Minutes-PC 1965/08/30Clty ~ell
Anahe3m, California
August 30, 1965
A REGULAR ~+I'1'.ArG OF ?HF ANAE~+'1`~.li CI7`Y PLANNING COM~dISSTON
AF?3tiLA.~i E~TI^1G - A regular meetir.g of the Anaheim City Planning Co~ission was called
to order by Chairman ~Eungal'1 at 2~00 pom., a quorum being present.
T;~.R.;~ PRESEN~ - CHAi'R~EAN: SQungall.
~`:
E~ '; ~ - C0~?1LiSSIONERF.•: Allrsd, Camp, Gaaer, Herbat, Rowland.
,
~ ° A~~.ti`. - ~~0.'N:M_~SiO~lEA.~.: Perry.
i
i~~ FH~=~'~''r - Assi~tant Zor.ing Suparvisor: Ror.a:ld Thoa~.pson
Deputy ~~ity Attorney: Farme.n fiobarts
Gffics Fngir.eer., Arthur DaW
Flann~ng CouaLission Secrstaryc Ann Krebs
Planning Departmant Stenographer~ Carolyn Grogg
7NS~Qi,A"'iUN - Roverend Thomas 3. Sutton, Central As~embly of God, gave the invocati~n.
I
PLFw"CiE OF'
AL2:.F~TANCE -~ommis~ioner Rowland ~33 tY19 pledga of al:Legiancs to the flag.
APPBOVAL OF - The deinutas of the maeting of Augus~ 16, 1965, ware appro~rad with the
4'fiG MLN'uTES folloWing correci;ion: 'raga 2592, aarsgraphs 3 and 12 ~hould readt
"Conditional _~se Fer~it No., 73?".
RECLASSYFI^AI'1OA1 -,r,p~'I`:.V TED FL`B;..IC HEAR:LN[:, r`;i::EELh`GttE GT'8:~,~p, 616 South Euclid StrBet
KOo 05-66-:31 and tParce:l ~o. 1); K1!? i.,~FTN.. 18?? Janette Lane lParcel :No. 2); :?ERI BOY:~P'ON,
625 South Evclid 3traat lParcel. ATO~ 3.1; DOI~ 1rAl~ Dp"SOfi', 700 South L~'uclid
: CONDI'TiONAL i'SE ~trest (Peresl Ao. 4); and '7'HELdIiA N. HAFtE, 7p6 3outh Euclid ~treet
:~ PERkfIT 1VC. ?41_ (Paroel No., 5), bnahaim, Californie, Owners; ?HEL~dA h. HARE, 706 South
": Fucli3 ~treat, Anahsim,California, Agsnt; Froperty dascribed a~- Faroel
T~io. 1.: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located on the east side of
Eucl'_!.d 5treet, with a fro^ta~e of approximatel.y 64 £eet oa Euclid Street and a mea~iarum depth
oY approxi~uately 100 feet, the southern boundary of said proporty baing approaimately 288 fest
north of the centerline of ~lomar Avenue; Parcel No. !: A recta,ngvlariy shaped parcel of land
located south of aad adjacsnt to Parcel No. 1, mith appror.imate equal frontage on Euclid 5treet
and a maximum dapth of Paroel No~ 1; Parcel No~ 3: A rectengularly shaped paroel of land located
~ approximstely 64 feet south of the southorn boundary of Parcel No. ~., svith approxiQie,te equel.
y' frontage on Euclid Street an~9 a maxim depth as indicated in Parcel Nos~ 1 and 2;Pat-cal No. 4:
~ A rectangular:l.y shaped parcel. of land loce.ted on the southeast corner of Euclid Street and
; Alomnr Avenue, with a frontage of approximately 62 feat on Euclid St.reet and a maximum depth
4 of approximately 100 feet; and Parael No, 5~ A rectangularly shaped parcal of land located
I south of and adjacent to Yarcel No. 4, with a frontage of approximatel.y 60 feet on E4~olid Street
and a maximum depth of approximat3ly 100 ~eet - and further doscribed as 616, 620, 6'?6, 700, and
706 8outn Euclid Street. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAM_L[.~Y HESIDENIIAL, ZONE.
REQti~ES`!TD CLA.`-:SIFICATION: C-0; COMMEACI'AL OFF:I:lE, ZOi~E.
' j REQUESf~E;D CO~T.DI170?~AL ~BE: Y"ERM.TT :'''dEi ~~SE OF ERIS'PING RESIDEM7IAL 57`RTiC•i[:RES A.": OFFICE~.
I ~ Subjeat petitions were continued £rom the meeting of Augu~t 16, 1965 because of a tie vote~
Deputy City Attorney N~irman Roberts advised the Co~ission thr3.t a new motion was in order, or
if the Commission desired.the hearing could be reopened to preeent additional information for
Commissioner Allred's benefit.
kr. R.oberts also revieaed for the petitioners the requirement of the C-0, Zone stressing that
said zone prohibited the combined use of any residence for commercial and residential use,
.'
unless the Commission specifically waived said requirement.
~
~ Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1?44, Series ].905-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Co¢unissioner Camp, to reaommend to the City Council that Petition
'~ for Reclassification ho. 65-66-31 be approved, sub~ect to conditions.(See Resolution Book)
~j * ~
.~~ I -2703-
~
MTN(%1'ES, CITY PLANNTN~ COM7~I5~.T.ON, August 30, 1965 27~
RECLASSIFICArION - On roll aell the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
Na. 65-66-31 and
AYES: COMa~ISS20NEY.S: Allred, Camp, RoWland,Mungall.
CONDI~'IONAL L13E
PER3~'-IT' DiO. 741 NOES; COMbdI8ST0I~tS: Gauer, Herbst.
(Continued) ^
AB3~+'_,A1T: CO~ISSIONERS: Perry.
Co~issioner Camp offered Resolution No. Z745, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and
adoption, seaonded by Commissioner Allred to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 741,
limiting the use of sub,jeat property to aommeroial office use only, and subject to conditions.
iSee Resolution Book).
On roll oell the foregoing resolution v~as passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMM~S~IONEft~: Allred, Camp, Romland, Mungall.
NOES: C0~135IONEFiS: Gauer, Herbst,
ABSENT': COM~4ISSIONER.S: Perry.
FtEOLASSIFI.^~ATIGN - CONT'INIIED PilB7iI0 HEARING. DOYI~E $ SHIELDS DEYELOP~'N`P COMf'ANY, INCORPORATED,
N0. 65-66-20 and 831 South ~anchester Avenue, Anaheim, Californie, Owner. Property described
a~° A triangularlp shaped parcel of land located at the intersection of
JARIMICE N0. 1?20 -Pest Street and Nlanchester Avonue, with fronta~es of approximately 218 feet
~ on Iflest Strsst and approgimately 250 feet on Manohester Avenue, and further
described as 831 South Manchester Avenue. Property presently classified
!~-1 , L.1'GHi INDUSTR.IAl.,, ZONE.
£iEQ~F.~PTED CL•ASSSFl,^,AT.:ON: C-1, GEI~TERAL COMMERCTAL, ZONE.
REQ~E~'?°ED ~IAR_ZANCE: WAi~JER OF I~SNICdUM REQ~TRED SEl'PACK.
Subjsct petitions were continued from the msetings of August 2 and 16, 1965, at the requ~st
of the petitioner to resolve right-of-way problems..
As~istant Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson edvised the Co~is<_ion that the Staff had not bean
contacted by the pstitioner to indicate that right-oP-~ay problems had been resolved, and rea-
ommen3ed that the Co~i~eion considar a four-week continuance of aubject petitions.
Co~issioner RoWland offered a motion to continue public kiearing of Petition~ for Realassifica-
tion No. 65-66-20 and Variance Mo. 1720 to the meeting of September Z7, 1965, in order that the
petitioner might have sufficient time to resolve the right-of-way problems. Go¢~issioner Gauer
seconded the motiona eGOI'ION CARR.IED,
CONDITIONAL USE -;,ONTIMIED PUBLIC HEARTNG, i,EO F'REEDMAN, :,essee, 2018 ColdWater Canyon, Beverly
Pr,FtMIT N0. 735 Hills, California; 0. Lo CHANDLER,901 i9est Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California,
Agent; requesting permission to establish a 22-story, high-rise office building
on property described as~ An irregularlq shaped parcel of land located at the southwest corner
of Freedman Way and ~Eanchester Avenue, with frontages of approximateiy 230 feet on Freedman -Cay,
approximatel.y 447 feet on Manahester Avenue, and approximately 201 feet on Haster Street.
Froperty presently classified R-A, AGRICL~LTURAL ZONE.
Subjeot petition Was continued from the meeting of August 16, l.yci5 to al.low the petitioner time
~o submit development plans.
The Commi.ssion Secretary advised the Co~nission that Mr. Freedma.n had made a telephonic reque=t
this date for a tmo week continuance, due to the fact that he had to attend a funeral out of
state.
Comsissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue the public hearing on Petition for Conditional
Use Permit No. 735 to the meeting of September 13, 1965, as raquested by the petltiene~~.
Commissioner Gsaer seconded the motiono MO'~ION CARRIF~D.
'}t
I '
~ ~
;~
~
~7NII'~ES, CIT! YLANN7IVG COMdCI8SI0N, August 30, 1965 ?.705
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTIlVtTED PUBLIC HEARING. GRIF'F'ITH BROTI~S, 887 5outh Anaheim Soulevard,
N0. 65-66-22 and Anaheim, California, Owner. Property described as: An irregularly shaped
paroel of land ~ith a frontage of approaimately 823 feet on the west side
CO~TAIfiTONAL USE of Ninth Street, the western boundary of seid property being adjacent to
PERMIT N0. 733 the Orange'County Flood Control channel, and the southern boundary being
' approximately 464 feet north of the centerline of Kimberly Avenue. Property
presently olassified R-A, AGRICULfi[TRAL, ZONE.
REQUES7'ED CLASSIFICATION: R-2, MUL~IpI,E-FAMILY RESIDII9TIAL, ZONE.
,~;~Iq REQiJESfiED CONDII'IONAL USE: ESTl~BLISH A MULTIPLE-FAMILY PLANNH~D ItESIDENTIAL DEVELOPNIEN'P.
,i
:~~ ' Subjeat petitions were continued from the meetings of August 2 and 16, 1965, rst the request cf
~~ the petitioner in order i;o a11ow time to submit revised plans.
~ 'I'he petitioner indioated his presenoe to ans~er questions.
,' Mrs. Helen Cremmiel, 1412 Kimberly Place, appeared bofore the Cot~ission in opposition and stated
, _ that all the sin~le familq property owners in the area had understood that the City was proposing
; a park for sub~eat property and if sub,ject petitions Were approved and developed the parking
~. problem on Ninth Street would greatly inarease since the apartment dwellers on the east side of
~ Ninth vrere using subjeat property for parking purposes.
The Commission then explained to interested persons that the City had projeated utilizing the
Edison easement bet~een Ninth and Plalnut Streets for park purposes, and had reaently drawn up
a long term lease. Drawings of the proposed park then were presented to the interestsd persons
which indiceted the type of park facilities being proposed.
Mrs. Cremmiel continued by stating that most of the homes in the tract fronting Ninth Street
did not have sidewaiks for the children to use When walking to school; that Ninth Street was
nari•ower in width than Cerritos Avanue, but the posted speed mas 30 M.P.H. compared with that
an Cerritos of Z; ~.P.H.; that parents in that area were concerned that more childrett would be
injured with the spseding of aars during the time children were going to and from school, and
• then inquired whether or not the City aould require the residents in the apartments to park
their cars in the carports and garages provided for them rather than on the street.
_ Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts stated that the law did not govern pa~senger automobiles
when it prohibited parking on the streets, sinoe this only applied t~ trucks, and that it would
be diffi^.'t to enforae something which was not actuelly the law, although there Were some
straets in the city which prohibited parking et all times.
Mrs. Lawrence Pechter, 1537 West laster~ appeared before the Co~ission and stated that since
there wa~ so such traffic confusion and the street was presently so narrow, widening the street
could not be accomplished effectively because of the flood control channel and railroad tracks,
~ and the injection of more apartments with two cars per apartment family ar;d more children in
~ the area, would create further serious traffic hazards by not providing adequate circulation.
Mr. Griffith advised the Commission that the only change which had te.ken place relative to the
easement was the relocation of the sidepalks, and that the area now would serve the planned
residential development as a recreation area.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Co~ission pointed out on revieWing the plans and the report to the Coa~ission that the
petitioner was proposing a density of approximately sis unil,s per net resi3entisl acre and
was slightly over one unit more than that permitted in the single family zone.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. 1746, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Co~.issioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that Petition
for Realassification No. 65-66-22,be approved subject to conditions.(See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COEEMISSIONER~: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Mungall.
NOES: COMMISSI:ONEftS: None.
ABSEN'P• COMMISSIONERS: Perry.
~ '
Jx ~
I
~~
~
MINUTESY CZTY PL•ANNING COE~GISSION, August 30, 1965
2706
RECLASSIFICATION - Co~.issioner Herbst offered Resolution No. 1747, Series 1965-66, and moved
N0. 65-66-22 and for its pa,ssage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp to grant Peti-
tion for Conditional Jse Permit No. 733, subject to conditions.(See
CONDITIUNAL USE Resolution Book)
FERMIT N0. 733
(Continued) On roll aall the foregoing resolution was pessed by the following vote:
AYES: COMII~:SSIONER.S': Allred, Camu, Gauer, Iierbst, Rorvland, Mungall.
NOES: C0~3SIONER~: None.
:r~
t
s,
I
I
~
i
~~
~I
4gi' - {I.
~~` I
~i - ;
t,' a ,
f~i
F, ~ ~~ i
ABSEHU'I: CO~LM:ISS`IONERS: Perry.
^-ENCATItiTE M:AP OF - DEVELOPER; BARP~RT DEVEi,OPMEBIT COMPANY, 1535 East 17th Street, Santa Ana,
"PRA~T N'0, 5693 California. ENGII~IEER; Jennings-Halderman-Hood, 1833 East 17th Street,
FiE~i~I~20N N0. 2 Suite 200, Santa Ana, California. Said tract, located on the east side of
~Auller Street, approximately 900 feet north of Lincoln Avenue and containing
approximately six acres, is proposed for subdivision into 21 R-3, E~U'LTIPLE
FAMIL~ RE~IpII~frIAL•, ZOnED lots~
Mr. Hugh Halderman, engineer o£ the proposed development, appeared before t,he Co~i.ssion and
reviawed Ravision No. 2 of Tentative ~dap of Tract No. 5693; in re~ponse to Commission questioning
relative to the conditions attached to the City Council°s approval of Realassification No.
64-65-21, stated that no opposition would be expressed to the conditions attached, if subject
traat was approved, but since the property aras bounded on the north by Fedmart, it was propossd
to construoi a six-foot masonry mall on the north property line, but the garages would be facing
a 20-foot alley which was adjacert to the AA-1 property to the east, and would act as adequate
buffer to any noisas. Further, since truck:: would be backing against the proposed east wall,
it would appear that the ~all would not be standing very ].ong befors it ~rould be damaged, and
that Condition No. 5 of the City Councii's resolution of intent approving the aforementioned
reolassification, referred to devel.opment in accordance with plans ahich the Council had reviewed
but now a R-3 subdivision tract map we,s being proposed, and Code requiramants mould have to be
complied with.
Discu.ssion ~ra; held by the Oommission as to ahether or not amendments and deletions of conditions
which had approved a petition could be amended wit,hout a public hearing, and inquirad of Deputy
City Attorney Furma,n Roberts as to the correct procedure.
Ddr. Robsrta advised that if only a minor change was being proposed, conditions might be amended,
but if a ma,joi• change mas beir_g proposed, this would then have to be considered at a public
heari.ng. Flxrther, since the ~•ity Council had specifically indicated thesa conditions, perhaps
the ~o~c.ission might wish to rer,ommend ar amendmant to said resolution of intent approving
reclassification~
Tt was then determinad by the Commission that the City Council should taks whatever action they
desired on amending or delating any conditions of tha Recla~sification, and the Commission would
not make any recommendations.
Coa~.i"ioner Gauc~r offered a motion, seconded by Commiasioner Camp, and the motion carried,
to approve Revision No. 2 of Tentative Map of Tract No. 5693,subject to the following condition~~:"
1• That the approval of Tentative ~dap of Tract No. 5963, Revisior. No. 2 is granted subject to
the completion of Reclassification No. 64-65-21.
2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision
thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval.
3• That the alley cut-offs shall conform to City of Anaheim Standard Plan No. 130.
4. That Lot Nos. 1-A through 11-A, one-foot wide, be shown along the north and ee,st boundaries
of the tract for the construction of masonry malls or that the developer obtain, in writing,
permission to construot the walls on the ad,joining property.
5• Thet full parkway sidewalks, with tree wr~lls, be installed along Muller Avenue, as
required by the City Engineer and in acr,ordance with standard plans and specifications
on file in the office of the City Engineer.
F
M~NNi;~TES, CII•`_' PLA111~2NG CO~Ii'ISSION, August 30, 1965
270?
CONDITIONAI: LSE - P;IELIC HEARING. 7'EiEODORE K. WONG, FLORA VPONG, FRANK KL~i ENG, AI~JD YEE SHEE INC,
PERMTI' N0. ?46 3410 Grove Street, Oakland, California, Ovmers; Larry Wong, 772 Ackley Street,
NConterey Park, California, Agent requesting permission to EST.ABLISH A RES~-
ADRAI~ AIQD ON SA;_E LIQUOR E5TABI.ISH~EENT on property described as: An irreg-
ularly Ehaped parcel of l.and with a frontage of appro%imately 250 fest on the east side of Rio
Vista 8treet and a ma.ximum depth of apprcximately 100 feet, the southwest aorner of said
property being approsimately .180 feet north of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, and further
described as 200-204 Rio Vista Street. Property presently classi.fied C-1, GENERAL CO~LERCIAL•,
ZONE.
' 1~r. .adam !~cCu.t:r.m, acti.g for the agert, indicated his presenae to answer questions.
`4 Lipon reviowii3 the proposed development the Commission inquired if there was to be a floor
to aei.'..ing separation. of the re:taurant and cocktail lounge, ~i~ce it had been ~the Commission's
pol.ic}~ in the pa~t to have a co.mplet.e separation of the two uses.
Mr. Adam ~:cCu:ilom, i,he leasee, advised the ~ommission that there presently oxisted a wal.l which
woul.d be partia:l:ly removed, but he was unable to give an accurate answer a~ to whether or not
-~ there was a compl.ete separation oP the two use~.
Tt was noted hy the Co~i=sion that the proposed use woul.d be locatod in a smal]. neighborhood
shopping cer,ter which ha3 a doi~ghnut shop and ice cream store freqvSr.ted by children, and the
use aeemed tu be incompatible to the sma:11 shopping area.
~TO or.e appeared in oppo=ition~
i'~ FTEARI:N"!, ~PA~ CL;^SED.
Commi~sior.er ';aue^ offered Re:.olution No. '.?•48, Series 1965-66, and moved for its pa~sage and
adoption, seconded by Jommis_ioner Jam.p to deny Petition for Conditional Cse Permit No. 746,
based on the facts that the proposed use v~a.s incompatible to the existing use~ e=_to.bl.i~hed in
a smal.l. ~hoppin~ center, that the use v~ould haoe a detrimental influence on children frequenting
the sheps in the shopping center, that the petitioner did not indi.cate that there would be
a complete wa.i.'.. separation of the two uses proposed, and that the proposed use would have an
adverse affeat on the peace, hea]th, safety, and general welfare of the Citizens of the City
of Anaheis.;See Resol.ution Book)
On ro~l cal.:. the foregoirig resolution was po,ssed by the fol.lowing vote:
AYE~: COM:M~c:~.;:CNEHS: Al.lred, Camp, i;e.uer•, Herbst, Rowland, Mungall..
NOE~: CUMM:i:S~.I.ONEk:: None~
A65En1`I: ~O:M~D~:S_SIO~~'ER.:.: Perry.
~TAAI.A~CCE N0. 1??9 - PT~AuT~ HEARLNG. JOHN 'C. SHAEFER, 1320 Belmont Avenue, Anaheim, California,
^ Owner, iiO~~ER PAR3'ELLO, P. 0. Box 1031, Orange, California, Agent; requesting
WAT.VERS OF: (.1) Ni1MM~~M F`RONT ~:ARD SETf?ACK, (?) REAR 'Y'ARD SF;IRACK; (3) FLOOR
AAEA; A1D (A) MARTl~dU~d FERMTi°.!`ED LQS COGEAACE on property described as: An
i:rregu:larly shaped parael of land with a frontage of approximately 74 feet on the south sido of
belmont Avanue an.d a maximum d.epth of approxima.tely 86 feet, the we~tern boundary o.f said
property being approximately 3'L~ feet east of the centerline o° Lark Street, und furt;her
deecribed as 1326 Belsont Avenueo Property presently classified R-1, ONE FAEE:Lli: RESTDEN"IAL,
ZONE.
ylr. Roger Partello, agent for the petitioner., indicated his presence to answer quest~ons.
TJpon reviewing the plans and area being proposed for R-1 development, it was determined by the
Co~iseion that subject property was substendard and was quite a problem lot, and that the
coverage for sub,jeot property was 10$ I.ess than that permitted b;v tho Code.
No one appeared in opnosition.
~ HEARIIQG WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1749, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and
adoption, seconded by Commissianer Camp to grant Petition for Variance No. 1728, subject to
aonditions.(See Resolution Book)
On roll osll the Poregoing r•esolution was passed by the follov~ing vote:
R
AY~S: CONU~SSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Mungal.l.
NOES: COMMISSZONERS: None.
ABSENI: COMM2SSIONEFt:: Perry.
~
MINL'rES, CI~Y PLANn1ihG COMMISSION, August 30, 1965 2~pg
CONDI•IT_ONAI~ ~SE - PU~BliCC HEARING. LEW:CS WALTER, 1810 South Santa Fe Avenue, Compton,
PERMIi N0. 745 California, Owner; RICHARD L. TOM, A.I.A., 1665 West Katells Avenue,
Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ~STABI~ISH A RESTAiSRANT
AND CON1]~ERCIAL SHOPS IN CONJUNCTION VPITH A WAR MUSEUM on property described
as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 292 feet on the
east side of Harbor Boulevard and a depth of approximately 400 feet, the northern boundary of
sLbjeot property being approximately 270 feet south of the oenterline of Katella Avenue, and
further described as 1850 South Harbor Boulevard. Property presently classified R-A,
AgricLltural, Zone.
~, Co¢~issioner Camp ?eft the COl1RC1.1 Chamber at 2:45 p.m.
~r. Richard L. rom, age.nt for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and revie~ved the
proposed addil;ion to an already approved wax museum of commercial shops and ts restaurant,noting
that the proposed restaurant and ~hops would be a"theme" type development~ that plan: for the
devolopment were nat for~ulated in detail; further, in response to Commission questioning,
stated that the re~taurant woul.d consist of 3600 square feet and the 1600 square faet for shops,
. that the nusber of parking spaces was based upon the space allowed for aisles; that the wax
museum wou:l.d he~e mainly permanent display~; that parking for the sales area was based on one
5pace per two hundred square feet, the restaurant area on one per 1,000 square feet, and the
balar.ce on one space per 35 square feet; that the proposed colonnade would be of stressed
concrete; ihat it was proposed to construct in accordance with the required 50-foot setback,
but l~e u~ould like to have the ussurance of the Commiss:.on that any constru~tion to tho south of
subjeot property wuuld a:so be required to construct with a 50-foot setback.
Phe Comm.io:sion informed Mr. T_•om that it had been the Commissior.~s policy to maintain a 50-Y'oot
setback a~ong Harhor Ho~:Levard ir. the ~emmercial Recreation area.
TQo one appeared in oppo:ition.
'I'I~ HEAR:IN~~ WAS ;1,OSED.
Disc~;ssion was held by the Commission because the petitioner had not submitted a plot plan or
elevatioas of t•he proposed restaurant; that the proposed sliops could be considered part of the
, integral part of the proposed wax mu~eum, which had been approved undor a previous conditional
_ use permit, and had recently been granted a 180 day extonsion of tim.e; that the wax ouseum was
tc be cosplete.'.y rebuilt rather than utilizing an existing structure; that if subject petition
were approved, plans of devel.opment should be submitted to the Planning Commission prior to
the i~•:uance of a btiil.ding permit, and that no further public hearing wo~:ld then be necessary.
~ Co~nissioner Row:iand offered Rasolution No. 1750, Series 1965-66, and moved for its pt~ssage and
adoption, seconded by ~ommissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Conditional !~se Permit Ne. 745,
' subject to conditions, and further, subject to the plans of development for the pr•~pesed rest-
` aurant being submitted to and approved by the Co¢~ission prior to the issuance of a building
permit.(See Reso:~ution Book)
On rol.l call the foregoing re:;el~~tior. was passed by the following vote:
AYES: CO~DMISS70NERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbat, Rowland, Mungall.
NOES: CGMMSSS'!'ONERS: None.
''~ t
_~ _
:~ ~
~ ABSENT: CO~EMZSSIONEP.S: Camp, Porry.
CONDITIONAL tiSE - PUBLIC Fi~ARTNG. CNH~SLER ~dOTORS CORPORATION, 341. Massachusetts Avenue,
~ PERMIT N0. 749 Detroit, ~ichigan, Owner; MC CUTCHEN, BLACK, VERLEGER d, SHEA, 615 South
! Flower Street, Los Angeles, Cali£ornia, Agent; requesting permission to
; ESTABLISH lJSED CAR SALES AND NEW CAR STORAGE, INCL'JDING ALL USES INCIDENTAL
TI~RETO, AND TO PEAMi"" ENCROACHI,~NT INTO THE P-L, PARKING-LANDSCAPING, ZONE FOR SUCH SALES AND
STORAGE on property de~cribed as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at the southeas
corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Clifton Avenue, with frontages of approximately 160 feet on
Anaheim Boulevard and approximately 267 feat on Clifton Avenue. Property presently classified
C-2, GENERAL CO~RCIAL, ZONE and P-L, PARRING-LANDSCAPING, ZONE.
Mr. John Leary, attorney for the petitioner, eppeared before the Commission and reviewed the
~ proposed use of sub,ject property, noting that only the storage of new and used cars would be
on subject property and no service or repair would be conducted, or any future construction
~, of a building was contemplated.
r.
~
MZNUYES, CITY PLANNII~[G COMMISSION, August 30, 1965
2709
' CONDI'IT~NAL 'USE - In reviewing the Report the Co~ission, Mr. Leary stated that with the excep-
PERMZ~ N0. 749 tion of Condition No. 8, ell conditions were acceptable, and that it was
(Continued) proposed to install a 5-foot landscaped strip along the front of subject
property in lieu of the 2~ required within the parking area.
Mr. ~Eartin Kreidt, :epresenting S. V. Hunsa.ker 6 Sons, owners of the apartment development
to east of sub3ect prooerty appeared before the Co~ission in opposition to the petitioner's
, proposal to eliminate the 2,~ landscaping in tha parking area, and noted that most of the develop-
Y~~ ment along Anaheim Boulevard had ahosen to develop in accordance with alternative "B"; that he
,,~ requested that the masonry wall separating subject property from the residential property to the
east be constructed according to code which states it be six feet in height as measured from
~~ the highest grade level, and most of the existing wall was 42 inches in height. Further, that
j' any lights within i5 feet of the residential development be directed away so as not to create
~ an unde~irable iiving environment adjacent to the proposed use; and that any pl.ans for possible
construction on said property be submitted to the o~mers of the residential property to the east
~ to determine its compatibility with said structures. It was noted by Mr. Kreidt that the peti-
~ tioners be req~ired to install irrigation facilities in the landsceped area and said ~andscaped
~
i - area be mai.ntained as a condition to use of subject property.
~~ Mr. Leary, in rebuttal, stated that it was their intention to irr~tall irrigation facilities and
maintain said landscaped requirement; thati Section 18.40 required that all lights be directed
away fro~ any residential structures; further that the masonry wall would be extended to compl.y
I with the Code; but that ho could not see why any plans of development should be submitted to tne
I adjacent property ownar.
I
~Er. Kroidt stated that since the petiticn was a con~itional use permit, the Oode provision state:
any conditions of aporoval may be made by the Commission, and the Report to tne Commission state~
that appro~~a1 wa: contingent upon development in accordance with plans submitted as of this date
therefore, any substantial. change would be roviev~ed by the Commission.
The Commis~ion then stai;ed that if a structure was built, this would be a substantial change
to that approved on subject property, and it might bo necessary to readvertise subject petition
at v~hich time plans would then be available for review by interested persons.
_ THF HEAR:SNG WAS CLOSED.
The Commission discussed the reason for requiring that 2~ of landscaping be instailed in e
parkin~ area, noting this woul.d break up the appearance of a solid mass of Ulacktopping when
no cars were parked in the lot; a~d that no waiver should be granted on the 2~ landscaped
req~;irement in the parking area.
Cowmissioner Gauer offered Ro~olution No. 1751, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and
adoption. ~econded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Persit No..749,
subject to conditions and the requirement that the eaisi,ing masonry wall on the east property
line be con=trLCted to measure 6 feet as measured from the highest property line; and that all
lights within 75 feet of the multiple family development to tho east be directed away from tho
residences,lad that r.o caaiver be granted for deletion of the req~:ired 2$ landscaping in the
parking area.(See Resolution Book)
On ro1:1 cell the foregoing resolution wes pessed by the following vote:
A~ES: COA3MTS~IONERS: Alired, Gauer, Herbst, Rov~land, Mungall.
NOES: COMMiSSIONERS: None.
ABSEI~R': COMM7SSIONERS: Camp, Perry.
VARIANCE N0. 1725 - PtTBISC HEARING. LOUIS LESSER ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED, &737 Wilshire
Boulevard, Los Angeles, Colifornia, Owner; R. ~d. AIRONE, 605 West Olympic
Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, Agent; requosting waiver of (1) MAXIMU~ HEIGflT OF ROOF SIGN
WITHIN 300 ~+ET OF A RESIDENTIAL ZONE, AND (2) ~f~T1TdUM DISTANCE BETVPEE~1 PROPOSED AND ERISiING
SIGNS ON THE SAME PARCEI, OF LAND described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located
at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Knott Avenue, with frontages of approximately
150 feet on Lincol.n Avenue e~.nd approximately 125 feet on Knott Ave.^.~ie, and further described
as 3450 West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL CO~RCIAL, ZONE.
Mr. Ray Airone, agent for the petiti.oner, ~.ppeared before the Commission and stated he also
- represented Standard Oil Company, that it was proposed to install a sign similar to that already
~ in existence so that traffic along Knott Avenue could see the sign as they were approaching froQ
~ either direction, and that the existing sign was only oriented to the Lincoln Avenue traffic, ar
inquired the specific repairs ~ihich would be neces~sry to the curbs and sidewalks as a conditior
of approval.
i
Commissioner Camp returned to the Council Chamber at 3:15 p•m.
~
~l.Il~"~FES, CIT3' PL•ANHIDIG CO~MISSION, August 30, 1965
2?10
V'ARIANCE IVO. 1725 - Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission he did not know the
(Gontinued) specific area, but if ~ubject petition were approved, the petitioner could
oontact the Engineering Department to determine the extent and location of
the repa3rs.
No one appeared in opposition.
T'I~E HEAR2(VG -PAS C'uOSED.
Disoussion was held by the Cammission as to the proposed request noting that the existing sign
was present7.y a non-conforming sign and no evidence was submitted to wari•ant the Co~ission
oonsidering sub3eot petition favorabl.y as being a hardshiD, and that the newly adoptod Sign
Ordinance did not have adequate time to determine its effeotiveness or ineffectiveness.
Commisaioner Ro~vland offered Resolution No. 1752, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Co~issioner Gauer, to deny Petition for Variance No. 1725, based
on the facts that no evidence had been submitted proving a hardship, that some of the waiver
requested was in excess of 400~ that permitted; and that the new Sign Ordinance should be given
more time to operate in order to determine its efPectiveness.(See R.esolution fiook)
On rol.l aall the foregoing resolution vias passed by the following vote:
A1"ES: C011A~7SSIONERS; A].lred, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Mungall.
NOES: CUnG~L7SSI0PIERS: None.
ABSEl1TT: COINl~1.SSi0NERS: Perry.
ABSTAIN: CONi~T.SSIONERS: Oamp,
; I ,I VARIliN'CE N0. 1?27 - PP,'.BLZC NEARZTIG. CLARENCE AND DAG~GAR YO?ING, 2460 4aldina Avenue, Anaheim,
~ Cal.ifornis, Owner~; requesting WAIVER OF M~IVIMUM REQi`IRED REAR XARD 5EIBACK
r. ; on property desaribed as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a
;~ frontage of approximately 67 feet on the south side of Valdina Avenue and a depth of approxi-
~~ -~i mately 93 feet, the western boundory of subject property being approximately 234 feet ea~t of
i~ - the centerline of Cambria Street, and further described as 2460 Vaidina Avenue. Property
;•~ presently classified as R-1, ONE FAedI"~Y RES:DENTIAL, ZONE.
~~ Mr. Clarence Young, one of the petitinners~ lIldicated his presence to answer questions.
'~ The Commission reviewed tne proposed addition to the existing d•Nelling.
.,I
~ ~ No one appeared in opposition.
~ TF~ HEARING WAS CLOSED.
1'
I
E`~ ~ Co~issioner Camp offered .utian No. 1753, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and
adoption, seconded by Co~i Loner Allred to grant Petition for V"ariance No. 1727, subject to
i n condition.!See Resolution Hook~
,~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
! AYES: CO~dMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Mungall.
1 I NOES: CO~TSSIONERS: None.
I
; ABSENT: COE9u~2SS20NERS: Perry.
` ~ VARIANCE N0. 1729 - PUbI,IC HEARING. HOOK, GILI.MAN d ERICKSON, 1780-1789 West Lincoln Avenue,
~~ Anaheim, California, Owner; EXCELL-AD ELECTRIC SIGNS, 2312 South Su~an,
Santa Ana, California, Agent; requesting YVAIVERS OF: (1) MAXI~Ei1M N[7p~ER OF
FREE STAND7NG SIGNS, AND (2) MINIMU~d DISTANCE BETVPFEN FREE STANDING SIGNS on property described
as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 212 feet on the
?~~ south side of Lincoln Avenue and a depth of approximately 284 feet, the eastern boundary of
subject property being approximately 1,015 feet xost of the centerline of Euclid Street, and
' further desoribed as 1780-1786 west Lincoln Avenue. Pro ert
p y presently classified as R-A,
~ , A3RICLTIff`(JRAL ZONE.
:~ ~ '
. ~
~
~
, ~
E ~ ~ ,
~~ ~ ~
~~ ~ .
~~ ~
. 1r
MINII'IES, CITY' PLANNING C0~$SION, August 30, 1965
2711
VARIANCE N0. 1729 - Mr. David Hook, one of the petitiuners, appeared before the Commission and
(Continued) reviewed the proposed sign request, noting that the recently approved
theatre operation needed a sign to adequately identify it to the passing
motorist because of its location; that the proposed sign would emphasize
the thsatre operation only, whereas the existing sign was a direotory type of sign, and there
would not be adequate room to erect the proposed sign; further, tho operator of the theatre
would be the sol.e owner of his sign, and if oombi.ned with the existing sign could create a
hardship if the theatre v~ere to move to another location.
Mr. Walter Brook, representing the agent for the petitioner and the sign company, appeared
before the Commission and stated that his company was attempting to aomply with the new sign
ordinance, but ~hat the proposed variance would create a definite hardship on the +,heatre
operator, sinoe the existing sign could not hold the additional sign and would have to be
completely rebuilt to comply ~vith code requirements.
No one a.ppeared in opposition.
THE i~ARING WA5 CLOSED.
Commissioner Rowland left the Council Chamber at 3:25 p.m.
Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the proposed sign, its location, changeable
marquee, whether or not the existing sign could be oriented to fecing Lincoln Avenue rather
than being visible to traffic coming from both directions, and that in order for the proposed
sign to be combined with the existing sign it would have to be rebuilt.
Mr. Hook stated that he had inquired of the other tenents as to their opinion regarding the
relooation of the directory type signs, and has met with a negative response.
Commissioner Gauer offered Re~olution No. 1?54, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and
adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp to grant Petition for Variance No. 1729, sub,ject to
conditions, and based an the fact that the petitioner had proven a hardship existed.(See
Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COM~ISS:LONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall.
NOES: COMkISSIONERS; None.
ABSENP; COA~MISSIONERS: Perry, Ro~~+land.
RECLASSIFICATION - PLBLIC HEARIfJG, RFIJgAR, INCORPORATED, 1422 North Central Park Av4nue,
N0. 65-66-33 and Anaheim, California, Owner; PAUI, J. BUFiNSIDE, 1418-A South Central Park
Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; property described as: A rectangularly
COND2I~IONAL USE shaped parcel of land located at the northwest corner of Tract No. 2152,
PERMIT N0. 744 directly west of Lory Avenuo, the western boundary of approximately 218 feet
being adjacent to the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way, and tne northerA
boundary of approximate:y 200 feet being adjacent to industrial Tract
No. 3970. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICUL;L'RAL ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: M-1, LIGHT I~:DUSTRIAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTAELISH AN INDLTSTRTAL PARK2NG USE WITHIN 330 FEE°'
OF A PROPOSED SCHOOL SIT•E
Mr. Larry Condon, representing the agent for the petitioner, rsppoared before the Commission and
reviewed the proposed use of subject property, further noting its exact location.
Mr. Condon further stated that subject property w¢s difficult to develop, because it wr3s
inaccessible; and that it was the intent of the prospective purnhaser of subject property to
landscape the easterly and southerly portion and to const.ruct ~ 6-foot masonry wall.
Assistant Zoning S~ipervisor Ronald Thompson presented an overlay which indicated how subject
property could be developed with four standard and one substandard R-1 lots, noting that the
substandard lot might be approved through the application of a variance petition.
~
MLNUTES, CI7'Y ?LAN7~'ING COM~ISS.:.Oh, August 30, 1965
2?12
RECLASSIFTCATION - Mr. Paul fiurn~ide, agent and prospective purchaser of the property, appeared
N0. 65-66-33 and before the Oommission, and in response to Commi~sion questioning stated that
any future plans for construction of a building would be for v~arehouses to
CONDITIONAL USE be located on the k~esterly boundury of subject property, adjacent to the
PERMIT N0. 744 raiiroad tracks; that their ope:~ation consisted of handling air freight in
(Continued) Orange County, collecting from various clients and delivering end unloading
and. reloading ~aid freight onto palettes for delivery to the airport; that
the hours of operation would be from 10 a.m. to 7-8 p.m.; that the use of subject property
presentl~ would be for employee parking of approximately 16 persons and said parking area would
be located approximately 75-].00 feet from any existing home~; and that a building was presently
under construction on the property to the north which would handle the loading and unloading of
air freight within said structure.
It was ncLed by the Oommission that the petitioner was requesting a recl.assification of the
property and if the reque=ted zone was approved, any future use permitted in.l;he M-1 Zone would
be all.owed even though the petitionor stated it wo~.,ld be usod for parking purposes.
Mr. Ray Hall, 6.16 Kiama Street, appeared before the ~ommission in opposition, end askod how the
petitioner v~as proposing to gain access to subject property, since Lory Avenue deadended on
the eesterlv boundary of subject property, and it was his opinion thai, no acce ~ be granted to
the petitioner through the residential tract.
The Commission advised Mx. Ha.l:l that access wouLd have to be from the property to the north,
and that any access to the residential tract would be prohibited.
Mr• Ha11 r,ontinued, that the many of the neighbors had complained to the City regarding the
activities of the exi~ting industria:l tract; that noises omanated from the area a~l of the day
and especial:ly at ~ight; that the noi_es ~~re re very di_ti,rbing; that although the petitionor
stated subject propert,y wou:d he used for arkin
house, if the requeated zonin~ were aoproved any~typepofeinduat~ater the addition of a wa2•e-
be placed on si:bject property, thu~ making it more untenable to theeexisied~i~esidentialcsuba
di~=ision, said ~ubdivisiun having been bui:Lt a number of years prior tn tne opproval of the
industriel tract; that. a petition signed by 35 property owners on both sides of the railroad
track was submitted op~o~ine =ubject peti~tions; that the railroad track was onl.y used
infrequently, and has backed up to those many homes for a number of
family home owaers were cor.cernod that the industrial encroachment uithin~theaR-lharet~nwould
set a precedent for simi:~ar ccnversion of thoso homes abutting the property to industrial
deval opment; that the proposed use of ~ubject property vas undesirable and incompatible to
tho residential integrity of the area; and even though acr,ess to Lory Avenue vias prohibited,
this v~ou:~.d nnt deter the empio,yees from parking in the residential aree. Further, in response
to Commi~sion questi~ning, the six-foot masonry wa11 and landscaping v~ou.ld not ect as sufiicient
buffer to manufacturing noises~ a]though the proposed use ~~ras for parking, the zonin~ r~PProved
would perm3t any manufacturing use=; and that tho ~ingle family homeowners were not de~irous
of any £urt}ier encroachment to their peace and happiness by permitting the udditional oncroach-
ment into the residentie: area.
The Commission advised the opposition, that any construction on sub,iect property would have to
be submitted to the Commission for pub:~ic hoaring, because of ite close proximity to the school
property.
Mrs. John Fleming, 601 Kiama Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition stating that
her property was within 30 feet of the structures on tho industriai tract owned by Mr. Burnside;
that she had made many complaints to the City relative to the excessive noises, foul langvage,
the fact tha,t the operations were not confined indoors and were conducted at all hours making
it impossible for h~r children to get their proper rest; that access to Lory Avenue should be
prohibited even if suhject p:•operty were not deveioped because it was being used by the workers
as a race track from the industrial tract; that she had a seven-foot fence which should act as
a buffer, but in reality acted as a sounding board for the trucks, ~vhir,h Mr. Burnside said were
pickup trucks but which sounded like large semi-trailers, and that all the property owners a~ere
concerned that somethin~ other than what ~vas indicated at the hearing v~ould be constructed on
the proparty.
Mr. James Campbell, 612 Kiema Street, appeared in opposition and stated that he concurred in
the statments made previously by the opposition;further, the statment made that only pickup
trucks were ~sed was erroneous, since he hod seen semi-trailers entering and Ieaving the propert;
at night, and that homes could not be resold because loans were iinobtainable due to the close
proximity of industriel tract.
A showing of hands indicated nine persons ~~ere pre~ent in opposition.
~
EdI?S(t~ES, CIIY PLANrrING CObmi.ISSIOAC, August 30, 1.:'G5
~' .
i
~.
., ~ `
-
~
i ~~ ~
2?13
RECLASSTFICATION -~lx~s. Ray Ha11, 616 Kiama 3treet, appeared before the Commission in opposition
N0. 65-66-33 and and stated that her home was adjacent to the masonry wall, and she was not
desirous of having any access to the rasidontial. stree~ because of possible
C0:'~I'~'IONAL USE accidents to children who used the streets to play in.
FERMI'P N'0. 744
(Continued) In rebuttal, Mr. Burnside stated tnat he had attempted to resolve the
problems Mrs. Fleming had voiced; that he thought development of the vacant
land wuuid be appreciated, but that if this were not the case, rather than arouse the anger of
the adjacent property owners, he would leave +,he l.ot empty.
I'he Comni~~sion noted that this was the fir~t time that a request had been considered by tY.eir
Body requestiizg industrial zoning in the center of a residential area; that subject property
was developab:Le for R-1 ~ubdivision; that there had been no evidence submitted whiah would
warrant ccnsideration of a change in zone, and inquired of Deputy City Attorney what could
be done to al:eviate some of the c~mplaints made by the single family residents.
Ns. Roberts stated that during the team~ter atrike he visited the ~.rea with one of ~he Zoning
Divi:~i~n repre~sntatives concerning the truck activit;;, excessiv~, noises, etc. at which time
because of the unu .sl activities he felt the acti.vities in ~he industrial development were
unavoidable, aed that he had not visited said area recently to observe any vioations, but that
noises in an industriel zona were sometime unavoiduble.
THE HEAkIN~ WA5 CLOSED.
I:n response to ~owm.ission inqi~iry reiaLive to permitting the employe3 parking area ir. the R-A
Zone, Edr. R.oberts stated that there were a very 1'_mited num~icr o£ uses permitted in the R-A,
Zone, that parking v:e.e~ permitted as an accessory use to the r~rmitted R-A use, but that the
request for emp:l.oyee parking for aii M-1 use was not permitted, even if considered in conjunction
v~ith 2 conditior.al use permit, end t:.~t ihe P-.1 Zone was usue.l.ly re:•erved _or parking lots in
o~njunction ~~ith commercial nreas which could not provide parking on the premises. Flirther the
P-L, Zone was usuall.,y re :-rd for those areas immedi.ately adjacent to the public ri~ht-of-we.y
in conjunction with the ' Zon.e.
~ommissioner Gauer offered Reeolution No. ]?55, Serie;.~ 1965-66, and mo~~ed for its passage and
adoption, seconded b,y Commi~sionor Hr-b~t, to reco~end to the City ~ouncil that Petition for
Reclassifioation ivo.. 65-66-33 be di_•~oproved, based on the fact that the propesed use would be
incompatzbl.e with the existing single family re~idential. development to thb v~est, south and
~iast of subjoct proparty; that subject property is developable f~r sin~le family subdivision
and that the noises which would be oreated wou:id be a further encroac:~ment into tho ~ingle
f:.~aily re~idontia.l integrity of t:.,, aren. (See Resolution Book;
On ro11 call. the foregoing resolution was passed ry the foll.owing vote•
AYES: COMhCISSIONERS: Al:l.red, Camp, Gauer, Her9st, Rowland, 6lungal.l.
N:IES: COf~LS~IO:~R~•: ?~one.
ABSENi: CONl11~::SSIO.~RS: Perry.
Commissioner Herhst offered Resolution No. 1756, Series 1965-56, ord moved for its passege
and adopi;ion, seconded bp Co~iss3oner Alired to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit
No. 744, based on findings.(See Roso].ution 7?ook)
On rol.l call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: CO~LS3IOt~RS: Al.lred, Camp, Gauer, Herb~t, Rowland, Mun~n].1.
NOES: COM~GISSIOa~iERS: Nono.
ABSENT: COM.MISSIONE~tS: Perry.
RECLASSIFTCAZIO:H - PUBLZC HEARING. 7ACI~ E. !.'TLLER, 3G2 West Sall Road, Anahe~m, CaliforniA,
N0. 65-66-34 and Ovmer; HAL HARTL~Y, Realtor, 922 West Lincoln Avenuo, Anaheim, California,
Agent. Property described as: A rectangularly shap~d parcel of :l.and locatec
CONDITION'AL U3E at the southwest corner of Ball. Road and Cltiremont Street, and iurther das-
F'~'AMIT N0. 747 cribed as 302 Wost Ball Road. Proporty classified R-1, ONE FAMILY'
RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASS:CFTCATION: C-U, COM~RCIAL OFFICE, ZONE
REQUES7'ED COND~SfiI01fAL IISE: PERMI'!' A DUCTOR'S OFFIC^ I!~ AN EXISTING RESID~~II'IAL STRACTURE G~H
WAIV'ERS OF: (1) M:INI~AZTM SITE AREA, (2 ), REQUIRED 6 FOOT BLOCK 'NAI~L
1 B~VJEN,'N COMMERCIAL AND RESIDEI~~7'TAL ZONGS, (3) REQUIRFD 3-foot SCREEt~ '
~~'I'IlVG 11DJO1:RI.NU RIGIiP OF 4VAY', (4 ) REQUTRr^,D LANDSCAPING IN PAR3QNG
'~-_ .. . ,i
. . ~ _.. ._ , - -
_._
-- ~ -'~ ~ . .~.-.-,..~,
~
~
~dINOTES, CI7`1' PLANNLN~ CO'MN2SSION, AUGYJSZ• 30, 1.965 2714
~ RECT,AS3IFICATZON - ~Gr• Hal. Hartley, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission.
N0. 65-66-34 and and reviewed the proposed requost for utilization of an existing residence
for a doctor=s office, further noting that the lot ~vesterly of subject
CONDITIOHAL tiSE property presently zoned C-0, Zore has proven to be an asset to the area;
pERMTT Np, 747 that ihis gave more reason for approving C-0 zoning for adjacent properties;
(Continued) that adequate parking was being provide3 ad3acent to the al.ley at the rear
of subject property, and the,t he was available to answer questions.
,;~j~ Assistant Zoning Superwisor Ronal.d Thompson advised the Commission that an approved Area
:~I Development Plan and General Plan Amendment already existing on those properties on the south
`- ~ side of Ball Road oetween Iris Strset and Harbor Boulevard.
~,
It was noted for the petitioner`s benefit th~.t the ^v-0, Zone permitted the use of an existing
residenoe for office purposes until .1969, after which time, unless granted an extension by the
I Cammission and/or City Council, the residsnce would be removed and replaced with a commeroial
{ type structure; further, there was also the possibility that said conditional use permit oould
l be terminated at that tim.e.
i -.~
~
No one appear.ed in opposition.
ZHC HEAR~G ?~~AS CIASED.
Discussion was hel.d by tre Com~ission as to the request for elimination of the required lands-
capir.g adjoiriing the Claremont Street right-of-way as vfe11. as the waiver of the six foot masonry
wall. and the 'Z$ landscapi:ng in the parking areas, it being determined that the the 3-foot strip
of landscaping al.ong Claremont Street ~ve.iver be denied, but since the General P1an and the Area
Development projected ad,joining properties for the C-0, Zone no wall w^•: neaessary, and that
the parking area woul.d only provide for a maximu.m of 8 parking spaces.
Commissioner Camp o£fored Resol.ution .No. 1?5-, Serie= 1965-66, and moved for its passage und
adoption, seconded bs Oommissioner R.owland, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for
Reclassificatior_ No. 65-66-34 be approved ~u.bject to conditione.(Soe Rosolution Book)
On roll. ca:1.1 the foregoing reso]utiun was passed by the fol.lov~ing vote:
AYES: COMMTSS.LOI~IEFi,S: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Rov~land, Mungall.
NOES: CO:NNG:LS8I:O.NEHB: None.
ABSEN[: COM1~eS3SLONEF.B: Porryo
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1758, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and
~ adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 747,
~ sub~ect to cond.itions.(See Re~o'lution Book)
i On rol.l ca11 the foregoing resolution wa~ pa~sed by the following voi;e:
~ AYES: CO2~I5SIONER;,: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Mungall.
R
NOES: C0~1[MISSIONER.S: None.
~
~
' ASSEN'~: CO~D~SSIOf~R.S: Perry.
~ RECLASSZFICA'PION - PliBLIC HEAA7?QU. MlTRRAY SPORN, 8011 West Commonwealth, Buena Park,
N0. 65-66-35 and California, O~mer; ROSE ~ FEARS, Architeots, 600 North Euclid, 5uite 586,
~ Anaheim, Oalifornia, Agont. Property described as: A rectangu1arly shaped
CONDIfiIONAL USE parcel of land located at the northeast corner of Fairhaven Street and
I FERMTT N0. 748 Wastmont Drive, with frontages of approximritely 62 £eet on Fairhaven Street
and approxi^~atel.y 97 feet on Westmont Drive, and further described as
~ 50"L North F' rha~ren Street. Property classified R-1, OI~ FA~dIL"_t RESIDEi~ITIAL,.
I. 'LONE.
~,~
~ RER'JESTED CLASSIF'ICATION: '~JMMERCIAL OFFICE, ZCI~
1~
~ REQUESTEA CONDTTIONAL IISE: .i .LT AN ARCHTTECT'S GFFTCE AN ERIS'CING RESIAENT:I:AL StfiJCTUAE.
I -
i ~ ~:
~~
. ~~. :-;
~
~~~
h!TN'i`PES, CITY PLA13N71~tU COT~SSSION, August 30, 1965
2'15
RECLASSIEI~ATZO?d - Mr. Le Roy Rose, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Coamiission
N0. 65-66-35 and and reviewed the proposed conversion of an existing residence for an archi-
tect°s office, noting that previous zoning action set the pattern of develop-
CONDI~IONAL USE ment of those homes on the east side of Fairhaven Street between Cresaent
PERMIT N0. 7~8 and t"lest¢~.ont Avonues for C-0 Zone use~; that he recognized the City°s prob-
(Continued) lems in the many requests for commercial zoning along arteriel highways and
the usur~l unsightly signs which appeared; that he was attempting to maintain
the residential. integrity by orienting the entrance to the West¢..nt Avenue frontage and inte-
grating the sign; that he had not indicated a 6-foot masonry wall, because he felt a varied
height wall would reduae the prison like appearance of a block long 6-foot wa1.1 when al.l the
homes were converted to cammercial use, and that the landscaping as shown on the pl.ot plan
would be as indicated, although he would conform ~rith any code requirements with the exception
of the 20,U00 squara foot requiremeni.
Idr. George Walder, 459 North ~daripo~a Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition and
stated he would have .liked to have done vhat the potitioner proposed but recognized that a
zone was neces:•ary and did not wish to subject his neighbors to commercial zoning, so he opened
_ his office elsewhere; that the peti?ioner was proposing "spot zoning" for lNestmont Avenue i.n
addition to Fairhaven Street; that in his opinion the incompatible uses boing forced upon the
re:ident= of the single family home~; was poor planning on the part of the City; that he was not
necessarily resisting reclass.ification of the property, but felt if the City prc;jected these
properties for possib~e commerciel u~•e, the several parcel.s should. all be rer,lassified at one
time rather than piecemeal, this then v~ould as~ist prospectivo developers of the Euclid Avenue
frontage property in p:anning for oompatib.Le comme.-cial de~rolopment and have adequate parking
at the same time; and that ~ost of the ov~ners of the :,•ingle fomil.y homes have been there Sli]CF
it wa~ subdivided, and coi,:Ld never replace their• homes for the market F,-i.ce being asked for
~ homes and what they wo~.ld receive t'or theirs. Fbrther, if subject petit;ion were to be approved
i none of' the homeownor:- would be able to get refinancing of their homes for residential purpusos.
I Mr. Haro13 ::arter, ~42 Linden Flace, appeared before the ~ommission in opposition and steted
that the propcsed use would be incompai.ible with the residentiel integrity already established
~ ir. the area and would further redur,e ihe residentia: potentia: of the ac•ea.
Mr. Frank Pohlmar, 5.13 North Fai.rhaven Street, appearod ir, opposition, and ;tated that he lived
twohouses north of ~he pro,~?rty proposed for reclas~ification; that nt the timo Keystone Saving:
and Loan received approva.l. for rec:.assification of the five lots on the ~ast side of Fairhaven
3treet, the study made of t,ho area and approved, projected those properties un tho east side
of Fairhaven Street between We:stmont and ~.roscent Avenues fnr parking purposes in order that
tho com¢,er~ie.l lots fror;t•ing on Euclid Street might have adequate parking; that no oppusition
was voiced by the re~:idents of the ar•oa for that usa; that the petitioner prope~es a three-foot
wall, wherea~ the :tudY indicated a decorative six fcot masonry wall; that al..l of the property
owners on t'ne east side of Fairha~en Street are aware that all the home~ ev~ntual:y c~i:l be
de~ieloped for co~mercia~ purpo~es; tha+, he hrj,d lived in his home for ten year~ and it was hi~
intent to remain there at least another e.le~ren years; that people would park where they ploased
evon though adequate parking was providod; and that he urged the Commission, .Ln tho ovent they
approved subject petitions,to require a 6-foot masonry wal:l.
Mr. Harold Campbell, 460 Lir,den Place, appeared before the Commission and ~tated he wa~• opposed
to the reclassification from an ecor.omic standpoint because the homeownera coLld not rep]ace
their existing homes in comparsble arass for the price they would receive fur their homes, and
that now there were rumors that the City was considering relocating the fire statioe site.
The CommiscSon advised the ooposition, that the fire station site as projected on the Uener~sl.
Plan was sti'.1 proposed for a fire station and would eventually be built, as indicated by the
Fire Dcpartment during the review of suhject petitions at the Interdepartmental Committee
meeting.
Mr. Campbell. then stated that the fire station would be one more step in the uniform develep-
ment of the area, but he did not want piecemeal commercial developm~,r to occur for those lots
indicated in tho study as parking areas.
In rebuttal, Mr. Rose statad he v+as awaro that the entire b:lock was proposed for C-0 Zoning~
that it had beeri difficult to assemble additional lots for development; that his proposal was
only temporary, and he would be willing to stipulate to use of the property for only three year
if the property owners so desired, since it was haped by that time he would have accumulated
other parcels for a more worthwhile commercial structure; the.t he would stipulate to the six-
foot masonry wa11, but that he had fel.t from an arohitect°s viewpoint that a varied hetght wall
would be more esthetic in order to be more compatibl.e with tho residential environmont already
established in the area.
~
THE HEAR.ING WAS CLOSED.
f
f
~:} ~
_~ 1
.,~x i ,
i,,
: MINU=ES~ ~ITY~ PL•ANMNu" COM~IgSION, August 30, 1.965
2716
RECLASSIF'2CA~°ION - Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the proposal of the
N'0. 65-66-35 and petitioner to use of the property for three years, noting that the zoning
v~ould be in effect; that the study indicated the properties along Fairhaven
GONDIPTONAL USE ~treet ror parking purposes, and inquired of the petitioner if he were wi1.1-
~~~~ ~~• 7~8 ing to devote the use of his property to parking purposes after the three
(Continu.ed) years.
1~^. Rose ~tated that at the time he filed the petition he requested that it be a temporary use
only, and was informed that it was impossible to grant the use, that the property would have to
be reclass.ified, and thai; he was attempting to assemble additional parcels, but if he was not
suacess£ul .ii, his atte2pt, he woul.d ha~~e a~lced for additior,al time for the use of ihe property.
Further, in respor_se to Commission questioning, that if he was successful in assemb7ing the
parcels he wou:~d devote subject property to parking purposes.
Tt was further noted by the ~ommis~ion that at the tin,e Keystone Savings and Loan were given
recl.assification of 5 parr,el, of lard on the east si.de of Fairhaven Straet, a7.1. accc~~s rights
to Fairhaven Drive wa~- to be dod.tcated to tho Qity of Anaheim; a ~ix foct maso~ry wall was also
required together with said wa:ll. beii~g setback three feet from ~he property line, ar.d said three
feet was to be .~andscaped.; and that it was not considered by the Commis~ion as "spot zoning"
since the study projected :•U Zone use:~ which were contingent upon det~elopme.nt of the Euclid
Street frontages., and the pattern of zoning for the area was e~taG:lished more than a year ago.
Commis~ioner Rowl.ctzd oFfered Ro:o;~,tion Vo. ;?59, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage ci.nd
adoption, seoor,ded ry ~o_~issioner Uauer to recommend to the .^,ity Council that Petit.ion for
Rec].a~:ification. nlo~ 65-66-35 be appr•oved, based on the fact that the patt,ern of de~relopment had
occ~,irred in. a provinu: zonirg actior., and subjoct to con>tr~.,otior of a 6-foot decorati~~e masonry
wa11, accoss prohibited to Fairhaven Street, and conditions.(See R.e;olution Bock)
Commissioner Ca¢~p sugge~ted that if .•~hject pei.ition were favorab~y considered that the Com_
mission iniiiate rec.l.ass.tfication proceediqgs fer the r:~maining paroels on the east aide of
Fairhaven Street between Westmont and Crescent Avem;es to tho C-0 Zone.
On roll call the .foregoing rosolotion wa> pas~ed by the fo:l..louin6 vote•
A~`~'° `'~~'-~~~ ID?dEB.~: A]lred, ~emp, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Mungal7.
NOES; CO.Mh~rLS~ IOAtEri:.; None.
AfiSENT,•: GO:M7~t'I6S;'O~R3: Perry.
Commis~ioner Rowland offered Resolotion \o. 1?60, Series 1965-66, and o~yed ior its passago
and adoption, secanded by Coumdssioner {::llred, to grant Fetition for Condxtional.t~se Fermit
No• ?48, subject to aonstruction of a six-foot masonry via11, setback three feet from the prop-
erty '_ine, snd said three feet landscaped, and conditioris.(See Resoluti.on uooY.)
On ro.l.l ca11 the foreooing resolution was prsssed Ly the following vote:
A`-~~~ COML4ISS.T.Ob"ER:: Allred, Cemp, f;auer, fierbst, Rowland, Mungall.
NOES: CUMM=I:SSIGNERS: No.ne.
ABSE(Qfi: COMh~1:S~I0n~R~: Perry.
Il1~ITTA~~ION OF -~omr~issioner R.owland offered a motion to direct the Zoning Division to
RECLASSIFICAT70~r set £or public hearing reclassifiaation proceedings for those properties
PROCEEDL'~IGS on the east side of Fairhaven Street between Westmont and Creecent Avenues
no~t already rezoned from the R-1, One Family Residential., Zone to the C-0,
Commeroial Office, 7,one. Comtnissioner G~.uer seconded the motion, ard n,dde!
the.t the Area Development Plan No. 3 also be considered.MO`TSON CARRI:ED.
RECLASSIF'LCATION - PiJBI~I~ [~ARIIVC. WARRET[ M, b~~~;q B~~~~ 1849 UJest Katella A~ ~~r,~e,
N0, 65-66-36 Anaheim, CaliSornia, Owners; fiIC-TOC
Avenus, Garden Grove, Cnlifornia, Agen~t~,~r,equesting t~lRiatEprope3ty descri~ed
of Kai;ella Avenue and•Eas rWatangularly shaped parcel of land .located at the northwe~t co~-ne:r
Y y, with frontages of approximately 109 feet on Katella Avenue and
approximately 310 feet on Easy Vpay, and further described as 1849 west Katella Avenue be rec].as3
ified from the R-A, A~rR~ICTJLTURAL, ZOTAE to the C-l, GENEgAL COMMEHCTAL, ZONE te establ.ish a
market store and offi.ce building on subject properi.y.
Mr. J. R.. Cruse, representing the agent for the petitioner, reviewed the propos3d development
for the Commission.
;~.- ~~i' ,~rx-_
~
,~
~
11~INU'PES, CITY' p.T,AN(QIlYG COM~i~ISSION, August 30, 1965
2?17
RECLASSIF"TCATION - No one appeared in opposition.
N0. 65-66-36
(Continuad ) 2HE I~llRZN'G WAS CLOSED.
~
Assistant Zoring Supervisor Rona.ld Thompson advised the Commission that the proposed plan of
development complied vrith all requirements of the C-l, Zone.
Coarmissioner Al.lred offered Resolution No. 1761, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and
adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for
Recl.assifioation No. 65-66-36 be approved sub,ject to condition~.(See Resolution Book)
On ro1.1. call the foregoing resolut3on was passed by the following vote•
A`~~~ 60MMIS~TOI~TERS; Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Mungall.
I+COES: OOMMISSIONEA$; IGone.
ABSEM•I't COyI~AZ~S10I~~R~; Perry.
RECLA55g~:LCAT:IUN - PTJBIcIO HEyRING. JA1dES DL''RAN~IE, JOH~7 LALr}iIA, ArlD 30 ANN LAi1RTA, 1'7_16 East
N0. 65-66-3? and I,a palma Avenue, Anaheim, Californis, Owners; KEIVRrETg E, I~,~ 914 We~t
Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; property de~cr~;,dd as~ An
VAR2ATZCE NC_ ~__17gp irre~tlarl.y shaped parcel of ].and with a frontage of t+,ppro~ima,te1Y gg peet
on the south side of La Palma Avenue and a maxisum depth of approximately
218 feet east of the2centerlinohofvEastrStreeta8and~furthercdescribedyas81216aE~stXLaapa~~,
Avenne. Yroperty presently classified R-]., ONE FAy[;tL~ I~,g~~q:=~, ZGNE.
~4UES`PED CLASSI~'1'CA'IIOI~; C-1, GENERAL CO~ERCIAL•, ZONE.
REQUESTED VIIRTANCE; WAI1lERS OF: fl
) MLNIifd~i~e 10-FOOT 3E_'•BACR: Ai~ SCREE?u Pi~AN'P1T1G
AB'JI'?`L~TG RESIDEN.rIAL ZONE, /~TD !2) MAy~~~M ~y~~: L1~T~,
Co¢~issioner Rowl.and left the Counr,il Chamber at 5:05 p.m.
]~'• Kenneth L,ae, agent for the petitioners a
ed rend.erin.r, of the proposed commerciel development and~reviewed~~ission and presented a col.or-
ther tl;at a servi.ce station existed to the west, that a medicalacenternwasflocatedptontheLr-
east, that ~ie had r•ead that the contract had been let for the extension of 1a Fa]ma, Avenue
and the streaet would be a 106-foot eiide stree~ which was indicative that this would no longer
be a resident~al street; that u non-conforming use presently exi:;ted on the property v~hich wa~
commerciel; that parking was being proposod to the rear which was also adjacent to barren deep
lots fronting on east street; that tne proposed development would not be :otting A precedent
for the area because that had been done v~ith the ser~rice station and s.edical center at I.~a Palma
Avenue and Aaen~~ Street, and that with the walls and landscaping being proposed, the structure
e+ould be an asset to the rsrea.
Mr. George Ho].don, 1228 East Is. Palna Avenue, appeared before the f;o~i.ssicn snd stated. that
he would not delve on the subject of "spot zoning~~ but the entire area between E~st Streot
and Acacia was presently developed ,-rith R-1 homes the only exception being the ser~•iae station,
Uhat the City should conduot a study oP the area to determine what ca.n be done with al.l the
parcels fronting on La Palms Avenue :ather than having piecemeal development requests presented
for consideration; that there was nothing unusual about sub'ect
pertain to the other deep lots in. the area; that the ~ Property that did not also
forced into commercial development of their Property ownors were not desirous of being
of the araa ma propertias one lot at a time, and perhaps a study
y give some a.ssistance io these property owners for ultimate development of their
deep lots, and that he was opposed to any other use of the property which was not residential
in character, since the General Plan indicated residential development.
~r'• T1'lurmsn Harris, 1224 East Lo. palma Avenue, appe~ed before the Commission, and stated he
was immediately to the east of subject property, ~hat he did not approve or disapprove the
propose3 development, although his proporty was most directly affected, he vras wondering why
certain lots were permitted to develop co~nerc!.ally or 'spot zoning'~, sinoe he had previous
experienoe in otY,er cities where a combinati.on of co~eraial and residential uses were permitted
and all properties were affected by depreaiation of the property; that although the petitioner
stated the proposed structure would be an improvement this did not raean other paio~~,.s would
be similarly developod; that the petitioner indicated t,nat parking v~ould be located tu the x-ear
of the property, and he ob,jeoted to that because bedi•oom 1~indows were open a~~3 cars uoming and
going to the structure wottld disturb the rost of his family; that because of the noises from
, tlio streot, especially when the motorcyoles leave the service station to race down Lo, palma
, /lvenue; that he had resided in his homo for nine years and Mr. Holden was b~rn at his prosent
~~
1~ - - '
--- -- a -- . - .. ~, "~'
M.T_NUfiES, OIfiY PLANNING COA~EEISSTON, August 30, 1965
2718
RECLAS9TFICAii~~N - residence; that since apsrtments vrere located in close proximity, he was
bIO. 65-66-37 artd anticipating developing his property with multiple family units upon his
retirement, but sinoe previous requests for R-3 zoning had been denied,
VAR.IANCE N0. 1730 i.nquired of the Commission whather or not the City proposed commeraiel
(Continued) development for the entire street, since he would rather see all one type
of zvning such as ao~erciel, or leave the area for the residential purposes
presently established on the properties.
~ '
~; ^.:"~x.~
~t~
Mr. Lae, in rebuttal, stated that the only assurance he could give to the adjacent property
owners was that the office would not be used at night except on rare ocaasions.
Four persons indicated their presenae in opposition.
Tf~ fiE9R2NG WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Gauer noted that almo^t all the service stations on East Street had been disap-
proved by the Commission.
_, The Commission in reviewing the proposed reclassification noted this would be a definite
oncroachment into the R-1 integrity of the area, and before the Co¢~ission could consider
subjeat petition, an aroa development of all the deep lots fronting on East Street and La Palma
Avenue should be prepared and advertised, in ordor that the Commission might have some guide
for possible development of other properties in the area, end that the hearing be scheduled
in the evening in order to allow all interested property owners a chance to voice their ideas
on any proposal.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to re-opon the hearing and continue the hearing on
Petitions for Reclassification No. 65-66-37 and Variance Nu. 1730 to the meeting of October 18,
REPORTS AND - IZ'EM N0. 1
RECOM~GENDATIONS Orange G~unty Street Naming Committse - Wanda Road
Located between Lincoln Avenue and Collins Avenue and a portion of
Santiago Boulevard running north and south.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Ronald Tliompson presented a request ef the City Council for a
report and reco~endation for the naming of the frontage road between Lincoln Avenue on the
north and Collins Avenue on the south, and extending southerly from Collins Avenue that portion
of Santiago Boulevard ta 19anda Road. It was also noted that the frontage road extending
northerly from Lincoln Avenue within the city limits of Anaheim was known as Santa Ana Canyon
Road. It was also noted that the city had a Wanda IJrive located northerl.y of La Palma 9venue
between East Street and Acacia Streei..
Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the fact that the street being nemed would
lie within the boundaries of the City of Orange, and since this would affect that city more
than the City of Anaheim, so long as the Santa Ana Canyon Rorui would not be affected by any
neme change, the City of Anaheim should concur in the wishes of tha City of Orange.
Commissioner Camp offered e motion to advise the City Council that the Planning Co~ission
of the City of Anaheim would concur in the •xishes of the City of Orange, so long as the street
name change would not apply to the extensicn of said street north, northeast of Lincoln Avenue
in the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Allred secondod the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ITE6~ N0. 2
Orange County Use Variance No. 5602, Proposing to convert a sales model home
with temporary sales office in an existing garage into a family room, property
located in a R-1, f~e Fawily, Zoned Tract No. 5332, locste~~ at. the southeast
corner of Beauty P.e and the southerly extension of Starfire Street ! a tem-
porary access easement) in the Santa Ana Canyon area.
Associate Planner Ronald Thompson presented Orange County Use Variance No. 5602 to the Co~is-
sion, noting the subject property was located easterly of the recent Johnson Annexation, and
that the petitioner was proposing to convert the ssles office of the model home ir.to a family
room. It was also noted that the petitioner proposed to have two open driveway parking spaces
_ instead of the Code requirement c~f t~vo off-street covered parking spaces.
*
1965, to be scheduled for an evening session, and d.irected the sta£f to prepare and set for
public hearing in conjunction with the aforamentioned petitions an area development plan
encompassing those deep lots fronting on East Street and La Palma Avenue. Commissioner Camp
seconded the motion. MO'IION CARRIED.
--- _•~
MINUTES, CITY PLAIQNING COMMISSION, August 30, 1965 2719
REPORTS AND ITE96 N0. 2(Continued)
~cotu~namrnNS -
Co~issioner Allred offered a motion to recommend to the City Counail that the Orange County
Planning Commission be urged to deny the request which the petitioner was proposing to elimin-
ate the required two covered parking spaces, and a requirement of the adjoining homes in
Tract No. 5332, and to roquire that the petitioner develop subject progerty in acoordance with
the parking requirements of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Co~issioner Camp seconded
, the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
! i ~~ ITE~4 N0. 3
:;; ~ Orange Count,y Conditioasl Permit No. 1202
s} Proposing to establish a stepping stone and lawn curbing manufacuring
~~ business on approximately 4.3 acres in the M-1 Light Industriel District
~ located on the east side of Fee Ana approxima.tely 330 feet south of
j Orangethorpe Avenue in the Atwood area.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson prssentsd Orange County Conditional Permit No.1202
to the Co~ission noting the loaation of subjeat property, that the proposed use was projected
for the M-1 Zone although an M-2 use, and that fi.he petitioner proposed to construat a concrete
batch plant on subject propsrty. Recommendations of' the Zoning Staff were also roviewed.
Discussion was held by the Commission as to the proposed use having detrimental effects on
any future development for ir.3ustrial purposes in the area since the use was considered quite
dirty, and woulc: also entail con~iderable storage of the finished product. It was then
determined by the Co:~ission that the public hearing on the petition v~ould not be considered
by the Co~ission until September 15, 1965, and directed that a written report be submitted
from Development Ser~~ices Director Alan Orsborn, and the Co~ission would make an on the spot
inspection to determine the effects,if any, and then make their reao~endations to the City
Council e.t the Commission's meeting of September 13, 1965•
I'~EN[ N0. 4
Conditional Use Permit No. 612 - Mexican Baptist Church(formerly the Robert
and ~6ary Lou Burrows property) requesting a 180-day extension of time to
complete conditions.
AssistE.nt Zoning Supervisor Ronald TY.ompson presented the roquest of the Mexican Baptist Church
present owners of property considered and approved in Conditional Use Permit No. 612. It was
noted that the City Council took no action on September 22, 1964, and a 180-day extension of
time was granted by the Co~i.ssion on March 22, 1965, said time extension to expire on
September 5, 1965. The reason for the additional request was the fact that unforeseen finan-
cial difficultias made it necessary to defer building, although the property was no~~~ owned by
the Mexican Baptist Church.
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to grant an additional 180 days for the completion of
aonditions attached in Resolu~`ion No. 1318, Series 1964-65 granted Conditional Use Permit
No. 612, said time extension to expire Nlarch 1, 1966. Commissioner Allred seaonded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM N0. 5
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 654 - Establish a coin-operated car wash at the
northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and East Street, request for extension
of time.
Assisting Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson presented the request of Mr. Ru;sell Murrey,
represent~ng tho Auto-M~t, Inc. for an extension of time to aomplete conditions in Resolution
No. 1438, Series 1964-65 granting Conditional Use Permi.t No. 054. It v~as noted that on
February 16, 1965, the petitioner requested termination of ~he petition and a refund of the
street lighting and tree fees which had been paid. The City Council on March 16, 19E5 denied
the request, and the Commission determined that said petition should terminate automatically at
the time the time limitation expired.
Commissioner Camp offered a motion to grant an extension o£ 180 days for the completion of
the remaining conditions granting Conditional Use Permit No. 654 in Resolution No. 1438, Series
1964-65, said time extension to expire December 6, 1965. Commissioner Allred seconded 1,he moti
MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURIVMENT - There being no further business to disouss, Co~tiasioner Herbst offered a motion
to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Allred,seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIEL'. The mebting adjourned at 5:50 p.m.
Rospe tfully submitted.
~~L~ ~rZ~Co~ission Seoretar•Y
._ - .. , - - - _ .---~~.
,__ . /A_i.~
„~x