Minutes-PC 1965/10/18t
_f ~
3
City Hall
A~aheim, California
Octuber 18, 1965
A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR A~ETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to
order by Chairman Mungall at 2:00 o`clock P.M., a quorum being present.
PRESENT - CHAIRMAM: Mungall.
- COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland.
ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: None.
PRESENT - Assistant Zoning Supervisor Ronaid Thompson
Deputy City Attorney: Furman Rob~erts
Office Engineer: Arthur Daw
Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs
Planning Department Stenographzr: Caroly~ Grogg
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Gauer led the pledge of allegiance to the Flag.
APPROVAL UF - The Minutes of the meeting of September 27, 1965, were approved
THE MIN UfES as submitted.
AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,
OF THE ANAHEIM 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposing an amendment
MUNICIPAL CODE to the Anaheim Municipal Code, Title 18, Chapter 18.04, Section
18.040.020 - Uses; Chapter 18>08, Section 18.08.390 - Home Occupations;
and Chapter 18>18 - Residential Estates Zone.
Assistant Planner Marvin Krieger presented amendments to Title 13, Chapter 18.04, noting that
reference to poultry, chickens, dogs, etce, was deleted from Chapter 18a18, Residential Estates
; Zone and incorporated in the proposed amendment as presented to the Commission.
It was also noted by Mr. Krieger that reference to problem lots on cul-de-sacs in the R-E Zone
was incorporated in the amendment to the section requiring a minimum lot width and setback.
No opposition was presented relative to amendments to Chapter 18,18 and 18.04, Section 18.04.020,
General Use.
A letter of opposition was read to the Commission regarding the amendment to the definition of
a"home occupation", particular reference being made to any easing of restrictions relative to
operating businesses in a home should be deleted.
Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts, in response to Commission questioning relative to complaint~
made by the writer of the letter of opposition, stated that upon personal inspection, he was
unable to determine whether the referenced Mr. Lewis in said letter was in violation of the
home occupation definition; that he had discussed the complaints received by the Zoning Division
of Development Services suggesting the possibility of screening the large glass door to dis-
courage any possible business walking from the street to the door; that Mr. Lewis had indicated
he would construct a masonry wall which would somewhat reduce the objection the Walnut Park
Homeowners Association might have; and that he had encouraged the adjacent property owners to
take photographs to substantiate the fact the single-family homeowner, Mr. Lewis, was indeed
in violation of a home occupation permit.
: Upon completion of discussion by the Commission and Mr. Roberts relative to the easing of
~; restrictions on the home occupation permit, the Commission requested that said definition
~~ be read to the general public for their information.
~ No one a
~ ppeared in opposition to subject petitions.
~ THE HEARING WAS CL05ED.
~.`~ Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 1797, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and
~` adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to recommend to the City Council that an amendment to
Title 18, Chapter 18.18, Residential Estates Zone, be amended as depicted on Exhibit "A".
~ (See Resolution Book.)
~~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
'~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall.
';~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
'~~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo -2753-
c
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October ].8, 1965 2754
,~~
~" ~ '
~~
4' . ~
f ~ I
AN~NDMENT TO TITL~ 18 - Comm=ssioner Perry offered Resolution Noe 1798, Series 1965-66, and
OF THE ANAHEIM moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst,
MUNICIPAL CODE to recommend to the City Council that Amendment to Title 18, Chapter
(Continued) 18a04, Section 18.04a020, General Use, be approved. (See Resolution
Booko)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
Commissioner Camp offered Resolution Noo 1799, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and
adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend to the City Council that Title 18,
Chapter 18008, Section 18o08e390, Home Occupation, be amended. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Alired, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None,
ABSENT: COh'~MISSIONERS: Nonea
GENERAL PLAN - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East
AMENDMENT N0~ 61 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, to consider amendment to the
circulation element of the General Plan by designating Howell Avenue
easterly from State Colle9e Boulevard to connect with Katella Avenue
as a secondary highway.
Assistant Planner Marvin Krieger presented General Plan Amendment Noa bl to the Planning
Commission and indicated that Howell Avenue presently was designated as a 6~?-foot wide
street, with varying widths from 40 to 60 feet; that with the open~n9 of the stadium, by
requiring the width of the street to correspond to a se~ondary highway of 90 feet would
give added ingress and egress to the stadium site, as well as the industrial area.
In response to Commission questioning, Mro Krieger stated the majority of the property was
still undeveloped; therefore, the acquisition of the necessary width for widening the street
to the proposed width could be obtained at the time development took place.
Mr. Hubert Howell, owner of property adjacent to Howell l.venue, appeared before the Commission
and stated that he and a Mr. Leonard Smith were contemplating development on a portion of the
property, but that Mre Smith was out of town for six weeks and requested continuance of the
Commission's consideration of the proposed General Plan amendment until he and Mre Smith had
made a decision relative to the propertyo
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Discussion was held by the Commission relative to continuance of subject General Plan amend-
ment, and it was determined there was no great urgency in recommending any General Plan chan9e
to the City Council; therefore, subject General Plan amendment could be considered at a~ater
date.
Comm_ssioner Rowland offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue public hearing of
General Plan Amendment No. 61 to the meetin9 of December 20, 1965, in order to allow adjoin-
ing property owners sufficient time to review the proposed amendment and to voice comments.
Commissioner Herbst seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDa
GENERAL PLAN - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSICfJ, 204 East
AMENDMENT N0. 62 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposing the amendment to the
General Plan by designating Pacifico Avenue extending from State College
Boulevard on the east to Anaheim Boulevard on the west as a secondary
highway,
Assistant Planner Marvin Krieger reviewed for the Commission General Plan Amendment No. 62,
indicating that the existing Pacifico Avenue did not fully extend from Anaheim Boulevard on
the west to State College Boulevard on the east, and the proposed amendment would provide
, access to landlocked industrial parcels presently existing in ihe Southeast Industrial Area;
further, that it would add an additional access to and from the Anaheim Stadiumo
~
~~ f No one appeared in opposition to subject petition,
1 THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
.
- ,
~,
~
~ - ,
. j
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMlSSION, Qctober 18, 1965 ~ 2755
GENERAL PLAN - In reviewing the proposed Genex•al Plan amendment, the Commission noted
AMENDMENT N0. 62 the proposed extension and designation of Pacifico A~enue was a logical
(Continued) means of providing adequate access to landlocked parcels in the Southeast
Industrial Areao
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1800, Series 1965-66~ and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that General
Plan Arnendment No. 62, establishing Pacifico Avenue between Anaheim Boulevard on the west
and State College Boulevard on the east as a secondary highway to provide access to land-
locked industrial parcels of the Southeast Industrial Area, be approved. (See Resolution
. Booko)
.~-s/e~~;
k,j On ro11 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
~~~ AYES: COMMISSTONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall>
~~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
, ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None>
GENERAL PLAN - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSIqJ, 204 East
' AMENDh~NT D!Oo 63 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposing to establish a new street
southerly of Katella Avenue, between Harbor Boulevard on the east and
W2st Street on the west, to be designated as Convention Way and a
secondary highway,
Assistant Planner Marvin Krieger reviewed the proposed General Plan amendment, noting that
the proposed street would provide ingress to and egress from the southerly side of the
Anaheim Convention Center and would add interior access to approximately 40 acres of land
presently located within the Commercial-Recreation Area which had frontage only on West
Street and/or Harbor Boulevarde
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THE HFARING WAS CLOSEDo
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution N~o 1801, Seri?s 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Counci2 that General
Plan Amendment Noa 63 be approved. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None>
GENERAL PLAN - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East
AMENDMENT N0~ 66 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposing amendment= to the Table
of Exceptions of the Circulation Element of the General P1•an.
Assistant Planner Marvin Krieger reviewed for the Commission the up-dating of the Table of
Exceptions list of the Circulation Element of the General Plan, noting that East Street was
presently listed as an "exception", but was now to be designated as a"standard secondary
highway"; Haster Street was presently listed as an "exception", and the amendment v+ould
establish it as a"standard secondary highway"; that the N~anchester Hvenue frontage road
was proposed as a"secondary highway", and Ninth Street would establish the designation
as a"collector street without exception"; that Orangethorpe Avenue was listed with vary-
in9 widths from Lemon Street to the Imperial Freeway due to the already established irregu-
larities in the centerline of said street; that South Street was being corrected because of
a typographical error, changing the dimension only for a certain portion of the street east
of State College Boulevard; and that Walnut Street was being amended to reflect the existing
and future conditions for said street. It was also noted the desianation of Los Angeles
Street had been changed to Anaheim Boulevard, its present name, and that all the foregoing
recommended amendments were due to changes which had occurred since the previous amendment
to the Table of Exceptions.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOEED.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noe 1802, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that General
Plan Amendment No. 66, up-dating the Table of Exceptions of the Circulation Element of the
General Plan be amended. (See Resolution Book.)
~
, ~ _-~ ,
MINUTES, CITY PIANNING COMNIISSION, October 18, 1965 ~ 2756
GE1dERAL PLAN - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AMENDMENT N0. 66
(Continued) AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland,
Mungall.
PlOES: COMMISSIONHRS: None.
AHS a1T: COMMISSIONERS: None.
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. LAURA M. SCHULTZ, 2038 West Lincoln Avenue,
N0. 65-66-30 Anaheim, California, Owner; WEGER COMPANY, INCORPORATED, 8879 West Pico
Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, 90035, Agent; property described as:
CONDITIONAL USE Parcel No. 1: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land 2ocated at the south-
PERMIT N0. 743 east corner of Lincoln Avenue and Empire Street, with frontages of approxi-
ma~ely 67 feet on Lincoln Avenue and approximately 130 feet on Empire Street;
Parcel No. 2: A rectangularly shaped parcel adjoining and easterly of
Parcel No. 1, with a frontage of approximately 196 feet on Lincoln Avenue and a maximum depth
of approximately 150 feet, and further described as 2028 West Lincoln Avenue. Property
presently classified R-1, CNE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE (PARCEL NOa 1); R-A, AGRICULTURAL,
ZQJE (PARCEL N0. 2).
REQUES'_'ED CLASSIFICATION: C-1~ GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE FOR PARCEL N05. 1 AND 2.
REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A WALK-UP DONUT SHOP AND SHOPPING CENTER WITH WAIVERS OF:
(1) MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF A STRUCTURE LOCATED WITHIN 150 FEET OF AP~ R-1
ZONE~ (2) SCREEN PLANTING ASUTTING AN R-1 ZONE, (3) COUNCIL POLICY
REGARDING SETBACK ON LINCOLN AVENUE IN THIS AREA, (4) ALLEY REQUIRE-
MENT, AND (_ ) REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES.
Subject petitions were continued from the meeting of September 27, 1965, in order that the
Development Services Department and the Interdepartmentai Committee might have an opportunity
to review the revised plans submitted, as requested by the petitioner.
Mr. Weger, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the location
of subject property and the compatibility of the prc;,~sed use to that presentiy existing to
the east and west, fronting on the south side of Lincoln Avenue. Photographs of the existing
property and its compatibility with the adjoining commercial properties were also submitted
for the Commission's consideration.
- The Commission~ upon reviewing the plans, noted the petitioner proposed only a 3-foot strip
of landscaping on the Lincoln Avenue and Empire Street frontages, and that the required land-
scapin9 could be provided if the pians were revised to reduce the width of the sidewalk.
I
J Mr. Weger stated that the proposed lessee of the market requested a 7-foot sidewalk be installec
.~ immediately adjacent to the market; that office and commercial structures were existing to the
:~j east and to the west.
The Commission also noted the City policy for setbacks along Lincoln Avenue had been required
at 35 feet, whereas the petitioner was making an exception to this, and that although the
j medical center and properties on the opposite side of the street did not maintain the 35-foot
F i setback, i:hese properties had been developed prior to annexation into the City and prior to
the adoption of the setback policy by the City.
Mr. Weger stated they were unable to develop the property if they were required to maintain
. a 35-foot setback, since adequate parking could not be provided,as well as the required rear
yard.
The Commission noted that parking could be maintained at the front of the property rather
~ ~ than at the rear as was being proposed.
I
It was also noted that a finding should be made that the petitioner withdrew his request for
~`• j a walk-up donut shop because the revised plans indicated the screen planting abutting an R-1
~ I Zone, the alley requirement, and the waiver of the number of parking spaces based on the fact
~• that the revised pians had obviated any need for the requested waiver, and that the only
waiver the Commission would have to consider would be the height of the sCructure within
~n1 150 feet of an R-1 Zone; further, that the waiver of Council policy was erroneously advertised
and t'tie petitioner would have to request this waiver from the City Council.
:~~ Mrs. Resendo Euzarraga, 2043 West Embassy Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition
~_ and stated the proposed shopping center would be located only six feet from her property line
and would also be only twenty feet from her residence; that Mr. Gary Jones who resided to the
* east of her property had been present at the previous hearing but was unable to attend, and
,,~ she was representing him in opposition, based on the fact that the existing fence was not the
required six feet, and there would be an invasion of the privacy of the residents abutting
, the shopping center if a six-foot fence was not maintained. It was also noted the petitioner
I
~. i
MINUTES, GITY PLANNING COMMISSICtJ, October 18, 1965 J 2757
RECLASSIFIGATION - was proposing an access drive to Empire Street which would add commercial
N0. 65-66-30 traffic to a residential street, and with so many small, pre-school
children in the neighborhood, this would create a hazard to their safetya
CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT I~Oo 743 Mrs. J. W. Passo, 114 Empire Street, appeared before the Commission in
(Continued) opposition to the proposed commercial center, stating the center would
be only 17 feet from the gate to her driveway, and with many small children
using the sidewalk and the gate adjoining her property, these children
would be subjected to commercial traffic hazards constantly; further, that R-1 deed restric-
tions had been filed on the R-i portion of subject property approximately 15 years ago, and
all the adjoining residents had purchased their ho;nes with the assurance these deed restric-
~~ tions would be adhered to, and requested the Commission deny subject petition in order that
the residential integrity of Empire Street might be maintainedo
Mrso Theresa Misener,real estate agent for Cal-State Real Estate Company and representing
~ I
' the property owner, in reply to the opposi~ion stated the only change made to the revised
plans was the relocation of the structure, adding additional footage to the rear property
line, and that commercial development existed on Lincoln Avenue, and with the problems
inherent with traffic along Lincoln Avenue, the existing structure and property could not
be used for residential purposes~
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Considerable discussion was then held by the Commission relative to the proposed use and
the objections made by the adjoining single-family property owners, it being the opinion
of the Commission that the proposed use was considerably lighter than commercial uses which
might be developed on subject property; that Lincoln Avenue was not a street on which resi-
dential properties could be developed; that the petitioner was proposing an enclosed restaurant
which would enhance the appearance of the commercial development rather than detract from itj
that in the Coaunission`s opinion, the established 35-foot setback should be maintained on
subject property; and that although deed restrictions had been filed on subject property
limiting the use to single-family residential use only, this was a private affair over which
the City had no jurisdiction, and recommended that if the property owners were apposed to
deviation from these deed restrictions, they couid take recourse through due process of the
law to prohibit the violation of these deed restrictions by the petitioner.
Additio~al comments of opposition were again voiced by Mrs. Passo and Mrs. Euzarraga,
In response to additicnal objection, the Commission stated that only packaged liquor could
be sold under the C-1 Zone, whereas on-sale liquor would require an additional conditional
use permit~
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No~ 1803, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passaqe
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend to the City Council that Petition
for Reclassification No. 65-66-30 be approved, subject to conditions, provided, however, that
the petitioner comply with the requirements of landscaping abutting the front property line
and the maintenance of the required 35-foot setback as established by City policy, unless
waived by the City Council. (See Resolution Book~)
On roll call the foregoing resolutior. was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungallo
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
Commissioner Camp offered Resolution Noo 1804, Series 1965~66, and moved for its passage and
adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noe 743
for the waiver of the maximum height of a structure located within 150 feet of an R-1 Zone;
further, that the petitioner had withdrawn his request to establish ~he walk-up donut shop
and the waiver of the screen planting abutting the R-1 Zone, the alley requirement, and the
waiver of the number of parking spaces, based on the revised plans submitted. (See
Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIGtJERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: No~ee
~
~
~
' 1
MINUI'ES, CITY PLANNING COM'AISSION, October 18, 1965 " 2758
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. LELA HATTON, 2170 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim,
PERMIT NOo 765 California, Owner; requesting PERh1ISSI0N FOR ADDITIQJAL OVERNIGHT TRAILER
~ SPACES IN AN ESTABLISHED TRAILER PARK on property described as: An
~ irregularly shaped parcel of land w•ith frontages of approximately 39 feet
on the east side of Harbor Boulevard and approximately 462 feet on the north side of Wilken
Way, the major portion of said parcel beginning a ppxoximately 30~ feet east of the centerline
of Harbor Eoule.~3rd, and furtner described as 2170 South Harbor Boulevard> Property presently
classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONEo
Mrs. Lela Hatton, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission to review the proposed request
and to answer questions for the Commission by stating that a two to three-day limitation was
~.~~ placed on overnight trailer spaces; thai, approximately 14 extra parking spaces would be pro-
vided for guest parking; and that the same type and size of slabs presentiy being used on the
4 , existing trailer spaces would be used for the additional spaceso
~ No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiona
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED<
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution Noo 18C5, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and
_, adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst to approve Petition for Conditional Use Permit No.
765, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Booko)
On roll cal.l the furegoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, rviungall,
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None~
CONDI'IIONAL USE - PUBLIC !iEARING~ J~ LEAR, INCORPORATED, 522 North State College Boulevard,
PERMIT NO,~ 766 Anaheim, California9 Owner; requestin3 PERMISSICtV FOR ON-SALE LIQUOR IN AN
EXISTING MEXICAN RESTAURANT, on property described as: An irregularly
shaped lot situated on the east side of State College Boulevard, approxi-
mately 62 feet north of Sycamore Street, said parcel having a frontage on State College
. Boulevard of approximately 71 feet and an average depth of approximately 128 feet, and
~ further described as 522 North State College Boulevardo Property presently classified
_ C-1, GENEPAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
~ The C~mmission Secretary advised the Commission a letter of opposition was received from the
First Congregational Churcho
~' ~
~; Mro Howard Sa Block, Attorney, 128 East Amerige, Fullerton, California, appeared before the
t Commission as the petitioner's representative, ~tating that other Mexican restaurants in the
City either had a bar or ~erved beer and/or wine; thereupon, a list was presented to the
~~ Commission~ Mra Block stated he wished to emphasize, in regard to the church's opposition~
~~ i that the present lessee operated a family-type restaurant; that the serving of beer and/or
wine would be only for the purpose of complementing the meals served; and that the hours of
~ operation were from 11:00 AeM~ to 9:00 P,Mo
~:~ ~ Mrs. Richard Laub, Jre, 519 North Redwood Place, appeared before the Commission to present
~' a petition signed by 16 homeowners in the area, all of whom were opposed to the proposed use
~; because of the proximity of the aforementioned church and an existing school behind the church,
and that students who were discharged from a school bus in the afternoon in front of subject
property would be subjected to cars leaving the premises, which would also be an objectionable
~ influencee
+ ~ In response to Commission questioning, Mrs~ Laub stated that the existing Italian restaurant
~ approximately a block down the street from subject property had been a problem in relation
to the neiyhborhocd children also.
i
Reverend Walter Vernon, Pastor of the Firs± Congregational Church, appeared before the
, Commission in opposition to subject request, at which time he read to the Commission his
church's letter of opposition submitted prior to the meeting for inclusion in the file.
Mr. Lear, owner of subject property, appeared before the Commission to state that the present
~.; ~ lessee of subject property operated a very fine establishment which was family-type in nature;
that children would not be allowed without the presence of their parents; and that a bar would
! not be constructed in the restaurant if the proposed use was granted.
*; Mr, Block stated that since the existing restaurant was an eating establishment, it would not
E:~ attract the type of person about which the church arid surrounding homeowners in the area were
"~ ~ concerned, and that if subject request were denied, the existing Mexican restaurants in the
~,~ City would be permitted a r.ight not enjoyed by the petitioner~
~
_t ~4
4
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 18, 1965 ' 2759
CONDITIONAL USE - The Commission advised the petitioner that. the other Mexican r~~±.aurants
PERMIT N0. 766 referred to by Mro Block in all probabili~.y did not have a church or
(Continued) school in close proximitye
THE HFI~RIP:G WAS CLOSEDo
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noo 1806, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit
No, 765 on the basis of the close proximity of the church and school and the detrimental
effect proposed request might have on the welfare of the neighborhood~ (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: AllredY Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, A4unga1l, Rowlande
NOES: COMMISSICNERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSI~JERS: Nonea
In voting for denial, Commissioner Rowland stated that his reason for doing so was because
of the close proximity of the church, and that if the latter were not involved, he would
not vote for denial on relationship of the use to a shopping center since every shopping
center in town has a beer and/or wine licenseo
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING~ OLIVER G. BAKER, 147 South Beach Boulevard, Anaheim,
PERMIT N0, 767 California, Owner; RUSSELL JAY AND BEDI ROCHELLE, 8681 Katella Avenue,
Stanton, Californiay Agents; requesting PERMISSION TO ESTABLISH A 136-
SPACE TRAILER PARK on property described as: An irregularly "U"-shaped
parcei of land located on the west side of Heach Boulevard, with a combined frontage of
approximately 795 feet on Beach Boulevard and a maximum depth of approximately 623 feet,
the northern boundary ~f said property being approximately 330 feet south of the centerline
of Lincoln Avenue, and further described as 147 South Beach Boulevard~ Property presently
classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONEo
The Commission Secretary advised the Commission of a letter of opposition received from
Empire Financial Corporation.,
Mre Ben Rochelle, one of the petitioner`s agents, appeared before the Commission to review
subject proposal, stating that his associate, Russell Jay, would arrive later to show tt.a
Commission a colored rendering of the proposed development, but that he had aerial photo-
graphs of the area showing where subject property was bounded on the south by an existing
trailer park (Mobile Home Estates); further, that it was proposed to be developed similarly
to the petitioner`s existing trailer park at Katella and Dale Avenues, which was built
approximately a year ago, and that the park would not have any overnight trailer spzces for
rentalo
Mre Rochelle further stated that after considering several different types of ~=velopment
for subject property, the present proposal appeared to be the best use for the land; further,
that Empire Financial Corporation owned the ten-acre parcel to the west, and that the peti-
tioner had offered, by letter, a reasonable purchase price for their land several days ago.
In response to Commission questioning, Mr. Rochelle stated that the owner of subject property,
Oo G, Baker, was planning to remain in his existing residence on subject property until such
time he decided to move, which, he added, should not be too long and that a masonry wallwould
be constructed around the residence so that it would not have any effect on the proposed park,
Mro G> Lo Lancaster, representative of Cherokee Mobile Gardens, appeared before the Commission
to question the economic feasibility of another mobile home park in the area which would be a
block away from his existing park on which 64 vacancies existed; that other trailer parks were
proposed to be constructed in the area; and that the proposed park mi9ht impose a hardship
upon the areao
The Commission pointed out that the function of the Planning Commission was concerned with
proper land use and not economics, adding that the petitioner's proposal would be a proper
land useo
Mro Rachelle presented a colored rendering of the proposed mobile home park to the Commission
~~; and stated that the problem of vacancies could be attributed to the fact that other parks did
~ not generally accept small pets and children, whereas they did, and that they had an existing
park with a wai~ing list of 45 persons,
R
~
F
~ J
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 18, 1965 ~ 2760
CONDITIONAL USE - Mro Howard Frye, representing property owners immediately to the west,
PERMIT N0. '767 appeared in,opposition, stating that a conditional use permit approved
(Continuecl) on his property had rece~tly been granted a one-year time extension;
that the proposed park would not be compatible with his proposed develop-
ment which would be constructed ai: such time as he felt it would be
economically feasible; and that if subject petition were considered favorably, a masonry
wall should be required along the west property line adjoining his property.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised Mro Frye the Trailer Park Standards
would require that the park be enclosed with a six-foot masonry wail and that the develop-
ment plans indicated a masonry wall,
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED~
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No~ 1807, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to approve Petition foi Conditional Use
Permit No. 7679 subje:t to street improvert,. 's being required for the frontage of the "not
a part" one-acre retained by the petitionei i. residence at the time the trailer park was
developed, and subject to conditionso (See Resolu*_ion Booko)
-• On roll call the foregoing resoltuion was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall~
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None~
CCNDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING, TOM H. WEEDA, 2500 West Orangethorpe, Fullerton,California,
PERMIT N0. 770 Owner; JAMES K. SCHULER, 914 East Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent;
requesting PERMISSION TO ESTABLISH EIGHT FOUR-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDINGS AS A
MULTIPLE-FAMILY FLANNED RESIDE;~TIAL DEVELOPMENT, WITH WAIVERS OF: (1) LIVING
UNITS NOT WITHIN 200 FEET OF A STANDARD STREET, (2) MAXIMUM STRUCTURE HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF
AN R-A ZONE, AND (3) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEI BUTLUINGS, on property described as: A rectangu-
larly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 176 feet on the west side of Knott
Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 465 feet, the southern boundary of said parcel be-
ing approximately 665 feet north of the centerline of Orange Avenue, and further described as
401 South Knott Avenueo Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONEo
Mro James Ka Schuler, designer-representative of the petitioner, aopeared before the Commission
to present a colored rendering and to review the proposed development ard indica~.ed that subject
property was previously approved for 62 units in 1964, in comparison with the 32 units presently
being proposed, and that he was available to answer any questions.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono
THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDa
Comrrissioner Camp offered Resolution No~ 1808, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and
adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to approve Petition for Conditional Use Permit
No~ 770, subject to conditions, noting by finding that the proposed private street and drives
did not conform to the City of Anaheim's standards and would not be suitable for dedication
to the City a~tid would have to be mair.tained by the petitioner, but that they appeared to be
of sufficient width to adequately serve the proposed development. (See Resolution Booko)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall~
NOES: COMMISSIONcRS: Noneo
ABSENT: COMMISSICtJERS: None.
~~ ~
G~ ~
~
~ ~
CCNDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING~ HOMER D~ WILfiURN, 1402 Richmond, Placentia, California,
PERMI"f N0, 7?1 Owner; requesting PERMISSIQJ FOR THE SALE OE BEER P."D WINE IN CONJUNCTIQJ
WITH A RESTAURANT on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel
of land situated on the north side of Katella Avenue, 100 feet west of
Tiara Street, said parcel having a frontage of approximately 106 feet on Katella Avenue and
a depth of approximately 351 feet, and further described as 1671 West Katella Avenuea
Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZCNE.
Mr. Frank Busch, the petitioner's representative, appeared before the Commission to review
the proposed request, stating that the property i~ the rear was presently zoned C-2, and
that a liqu~r store and commercial buildings presently existed to the west of subject property~
, i
i _._ ,~.
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COPou.~iSSICtJ, October 18, 1965 2761
CONDITICNAL USE - In answer to Commission questioning, Mro Busch further stated that a bar
PERMIT N0~ 771 would not be constructed in the restaurant at any time, and that he would
~ (Continued) stipulate to this effect, and, finally, that the sale of beer and wine
would be in conjunction with the serving of ineals,
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitione
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED~
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noo 1809, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and ado~?tion, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to approve Petition for Conditional Use Permit
Noo 771, subject to the petitioner stipulating that a bar would not be constructed in the
restaurante (See Resolution Book>)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungalla
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
RECESS - Commissioner Perry moved for a ten minute recess~ Gommissioner Camp
seconded the motiono MOTIGt~ CARRIEDo The meeting recessed at
3:55 P,Me
RECGNVENE - Chairman Mungall reconvened the meeting at 4:08 P,Mo, ail Commissioners
being presento
VARIANCE N0~ 1741 - PUBLIC HEARINGo BUTLER AND HARBOUR, INCORPORATED, AND ADOLPH SHOEPE,
2283 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, OYvners; JENNINGS-HALDERMAN-
TENTATIVE MAPS OF HOOD, 1833 East 17th Street, Suite 200, Santa Ana, Califurnia, Engineers
TRACTS NOS~ 5988, on Tracts; requesting PERMISSION TO ESTABLISH A SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED AND
5989, and 5990, SEMI-DETACHED SUBDIVISION CN R-2 ZONED PROPERTY, WITH WAIVERS ON LOT AREA
REVISIGN NO, 1 AND LOT WIDTH AND WAIVERS ON FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS on
property described as: An irregularly shaped area of land situated on the
north side of Orangethorpe Avenue approximately 900 feet eas1; of Taylc,r
Street, and further described as Tentative Naps of Tracts Noso 5988, 5989, and 5990e
Subject tracts, located northerly of Orangethorpe Avenue, southerly of Orchard Drive, and
westerly of Boisseranc Street, and containing approximately 41054 acres, is proposed for
subdivision into 195 R-2, Multiple-Family Residential, Zoned lotso
Mre Merrill Rutler, President of Butler and Harbour and one of the property owners, appeared
before the Commission and reviewed the procedure followed by the developers in attempting to
resolve the many problems in trying to develop subject property since the Commission last
considered an application on said property< at which time a planned development project was
proposed~ It was further noted that after plans were 70~ complete, numerous problems occurred,
andthe marketing problem of two-story, condominium-type developments was meeting with resist-
ance to sales, and as a consequence, the company initiated studies to :nodify two-story build-
ings by converting the outside units to one story and limiting the two-story in the interior
in order to retain the density of 8~3 units per net residential acre - this previously approved
by the Commission; that the FoH,Ao would be financing the proposed development9 and since said
government group had many more restrictions than the City of Anaheim, and after considerable
study, evidence indicated this manner of development shc~~ld be one story for the entire develop-
mento Thereupon th= staff attacked this on a two-basis layout - one with units having a common
wall construction under the R-2 Code in order to create a subdivision of eight units per acre
and eliminating the planned unit concept; this seemed to have some merit, but after further
study, it was determined it was necessary to file revised tract maps with single-family units
on 5,000 square foot lots as being the best solution to developing subjeci property and still
make available to the developers the opportunities of the R-2 Zone.
. ' The 5,000 square foot lot as proposed, Mr~ Butler stated, was a manner in which to convey to
the homeowners a plot of ground with singie-family units which might be financed by the F.HoAo-
although no official sanctioning had been given, a receptive expression was made to the plan;
that the lots would conform with a major portion of the R-1 Code, except for the variances
requested, and that homes would be sold in the $21,000 to $23,000 price range.
It was also noted by Mr. Butler that it was hoped upon final approval of the ordinance of the
- Oil Code, his company would be able to consummate the sale of the school property; that the
p proposed concept was a considerable change from that originally approved by the Commission,
~ but the maps presented and the proposed development would meet the buyers' market and still
be in the same price range of a condominium concept; and that it was his belief a number of the
, o'~jectionable items under the conduminium had been eliminatedo
MINUTES, CIlY PLANNING C. .iISSION., October 18, 1965 = 2~62
VARIANCE N0~ 1741 - Mro Butler then presented examples of the outline of the homes that were
proposed to be buiit and stated he would review the plans if the Commission
TENTATIVE MAPS OF desired, and that 20-foot setbacks were to be maintained on tfi~e ~ajority
TRACTS Nt~Sa 5988, of the homes, with a few having combined garages and a 10-foot separation
5989, and 5990Y would still be rnaintained~
REVISICN N0~ 1
(Continued) Commissioner Gauer contended that the petitioner was reducing the square
footage of single-family lots by 2,200 square feet and was not providing
adequate play and recreation area for the childrens and that the basis
for a;~provai of the previous request was on the premise the petitioner
could provide the green beit area on the flood control facilities,
Commissioner Rowland stated the density was reduced from 803 to 5 units per net residential
~ acre and shouid warrant some consideration~
~ After considerable discussion by the Commission relative to the validity of the request for
single-family homes on 5,000 souare foot lots in the R-2 Zone, ir.adequate recreation area
for the children who might be forced to play in the streets, since the distance to tne school
play yard was considerable, that granting the proposed variance and tract maps might set a
precedent for similar requests on undeveloped parcels in the City; that the City had not
permitted a 5,000 square foot lot within the City since 1949~ and that the proposed develop-
ment might be considered a highest and best use of the property rather than condominiums as
' originally proposedo
Mro Butler again stated to the Commission his comp~ny had to recognize the condominium-type
concept had not been very successful in attracting chiidren to the developments, but was
being used primarily by older groups with teenage:s and children in college, who desired
smaller units, and the proposed deveiopment might also attract fewer children, but that if
development of the prope*ty were in confoz•mance with the R-2 Zone on the prope*tyy this
could be developed up to 18 units per net residential acre, whereas it was not their desire
to construct with as hezvy a density as permitied~,
Commissioner Rowland stated the Commission should consi~:er the proposed development similar
to a condominium concept except th3t the area of common usage w3s more clearly defined; that
the proposed plan presented thiee times the amount of recreation space into individual plots
than the cor.dominium proposed, although the:e was some doubt the proposed development might
be offering the best living environmen± for the area for any persons proposing to purchase
'i in the area; and that although not presented as a condominium, the philosephy of the proposed
, development was similar.
_ Mra Butler, in response to the Commission's o~estioning, stated that sidewalks would be pro-
vided; that it had been the?r assumption since they had acquired tlie property that subject
property had multiple-family zoning on it at the time it w:~s annexed into the City, and the
City had established interim zoning comparable to that originaily established on the property
in the County; that they were not attempting to circumvent the R•-1 Zone, but were attemptino
to use the multiple-famiiy zone as intelligently as possible, and in his judgment, the pro-
posed development was the best use for the property~ It was siso noted there was a possibility
; another builder might propose 3 units per 7,200 square feet in accordance with the R-2 Zone -
` that he recognized this as an alternative, but did not desi:e to apply for the heavier develop-
ment; that renderings of the proposed nomes were not avaiiable at this time since they had not
` progressed in their engineering and architectural designs beyond what the Comrnission had seen;
that the cities of La Palma and Cypress and other cities in Orange County permitted 5,000
~' square foot lots which the F.H,A~ was willing to finance and indic3ted would finance subject
~ property, or even smaller lots if presented; r~nd that the iocation of the school was indicated
on the plan as presented by N4~ Butler~
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions~
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED~
Considerable discussion was then held by the Comniission as to (1) the existing zoning estab-
lished when subject property was annexed into the City, (2) that the present City zoning per-
mitted up to 18 dwelling units per net residential acre, whereas the petitioner was prorosing
approximately 5 by requestin~ a variance of the minimum lot sizes permittedj (3) whether or
not CCt3Rs could be filed if the proposed 5,000 square foot lots were approved, (4) means of
assuring that subject property would have no more than one dwelling unit on this 5,000 square
foot lot, and (5) whether or not deed restrictions could be required as part of the Commission`s
approval restricting the number of units on subject property - and requested clarification from
Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts as to the correct procedure regarding the limitation~
~
Mre Roberts stated that since the petitioner had filed a
were presented, this could be a means of ccntrolling the
5,000 square foot lot, but Lhat under the CC8Rs9 only the
consideration, rather than actual ground..
variance from the lot size, and plans
numeer of units permissible on the
subdivision of air space was under
~ 3 J
MINUTES, CITY PLANNIIvG COMMISSIONY October 18, i965 ~ 2763
VARIANCE N0~ 1741 - Mro Hugh Halderman, engi~eer of the proposed development, stated that in
the unincorporated portions of the County where subdivisions did not
TEIdTA'IIVE MAPS OF conform with the density of the County zoney upon the filing of a final
TRACTS NOS~ 5988, tract map, the County on its own initiative p;oposed zoning with the
5989, and 5990, density recorded on the map~
REVISION N0~ 1
(Continued) Commissioner Gauer requested that further study be made of the limitations
of the 5,000 square foot lot since he would not vote for it under its
. present presentation as an R-1 subdivision~
~vlr~ Butler then requested clarification from the Commission relative to what was requestedy
stating it was his under.standing the Commission desired he make investigations as to the
~ means and manner of confining in the future the uses of the property to that being presently
, proposedo
Th? Commission stated that, in addition, they wished to have its use considered "in perpetuity".
It was also noted by the Commission the original R-2 was approved because of the plans of
development with the "green belt" adjacent to the flood control channel being proposed, since
this afforded a lesser density than normai condominiums and would be more compstible to the
R-1 development to the east,.
Commissione: Herbet offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petitions for
Variance No~ 1741 and Tentative Maps of Tracts Nos.. 5988, 5989, and 5990Y Revision Noo 1,
to the meeti.ng of November 8, 1965y in order to ailow the petitioner time to investigate
the means and methods of confining the p:oposed use on subject property at the proposed
density of 5 units per net residentiai acre in perpetuity~ Commissioner Camp seconded the
motiono h90TI0N C.ARRIED~
VARIANCE N0~ i742 - PUBLIC HEARING,. J0:'N T~ S;{AEFER, 1320 Belmont Avenue, Anaheim,
California; Owner; ROGER PARTELLO, P~ Oo Aox. 103i, Orange, California,
A9ent; requesting PERMISSIW TO WAIVE CN PORTIC~1 A: (i1 MINIMUM SIDE
Yti'0, AND (2) MINIMUM LOT AREA AND WIDTH; ON PORTICt~' B: (1) MINIMUM SIDE YARDy (2) A1INIMUM
FROhT YARD, (3) MININ~UM REAR YARD, (4j MINIMUM LOT AREA AND WIDTH, AND (5) MINIMUM DWELLING
UNIT FLOOR ARFAy on property described as: Ar. irregularly shaped pa~cel of land with a
frontage of approximately 133 feet on the south side of Beimont Avenue and a maximum depth
of approximately 105 feet, the western boundary of said prnperty being approximately 324
feet east of the centerline of Lark Street, and furthe* described as Por.tions A and B-
Portion A being approximately the westeriy 62 feet and Portion B being approximately the
easterly 51 feet o.' said property, and further described as 1320 and 1326 Helmont Avenue.
Property presently classified R•-1, ONE-FAMIL,Y RESIDENTIAL, ZCNE.
Mro Roger Partello, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated the
Commission had recentiy approved Variance No. 1728 to permit the subdivision of subject
property with less than code requirement for side yards; that when it was proposed to apply
for a lot split on subject property, it was discovered the existing house encroached within
seven feet of the proposed lot line - thezefore the addition to the additional lot had to
be redesigned into a smal:er area and lesser side yard, front yard, rear yard, and lot area
and width, to9ether with the minimum dwelling unit floor azea; th~t since subject property
had been advertised, it had been noted the overhang would encroach into the side yard more
than the minimum permitted - therefore this was an additional waiver that would be necessary
if subject petition were approved,
Mr~ Roy Ellison appeared before the Commission and stated that at the time the plan had been
considered by the Commission favorably~ it was felt all the items had teen covered, but upon
discussion and negotiation with the proposed buyer of the additional housey the variance
waivers being requested were found to be necessary; furthero that the proposed buyers had
agr?ed to the encroachment within three feet from their house•.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition,
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
It was further noted, for the petitioner's benefit,that a six-foot fence should be constructed
on the west side of the smaller parcel in order to separate the two properties~
~,i ~
Deputy City Attorney furman Roberts, in response to Commission questioning relative to the
additional waivers, state~ that under Section 18.68~060, whenever an applicant filed for
uses, and all waivers were not covered under the advertisement, the Commission was authorized
to grant any ndditional waivers deemed necessary, provided, however, that no opposition was
expressed at the public hearing relative to the original request, and the Commission was in
concurrence with the hardship being established~
: ~ °~ i
' b
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 18, 1965 ~ 2764
VARIANCE N0. 1742 - Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 1810, Series 1965-66, and
(Continued) moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by CommissioRer Perry,
to grant Petition for Variance Noo 1742, subject to conditions and
further waiver of the encroachment into the side yard so long as
said encroachment does not interfere with the Uniform Building Code. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIGNERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall~
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIGNERS: None.
~ Com~nissioner Camp left the Council Chamber at 5:10 P,M.
RECLASSIFICATIC~J - PUBLIC HEARING. DOYLE AND SHIELDS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 831 South
NOo 65-66-46. Manchester Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; FREDRICKS DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, 524 West Commonwealth Avenue, Fullerton, California, Agent;
CCNDITIONAL USE property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at
PERMIT N0. 768 the northeast corner of Magnolia Avenue and Winston Road, and consisting
_ of Portions A and B: Portion A having frontages of approximately 495
GENERAL PIAN feet on Magnolia Avenue and approximately 150 feet on Winston Road, and
AMENDNI~NT N0. 64 Portion B being east and adjacent to Portion A, with a frontage of
approximately 370 feet on the north side of Winston Road. Property
presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZCNE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1~ GENERAL COMMERCIAL~ ZONE CN PORTION A.
R-3, !AULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE GN PORTICN B.
REQUESTED CCPIDITIGNAL USE: PORTIGN B: ESTABLISH A MULTIPLE-FAMILY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVE:.OPMENT WITH WAIVERS OF: (1) DWELLING UNITS MORE THAN
200 Fc.ET FROM A S7ANDARD STREET, (2) SIX-FOOT MASGNRY WALL
SEPARAT1yG PROPOSED C-1 AND R-3 ZONES, (3) MAXIMUM HEIGHT
OF I7~VELLING UNITS WITHIN 150 FEET OF AN R-A ZGNE, AND (4)
MINIMUM DISTANCE BE'lYJEEN FACING BUILDINGSo
~ Mr. Russell Bettker, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the
Commission and reviewed the development surrounding subject property, noting that commercial
-_ develop:nrnt existed to the north, the high school and a small R-A parcel, together with an
R-3 develo~ment fronting on Winston Road to the east, and an R-3 development immediately to
the south, fronting on Winston Road, and that the requested height waiver was only for the
small F.-A parcel to the east; that he had attempted to purchase this small parcel through a
previous owner, but was unable to do so; that the development proposed would be compatible
~ to multiple-family developmerrts established by his concern which showed a desirable living
i environment; that the small commercial shopping area adjacent to R-3 was similar to those
proposed on South State College Boulevard; and that he would be available to answer questions
y the Commission might have.
The Commission noted that although Fredricks Development Corporation had developed a very
substantial and acceptable shopping area on State College Boulevard, the proposed extension
of commercial use siding on to a cul-de-sac street might have a detrimental effect to the
R-3 property to the south, as well as to the sin~le-family subdivision development on the
west side of Magnolia Avenue, and in the opinion of the Commission, subject property should
be developed in its entirety for multiple-family residential development.
Mr. Bettker stated it seemed advisable additional commercial property was indicated since
104 units were built in the area, and the additional residential units would warrant the
proposed commercial use; further, that it had been their consideration to develop the
entire parcel for multiple-family use, and that the architect had designed and tied in the
elevations to present an appearance that would act as a buffer zone between the two uses.
It was also noted by Mr. Bettker that Magnolia Avenue Was proposed for an arterial highway
of 106 feet in width which indicated commercial development, and that he was unable to
determine what type of zoning would be appropriate for the single-family homes on the west
side of Magnolia Avenue, which were considerably nice homes.
It was noted by the Commission that the homes on the west side of Magnolia Avenue did not
front on Magnolia Avenue, but sided or backed on to the street, and that the use was not
compatible with the General Plan as indicated for that area.
Mr. James R. Smead, 1314 North Hayworth, Los Angeles, appeared before the Commission and
~ stated he owned 44 garden apartments on Winston Road, easterly of subject property, and
~ax ~o permit commercial uses on a cul-de-sac street with residential properties abutting it
would be detrimental to the entire area; that subject property was developable entirely
~ -
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING ~OMMISSION, October 18, 1965 ~ 2765
RECLASSIFICATION - for apartment development; and that no two-story construction apartments
N0. 65-66-46 were developed in close proximity to subject property -since single-family
homes were within 150 feet of the other parcels, they were required to
CONDITIONAL USE maintain a one-stor~• height limitation; that the apartments in the area
PERMIT NOo 768 were rented by retired people who paid up to $175 per month, and these
people were entitled to some consideration by not projecting any children
GENERAL PIAN in the area.
AMENDMENT N0~ 64
(Continued) Mre Bettker, in rebuttal, stated that of the 104 units they presently
rented, only four families had children; that the proposed development
would not be compatible to permitting children in the area in the apart-
' mert units since 30 of the proposed apartments were one bedroom, and they based their success
~;~ on the fact they did not permit children in the apartments, and by so doing, they were able
~~ , to build a hetter type of development and charge a better rental fee; £urther, the fact that
~i~ no children were permitted would reduce any overcrowding of school facilities,
~~+ The Commission was of the o inion sub'ect
p' ~ property should be entirely developed for multiple-
~:i family residentiai use; although small shops and a market existed to the north of subject
,, property, the commercial uses would be less compatible to the single-family residences on
f; the viest side of Magnolia Avenue. It was further noted by the Commission that the frontage
~ portion of the property northerly of the high school was originally zoned C-1 and was sub-
~~ sequently developed for a pianned unit development; that if commercial traffic were permitted
~I~ on the dead-end street, this would create a traffic hazard since it was the only access to
,~ the R-3 parcels to the easto
Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts, in response to Commission questioning regarding clari-
fication of inethod of zoning subject property, advised the Commission that subject petitions
be maintaiaed at their requested zoning and a new petition be initiated by the Commission to
propose R-3, Multiple-Family Residential, 'Lone for the entire parcel~
Commissioner Perry offered a motion to continue public hearing of Petitionsfor Reclassification
Noa 65-66-46 and Conditional Use Permit Noo 768, together with General Plan Amendment Noo 64,
to the meeting of November 8, 1965, and directed the staff to advertise subject property for
R-3, Multiple-Family Residential, Zone, togethe* with requesting that the petitioner submit
revised plans incorporating subject property into R-3 developmento Commissioner Alired
seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED,
Commissioner Camp returned to the Council Chamber a± 5:20 P~M~
RECLASSIFICATIOIJ - PUBLIC HEARING~ ARGUS INVESTMENTS, 449 South Beverly Drive, Beverly Hills,
NOo 65-66-45 California, Ownerq RUTA~+ AND TUCKER, 401 H'est 8th 5treet, Santa Ana,
California, Agent; requesting that property described as: An irregularly
shaped parcel of land situated on the northwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon
Road and Jefferson Street, said parcel containing three recorded lots having frontages of
approximately 138 feet on Santa Ana Canyon Road and approximately 243 feet on Jefferson Street,
and further described as 101, 107, and 113 North Jefferson Street, be reclassified from the
R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE~
Mr. Michael Lemmil, ^epresenting the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed
the location of subject property and its existing use, noting that R-3 abutted subject prop--ty
to the north, and in the City of Orange to the south, commercial development; that he had dis-
cussed the development for the City of Orange property and had determined plans had been sub-
mitted for said property for a marke'~, but the southeast corner was zoned for C-1 and had
tentative approval for a r~otel; and ti::a'c since all thre~ corners of the intersection had
comnercial zoning, it was logical that subject property be reclassified to the commercial
zone,
Mr. Lemmil, in response to Commissiun questioning, stated that no plans of development were
submitted with the petition since it was his opinion the Site Development Standards of the
C-1 Zone would adequately cover anything proposed, which would adequately proteci: the property
owners adjacent to subject property.
It was noted by the Commission that subject property had no access rights to Jefferson Street
and had access only to an alley which was the only means of access to the R-3 development to
the north, and to approve subject property might encourage commercial use of ~ residential
alley.
Mra Lester Noe appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject petition, stating they
owned a portion of the 35 R-3 lots adjoining subject property and opposed the proposed commer-
cial use of the alley primarily being used by the R-3 properties; that access to Jefferson
StrEet t~a~ hQen dedicated to the City of Anaheim on s~~bject property, and the proposed
commercial use of a small area was not feasible for the property in its location; that
~
MINUTES, CITY PLAt~NING CG~. .iSSIGN, October 18, 1965 '
2766
RECLASSIFICATION - subject property was developable for R-3, Multiple-Family use; that
NOe 65-66-45 the proposed commercial zoning would be detrimental to the residential
(Continued) properties; that nothing was more detrimental to property values than
an empty shopping center; that the petitioner did not submit plans of
development; that the proposed motel would not be developed because of
the inaccessibility from either direction of Santa Ana Canyon Road or Jefferson Street;
and that he represented the Prudential Savings 8 Loan Associationo
A man representing the Liberty Savings 8 Loan Association spoke from the audience, stating
he concurred with Mre Noe's statements relative to commercial development for a portion of
the R-3 tract whose only access was an alley to the west, and that they held a substantial
mortgage interest in the northerly portion of the tract~
Mr. Lemmil, in r•buttal, stated the Commission could not consider the economic feasibility
of the development, but only the land use, and that because the City of Anaheim and the
City of Orange had already deemed the other three corners of the intersection for C-1 uses,
he would be denied a privilege granted otherso
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commission in reviewing the zoning of subject prc~nErty to the R-3, Multiple-Family
Residential, Zone noted that in the requirement of the properties dedicating all access
rights to Jefferson Street and Santa Ana Canyon Road, the R-3 property owners were assured
the development would be for mult~ple-family residential use only, and the alley which
provided them access would remain as such~
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution Noe 1811, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend to the City Council that Petition
for Reclassifi.cation Noo 65-66-45 be disapproved, based on the fact that subject property
had no accessto Jefferson Streetor Santa Ana Canyon Road; that commercial traffic would be
using the alley to the rear of subject property, which was the only access for the R-3
properties to the north and west; and that any commercial traffic would be detrimental to
the peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the property owners of the multiple-family
development. (See Resolution Book.) •
On roll ca11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall~
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
ABSENT: COMMISSIOPIERS: None.
Chairman Mungall inquired if there were any interested property owners
present in the Council Chamber regarding Petition for Reclassification
Noo 65-66-49, initiated by the Planning Commission to establish permanent
zoning for the Wagner-Rio Vista Annexation~ There being no response,
Commissioner Allred offered a motion to continue consideration of Reclassi-
fication No. 65-66-49 to the evening session~ Commissioner Camp seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recess the meetin9 for dinner,
to reconvene at 7:30 PoM, Commissioner Rowland seconv+ed the motiono
MOTION CARRIED. The meeting recessed at 6:05 P~Mo
RECONVENE - Chairman Mungall reconvened the meeting at 7:35 F.Ay~, all Commissioners
being presento
II RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East
; N~. 65-66-49 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California
, proposing that property described as:
., , An irregularly shaped area of land with frontages of approximately 1,350
' feet on the south side of Wagner Avenue and approximately 470 feet on the
~, north side of West Ball Road, the western boundary of said property being approximately 1,350
feet east of the centerline of Sunkist Street, and further described as the Wagner-Rio Vista
Annexation, be reclassified from the interim R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE FOR PARCELS 1 A!JD 3, and
R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE FOR PARCEL 2, to permanent zoning of R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE
FOR PARCELS 1 AND 3, and R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE FOR PARCEL 2~
~
~ Planning Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski reviewed the interim zoning of the Wagner-Rio Vista
Annexation an~ the annexation of said pxoperty into the Cityo It was noted that Tract No.
~ 4710 located east of the
* proposed Orange Freeway right-of-way was already developed for R-1,
.~ Single-Family Residential, Zone properties, and the balance of the properties represented a
~~ sma~.l parcel at the northeast end of the tract and the Orange Freeway right-of-way to the
ti west of the tract.
-F t j
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSICN, October 18, 1965 ~ 2~6~
RECLASSIFICATION - THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo
N0~ 65-66-49
(Continued) Gommis,ioner ^erry uiiered nesoiuiion ivoo 18i2, Series 19ti5-bti, anci moveci
for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend
to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No, 65-66-49 be
approved, unconditionally, establishing permanent zoning for the properties known as the
Wagner-Rio Vista Annexation for Paz~cels Nosa 1 and 3- R-A, Agricultural, Zone, and for
Parcel No. 2- R-1, One-Family Residential, Zone. (See Resolution Book~)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungallo
NOES: COMMISSIGNERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
Commissioner Rowland left the Council Chamber at 7:42 P~M.
AREA DEVELOPIv1ENT - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. JAMES DURANTE~ JOHN LAURIA, AND JO ANN LAURIA,
PLAN ~10. 22 1216 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; KFNNETH E. LAE,
914 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Aqent; property described as:
RECLASSIFICATION An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 86
N0, 65-66-37 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue and a maximum depth of approxi-
mately 235 feet, the western boundary of subject property being approxi-
VARIANCE N0. 1730 mately 218 feet east of the centerline of East Street, and further described
as 1216 East La Palma Avenueo Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE,
C-1, GENERA L COMMERCIAL, ZCNE.
WAIVERS OF: (1) MINIMUM 10-FOOT SETBACK AND SCREEN PCANTING ABUTTING
RESIDENTIAL ZCNE, AND (2) MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT.
Subject petitions were continued from the meeting of August 30, 1965, in order to allow the
Development Services Department time to prepare an area development plane
Mro Kenneth Lae, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that all.
commentaries relative to subject petitions had been made at the previous public hearing, and
he wished to reserve any additional comments until after the area development plan was presanted.
Assistant Planner Charles Roberts presented Area Development P1an No~ 22, as follows:
"Backqround: On August 30, 1965, the Anaheim Planning Commission held a public hearing to
consider a request for a change of zone (Reclassification Noe 65-66-371 and a variance from
setback and building height requirements (Variance No~ 1730) for a proposed office building
at 1216 East La Palma Avenue>
Following requests from interested property owners for a study of the area, the Planning
Commission directed the Development Services staff to prepare an Area Development Plan for
the deep properties on the south side of La Palma Avenue and on the east side of East Street.
Area Development Plan No. 22 has been prepared and the results are as follows:
The overall study area consists of 20 lots, al] of which are presently developed
as low-density, single family residential siteso
Eleven of these lots have frontage on La Palma Avenue and extend easterly
from the service station at the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and
East Street.
Seven of the lots have frontage on East Street and extend southerly from the
service station site.
The two remaining lots have frontage on Wilhelmina Avenue~
The land uses surrounding the study area consist of:
North - Low-density, single family residences, with the Orange County Flood
Control retarding basin to the northwest of the intersection of La Paima
Avenue and East Street.
West - Low-densi~y, single family residences across East S±reet with a service
station at the northwest corner of North Street and East Street.
r.
F
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 18, 1965 ~ 2768
AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN N0. 22
RECLASSIFICATION N0. 65-66-37
VARIANCE NOo 1730 (Continued)
c. South and East - Low-density, single family residences.
3o East Street, a 66 foot wide secondary highway, is presently carrying 15,000 vehicles
par day, and is projected to carry 22,500 vehicles per day within the next ten years.
4o La Palma Avenue is designated as a primary highway on the Circulation Element to the
General Pian and wiil ultimately be developed to a width of 106 feet. The present
traffic volume east of East Street is 4,800 vehicles per day.
Upon completion of the La Palma grade crossing of the A.T.BS.F.R.R., and the over-
crossing at the Riverside Freeway, both expected to be within the next two years,
La Palma Avenue wili be the main east-west arterial across the city north of Lincoln
Avenue. This is expected to bring the traffic flow up to 12,500 vehicles per day by
1968 and 18,000 vehicles per day by 1974.
5. Curbs and gutters have been constructed on both La Palma Avenue and East Street.
However, the facilities on La Palma Avenue will have to be relocated at the time
the City undertakes the task of widening the street to its ultimate right-of-way.
None of the residential properties on either street have been developed with side-
walks and street trees.
6. The properties fronting on the west side of East Street, directly across from the
study area, were the subject of Area Development Plan No. 17> This study was pre-
pared as a result of a request for C-1 Zoning (Reclassification No. 64-65-89) at
the southwest corner of North Street and East Street where the proposed uses were
to be a service station, a small convenience market, and a walk-up restaurant. This
Area Development Plan presented the possibilities of commercial or multiple family
res?dential uses along East Street between North Street and Wilhelmina Avenue. The
zoning request was denied by both the Planning Commission and the City Council and
no action was taken on the Area Development Plan~
7. The General Plan indicates low-density residential uses for the entire study area
with commercial projections at the intersection of Romneya Drive and East Street
and at Lincoln Avenue and East Streete Commercial sho~ping centers are presently
established at both of these locations.
A ternatives for Consideration:
1. Retention of the existina low-densitv, sinole familv residential situation.
At the present time, the majority of the homes that front on East Street and
La Palma Avenue have :arge front yard setbacks. And on man~~ of these lots, property
owners have installed dense screen landscaping which shouid offer a degree of relief
from the noises emanating from the arterial highways.
However, due to the location of the properties on arterial highways, the projected
traffic volUmes, and the size and depths of the parcels, it is questionable that
the future will brin9 with it conditions that will enhance the single family environment.
2. Re-use of subiect qrooerties for low-medium densitv residential uses. (See Exhibit "A")
Development of this nature could be accomplished .hrough either the use of a standard
subdivision or on a"planned residential development" type basis with controlled access
to handle potential traffic problems.
In the case of developing a subdivision, it would be necessary to assemble a number
of contiguous parcels into single development packages. Land assembly situations
such as this have been encountered in the past and have proved to be a satisfactory
means for development and should be encouraged in considering this area for redevelopment.
When considering the "planned residential development" approach it could still, in
some cases, involve a land assembly situation. But developments of this nature would
not require the same degree of joint cooperation on the part of the property owners
as would be necessary in assembling parcels for a subdivision.
~
;
, _. ,
, ;
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 18, 1965 ~ 2769
AREA DEVELOPMENI' PLAN N0. 22
RECLASSIFICATION N0. 65-66-37
VARIANCE N0. 1730 ~Continued)
3. Re-use of the sinqle lots adiacent to the east and south of the service station
site for Commercial-Professional Uffice uses and retain the remainin area for
residential ourooses. (See Exhibit "B")
The commercial proposal as indicated here would not be in keeping with the concept
of "planned unified commercial centers" upon which the Commercial Element of the
, General Plan is basede Historically and economically these uses have been better
.~~~ located in the central core of the community or within outlying commercial shopping
~; or office centers. Since commercial shopping areas presently exist at Romneya
~~ , Drive and East Street and at Lincoln Avenue and East Street, with another center
~:~5 presently under construction at the southwest corner of Sycamore Avenue and East
~;;' Street and one approved at the northeast corner of the same intersection, it seems
~! that the general commercial needs of the people in this vicinity would have been
fj satisfied,
I
~.~ However, this approach would provide a transitional use that would serve as a
;~ buffer between the intense commercial activity at the service station and the
residential development to the east and south.
%.i The reference to residential uses in this alternative makes no distinction
~ between low-density and low-medium density residential. Either one could be
~;~ considered in the redevelopment process.
;I Recommendations:
:~ The reclassification of the properties within the study area to commercial and/or
,; low-medium density residential land use may be prem~ture at this time. However, when
`~ traffic volumes increase as projected, and when economic pressures experienced in large
;~ parcel ownership increase to higher levels, many of the property owners may feel a reed
to seek a more intensive use for their property.
',~'~ If the subject properties receive favorable consideration for a change in land use at
~ ; this time, the Planning Commission may wish to consider the following recommendations:
'~ lo That the two lots immediately adjacent to the service station - one to the east
'.I and one to the south - be considered to have Commercial-Professional Office
:i potentiale And that the remaining parcels be either retained as low-density
residential sites or be considered for possible redevelopment to low-medium
~ density residential uses.
1
,~ 2. In the event that commercial development does take place on the suggested parcels,
~ , some means of secondary access shuuld be provided. This accPSS could be in the
; y form of either private drives or a dedicated public alley. Since only two lots
., ~ are involved, private drives should be adequate~
J ~ Exhibit "B" illustrates, in a general manner, a possible layout of secondary
~ ~ access for all of the remaining parcels, should a more intense residential use
be developed on thema The exhibit is not specific in this recommendation because
~ of the variations in development possibilities.
~ 3. Before permitting any development on these parcels
, prospective developers should
~ have their proposed access points approved by i:he City Traffic Engineer."
~ j, Nlr. Clifford Beckler, 1242 East La Palma Avenue, requested that clarification be made relative
j to the secondary access, whereupon Mr. Roberts indicated the reason for the secondary access
i as depicted on the exhibits.
;
Mr. George Holden, 1228 East La Palma Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated he
(, I was in favor of leaving the properties as they were presently zoned, although he had no
objection to the proposed reclassi£ication, but that he wished to be assured that the pro-
posed development would construct a six-foot masonry wall adjacent to his property to
separate the commercial uses from the residential uses.
.
~` Assistant Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson reviewed the impact of the proposed reclassifica-
~ ~ tion change on the individual properties in the area in general.
:i `* ; Mr. Thurman Harris, 1224 East La Palma Avenue, appeared before the Commission, stating his
~~ ~ property was immediately adjacent to subject property to the east; that Plan No. 2~ or "B"
~ ~ had access and asked whether this was a private drive or would it be a dedicated alley.
,
I:
~. :-, ,. ..., -. _ _ ,
__..__, _...._`----.....____.----------
- -- -~ ~ ~ _ ,`• - - '_.......,.°°'
. ...;, .
~ '
d
_ ~.
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 18, 1965 2770
ARtA DEVELOPMENT PLAN N0. 22
RECLASSIFICATICN NOe 65-66-37
VARIANCE N0. 1730 ~Continued)
Mr. Thompson explained that if a land assembly was attempted, the alley location would
generally be dependent upon the development of the land and would be a dedicated z_ley
from the property to the east of subject propertyo
Mr. Terry Goodyear, 736 North East Street, appeared before the Commission and stated his
property was three lots south of the serv:.ce station; tnat the portion of his property to
. the rear was landlocked, and, therefore, could not be developed or lot split; that the area
,^~~ had deteriorated as far as being ideal for residential use, and suggested that perttaps
~ multiple-family deveiopment might be substituted in place of the existing single-family use.
It was further noted by Mr. Goodyear that his lot was 270 feet deep, that 125 feet of his
!~ property was not presently being used, and that the two lots to the north were in the same
~:i' predicament as his lotso
~
The Commission asked whether any of the property owners had considered the establishment of
a six-foot masonry wall in the front yard which would reduce the noise and fumes from heavy
traffico
Mr. Goodyear replied they had purchased their property because of its spaciousness, and a
six-foot masonry wall, to him, was not the ideal way of reducing the noise, dirt, and fumes,
although others might like this suggestiona Further, he had approached real estate firms
relative to purchasing his prope•rty and had been informed they were interested in his proparty
only if it had commercial zoning because of the depth of the lots.
Mre Norman Keup, 1250 East La Palma Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated his
property was 345 feet deep; that he favored conunercial zoning in order to utilize the rear
portion af the property; that he did not feel apartment development was the best means of
converting subject property; and that four or five of his neighbors were of the same opinion.
Mr> Keup, in response to Commission questioning, stated he and his nei9hbors were attempting
to assemble several parcels of land to develop a good commercial type of project~
Mrs~ Vivian Engelbrecht, real estate agent, 215 West Broadway, appeared before the Commission
and stated she rep:ese~ted two landholders on La Palma and East Street, stating the two parcels
she was representing had been on the market for several months, and the only interest expr~ssec~
was for commercial uses; that multiple-family zoning did not seem to appeal to potential buyers;
that because of the ~epth of ihe lots, these were ideal to comply with all parking requirements,
and because of the fact that subject property did not have the proper zoning, potential buyers
became disinterested; and thai tne landholders she represented were anxious to leave the area
but were unable to locate elsewhere until their property was sold~
Mr, Lae, in rebuttal, s*.ated that most of the people in the area felt the property under
consideration in the area development plan was good potential commercial zoning, or had no
opposition to the proposed reclassification, so long as adequate p*otection was provided
the single-family homes,
The Commission noted that if lar.d assembly was at.tempted by a number of the parcels fronting
on La Palma Avenue or East Street, and adequate access was provided withi~ the assembled land,
tha secondary access might not be neFded~
Mro 'fhcmpson stated the plan depicted on the wall was a possible way o; development and
indicated a definite separat9on of the commerci~l from the residential uses.
Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that land assembly would be necessary to
reduce Lhe number of access points on E~st Street ;f pr.operties under considsration in
Area Development Plan Noa 22 w~re considered for commercial development because access to
East Street from the single-fami?y homes was considerably less than that from any commercial
developrnent; therefore, individual commercial uses of the land would not be feasible.
Mr. Ralph Gates, 732 North East Street, appeared before the Commission and stated that the
noise f.rom traffic and the fumes from t~ie passing cars made residential living on East Street
impossib?,e; that when he built his home in 1950, the area along the east side of East Street
was only an orange grove, and over the pas`, two or three years the traffic volume had increaseo
to the point where 15,000 cars were now utilizing the street, and when the basebail park was
opened, this would reach 20,000 cars per day; that the construction of a masonry wall along
the two streets was not the answer, nor was the landscaping the answer to keep the fumes and
noises from the residential integrity of the property; and that he would support any proposals
made which might change the zoning of the properties along East Street and La Palma Avenue
being considered in the area development plan.
4
~ ., f ,
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 18, 1965 ' 2~71
AREA DEVEL~PMENT PL.AN NOe 22
RECLASSIFICATION NOo 65-66-37
VARTANCE NOo 1730 (Continued)
, THE HEARING WAS CLOSED,
Commissioner Perry indicated the General Plan suggested low density for subject property;
that the Commission was not conceined with the economics of the property, but were interested
only in iand use as it affected adjoining propertiesq that in his opinion the development for
strip commercial along East Street and La Palma Avenue was premature, since many of the com-
mercial properties in the City were not riow fully developed; and that the area should be
~~~ maintained in low or low-medium density development.
;.,.~~~ , Considerable discussion was then held by the various Commissioners *elative to the area
~ development plan, and the possible means of providing secondary access should subject
'~' properties eventually be developed; whether or not any precedent might be set if commercial
zoning were recommended for the properties since this might bring a rash of reclassification
;'~ requests which might never be developed; if properties under consideration in the area develop-
L ment plan were projected for commercial uses, land assembly should be encouraged in order to
~~ reduce the number of access points to heavily traveled streets, for a heavier use than was
4~ -, presently existingsand that it was nottte Commission`s desire to have strip commercial zoning
~' along arterial highways in the City since approximately 2,700 homes were located along these
a I" arterials~
~ ~~
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution Noo 1813, Series 1965•-66, and moved for its passage
~~,~ and adootion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that Area
i~~ Development Plan Noa 22, Exhibit "B"9 be approved as a possible means of development of the
`i deep lots fro~ting along East Street northerly of Wilhelmina Street and along ihe south side
~ of East La Palma Avenue, said exhibit indicating the secondary access the properties under
ii consideration in the area development plan might needo (See Resolution Booko)
~
`~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
f ~
' •i AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst9 Perryy Mungallo
;,. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~
`" '~j ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland~
'; ;~
"' _ ~ Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No~ 1814, Series 1965•-669 and moved for its passage
"~ ~ and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Campy to recommend to the City Council that Petition
e.~ I for Reclassification Noo 65-66•-37 be approved, subject to conditions and the requirement
~I ~ that a six•-foot masonry wall be constructed along the east and south property lines. (See
`~ Resolution Book~)
i
'i On roll call the foregoing resoiution was passed by the following vote:
=1
~~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ailred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Mungall~
~ NOES: COMMISSICNERS: Noneo
~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland~
i
.i i Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No~ 1815, Series ?96°~-06~ and moved for its passage and
~ adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petiiion for Variance No~ 1730, waiving
• the maximum height limit of the proposed building for the west side only, since the property
to the west, although developed for a service station, had R•-1 Zoning, and subject to condi-
tions, (See Resolution Booko)
I
On roll cail the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
,
~~ ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Mungall,.
~ j NOES: COMMISSICt~JERS: None~
! ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowlando
`:+ I Commissioner Rowland returned to the Council Chamber at 8:45 P.M~
'I '
r~ ~
~~ ~
_ _ , ... _ _ _ . ,. __-_..... _
- -- -~ ' -, -- - ..-+..~.~.
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 18,'1965 ~~ 2~~2
~
~
~'
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING~ JERCME Fo, NICHOLAS J,,, AND WINIFRED STEHLY, 1404 South
N0~ 65-66-47_~ Brookhurst Stxeety Anaheim, California9 Owners; ROBERT AND IRV"ING SOLOMON,
5322 Princeton Avenuey Westminster, California, Agents; property described
VARIANCE N0. 1740 as: A reciangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately
1,272 feet on the east side of Brookhurst Street and a maxir~um depth of
GENERAL PI1~N approximately 1,302 feety the northern boundary of said property being
AA~NDN~NT N0. 65 approximately 943 feet south of the centerline of Ball Road, said property
consisting of two portior.s: Portion A having a frontage of approximately
TENTATIVE MAPS OF 1,272 feet on Brookhuzst Street and a depth of approximately 300 feet, and
TRACTS NOS~ 5751, P_Qr.~iQU..~ being east of and adjacent to Portion A and having a depth of
6089. 6090, 6091 approximately 1,002 feet~ Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL,
ZCtJ E o
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIC~J: C-1, GENERAL COMMEkCIAL, ZGrJE FOR PORTION A~
R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE FOR PORTIC~I B~
REQUES7'ED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED R•-1 FHCN; YARll.
TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: 123 R•-1 AND 2 C-1 PROPOSED ZONED LOTS.
DEVELOPER: IRVING AND ROBERT SOLOMGN, 5322 Princeton Avenuey Westminster, Caiifornia,.
ENGINEER: VOORHEIS-TRINDLE-NELSON, INCORPORATED, 13794 Beach Boulevard, Westminster,
California.,
TI-~e G~riezai Plan Amendment incorpo*ates the frontage alon9 Hrookhurst Street for a change in
designation from iow density to coRUnercial~
Mre Van Buskirk, representing the petitioner, appeaied before the Com;:iission and reviewed
the proposed development, notiny that subject property had similar problems to that previously
considered by the Commission in that ttie her3vy traFfic alor.g Brookhurst Street and the noise,
dirt and fumes made development of single-family tiomes abutting said street impractical; that
the highest and best use for ihe Brookhua•st Stz•eet frontage was commercial uses9 and that they
were not desirous of constructing residential homes aiong said street~
The Commission inpuired of Ofiice Engineer A:thur Daw whether or not the traffic engineer
considered the proposed sing~e street ha~~ir,g ~ccess to ~3rookhurst Street as adeGuate for
circulation purposes~
Mro Daw replied that,to his kr:owledge, the traffic engineer had not indica'.ed any opposition
to the numLer of exitsq that the parcel to the iir.mediate north was owned by the Stehlys, and
there was a po,sibility they wr.uld rei~c:3te their existing home on said property; and that
they were willing to dedicate and instaii their improvements ;jlong Empiie Street which was
presently only a half streetY but. that one small 1077 acre parcei would stili require dedica-
tion to provide through access from Ba11 Road to the City park and to provide additional
access to subject propertye
The agent, in response to Cor.unission questioning relative to the reason why subject property
was not proposed for development into R-1 subdivisions for both portions, st~ted the developer
did not feel it was advisable to develop the Brookhurst Street frontage for residential use,
but that what was proposed would act as a buffer to the residences to the east in the sing:e-
family tract~
Mr. Harry Tan~, 1355 Dallas Drive, appeared before the Commission and inquired the reason
for the variance of the front yard~,
The agent for the petitioner stated the house plans they had designed were sortiewtiat larger
than normal; that they were providin~ a turn-in drive rather than a direct drive, and a varied
setback was proposed which wouid create a larqer rear yard; and that the homes would be sold
at a price range of $30,000 to $40,000~
TFIE HEARING WAS C1,OSED.
Discussion was held by the Commission i•elative to lhe pe~itioner proposing strip commercial
zoning for the Brookhurst Street. front~ge, since properties to the west and south were
presently developed for single-family residential use; whether or not the standard 25-foot
front setback should be maintained, os• whether oz not the proposed rear yard would compensate
for the varied setbacks~
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that Petitien for
Reclassification Noo 65-66-47 be approved for R-1 and denied for the C-1, General Comrnercial,
Zone requested> After considerable discussion by Lhe Commission, Commissioner Herbst wit.h-
drew his original motion~
r,
~
- _ ,
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 18, 1965 ~~ 2~~3
RECLASSIFICATICN N0. 65-66-47
VARIANCE N0. 1740
• GENtRAL PLAN AN~NDMENT NOo 65
TENTATIVE MAPS OF TRACTS NOSa 5751s,_6089 6090, 6091 ~ContinuedZ
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue consideration of
Petitiorts for Reclassification No~ 65-66~-47, Variance No~ 1740, Tentative Maps of Tracts
~ Nos~ 5751, 6089, 6090, and 6091, and General Pian Amendment No,. 65 to the meeting of
November 6, 1965, in order to allow time for the Development Services staff to adverti,e
subject property under a new petition to reclassify it to R-1, One-Family Residential, Zone
^~~ with a request for the petitioner• to submit a revised tentative tract indicating subdivision
into single-family residentiai zoned lotse Commissioner Allred seconded the motiono MOTICN
~~, CARRIED.
~ RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING~ GRACE ELIZABE':H DICKE""ON, c/o MacMahon, Nelson 8 Tilson,
N0. 65-66-48 16°5 West Crescent Avenue, Suite 560, aheim, Ca~ifornia, Owner; MACMAHCN,
NELSON g TILSON, 1695 West Crescent Avenue, Suite 560, Anahe?m, California,
CONDI'fIONAL USE Agent; property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land sit~ated
' PERMIT N0~ 769 on the north side of Broadway, 105 feet east of Wayside Place and approxi-
~r mately 109 feet west of Date Street West, said parcel having a frontage of
~ GENERAL PLAN approximately 375 fe?t on Broadway and an average depth of approximately
AMENDMENT NOo 48 580 feet, and further described as 1651 East Broadway~ Property presently
classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATICtd: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE,
REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: TO PERMIT THE CONSTRIJCTICN OF A 42-UNIT PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
tuL*a Robert MacMahon, agent for the petitioner, appeared befo~e the Commission and stated
the plans before the Commission had been presented to the Council some time ago; that subject
property had been considered for reclassification on several occasions; that the proposed
development would have ex.tensive park-like areas for recz•eation•-:eisuze purposesg that only
two structures were two-story in height and these we:e Located in the cent~r of the proposed
~ development; that the petitioner was proposing st.udio apartments with bedrooms on the second
floor, rather than regular living qt~arters~ tt~at private drives were being proposed; that
_ private restrictions would prevent smail childi•en from becoming part of the co:nmunity since
it was pro{~osed to have this development for adult use oniy; that the proposed deveiopment
would be sl~nila.r to an R•-1 development, but Wa::d offer additional advantages, and, thereupon,
presented :enderings of the architectural treatment proposed as viewed fro~n Broadway; and that
he was of the opin~on one of the major problems had been resolved by locating the two-story
struc*.uras in the center of the proposed development~
Mr. MacMahor, in reviewing the recommendations of ihe staff relative to developing subject
property for single-family resicientiai purposes, stated that the existing lots adjacent to
subject property were only 6,000 square foot lots, and it would be necessary t~ crowd as
~ much floor space as possible on the lots because, of the cost of the land - this would tt~en
mean two-story houses with an increase in the number of children in the area; that at the
~^ last public hearing considering subject property, statements were made to the effect that
~ no increase in school population would be projected, and because the property wouid be leased
as stipulated b•~ the petitioner, development of the land for R-1 purposes wouid not be feasible;
and that the probiem facing the Commission was whether or not subiect property should be devel-
~ ~ oped for R-2 purposes or the lower density as projected on the Gererai Plan~
t
~# Commissioner Camp statad a lending problem occurred in ihe construction of singie~family
j. homes on leased property, whereas the finance companies might consider approval of financing
~~ developments such as proposed~
. ,' `I Mro MacMahon continued by stating that one of the benefits the City would derive froR. the
proposed development wo ~ t~ the realignment of Broadway, eliminating the existing curve~
. I _'
Responding to qur~-~.ion~ the Commission, Mr„ MacMahon stated that the wishes of the peti-
tioner's father r~~__a beir,y carried out, but that some years ago ths petitioner had leased
the property to the d:veloper and the lease was still binding - therefore, multiple-family
; N+; zoning was still beiny requestedg that the units beiny proposed would seil in the price range
;z of $19,000 to $27,000; and that Mr. Iliff, an attorney specializing in condominiums 3nd planned
< residential developments9 would explain the leasing and sales handling of the proposed devzlop-
b
- ~ ment.
* :~;
~ ,~ Mr. Il:ff appeared before the Commission anc reviewed the procedures and problems inherent
`~ in condominiums and planned residential developments, and in sc~mmarizing his statements,
,"$ stated the property owner would be obtaining similar title insurance and the usual amenities
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 18, 1965 ~ 2~~q
RECLASSIFICATION N0~ 65-66-48
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0~ 769
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0~ 48 Continu d
of the R-1 property owner, and under the proposed Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
on the condominium insurance itcou:d be had that the proposed development would be patronizing
to adults only, whereas if subject property were subdivided for 6y000 square foot lots with
~~o ^es'._ictions, many small children would be projected for the area,. thus increasing the
population for school attendancey and that in his opinion, the proposed development should
not be considered an apartment-type development, but a se:r-contained, private, aduit com-
munity which would not add any additional traffic to the area or children to any of the
existing schools~
Mr~ Stanley Hankins, 223 Wayside Place, appeared before the Corrunission in opposition, stating
he represented 92 propezty owners in the area who had signed a petition of opposition to the
proposed developmentq that these property owners had been opposing other than R-1 development
for subject property for almost ten years~ that these property owners had also lived on a
6,000 square foot lot and had improved the area, thus making iand more valuable to the property
owner; that the Development Services Department of the City had presented an alternate plan of
develoFment for subject property at the previous hearing which projected 21 or 22 homes which
would be more complementary to the existing si.ngle-famil~~ residentiai subdivision of the area;
that the plan before the Commission r.ow was ess~ntially the same as previously recommended for
disapprovalq that the petitioner at the previous hearing had indicated all proceeds from the
development proposed would be given to Whittier College, but upon reauest of proof of said
statementy the petitioner stated it was jus± a thought; that the Froposed dev=lop~r,ent projected
private drives within 105 feet from Wayside Place and 109 feet from Date Street West, thus
adding additional cu:b cuts and danger oF traffic flow into 2ro3dway~ that with the vacancy
factor in the City of Anaheim for apartments of 28%, to p:oject additional .ac~:t:rAnts would
only mean an additional tax write-off which would not be of any assistance to the City;
that the proposed apa~tment complex was sur:ounded on three sides by single-family subdivision
development, and an apartment complex would deteriorate within six yea:s, wheieas the single-
family hoa~es have been steadily growing in :3ppreciation vaiue; tnat studies had been madeY
and indications were tha± where single•-family homes abutted aps-rtment development, their
property values depreciated Uy ld,~; and tnat he u.ged the Corur~ission to recommend denial for
subject petitions, based on the fact tha*_ r.o land use had taken p:ace i~ tne immediate vicinity
to warrant a change ir, the Comreission's recommendation of six montrs ago.
Mr~ MacMahon, in reou±tal, stated that in his opinion the proposed develop~ent could not be
considered apartments, but would be unit-owned by the occupants or,lyg that two buildings were
proposed for two-story construction - these would be bedrooms on the second floor• and living
quarters on the first floor; that deed restrictions could be reouired to iimit the use of
subject property to adults only; 3nd that the density K•~uposed was on:y ten units per net
residential acze and wouid be an asset to the neighbo:s,
A showing of hands indicated 25 persons present in the Council Chamber opFosing subject
petitions,
THE HEARING WAS CLOSEU,
The Commission requested clarification of the Deputy City Attorney relative to the placing
of deed restrictions on subject property to limit the use of ihe 3partments to adults only.
Mra Roberts stated this was rat~ier questionable in beiny able to enforce because the property
was or, lE3se and K'35 not for sale, and no i~nd cut would be involved, which would be the
basis on which the Commission could determi;~~, land use on~y, and that the Conditi.ons, Cove-
nants, and Restrictions were based on air space only and the common areas, but not on private,
leased land.
In the discussion by the Commission it was determined the proposed development was admirable,
but was r.ot projected for the proper area; that no change in land ~„se had taken piace in the
area to warrant consideration by the Commission, and t~,~t sUbject property was developable
for single-family residentiai useo
Commissioner Camp offered Resolution Noo ~n:o, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and
adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbsty to recommend to the C~ty Council that Petition for
Reclassification No~ 65-66-48 be disapproved, based on the fact that no land use change h~d
taken place in the area to warrant the Conunission's recommending other than denial as they
had previously done, and that subject prope.rty was developabie for single•-family residential
subdivision development~ {See Resoluti.on Rook~)
- On ro17 ~..1] the fore9o,:•,? resolution was passed by the foll „~ vote:
~` AYES: !.;C°~~vIISSIONERS: Allrad, ':imp, Gauer, Hesnst, P,:.iry, ~~~- ~nd, Mungall.,
.+t~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
ABSENT: COMMISSiON~RS: Nonee
f
,,
_, ;
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIGN, October 18, 1965 ~ 2775
RECL4SSIFICAI'IGN N0. 65-66•-48
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0~ 769
GcNERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0~ 48 (Continued)
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No~ 1817, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit
No~ 769, based on findingso (See Resolution Booke)
~,J .
~~
~'~ ~
n.
4~~
ri ~
,.
~ ~
~~
~ ~
~' - --
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIGtJtRS: Allred9 Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall~
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
Commissioner Herbst offered Reso?ution No~. 1818, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to :ecommend to ttie City Council that General
Plan Amendmer.t No. 48 be disapproved, based on findings~ (See Resolution Book.~)
On roll cali the fo:egoing reso:ution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIOIJERS: Alired, Camp, Gaue:, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall~
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
ABSENT: CC1M1~.LIISSIONERS: None~
AREA DEVELOPIutENT - PUBLIC HEARING,. INITIATtD BY THE CITY PLANNI~G COMMISSICNy 204 East
PLAN N0,_2i_____ Lincoln Av4nue, Anaheim, California9 to conside: sn ares developm=nt
plan fo: the west side of Harbor Boulevard between Victor Avenue and
the City of Fullerton pumping station to the south,
Assist~ni Planner Cha:les Roberts presented Azea Development pl~n No, 21 as follows:
~~Backqround: On Auqust 16, 1965, the .Anaheim F]anning Commission considered a:equest for
C-1, General Co~rmerciai Zoning (Reclass 65-66•-2ti) at 502 Victor Avem~e,- After rendering
a decision on this petition, the Co~mission direc~ed the Deveiopment Se:vices Staff t~
prepare an Area Development Pler, for the lots fzonting on the south side of Victor Avenue
and on both sides of Juliana Avenue to 3 depth of 3 lots west of F!a~bo_ Boulevard.
The Area Development °lan has been prepared ar.d the resu~is are as foilows:
Findings:
1.~ All r~ir,e lots within the s*_udy ~rea are presently zoned R-i, and are deve.oped
as .ow•-densityY single family home sites
2e The iand uses surrounding the study area consist of:
a~ A small commercial shopping center across Victor Avenue to the north
b~ Low-density, singie family residences to the west,
c., The City of Fullerton Water Company pumping station to the south..
d~ La Palma Park to the east.
3~ The piesent right-of-way of Harbor Pouieverd is hy.,° Feet in this location~ Ultimate
right-of-way is planr,ed for 90 feet., When uitim~,,r dcd'.cation is acquired by the
City (an additional 10025 feet on each side) the t!•.re~~ lots adjacent to Nar~or
Boulevard will be reduced in width to approximatel~~ ;>; 5 feet:
4o Harbor Boulevard has been classified as a primary highway on the General Plan and
like ,r,ost of the arterial highways in the City, is experiencing a major increase in
daily tsaffic volume~ At the present time, 23,600 vehicles are using Harbor Boulevard
each day and tne projection is that 33,600 vehicles will be usiny it within the next
ten years~
5o Victor Avenue and Juliana Avenue are developed only to a 42 foot right•-of-way with
405 foet sidewalks adjacent to the curbso
6~ The General l-1an indicates potential commercial-professional uses for the Harbor
aoulevard frontage in this area with low-density uses to the west~
r
~
~ ~
G ,„~ `
~• .
~1~
~~
MINUTES, CITY PLqNNING COAIMISSIONy O~tober 18, ,1965 ~
2776
AREA DEVELOPAtENT PLqN NU~_21 (Continued
7~ None of the properties within the study area has vehicular access to Harbor Boulevard.
However, a 2G-foot wide paved alley exists to the rear of the homes that front on the
south side of Victor Avenue and the nc_th side of Juliana Avenuee The alley extends
from Narbor Boulevard westerly approx.imately 1,004 feet to the west boundary of the
R-1 tract~ The alley is presently being used as access to garages or ~any of Lhe
lots in this tract and could adequately serve as access to parking faciiities that
might be provided to the rear of the properties that are within ;he study area~
So On August 23, 1954y the Anaheim Planning Commission approved Variance No~ 249 which
permitted the applicant to operate an accounting and incorne tax business in an office
addition to the residential structure at the southwest corner of Harbor Boulevard and
Victor Avenue,
On September 14, 1965; the City Council approved the request for C-1 Zoning at this
same iocation.,
9~ Possible alternatives for the development of these properties are as fo2}ows:
a, Consirio~ +ti., o , _~ _ . , . ,. _ _
~~e~~~ainin area for low-density, single familv~y
residential uses: (See Ext~ibit "A") ~
commercial use couid be made of at least twosofethegexistingPst~uctures~onethe
3 lots adjacent to F!arbor Boulevard and these uses could provide a buffer between
the single family homes and tha heavily traveled thoroughfare~
i-iowever, this aiternative preser.ts some potentiai problems for the lot et the
southwest corner of Harbor Aou;evard and Juliana Avenue
The primary problem is one of access., At the present time, there is no alley
to the *ear of this property that would provide a means of secondary access to
parking facilities that wouid be provided to the rear of the structure~ There-
farei it wouid be necess=_ry to either make s cu;b cut on Narbor Boulevard to
pro~:ide sccess to the rear y,3rd a:ea o: tt:e_e is the pos;ibiiity that a driveway
couid be p_ov:ded down the west boundary of ±he lot ir.to the rear yard,. However,
by a~.owing access off Juiiar.a A~•~~i.e, com~erc?ai tra=fic would be using an
alzeady ;ubstanda.d :esidentiai ;treet. Also, discussions wiih the City Traffic
Engineer h~ve revealed that it wouid be hazardous and ~r.advisable to permit an
additiona. access point on i-:a:bo; Aouievard this ciose to tne La Pa1R~a Avenue
intersec`ion,
Secor~diy, even if satisfactory access could be p:ovided, it is questionable
that the rea: yard is adequate in size to accorrr.,odate the rec~ired parking
facilities, Tne:efore, to develop this one lot to commercial standards would
necessi±ate either relocation of the building or total removai w~th a new
comrr,ercial structure being built on the property.
b~
otent'.al and r-`~-'==°~„'e Lo_nave c;o.~ur;ercial -Professional OfficerV
~- retain the ren:aining_area as_low_-densit~ singie_famiiy residential
sites, (See Exhibit "B")
Once again, the existing structuzes could be co~rverted to commercial uses and
this approach would a11ow the p:oFolty owners across frerr. the comn;er.cial center
on Victor Avenue and those who live adjacent to Harbor Boulevard to develop
these sites to a more intens:ve use if commercial pressu:es are g;eat enough
to ~.arrant such development.
However, this alternative couid possibly open the door to greater commercial
intrusion along Victor Avenue into the single family residentiai area at some
time in the future,
c~ Consider all~ine_lots within the study area to h:_v_e commercial otential~
In co~sidering this approach, the property owners should be encouraged to
assemble a number of parcels ir.to possibly two separate development packages
and to remove the existing residential structures so that the conunercial develop-
ment th~t mig:~t be established would be oriented to Harbor Boulevard rather than
creating a situation where ex.cessive cort~mercial traffic would be utiiizing the
substandard residential str<_ets~
i
.. ...."' -.`~ ~'
~ ~~
.. '~~`W~i..` '~,'trS:y
4 •
,~ Y
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October lSy 1965 ~ 2~~~
ARFA DEVELOPMENT PLAN N0~21 ~Continued~,
Consideration could also be given to the abandonment of a portion of the exist-
ing alley with provision of secondary access as deFicted in Exhibit "C"o
In prouiding this type of secondary access, it would be necessary to make corner
"cut-offs" on the ~wo R-1 properties immediately west of the study area on either
side of the aileya Possibly, a i•ecipro~al agreement could be reached where addi-
tional side yard area could be allowed on these two lots to compensate for the
area lost in the "cut•-off""
This alternative would permit the commercial area on Harbor Boulevard to be
exp3nded in a southerly directior~ However, it r„ight not prove to be economicaily
feasibie to coliect all of these parcels into one oi two development packages
since the maximum depth of the buildable area would k,e cniy 155 feet,
Recommendation:
1~ That the three pa:cels adjacent to Harbor Boulevard within the study area be
considered to have Commercial~-Frofessional Office potential and that the remaining
parcels be retained as !ow-density single farnily residential area as depicted in
Exhibit "A"o"
Mro Do R~ Parsons, 700 West Juiiana Ave;i;:e, 3ppeared before the Commission and stated his
property was at the outer buundary of the proposed area deveiopment plan; that a parcel of
land at the westerly end of Victor and .;uliana AvenUes was oresently landlocked; that s~me
consideration should be given by the C~mmission to this westerly tract which was developed
fifteen years ago, that at the p.-eser! tir..e he ~rderstood Harbor BoUlevard would be widened
and the ten additional feet would be taken FI'OR1 the pazk s:de of the street, with the street
being widened all the way to La Palma Avenue~ that a mu:tipie-signaling device was located
at the ir~tersectior of Ar..~lieim and Harbo- Ro~levards, and if 3ny camn,ercial projection was
proposed for the a_ea, access from the singie•-f.smily residential tract to thE west should
be provided-so that they would not be land:ocked; and that he wo~id prefer havirg a uniform
land development of tne area rather thar. sY.:ip commerciai deveiopment along Harbor Boulevarda
Mr~ Eric Edwards, 506 Juiiana Avenue, _3ppea:ed before the Commi.,sion and stated, in his opinion,
strip commercia~ deveiopment alor.g th3t azea was ~.mdesizsbie; tnst additional commercialdevel-
opment was unneces:s_y because the exisiing snopping cente~ present~y h.ad vacancies, and if
this were developed for commerciai uses; would just add to the vacancy factor; iu:ther9 that
there would not be adeyuate area for park~ng purposes if ±he s*reet widening took place~
Mr~ Harold Pende=, 503 West Juliana Avenue, appea:ed befoie the CoTmis;ion and stated that
if an additionai ten feet were taken from the prop~rties on the West side oi Harbor Boulevard,
this would reduce the p~ope*ty by one•-sixth; tnat there was no reason f~r projectir.g commercial
zoning fa: ±he properties sir.ce the :najo::ty of the people were no* in favor of ar.~ rezoning
and were desirous of maintaining the exi~ting single-famiiy use of thei: properties.,
Mr,. Paul Peterson, 507 West Juliana Avenue, =tated he concurred in the previous statements
made and was opposed to any commercial deveiopment for the properties.
Mr~ Pender again stated that if the City were not concerned with acquiring dedication on the
Harbor Boulevard frontage, some of the property owners might consider comrrercial zoning for
their properties, but that consideration for the acauisition of 13nd for street widening
purposes should be given to the east side of the properties, nameiy the La Palma Park side„
Planning Supe*visor Ronaid Grudzinski stated the City Council had reouested a study be made
of no parking alony Harbor Boulevard at some future date, and that there was a possibility
of real.ignment of Harbor Boulevard and the possibility of right-of-way being taken from the
park site, but whether or not this land was taker al ~ l~te: date, the study was made as to
whether or not the property on Harbor Boulevard should be commercial or rernain in its low
density classification,
Mr. Grudzinski then reviewed how t~,e property could be utilized and still meet code requirements.
It was poin~ed out by the Commission that the arez ~levelopment plan as presented only offered
~ possible means of development •- that it did not rezone the properties to commercial uses -
and this would be up to the property owners themselves to request a land use change,
THE H~ARING WAS CLOSED~
Discussion was held by the Commission relative to comments made by the property owners
_ requesting that the property be maintained in its present use~ that commercial zoning was
R undesirable in their estimation, whereupon Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to receive
and file Area Development Plan No,. 21, and no 3ction to be taken, Commissioner Camp seconded
-~* the motion~ MOTIGN CARRIED~
.. ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 18, 1965 l 277g
REPORTS AND - ITEM NOo 1
RECOMMENDATI~IS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 690 •- James To Palm, 1635 South State College
Boulevard9 Anaheim, California~ Property located on the north side of
Katella Avenue easterly of State College Boulevard and proposing to
ESTABLISH A THREE-STORY OFFICE, MOTEL~ RESTAURANT AND CCCKTAIL LOUNGE,
AND AN AUTOMOBILE StRVICE CEIVTER - request for approval of revised plans.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson presented revised plans on Conditional t'se Permit
No. 690 to the Planninq Commission9 noting the location of subject property, the original
request, and the fact that the petiticner was now p:oposing to delete the automobile service
, center and increasing the r~!:nbe: of rooR:s for the motel te 240 rooms; and that the staff was
~~ m able to accurately determine the number of parking spaces needed for banquet rooms, in
•~ o:der to ascertain whether the revised p13ns provided adeauate parking~
'~~ Mro Charles Long, one of the owners of subject property, appe~red before the Commission and
' reviewed the proposed revised plans~
~: •.
Discussion was heid by the Commission to determine if the proposed parking was adequate on
~~ subject propertyo It was noted that the petitioner could suppiy additional parking, if he
, found that the parking proposed was inadequate~ h4ro Long stated that this might be accom-
~' . plished by constructing underground or adding an additional story to the structure in order
~.~i to provide additional parking~
I Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to approve plans marked Revision Noo 2, Exhibit Nos~
~'i 1 through 6 of Conditional Use Permit No. 690 CorrJnissioner Camp seconded the motion~
'` MOTICN CARRIED~
ITEM NO„ 2
RECLASSIFICATION NO,. 65-66-42 - George Nakanishi, et al - ESTABL?SHING
A MOBILE HOME ?ARK on ihe south side of Ball Road west of Beach Boulevard~
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Ronaid Thompson advised ±he Commission that a typgraphical error
had been made in Resoiution No. 1?90, Series 1965-66, Conditior. No i, wt.icn indicated a
63•-foot dedication, whereas Ball Roap was projected for a i06-foot w~de stree'.; tfi~e*efore,
53 feet was the dedication reyuired fo: Balt Road. Comrissioner Row.and of:ered Resolution
~ No, 1819, Seri.es i965-66, and moved fo: its passage and adoption, seconded ay Commissioner
_ Allred, to recommend to the City Councii that amendment to Resolution ~J.~ 1~90, Series 1965-66,
_ recommending approva: of Reciassific3tion No. 65-66•42 be made by amending Condition No~ 1 to
read: "That the owners of subject property shali deed *n the City of Anaheim a strip of land
53 feet in width, from the centeriine of the street, along Bali Ro~d, For street widening
purposes", (See Reso~ution Book,.~
On ro11 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSICNERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, RoHrland, Mungall.,
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
ABSENT: COMN!ISSIGNERS: None.
Commissioner Perry left the Council Chamber at 10:i5 P~M,
ITFM NO~~ 3
CONDITIONAL USE PEF.MIT N0. 735 - Leo Freedman, Lessee - HIGH RISE
OFFICE BUILDINGo
rl '
~
1• ~ .ax
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commissior. that when subject petition
was reviewed by the City Council, it was determined the recommendation of the Inteidepartmental
Committee relative to the overpass should have read "Haster Street" rather than "Zeyn" in
Condition Nov 1, and requested that the Conunission amend their resolution~
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No~ 1820, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner '.lired, to amend Resolution No, 1762, Series 1965-66,
Condition Noo 1, to read as follows: '.hat the development plans, as relating to the align-
ment of Manchester Avenue to connect with Haster Street and the reconstructed off-ramp, shall
be approved by the City Engineer and the State Division of Highways"~ ;See Resolution Booko)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followin~3 vote:
AYES: COti1MISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, GauerY He:bst, Rowland, Mungall~
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
AESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Perry~
~
i -- t
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COM~MISSI~1, October 18, 1965 2~79.
REPORTS AND - ITEM N0~ 4
RECOMIMENDATICNS Study of the P-L Zone in the Southeast Industrial Area.
(Continued}
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson reviewed for the Commission
a number of requests from property owners and developers in the Southeast
Industrial Area, requesting waivers of the P-L Zone which presently existed, and asked
whether or nat the Commission would recommend a study being prepared relative to these P-L
Zones~
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to direct the Development Services Departmen± to
prepare a study encompassing the P-L Zones in the Southeast Industrial Area, said study
to be presented at a future date. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion> MOTICN CA(tRIED.
Commissioner Perry returned to the Council Chamber at 10:20 P„M.
ITEM N0~ 5
Consideration of z pubiic hearing to consider the access points for
the Santa Ana Canyor. Road„
Planning Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski reviewed for the Commission a memo regarding the
request o: the State Division of Highways to the City of Anaheim and the County of Orange
. to hold public hearings relative to access points on Santa Ana Canyon Road, noting that
due to the importance of this access point study, and the number of property owners involved,
the public hearing shouid be scheduled for 7:00 P.M~ rather than 2:00 P.M,
Commissioner Perry offered a motion to direct the Development Services Department to set
for oublic hearing November 8, 1965, at 7:00 P,Mo, consideration of t`~e Santa Ana Canyon
Road access points between Jefferson Street or, the west and the proposed Weir Canyon primary
highway on the easto Commissioner Camp seconded the motion> MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM N0~ 6
Report on "No Parking" on Ha:bor Boulevard,
Assis;ant Planner Francis Nutto reviewed a report requested by the City En9ineer relative
to "No Parking" along Harbor Bouievard~
Discu~sion was heid by the Commission relative to :ecommending that pa:king be permitted at
certain hours af the day, since the report indicated that no difficulties could be foreseen
i.n proposir.g tf:e "No Parking" bane
C~mmissioner Ca~:p offerzd a motion to recommend to the City Council that any hours of parking
restrictions be recommended by the Traffic Engineer as an interim solution to traffic problems
on Harbor Boulevard, and that the Commission had reivewed the report and concurred with the
L~velopment Services staff recommendationso Commissioner Allred seconded the motiono MOTION
CAitfi; E'J,,
TEMPORARY kDJOURNMEiiT ~ Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to adjourn the meeting to
1:30 P,Mo, October 19, 1965~ Commissioner Allred seconded the
moti~no MOTION CARRIED~
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING - Chairman Mungall reconvened the meeting at 1:45 P,Mo, October 19,
1965, all Commissioners being present except Commissioner Perry.
YORBA LL'dDA - Chairman Mungail requested that Administrative Assistant Fred Sorsabal
ANNEXATION pxesent the Yorba Linda Annexation request~
Mro Sorsabal reviewed the request of the representatives of the proposed Yorba Linda
Annexation, noting that a petition signed by 238 property owners had been received; that
the area covered by this annexation was approximately three sGuare miles smaller, with
boundaries starting ai a point on the west with the City of Placentia city limits; on the
north by the City of Brea city limits; on the east by the Sterns ranch extendin9 southerly
to Esperanza Road and ths City of Anaheim city limits, Imperial Hiqhway and running westerly
to Richfield Road, thence northerly to Mariposa and the Placentia city limits; and that
Mro Neese and Mrs, Craig, co-chairmen of the annexation committee were present to answer
questions.
rF_ ~
ic` Planning Supervisor Ronaid Grudzinski advised the Commission that the staff had reviewed
~ the arca with'.n the bounda:ies of t.he proposed Yorba Linda annexation, noting that many of
~~ _ the properties were used agriculturally with the uses being readily convertible :nto residential
i a uses; that the locations f;,r necessary commercial land uses needed to support the development
`, ax
,_ _ _
_._~_.. ..
..:.,: .,' `~,~,.-'_----
~. ~ '-----~.:~ ~< . - ,
~
MINUTES, CITY PL/aNNING COMmiSSIGN, October 18,.1965 r 2780
YORBA LINAA ANNEXATICN__Continued,~
I '
.-,-=+'i~
;~ ,
~
~: I
~ ~I
f l
~
which was taking pl.ace were depicted on the Yorba Linda General Plan which had been prepared
by t~~r Grange Coui~;~ Planning Department and which had been submitted to the City of AnaheS.m
for zecommendation~ prior to its adoption by the Board of Supervisors; that Since the p?an
had '~een adopted, an~~ new r~evelopment in tt,e Yorba Linda area in close proxim`.*_y to ihe ~ity
of Ar,aheim ba~.i~riaries had been referi?d by the County to the C°_t; for comments; and that
3fter all considerations R,ade in the review of the proposed an~~er,a~~.oi., it was the sta;f's
recommendation to the Pla~~ning Commission that the proposed ann~x,-.',;ion should be sunported
~y them as a logicai expansion of tt.e City"s areas for residentia.l uses to the eas~ of t.he
existing boundaries.
Commissioner uauc+r requested a re~ort as to the ecnro~~~ic advantages the oroposed a~nexation
would be to the City of Anah=~...
Mr. Sorsabal stated that no com~lr~t,? sLu:iy had been made as to costs to the City„ uut that
b~acause oi the City`s rapid locs ,,: :~ciential residential devn~opment, the pr~,posed annexation
would proo•zde considerabla acrer,3= f~~* the expan=_ion of the City`s residential pot?ntiai, a~d
from the =iaff's viewpoint, this ~.;.ea wa; the logical expansicn for the growt.h of the C?t/~;
further, iiiat the Yort~ I.inda Waiex Distrlct presently served the a.rea with water and. sev~er
ar.~'. no plar.s for the exte~ision oi tL•i~ s~zv:ce was proposed, tut ti, ~i fire and pui~cc• preiec-
tioi would be extende~; =n~ that the library district servinc, the a~~ea would havc~ ',o be c~is-
sol:ed by vote befo:e the City wouid extend iibrary service other tt.an ti:e Coun;,y fr.ae ].ibrary
service~ It was also noted thai ~~io information w3s avaiiai,le as to the number of pat~~c.l areas
needed o•~ •h~ r,eedand numbt° of fire stations s;^ce the fozestry service was preser`.1>~provid-
ing fire p•....ection to +,he unincorporated areas between the placentia city limits anc'. the
County :ine
Mr, Sorsabal reviewed the extent of the approximate three square mile reduction ~~f the presen~:
annexation to the previous anr~;;-~iion consideration, ~oting that the major portions not
included were the Alta Yista ~ountry Club west of Linda Vista Street and the oil properties
at the north of the originai annexa~i.or. requestY together w:th the present Peralta Hills No„ 2
Annexation south of the Santa Ana Ri•:er; further, in re~pon_e to Commission questio~ii~9, stated
that the staff recommended approvai oi the p:oposed anne>.atian as being advr3ntagec s to the
City in the overall picture for future residential development expar,sion of the City~
Mro Grudzinski, in response to Commisrion qusstioning, st te~ ',~,at ~ne estimatnd ~muurc u=
lan;i in ~he prcpos=d annexation :or industria: purpo5e=; ,~~cted ;,n the Yo_tr•~,. Linc;a General
Plan and as compared with the City`s General Plan cover~.~ ~he north side cf Oram_iethorpe Avenue,
but that the industrial uses were n:ojected for researrh and consi;9erably liqhter than the
City`s M-1 uses; that upon consul~ation with the Orang~ County Pia;~ning Department no defini'ce
prorosals were projected for an amer.;iment to the Yorba Linda General Plan except that the
proo,~rties immediately ad~acer~t to the City of Anaheim`s boundazies nortn of Orangethorpe
Avenue might be projected fer ;,,;e intense residentiai use; that a cursory inspection of
their plar. indicate~ that it. co~.~.id be assimilated ea;i!y c,nd updated by the s~~aff to incurporate
any ind•~striai ~:s~s whic,.~ were proposed for expansion of tt~ Northaast Industrial Area as it
prese~tly eeisted oi: the City of Anaheim General Piano
Ni.~ ~ncsabai advised ihe Comm;ssion that no cemmit~nents had been ma~ie to residents of the
Yorba I,inda area, if the annexaiion were approved other than thnse services norr;aliy extended
to any area being annexed, because since the iast annexation ieauest, the City had adoi.ted a
charter whici; prohihited any commitments; further. since t.: water, sewei a~d library districts
were governed by a vote of the residents cf that area, none of those: services would be ofirred
or exte~.9ed until after. ~ctual. annexation, ar,d ~ny enlargement of the C:~+y Council and the
Planning (:ommission wou:d necessitate an amendnient to the Charte*; and that the boundaries
of the annexation ~.aere based upon divi~i,q thF area ~~to six zones and making a telephone
survey to deternire more re~list;c boundarieso
It was also noted, upon "omr:ission questioning, tho+. th= proF~osed annex~+i.;~ might present
an advantage to pc,ssiblca expar,sion of the pop~latio,. in the `~)-year prcjections to approxi-
mately a 400,000 r,opula~.ion~,
Mr~ David J~ Neese, co-chairman of the annexation petition, appeared before the Commission
to review events le~d?n~ u~ to ~;:e present annexation request, noting *~,a~ after the joint
Yorba Linda-Placentia Co;,unittec ha:i reco~:mended a feasibiiity .:tudy ~;: their last meeting,
and tne implic~tions of the recou~mendpd proposals, a committeF~ v~as formed and 1,000 Y?rba
Linda property oo:~ers were contacted and asked four questions - anr.exation t~, Placen~ia;
or Anaheim; incor.~e.ration, which would not be :en~idered by the c~~ur'.~.s for at least tw;;
years; or to remain unincorporated - and the V35L majority favoi~d a~ne~cation to Anaheim,
and that many of those who were in opposition at the previous re~uest hava altered thei,
thinking,and he was sure of the suc~ess of the prcposed annexation.
.~x
'`- ~~ ! `~~ . ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY FLA,•P1ING CUMNISSION, October 18, 1965 2~g1
YORBA LINDA ANIQ~XATIQ9 l~ontin:~ed `
It was determined upon questioning by the Commission that the pr~perty proposed for
annexation was 40~ daveloped.
CortGnissioner Gauer o°fered a motion to declare the meeting closedo Commissioner Camp
seconded the motion. MOTION CAR,ZIEU
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
''^manissioner Car~p offered a motion to recommend t~ ~e City Council to approve the Yorba
Linda Annexation proceedings as presented by t?~a s~,.rfe Commissioner Gauer seconded the
motion~ M`"~f::~l CARRIED.
A~~~~~=^!'~'1~riT - There being n~, fu*ihei• business to transact, Commissioner Rowland
offered a motior~ b~ auj~~~rn `he meecing. Commissioner Gauer
seconded the motion~ MQ?Iplv CARRIED.
The rreeting ad.journed ~t 2;Q5 P~M.
~;r -.
Respectfully submit~ed,
~~:~~_,.-_~~ -'~~~,.'~_%.~
ANN K.~4EBS, Secretary ~
Anaheim Planning Commission
t?
V
~
~1 '
R'
~ i
~
s,
[ ~
F~
~~ *
it~
~ ~X
i:{
,'.~
'~
;~
~~
....-...,.....-_.......~ . ..:~,~.:.~_..
'~~.o~.w.~~.a~a... '-•`..,_.,-:~,- .r...,-..:.._.... ,.
~4""!r'~~~' ~ •1`~~/n~arl` ~
~~~
7
C