approximately 200 feet on the south side of South Street, and further described as
504 West South Streets be re;.iassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE, to the C-1, GEIJERAL
COMMERCIAL, ZONE~
~ Mro James Baker, agent for the petitioner, appeared before tne Coremission and described the
location of subject pruperty, together with the fact that a portion of the original property
~ ; was being considered as the next scheduled item on the agenda for church purposes; that the
petitioner did not propose any plans for Commission consideration, but was desirous of having
~ ~ commercial zoning on the propertyo
,~ ~
:.I ~ Mr~ Bert Wilson, 714 South Janss Street, appeared before the Commission and stated that
l since a traffic light had been installed at the intersection of South and Harbor Boulevard,
s ~ South Street was now heavily traveled; that many of the small homes on Harbor Boulevard
~ were converting to commercial uses; and that if the proposed reclassification were aoproved,
th:s would mean an encroachment into the R-1 homes to the west of Harbor Boulevard which
~ would mean employees of the commercial developments would be parking on residential streets~
~ No one else appeared in opposition to subject petition~
THE I-~ARING WAS CLOSED~ ~
I
~ The Commission discussed the fact that the petitioner had not submitted plans of development
; ; for subject property; that since the
petitioner was proposing commercial uses for the area,
! any plans for the area should be submitted to the Commission in order that the Commission
~.. might determine whether or not they wouid be compatible with the established commercial
s• development in the area; that the General Plan indicated commercial office use for the area,
and since a number of churches existed in the area, the Commercial Office Zone was a more
aporopriate zone for the areae
~; Mr. Baker stated the petitioner hoped to have a restaurant or a service station on subject
- property, but was desirous of havinq something that would be compatible with the church
;~ _' being proposed adjacent to the west.
*~ Mr. Byron Dahl, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated he had owned
_`~ ~ subject property for 25 years, and it was his intention to keep it until he could realize
~ ~ a greater profit; that the First Christian Church wanted only a portion of the property
i i because of financial reasons; that he had been approached by several prospective com;nercial
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOPJ, May 10, 1965 25g2
,'j ~
+~ ,
C•~ '
F ~
t'
RECLASSIFICATION - developers for his property, but nothing had materialized because he
N0._64-65-127 had suggested waiting until the City had approved commercial zoning
(Continued~- for the property, and if Co:~~ercial Office Zone was approved for sub.ject
property, ihis would limit the uses for his property, and he was
desirous oi having more free~om to develop his property without limitations~
Chairman Mungall reopened the hearingo
Mre Wilson again appeared before the Commission and stated a service station at that corner
would be detrimental, and thai a restaurant would add to the traffic congestion in the areao
The Commissicn stated that under the C-0 Zone a restaurant was permitted as an incidental
use to the office building, but this would not be similar to the walk-up type restaurant;
that granting of a blanket C-1 Zone might have a detrimental effect on the entire area if
plans of development were not considered by the Commission, and inquired of the petitioner
whether he was willing to consider a continuance of the reclassification in order to submit
plans of development for his propertyo
Zoning Coordi•nator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission the C-1 Zone had site development
standards which could control development of the property.
The Commission was of the opinion that it would be best that plans be submitted to the
Commission for consideration, and that the petitioner would have to submit plans if he
proposed a service station or a walk-up restaurant in conjunction with the conditional
use permit because of the close proximity to the R-1 properties.
Mro Dahl stated he had no definite plans for the property since he was desirous of having
some commitment on the zoning from the City before plans were submitted.
The Commission then suggested that if the petitioner was desirous of having a C-1 use,
plans would have to be submitted ~;o the Commission before any decision could be made by
the Commission:.
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to continue consideration of Reclassification
No~ 64•-65-127 to the meeting of June 7, 1965, in order to allow the petitioner time to
submit development plans for subject property~ Commissioner Perry seconded the motiono
MOTION CARRIED.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUSLIC HEARYNG. BYRON A. AND LUETTA F. DAHL, 1600 Crone Avenue, Anaheim,
PERMIT N0. 702 California, Owners; JAMES A. BAKER, 411 Snuth Ohio Street, Anaheim,
California, Agerit; requestin9 permission to establish a church, with
waivers for maximum height of a building structure adjocent to a residential
zone and minimum front yard setback requirements on property described as: A rectangularly
shaped parcel of land with a irontage of approximately 352 feet on the south side of South
Street and a maximum depth of approximately 308 feet, the eastern boundary of said property
being approximately 235 feet irom the centerline of Harbor Boulevard,. Property presently
classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONEo
Mro James A. Baker, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that
the First Christian Church had purchased the property from the petitioner, and it was planned
to relocate the church presently on Broadway to tha proposed loca.tion because large facil:ties
were needed, and it was more economical to start a new church, rather to expand the existing
church structure, and that the proposed locaticn would be ideal for their churrh; that in
addition to South Street, there were two addit;.onal streets through the R-3 tract to the
south which would afford means of exiting from the church property after church services,
thereby alleviating some of ti~e heavily congested traffic on South Street; that the plans
submitted were not the finai plans, but were sample elevations of what was being proposed
to the church for adoption; and that the architect would be available to answer questions.
Mro Robert Bolling, architect for the proposed church, appeared before the Commission and
reviewed the colored rendering submitted for Commission consideration as a typical type
church for subject property, and that upon maximum development of the property the concept
presented would be the final one, although it was planned to have the developmeni done in
stages; parking was indicated on the exterior periphery of the property and would meet Code;
and in response to Commission questioning, stated the plan presented was a schematic type of the
proposed development, but would be two-story,
,.~ Mra Bert Wilson, 714 South Janss Street, appeared before the Commission and stated he was
~- glad to see the church was going to be occupying subject property, but it was hoped adequate
~ ~, parking was going to be required by the Commission in order that the adiacent residential
~~ ~ streets would not have to contend with cars parking in front their homes,
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 10, 1965
2583
CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. Baker stated they had a reciprocal, verbal agreement with the
PERMIT NOo 702 Masonic Lodge to the rear of the property for utilization of their
(Contir,ued)~+ parking in the event the parking facilities for the church which were
being provided were inadequate.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1622, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit
No. 702, subject to conditions~ (See Resolution Book.)
the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
None>
None.
Commissioner Perry offered a motion to recess for ten minutes.
Commissioner Camp seconded the motion~ MOTION CARRIEDe
The meeting recessed at 4:00 p,mo
Chairman Mungall reconvened the meeting at 4:15 p.m., all
Commissioners with the exception of Commissioner Cemp being
present~
CONDITIONAL 'JSE •- PUBLIC N~ARINGo ANGELO AND CARL ZABY, 1401 East 51st Street, Los
PERh1IT N0~ F95r Angeles, California, Owners; ROBERT MARTIN, 1881 Mitcheli, Suite 32A,
Santa Ana, California, Agent; requesting permission to establish a
billboard in the shape of a fuil-sized jet fighter aircraft, advert~sing
"Movieland of the Air" on property described as: An "L" shaped parcel of land lying east
and south of a service station located on the southeast corner of Harbor Boulevard and
Katella Avenue, subject oroperty having frontages of approximately 75 feet on Harbor
Boulevard and approxima~aly 240 feet on Katella Avenue. Property presently classified
R•-A~ AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
Mre Robert Martin, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed
the proposed use of subject property, noting that the "Movielznd of the Air" was located
in Santa Anao Mr~ Martin further stated that the requirement of payment of street lights
for subject property would amount to $1,200, to which the petitioner was opposed since a
proposed rental sign was on a 60-day cancellation basis, and use of the proNerty was to
augment payment of taxes on subject property, and that at the time Katella Avenur was
widened and paved, his client had installed sewers, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, etc~
along the entire frontage of their property which at that time consisted of two parcels,
and only a portion of the parcels was being used, whereas the property on the north side
of Katella Avenue had only sidewalks installed on the develaped parcels~
Mr. Martin further stated they were attempting to negotiate with a local firm known as
"Palley" to relocate the Movieland Theatre of the Air to Anaheim, but that it was necessary
to have some assistance from the City in order to acquire adequate advertising for their
development~
Mr. Richard Robinson,2202 North Cotter Street, Santa Ana, appeared before the Commission
and stated the Movieland Theatre of the Air was established in Santa Ana in December uf
1963, and one of the most difficult problems experienced by visitors to their display was
attempting to find their display, since the confusion seemed to be that everyone thought
the display was at the Fullerton Hirport, and this was the basic reason for requesting
out of~theeSantankna CounDysAe=Po~d Anethetnearwfuturee their de~elopmentdwouldnhaveltohts
relocate, and it was their desire to locate in the City of Anaheim, if a proper location
could be found; further, that the petitioner and he were opposed to any type of billboards -
that they were planning to use fighter planes similar to those used by the Blue Angels, which
would have a dynamic impact and would be a definite asset to the Disneyland Area since it
would be similar to a"Fantasyland", and it was hoped the Commission would favorably consider
subject petitiono
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitione
TNE f-~ARING WAS CLOSED,.
In response to Commission questioning relative to the reason why the proposed sign did not
qualify under the new Sign and Billboard Ordinance, Zoning Ceordi.nator Robert Mickelson
stated that under the Sign Ordinance, the sign was so far removed fram ihe prooerty being
c .
r
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 10, 1965 2584
CONDITIONAL USE - advertised, that it could not qualify as a directional sign, and a
PERMIT N0. 695_ directional sign was to indicate the area of regional importance,
(Continued) such as a park; that the Billboard Ordinance, which was designed in
cooperation with the billboard display people, proposed a standard
advertising copy with modular panels; that the proposed sign was not
located at the intersection of two arterial streets to qualify for location; and that it
was not in the proper zone, although the petition had been submitted prior to the effective
date of the Billboard_Ordinance, the Commission might wish to consider handling the request
under a conditional use permit~
- Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that guide signs could not
~.~~ ~ be any larger than 24 square feet, even if the location being proposed was considered
~ an area of least importanceo
:'y ~
' The Commission then discussed the fact that it had been the City°s desire to li '
mit the
j types of signs for the Commercial~Recreation Area to signs for the actual business estab-
~ lishments in the area, and to approve the advertisement in that area of businesses outside
'~ i the area would set a precedent for similar requests to the City for the location of all
types of signs in the Commercial-Recreation Area. Further, that when Disneyland first
~~ opened, the Carnation Milk Company had requested permission to establish a sign across
C ~ ' the road from the Disneyland entrance, and it was stated at that time it was not the
E, desire of the Cit to have an t
~•I- Y y ype of sign that did not pertain to the uses established
.I in the area.~
E
~1 Commissioner Gauer offerad Resolution No, 1623, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded b~~ Commissioner Herbst, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit
~ Noo 695, based on the fact that the proposed use does not qualify under the Sign and Bill-
f bo,::'d Ordinance of +he City of Anaheim; that the use does not relate to the existing
j! businesses establir,hed in the area; and that the use would adversely affect the adjoin-
~i in~ land uses alraady established in the area. (See Resolution Booko)
I
On roll call che foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allredy Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
'~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~
~I ABSENT: COMMISSIONE RS: Campo
RECLASSIFIGATION - PIIBLIC HEARING~ TNOMAS R~ COUGHLIN, PRESIDENT, KRIC ENTERPRISES,
NO,. 64-65_I25~_ INCQRPORATED, 405-A West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner;
requesting that property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel
of land located at the southwest corner of Harbor Bc~:evard and Wilkin
Way, with frontages of approximately 290 feet on the south side of Wilkin Way and approxi-
mately 1G2 feet on the Nest side of Narbor Boulevard, the southern boundary of said property
is coincident with the Anaheim-Garden Grove city '_imits line, be reclassified from the R-A,
AGRICULTURAL, ZONE, to the C-3, I~AVY COMMERCIAL, ZONE~
Mre Harry Knisely, attorney for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted
for the Commission that the proposed development was approved some months ago for property
approximately 500 feet north of the proposed location, and that in addition to the original
use, a coffee shop was now being proposed; that the restaurant was part of a national chain;
and that the proposed metal paneis would be porcelainized.
Conmissioner Camp returned to the Council Chamber at 4:26 p.mo
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition~
THE I-~ARING WAS CLOSED~
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No~ 1624, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption., seconded by Cortur.issioner Perry, to recommend to the City Council that Petition
for Reclassification No~ 64•-65-125 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall~
NOES: COMMISSIUNERS: Noneo
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None~
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Camp,
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOh, May 10, 1965
2585
CONDITIONAL L'SE • PUBLIC HEqRING., EI;WARD LEWIS AND PAULINA M~ JONESY 1105 East Katella
PERMIT NO.,_699_ Avenue, Anaheimy California, Owners; PAUL N~TFIELD, 4924 Elsinore
Avenue, Orange, California, Agent; requesting permission to establish
sn autamotive test and repair facility on property described as: A
rectangulariy shaped parcel of land of approximately 3~47 acres, with a frontage of approxi-
mately 240 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately
630 feet, the wes* boundary of said property being approximately 720 feet from the center-
line of Lewis Street, and further described as i105 Ezst Katella Avenue.. Property presently
classified M-1, LIGI'T INDUSTRIAL, ZONE..
Mr.. Paul Hatfieldi agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed
the proposed use of subject property, noting that a comparatively new concept for testing
engines to determine causes for their failure wa; being proposedy ar9 that the proposed
use would be compatibie with existing uses and proposed uses to be established in close
proxim:ty to subject property:
In response ±o Com~ission questionin9, Mr, Hatfield stated that the proposed use would be
a facility for both retail and industrial industry; that the use wouid not create any
additiona? traffic than that which wou~d ~•e generated by other industrial development; and
that the work sched~le wou:d not add more than i25 cars per sixteen-hour day.
Mr, Fred Lowell, representing the Southern Pacific Railroad, appe3red before the Commission
in opposition to the proposed use and stated that since the properties to the south of
Katella Avenue were proposed for other than industrial use, it was i~oped no further intru-
sion into the industrial deveiopmeni of the balance of the lands in the Southeast Industrial
Area would 'ue approved by the City; that although the General Plan indicated a large portion
of area was de~•elop3ble for industria! purposes, or that said land was 3vailable, this was
not true - th~t most of the iand had been developed; that Southern Pacific Railroad still
had 97 acres of industrial land to be developed; and th3t th~ re3son tt~~y h.ad been able to
interest pote~tial industrial iand buyers from the East was because the ~ity in the past
had held firm in the position that the Southeast Industriai Area would be developed for
that purpose on:y„
Letters of opposition from Genersl Foods Corporation and Southern Pacific Rai!road Company
were read to the CoRmission~
TI-lE HEARING WAS C~OSED..
In res~onse to CoR~rt:ission questionir.g relative to indicating developed indus±rial p.operties
on the Generai Plary Zonir.g Coordin~tor P.obert Mickelson advised the Commission the Genezal
plan was r.ot designed to indicate er.isting development since it was genera~ in charactez~
that this was the functior, of the zor.inq maps in the dep~rtment.; and that the department
had a map of the Sou~heast Industriai Area on which was depicted ~he properties developed
for industri.31 uses with the n3mes of the various companies9 and said map was available to
anyor,e who asked about the area, or asked for a map of the are3~
Discussion was he?d by the Commission as to the compatibility of the proposed use, and the
f~ct that the use was more retail than industrial in character, and that the CorrTission had
n!air.tained the poiicy in maintaining the area for industrial development„
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1625, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoptiony seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to deny Petition for Condition~l Use Permit
No~ 699, based on the fact that the proposed use was retail commercial in character, that
the use was incompatible to the ;~ses a~re3dy established in the area, and that the Southeast
Industrial Area should be maintained for industrial development~ (See Resolution Book,)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, CampY Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None,
RECLASSIFICATIO~ ~• PUBLIC NFqRING~ JONN F~ AND MARY R. KIRSCN, 103 Beckley Circle.; Palm
N0~ 64-65•-i1Q~_ Springs, California, Owners; h~DAN?EL ENGINEERING COMPANY, P„ 0, Box 3668y
Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that property described as: An
"L" shaped parcel of land of approximately 14..2 acres, with a frontage of
approximately 76 feet on the south side of South Street and a maximum depth of approximately
1,295 feet, the westernmost boundary being approximately 661 feet east of the centei•Iiiie of
South State Coilege Roulevard and the eastern boundary being approximately 1,322 feet east
of the centerline of South State Gollege Boulevard, and fuither described as 2?35 Fa;(. So~:!t~
Street9 be reclassified from the R~A, AGRICULTURAL~ ZONE, to the R-1, UNE-FAMiLY RESIDEIJTIAL,
ZONE ~
MI~UTES, CITY PLA~NING COMMISSION, May i0, 1965 2586
ReCLASSIFICATION - The petitioners indicated their presence to answer questions~
N0~ 64•-65W119
(Continued) ~ A'o one appeared in opposition to subject petition,
TNE I-~ARING WAS CLOSED.
Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that subject petition was a
condition of approval of Revision Noo 4 of Tentative Map of Tract No~ 5611~
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noo 1626, 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,. 64-65-119 be approvedo (See Resolution Booko)
~ On roll cali the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
.
AYESo COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall~
NOESs COMMISSIONERSe Nonea
AESENT: COMMISSIONERS: None~
RECLASSIFICATIO~~ -• PUBLIC FFARING. FRA~K K,. KROGMAN, 2338 Wagner Avenue9 Anaheim,
N0~ b4~F5•124___ Californi.a, Owner; property desc*ibed as: Portions "A" and "B" -
A rectanoulariy shaped parcel of Iand of zpproximately 2~61 acres,
CONDITIONAL USE located at the southwest corner of Wagner Avenue and S~nkist Street,
?ERMIT NO~.__00_ with fzontages oF approximately 642 feet on the south side of Waqner
Avenue ~nd approximately 178 Feet on the west side of Sunkist Street,
GENERAL PLAN and further described as 23A0•-2350 Wagner Avenue~ Property presently
AMENDAdENT ~'0~, 5? classified R-A; AGRICULTURAL, ZONE~
REQUESTED CLASSI=ICATION: C-:9 GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONEo
fcEQUESTED CONDlTIONAi USE: TO ESTABI.ISH A CONV.4LESCENT YOSPITAL WITH
WAI4'ER OF MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF AN R-i ZONE AND
SCREEN PLANTING AL.ONG SOUTH BOUNDARY OF PORTION "B" describcd as: A
rectanguiarly shaped par.cel of land with a froniage of approximately
~ 350 feet o~i the south side of Wagner Avenue, and a maximum depth of
_ approximately 178 feet, the eastern boundary of said property beirg
- 3pproximateiy 191 feet west of the centerline of Sunk;st Street~
Mro Frank Krogman, the petitionery appeared before the Commission and stated that h(r. Finn
Konsmo would present the proposed convalescent i~osoital plans„
Mr.. Finn Konsmo, 2033 West 17th Street, Santa Ana, appeared before the Commission and
presented a colored rendering of the proposed convalescent hospital, noting that patients
would be transported from hospitals to the proposed structure; that the proposed develop-
ment would be facing on the rear of the homes to the north; and that very little traffic
wou~d emanate from the proposed use.
In response to Chairman Mungail`s request for opposition, a showing of hands indicated
17 persons were present opposing subject petition~
Mr~ George W~tsony 2426 Lisbeih Avenue, appeared before the Commission as one of the spokes•-
men for the oppositiony and siated the proposed reclassification was not in conformance with
±he General Plan land use designation and constitutes spot zoning; that the surrounding area
was entirely residential and agricultural in development; that the property owners in the
area purchased their properties under the premise that the area would continue to be resi~-
dential and cort~pietely removed from commercial intrusion; that the depreciatien in value
of the surrounding established properties would be affected by the proposed commercial
intrusion, said homes ranging in va2ue from 525,000 to $55,000; that additional traffic
would be generated by the commercial activities in close proximity to two elementary, one
junior high scheol, and one high school now under construction, creating undue hazards to
children walking to and from school; and that he had a petition sig.~ed by 414 property
owners opposing subject reciassificationo
Mro Konsmo stated, in his opinion, the proposed development could not be considered commercial
~.~ in nature; that the proposed convalescent hospital would be for elderly people; that the
~;` place would be an assety not a detriment, to the area; that a similar development had been
c constructed in Santa Ana over oppositior similar to that being presented at the hearing,
but was now proving to increase, rather than decrease, the values of tt~e property; that a
{`* number of professional people had indicated their interest in the area fo: possible office
~J establishmenty that since the high school was being constructed in close proximity~ lhis
~~~ "'~ would be a hindrance rather than an asset to the area; and that he was interested only in
~b obtaining the conditional use permit, but had no interest in a change of zoning for the
i.; I property since a convalescent hospital was a permitted use ~mder a conditional use permit,.
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 10, 1965 2gg~
RECLASSI:ICATIOri• Ms, Rusty Roouet, 948 South Peregrine Street, appeared before the
NO_ 64~.65_124___ Commission in opposition and stated that streets now dead-er.d on
subject property`s south property line which presented quite a hazard
~ONDlTIONAL USE to children who cross the streets and play in the :>treets tivhich would
PERMIT NO ;~00'_ normaily be cul-de-saced streets; that some time ago he had contacted
McDaniel Engineering Company for an R~-1 layout of subject property and
GENERAL PLAN had presented it to the petitioner, said layout indicated eight lots
AMENDN~NT NO _5? could be deve?oped ailowing the existing residence remain on a size
(Continuedl loi which would normally be occupied by two single•-famiiy homes; that
2,300 single-family homes had been developed in the surrounding area,
and with a recent parcel of fourteen acres having been approved for
subdivicion into 5? R-1 iotsY this brought the total to 86% of the land in the area having
been developed foz P.•1 purposes; and since ±he pat±ern of development had been established
in the 3re3 fo~ R-1 development, to grant subject petition would set ~ precedent for the
remaining undeveloped properties to request simiiar commercial uses.,
Mr.. Watson agsin ~ppe3red before the CoR~ission and stated a number of phys~cians lived
in the area and were =.:so opposed to the comme:ciai development; that 3 height waiver was
being reque_=tedy 3r.d since his pr.ope~±y would be one of ih.ose affected by the proposed
height, he wo~1d h3ve no priv~acy ~e his rea: yard, .as would many of the other lots in the
tract opposite the proposed deveiopner.t,
In response to Commissior: auestionir,g rel3tive to the height variance, Zoning Coordinator
Robert Micke:son advised tr.e Commission the G•1 Zone form~:a for determ?ning the height of
structu•res adjacent to R•i pzoperty was ~wo~to--one, and the p:ans indiceted a 15-foot,
6•-irtch struc±ure whicr wo:l~ be 2C feet fror.; the sou±h property ~ine, or the A-1 to the
south, c= ±he w3iver o.' t.he height _Lm:.*ation wa; ~~•~.ii:ed
Mr~ Ed ~:sy; 993 So~th Leiaa;ie; 3ppe3:ed before ~he Commission and =.Y.a~ed that sir,ce his
propertv ba_ked on to Sunkist Stzeet; 3ny C-i Zoning whicn mioh± be granted subject property
shouid be e^uii:y ~or.sidezed fo. othe: properties adjacent to Sunkist S±reet, and that to
conside: 3p~ipV31 OF com~e:c~3i zonina in en 3:e3 DIlID9T_:V deveioped for residential pur
poses wou:d be cont,a:y *_o tne residentia; integrity of !he 3rea, <ince ~he pe+.i±ioner
proposes C-i ior the entire parcel, with deveiopment pi3ns for the cente~ portion of the
property only, thereby le~vino th~~ e~ste~i~~ and westerly portiors cf the property for future
development, 3nd that the homes p~.chased by the property owners wouid be there for a
number oE years to come, whereas the hospital might deteziorate and become vacant in less
time..
In response to cuestioning by the petitioner :e:ative to permitting 3 conditional use
permit in the R-A Zones Mr~ Mickeison stated it had been the Cortunission°s policy in the
past to reauire rec:assific3tion of any property on which any comR~erci3l uses were being
proposed, aithough techrica.ly the proposed convalescent hospital was a permitted use in
the R-A Zone~
Expression by the peopie opposin9 subject petitions indicated they were not interested in
ar.y type of development for =ubject propezty other than residFntiai.
In response to M:. ~rogman s s+,~temen± that he intended ±o build offices for dentists and
doctors on one parcel o_' his property, the Comnission advised Mr Krogman the use he pro-
posed was 3 commercial use; therefore, the reclassifica±ion of suoject properiy would
again be in order„
Mrs„ Barbara Sin;c., :006 South Ambridge, appeared before the Commission and sta*_ed if the
petitioner felt having R-1 homes ~djacent to the school was detrimental, it would be much
more detrimental,3s f~~ 3=_ noises f:om children,to the convalescent hospital,
THE f-!EARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner PPrry offered Resoiution ~~o~ 1627, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissior.er Ga~er, to recommend to the City Councii that Petition
for Reclassification ~o. 64-65-124 be disapproved, based on the fact that subject property
is located in the center of rZ-1 subdivision development, and the pzoposed use would be in•-
compatible to the primary use est3biished; that subject property was developable into eight
to ten single-family residential zoned lots; and that the proposed reclassification of sub••
ject property was not necessary or desirable for the orderly development of the community~
(See Resolution Book.,)
~ On roll cail the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
' AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Aiir2d, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry~ kowland<,
~ NOES: CIMMISSIONERS: None:
,,,t~ ABScNT: CUMMISSIONERS: None~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNiNG CO~dMISSION, M3y l0y 1965 2588
RECLASSIF7~ATION •~• Commissioner 411red offered Resoiution No~ 1628, Series 1964-65, and
N0. 6~65~-~24___ moved for it:, passage and adoptiony seconded by Commissioner Camp,
to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No~ 700, based on tt.~
CONDITIONAL USE fact that Lhe p=oposed use would adversely affect the adjoining land
PERMIT_KO_ 70v^__ uses and ti~e growth and development of tne area; that the proposed
use was incompatible with the existing uses in the areag and that the
GENERAL PLAN granting oi the conditional use permit wouid be detrimenta? to the
AN~NDMENT N0~ 5? peace, healthy safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City
(Continued) of Anaheim. (See Resolution Book~)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, perry, Row:and,
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None•,
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No~ 1629, Series I964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoptior; seconded by CoR~issionex Nerbst, to recomn;end to the City Council that
General Plan Amendment No~ 57 be dis3pproved~ (See Resolution Rook.)
On ;oil r,311 ±he foregoing resoiution was p~ssed by the fol.iowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, ~owland..
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nore~
ABSENT: COMM.TSSIONERS~ ~one.
VARIANCE [~~0__1689 CO~TINUED Pi.BiIC k'E.4RING.. FRANK AND LORF.TTA N. KROGMAN, 2338 Wagner
Street, Ar.sheim9 Ceiiforni., G~nrersg ?AMES E, GRAb'ES, 6849 Live Oak,
Beii Gardens, Califo:nia, Agent; reauesting permissi.on to waive the
iollowing Code provisions: (;; numbe_ of free =_t:3ndino signs within ?00 feet of another,
and iotal number of *ree standino signs on one parcely and (2; pe;mitted iecation of free•-
standing signs (ctoser to pxope:ty :ine th.ar, 40% of widtt; of pazcel) on property described
as: An irregul3riy shaped pi_cei oi isnd ;ocated west and south o_' tne service station
site iocated at the soL:hwest corr.er o.' La Paima snd hl:gno:ia .Avenues~ subject property
having fror,tages of 3pproxim3tely i05 feet on the south side of La Pslma Avenue and
approximateiy 458 feet or. the west side of Magnolia Avenue, the western boundary of said
property beir.g ipproxim3teiy 290 _°eet ~est of tF:e centerline of Magno:i~ Aver~ue, and
further described as :027 Norch N:agnolia Avenue property present'_y classified C•-1,
GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONF,
Subject peti±ion w3s co~tinued from the meetings of March 29 and Ap_ii 26, 1965, in order
to provide the pet=tioner s~~°fic~ent t3Te to submit revised plans wh:ch resolve the parking
problem.,
No one appearad to represent the petitioner. No revised plans were submitted,
TF~E HEARING WAS CLOSED .
Commissioner Rowi3r,d offered Resoiution No. i630, Series 1964•-65, and moved for its passage
and adoptiony seconded by Commissione: Alired, to deny Petition fo* Variance No. 1689y based
on the f3ct that i` su~,;ec`. variance were granted, it would reduce the existing available
parkings further comoour.ding an exist.inc viclationy arn'_ that the propos~~l v3rianc.e w~s in
confiict w:th the new Sig~ Ordinar.ce. !See Resoiution Book,.)
~
~ _ ,
~~ * ~
'~ ~ I
On roll caii the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: CO.MMISSIONERS; Alired, Campy Gauer, Herbst, Mur.g~~ll., Ferzy, Rowisnd„
NQES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None~
VARIANCE ~~0~1701 •- PUBLIC HEARING~, NUGH A. AND DOROTI-~Y M„ EDMOA~SON, 884 South Oakland
Avenue, Pasadena, California, Owners; WILLIAM A„ EARKEF2, 1012 Lincoln,
Fullerton, California, Agent; req.~esting w3iver of the following:
(i) minimum d'zstance ~etween free•-standing signs, (21 number of si ns
street frontage, (3) maximum height of a free••standing sign, and (4) maximumtareanofneach
face of a free•-standing sign, on property described as: A triangularly shaped parcel of
land of approximately 5.6 acres located at the northeast corner of Narbor Boulevard and
Manchester Avenuey and bounded on the northe3st by ihe Santa Ana Freeway right•-of•way, with
frontages of approximately 760 feet on the east side of Narbor Boulevard and approximately
605 feet on the north side of Manchester Avenue, and further descri.bed as 138G South Harbor
Boulevard~, Property Present:y classified R•-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONF,
~
~,iNUTES, CITY PLANNING C~MMISSION, May 10, 1965 2589
E• .^'.~-~
;~ '
.
VARIANCE i:0~i?O1 •- Mr William Barkery agent for the petitioner, appeared before the
(Continued) Commission and reviewed the requested variances from the recently
passed Sign Ordinancey and in response to Commission questioning,
stated a great deal of the anticipated business wouid come from pre-
registration at otner Noward Johnson motels throughout the country~
Discussion was held bv the Comm3ssion relative to the number of sign variances being
requested on an ordinar,ce which the City had spent considerable time in drafting in
conjunction with the California sign and hillboard industryy plus the fact that if the
Commission continued granting waivers of the Sign Ordinancey this wouid become the rule
rather than the exr,eption~ that when the original request for a motel was considered by
the Cart~:r.issiony it had beer. determined no exits would be permitted from Manchester Avenue
because of Lhe reductior. of traffic lanes imrt,ediat?ly adjacent from Marichester Avenuey
and the fact that subiec± property was located near the off•-ramp of the Santa Ana Freeway.
Zoning Coord?nator Robert Mickelson reviewed the previousiy approved conditional use permit
for the mot,~l ~r.d the conditions of approval attached thex•eto,.
It was further noted by !~1., Mickelson that the Direcior of Public Works was anticipating
constzuction of zn isl3nd from Manchester Avenue to the toe of the slope of Harbor Boulevard
which wosid prevent any left-h3nd turns from the southbound traffic from Harbor Boulevard
coming into Manchester Avenue.
The Corr~mission then reviewed ine reauested sign variances, noting that request No~ 1 for a
freeway sign w3s r,orsidered reason~hie; the request for the waiver of the distance between
si~ns and the raximum area of ~ free-standing sign would still be ~equired, but that the
requirement c~ the w.3ive: of *_he r.umber of free-standin9 signs permitted couid not be
granted since it was }he opir,ion o' the Commission that all entr~nce sign=_ comoiy with
Section 18,62 of the Ananein: Municipal Code,
No one 3~,pe~:ed ir oopoaition to sub~ect peti~ion~
:'~ EIEARING W.4S CLOSED.
ComJris~ione: Row:and offered Resolut:on No., i631, Series 1964-65y and mcved for its passage
and adoption; seconded by Co;runissioner Gaue*, to gran~ waiver of tne maximum height of a
f;ee-siand~ng s~gr., waive: oi the msrimum area cf each face of a free•-standing sign, and
waiver ef the distance beiween a iree s;anding sign and 3 roof sign, but to deny the request
for waive: o: the numbe: of iree standing signs permitted, in Variance No., 1701. (See
Resoiution Fook..~~
On ro'_; caii tne fcre~oing :eso:..tior was passed by the fol:owing vote:
AYE.~: COMMIS~IONEt:S: .4lired, CaR:p, Gauei•, Herbst, M~ngali, Perxy; Row'_and~
ROES: COMMISSIONERS; None~
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
RECLASSI=ICATIOI~ - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATEU B`! TI-IE CITY PLANNIf~G COMMISSION,
NO.. 64~65WiiC Y_ 204 Eas± Lincoln Avenue, Anahein, California; DOROii-~t1GpSSETT, et al,
6i7 South Birch Street, Santa Ana; CHARLES E~ BEVER, 17592 Peralta Hills
Drive, An~heim; WALTER A„ BEIER, 17592 Peralta Hills Drive, Anaheim;
JAMES K. ROHISON, 1'532 Perait3 Nilis Drive, Hnaheim; and JACOB E., PRICE, 12545 Elmview
Drive, Riverside, Caliiornia, property owners; proposing t.hat property described as: An
irregularly snaped p.a:cei of Iand lecated south of the Santa Ana Car,yon Road and west of
Peralta f'?ils Drive, witn rrortages of approximateiy 733 feet on Santa Ana Canyon Road
and approximately i,?30 feet or. Peralta Hilis Drive, the eastern and southern boundaries
of subject property are coincident to ~he present Anaheim city limits in this are:,, the
western boundary of approximately 855 feet iies in a general northwesterly direction, be
reclassified from the R-A, AGRICUI.TURAL, ZONE, to the R-F, RESIDENTIAL ESTATE, ZONE.,
Subject petition was continued from the meeting of April 12, 1965, in order to allow the
principal property ov er time to study the proposed zone change~
Mr, Charles Bever, one of the property owr.ersY appeared before the Con•,mission and stated
; he owned six of the approximateiv i' acres being proposed for reciassification; that he
had contacted McDaniel Er.gineerir.g Company in an attempt to deveiop his properiy for later
saie, and some diffic~~lty was being encountered bec~use of the iestrictions of t.he R••E Zone;
, that he ^ea~ized the R-A Zor.e was a holding zone aY. the time the property was annexed intc
~ the City, 3nd that the most como-~rabie zoning in the City with that in the County was the
R-E Zone, which was :a±er estabiished by the City.
~
~
:~~~TES, CITY PLA~[1ING C~MMISSION, May ~0, 1965 2590
RECLASSIFICATION - tdr, Bevez• further stated that membe:s oi the McDanie: Engineering
N, ~~4~~ I10 Company h3d been in consultation with the Planning Division in an
(Continued~ attempt to deveiop the propertyy and one of the members oi the City
Staff reviewed the property with a member of the McDaniel Engineering
Company and determined it wouid be impossible to develop the area under
the present R-E Code; tnat ne was attempting to maintain the rurai atmosphere of one•-acre
estates aiready established; that beczuse of the steepness of the terrain, it would be
impossible to establish said property under the R•~E Zone; that since the Planning Division
was con~ide~ing r,he R-H Zone which would permit development of certain properties in the
residentiai hiilside areay it was suggested the Commission consider a continuance until
said zone was presented for the Commission's conside*ation at pubiic hearing~
Ir, response to Comr,iission questioning, Mr~ Bever stated the psrcels fronting along the
freeway we•re also having difficulty mairlt3ining the R-E Zone concept since they were
attempting to realize as much as possible from their parcels of iand- .3r.d that the main
probiem they had encountered was access from the individual sites in order to maintain
and improve the streets in accordance with the zone requirements.
It was roted by ±he Com~iss?or. Mr Bever w,as propo=ing fl.etibi!ity in the street standards
and that the R•E Zone rea_~ires one ~~•re; and the proposed R•-H Zone had a maximum of 40,000
squere feet as av3:13b1e ;ot size which ceuid ~e either more or :ess considering the steep-
ness of tlie hillside or. which it was be~ng proposedy a~;d the drainage necessary; that the
R•E Zone -reouired a minimum i?5••foot lot width and specific setbacks.
Mr. Allen K. Jer,nir.gs, 8492 Or3ngeacre Drive, appe3:ed before the Corr~r~ission and stated
he wished to commend the Ci±y in maintaining a rU2'31 atmosphe_e for a portion of the hill-
side a:ea; th.a~. th~ F-F Zor.e wes primeziiy designed foi the peral*_a Hills Are7 since it
was simiiaz in recuirements as the Coun~y Zone E-1; th~t the Peral`a Hills Area had requested
consideratior~ of ~nrer;atior. into the City w~hich was presently un~:er sLUdy by the City Mar.ager`s
depa~ rment~ :r.~ ~~_9ed t; ~t. the Cor,_ --;;'o:. •_u,.=i~e: i.3:r.!,ai;~'_r.r *_te R E Zone fo: sa~~ect prope;ty
After consider~ble discuss:cn betweer. t.he Comm:ission and r~embeis of the Pianning Staff and
interested persons in the Council Ch3rt~ber, the Co:r:ni~s•:ion stated that since the R•-E Zone
had been estabiished for those properties in the Feralta F!iiis Area, subject property should
be rezoned to R• E, and at the time the properties were to be developed if any probiems arose,
these couid be nardLed; rather th3r conti~uance of subject petition untii such time as ihe
R°H Zone became an ordinance.
TNE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Comr,;issionez Gauer offered 9eso:utior. No ib~2, Series 1964•-65, and moved for its p3ssage
and adoption; secor,ded by Cor~,~;issioner Camp, to .ecommend ±o ±he City Council that Petition
fo= Reclassification No 64•65•1:0 be apprcved for R-E Zor,ing, based on the fact that the
City of Anaheim has estabiished the R-E Zone ~or ar azea in which sutject p*operty was
located, and had giver. al~ p=operty owners the assurance these properties would be retained
in their semi-rural atmosphere. !See Resolution Book-,i
On roli ca?~ the foregoing resolu±ior. was passed 'oy the foliowica vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONEii~~ Aiiredy Camp, Gauer, He_bst, Munoa:l, Perry, Rowlard.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Ncne.
ABSENT: COMMISSIO~'ERS: None:
CONUITIONAL 'JSE • PUBLIC FEARING„ WILSHIRE OIL COMPANY, 666 East 1?th Street~ Santa Ana,
PERMIT N0.__?Oi California, Owner; Hd~NARD K. LARSEN, i022 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim,
Californi3, Agentp requesting permission to establish an additional
structure for minor automotive repair services in conjunction with an
existing service station, with the following waivers: (1) three-foot screen pianting strip,
(2) six-foot wail at rear of planting strip, (3) maximum height 2imit within 150 feet of
single-family residential zone, and (4i minimum required parking spaces, on property des•
cribed as: An irregularly shaped percel of land located at the southeast corner of La Palma
Avenue and West Stzeet, with frontages of approximately 145 feet on the south side of La
Palma Avenue and I?0 feet on the east side of West Street, and further de=cribed as 1022
West La Paima Avenue, Property presentiy classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE,
Mra Howard Larseny agent fo: the petitioner, appeared before the Corrunission and reviewed
the proposed construction of an additional structure on a service station site,
The Commission expressed concern that the petitioner was request4ng a use which was
~ eliminated from the Service Station Site Development Standards and might set a plecedent
„a~ for simi.lar req~~ests by other service stations~.
~ ~- ~ k ~
~.
~ MINUTES. CFT~ pLF~NNING COMMISSIONy May l0y 1965 2591
6
~ CONDITIONAL USE -• Mro La~sen stated that because tha;e was sufficient room to place the
~ PERMIT NO., 70I additional structure, and the fact that subject property was separated
(Continued) from residential uses by the flood control channel and the Water Districty
~ the situation was entirely different from that of other service stationso
Further, that the request for waiver from the height limit within 150 feet
of single~-family zesidential zone boundary was because a small strip adjacent to the flood
control channel had remained R~O, and was undevelopable, and therefore was a technicality.
~
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiona
; ~ . THE HEARING WAS CI,OSED~
i
~<4 ~~ Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No> 1633, Series 1964~-65, and moved for its passage
~ ~ and-~adoptiorr; seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit
~~~~ No~ 701, based on the fact that the granting of the conditional use permit would not set a
precedent for similar development of other service stations because of the adequacy of size
and its location ad~acent to the flood control channel, and conditions, (See Resolution
I Book~)
~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
. ~ -.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbsty Mungall, Perry, Rowland~
.I NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None,
*
~
TI-IE FOLLOWING PETITIONS WERE CONSIDERED AS ONE ITEM BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
RECLASSIFICATION ~ PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY TNE CITY PLANNII~G COMMISSION, 204 East
NO_ 64~-65-!20~ Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; CLAUDE G~ AND GENEVIEVE M~ CROSBY,
113i1 Chapman Avenue~ Garden Grove, California, Owners; property described
CONDITIONAi ~SE as: An irregular~y shaped parcel of land located at the northwest corne*
PERMIT N0:_ 696 of li3rbor Boulevard and La Paima Avenue, with frontages of approximately
174 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard snd approximately 107 feet
or the north side of La Palma Avenue, and furiher described as 1001-1013
Harbor Boulevard and 103•-105 La Palma Avenue,. Property pzesently classified C-3y HEAVY
COMMERCIAL, ZONE, deed restricted to service station sites or any C-i, NEIGI-~ORHOOD COMMER-
CIAL, ZONE uses~
PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION: Gi, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
PROPOSED CONUITIONAL USE; PERMIT THE OPERATION OF AN ESTABLISHEU SERVICE STATION
WITNIN 75 FEET OF A STRUCTURE IN AN R•-A ZONEo
RECLASSIFICAI uN - PUBLIC 1-lEARING, INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNJNG COMMISSION, 204 East
N0,~64_65_121___ Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; LANA CORr'ORATION, 200 North F[arbor
Boulevard, Anaheimy California, Owner; property described as: An
CUNDITIONAL USE irregulasly shaped parcel of land located at the southwest corner of
PERMIT N0,_ 697_ Harbor Boulevard and La Palma Avenue, with frontages of approximately
145 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue and approximately 140
feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard, and further described as
959 North Harbor Boulevard~ Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE,
and R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
PROPOSED CLtiSSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL~ ZONE„
PP.OPOSED CONDITIO~AL USE: PERMIT OPERATION OF AN EXISTING SERVICE STATION WITHIN
75 FEET OF R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL,ZONED PROPERTY~
RECLASSIFICATION •- PUBLIC I-IEARING~ INITIATED BY TI-+E CITY PLANNING CCPdMISSION, 204 East
N0~ 64-65_122 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; JOSEPH M~ ANTON, 1016 West Pioneer
Drive, Anaheim, California, Owner; property described as: An irregularly
CONDITIONAL USE shaped parcel of land located at t.he southeast corner of Harbor Boulevard
PERMIT NO_ 698 and La Palma Avenun, with frontages of approximately 103 feet on the south
side of La Palma Avenue and approximately 114 feet on the west side of
Harbor Bo~levard, and further described as 950 North Harbor Boulevard~
Property presently classifi.ed C-3, HEAVY COMMERCIAL, ZONE, deed restricted to service
stations and/or C•-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE, uses only.
PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION: C•-19 GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE~
PROPOSED COtJDITIONAL USE: PERMIT OPERATION OF AN EXISTIIJG SERVICE STATION WITHIN
75 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL ZONE.
MINUTES, CITY PLANNIn~G COMMISSIO~y M3y i0, 1955 (Continueol 2gg2
RECLASSTFICATION RECLASSIFICATION RECLASSIFICATION
NO_ 64r`65 -1~0 __ N0.__~4~65~' l~i _v N0 ~ 64•-65-i22
CONDITIO~AL USE CONDITIONAL USE S
CCNDITIONAL USE
PERMIT N0. 96 PERMIT NO,. 6g7 PERMIT NO„ 698
._~r..._~.~_--____-----____-----°-------~--~------ -----------------------------------
No one appeared to rep=esent the property owners~
No one appe~red :n opposition to subject petitions.~
THE [-~.ARING WAS CLOSED:
Commissioner Row;and offe:ed Resoiution No. i634, Serie=_ 1964-65, an~9 moved for its passage
and adopt~~nY seconded by Cor~unissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Councii that Petition
for Reclassification No, 64•65•~120 be approved, unconditionaliy~ (See Resolution Book~)
On roll c3i: the foregoing resolution was passed by the foliowing vote:
AYES: CON~MISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.,
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None,
Commissioner Rowiand offered Resoiution No, ;635, Series i964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissione: 1?e:bst, to gran*. Petiticn for Conditional Use Permit
N~.~ 696, uncondition~ily., (See Rese:ution Book.)
Or roll c~ll the ferego_ng ieaolution w3s p3ssed by the foiiowing vote:
AYES: COMNISSIOVERS: ALired, Can:p; Gaue;, F;e:bst, Mung311, Perry, Rowland.
AOES: COMM?SSIUNERS: None,.
ABSENT: CON~MISSIO~~ERS: Ivone~
Commissioner Camp offered Resoiu±ion No. 16?6; Series 1964-65, ~nd moved for its passage
and adoption, secor,ded by Conn;iss~one: Pe*ry, to :ecoR~~iend to the G:ty Counci; that Petition
for Rec~iassificat'_on ho~ 64•65-i2i be approved, unconditionally, (See P.esolutior, Book,.}
On ro11 c3i1 ±ne foregoir.g reso~utior. w3s passed by the followin9 vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS. AllredY C.mp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
NOES: COMN!ISSIOPiERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None~
Commissioner Rowl3nd offered Resoiution ~o i637, ceries 1964~65, and moved for its passage
and adopti.on, seconded by Commissioner ~erbst, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit
Noo 697, unconditionaliy.: (See Resolution Book~)
Or, roll call the foreooing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Aiired, Camp, Gauer, N.erbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowi3nd,
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None,
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None„
Commissioner Camp ofCeied Resoiution No:. 1638, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adopiion, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that Petition
for Reclassification No: 64•-65~i22 be approved, unconditionaliy. (See Resolution Book,)
On roll cali the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Campy Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
Corr~r~issioner Herbst offe:ed Resoiution No~ 1639, Seriea 1964•-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Cortvnissioner Camp, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit
No. 698, unconditional~y~ (See Resoiution Book~)
On roIl call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None,
~
. . ,~ }
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 10, 1965 2593
REPORTS AND ~- ITEM N0~ 1
RECOMMENDATIONS Residential-Hiilside - 10,000, 20,000, 40,000 •- Zone.
Planning Coordinator Ronald Grudzinski submitted preliminary drafts
of the Residential-Hillside Zone for the Commission's consideration, and suggested to
the Commission that since the May 24, 1965 public hearing was considerably short, it
would be a good time to review in detail said zone~
Discussion was held by the Commission relative to holding a work session immediately
after the public hearing rather than at a 7:00 o'clock session~ It was then determined
to hold the work session relative to the Residential-Hillside Zone immediateZy following
the public hearing scheduled for the May 2d, 1965, meeting~ ,
ITEM N0~ 2
Orange County Use Variance No~ 5545 - Establishment of a wholesale
~ nursery and landscape business office and storage yard in the A-1,
General Agricultural District on the east side of Batavia Street,
approximately 600 feet south of Fletcher Road in the northwest
Orange areao
-. Zoning Coordinator Robert fdickelson presented Orange County Use Variance No~ 5545 for
the Commission''s consideration, noting the proposed use of the property or the easj side
of Batavia Street southerly of Fletcher Road in the northu:~st Orange area for a wholesale
nursery and landscape business o:fice and storage yard, It was also noted by Mr~ Mickelson
that the existing use was a chicken ranch, and that the single-family dwelling on the
premises would remain as a residence for the proprie~or of the proposed use~
Commissioner Perry offered a motion to receive and file Orange County Use Variance No, 5545~
Commissioner Rowland seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDo
~i ITEM NO__3
Orange County Use Variance No~ 5546 - Albert H~ Bircher, Petitioner,
: proposing to construct a market building on the suutheast corner of
Brookhurst Street and Catalina Avenue in the R-1, Single-Family
Residence District~
s
~ ~ Zoning Coordinator Robert. Mickelson presented Orang~~ County Use Variance No. 5546 to the
F'. _, Commission, noting the location of subject property and the fact that both the County of
~~ - Orange and the deveioper contacted the City of Anaheim relative io access to Catalina Avenue,
Office Engineer Arthur Daw stated that dedication for the south side of Catalina Avenue,
~~ together with completion of street improvement of the parkway and sidewalks, wou]d be
I necessary,.
~', , Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange County
Planning Conunission be urged to considei the requirement of street dedication and compietion
~ of street improvements such as the parkway and sidewalks cn the south side of Catalina
Avenue in Orange County Use Variance No. 5546, if the petitioner proposes to utilize
4 Catalina Avenue for access purposes, Commissioner Camp seconded the motion.. N!OTTON CARRIEll
i I ITEM N0~ d
Orange County Use Variance No. 5553 - C~ Ve Taormina, Petitioner,
proposing to establish a truck storage yard with gasoline pump islands
. and gasoline storage tanks in connection therewith, at the northwest
corner of Blue Gum and Coronado Streets in the northeast industrial
~ area of Anaheim~
.I
I. Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson presented Orange County Use Variance No~ 5553 to the
~ Commission, noting the location and proposed use of subject piooerty,
i
,,, In response to Commission auestioning relative to requirements of the City of Anaheim M•-1
,:~ Zone, and the fact that the type of use proposed might present an undesirable appearance
4 if a chain link fence was proposed, Mr. Mickelson stated that only a 5-foot chain link fence
~~ was proposed, that access to Blue Gum Street was proposed with a 40~foot drive. and that ar,
~' office building vas proposed to be located 53 feet from the centerline of Plue Gum Street~
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange County
,".; Planning Commission be urged to require that the proposed truck storage yard under Orange
County Use Variance No~ 5553 conform to all site development standards of the City of Anaheim
' M•-1, Light Industrialy Zone, including the 50-foot parkin9 and landscapinn setback; further,
:~ - that a 6-foot masonry wall surrounding the storage area also be required in order to shield
*~ from view the appearance of a truck storage area~ Commissioner Allred seconded the motion.
~ ~ MOTION CARRIED,
~,
F
d` ~ ,~ ~
MINUTESY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 10, 1965 2594
REPORTS AND •- ITEM NO„ 5
RECOMIu~NDATIONS Orange County Tentative Map of I'ract Noo 5925 •- located northeasterly
(Continued) of the Imperial Freeway between Yorba Linda Boulevard and Orangethorpe
Avenue in the Yorba Linda areao Subject tract proposes subdivision of
approximately 14 acres into 38 singie-family residential Zoned lots~
Zoning Coardinator Robert Mickelson reviewed the location of Orange County Tentative Map
of Tract Noe 5925, noting it was ouiside of the jurisdiction of the City of Anaheim in
the Yorba Linda areay and praposed subdivision of 14 acres into 38 single-family residential
zoned lots, said subdivision being in conformance with other development to the west and
south of subject property~
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to receive and file Orange County Tentative Map of
~,;.
Tract No~ 5925a Corr~nissioner Camp seconded the motion~ MOTION CARRIEDo
ADJOURrlMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Camp
offe*ed a motion to adjourn the meeting~ Commissioner Herbst
seconded the motion~ MOTION CARRIED.
' The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p~m~
Respectfully submitted,
ANN KREBS, Secretary ~
Anaheim Planning Commission
:j ' ~~~
~ ~~ `t
~ i
.~ ;I ~
~
h
b. ..._. .!~`1 A
{
S