Minutes-PC 1965/07/19i
MINCiTES, CIT7C PLANN'.ING COh~ISSIOft, July 19, 1965 2657
CONDITIONAL USE - No one appeared in opposition.
PERM.IT N0. 690
(Continued) THE I~r;ARING W9S CLOSED.
Planning Supervisor Robert Miakelson revieWed for the Commission the repori by the traffic
engineer noting that the proposed access to Bsiells Avenue was located opposite the entrance
to the stadium, and Was aonsidered the most logical since traffia aould be controlled either
~ manuallp or mechanically in a more efficient manner emanating Prom subject property and the
stadium.
Considerable disoussion was held by the Co~ission relative to the proposed use being com-
patible to the M-1 Zone, the influenae the stadium had on pro3eated development adjacent to
it, the commeraial uses which were not aompatible to the M-1 Zone or to the co~ercial-
reareat3on area whiah might be eatended to inalude the stadium, and the fact that subject
petition would have to be considered as one package in order to determine whether or not
it Was a aompatible use.
Co~issioner Gauer offered Resolutlon No. 1700, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passag~
and adoption, seaonded by Co~issioner Camp, to grant Petition for Condi.tional Use Permit
No. 690, subject to conditions, as being a complimentary to the existing uses already or
proposed to be established in the area.(See Resolution Book)
On roll aall the foregoing resolution was passed by the foilowing vote:
AYES: COME~ISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Geuer, Mungall.
NOES: COME~ISSIONEFtS: Herbst, Perry, Rowland.
ARSENP: CO~~dISSIONERS: None.
VARI.AN~E N0. 1718 - PUBLIC HEARING. ISIDRO MARIN, 313 7Pest 3anta Ana Street, Anaheim,
California, Owner;requesting ~vaiver of (1) MZNIMU~L YARD REQU~ITS,
(2) 1~~~~ UNIT ~7AOR AREA, (3) MIN~IIM NQMBER OF PAR.KII~1G SPACES,
and (4) INCLOSED CA~2PORTS on property described as: A rectangularly
shaped paroel of land with a frontage of approaimately 65 Yeet on the north side of Santa Ana
5treet and a maximum depth o£ approaimately 138 feet, the eastern boundary of said property
being approximatel.y 162 feet west of the aente:^Zine of Clementine Street, and further describ-
ed as 313 INest Se.nta Ana Street. Property presently classified as R-2, MULTIPLE Fp~v
RESTDENTIAi, ZONE.
Mr. Isidro Me.rin,the petitioner, appeared before the Co~ission and requested that all
prooeedings on Petition for Variance N~. 1718 be terminated.
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to terminate all prooeedings on Petition for Variance
No. 1718 as requested by the peiitioner. Commissioner Rowland seaonded the motion.
MOfiION CARRIED.
CONDTTIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. VOGE, INCORPORATED, 7601 C:enshaw Boulevard, Los Angeles,
PEFiMI.~ N0. 723 Californis, Owners; L. M. MORRICAL, 1782 9Pest Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim,
California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A SEHV~CE STATION
WI'!'HIt3 75 FF+E~ OF RESIDENPIAI+LY ZOI~D PRO~ER.TX AI3D NOT AT Tf~ SNTERSECTION
OF TWO ARTERIAL STREETS on property described as: An irregularly shaped parael. of le.nd
located at the southwest aorner of State College Boulavard and South Street, with frontages
of approzi.mately 166 feet on State College Boulevard and approximately 197 feet on South
Street. Property presently alassified C-1, Genaral Commeroial, Zone.
Mr. L. M. Wordon, representing the Riahfield Oil Company, appeared before the Commission and
reviewed the proposed development noting that a ranch type service station aompatible with
the existing residential development in olose proximity was proposed; that the 50-foot parael
to the west would act as a buffer and would not be developed pre~ently; that a large planter
area was proposed between the servioe station site and Stete College Soulevard, and that by
plaoing a serviae station at that aorner this would open up the corner for bettor ve.iioular
viewing of said interseation.
~
In response to Commi.ssion questioning relative to tho westerly "buffer strip" of 55 feet,
Mr. Wordon stated the proposed six-foot masonry wall would be oonstructed ad~acent to the
existing R-A paroel to the west, but that no improvement was planned for that portion of
th~ site under consideration, and if the Commission desired, the masonry wall would be
extended along South Street to enclose that portion of the property facing the residences
on the north side oP South Street.
__. . _ __ __ _ ._.. _ _
`_ _ _ ~ -- ----+.....ro
._. ~ -' .. .,~;
F: •..-.:~1~
MINIIl`ES, CII`Y PLANN=NG COME~.ISSION, July 19, 1965
2658
CONDITIONAL USE - Lir. C. D. Anderson, 1919 Fast South Street, sppeared before the Co~ission
PER~sIT N0. 723 in opposition to sub,ject petition and stated that the interseotion of South
(Continued) Street and State College Blvd. was not signalized because it did nat repre-
sent a four-aorner intersection, that the proposed use would add to an
already heavily traveled residential street; that ahildren were already subjeated to danger
at the interseation when trying to oross either South Street or State College Blvd. to attend
school; that when the property was originally realassified to the C-1 Zone oonsideration Was
given to the possibility of a serviae station for that corner, and Was the reason the Council
required deed restriations limiting the use to medical and professional use only, and that
these deed restriotions should be reaffirmed by the Co~ission and City Counail.
Zoning Supervi~or Robert Miakelson advised the Commission that d~ed restriotions plsoed on
subjeot property oould be amended through publia hearing before the City Council.
Mr. G. N. Kluthe, 831 South State Colloge Blvd., appeared before the Commission and stated
he mas one of the original petitioners who had requested C-1. Zoning, and that at the public
. hearing in order to obtain the requested zoning the petitioners agreed that only light com-
mercial uses would be permitted, and promised the neighbors and the City Council that no
servioe station would be erected at that intersection; that there was adequata facilities
for automobiles on State College Blvd., but more office facilities were needed, and he wa~
unalterably opposed to construction of a service station on subjeot property.
Mr. Michael Toohey, 1605 East South Street, appeared in opposition Fsnd stated that the
traffio would increase on Sou'' Street if subject petition were approved, and if the traffio
beaame much heavier it would be necessary tu have a school arossing guard hired to prevent
ahildren being injured, and that an extra school. crossing guard wes not justified by psrmit-
ting a serv.ice station on subject property.
Mr. John Rerwin, owner of the property immediately adjaaent to the west of subject property,
called the "buffer strip", that he had reviewed the plans and noted that an entranae vras
being proposed i~ediately adjaoeiit to the masorny wall, making the station quite visible
from the single family homes, since 55 feet of open space which in a11 likelihood would not
be improved aould afford a mae.ns of viewing the station from South Street with its tire racks
peat moss, etc.,and that he was unalterably opposed to subject petition.
In rebuttal, Mr. VPordon stated that if the entire westerly portion were enclosed with a
masonry wall this should reduce much of the opposition, that Prom evidence compiled by the
State it was determined that a serr-ice station presented a more open appearance thus making
it safer in respect to pedastrian and vehicular traffia than if a business structure wers
built.
Ten persons indicated their presence in the Council Chamber in opposition.
In response to Commission questioning, Office Engineer Arthur Daw stated that he had not
seen any plans for possible signalization of South Street and State College Boulevard.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Discussion ~nas held by the Commissioii as to the compatibillty of the proposed use, the fact
that subject zoning was granted with deed restrictions limiting the uses to medical-profes~-
ional. only,and that the City did have an obligation to the residents in the area in reaffi.rm-
ing their po~ition as ',o the recorded deed restrictions.
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1702, Series 1965-66, and moved fo.r its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Perm.it
No. 723, based on the facts that the proposed use would impede traffic at an intersection
not oonsidered two arter~.el streets, thet ti.ed restriations were a condition of approval for
the eaisting C-1, Zone,and that the use would be imcom;~tible to the residential uses estab-
lisi~od in close proximity to subjeat property.(See Resolution B~ok)
On roll call the fore~ ing resolution was passed by the foll.owing vote:
AYES: CO~dMISSIONPRS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Ro~land, Mungall.
NOES: CO2dMISS20NERS: None.
' ~ ABSENT: CO~SSIONERS: None.
~
~
MINL^FES, CITY' PLANNING COM~ISSION, July 19, 1965 2659
GONDITIONAL USE - PLTBLIC HEARING. MARy T, HUND, 241 South Loara Street, Anaheim, California,
PIIiMIP N0. 722 Owner; E. V. GAL7~, 817 North Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Agent;
requesting permission to ESTABLISH A SPF~CH AND LANGtiAGE Tf~RApY CLINIC,
WITH WAIY'ERS OF MTtlrr~rtn~r ~A 9ND LOT VPIDTH OF AN R-A PARCEI~ on property
described as: A reatangulaxly shaped parael of land aith a frontage of approximately 82 feet
on the west side of Loara Street and a maximum depth of approximately 131 feet, the southern
boundary of said property being approaimately 312 feet north of the centerline of YPest
Broadvray, and further described as 241 South Loara Street. Property classified R-A,Agricult-
ural, Zone.
' Dd:r. E. V. Gault, agent for the petitioner appeared bofore the Commission and reviewed the
proposed use of an existing residence Por the proposed use, and in response to Gommission
qu.estioning stated that the clinic operated on an :ndividuri teaching basis and no more than
two to three students would be at the clinio at one time.
b4rs- ~rladys Glaason, 32:i Hillview Drive, appeared before the Commission and stated that she
was the assistant director of the ~peeoh therapy cliniq that the agent had attempted to do
the"leg work"for hor; that no 5tate permit or special supervision was necessary because they
were a• priv8tely operated non-profit organization controlled by e board of direr,tors; that
all the teachers were certified speech therapists, but ware not certified to teach in the
public schools by the State; and that if any struotural changes were desired by the City, all
i necessary changes would be made to bring the structure up to Code requii•ements.
No one appeared in opposition.
~ ;F~ HEARING WAS CLOSED.
t
I.
~ Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1701, Series 1965-66, and moved for it~ passage
~ s.nd adoption, seconded by Co~issioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Conditional T'~se Permit
i No.722 sub,ject to conditi.ons.(Sea Resolution Book)
,~~ On roll call the fcregoing resolution was passed by the folloWing vote:
~I AYES: COMM.ISSIONERSe A1].red, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungali.
' N'OES: QOM~SSIONERS: None.
ASSENT: .^,OMALI:SSIOi~,RS: None.
~OND'1~I:ONAi, USE - i ~BLIC HEAR1l~IG. B[J'ILER b HARBOUR INCORPORATED, AND ADOLPH 3,^,HOEPE,
PERM~"T rJ, ?2~i 2.283 VPest Linaoln Avenue, Anaheim, CaliPornia, Owners; requast•ing parmiss-
ion to ESTABLISH A TVPO STORY MU.LTIPLE FAMILY PLANNED RESTD~NTIAL DEVELOP-
Z'ENTAT2VE EdAP OF EsENT VPITH YPAIVE°.S OF (1) WAXIMUId HEIGHT OF BUILAISIGS WII'HIN 150 F'EEI' OF
fiRAC~T N0. 5988 ANi R-A OR SINGI,E FAMILY RESIDEI~IAL ZONE, (2) MTNTtittrf.~r Y'ARD /:F ~,A AND D:TMEN
SIONS, (3) MINIf~UM DISTANCE BEr-IEEN STRUCTL'RE WALLS on property described
as: An irregularly shaped paroel of land of approximetely 10.7 acrAS,
with a frontage of approxime,tely 528 feet on the north side of Orangethorpe kvenue and a mexi
mum depth of approzimately 779 Peet, the western boundary of said property being approximatel
1430 feet from ~he centerline of Highlaz~d Avenue. Property presently alassified R-1, One
Family Residential. Zone.
'I DEVEI,OPER: PUTLER 3 HARBOUR, TNCORPORATED, 228~ VPest Linooln Avenue, Anaheim, Californis.
I ~NGINEER.: JENNINGS, HALDF,RMAN, HOOD, 1833 East 17th Street, Suite 200, Santa Ana, Calif.
1 Sub,ject traot loasted southerly of Orchard Brive and i~ediately north of Orangethorpe
i A~enue and containing approxima,tely 10.6 aores, is proposed for subdivision into 85 R-2,
i Multiple Family Residential Zoned lots.
' Mr• Jack G. Cochran, repres=~nting Butler d, Harbor Ino. appeared before the Commission and
reviewed the proposed deve_ eni, noting that the reoommendations of approval in regard to
the tentative traat v~,-e a table to the petitioners mith the ezaeption of one, which the
engineer mould dis~,~;~ aith _ e Commis^_'_on.
Zoning Supervisor Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that since the staff report had
~ been written it had been eetermined that an additional waiver would be necessary since the
the lots were of less dimension and area than the R-2 Zone allowed beasuse sub,ject develop-
' ment was proposed as a planned development rather than the normal R-2 subdivision.
- Mr. Hugh Halderman appeared before the Commission and requested that the requirement of
„t~ sidewalks elong the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue be deleted from the recommended condi-
tions, because a wall and the proposed landscaping would be much more pleasing and, therefore
~, i;~e sidewalks would be unnecessary for the occasional pedestriaii.
MZNUTES, CITY PLANNING CO~ISSTON, July 19, 1965
;i~~
:~~
,
2660
CONDITIONAL 'JSE - The Commission advised Mr. Halderman that waiver of the required sidewalks
PERMIT N0. 726 aould only be grazted by the City Council, but sinoe a ne~v school was prc-
posed to the north of subject property and no sidewalks existsd, the
TENTATNE 1dAP OF recommended sidewalks seemed to be necessary; further, the property to the
TRACT N0. 5988 east was required to install sidewalks for pedestrian purposes, and ahil-
(Continued) dren would be using these sidewalks so that bussing would not be necessary
for the children from the various nearby tracts.
In response to Commission questioning, Office Engineer Arthur Dau• stated that at the Interde-
partmental. Committee meeting Mr. Halderman had also voioed the same opposition, but the
Direator of Pub13a Works and other oity representatives were of the opinion that it was vital
to have the sidewalks, since feW of the pedestrians from other than subject tract would be
utilizing the sidewalks within the wall of the tract, ~thus sub3ecting the childran to the
hazards of fast moving traffic sinoe they would be walking alongside the =treet.
Co~issioner Gauer offered a motion to approvs Tentative ~dap of Tract No. 5948, subject to
the following conditions:
1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 5988 is granted subjeoi: to the
approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 726.
2- That should this subdivision be devel.oped as more thar one subdivision, each su~-
divi.sion theraof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval.
3. That Lot No. 85 shall be designated on the final tract map as a non-buil.dable lot For
recreational uss only.
4. That the intersections of the "serviae way" shall conform to Staadard Plan No. ]30.
5. That the alignment of "drainage right-of-way" shall be approved by the Orange County
Fl.ood Control. Diatrict.
. 6. That the sidewfllKS shsll be installed along Orangethorpe Avenue, a:: required b;; t.ha
~ City Enginser and in accordance with standard plans and spacifications on file in
, the offlce of the City Engineer.
7. That the developer`s responsibility for paving Orangethorpe Avenue shall extend to
twenty (20) feat from the face of the curb.
8. That reasonable landscaping, including irrigation fecilities, shall be installad
in the uncemented portion of the parkway along Orangethorpe Avenue in acca~dan~e
; with plans approved by the Superintendent of Parkway Maintensnce. Following
installation and acoeptanae, the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility
~ for maintenanoe of said landscaping.
9. That traffic regulatory signs shell be installed as required by the City Engineer.
G
10. That the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions ~hall be submitted to aaid approvad
by the City Attorney's office prior to City Council approval oP the Final Tract ~Ee,p
and, f.urther, that the approved Covenants, Conditions, and Restriotions shall be
reoorded ooncurrently with the final tract map.
i '
~
'~ ~
Co~issioner Perry seoonded the motion. MOTION CARRIET.
TI~ HEARING YPAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 1703, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and
adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No.726
subjeat to conditions and an additional finding that the waiver of the required lot and width
of the R-2 Zone be waived based on the £e.ot that the proposed traat was a planned develop~ent
rather than the normal R-2 subdivision.i~ee Resolution Book)
On roll aall the foregoing resolution was passed by the followiiig vote:
AYES: CO~E6ISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gsuer, Herbst, Perry, Row]a nd, Mungall.
NOES ~ COM~6ISSIONEt~: :. None.
~asEnrr~- co~sszo~xs: x~za.
€
u.,:.;~fiES, CIT7C PLANNING COMMISSION, July 19, 1965 2661.
;. ~-=~
~~ ,
f.'E ~S
.~.
:~ ,
;,l ~*
:~
E ~--
~ -
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC I~ARING. HELLEN 5PRINKL~, 205 Mills Drive, Anaheim, California,
PERMIT N0. 727 Owner; GANAHL Li]MBER CONSTRUOTION COMPANY, 501 East Linaoln Avenue, Anaheim
California, Agent; requesting permission to EXPAND AN EXISTING REST HOMG
WITH 9PAIVER OF MINIML'M REGUIRED PARKING on property described as: A
r~ctangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 55 feet on the north sid~
of ~ills D^ive and a meximum depth of approsimetely 135 feet, the western boundary of said
property being approxime,tely 84 feet east of the aentorline of Claudina Street, and further
described as 205 Mills Dr~ve. Property presently alassified R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY' RESIDEN'.I`IAL
ZONEe ~
Mrs. Hellen Sprinkle, the petitioner, appeared before the Co~.ission and reviewed the proposei
addition to an eaisting rest home. In response to Commission questioning stated that she had
operated the home for four years;that she was lice~:sed to operate the rest home for eight
persons; that she was providing spe,ae Por two additional persons; and that all of the rest
home residents were ambulatory.
No one appeared in opposition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1704, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
s,nd adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit
No. 727, subject to conditions.(See Resolution Book)
On roil call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AY'ES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Geuer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall.
NOEB: CO~ISSIONERS: None.
ABSEIV':': COMMISSIONERS: None.
COPIDI•TIONAL US~ - PUBLIC HEARINGo INTTIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING CO~EMISSION, 204 East
PERMi`I',90. ?28 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. St. Catherine's MilLtary School., Inr,,.
~ 215 North Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Owner; proposing to permit
the ERPANSIOAt OF Ah EXISSING EDUCATIONAL FACILITY INCLUDING ADDITTONAL CLA°.SROOM FACILi'PIES,
DOR~i•T.OR:LES, OFF:LCES, CAMPANILE, AND OTf~'R ACCESSORY BUILDIlVGS REQUIRED BY A PRNA'I'E ELE1rF~N-
TARY AND H'I3H SOHOOL on property described as: Three rectangularly shapei parcels of land
desaribed as folloMS: PARCEL N0. 1- having frontages of approximately 35~ feet on Harbor
Boulevard, and approaiu:.qtely 339 feet on Cypress Strset e.nd on Chartres Street; FARCEL NOo ?
ad,jscent to and west of Pai•cel No. 1 aith frontages of approzimately 356 feet on Cypress
Street and on Chartres Street; and PARCEL N0. 3- composed of two sections, the northernmost
being west and ad~aoent to P+~,rcel No. 1, with frontages of approsimately 95 feAt on Cyprs:~
Straet and approximately 272 feet on Resh Streat, and the southernmost being the northeast
c orner of Resh Straet and epproximately 117 feet on Chartres Street, and furthor described
as 21.5 North Harbor Boulevard. Property presontly alassified R-3, MULT~IFLE FAMILY RESTAEN'^IA:
ZOI1E.
No one appeared to represent the property owner.
No one appeared in opposition.
'1'f~ HEARafG -YAS CL(1SED.
Cc~tissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 17J5, Series 1965-66, and rs~ovod for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Cou~issioner Herbsk, ~.~ grant Petition Por Conditional Use Permii;
No. 728, subject to oonditions.(See Resolution Book)
Cn roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vate:
AYES: CWd~IISS20NERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall.
NOES: COM~dISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COE~AISSIONERS: None.
~
; '
MZNUi'ES, GITY PLANNING COMS62SSION, July 19, 1965 ~ 2662
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIO EIDARIAiG• CaI,YAAY FIRST BAPTI3T CHURCH, 701 VPest 9roadsvay, Anaheim,
PER~'P N0. 729 California, O~vner; requesting permission to ES~ABLISH SUNDAY' CHURCH SCHOOL
CLASSES 9 CHOIR R+T'H~:ARSA7~C ~ I~'~RAR7[ ~ AND SOY SCOUT b~LTINGS IN AN ERISI`ING
Mif'71PIPLE FAMILY. ",TRUCTIIRE desaribed as: A generally reatangularly shaped
paroel oP 7e,nd with s frontage o~' approaimately 56 feet on the north side of Broadwey and a
maaimum deptr o;' approxi.~tely 15g feet, the west boundary of sa"a proper:.y being approa3-
me,tely 280 feet eest of the aenterllns of Citron Street, and £urther desaribed as 627 ~Yest
Broadvrey. Property presently olassified R-2, MUI,TIPLE FAM].:Y RESIDENTIAL, ZOI1E.
~~y~ Mr. Ralph Young, a member of the church board, appeared before i;he Co~ission and stated he
Was available to answer questions.
In response to Co~ission questioning, Mr. Young stated that it was proposed to utilize the
garage for Boy Scout meetings; that the building formerly aonsisted of a 4-unit apartment
building; that the proposed use would be an eatension of the eaisting Sunday School facilitie;
and that the struature was built in 1949 and provided fire escapes.
No one appeased in opr.osition.
THE HEARZNG -~AS CLOSED.
anc~e,~op~~on,Aseaond°edf~y Co~°ss~oner Herbst~to grsntsPetition~YordConditional1LTsePerm~it
No. ?29, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book)
On roll aall the ;oregoing resolution wes passed by the following vote:
AYES: CO~GMISSIONERS: Alired, Cemp, Gauer, Perry, Rowland, Herbst, Mungall.
NOES: CO1d~5ISSI0NERS: None.
ABSENi: COMMISSIONERS: None.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBI~C HEARING. LESTER E. MOFFIT, 2551 West Ball Road, Anaheim, Cal.if.,
N0. 65-66-15 Owner; requesting thst property desaribed as: A reotangularl.y shspsd
parael of land with a frontage of appruaimately 111 feet on the north sida
of Ball Road and a maximum depth of approximetely 183 feet, the western
boundary of said property being approximately 479 feet east of ~the centerline of Magnolia
Avenue, and further described as 2551 Wes~ Ball Road be realassified from the R-A,AGR:LCUIfiT,RA
ZONE to the C-1, GENERAL COMMERCI9L, ZONE to ESTABLISH A GIF1 AND HOBBY SHOP IN AN ERIS:`ING
STRUCTURE.
Mr. I~~ter Moffit, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that the proposec
use of subject property cvould be the same as that which has ezisted sinae the struature was
built by him in 1944, and that since ho proposed to sell his property, the prospeativs owner
slso wished to establish a hobby shop in the esisting structure.
No one appeared in opposition.
TIi~ HEARING VCAS CLOSID.
Co~issioner Camp offered Resolution tdo. 1707, Series 1965-66, e.nd moved for its passage
and adoption, seaonded by C~ommissioner Allr3d, to reoommend to the City Council thct Petition
for Realassifioation No. 65-G6-15 be approvad sub3eot to aonditions. (See Resolution Book)
On roll aall the foreguing resolution was passed by the folloWing vote:
AYES: COARSISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rovrland, Mungall.
NOES: CO~LMISSIONERS: None.
ABSEI~Pr: CODeIA~CSS20NEFiS: None.
~; RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HP~AIiING. IN^TIA"~'E%D BY THE CITY PLANNING I:OMM2SS20N, 204 East
N0. 65-66-17 i,inooln Avenue, Ana,heim, California proposing a ohi~.nge in the interim
~' ~ zoning for the zorbr~ Anneaation to permanent zoning on property described
'~ as: The Yorba Anneaation, an irregularly shaped area of land aonsisting
of approaimately 722 aares, or approaimately 1.13 square miles, and Whiah is generally orient
' ed With Lincoln Avenue on tY.a south, ths Rivarside and the Imperial Highway through the
~ * oentral portions, and Ore.ngethorpe Acenue and Orchard Road in the northern porti~ns.
~~ ~
e,{ TrrrF;R~rut CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY: R-A, AGRTOULTURAL, ZONE, R-E, RESIDENTIAL ESTA2ES, ;Ol~
~' M-1, LIGHT IDIDUSTRIAL, ZONE, R-1, ONE FA3~LY RESIDEN`I'IAL
~. ZONE, R-0, ONE FAMII,Y SUBURBAN, ZONE.
~IMJTES, CI?Y PI~ANATING COMEQISSION; Tuly 19, 1965
~. ,~~:~
2663
RECLASSIFICATION - PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION: R-A, AGRICU~IPURAL ZONE; R-1, ONE FAMILY
N0. 65-66-17 RESIDENTIAL, ZONE; R-E~ RESIDENTSAL
(Continued ) ESTATES , ZOIQE
Planning Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski reviewed a report to the Commission relative to the
boundaries of the Yorba Anneaation, the completion of the annesation in l~ugust, 1964, and
the establishment of interim zoning as depicted on Exhibit "A" yhich the City Council
established by ordinance in 1964 together with reoo~endst3ons of the proposed permanent
zoning noting that 57% oP the land was vaoant 29% in orange groves 10$ in homas and the
balance in miscellaneous uses. It was also noted that the proposed permanent zoning which
indicated R-A for a portion loaeted in the Atwood Cone area could have a resolution of
intent to rezone it to M-1 as was done on other portions of the northeest industrial ares;
that the Anaheim General Plan and the proposed Hill and Canyon General Plan both indicated
this area for industrial purposes.
Tn reviewing t5e proposed 2oning for:Parcel No. 1 its location w~s noted as north of
Oran~tethorpe Avenue and had an interim zoning of R-1 and the propossd zoning was 8~=o for
ft-1 since an R-1 subdivision ~ras already developed, Parcel No. 2 was located north oY' the
Santa Ana Canyon Road and had int3rim and proposed zoning of R-1, since an R-1 subdivision
was already developed; Parael No. 3 was located betueen tho Nohl ranch and the Peralta Hi??.~
and was proposed to remain zoned in the R-E Zone in confortaanco xi~: a Yc~~cy a~iabli;hed
by resolution of the City Council for the Peralta Hills area to be reclassified to the R-E,
Res:i^lential Estates, Zone upon anneation to the City of Anaheim; Parcel No. 4 had interim
zoning of R-A and permanent zoning of R-A, although a zoning action requesLing R-2, which
the Commission had recommended to the City Council for R-1 and would be heard before tha
City Counail. on August 17, 1965; Parcel No. 5, had interim and permanent zoning of R-A S, R-0
although a resolution of intent to rezone to R-1 was pending and said zoning would be estab-
lishad upon completion of the required conditions; Parcel No. 6, had interim Ed-1 and R-A
zoning and it was proposed to place it into the R-A, Zone with a resolution of intent to the
M-1 Zone, since it was part of the industriel area ~rnown as the Atwo~d Cone, said resolution
' of intent to be initiated at public hearing at .~ later date by the Commission; Parcel No. 7-
. was located on both the east and west sides of Imperial Highway south of tha Santa Ana River
and was proposed for permanent zoning to R-A, although a resolution of intent to the C-1 Zona
, was a1.so pending: Parcel No. 8- had interim zoning of R-0 and proposed f'or R-A, Zoning a.l-
though a resolution of intent to rezone to C-1, General Commercial, Zone was pending and was
- in conformance ~rith the ma,ster plan of the Yorba family; Parcel No. 9- had interim zoning
of R-C and propo~ed for R-A, Zoning although a resolution of intent to rszone to C-0, Com-
marcial Office, Zone was pending; and Parcel No. 10 - was the romeindar of the proper•ty with
inter•im and. proposed permanent zoning to R-A, Agricultural Zone.
A number of interested property owners of sub,ject properties appaared before the ~'.ommission
and requested further clarificetion of their individuel properties.
~ ?dr. Albert J. Yorba,representing the Yorba family,appeared before the Commission and stated
he was informed by the County Planning Staff that his property was classified in the ¢~ultiple
j family residential zone, this being property south of the Southorn California Edison easement
In response to Commission questioning, Mr. Grudzinski stated that at the time the interim
zoning was established ~he Staff had contacted the County Planning staff and had been inform-
ed that Mr. Yorba's property was A-1 or R.-A as designated in the City of Anaheim, and that
he would further researah records to determine if this multiple ~emily designation had been
an oversight.
The Co~ission advised Mr. Yorba, that regardless of the zoning being esi,ablished he mould
alaays have tlie opportunity to request another zone upon the filing of a petition for
realassifying his property.
TI~ HEARING WAS CIASID.
Mr. Grudzinski advised the Co~ission that multiple Pamily dev~lopment was not permitted in
the A-1 County zone nor was it permitted in the R-A, Agriaultural Zone of tho City of Anaheia
Co~.issioner RewZand offered Resolution No. 1708, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passege
and adoption, secanded by Co~issioner Herbst, to reoammend to the Citq Council that perman-
ent zoning be established by approving Reolassifiaation No. 65-66-17 as follows: Portion
~ Nos. 1, 2, and 3 R-A, A~RICULTITRAL ZONE; Portion No. 4 R-1, ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZOAiE;and
~. Portion No. 5, R-E, RESIDEN'PIAL ESTATES, ZONE; Yurther that Portion No. 2 have reclassifica-
~ tion prooeedings initiate3 realassiPyin~ said property through a resolution of intent to
„~ M-1, Light Industrial, Zone, and that the Commission reaffirms that those properties o:i whiaY
~ previous resolutions of intent ivere established as being the highest and best use of the land
, (Sos Resolution Book)
~
,
MINL~ES, CITY PLANNING OOM[~ISSION, July 19, 1965 2660.
RECLASSIFICATION - On roll call the foregoino resolution vva,s passed by the folloaing vote:
N0. 65-66-17
• (Continued) AYES: CO1~E2SSIOI~RB•: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, RoWland,
Mungall.
NOES; COMB~ISSIONERS; None.
ABSEN'i: C0~~6ISSIONEAS: None.
, REC?ASSIFICATIQN - PUBLIC HEARING, LETTg gRIGGS~ P. 0. Box 297, Palos Verdes, Californie,
N0. 0~-56-14 Owner; BENSON REALTY, 1803 North Old ~stin Avenue, Santa Ana, California,
;i""~'~ Agent; property described as: A reotangulariy shaped pa.rcel of land
;f , CON~ITIONAL "JSE looes~~d at ths northeast corner of %atella Avenue and Nutwood Street, with
~~ PER~EZP N0, 724 frontages oi snproximately 24E feet on Katella Avenue and approaima,tely
140 ~eet on Nutwood Street, and further desoribed as 1885 Katella Averrue.
~ Property presently olassii'isd R-A, A~iRICULICLTRAL ZONE.
~ REQL~SfiED CLASSIEICATION: C-1, C.~:nrH'.RA7, COMMERCIAL, Z01~.
i
i _, E~Qu~STElI CONDI7IOA[AL ti'SE: ~STABI~ISH A SEHITICE STATION 14ITHIA( 75 ~'EEI' OF RE3IDII~tI'I:AL•L•Y
i ZOI~D PROPER.TY AND NOT AT THE INT-RSECTION OF TIAO FiR.~'ER.IA;:
' STREErS, VP1fiH WANER OF THE MAXIMU~4 SIGN HEIGHT AND PR.OJF7CfiI0N
I OF SIGN INTO PUBLIO RIGHT OF 1YAY.
Mr. Robert Marshall, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commissio
and reviewed the proposed request, noting that C-1 Zoning had been granted through a rssol.u-
tion of intent by tho City Counoil on May 31, 1960, but that the petitioner requested the~t
the realassiPication be terminated on J'une 12, 1962; that the VPestway Petrolsum Company ~a,s
proposing to ereot a hacisnda-type serviae station, which Would be architecturally compatib:,.a
with the surrounding single family homes; that coa~ercial facilities existed to the east of
sub~ect property; and that a rssidenoe on sub,ject property ~as vace,nt for some time due to
the feat that the noise Prom trafPio mede it unfeasible to use it Por residential purposss.
It was also noted that the reaommended conditions cf appr~val met with the oil company's
approval.
; The Commission reviaWed the aolored rendering presented by the petitioner and inquired iP
_ the service station wou.ld occupy the entire 248 foot width of the property. Mr. Marshali.
replied that it was proposed to take the full depth of the property but leave tha easterly
94 feet whioh might later he developed Por a U-Totum me,rket.
Mr. Charles Adams, 1870 Tamerac, appeared tefore the Commission in opposition and stated
his property bsaked to sub~eot property, and rvith the prevailing winds all types of offensive
odors mould ema.nate aoross the proposed 6-foot masonry wall, making their patio and rear yard
unfit for outdoor leisure living; further the 0_1 oode permitted the repair of automobiles
in a serviae station s•hich Would be totally inaompa,tible to the residentiel uses established
to the north beoause of the excessive noise which such repair work had, and that it was
proposed to have the service station loao.ted directly opposite single family homes fronting
on Nutwood Street.
~ Mr• Marshall, in rebuttal stated that the Westway Petroleum Company did not permit the repair
C of automobiles at their service stations.
E
~ I}isaussion are,s held by the Co~ission relative to the requested sign variances proposad_
t
~ THE HEARTNG WAS CLOSED.
~ ;
~ Discussion was oontinued by the Commission relative to the compatibility of service station=
at tha interseation of an arterial and a collector street, and whether a precedent would be
~I set if sub3eat petiticn Was approved, that commeraial development had oaourred on both sidAs
I of Katella Avenue; ana that the Code did not permit the establishment of a service station on
, ~ other than the intersection of two arterial streets.
Co~issioner Rowland ofPered Resulution No. 1709, ~aries 1965-66, and movad for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to reao~end to the City Council that Petition
.,~~
for Reolassifioation No. 65-66-14 be approved sub~sot to oonditions.(See Resolution Book)
~ ~ On roll oall the foregoing resolution was passed by the fol'lo~ing vote:
i -
~ AYES: COI~ISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, (}auer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall.
~~ NOES: COE~ISSIONERS: None.
i "~ ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: None.
:' ~ i
C
MZNU'.PES, CITY PI•ANN'II~IG CO~SSION, July 19, 1965
2665
RECI,ASSIFICATION - Co~issioner Camp offered t~ motion to approva Conditional L'se Permit
N0. 65-66-14 No. 724 for the serviae station only and deny the rsquest for waivor
of the height of the sign and pro~eation of the sign. Co~i.ssioner
COI~TIDITTONAL USE Herbst seaonded the motion. On roll call +he foregoing resolution
PERMIT N0. 724 Pailed to pe,ss by the folloWing vote:
A~'ES: COhUuQS~IONERS: Camp, Herbst, Mungall.
, NOES: COM~ISSIOI~RS; Allred, Gauer, Perry, Rowland.
~~~ Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 1710, Series 1965-66, and moved for its prsssage
i! and adoptioa, seoonded by Co~issioner Perry to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit
t~ No. 724 be.sed on the fact that the serviae station Wa,s not looatsd at tha intersaation of
~~ two arterisl streets, that the servioe statiun would be incompat3ble to the existing rasiden-
~ t3a1 development est~zblished in close proximity; and that it would be detrimental to the
paaoe,heelth,and ge:leral welfare of the residents in alose proximity to subject property.
I (See Resolution Book)
i
! On roll. call the foregoing ^esolution was passed by the following vote:
I. AY'ES; CO~d6~ISS20NERS: Allred, Gauer, Perrp, Rowland.
I NOES; CO~SSZONERS: Camp, Herbst, Mungall.
1
i ABSEM~: CO~ISSIOI~RS: None.
~ RECESS - 6ommissioner Rowland offered e motion to reaess the meeting for 10 minutes.
~ Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. T~he meeting recessed
~ e.t 3;55 p.m.
I
! RECONVENE - Chairman Mungall reconvened the mseting at 4:05 p.m. all Commiseioners bsing
i .. present.
, I ~ RECLAS~IFICATION - PUBLIC HEAR~rG, VPINDERT MANUF'ACTURa1G TRADING 6 INYESTMEI~TI'S, P. 0. EOR
ME
~ KOo 65-66-16 35112, Los Angeles 25, California - Parael No. 1; EDVPARD L•, b E'IA I~. BA~(v,
' >03 East Linoo:Ln Avenue, Anaheim, Californis, Parcel No. 2, Ownersy BENSON
'{ ~_ GOT1D~'IONAL USE REAL•I^l, 1803 North Old Tustin Avenue, Se,nta Ana, California, Agent.;propart;
:~ PERMZT AIO. 725. described as: Two reotangularly shaped parcels of land with a totz.': and
'~ combinod frontage oY approaimately 156 feet on the north side of Linccl_n
Avenua: Parael No. 1 being a ractangularly shaped parael located et, the
; northwest corner of Linooln Avenue and~Vine Street, with frontages of approximately 100 fset
on Lincoln Avenue and approximately 133 feet on Vine Street; Paroel No. 2 bein a rectan
~:~! lerly shaped paroel dreatly wost of Parcel P1o. 1, with a frontage of approaimat~ely 56 feet
~~ 7 on the north side of L•inooln Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 133 feet. Property
~~ ° classified Paroel No. 1, C-3, HEAYY C0~6~fiCIAL, ZONE deed restrinted to a servioe station a:!3
~ ~ any C-1., veighborhood Commerciel Zoned use; Parcel No. 2, R-3, E~LR.TIPLE F~Y RESTDEN'C7AL,
F 4 zn~.
~ ~
I R~UESTEID OLASSIF'ICATION: c-i, GENb'RAT, CObIMERCIAL~ zo~
~ ~ R17qL'ESTED CONDITIONAL LTSE: PERM:IT THE ESTABT.ISFI~~NT OF A SERVICE SfiA~TON AT Tf~
INTERSECTION OF A LOCAL STRE~P AND AN ARTERIAI, HIGHWAY,
~' ~ ~ AND YYITHaI 75 F'EEP OF A RESIDENTIAL ZONE.
i
~
' No one was present to represent the peiitioner.
i
~ No one appeared in opposition.
iHE HEARrT1G WAS CLOSED.
i
I Discussion was held by the Commission as to the similarity of sub,ject conditional use permi.t
rind tiie previous one denied by the Oommission, ?~eaause subject property was Jpcated at the
intersection of a local street and a major highway, that residential development existed to
the north,south and esst, and the fact that one parcel of sub,ject property had besn granted
C-1 use on sub,ject property together with permission to establish a serviae station, and that
~~i this sotion was prior to amendment of tha C-1 Zone requiring that service stations be limited
~ to ~he intersection of two arterial streets.
~ ...~~ 1
.~ 1a~~.~z~}~ , .~:~ .~~ ~~_.~~.~~..:_~ ~.. .. .L. _..
... , _^ _.__~
._ . ~
_ . , _ . .,. _ .~. r. .n.._.. ~~~:_..~._
. .. . _ _^._._.~.~.e
. . ~:~.
~
MIIVLPPES, CITl[ PLANNING COMMiSSION, July 19, 1965 ~6F~
RECLASSIFICAT2013 - Commissioner Parry ofPered Resolu.tion No. 171.1, SeriP, ~e;5_6o, w,3
N0. 6°,-66-1b moved for its passage and ad.option, seco;~.ided by Commis:,;_o~.F.r G-~rer
to reaommend to the City Cuunoil that ~rtit°on i'~r RFOi.Qa3i.fin.:,,ion
COND7fiI0NAL USE No. 65-66-16 be appro~t3e! subject tr conditic~ns. (Ser, Rre~c>>.tI•~n Rook)
PERIC~T f10. 72~
f.Continued) On roll aall the foregt s~ rbsolution was passed. by y1~,c.~ follo~ing vote:
A'YES; COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perr~, Rowlsnd, Man~r,e~ll.
NOES: CC1MAtISSI0I~RS; Nc?ne.
Af3SEN'r. C06~:I~3r~JT~':~5: None.
Commissitmer ~„ 1r~~d offered Rosolution N;;. 1712, Series 196~~-66, and moved for its passe,ge
and adorit~..rr, sacondeZ by Co~issioner Gauer to deny Pet.ition for Cor..ditional Use Permit
No. 725 bas:+k on tt,e fact that the propo.:ed service sta'~ion would be '~ocated at tha in~.3r-
csction of a loca.l street anel an arterial highway insteed a~~ the in;;ersection of twu ar;;erial
that the p.opo:r~. as:vioe station was in clos~ ;~r~oximity to r..~idential uses already es'.ah-
l.isheu, and wou~c., thersfore, be incompetible.(;;e~ Resolutinr^Book)
On roll ca11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the fo].lowin~; vote:
AYES: CONIDAISSIONERS; Allred, Camp, Gauer, Aerbst, Perry, Rov,land, Mungall.
NOES: CO~ICISSIONr'yRS: None.
ABSENT: C:,n"m;;.SS20NERS: None.
REIGLASSIFICATI~N - PUEkIC HEAAING. I~F~LIE J. d RHODA FG-PI{E, 161]. SouLh Euclid Street,
NQ. 65-66-18 and Anaheim, Celifornia, Owners; DONAI~D, M. TARBEl:., 6914 l.e. Tijara Bouiav~:~d,
l~os Angeles 4!i, i;aiiYvrnia, Agent; proper'v desaribed as: A rectang~le;-]
V~ARTANOE N0. 1719 shaped parcal of land with a front,age of app:•nximately 88 feet on the
west side af Kat~lla Avenue and a maximm~n dep•,,h :~f approaimetel.y 100 iBnL
the northern bou der•,• o° ;qid propert:j o~~i:.g apl,-osimately 130 feet ao~_Lr.
of the centarlir ;ris Avonue, an3 fr~rthe~• describeu as 161.1 Sout,h
Euclid Street. Yr•cperty alassifi.ed R-A , AGR'LCUI~:?TRAT~ ZONE.
REQU~BT:n,D CLiSSIF2CA7`IOR: C-1, GI+~VERAL GO~:tCIAL, ZONE.
REQit~;STED 4A.RTANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) NEQU'IRED PARKING AAEA LOCATIONS, AND
( 2) MAR.~MTJM S IGN AREA,
td°. John McDor.ald, rsprssentative of the agent for the pei;itioner, appeared before the
Cc~mmi~sion and advised thsW thnt the pr^:o^+.X owner and the a~;ent were prasent; that thFl
proposed lessee of sub~ect property had been a real es•~ate broker for 30 years; tn~*, ne
had 17 offices in southorn Ce:lifornia, two of them being iocated in Orange County; that
he was intarested in establishing a branah of?tce in this c;ity at the propossd locatio:i~
that the R-A, Zone was consider~d a holdir.g zone it, the city unt11 a higher and bett~r
use could be establisned; thst sub,iec ~roperty Was lucatod on a hi.ghly travaled screet
whioh msde it imprsa~ioai for other than commor.•eial purpose~; that tii9 urop~::sd o~vners
aiit~cipated a commercia? atc~~.cture for subject nrorerty but at some f~ture datF, but
euoaemios dictated the ultima,te establishment of a commei•c3a1 struo~ture; that access to
subject property i,ad beer. discussed ~vith the Department of Highways wlio advised them to
elimineto ~ine drive azd to widen the other drive; that ho had requestea C-0, Zoning o.rig-
inally, but had been dissuaderi bv tho Plaruiin~ StafP, but tha proposed uue was 7io~ter
th.ri. most C-1 uaes, and the,t ~f tk.e Commission had !:r,~ furth~e~ questior~ t,hs ~~gent, Mr.
Ta.rhel]. uculd answer thea.
Di.saussion was held by the Commission ralative to u+.iiizing onq of the .,esi;ra~intained
r~,sidenaes on Eualid StreAt for commeroial purposes, e,nd inquirod whether or not the
~,e~itioner proposed to remove th•3 large irees and la^~dsasping in tha front yarc.
Mr. Te,rbell advised the Commissi.on that ~~ was planned to relooate some oi the palm trees
and to maintain most of the sh.rubbery, and then furthor ttdvised the Commissio, that their
offices were generally co,~struoted as a co~~era3sl building; that :,e like the lrcation,
but hoped to reduce the eac~nsive use of t~:?, shrubbery in thb front; tnat they anticip~ted
having six salesmen but not all of them would be ir, tY.e oifioe ai, ~ne time; that specisl
ssles meetings would be held at another office ~he e adequate facilitios could ta.ke car9
o£ the County-widc personnel of their ofiiae; aZd ,hat the propused c,ffioe was intended to
be 3ust a branoh offioe.
~
.~
,.
,IIN~L'T~S, CITY PLANNING CO~SSION, July 19, 1965 2667
RECLASS.'.'FICATION - No one appeared in opposition.
N0. 65-66-~18 and
TF~ HEARING VPAS CLOSED.
V'AR.IAniCEI N0. 1719
Disoussi~n vas heid by the Commission as to the appropriateness of establ.ishing commez•cial
uses in an rjrea whiah held many undeveloped parcels thus establishing a precedent if subjeat
petitions were approvrid; that if the area was to eventually be developed for commeraial
purposes a land assemb~;; program sheuld be initiated in order that a proper land use commer-
oisl shopping aenter migh- ~ developed, and that to approve sub3~ct petition would be
creai;ing spot zoning.
~~~ssione~ Allred of.fered Reso:.ution No. 1713, Series 1965-66, an1 moved fcr its passage
and sdo~tion, seaonded bp Coa~issioner Gauer to reaommend to the City Co•snail thet Petition
for Realsssit'icatiion N~. 65-66-~8 be disapproved based upon the facts that the proposed
reolassificatton wn„ld be eQi.s~iishing a preoedent for undeveloped parcels of land in close
proaimity; that ~he prcposed use to be established would present a similar undesirabl.e
appearance as that n~~^~~xisting on the west side of Brookhurst Street north of Lincol.n Avenua
that the petiticner :a,> not providing adequate parking; and that to approve subject petition
Wo•~'d be creating sn~~~t zoning.(See Resolutien Book)
G,^. roll call t•he :'oregoing resol.ution was passEd by the following vote:
A5.'ES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mn~igall.
NOES: C05~6ISSIONEI~; None.
ABSENT2 CC~~.'SSSIOPir^~RS; Nona.
~~~mmissioner fi~rbst offered Resoluti.c.• No. 1714 ,;;er' as 1965-66, n,nd moved Yor its passage
u,_d adoptlon, seoonded by Co~issionar Gauer to deny Patition for Variance No. 1?19, bassd
on the faat tk~ ~aivers are not necessary.(See iteso'.ition Lsook)
On roll oaZl the foregoing resolution was passed by the follo~ving vote:
' A~YES: COM~dISSI0I~RS: .1'_~,red, Camp~ Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungali.
- NOES COL~EL.ISSIONERS: Nor.s.
ABSENT: COl~[ISSIONERS: N~ne.
A9tIIQDl~NT TO LEGAL - PUBL2C HEARING. INITIATED Rw THE CII'1'' PLANNING CO~dMISStON, 204 Ea~t
DESCRIPLiON ~~F Lincol.n ^•tanue, Anaheiai, CF.:;.ifornis proposing an amentiment to the
RECLASSIFICA~ION boundaries of propdrty on atiinh +~ resol•,iticn of inten~ to raclassify
N0. 61-6?-Fy to the M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIdIL, 70NE w~.s approeed b;; the City Couno
~ in Resolution No. 62R-335, dated A ril 10 1962 q i
I p , and subse uent..y
amended April 24, and June 8, 1962 in the~ approvetl of.' Reclassi~ication
{ No. 61-62-E9 enaompassing properiy vit,hiri the ersa w~3st of ,J'efforso:
I; Street in the northeast industrial oa•ea by inoludinQ that portion of
the Northeast Anneaation No. 3 depictad or. the Coneral Plan for indus-
~~ trial purposea.
P]anning Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski reviewed for the Co~issiun tl e~,- ,~r trairus re~o~enda-
t:on to ti~s Staf3 t~~ set for publia hearing that portion on whinh i.n~Fi i.m ~-1 Zoning had
been astablisiied unti~. the Co~ission oonsidered pe~•manen~ zoning ,:;, ~;,iah time the Staff
.-eaommended thai; said property be maintaiae3 ia the R-d Zone, but thst a resolution of
intent to reolass~fy it to the M-1 Zone by the amer.dment to the oounda^ies of properties
inoluded in Reolasslfication No. 61-62-69 by r~aid addition Yrom the Noriheast Anneaation
1Qo. 3.
Deputy City Attorney F1xrL~e.n Roberts advised the Commissinn that after s•eviewing the legal
notioe it was determined i:hat the locatinn of tho property vvcss so general as to be open to
possible legal problems anri reoommended that s.~b,jeci, amendment to legal desoription be
oontinued and revised lega,l desaription of the 7.ocation of the propErty be sdvertised throug:
anothar reolassifioation petitton.
~~ ~ i
},.
ra
*
;r~ i
, ~x
Considerable discussion was than held by the Staff ard Mr. Roberi;s to determ.tne the most
feasible means of z•esolving the groblem.
Co~Lssionor Herbst offered a motiun to aont::nue oonsideration of the awendment to the legal
description af Reol~,ssifioation 210. 61-62-69 to the aeeting oi August 2, 1965, and dir•eatod
that a reolassifioation patition be initiated enoomprsssing the bound.3Nies prop~sed for M-1
~g~}~,~g,~of the Northesat, No. 3 Annexa~ ' in. Co~iscioner FnWlanrl seoo:~iea ;ra mot; ~n.MOTION
~ ~'^_y' S tro'..=_,u~:..~u:.a...,-.:~ ,-~...~w..-~.,,.., ~...~ ~x„„ ...,,.z.~~4<.::~. ~
..~__ ,. ~ ..1..-.. ,,.....,.
.. ' , ~eR.~..,... ~~~~.~,~.i~r.~- ~ '+~ u~- ~.
: ~ti~: ..~:ti "-~r. . ..,...._,..._....,....~..~wow
.. _ ..... ~ l . .A~... ~~ ~ ~ ~ri~
~~. ~~~. .
~
MINUfiES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Ju;, 19, 1965 26~3
REPORTS AND ITEE6 N0. 1
RECO~IDATIONS Realassifiaation No. 64-05-135 - alari3ication of intent of the
Con~ission as to findings and oonditions of approval.
~ Zoning Supervisor Robert Miakelson advised the Commission that ainoe the Co~ission had
denied the Conditional Usa Permit filed in oonjunction with ReolassiPioation No. 64-65-135,
the requirement of the masonry Wall would have to revert back to the C-1 Zone and an inter-
p:etation through a finding would be neaessary if t?-.at were so; further sinue plans of
- development would have to be changed e,nd thA Cummissioa required that the masonry v~all be
.~.::a15.~ around t:~e north ea,st and the easterly 118 feet of the south property line, it Would be
~~ neaessary to require dedication of all vehicular socess rights to Gl~n~ood Avenue and tho
~ ' easterly 118 feet of Spcamore Avenue.
i.~ ~
I Suggested amendments to Resolution No. 1676, Series 1964-65 dated June 21;. 1965 were then
~ reviewed by the Co~issicn and disau.ssion was held as to the Commis~ion°s intent in approvin;
`j sub~eat reals.ssifioation.
Co~issioner Rowland oYfered Resolution No. 1715, Series 1965-66, and moved Por its ;~assage
und adoption to recommend to the City Counail that the folloving amendments be made to
Rssolution No. 16?6, Saries 1964-65 dated June ~1, 1965 recommending approval o£ Petitior.
for Reclassification No. ti4-65-I35:
"Finding No. 7- That in order to separate the commerciaJ. use from the existinc
residential development, no waiver oP the landscaping and masonry
wail'as requi^e3 in Chaptsr 18.40 of the Anaheim Municipal Code
shall be grtui~ed.
"That vondition Nos. 11 and 13 sha~I be eliminate6.
"Phat the following condition be added:
"That all vehicular access to Glenwood Avenue and the easterly 118 feet of
Sycamore Avenue shall be dedicated to the Ci+y of Anaheim, prior to final
building inspec•tion."
~;
' 1~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the follo~ving vote:
4~!ES: CONmE2SSIC`7ERS: Al~rod, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall.
NOES: COML~SSIONERS; None.
ARSENT: CO~SSIONERS: None.
Oo~i.ssioner Rowland left the Counoil Chamber at 4:42 p.m.
I~ N0. 2
Conditional Use Permit No. 674
4Pax Museum proposed to be loasted on the east side of Harbur
Boulevard approaimately 265 feet south o£ the aenterline of
Katella Avenue - request for 180 day eatension of time.
~`1 t
Zoning Supervisor Robert Miokelson revieWed 8 request of tho agent for the petiti.oner
re,questing consideration of a 180-dPy eate:ision of time due io the fact that the origine,l
use of an existing struature was abandoned due to reasons of ssfety, eaonomias, plan and
design, and that the eaisting struature would be removed gnd new plar,s for construction
and design Would be prepe.red.
Co~issioner Allred offered a motion to grant a 180-day extension of i;ime for the completior.
of oonditions in Resolution Nn. 1528, Series 1964-65 dated r^ebruary 15, 1965 g.^anting
Petition for Cotviitional Use Permit No. 674. Commissioner Perry seconded the motior.
MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Camp abstained from votin~. Cominissioner Rowland was absent.
IfiE~ N0. 3
Study of R-2 and R-3 Zone requirements of yards
Fianning Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski advised the Commission that the requested diagrams
had not been prepared by the drafting seation, due to other ao~itments, but would be
~ available for the August 2, 1~65 meeting.
*
~
~
' ~ _ ~ ,1
MINUTLS, CITY PLANNING COL~ISSION, July 19, 1965 2669
REPORTS AND - ITE~Q N0. 4
REl"7D~~NDATIONS YPork Session for Oil Co3e
Associate Planner Ronald Thompson asked vhether the Co~aission wished to aonsidar scheduling
a vork sassion with representatives of the oil industry for the aPt~rnoon or evening of
August 2, 1955.
Discussion was held as to the length of the revie~ of the oil oode, the number oP petitions
scheduled for publia hearing and whether the Commission wished to have an eatended aYternoon
s;ession or ad3ourn and reoonvene a,fter dinner.
Commissioner Perry offered a motiun to schedule a work session to oonsider the Oil Code
with representatives of the oil industry for 7:00 p.m. August 2, 1965. Co~issioner A11red
seaonded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURT~ID~fiI'.: - Thera being no further business to discuss, Co~.issioner Gauer offered a
motion to ad,journ the meeting. Co~i~~3.oner Camp seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED. The meeting ad~ourned at 4:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
ANN IfftEBS, Seoretary
Anaheim City Pl~ning Commission
c
~ ~
~