Minutes-PC 1965/06/21~
~ ~ ~
city xgii
Anaheim, California
June 21, 1965
~:, ~ ~ ~~
rl~
el
~,
.;~
A REGULAR MEETING OF TI~ ANAf~IdA CITY PLANNING COMSSISSION
REGULA~~E~EETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission pas called
to order by Chairman Mungall at 2:00 p.m. a quorum being present.
PRESENT - CHAIRIdAN: Mungall
- COI~EI55IONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rorland.
ABSEN'I' - COMMI3~IONER.S: None.
PRESENT - Zoning Supervisor: Robert Miakelson
Depsty City Attorney: F'urman Roberts
Offioe Engineer: Arthur Dap
A~~ociate Planner: Ronald Thompson
Planning Commission Seoretary: Ann Krebs
Zoning Division Stenographer: Carolyn Grogg
ID'JOCATTON
: i,EDGE OF
AL•LF~3IANCE
-~tike 9Laxson, Youth Minister, First Christian Churah gave the invooation.
- Commissioner Allred led the Pledge of Allegianoe to the Flag.
' APPRdVAL OF
i THE ~INiTTES
- The kinutes of tha meeting of 7une 7, 1965, were approved with the
following oorreations: Page 2610, paragraph 10 -"Commissioner Perry
offered a motion to re-open the hearing and aontinue ....
Page 2612, paragraph 7,"Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to re-open
the hearing an3 continue . . . ."
Page 262I, last paragraph "Adjournment"- "There being no further business
to discL~s, Commis~ioner Perry offered a motion to adjourn the meeting i:o
7:00 p,m., J+lne 15, 1965, to meet joint'ly with tho City Counail regarding
the southeast induatriel arsa."
CONDITIONAL 1iSE - CONiII~`:JE FLB~IC HEARING. JAI~S To PALM, 1635 South State College Po~ilevard,
PER~IT N0. 690 Aaaheim, Californis, Owner; CliRTI3 A. LENTZ, 739 Van Bibber Avenue, Orange,
~ Califoreie:, Agent; requestiag permission to establish a three-story offiae
building, restaurant and cocktail lounge, and an automobila service oenter
on property desaribed as: A"pie-=haped" parcel of land of approaimately 4.9 acres vith a
curved frontage of approaimately 855 feet or. the north side of Katella Avenue, the northern-
most boundary of approximately 517 feet parallels and is adjacent to the A.T. 3 S. F. fiailroad
right-of-•~vay; the vejternmost boundary is approaimately 586 feet in lengi;h, and it southern
end lies approximately 255 feet easterly from the aenterline of South State College Bouleva,rd,
and further desaribed a~ 2150 East Katella Pvenue. Property presently alassified M-1, LIGHT
INDU~TRIAL, ZONE.
Subjeat petition was aontinued from the meeting of April 26.and May 24, 1965, to allom time
for the Staff to prepare a study of the impac~t of the stadium and commeroiel uses on the
southeast industrial area, and for the petitioner suffiaient time to submit a nea master plan.
Mr. Harry Knisely, attornoy for the petitioner, appsared before the Commission and requested
a continuas~ce of subjeat petition unti7. the meeting of July 7, 1965, in order that the latest
information relative to the proposed underpass of Katella Avenue and the requirement of the
dediaation of ancess rights of the easterly 520 feet of subject property might be incorporated
in revised plans.
Zoning Supervisor Robert Miakelson, advised the Commission that the revised plans pould have
to be submitted by June 25, 1965, in order that they miRht be considered at the Interdepart-
mental Committee meeting June ~S, 1965.
Co~issioner Rowland offered a motlon te aontinue public hearing on Conditional Use Permit
No. 690, to the meeting of July 7, 1965, and advised the petitioner's representative ;hat
:°,~` revised plans be submitted to Development Services Department by June 25, 1965, in order that
revised plans, incorporating dedication of aaaess rights oP the easterly 520 foot frontage of
~ Katella Avenue might be completed. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
l - - 2622 -
i *
'1
t ~x
. _~:. :
.-_- ,._.~:__ __:.,...,.. ._..
~ Y.._,..
. ' __ _ . ,.....
^ . * . _ - . -°----...~~
~
~ ~ ~
~INUTES, CITY PLANNING COMEdISSION, June 21, 1965
2633
, CONDITIONAL USE - CONTIN°JED PUBLIC HEARING. ED-YARD LEVPIg AND pAliLINA M. JONEB, 1105 Eae.t
i PER~GIT N0. ~99 ISetella Avenue, Anaheim, Californie, Osvners; PAUL HATFIFLD, 4~924 Elsinore
Avenue, Orange, Californis, Agent; requesting permission to establish a
, aorporate aomplez consisting of offices, aerehousin
B, y
industrial trainin and assoaiated scientifiaall bassd automotive test andsre~nufecture,
on property desoribed as: A reotengularly shaped pai-cel of land of a ~ir facility
vith a frontage of approaisately 630 feet, the west boundary of said propertytbein3 87 8ares,
. mately 720 Peet from the centerline of Lewis StreAt, and further described as 1105gEasproai-
~~~ Katelle Avenue. Property presently alassified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE.
F•
' Sub eCt
'~ 3 petition aas continuod from the meetir,g of June ~, 1965, for the purpose of allovring
~~ the Ple,nning Commission and the City Counoil an opportunity to meet in a,joint work session
'I' on the evening of ,June 15, 1965, to review the study prepe,red by the Planning Division of the
Devslopment Servicas Department regarding the impac~ of the stadium and commeraial uses on the
Q ~ southeast 3ndu~trial area.
~! _ Mr. Paul Hatfiald, agent Por the petitioner, a
~ nothing new to add for the Counni~sion°s consideration,bbutrthatehe w~ouldlbe availabledto~answer ad
~ questions.
~L
in respon.e to Cor~ission questioaing, Mr, Hatfield stated that the first phase of development
would be the commerciel complez in order to determine if the proposed equipment and materials
were adeq~e,te and the nece:sity to have the uss proven; that finanoing was being acquired as
a complete package; that the seoond and third ph&se vould be completed only if the first phese
ir.dice,ted suaoess; that other garage faoilitie; had ~imilar testing me,chines~but they did not hava
the ability to test nnder road aondition~ as the proposed u~e would have; that a groat deal
of rsseerah had been made to me,ka the proposed u:e as operable as posible, ~inoe the cost oP
the proposed equipmeat made it necs~=ary to hsve 8 triel operation run before final development
Plans aould be formalized.
Mr. George Moran, repre~enting the :,uthern Pacifia Rsilroad, a ma,jor property ovner in the
southeast industrial area, appeared before the Commis:ion in opposition, stating that ~Er.
Fred :.,awell had previously appasred and had adequately eapressed the S.p.~s position; that
it vas hoped that the City would refrain from further aommeraial inaroachment into the south-
_ east industrial erea by limit~ng the developmant of other than industrial uses to the south
_ side of katelle Avsnue; that the proposed use did not quBlify as an indusl:rial use and was
not oompBtible to induatriel development in the area; further, that the petitioner stated that
the warehousing, which wa~ a permitted u:e in the industrisl zone, ~as only a future use and
qoLld be constructed in 196' only if ths commaraial use vas suaoessful; and that tha Southern
Faoific's conoern oa~ their inability to encourago further industrial development of the
remaining parcels, if the m.me-o:~:: commercial ~~e~ were permitted to encroach iato the indus-
trial area.
In reviewing the established indt;stries in the area, Mr, ~oran stated thBt the ezisting bakery
did not produae any products on the premi~ec bLt aoted a=_ a di~tributor, ~his statment h9ing
me.ke to clarify comments made et a previou= hearing; and that he urged the Commission to deny
i the propo~ed request as being incompatible to the eaisting and potential industrial development.
I ~'HE HEARING VPAS CLO~ED.
Discussion ve,s held by the Commis:ion relative to maintaining the industrisl integrity of the
8rea, sinoe indu~try had developed in the area on the assumption that the City's commitmen~s
aould he honored, and to permit the proposed ac~iumeroiel enoroachment would be evidenae that
the City did not honor any previous commitments to industries vhich had developed and invested
money in the area on this premise.
Commissioner Herbst ofPered Resolution No. 1663, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Cotrm~issioner Perry to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit
No. 699, based on the facts that the proposed used would be inoompQtible to the eaisting land
uses already established; that the proposed use Aould be a commercial encrosohment into the
industrial area; and that the City he,d made commii:ments to retein the industrial iniegrity of
the southeast industrisl area.(See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the folloving vote:
~ g~S: C09E~dISS20N'EflS: Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Edungall.
' NOES: COEdMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, RoWland.
~ ~5~: COEdMISS:LONERS; None.
~
~
~
MINL'PES, CITY PLANNINr COES~dISSION, June 21, 1965
~
2624
CONDITIONAL USE - Co~i:sioner Gauer in voting Aye stated that the City Counoil in 1962
PER~dIT N0. 699 had reaffirmed the policy of ma,intaining the southeast industrial area
(Continued) _ for industrial purposes; that the propo~ed use was aommeraisl in nature
and it~ industriel use aompatibility was dependent upon the success of
the commercial u~e.
~i _.:~'"r~
i ,
`. .i ~
,
:~
~
i
.I -~
~
~}~
•
~
Commi~~ioner Allred in voting "No" stated that the proposed use would be compatible in the
industrial zone.
Coffinis~ioner Camp in voting "no" stated that he aoncurred With Commissioner Allred, further
that the sucoess of the devslopment rva~- aontingent upon the suacess of the first phase, which
was true of most development~; further that he did not ]rno~v phat zone the proposed use oould
be placed in if it aere not oompatible with the M-~ Zone.
Commissioner Rowland in voting "no" stated that the proposed use oould quelify as being a
oo2pstible use in the M-1 Zone after complete development.
CONDITIONAL USE - PLBLIC I-~ARING. ANGELO 6 CARL, A. ZABY. 1401 East 51st Street, Los Angeles
PER~IT N0. 711 11, Californ.ie, Ownar~; ~EOBIi~ OIL.CO'~PANY, A. 0. Hedblom, 10737 Shoemaker
Avenue, ~anta .~e Springs, California, Agent; requesting permi~sion to
establish a new service station in conjunction pith an oil company employees' training facili-
ties on property desoribed as: Parael No. 1- A rectangularly shaped parael of land loaated
at the southeast corner of Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue, with frontage~ of approzima~ely
130 feet on Harbor Boulevesd and approximately 160 feet on Katelle Avenue; and Parcel No. 2-
A rectangularly ~haped parabl of land aith a frontage of approaimately 30 feet on the east side
of Harbor Boulevard and a maximum depth of approximately 5 feet, ~aid Paroel No. 2 being
ad,jaaent to and a southeeard extension of Parael No. 1 elong Harbor Boulevard, and further
described as 1800 South Harbor Bo~lavard.. Froper•ty presently c;a~=_ified R-A, Agricultural, Zone.
Mr. A. 0. Hedblom, the agent, appeared befors the Commission and revierved the proposed use
of subject proparty.. In response ta ~owmission ~aestioning he stated that one alas~room
vith an in~tructor mould hold training classes for 8-12 dealers and employees, and that the
service station would be osned and operated by Mobil Oil Company.
PJo one appeared in oppositton.
Tf-IE HEARING -VAS CLOSED.
Co~issioner Perrq offered Resolution No. 1664, Serie~ 1964-65, and moved for it5 passage
and adoption, ~econded by Co~is~ior.sr Camp, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit
o, 7ll b' et to condition~.and a findine tha? the proposad trainin~ facility would not
s in cbn~i`~~. with ths commercie.l r~creatlon srea p:,]icy. (Sea ResolLtion Book)~
On roll aall the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES; CO~SISSTONERS; Allred, Gamp, Gauer, Aerb:;t, Perrs, Ropland, Edungall.
P+OES; COE~MSSSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nor.e.
CONDIiIONAL USE - PJBLIC HEARING. EARi R. S DORIS E. RYAN, 605 East Lincoln Avenue; ADOLFH L.
PERMIi N0. 712 3 KATIE HILDEBRAND, 519 East Chartres, both of Anaheim, California; and
WILi~:TAM L. HINAICH~, 11089 SGendocino, Selma, California, Ovners; DENNIS E.
RYAN, 729 Havthorae, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to
EXPANll AN EXISTING BR'Y CLEANII~ ~;lAN AND RETAIL OUTLE~ WITH PARKING FACILITIES PROVIDED ON A
SEPARATE PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED VPITHIN 86 FE~~I' OF THE ~dAIN PLANT on property described as~
Three paroels of land: Paroel No. 1- A reatangularly shaped parcel of land ~ith a frontage
of approaimately 25 feet on the north side of Linaoln Avenue and a maximum depth of approxi-
mately 129 feet, the vestern boundary of said property being approzimately 80 feet east of
the ~9nterline of Topeka Street; Parael No 3- A rectangularly shapad parael of land located
at the southeast corner of Topska Street and Chartres Avenue, aith frontages of approzimately
130 Yeet on the east side of Topeka Street, and approaimately 70 feet on the south side of
Chartres Avenue; Parael No. 2- A reotangularly shaped parael of lann lying directly east of
and adjacent to Parcel No. 1, With a frontage of spproaimately 100 feet on the north side of
Lincoln Avenue and a maximi~m depth of approaimately 129 feet, ai:d further described as 605
East Lincoln Avenue(Parcel No. 1) 607-609 East Linaoln Avenue (Parcel No. 2), aiid 608 Es:.t
Chartres Avenue (Paroel No. 3). Property presently olassiPied C-2, Genera,.1 Commeroial, Zone
(Paroels No. 1 and 2) P-1, Automobile Parking, Zone (?a,rpel No. 3).
F
~ ~
~
~~'~~' ~T~ P~N~f'~VG COMMISS.T.ON, June 21., 1.965
2525
COSQD.ITTpNAL tiSE - llu-. Dennis Ryaa, aqent for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission
FERMIT NOo ?12 and ~tated that the oontraator Mr. Eill Pebl.ep would eaplain tha proposad
(Con- ti._ n _ued~._,_, development.
Mr. Ei11 Feb]ey, contractor Por the propo~~ed addition, reviewed the development noting that
the lot not oonnected w3.ih sub,jeo„ prcpert}• had two struotures which would be removed and
ths area paved t~> prnvide pe,rking for emp]oyees, that 1U-].2 parking spaces would be available
` immed3ately ad,jaoent to the cleaning establishmant for customers and salesmen, and in response
to Qommission q~6~ticning, stated. that if thb ~ode requ3red a 6-foot masonry wall a3,jacent to
- the employee parging araa, thi~ would bs e:acted.
'i'~~~''' Zoning Supervi:or Robart .Miokel.son advisad tha Co
property whiah wa:; to te usad fo , ~ssion that although sub;;eoi a.nd ,gbutti.ng
~ ~ ~ ' r Pvp.,.oyee parkin wa~
C. , that it was siso a zone in phich ~u?.ti ls fem:i.:ty davelopmsnt was~ Automobil.e Parking, Zone
~.1~ ; existed to th~ ~as, of said park;ri~ area ;'ection .'.g, Perm;.tted and since residences
~ be nece~sa. and Lhat ~.030(c-2-e) a solid fenoe or wall ~ou.ld
~e i `Y• ihis cor.di!~oa uo~].d on7y app].y to the east property line.
`I
;~ No one appaerad in oppo:~a ti en,
1'i~ THE HEARSN~ KAS C:~u:E.D.
:{
'i Commissioner Alired cff~red 12;eoi;~ticn \e. :665, Serie~ 1964-6
:
adoption, ~econdad by Co~s.is_~ionar Har•bst to grar.t Petition for~ConditionalfUse1PermitSNoe 712,
sub,ject te condit.ion~ and the re•auirsm=nt of a ~ix foct masonry wall on the ea~t property line
oP th= proposad amt~l.oyy:; parking arsa.;See fiescl..tion 5eok)
On ro:il asll tha for:,guing r?~o.::;±i~n ~.a:_ p~: -,;,y the following vota:
;~ AvES: COktM_Z~"s;A'ITEFc~., A] l red '.e.¢~F , Gsuar ; Herb: t
Parry, Rov~]and, Munga;l,
~ j NOES: COMM~$~:0~~,'R6: Ner,a.
i
~~~`?': CGM~ISSI:O,YERS; vona.
CONDi:I:l'OnIAL i.'3C+ Pi.?E1:;7;,', HFiqR:r!~r~. F.ALf'H CAEA:;E;.•
' PERMIT .NO~ '714 Au~~I`IDEi3, 18?4 South Anahe.im Boulevard,
_ , Anaheis, Califor.iie, Uwnsr:. request.ing permie~ion, to ESTAi3liISH A?RAILER
FI1FR. on property desor.ibad as;
a Pronta~e ef app~oximately 21.4 feet~onRthe easthsida ofrAnahei~1Boulevard
and a ma~imum depth oP approx.imr~ta:ly S99 fest, the eastern boundary of said property is
aoinoid.ent with the we~tarn boundary of the 8outhern Pacific Railroad. right-~P-way, and the
northern boun3ary of said property iies approximately 81.5 Pset eouth of the aenterlina of
%atel:La Avsnue, and further descriue3 as 18?4 South Gnaheis Boulevard. Property presentl,y
alassified M-2, L_T•~•I?_ :~:L;~:.•~T.~;, ar,d F-i,y PARKINi;-LAN.DSCAPING, ZONES.
~~ Mrs. Sylvia A1-sxander, ~-1fe of the peti.tionsr appe8r~d be£ore ths Commission and reviewed the
Proposed trailer pa,rk notinq that it would be com.patib7.9 vPith the motels establishsd in closa
~ proaisity, a.nd that the proFo~e~ :.__.~ wocl.d ba aa added improvemant to ~he city since it aras
I vacant land.
In rsspon:.-e to Coc~is~ion questi.oning, Al,rs. Al.exander stated that it wa,s their intent to kesp
all. structu.res located on i:ha frontage of Lha property, that tha trail.er park ~ou1d be ~imilar
to thosa pra=ently existing :in ths oity and that trailers such e,~ thosa present'yo un the property
i
wovld not be oonsi.derad to uLilize the ne•u tra9..Ler park.
' ~~'~misrioner Ga~er aapressed tlie thou~ht the City aoul.d use an overnight tre,il.er pe.rk. that
i the Commi~sion had attempted to draFt this in the proposad trailer
i did not ~ow what the specifio raquiremants were for overnight trailerkoourt~ance, aad that he
' It mas also noted by the Cou~ission that a tank manufacturing conoern was loaated in olose
proximitp to subjeot property, and the two uees might not be oompatible.
In response to Commi~sion q+~.estioning, Zoning Supervi~or Robert Miokelson stated there sras no
knawn reoord when the origina.l motel to north of subjeot property was developed., but that it
probably hed boen e~tablished some year~s ago,
j' _ No one appeared in opposition.
~ ' THE f:EARING -PAS CLOS'EB,
a • ~
`' ; It Wa~ noted by tha Co¢mzi:~sion that if sub ect
`I ~ 1; ohildren to e,nd from ~chool from the proposed tpai.ler~pa~grewould~beddetrimentalttofthe_sing
~ j establi~h~d use:: in the are3.
i.i
~.
r
..r ~ ,~
N~"'NT;'f'ESy G~TY PI,ATC~T'Jt~ ~O~:Ad7SSI0N, 7une :Zl., .i965 ~c:26
CONDI~IONAL 'I5E - ~omsissioner Herb.,t ofF3red R9~o:l~ti.on No. 1666, Series 1961-65, and moved
PEEiJ+~1T N0. 714 for it: passagc~ an3 adaption, ~econded by ~ommissioner Camp to deny Pe*.ition
(Continusd.; for '~ondi~ior,al '."sa Per~.it No. .'14, based on the fact that. the proposed use
we~:id advsr~s:y affect t,ha exi~~ting industrial uses; that it was incompatible
to tha ind~.:strial u:,.as already s_tsbli~hed; that the petitioner proposed to
ratain the exi:su ng cou~.~arcis~ a~d re~idential uses on the frontage of the
property. ~5aa Reso.l.,ti-en f'.ouk; .
~ On roll cal.l tne foregoing resel~tion wa_. paesed ty tha foliowing vots:
~ ' A:'ES; ^,Ot,LW.IS°IO:~'EFS; A:lced. ~e2p, Ga~~er, i-?Frb~t, Perry, Rowland, Mungall.
,
NUFS: CGM~CiS°IONER3: \o~~.
AU~~'~~ ~OM!d:SS:~tiER`: nb::e~?.
~0\D~7:'_u~A:C. ~SE - P.'~~L::"G 'r~AR:~~. ?'~'i:~A~~D ~.: ~'}iE C1:'•: PLA~'~7NG GCA~STSSIO~;, "t0~ F.,ESSt :,incoin
P~R~f?^ A'G. '1o A•:e~::a, Ane,hSim. %a:tifornia. Community Savings G Loan, c/o Dick Hals, 4?7
East uozpton ?;o.:lc~vsrd, Oompton, Ca?ifornis, Owner; proposed to ?ERJT'T A
GEVEAAL PLP.~ ~:'~:'~.FI:.~T~' FP~~L:_ PiJ!v\ED FES~AEti::AL DE`.'E~:QP6l~E?~'~' ~N ERIST:~.NG `TRu~'_T'_RES A5 A
AN~tiDMESi vC. 59 ;O~FGFNi'~= ' ~E o~ orop-~rt,y dy: cribed a~~: Ali that cartain lar.d sit~~atsd or.
~ the : octh :ide of C'ran~~-•~~c:l A~. '~~ :,, and tounded on tha wast by Acama Street,
and cn the es:t ty Dana Street, said :and baing dividsd into thrae =eparate
an~ aqoal oarce:=, each he~~i^e a fror. sgo n.` apprcxi¢st~~~t 2'S feet on the south sids of
Oran~.awoed Avan.3 and a a~xiv... d=p?h of apprcx.rcaty:.y 5b0 fsst, the ~esstsrn bo~ndary cf 1,he
we~teramost pa~~ei 'r,eing ep~r~x:met~:;y ?'!1 .`est. ea~t cf the ce^tar:ine of Harbor '?o~.avard.
j Prup~rty prs:ent.;y ^ls::..fi>d e:: F-3. u_.~.~E FAMi::,: FES:D4„~~::Ai~, ZOArE.
Zonina S•:p=rv:~or Ro:,~rt AC:ck~:,r,n ^9:~ie•++yd f:r the 7ossi~_:on pt~vious action. wYiici: c;assified
:ubjec~ p:•oparty irtc ths F-~ Zon? thst 'he p~titioner th~'~r. ra~ues',sd that they be gi:~en per-
mis:~icn to convert th~ apa:imar,? d~va?op•r.ar:' Lr.tu a mot.~1 in ~.oadit;onai :',~a F'erinit ;~o. 596.
that a conditioci of aporc:s: o:' ~I:Y ho. ~O6 wa. Lhe rac':assifioatio:i of th= proper?y to the
R-A, Zune: tha? .pon f:?:d in: E:yct.io.^. :t ws:: d~t,~~m.r.ad that the prope:ty was beir.g utilizzd
for apartment: , and tne oHt:tioc:ar had roi ax-~r::sed hi= r:ghts grar~ted in ::~_P ho. 596, furthsr
~hat the coadLtion of r=.r.:a-~.e.ifinat,ion tu ~hh h-A, Zone had r.ot ':^^a 30oo!~!p;E~hed, tharefore,
Upon tha adviae of th~ ~itf ~_tcrr.~y•:~ offic~ ::ub?act petition ha3 been in3+.,:aied, and tha
Genera:l P.sn Am>ndmFnt Ho. 59 wo.:d than p:-aca =ubjaot propsrty o•.:tr-idb of +he co~ercial-
recrsatinn ar~a ir. it:: ucst ap~:rnF~zat~, ds_ ig~at.ion cr ;.,~• ~T~°di .a, d4nsitV•
It Wa_ noted cy t}:~ :ommi:=.=i^r that ;i~ce ?ha pe?itio~.:~r had net e~=r::.:~~d Condi!.ional i'ee
Permit ~o. 595, ar.d ha3 r:ot ;o:r:Cli=d ~+ith th~ aondi~ion for re~-85°1T1C8LIOT1 of ?ha proparty
tha' it would b~ in or9ar tc recoRUna^.d !o +.h=~ ~ity ~o~nc.] that ~e:d ~'.~~P be t~rmiosted ir, order
the* the Anahe~a. Municipe.: ~oda ro~:ld ba oomp:ied With bacg~s9 it doec: not psrmit 1.ha simu.ltana-
ous cper5.:ion of bath a¢~ot=+'. s;~d spart.v:ent compl~x or. subjact proparty.
No one app5ared t•o reprs.ent th- prop~^ty ow~ar.
No one e~pp~arsd in oppo= iticr,.
^.'HE HEARIN~ WAS ~J~G-GD.
Commissioner Row.iand offerad f,~sol~,tion No. 160~,. ~erias 196~-65, and movad for its ~as_aga
and a3optio:,, rer,ondsd b5'~~owmi::sionar GaQp to grant Petition for Condit3onal Use Psr~Lit
No. /16, ba_~ed en the fact that the property .i:. r.ow deve:ioped and being uti.lized for R-3 usos,
and a finding that it be recom.~yndad •~-a? Conditional i_~a Permit No. 596 be termir.ated ~inco
the use was not axarcised and bacau~s a cond.ition ot approval wa~ r.ot cempleted. iSe~i
Resolution P.ook)
On roll. ca:il the foregoinq reso.lution ~as pas~ed by the fn~lowing vote:
AYES~ CC.~d.A4I5SI0NF,~tB: Al.lred, ~amp, Gausr, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall.
NOES: CONfldISSIO`lEAS: Nor.a.
AHSENT: COM6d~SSIONERS: ;:ona.
'~ ~ Commissionar Perry oftarad Rssolution P1e: .16G8, Serias 1~6?-65, and moved for its passags and
* adoption, seconded bY .^.ommi-~~Lnner Raxland,. to rac^mm9nd to tha City Council that iseneral F7ar.
'I -~x Amendment No. 59, ~+~~~il:it "A" b~ approved. (See Re~.olution Book)
~
..
~ ~
MIN?i•ES, CIT's PL~1n~NING COMM.ISSION, ~Lne 2:~, 1965
2627 ~
COND~Z'IO?~AI, ir,SE _ Cn ro~1 call tha fora oin ~
pE~Y'r N~~ ?16 ~ g rasolution was ,
pes:ed by the following vote: ~
GEISERA~ , A`_'ES. GO~~ISSTOI~RS:
PLAA A11red, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Romlend, ldnngall. ':
AMEND.AGEN?' N0. 59 NOES: ~O~F~SSIO~~fER~: A'ona.
(oontinued)
ABiE~iT: C011f~i:.~',~~p~p~: Ab~erit.
~ ..~~~
f
~
*
No on~ app~arPd in cppositior,.
?'HE i-LFAP.ING W6; CLG~.GD~
.ARIAR~QE .~J~. '_71L - P:;FL:,,
' i3EAA.i!i;; o RA~'BFOND nr0': AK 2
Owner- pE~ gi,yAti7 1~ + 34.'• West Mall. AvenLe, Anaheim,
1"g P9rm-is>,ion tc W
a.~: A + AI'E THE~MINIM ~' ~osta Mesa, California, Agant;lirsquaat_
rac„angu.larly shap~d par~e.l u.P l.and wi~. ~U~`~D FROM," yARD on
~ide of Msl:;. Avsn~a and a~:e,.~i.¢•~~ dN h a frontaga o:P a Proparty 3ascribed
prop4rty bein ~`h °f aPproximatsl ~~ PProximatalg ?1 feet on tho north
~ approxi¢.~±~1y 5=,'~ .fr5t sa~t of tho centy~line ofeSoutheGilbertnStrset87and f~.~rther
described a~ 234, Wyst ytai.l Av.;n~:e„ ±, Y of said
~ubjsct propar•ty, Prorarty prse,en+.,1y~~1asAbfiad as Wl~n~ pool with surrounding wa11 on
R-1, One Fa,~ei;y Re~identiel, Zone~
~dr'. Raymond Novak, th~ pat,.tiona~, appyared beFore the Commission and reviewed for tha
Commi:.si.on ;hs f8c* that the :-•~immin
front yar3 >.atb¢ck for tha p~o: and wall.,lth8ttthat~o~s woal.dlbenaoradded1 m8bo~~yhe
naigh6orhood, and that h±= ~ permitted
ha eontacted them, •"~~hbor:- had e.xpre.ssd no opposition to the p to the
proposed variance wher_
In rasponse to Commi~:-ion qc~,:tior,ir.g,.M.r. NoV~ statad that if
1:jis wou,dYp,:;B'iet}„ ,~al` 1,~ the cen`ar of the poo.i, which, of coue~earwould render~therantsd,
p eotica..l
poo.l.
~.~7~~`~ u~ A1~"°d• ~a~p, ~au3r, Horbst, PsrrY, Row:and, Mungall.
NOE~: COdCr~ISSTQ~7ER~, Nona.
Cowmiss.ionar Ro~r:land ofPsred nas:o:,tion I669. Series 1964_65, a~d ~,o~ed for its
ado tion, s
thepfact t, 9~~t~dod by Co~i,~.ion~r A1;rsd, to grant Pstitio, for Variance No. l p2c~8$e 8nd
hat ~tia proPo~33 ;~,;; j.~,;,id ~ot encroach bayond ths ex ~ bssed on
setback of ad,joining pronert:~:-, b;~ Wo~. ld tn fact be psral.lel andnwo~idonothradicalln
~ h" ~r~'nlt°ot~ral integrity ol the ne~ghborhood,and cor.ditions.(See Res 8 gara8~
y change
On roll ca.i1 t r olution Pook)
h~ fors~oing r•e_o.;~ti~n wa~ pg;,ed by the foll.ou~ing vots:
AYES: COINid:L~C
AHSEIV; : CO~A,M.SSION.ERS; Nona.
JARIANCE N0, 1?13 - Pi,TsLI'C T r T
------ -_-_- HEAR_Ns. OH;~' J, 4?OANNE IiAT'.qNq~ ~~3~ Maverick Avenue, Ane,heim,
Californ±a, Owr,ar~ r~Q„a~tinat permission T p C C? J~; A~~i A N ADD::;~~A~
A~.'E: c~~F' DWE:_:::~•:, -
FF~~..~ '''' i TG A~1 ER:=:=Nr1 R-1 R~SIDER~CE, AND WASvE ;f~ MT ~~;
of land with a fronta A ED ~'rAR '±g,p O1.`
g„ ~f a Property d9~cribed a~- A rect N" G~
~~ax1mum depth of a PProx9mat3~y 7p feet on the south side angularly ;haped par.;91
mate.ly 750 feyt west~ofoximate.ly 1p5 p9A{, the eastern boundary op of Ea_,t Wa,gna: :lvsn;~e, and
the asnteriine of Rio Vista Straet, and furcaid pronerty bein a
E~averick Avenus. Proparty presently c1a5~ified as R-1, ~ PProxi-
ther de~cribed as 273~
Mr . John Ital ~ 0~ F~u+Y RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
addition, noting that it x&s bein
iano, ths petitionsr, appaared bsfore the Commission and reviewed tha proposad
unit; further, that hs ~°On~truoted for use by his parent~ and would not ba a rantal
bors who had expre~•sed nododisc~a~sed the proposed a~di+_
~onto his home with his immediate neigh-
PFo~-ition and wers present in the Council Chamber to verify this.
~e ~ommission noted that the petitioner was
multiple family ii~s a7.though the pet.iLionar statedythatcit,,wouldnbefusad for his
was no assurance that u +~n R-1 residence for
f~i1Y '~sa, sinca the pO~ ths sale of the homa thi~- could well be converted intoparmultipl~ers
~°mmission had experiencad a similar request with the
that the ki;.chen faci::ties w~L~d bA remo~red upon tha saie of the home
installed the kitchen ' petitioner stating
.acilities. , the new oa~nar had re-
.tx •
~;
~~
~~
- - ~ ~ ----------~.~'.~-- .- -
. ---. . _._
r
~ ~ ~
N!SNL'I`ES y CI:I'i' PI•ANNTNG COM'N'iSSZO!~, ~LZe 2I , 1965 2628
~'ART:ANCE NOo :~',•:i.3 - D~ss. J. H. P.attle, 2?$:~ East '~orm Place, appeared before tha Go~is~ion
~(Continued;~ in opposit..ion, ~tating +,hat a number of the rssidents ia c]o~s proaimit.y
~ were a~.so oppossd to the propo~ad kitchen facil3ties sinae this r~oul.d mean
the .int^oduoti~n ef a multiple .fas.il.y use of a single fami.ly residence, end
she and h:-r ~;,ighbors were i.n favor oP retaining the single family re~idsn-
tial 3ntegrity of the area.
- Mr. Bo•:~:ia_ Ryan, 2?4]. Mavariok A•:enue, apFsared bePore the Comm.i~~ion in favor of tho proposed
~ da~a7.opmant, neting ths.f. a11 the resident> on Maver~.ck. Avenue in their block wers ia favor of
grantl.ng the Froposed :~eparata :iv;ng Paci:iti.e~ for the petitioner`'., parents.
M.r. J'ema_. Fipe, 2?31 Sdavari~k Aver~~;~, appeared bNfora tha Co~ission in favor of tho proposed.
dev9.lopR~ent noti.na ihat th~ pa?i?1o*!e~ hSd d`lsc~:_;ed the proposed addi.tion, and since no major
.Lr~.:~tural ~hange wo~..ld *.ake p1ac=, the addition wo~;]d ba similar to addir.g a fami.:,,y room.
1~r. Fai,:. Hil,i, 2.?;36 .ue~:eridk .~va^.-+, app4ar9d befo:? the Comrai~:ion in fa~ror of s~:hjact petiti.o:,
, and stated t.haf, thn proao==3 sdditior. wo~.ld nnt b~ sst.ting a precedent for the ar~a becauss he
had too <_:me,l: a r~ar ysr3 to pNrcc;t er.y addition, and tha propo~ad addition wou:d. therafore,
be aceeptebl9.
~rs. He:rold l~ader, 2'.'S.'.. `~orm Pia^~. s;,~=ar=d bafora tha Commission in oppositioa beca~:sa the
addition •ro~:id b~ intrnd.,oing mu~t,iplz fam..i.7y us~ of ths existing sing:e fasily home, and that
a n„mbar of !he ra~.i.d~~ir,os h~ ~srge resr ;{ar3_. in Which a simi.lar construction could take
pl.8c -r. . °
Nr. R;~sn again appesr7d t;~fora ?h~ .:oQU~is~icn and :.?a!ed t,hat baca~..~e +.he neighbor~ on th~
asst and we_~t oF th~ cet:~icr.=r n~re pre~ent in favor, they al~•o could not ~ons±ruet any siv,ilar
addition beos~.-:; of ax::tiag :~:mm~~g poo;:. aad in hi_ opirion, sim~l.ar r7q.~a.t, Wou1d be
n~g~igi.b:~.
M.rs. ?~~~anh ~Lichsal: , i75~ ~orm ?laaa , appaaryd bafore tha Commi~:<ior, in opposit iort and : tat:ed
tha~ iF :. 7-+c~ ;atitior; war~ gTantr,d th.s wo,.:d :et a pattern of si.miiar raqu=.:~t: , and the
raqi~est for ~7parate kit.chen faat:ltie~ s~ar.t tha+ mul.tip:le femil,y u~-a was proposad, b~.,?: t.hat
she would not oppo:s e raq~ee:t for ju=t an additiea of a room.
~': . Italiar.o, in ra? .,ttsal , s tat~d that h~ wa:~ not reque~.tin~ s zore chsnge . b,t that hs fe] t~
oh:igatad'to tek~ r,era ot hi-• pa,rent_ ard asntsd to giv~ tham some :emb7ance of privany, f~rther
ha wa:~ sur~ t.ho_a who opec:ed wo.~.id ae.icnme a siiri~BY ~,9°_luP9 fro~i their childran aftyr they
h8d beooma elderly.
1dr. J'oann~ 'I+a'.ia~o, ~ui`s of ths pe?itinner, appearad hs•~ore ths ^c¢~.iss~or. e.iid :.tat.Nd that
it Was not thr.ir intef,tio.^. to se]i the homy or to reo~~e~_r, a zone chaage, bat thst thay in?end^d
to ~.~*.ilize ~heir hoaa fcr it:= originrsl p~..rpo:•e ar.d we~e only pror~iding additional :iiving fsc-
i.lit~es for their parert=.
TFIG HEAR:i~lG WAS rI~7_~EB.
~onsid~+rab:.a disni.-~~ion ys_ held Uy tha ~om~i..~ien r~.lativs to oo~patibility of tha propoe.~d
~~s~+ ara whethar or not it we: a:lou~ah:la by Code, in order to protsct tha adjaining property
owne~~; whethyr or not the propo:sd devalola~ent co::.Ld be ~•o oriented to be an intagra.i par!
of tha Nxi<~t•ing re_id4nr.~, ar,d w}~9th~r or not to r~~quire tha el.iminat.iori of t.he kit.chen facil-
iti.es; and that the tho:~ght bshind th~ petitioner`s purpose wes commendab;s.
In 1'H;:~0.15P to Gommis::ion q~~e:t.ion;~g, 9Lr. Italiaao ~tatsd thst he had drav!n the plan~ eince
he wa:a a bui:lding oontractor, and that th~ addit.ion woi..ld be to ths raer uf tha ra:idsnca
adjacent to the propo~Pd overpa5~ oP Wagner Avenue.
Commiseior.er A11rad off-red Ae=ol~.t;on No. .16?0, Seriss 1964-.65, and movsd for it~ pa_saga
and adopt.ior., sacondad by Comm_i~•sior,ar Gauer to d~r.y L}1^ t'9Qu93t for kitohen fa^ i= it ~~. a:.d
grant tha ba7.arioe oP Patltlon C•_~: Jarianr,9 ho. 16.13, provided the plsn~ wdr5 c:tisngyd Lo
eliminate i,ha kitchen faoi.li±ie~. (Sse Reao7uLion Iiook.)
Un rol:l cal.:l the for4g~ing ra~,ol~;tion was pas;,ed hy tha following vote:
l~:~S: COA~MI:SS7:OAIFRS: A.llred, i:amp, Ga~.~er, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall.
;~ ~ NOEEe COMM;SSIONERS: None.
;;~ ~
~ ~x pBS~NT: COE~1I.~SIOBTER:: ~:one.
r.
F
i
~.~~ ~
~;. .
F.~
!i
I;
`j .
~~
~i ~ t
~
~
~I~+PTES, CI7'Y PL•ANh.iN~i GOMk[ISS:LOI19 June 71., ~965
~
2629
VARIANCE NOo 1.71.5 - P:"RL•IG HEAA1'~Go R.UBER`.P E. `~ . ^ ~'•^~os*~YOOd D1-i~je ~ Anaheim, ~ali.fornis,
~~ Owner; NE:.•SON D3~' CONSTR.?:~' '', _= ~ tuast Kstella Avenue, Anahsim,
California, Agent; requas~.=•~- ~. ~'o YPAT.',"E MLN~dUM SLDE AKD REAR YARD
REQI::R~."TtTS on property C'. ., . :: ~ami-rectangularlp shaped parcel
of l.and witn rs f~onte.ge of approx.imalely 93 fe ~. <;,;s i a:4e of YYodgewood Drive and a
maaimum depth oP appro:zi.sate]y ]1? feet, the noT•` .-. .~.;':~ry of said property baing approxi-
mately 22 feet south of the ea~i;ward exten_.ion of ihe oenterline oP Bevarly Drivb and further
described as 4'?.0 Wedge'?cood Dri~re. Proparty present.ly cla_sified A-0, One ~amily Suturban,Zone.
Mr. Rod Dya , reprs:;ani. ing tha Neln~or,-Dye ~on_ truct.i.on Company y appesrcl before the Co~.ission
and stated the plan~~ were =u;'fioiant +o be considerrd, ~.nd that he ~vas avai:~ab:.e ta an~.~er any
qcs~:tions.
T.n respon_:e to Commis;lon q:.ast•.ion;ng, Mr, Dya eteted the.t the adi.ition woul.d be to the rear
of tha str~ctc^a„ that th9 minim~.~m _.ida yard would bs ~} faet and that the rear yard woul.d ba
approximately ]8 fsot..
No or.e appeared in oppo~ition.
':`FIE HEARSNs WA~ CLC:EDo
Co~.issionar Pe:ry offsrsd Reso1L?ion No. 1671, Heria~. ].964-65 and moved for its pa~~age and
adoption, ~econded by Commiesionsr Camp to g*e.nt Petition Por tiariancs No. 1'15, ~u4,jact to
aonditions~'Sae F.a~ol~tion book'r
On ro]1 ca:i.l. tha fo~egoin~ re~ol~tion va, pa_.s;d by the fcl.l.owing ~ote:
A'iES: CGM.~lLs'r.::OT'.FFS~ A.'..:red, ~amc. :;a:,er. Herb:t, Psrry, Rove.land, kungaI:l.
NOE:: ^OSek:La:.~.O.vER:.: ±~one.
AGSEN~`~ !`OMM~.:3:~Ot~'ER.~; Nor,4.
`;?.F:;AN~E ~U„ :i':5 - P'RL.::' FiEAP::~G. DREW FC"`E~: '.~FIFCRAI:ON, 10300 Wil~hire ?+ou.lavard, Los
-------_ _ fL~ge:e: . Ja.iifornis, Ow~er. requast.ln~; permi=_sion to wA:`.E PHE MAXT.MLk
F'R~E S'AND:u: :''1!~K AREA A~D ~~A.R.."M:;M 5":N HEI"H~' on prope: ty da~cribed
as- A ractana.lar]y =haped pa,rcr:~ of iand with a fron+,age of arproxi-
mate.y s33 .f~at on the ~ast s:.da o.f lorth Euc.7id 5treet and a ma,ximum decti, of approsi:.na?oly
609 .feat, ths southern bo..ndary of sai3 prop7rty baing approzi.mats.ly 1,008 fNat nort,h of tha
c~nter.line of ;rascen: Avsn,.~, ard furihsr de::~ribed as 810 North Eu~1id StrFNt. Property
presantly ola~>ifisd C-], ~anera:l .:ommeroie:. Zone.
Mr. Lomax.. rspre_enting ~ha u?ath 5 ~o. cont,ractors for the propo:.ad sigr., appearsd bafore
+he Oommis:~ion snd ataiad that the theatri:s.i businass wa: unique in that the pi^c:•~ t~~.ing
shown mu:~t, be adv3rti~~d on the marq:.oe and ihi: has taken up the exi=tina sign :lss~ri~:g no
:pace for idanti.fication of the Lhaetr~~ that thar~ were ~imiiar~ sign;: ~:. rh-s'~~- ir. ~h- ~:'y
~aid property owners en,jopir~g cr_~.~.lages not afforded the petitionsr, that tha s~gn wou:d bs
doLbl.e-facad b..•;; not a flash:ng ~ign and would r.ot rsfiect into the re~identia; ar~a b~nauso
the top of the slgn would be abo~,e the ronf sign and vrould be obstructed itom visw h9J9;JSd
of the angla it woald be ple,cs3.
The Commissi.on noted that apartments eai:tsd acithin 217 feet of the propo~ed ;ign w.ith many
of the apartment= h~•ing their bedroom~ faai.ng tha =ign, and that no indication was given tnat
the sign wou:ld not c~ntain more than ZFO foot :La;r.berLS as required by Codey further that tha
petitioner was propo~ing a sign fsr in eace~s of anything permitted in tha ordi.nance.
No one appeared in opposition.
THE HEARTNG 9UAS GLOSEti.
Discussion was he13 by the ~o~is~i.on as to tha compatibility of the proposed ~lgr, wi.th re=i-
dentisl. structure~ in closa proximity~ that, the patitioner wa~ requssting a p"i:-~.egv not
permitted to othar prop~rties in ol.o~e proaimity; and that the sign was far in ezces:. of that
permitted by ^ods.
r.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY ?LANNING C01dD4ISSI0N, June 21, 1965
C~
2630
VARIANCE N0. 1716 - Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. 1672, Series 1964-65, and
(Continued) moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp to
deny Petition for Variance No. 17i6 based on the faats that the proposed
height would be detrimental to ti:e peace, health, and general ~relfare of the residents in the
R-3 developments; that the proposed free-standing sign would permit a sign almost twice that
size permitted by the sign ordina,nce; that granting the sign maiver would be setting a pre-
cedenae for similar requests in the city; and that granting the petition would grant a
previle ge not enjoyed by other developments in clese proaimity.(See Resolution Bookl
On roll oell the foregoing resolution was passed by t}r following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, i,,rry, Rowland, t9ungB11.
NOES; COMeLISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
_ RECLASSIFICRTION - PUBI,IO HEARING. EfHEL H. MCCARTY, aka ETHEL pOTTBERG, 3006 West Orange
N0. 6¢-65-133 !!venua, Anaheim, Californis, Owner; RIMEL, HARVEy d HELSING, John A.
Harvey, III, 1010 North Main Street, Santa Ana, California, Agent; requesting
that property described as: A reatangularly shapefl parcel of land located
ctt the southwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Orange Bvenue, with frontages of approximately
660 feet on ths west side of Beach Boulevard and approaime,tely 623 feet on the south side of
Orange Avenue, and further described as 3006 4Pest Orange Avenue, be reclassified from the R-A,
Agricultural, Zone to the C-1, General Commeroial, Zone.
Mr. Riohard Rimel, representing the patitioner appoared before the Commission and stated that
since properties on the other corners of the intersection were eithar classified for commercial
uses or were being utilized as such, that subject pet~tion would be a compatible zone with
those presently eaisi,ing in close proximity, and that plens of development were not submitted
becau~e they were desirous of developing ir~ accordance with t,he desires of any prospective
tenant for the proposed oommercial zoning.
~r. Rimel further reques~d that if subject petition were oonsidered favorably that the
1d0 day time limitation be extended to one year.
The Commi.ssion advised the agent that since the Commission was the recommending Body in a
x~~eClassification petition, only the City Council could grant more than the 180 d,>ys, and
th~.2 regardless of time extension, the ordinance reclassifying the property would not be
roed until all aonditions with a time extension were completed.
Zoning Supervisor Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that adequate site development
sttsn3erds were in Section 18.40 to check the subsequent plans for Code compliance.
No ane appeared in opposition.
THE HEARING VPAS CLOSED.
~}~
R '
~ '~
i.
~
Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 1673, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and
adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend to the Cit~ Counoil that Petition for
Reclassifioation No. 64-65-]33 be approved subject to conditions.(See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: CO~A~dISS20NERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, E~ungall.
NOES: COM~d2SSI0NERS: None.
ABSE;NT: COM~LISSIONERS: None.
RECESS - Commissioner Allred offered a motion to recess the meeting for tan minutes, Commissioner
Camp seoonded the motion. ~OTION CARRIED.
The meeting recessed at 3:40 p.m.
RECONVENE ~ Chairman ~Gungall reconvened ths meeting at 3~50 p.m., ell Commissioners being
presont.
r
. •T=~~
a
's { ~
,~
i,
0
~
MIlJ[]!`ES, CITY PLANN"ING COMEE.ISSIOU, ~iune 21., 1.965
2631
RECLASSIFICATION - PU~I~IC HEARINGo DOROZ'HE1' L. DODD, 10511 Brookhurst Street, Anfsheim,
N0. 64-65-134 and California, Owner; CHARLES Ho DAY, 15646 Condesa Drive, YVhittier,
California, Agent; proper•ty described as: A reotangularly shaped prsrael
VARIANCE N0. 1714 of land aomposed of two portions - Portion A having a frontago of approai-
mately 50 Peet on the north side af Pearl Street and a mazimum depth of
Approaimatel.y 126 feet, the eastern boundary of said property being
approzimatelp 818 feet west of the centerl.ine of North -Pest Street, and Portion B with a maai-
mum width of approaimatel.y 50 feet and a masimum depth of approaimately 193 feet, the southern
boundary of said property being coincident with the northern boundary of Portion A, and further
desoribed as 1233 Pearl Streat.
CLASSIFIvAPION OF PROPERIY': R-2~ k~U'i:'PIPLE-~FAMILY RESIDIlNrIAL~ ZONE ~PORTION A)
R-0, ORTE-FAMIL S'JBURBAN, ZOI~II+7 (PORTION B)
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIUN: A-2, .6iCG'LrL•IPI~E-FAl~IIY RESIIIENTIAL, ZONE FOR PORTION B
REQIIESTED VAR.:LANCE: -VAIVEA.S OF MZ6IIMUM REQUI.RED YARD AREAS AND ~AXIMiJM LIVING
UN~T DISiANCE FROM A S'TANDARD STREE!` ON PORTIONS A AND B.
~
~
Mr. Charles Day, agent fo.r the patitioner, appee,red before the Commission and sta'ted it was
proposed to construat ~ingle story garden typa apartments ; the,t the A-0 parcel to the north
~vas presently landloaked; that the present structures were deteri.orating and had outlived
their vaefulness; that the proposed development would remove some unsightly debris, weeds,
rocks, stc., and that properties adjacent to the north and east of the R-0 parcel had a six
foot me,sonry wal.l.
Dr. Marshall Stone~treet, 1'L18 Weet Dwyer Drive, appeared before the Commis~ion in opposition
to subject petition and stated thsy hed purchasad property o^ the assumption that the adjacent
property would remain zoned R.-0; that the l.angth of the proposed drive would be too distant
from a fire hpdrant to adeq:;ately proteot the surrounding property in the event of £ire, and
that to grant the proposad zoning would be det.ri.mental to the ad3oining R-0 properties.
Dr. Ross Dean, 1228 9Pest Dwysr Drive, appear~d in opposition stating that his home was located
neat to Dr. Stonestreet`s hom.e~that R-0 zoned property was developed to the west and north;
that the qual.ity of the homss to the north Would be affected if R-2 zoning was granted; that
the depth of the proposed R-2 develop~ent wo:;:Ld prohibit adequate fire and trash sarvici.ng;
and that sub~eat property when combined with that adjoining to the we~t could be developed
for R-0 uses.
Eight persons indicated their presence in oppo~ition to subjeot peti.tions.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 1674, ~eries 1964-65, and moved for its passege e,nd
adoption, seaonded by Co~issioner Al.l.red, to recommend to the City Co.:ncil that Petition for
Realassification No. 64-65-134 be di~approved based upon the fact that the proposed realassi-
fiaation would ba incompatible to the existing R-0 development to the north; that it would
set a preaedent for a simi:iar reque~t for the three acre parael to the west; and that sub3eat
property is developable for single familp resider.tiel. purposes.(See Resolution Book)
On roll oall the foregoing resolution was pas::ad by the following vote:
AYES: CO~~dISS20NERS: All.red, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, E~ungall.
NOES: COI~EISSIONERS: None.
ABSF~(T: COMMISSIONERSt None.
Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 1675, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and
adoption, seconded bp Co~ssioner Herbst, to deny Petition for Variance No. 1714, based on
findings.(See Resolution Book)
On roll aall th9 foregoing resolLtion wes passed by the following vote•
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Ct3mp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall.
NOES: COMSSISSI07QERS: None.
AbSENT: COMlLISSIOI~RS: None.
~
~
~; ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CO~ISSION, June 21, 1965 2632
~ RECLASSIFICATION - PUBI~IC HEAR.ING. PAT.Ta,~AT.T. pROPERTIES, INCORPORATED, P. 0. Boa Seven,
N0. 64-65-135 Anaheim, California, Owner; TIC TOC MARRETS, 12311 Chapman Avenue, Garden
Grove, CaliPornia, Agent; property described as: A rectangularly shaped
CONDITIONAL USE paroel of l.and located at the northeast corner of East Street and Sycamore
PERMIT N0. 713 Street, with frontages of approaimately 220 feet on East Street and approx-
ime,tely 244 fest on Sycamore Street. Property presently classified in the
GENERAL PLAN R-1, ONE FAMILY RESID~NTIAL, ZONE.
' AM~NDMENT N0. 42
~ ~ AEQUGST~D CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GFIIdERAL COLflaERCIAL, ZONE.
,j
~~~ ' REQJESTED COND2'!':IONAL ~SE: ESTABLTSH A WALK-UP RESTAURANT YPITH WAIVER OF
;;~ THE EU1C3C WALL AT THE REAR OF A THREE FOOT
~ PLAI~'I'ING STRIP ~ND REQUIRED LANDSCAPING AROUND
SATA RESTAGRANT.
~
~ Mr. A1 Pelligrini, representing the agent for the petitioner, appee,red before the Commission
i _ and reviewed the proposed developmant, noting that the pet3tioner would comply with all of
, the reoommended conditions, and that tha six foot masonry wall would be constructed if the
1, Commission so stipulated.
~ i Assoaiste Planner Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the required 10-foot landscaped
strip aould be a screen type of 1.andscaping,i'.: haight being determinad bp the Commission.
1
In response to Commission. quastior.in!; regarding the proposed Walk-up restaurant, the agent
replied that an Orange Tu1iu~ vral.k-up re~taurar.t was proposed in add3tion to the"tic toc"
i market, and th~t a ma,jor shopping area was proposad on t•he southwest oorner of the interseotion.
i Mr. Roy Kirk, 1229 East Sycamore Ave:nue, appeared in opposit3on to sub~ect petition; stating
i that the proposed walk-up restaurant would be inoompati.ble becaus< i.t would add to the traffic
I of a residential street; that he was aware of the fact that sub; c property would eventuelly
I be realassified to a commercial zone, but with a sohool in closb proaimity with children
entering and leaving an Orange Jul.ius stand 1.eaving debris and creating a hazard to traffic
' made the proposed uss incompatibl.e, and that a masonry wall a.d landscaping should be requirad
to provide adequate separat:on betwean the commercial and residential developmant.
" Mrs. Lois Heyne, 124G East Glenwood Avenue, presented a petition signed by 57 property owners
opposing th9 possibility of heavy truok traPfic utilizing a residentisl street in whiah many
of the children played, and that if subject petition wera granted that the masonry wa:ll and
screened landscaping should ba provided to reduoe the unsightlyness of the rear of any commer-
oial development.
Mr. Bert Morley, 515 North East Street, appear.ed in opposition to the proposed walk - up
restaurant and the fact that the ABC had po~ted a notioe that liquor would be sol.d on tha
premises which he considered incompatible with the residentisl integrity of the area since
it would have an undesirable influenae on chil.dren pa,tronizing the store, and that he was
i in favor of the proposed C-1 Zoning, but not the restaurant or sale of liquor.
I Mr. Luther Crovens, 1222 East Glenwood Avenue, appeared in opposition, and asked that the
plot plan be reviewed for him; upon reviewing the plan, Mr. Corvens stated that the streets
Ahich serve subjeot property wers not wide anough to permit aommsraisl traPfia; that he was
• aware that residential areas had to be served with aommercial stores, but that the location
was not aompatible sinae the area wa~ primarily residenti3l in charaater, and the proposed
use Would add to an already overburdened traffia problem.
~;
~ Mrs. Randp Smith, 618 Elm~uood Street, appreared in opposition stating that if subject property
~ were realassified that there be no further enaroachment along the residential streets of any
i
commeraiel uses, since this wou~d endanger the lives of the small ahildron who lived in the
' I area. A showing of hands indiaated 24 persons present in opposition.
' In rebuttal, Mr. Pelligrini steted that the proposed off-sale notioe was for the market which
would have beer and wine available to take off the premises Which many other grocery stores
provided as a aonvenience; that the rocommendations of the staff indicated that Glenwood Street
would not have any of the aommercial traffia beoauso of the requirement of a masonry wall; and
~ that the Orange Julius proposed had only a nine foot high structure, and was well maintained.
Tf~ HEARING P1AS CLOSED.
* Discussion was held by the Commission as the appropriateness of the walk-up restaurant; that
,,,t~ it vras inevitabls that co~eraial development would take place on subjeot property even though
the General Plan indicated loW density development; and that it was neoessary to have the six
i foot masonry wall to separate the two incompatible uses.
~ ~
~
~ MINUTES, CT'I•'P PLANN7NG COMMISS:LON, ~,''une 21, 1.965
' 2633
~ REQLASSIF'ICAT'ION - Co~iss
~ N0. 64-65-135 for itsipasrage~anddedoption,Rsecondednby~CommissionerePer9~_65, and moved
e to the City Covnoil that Petition for fieole,ssiPioation No. 64-65-135~~end
i ~~N~~'!'I~NAL ~"E aPProved =~bjsot to rsvision of plans to inoorporate a~masonry wsll along
! PEAMIT A'0. 713 the north and east
P~`oPerty l.ines end the easterly 218= feet o.f the south
G~~ P~ proFerty 1.ine whioh sha11 align with the easterly boundary oP the servioe
station propert,y to ths south oP sub,ject propertp yxnd the installation of
AM~~IDMENt N0: 42 adequate land.~caped scrsening to separate the oommeraiel from the reaiden-
~~~T (Continued) tial uses and oondition~.(Sea Ra_olution Pook)
'~ On roll osll. the fo:•egoing rasol.uiion ~,
~;,~~ Passsd by the follo~ing aots:
, ~•. AYES: COI~ISSI0~5: A1:Lred;, ~an~n, He~b~-t, Parry, Rowland.
I
~ NOE' S: CO-~I3SIUHEI'tS; Gauer ,~A.ungal.l..
I ~
i ABSENT: COMM.'::S~IONERB: None.
"~ Commissioner Gaver offered Reso~ution No. 16?
I~ adoption, seconded by Comud,ssioner~ Perry, to denyBPetition4Por~Conditionalf~se1permitSNoe 71.3,
based on the fact that the proposad usa wo~1d be inoompe,tible to the residential uses estab-
,~ lished; that the proposed usa ~ould add ta the e:xi~ting traff3.o problem slrasdy axisting, and
~,~ that it would be hasardous to ch.il.dren who wonld, freauent the establishment.(See R.esolution
`~ Book)
~ On roll cal.l the foregoing rs~ol:~tion wav pas;ssd by the following vota:
i A~S: COMEELSSI01~tERS. A1:Lred, ~am ~. Gaua; ,
i ~, Harb~t, Perry, Row:land, Mungal]..
~ NOES: COM~IS3T.Ot1ER~; !~cne.
ABSENZ: CO~dISSIONERS; ?~ons.
Commi.ssioner A1:I.red oPfered Resolutior, No. 16?8, Serie~ 19G4-65, and movsd for its ps:.-sage
_ and adoption, saoor.dad by po~l_~~OZ9~ ;a~py to reoom~end to the City Qouncil. thst Genoral
.'~ _ Plan Amendment No. 42 be di_:snproved and refsrred back to the StaPf for annuai reviaw.(~az
~ Resolution Book)
On roll call the for•egoing re~o.lution ~eas pa.;;ed by the follo~ving vota:
G AYES: C0~_I:S~IQNER.~: A.l:ired, Cam Gausr,
~ ~ ~~ Harbst, Perry, R.owland, yr~ell.
~' NOES: COMMISSIONER:; None.
~, ABSENT: COMMISSIO?~RS: \one.
RECLASSIFICATION - P',7By,~ I~ARLRr3, 69, R. !,~L;~i;E, 1219 East Cypress 3treet, Anaheim, Ca.lif. ,
ND• 64-65-136 Oxrner; T, A. PONCE, 851 South Che,nti:.l.y Straat, Analieim, Ca:ifornia, Agent;
propyrty described as~: A rsatangularly shaped psrcel of le,nd with a front~
CONDITIpNAL USE oP approx3~e,tely 63 feet on ths zorth ~ide of Cypres~ Strest and a maximum
PERldI.T N0. 715 depth of approgimatsly 105 faet, the western boundary of ~aid property being
approxime,tely 2i9 feat sast of the aenterline ef North East Straet, end
Yurther described as 121.9 Ea~t Cypress 5tr•eet. Property precently classi-
~ig~ R-1, ONE FAM71Y RE~yDEM'LA7,~ ZONE.
' ~UE~TED CLASSIFTCATION; R-3, M?TLTIPLE FA~.a,Y RESIDENPIAL, ZONE
• + 1~E@UES"_'ED CONDTTIORTAL USE: ES3'ARL•ISH A HOME FOR THE yGED 7?J 1~ ~Igq.17,~G
SINGT,E FAh1ILY RESIDENI'Ig1, STRCiCT;.~ 1YITH S9ANg~
`~F THE 1~.INI~IIk~ REQUIRED PARR7NG.
Zoning Supervisor Robert Miokelson advised the Co~ois~ion that e letter had been received from
the agent requesting a continuance.
' Mr- Ralph Fliegner, 1229 Eas
t Adele Strset, appeared bePore the Commi~sion .in apposition and
presauted a petition signed by 44 of the 49 property oavners in the tract in ~nposition, and
_ stated that 811 t~e trsct residents ha,d purohased their homs5 With the under~~and_ng that the
~ area would remain single famil.y residenti.e.1.; that there Were mt~ny small children in the area
~vho were noisy and might be di.strQCting and annoying to ~he qlderly; that Cyprsss Streat was
~ too narrow to
, permit strset psrkin,g, sinoa the petitionor requ~sted Waiver of the required
parking; and that the proposed u:.e would estahlish multl,:l.e ffsmily development whioh would
j. set a preoedent for similar requests of ad,joinin ,_i~
g properti.r,=
._ . _ . ' -- ^,' ~"vv~,q, i' .~x`:~- - ~~
~ ~ ~
MIM)'I'ES, CI~Y' PLANNTNC COMbIISS~'0!~; June 2~, 1965
?634
RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Reuben Bartol.etti. 1?19 East Adale Strset, appeared in opposition,
N0, 64-65-1.36 and stated that he had already invested $1.700 in improving his property
whioh hs had purchased a short time ago on the assumption that the area
CONDITIONAL USE woul.d rsmain rssidenti.al and beceusa ~treet dead ended making it a more
PER~GI'P NOo 715 praotica:i. place to rear children because of ~e~s through traffic; that
(Continued) the petitioner was requ95ting waiver of parking requirements whir,h w~uid add
to the hazardous traffic flow if subject petitions were granted, and that
the requast wa~ spot zoning, whioh would influenae similar rsquests for
properties in the arse,.
` Mr. J. A. Ponoe, agent for the petitioner, appaared bsfore the Gommi~~ion and ~tatad he had
~ ~ requested a aontinuance in order thai, finaaoial arrangements might be aompleted, that there
~ Was no intention of changing the interio,- or aatsrior; that he hoped to have hi: mother and
no more than 5 othar elderiy women livs thsre; that the proposad ps,rking wae adequate due
to the fact tha~ tha 9:lderly woman wo~..d not be driving automobile~;and that it wa~ ni= intent
to i.mnrove the landsoapiaig and wou.ld uss the property a~ a home.
_ Mr. Pliegner again appearsd befora the Commis=ion and stated that the State had specific
requirements for a, re~t home and ths propo~ed iise of a single family home woLld be providing
substandard aocommodation_:; further that he had a number of very nois:y boys who played in
the ^ear yard 8d,jacent to ths sub,jact rroper•ty who cou7.d be quite annoying to these elderly
women.
Mr. N. Ho 5chaper, ]223 Eaat Cypre~s Strast, appaarad in oppo~ition and stated that the agent
had stated that thes3 sldsriy wom~n would not bs driving cars, but it was certain that they
would have visitor~, who wo~:d ~1.timate,y park in tha narrow street; that there wa: inadequate
turning area thera whLCh ~ov1n b= hazardo,:~ with sma,ll children around, and tha± h~ ocncurred
in the previous ~tata¢ientr. mads by t:hs oppe:ition, sinoa he felt it, too, wo~..ld sat a pracedent
for similar requects :Z the area, thus having a detrimantal affect on the singl.y fami:y
residential integ-~ity of the area.
~ Mx's• Phy11i~ Robinsor., 1~:?. Last Ade:iy Str•e3t, appeared in opposition and stated that she
too had very noisy children -Hho would add to the annoyanae of these elderly peop73, and
that inadequate circ~lation exi:tbd For adequete turn around and flow of tra.ffia to psrm.it
multiple family developme.t ?n a ~ingl.e family zone.
' Nineteen persons indioated their prs~en~;e in the Counoil Chamber opposing subjeot petitions.
In rebuttal, Mr. Ponce statsd that th:~re ~~ou.id be no esternal alteration sxcept for enhancing
the land~caping; and that he had di.soussvd ?ha proposed home for 1,he aged with the State
welfare board who advi:ad him that the propoaad devel.opmant would adequately mset the State°s
requirements.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED,
Co~nissioner Perry offered Resolution 16?9, Seriss 1964-65, and moved for it~ pas~age and
adoption, seconded by Commissionsr Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Pe+,ition for
Reclassification No. 61.-'c5-136 be disapproved based on ths findings that tha proposad usa
would be an encroeohment of mu:ltiple family rssidential use in a single family residential
development; that reolassification of the propFrty would be granting a privilr~ge not en,joyed
by others in the area: and that the propo~ed reclassification would be detrimdntal to the
peace, health and welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim.(See Resolution Book)
On rol.l call the foregoing resolution wa~ pa~•sed by the following vote:
AYFS; COM~AISSIONERS: A1:Lred, Camp, ,r,e,uer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall.
NOES; COErflGISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ~one.
~•~ Commissioner Gauar ofPered Resol~tion No. 16E0, Series 1964-65, and moved far its passage and
E adoption, seconded by Commisai.oner Cam
' based on findings.(See Resolution Book)' to deny Pstition for Conditional Use Permit No. 715,
~~1 ~
,~
r•1~ On roll asll the foregoing resolution wa~ pa,ssed by the following vote:
A~S: CO~GIdISS20NERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall.
~' NOE~; C0~6N(ISSIONER.~; None.
,d * ` ABSENT:
COMMISSIOI~ERS: Nona.
yi ~
~
.y ~ ~
. ~
MIMTTES, CI'.PY FLANNTNG COMMISS~ON, June 21; 1965 2635
Commissioner Perry left ths Council Chamber et 4:45 p.m.
REPORTS AND - ITE~ N0. 1.
RECOMMENDATION~• RECLASSIFICATION NQ. 63-64-62 - Compliance with Condition No. 10 of
A.esolut~on of Tntent 64R 200 - Approval of Plans of Devalopment -
Webstar Straet Propertiss
. Zoning Supervisur Robe,~t Mir,kel.:on pressntsd pl.an~ of development for a portion of property
~ covered in Recls~sificstion Nc. 63-64-62, steting that Condition No. 10 of Resolution of
~ Intent No. 64R-200 required that plans of dsvel.opment be submitted to the Planr.ing Commission
~ ~ and City Council for app~oval prior to the iss~anca of a building permit; that the designer,
',~ Mr. Ronald Martin had submitted plans which were in comp]iance with the R-3 Code requirements
i with the sxception that 13 aarports would require 130 feet, whereas the devsloper proposed
' 127-1~2 feet; and that if pl.an~ had b3an submitted as part of a request Pc: a building permit,
~ this slight deviation wou.ld hav~ basn gran?~+d.
Mr. Miakalson then raviewad ths d=n:ity a: it peT~tainad to the City Council.''s rasol.ution,
noting that some e,mbigLi.ty e.xisted, in that 19 dwsl.ling units per net residantial acre or
building site could be douhly interpreta3, and the devaloper had drawn plans on a parcel
.89 of an acre with 18 dwe.ll_ng nn.it_~. bassd on tha 18 dwelling units per building sita,
but that the Commi.s~ion ir. their racommandation to the City Council, as noted in the Minutes,
indicated that the cond.ition of sppro~~ei he basad on 1$ dwel:Ling units per net residential
acre, and rscommendsd thst tha Comm.iseion ask the City Cooncil for a clarification at this
time to dalete that porti.on refarring ?o "er b~~i~ding _ite". '
Mr. Ronald ~artin, presaetsd a co:icrad r~nder~ng for tha Commission`s review, noting that
a graphic copy wa~ subm~-ttad ~vith the plan~, and thet he was de~irous of having the colored
rendering returned *o him for :.a.]es p~,rpo_ss.
Commissioner Rowland offered n mu-:on +o apnrov3 pl.ans of development for a portion of property
aovered by Resoi;;tion cf Ir.t~nt. ~o. 64R-200; approving Reclassification No. 63-64-62 - Webster
Street, and recommsnd to ?ha City ~':ounuil that ~aid plans of developmsnt ~arkad Exhibit No~.
',I 1 thro~gh 6, be app~ove3, a_• req~.ir9d ir. Condition No. 10 of said reaolution,; further, that
~~ although the Commi~~ioa had ir;tar.dad to re^ommand that devalopmant be limited to a maximum of
_;~ 18 dwelling ^nits per net rseidantiel sc^e the interprst.ation of the re~olution of intent by
-i the developer wa~ takan to b;~ 18 d~ut,.l]ing ~,,nit:: per o;.i..lding ~ite, and that tha propossd plans
I should not ba ponalizad beca~~.s of this iotsrpretation of the requiremant of the reso]ution of
~ intent. Commis~~ioaer Alirsd :ec~nded tha motion. MCTION CARRIED.(Commic~ioner Perry was
I temporaril.y ab~~~nt.)
CLARIFICA'TION OF - Gommi<_•:.ionar ^anp offer~d a moti.on to recommend to the City Council that
RESOLUTION OF a c~an ficst:on of thair intant re,ativa to maximum dansity permitted in
INTENT N0.64R-200 approvir,g Rec]as~ification No. 6,',-64-62 in Resolution No. 64R-200 be msde,
sin~a ths Planniag Commis_=ion in their recommendation to the City Council
had intendsd t.hat .18 dwe]]in~ units par net re,identiel e,cre be indicated
in the rec~a:::ificat,ion of the Webster S+,reet properties. Commi~~ioner
Rowland ~~condsd th= motion. MOTION CARRIED.(Commiasionar Perry was
tempararily ab:.ent.)
I'I`EM. NG 2
Orange Gounty Conditional Permit No. 1184
D,. 0 Macnine Company, propo~i.ng to establish a business for the ma.n;:-
factura, da;~gn, an.d fabricating of ~pecial machines, instruments and
%-Re,y aaclo~,.res for commercial and saro-space industries on property
on i.ha nocth ;ida of i,oronado Street, approximately 400 feet west of
Red GLm Straet, in the Northeast Anaheim area.
Zoning Supervisor Po'bert Mickelson pressnted Orange County Conditional Permit A~o. 1184, noting
the location of sub,jsct proporty and it~ prosimity to the City`s industiral development. It
was also noted that Coronado Street was listed as an exaeption on the General Plan Circulation
Element-Highway Rights-of-Way, in that a 3'L-f'oot half width would bs required adjacent to sub-
ject property, wherea~ ths ~ounty requir:d a 40-foo+ half-width for a secondary highway, and
the proposed structure would Ue looated 45 feet from the plannod highway ri.ght-of-way lina,
whereas the City of Anaheim reqLired a 5Q-foot building setback; and that site development
standards of the M-1 Zone shoul.d be comp]ir~d with.
~
~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CIT~' PI.~ANNIN~ GOMMISSION, ~una 21, 1965 2636
REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 2,Continued)
RECOI~NDATIONS
(Continued) _ Commi~sioner Rowland offered a motion to reoomm~nd to tho ~ity Council
that the Orange County Plann..ing Commission be.u~ged to requir~ ~~ilding
setbaoks and M-1 site development ~tandards of the City of' Anaheim, if'
Orangs County ~on3itional Permit No. 1134 were favorably considered,
since subjact property was .locate3 in the northeast industrial. area.
~omm:ssioner Aarb~t e~con3sd the metion. MOT'ION CARR2ED.
Commissioner Perry returned to the Council.•~F.amber at 5:02 p.m.
i~ N0a 3
St~.:dy regarding the time .l.ag in th~ reolas::iPiaation of R-A, Agricultural,
Zona pr~perty to ihe R,:~, Cne F~i,.y Residential, Zona.
Assistant Planner Jaok ~Jhristoffersnn reviewed a r~port to the Commis~ion as foilows:
"At a meeting of the Pienniag Comm:s.:.or, cn March ~9, 1965, the Staff was directsd to study
a maens of resolvir.g the problsm of. tia~lag in t,ho rrclassiPication of R.-A property to i,he
R-1 Zone, and to raport .it: findings.
"1he Problem
Basiaally, the ourrsnt proo:lam gra•p o~..t. of the solution to a pravious probiem. The old R-A
ordinance provi.d~d. fo- a:.toms.tic A:i zoning at the tima of approval of a~•.:b3ivi~ion map.
VPhile this provision permit!sd _,p~9dy proa4.:si^.g ef e,r. R-i tract, it was un~ati:~factory for
two rea~ons. First, automati:; rsa:e:~~ifioetior in this manner did not provi3e for the public
hearinq required by Stats lAK. SdCO•'Id.iS', :'9V@f8.1 daveloper~ sapre~_ad intsrs~t in filing
R-1 subdivisicn~ in ths northea_~•, ~nd"_:tris: area, which i~ zoned R-A. Ecan though ths City
had ene,ated a F.esol.:+.iun of ::n-_er,t to develop _ha ]and for M-:i ~se, a davsloper couid have
legally filsd an R-1 ~~bdi~•is:.cn in the middls of tha area, tharaby destroy.ing it_. attractive-
ness for industrial deo~lopm~at. :ha P A Zona ws_, therafore, rsvrrittan in ordar to preserve
the integrity of. the northea.t ind.._trisl area, delsting the provi~ion for ths automatic
reclassif.ication to R:i.a WFi;, thi: actior, sc::ved thi_ problsm., it also created a new one.
A subdivi~ter wishing to dh~a.:op an F-_ tract on R-A 1e.nd is now facs3 ~vith a comparetively
longer time requireser.t for p~oca~::iag the =_~bdivieio.n; ~chich increases interast oosts.
Instee,d of the 3S - 40 days p;~vio~,.:y re:;uired for tra.ct map approval and automatic reclassi-
fioation to A-:, he m~.s" noW wa.i? ..r~i] a e~parsts realassification is comp::eted. ~uhich might
take from 90 to :120 days.
i "Conalusion
~ Several altarnativas axi~t to carrs~t +hi: ~~.uation. T'hey in.a.lude:
~
(.1.) Modificati.on of the F-A ,od.a to re-in=titute the automatic rec:.arsi.fica?ion
.1
I of R-A .1and to R-7 i.por. approval of q Lract :nap (les~ those areas covered by
,~ ! a Resol.ution of I:ntent ,„ch a:; t~~ norLii~asi industrial area and the C-R area);
~
I (2) Qommissi.on-inttiated reala:.sifiaaticn of all appropri.ate R-A land to R-1;: and
f (3) Enactment of B R9:.OZL1tlOR cf :'ntent to rezone all appropr~ate A.-A parcels to R-1.
I •
~ Of thess, the last saem~a mo;:t fea~ib:.d. I'he first alternative does not so~ve the requirement
for a public hearing prior to a rralassification. The ~econd alternativa, whila probabiy the
~ ~ most desirable solution from a leng-range point of viaw, would be contrary to past Ciiy po.licy
i which has not favored the "pre-zoning" of land. Enactment of a Resolution of Intant, howavsr,
i would minimize both oP these disadvantages and perwit selection of onl.y those R-A parcels
for which R-1 developmsnt i~ appropriata. A pub:lio hearing held in conjunction with a Resolu-
tion of Intent would obviate the need £or ssparate public hearing~ on each parcel so that
reolessification could be automatia ~vith filing and approval of a tract map a~ in the old R-A
Zone. An ~ahibit indicating tho~e parce.Ls covered by the rasolution of intsnt wolild be pre-
pared, to be made a part of the resolution. I:n preparing th., exhibit, a11 R-A property would
have to be carefully evsluated to insura that R-1 development is consistent with other existing
land use policies. For eaample, R-i. devel.opment shoul.d not be indicated urhere the General
' i Plan indicates a more intense use, :;ince tha :,aneral Plan is in itself a form of resolution of
intent. Steff time required to evaluate el.:l R-A parcels in the City is estimated at about
j 5- 7 days. This tim.e woL].d bs substantieli.y reducsd by limiting the arsa involvad. For
~ example, the resolution ef .T.nt~nt might be dra9vn to cover only east Anaheim, or even that
:.~ * portion of the oity east of Ste.te College Hoalevard, where most of the R-1 activity is
~ ~' antio=pated.
~
~ ~ ~
MINL'PES , CITY P::ANP1I'dG •~ pMkrlgS:rpN y ~ une 21, 1965
REPORTS AND - I:'E~ti N0. 3(~o:ttinusd)
RECO~NDATIONS -
2637/
(Continued? iRhile this ~olution appaars to bs tha best alterne,tive, it is not without
it~ disadvantagas. ''-~9 are:
(1) The Resolution of Tntent for R-1 development will have a basic difference
from other res~olutions of intent now in force, such as those for the northbast
industriel area and the G R area. uPhil.e thess pravious resolutions have actually
deol.ared an inteaded ].and u~H; a Resa.l:~tion of Intent for R-~1 would have to be
writtan to fsoil;tate, but, not nacer=arily re uire, R-1 development.
(2) In spite of effort_- to word the 7`EiS01.U{,1Gr1 to the contrary, soms property owners
maY be ant.ici.pated to o~jact to dasignation of their land for R-1. rather than for
a ~otentially higha~ us~.
These disadvantage~• sho~.l.d be weighrd against the ^eed fo~ ~-p6eding up the reclassification
prooess. Comparstivo.;y .lit.t~s land i~ now being ~tilized for R-1 subdivision with at least
75 peroent of current re:~identisl ~on~trur„ion in AnahAim in multiple dwellings. This trend
is expected to continue~ Thc=, the prob:,.sm. of facilitating the scbdivion of R-A to R-1 me,y
cease to be a rsal prob~sm in .*.hs vsry nsar futars. I'f, however, the Commi.ssion faels that
the benefits to bs gained warraat the effort im'O1Y9CI in snactment of a resol~tion, the
wording of the rs~olutio^ undo::bted:~y csn bs worked o~t so as to minimiza possib~e objections
by property ownere."
Discussion was hsl.d by tha Co~ca,-=~»n a~ to the mn:t appropriate method for handling R-A
pi~perty baiag proposad for R--, ~Le~~~~i~ion.
Mr• ~• 4. McDaniel. reprs;-en`ing 1Eci~anial Enginaerin C,om an
and stated he wgs inters~ted in ~--:4i~8 an aasiar method of iiods8ppoaieaonsfthantLhat~p~esently
required in the f;lzng of an R_,i tra:;t., that parhape the 13nsral Plan dasignation of .low
density coLld ba ut'i:lizsd when ?5nt.atics tracts were filed on parcels of land so designated
on the Plan; end that i° p;oblrm=: aro.~ Whir,h wculd b~ in conflict with tha city~= projections
~ for proper~ies not so dssignatsd co~~ld ba considared st publ.ic haarings.
~ Planning Suparvi~or Ronald ~rudziri-k~ ad~-issd Mr. ~IcDe,niel that the Genaral P.lan had been
_ adopted by resol.ution aa3 nat t.y o~d:nance• thars.fors, no area in the city had been established
as R 1 or ~ow density deva.lopm;nY b~:t raprer~nt~d tha city°e thinking at the tims the Genera.:.
Plan was adoptad, and that r-~•,:a;-_Lfication nrocasding~ were nece~sary becausa the Stets law
req;,ired public hsarings for any r,ha.~gG ~r_ cla~-,~f;cation of proper+iss, which had baen nr.
over~ight by the City pra~iu..<;y.,
; Deputy City Attornsy ~,;rman Hobe~t~ ~,gted tha'. ±.hs Commission could initiats rec:a.:;ification
~ proceedings on propertias wit,h ei?hyr a gene-s.1 or specific boandaries, but thet this mi.ght
~ create some prob.lam urith property o~vners in their attempt to ultimately sel:~ their property.
y F4~rther, in re~iewinP non-comp;i~,r,ce With the ~tat5 law, propertie~ not officis.l.ly considered
~ for reclassification et a pLbli: haarir,g co~.ld be conts~ted in Court.
i
I Mi'. McDaniel ~tatad that he apprectated ?he ^.o~is~ion`s consideration of a probiem which he
Paced and had prsviousl.y ~~oicsd cor.oern s~ :~?ated in tha report.
After aonsiderabl.e discu_sion bst?uaan the Co¢~.mission, tha Staff, th3 :ity Atiornay°: repre-
sentative and Mr. McDanie], GA~~;~opment Ser~.ice~• Direator Alan Orsborn advised the Commission
~ that the City of Pomona had pre-zoned thoir propEr~y, b;;t that the City of Anaheim had more
complea probl.ems, that tha ~taf£ may not have e.xp.l.ored all faoets of the problem and reqLested
~ that any consider~,tion by the Commis~ion bs delaye9 and the problem referred back to the Staff
since rasolving one pro6lem had create3 anothar eque:lly as complex.
I
~
Commissioner Perry offered a motion to refer back zo the Planning Division of Davelopment
i Services for further study, the time lsg problem of reclassifying R-A parcels to R-1, and that
when the Staff had fully exp:lored e~ery avai.lable source to report iheir finding~ to tha
Commission, Commissioner Rowland ssconded the motion. MOTION CARR;LED.
- IT1;M N0. 4
Placentia Unifisd School Distriat, Orange County proposad site auquisition
~ for ths construction of s high school located southerly of the Yorba Linda
F'reeaay and northeasterly of Orchard Drive in tho 'Yorba Linda area.
~ Associate Pla.-uier Ronald Thompson presentad a map t3,nd reqi,est for Commission approval for the
* proposed high school sita by the P.lacentia ;lnified School District, to bs locsted in the Yorba
~x Linda area. It wa: e15o notad that the Orange Countx Planning Department had a~i~ed the Devel-
o me~t $er~j.c~s, Zonin~ D}vision thst the propossd high school site wa~ in conformance with
t~ie orDa in a Geasra. P.an.
F
~ ~ ,~
MINUTES, CI'rY PLANN'.LNG CO~MISSION, J4ne 21, 1.965 2638
REPORTS AND - ITEM N0~ 4 iContinued)
RECOM~EENDATIONS
• (Continued) It was notsd by the Commi~~ion that ~ince the City of Anaheim did not
presently have an adopted Hi11 and Canyon General Plan encompassing the
~ property under consideration for e, high school site, that the County`s
commentary relati~~e to the =ite being in oonformance with the Yorba
Linde Gen.eral Pl~n was al.l that. r,een :y determined, and, therefore, the
Placentie, Qnified Sahool District request for commsnt and approval be
~ . noted a:: raceived and fi].ad.
. ji~~~ ITE~' . N0. 5
~ Variance No. ::;0 -- T:.me limita+,~on for the oparation of a beauty shop
;~ Mrs, Hal.sn A.,^,orriveau - 9~1 South t'elare - request far permin-sion to
~1 aontin~e aaid opera:ion.
1
~i Associate Planner R.ona:l.d Thompror a3vi:.ed the Commi~_ion that a raqua~t had beon received
~~ from Mrs. Helen A. Cor.iveau, 9:11 South :'elara requast•ing oer~ission to continue the operation
~ _ of a be~,uty shop known a: "He:len°: Sa1on of beauty"; that tha petition fil.e did not indicate
~.I that any complaints had besn racaived, and that a five year eatansion had been granted prev-
f ~ iously which uuou:id eapire sho~tiy,
`1i
~~I Commissioner Perry offersd. a¢o:.on to grant e fi~ro-year s.xtension oP time for the operation
i1 of a one operetor beauty =hop at 91]. So~~t.h Velare urider'Yariance No. 1110, said five years
f~~J to eapire June 1.6, 1.9'?0, or s..ch earlier t.i.ms as the raquasted use i.s terminated.Commissioner
~~ Camp secondad the moti^n. ~p~'iD~~ ~ARR7EDe
II
' ~ iT~+. ;voo 5
K I CONDTT`T.^,KA~ ';SE PERki.T NOo 5:.'' - ~arpsnters tinion -
i~ Requ=;t for sx+.~n_iun o'' time tc comply with conditions
;i
! Assooiate Planner Ronald T'hompc-.or. -ev:ywsd a reque~~t from C. M. Oldham, Financial Seoretary
i ~ of the [;nited Erotherhood of Carnentsr_ and Toiner~; 608 We~t Vermor.t Avenue requesting that
;, . an additional year be grantad Yor tha <:omp:istion of conditions in the granting of Conditional
~ IIse Permit No. 51?. Furthsr that th_= Qomm'_s_ion on October 26, 1964 had granLed a sia-month
~~ ! extension of time which ex.pi.rad _snoary 'Z4; ]965 and that only one condition rem~,ined to be
~~ -~ complied with that being the str~et, .lighi fae of .f39~ 00, nnd that if the Commi~s.ion favored
~i - granting an eatension of ti~e, thst a fin3ing ao~.'.d ~e mF~.de that sinoe tha petitioner had
~ proven that he war di]iger,t.ly p,r~.ing th~ requirements, said extension of tis.e reauest could
ii be granted.
~ Commissioner Row.-iand offerad a motion to grant an additionel one yoar extension for the com-
' pletion of condition~ ir. gr9ntin~ ~onditiune,.l !`se Permit No. 51', with a finding that the
~~ petitioner wa~ diligsntly p;,r~.,.ng ths requirements, b~,.t that the petitioner be urg~d to
I~ pay the street light fses bsfor~ +,he t.Sme cf exFiration, namely January 24, .1966. Commission-
; i er Perry ~eoonded ths metion. MI:~I'ION ~AR~:IED,
j i ITE~d NC~. ?
"~ i JONDIIIONAi ~~3E FERk_;~,' N~J„ ~60 - Temporary Lce of property for church
FI ~ purposNs -;;-6 Sooth Webster Straet - reque~t for extension of time for
use of the propsrty
, Associate Planner Ronald Thompson read a r~qLast from ths daughter of the owner oP property
at 716 South Webster Straet rso~;esting a one year extension of time for the use of the property
E 3or church purpose~. It was al.so noted the~t no oomplaints had been reoeived relative to the
~ activities of the church or parking prob].sm~.
F !I Commissioner Perry offered a motion to grant an additional one year eatension of time for the
i use of a structure at 716 8outh Webster Streat for church purposes said exten~ion to eapire
, i August 15, 1966. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRSED.
~ - ITEM N0~ 8
~
; Variance No. 13?2 - Opare,tion of an office and outdoor storage of equipment
and vehicles at 1829 South Idountain View Avenue - request for extension of
time to permit the use.
~,~ Associate Planner Ronald Thom
:~ p~on rsviewed a reque~-t irom Mr. R, E. -Pilliams, 18'L9 5outh
Mountain View Avenue for a one year extension of time to permit the existing use, said usa
~ was granted June 26, 1961 Por a three sar
:~ ' y period, and a one year extension of time was granted
~ ~ by the Commission whiah woul.d expire June 26, 19G5.
`~ ~x
r,
F
_ _ _ . _. _ i
~• 4
~ ~~~ ~ ~
i
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CO~AMISSION, June 21, 1965 2639
tl REPORTS AND - ITEaG N0. 8(Continued)
~ RECOE~PIDATIONS
~ (Continued) Commissioner Rowland oPfered a motion to grant a one year extension of time
r to permit the operation of an existing business in a residenoe and storage
o~ equipment and vehiales at 1829 South Mountain View Avenue as granted
originall.y 3n Verianoe No. 1372, said time limitation to expire June 26,
1966. Commissioner Camp seoonded the motion. MOTION CARftIED.
~ 9DJOURNMF',NT - Tl;ere being no further business to disauss, Co~issioner Rowland o.ffered a
'. motion to ad3ourn the maeting. Co~i.ssioner Allred seoonded the motion.
MOTION CARRI.EED.
The mestieg ad~ourned at 6:00 o'clook p.m.
Re~peatfully submitted,
~ '
A~~
KRE9S, Seor ry
Anaheim Ci~iy Planning Commission
" il
i
`.
F:
~ ..
~~
r
r
~ \
~.~ ~
~ ~
~ ~~
C