Minutes-PC 1967/08/28~xr .c~+ wr~Am,~[~ ~r~~ ~y'~. ~S' a'#y'GT~fir"fi J ~"4` i'. { ; ~. ~ a~i~i~rrF s~ ~~rY ;, ~ bx-~ .r ~ ., ~ r ~~ n~i.~
r, k r
:~ ~
.. - ~ ~ ~ . . . ~ . , . , ~r~.
O Q ~ '~
'~
~
City Hall . ;'i;?
Anaheim, California '`~
~ August 28, 1967 .'`~
,':, k.
~
A REGULAR D~'TTNG OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIPIa COMMTSSION ~ ~`:*~
RF~UI,AR MEE'PING - A regular meetiag of the Anaheim City Planning Commissi~on was oelled `;~;~
to order by Ohairman Camp at 2:00 0'olook P.M., a quorum being present. ~;~
PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Camp. :;:-;. ;~
~~;::i:
Y kYyrt
- COM~LTSSIONERS: Gauer, Herbat, Mungall, Rowland. ""^;~
~;
ABSENT: - CO~GISSIONERS: Allred, Farano(who entered the Counail Chamber at 7:45 p.m.;, ,,,
PRESENT: - Assistsnt Development Services Direotor: P.^bert Miokelson
Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompaon
Planning Supervisor: Ronald.Grudzinski
Deputy City Attorne9: Furman Roberts
Offioe Engineer: Arthur Daw
Asaoaiate Planner: Jank Christofferson
Planning Commission Searetery: Ann Krebs
INVOOATION - Reverend Walter Vernon, peator of the First Congregational Churoh, gave
the invooation.
PLEDGE OF - Commiasioner Herbat led in the Pledge of Al~egianae to the Flag.
ALLEGX'A1~iCE
CONDITIONAL IISE - CONTINiJED PUBLIG f~ARIl~IG. JOSEPH AND ANN SILVER, 232 South Alta Vista
PERMI'P N0. 954 Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, Owners; liRMANDO ~PIP,r,Z, 6825 9Veat-
minster Boulevard, Westminster, California, Agent; requ~3sting permission
to HA~IE ON-SALE BEER IN A PROPOSED RESTAURANP IN AN ERI~TIldG SHOPPING
CENTER on property deaoribed as: An irregularly shaped paroel of land
having a£rontage of,approximately 110 Yeet on the south side o4 Ba11 Road and having a
ma.ximum depth of approximately 620 Yeet, the westerly boundary of sub~ebt property`being
approximately 520 feet,east of %nott Avenue and the esaterly boundary being approxiwately
720 feet west of Oakhaven Drive, and further desoribed as 3414-A VPeat Ba11 Road. Property
presently olassif ied C-1, GENERAL CO~RCIAL, ZONE.
Sub~eat petition was continued from the meeting oY Tuly 31, 1967, to permit the petitioners
and opportunity to submit revised plans.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that a request was reoeived from
the petitioner to oontinue sub~eot petition to the meeting o~ September 13, 1967, at whioh
time reviaed plana would be submitted.
Commissioner Herbst offered the motion to oontinue Petition Por Conditional IIse Permit
No. 954 to the meeting oY September 13, 1967, as requested by the petitioner £or the sub-
misaion of revised plans. Commisaioner Rowland seoonded the motion. MOTION OARRIED.
TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: BRATTAIN CONTRACTOR'S INCORPORATED, 1304 West Commonwealth
TRACT N0. 4427, Avenue, Fullerton, Cali4ornia. ENGINEER: Voorheis-Trindle-Nelson,
REVISION N0. 6 13794 Beaoh Boulevard, Weetminster, -0aliPornis. Sub~eot traot looated
on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, approaimately 750 feet east
of Addington Drive and oontaining approximstely 21.4 aares,ts proposed
for subdivieion into 85 R-1 Zoned lots.
Aasooiate Planner Jaok ChriatoPPerson presented Tentative Map of Treat No. 4427, Revi~ion
No. 6 to the Planning Commission, noting that sub3eot traat and Traot Nos. 5826 and 5fi27
had been previously oonsidered, however, the time limitatioa had eapired and the traats
presented had to be refiled in aaoordanoe with the State of CaliYornia Subdivision Aot.
F'urthermore, Reolassifiaation No. 64-65-108 and Variaaoe No. 1696 had been aonsidered
previously in oon~unation with the above mentioned traot to reolassify the property to R-1.
Commissioner Mungall o~fered a mot3on to approve Tentative Map of Treat No. 4427, Revision
No. 6, sub3eot to the following oonditiona:
3560
~ , , _ , -. ,
~ Q ~
.
,'' . MINUTE3 ~• CITY PLANNIlVa "OO~~EISSION, August 28 ; 196'l 3561
TENTATIVE.MHP OF - 1. Ttiat ahould thia subdiviaioa be developed as more than one subdivision
TRAOT N0.:4427, . eaoti subdivSaion thereof_shall be submitted in tentative form.~or
'REVI3ION.NO. 6 aPProval.
','(Oontinued)
2. That the approval of Tentative Map of Traot No. 4427, RAViaion No« 6,
>`ia granted`sub~eat to the.`oompletlon oP Varianoe No. 1696.
3. That.the vehioular aoaess rights, eaoept at atreet and/or elley
openings, to Riverdale Avenue, shall be dedioated to the City oP
Anaheim. :
4. That the alignment of the south traot boundary be approved b,q the
State Diviaion of Highways. .
: 5. That Lot "A" ahall be a pedeatrian easement with a minimum width
of eight (8) Yeet and fenoed by a sis-Yoot (6) msaonry wall, being
stepped down to a height of thirty (30) inohea in the front yard
setbaok. Seid easement ahall be given to the Orange IIni.fied Sohool
Diatriot prior to the apYroval of the 3ina1 traot map.
6. That the Santa Atta River levee shall be revetted in the loaation ;,~%c
attd in•the manner meeting the approval oP the Orange Qounty Flood
Control Distriot, and inaluding a five-Poot ohainlink fenoe along
that portion of the traot ad~aoent to the Santa Ana River. -
7. That the drainagd shall be disoharged to the satisfaotion of the
City Engineer.
8. That in aoaoi~uanue with City Counoil poliay, a six-foot masonry
wall shall be oonstruoted on the south property line separating
Lot Nos. 19, 52, 53, 54, and 59 andRiverdale Avenue, exaept that
oorner Lot Nos. 19 and 59 aha11 be'atepped down to a height oP
thirty (30) inahea in the Pront yard setbaok, and exoept that.
pedestrian openinga shall ~e provided in said'walls where aul-de-
saos ebut the'planned highway's righ~-o£-way line,of an arterisl
highway. Reeaonable landaoaping, inoluding irrigation Yaailities,
sha7.l be installed in;the unoemented portioa of the arterial high-
way parkway the full diatanoe of said wall, plans for said land-
saaping to be submitted to and sub~eot to the approval of the
Superintendent of Parkway Maintenanoe. Following inatallation,
and aooeptanoe, the City of Aaaheim shall assume the responsi-
I bility for maintenanoe o£ eaid landsoaping.'
9. That in aaoordanoe with City Oounoil polioy, a aia-Poot masonry
Hall shall. ~s aonstruoted on the north property line seperating
Lot Nos. 18 and 60 thru '64 and Riverdale Aveaue,.exoept that
oorner Lot Nos. 18 and 60 aha11 be stepped down to a height o2
thirty (30) inohea in the 3roat yard setbaok, and eaoept that
pedeatrian openinga shall be provided in said walls where nul-
de-saos-abut the planned highway right-oP-way line of an arterial
highway.
10. That Traot No. 4427 ahall be developed aPter Traat Nos. 5826 and
5827. :
11. That Addington Drive, DeerYleld Street and Alderdale Avenue sha11
be developed with e 40-foot roadway, within the`60-Yoot right-of-way.
Coumiissioner Gauer seoonded the motion. MOTTDN.CARRIED.
TENTATIVE MAP.OF.- DEVELOPER: BRAZTAIN aONTRAaTOR'S ]NCORPORATED~ 1304 1Reat Co~onwealth
TF~ACT N0. 5826, Avenue,.Fa;.llerton, Cali~o~nia. .ENGINEER: .Voorheis-Trindle-Nelson;
REVISION N0. 1 13794 Beaoh Boulevard, Westminster; CaliYornia. Sub~eot traot looated
on the uorth aida`of Santa Ana Canyon Road approximately l00 feet east
of Torrens'Street, and oontaining approximately 17.3 aores,ia propoaed
Yor subdivision into 64 R-1 Zoned lots.
,f . :k w,..~. +.i,,~ ;tS.
. ~ . . ~ . ~ ~ ~ ) ~ .~.
\/
' ' 3562
M]NDTE3~ al'iR PT+ANN]:Na COMEaT3SI0N, August 28, 1967
TENTATTVE MAP OF - Assooiate Planner Saok ohriatoPfereoa preaented Tetttative Map of
TRAOT NO..•5826, Traot No. 5826, Revision No. 1 to the Planning.Coamri.asion noting
RPITISION N0. 1 the'looation of the property and previoue zoning aation together
(Oontinued) with the 4sat that the time limitetion had eapired on the traot,
and had to be rePiled in aooordanoe with the State of Oali3ornie
Subdivisioa Aat. F~rthermore, sub~eut traat was looated immediately to the west of
Tentative Map oY Traot No. 4427. '
Commisaioner aauer ofYered a,motion to apprwe Tentative Map oP Traot No. 5826, Reviaion
No. l, sub~eot to •~he following oonditions:
1. That should this subd3vision be developed as more than one subdivision, eaoh
subdiviaicn thereof shall be aubm.itted in tentative Yorm for approval.
2. That the approva?, of Tentative Map of Traot No. 5826, Revision No. 1 is granted
aub3eot to the oo~;,letion of Varianoe No. 1696.
I 3. Thet.the vehiaular aaaess rights, exoept at street and/or slley openings, to
~ Riverdale Avenue sha11 be dedioated to the City oY Anaheim.
4. That the alignment of the south traot boundary be approved by the State oY
, CaliPornia Division of Highways.
', 5. That the right-of-way for the drainage Paoility shall be given in fee to the
Orange County Flood Control Distriot prior to the approval of the Pinal treat
map.
6. That the oonstruotion~of the drainage faaility sha11 be approved by the City
Engineer and the Orange County Flood Control Distriot,and the disnharge into
the Santa Ana River shall be approved by the Orange County Water Distriot.
7. That Traot No, 5826, Reviaion No. 1 shall be developed prior to Traot Nos.
4427, Revision No. 6; and 5827, Revision No. 1.
8. That in ac,5ordanae with Citg Counail polioy, a 6-~oot masonry wall shall be
uonatruoted on~the,north property line separating Lot Nos. 55 th,ru 64 and
Riverdale Avenue, exoept that aorner Lot Nos. 55 and 56 sha11 be atepped down
to a height oP.thirty (30) inahea in the front yard aetbaok, and exoent that
pedestrian openings shall be provi:ded in eaid walls where oul-de-saas abut
the planned highway right-oY-way line of an arterisl highway.
9. That the we11 on Lot No. 55 shall be abandoned in aooordanae to the requirements
of the City of Anaheim Water Division.
10. That Patavia Street be ahanged to Riverdale Avenue.
11. That Riverdale Avenue shall be inoluded entirely within Traot No. 5826, and
the improvements in~talled only on the southerly side.
12. That Addington~Drive, Bainbridge At•enue, end Sweetwater Street shall be developed
with a 40-foot roadway within the 60-Yoot right-oY-way.
Co~tissionar Rowland seaonded the mo~iott. MOTION CARRIED.
TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVF~LOPER: BRATPAIBT CONTRACTOR'S INCORPORATED, 1304 YPest Co~onwealth
TRACT N0. 5827, Avenue, Flillerton, CaliPornia. ENGINEER: Voorheis-Trindle-Nelson,
REVI3T~N N0. 1 13794 Beaoh Boulevard, Westminster, Oelifornia. Sub~eot traat looated
on the north side o£ Riverdale Avenue approximately 100 feet east of
Torrens Street, snd north and west o£ Tentative Map of Tract No. 4427
and No. 5826, and contain3ng approximately 12.9 aorea, is proposed for
subdivision intc 48 R-1 Zoned lots.
Assooiate Planner Taak Christofferaon presented Tentative Map of Traat No. 5827, Revision
No. l to the Planning.Commisaion,,noting that sub~eat traat was a subdivision of Traot
No. 4427, attd that the time limitation had expired on the trsat and had to be refiled in
aaoordanoe with the State.of OeliY.or.nie_Subdivision Map.-Aat.
Coumiissioner Gauer oYfered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Traot No. 5$27, Revia3.on I
No. 1, sub~eot to the Pollowing oonditions: ~--
, . :' :
~~ ~ ' ~
'' ~ ~
MIIJOTES, CITY PLANN'1NG OO~~RIS3ION, 'Auguat%28, 1967. 3563
1.,
TEN'PATNE MAP OF'- That should this subdivision be developed as more than one aubdiviaion,
TRAOT N0:'5827,. eaoh'subdivision thereoP-ehall ba_submitted 3n.tentative .Yorm for, approval.
, . RL~{TISION•`NO.. 1 • , „
Oontinued) 2.',.That the approvsl oi Tentative Map oY Traot No. 5827, Revision No: l~
-1s;.granted sub~eot`to the oompletion oP Varianoe No. 1696.
3. .That the vehioular:aoaesa.rights,.eaoept at street and~or alley
~ ; openinga to Riverdsle Avenue ahall be dediosted to the City of
Anaheim.
4. ,That in aoaordanoe with Ci•ty Counoil poliay, a 6-toot masonry wall
shall be aonstruoted oa the aouth property line aepexating Lot
Nos. 11 thru 21 and Riverdale Avenue, eaoept that oorner Lot Nos.
15 and 16 shall be atepped down to a height oP thirty (30) inohes
in the front yard aetbaok, and eaoept that pedestrian openings
shall be provided in said walle where oul-de-saos abut the planned
h3ghway right-of-way line of aa arterial highwa~. Reasonable land-
saaping, inoluding 2rrigation Ysoilitiea, ahall be inatalled in the
unoemented portion of the arterial highway paxkway the ~ull distanoe
' oY said wall, plans for said landsoaping to be aubmitted to and sub-
~eot to the approval of the 3uperintendent oP Parkway Maintenanoe.
Following installation and aoaeptanoe, the City of Anaheim shall
assume reaponsibility for maintenanae of said landaoaping.
I 5. That the 3anta Ana River lev8e shall be revetted in the laoation
and in the manner meeting the approval of the Orange County Flood
Oontrol Distriat, and inoluding a five (5) foot ohain link fence
along that portion of the traat ad~aoent to the 3anta Ana River.
6. That the disaharge oP drainage shall be to the satiafaotion oY
the City Engineer.
7. That Traot IQo: 5827, Reqialon No.;1 shall be developed after Traat
No.`5826, Revision No. l, and prior to Traot No. 4427, Reviaion No. 6.
8. That Riverdale Ayenue be exoluded entlrely Prom Trsat No: 5827,
Reviaion No.~,l,~but the improvementa be installed on the northerly
side.
9. That Blueroak 3treet and Alderdale Avenue, westerly oP Bluerook
Street, ahall be developed with a 40-foot roadwag within the
60-foot right-of-way.
Co~i.asioner Rowland aeconded the motion. MOTION OARR~D.
TENPATNE MAP OF - DE'VELOPER: RIIJ~R DEVELOPMENT OORPORATION, 10600 Satella Avenue,
'TRAOT N0. 4476, Anaheim, 0elifornia. EN(}~R; Reub-Hein-Frost and Assoaiates,
REVISION N0~ 2 136 Rooheater St'reet, Oosta Mesa, 0aliforni.a. 3ub~eot treat is located
aorth'and.east of the interseation oP the Riveraide and Newport Freeways
and oontaine approsimately 15.1 sorea, being.proposed for an 85-unit
single Yamily resideatial eubdivialon (5000 squaxe Yoot lots)-oa property
having a resolution of intent tor R-3, ~LTJ7IPIPLE F'AMTI,y RE3I17ENTIAL~ ZONE.
Assoaiate Planner Taok ChriatoYferson presented Teatative Map oi Traot No. 4476, Revision
No. 2 to the Pleaning Commisaion, noting that when the developer aubmitted Revialon No. 1
of sai.d traat, he proposed 5000 square Yoot-'lots Yor developmeat with detaohed single Pamily
dwellings in aonJunotion with Varianoe No. 1766; however, a resolution of intent to R-3
was pending on tlie" property; that sinae the-last revision the State Division of„Highways
had oondemned an additional 10.2 acres for Preeway espaneion, and that this neoessitated
resubmiasion oY.this-traat and Traot No. 5591, whioh was soheduled Pollowing thia traot.
Furthermore, in this aoquiaition, approximately 80 lots were lost.
Mr. YPi113em Froat, representing the engineers, requested that oonsideration be given to
hadix~g.either a ohain link Yenoe or the masonry wall required along the southwesterly prop-
erty7ine oP both traata, §inoe, he wea.not sure oP t~e eaaot amouat oY land the State
would aaquire. '
;;
':,': i
;j
~
._:~
' °~:~
.y
~~
~ ~',~
: ,s
:~~
iY
,:~.?
.i
;:~
f
~ _... _ .
--~;:~;;
eY,~r~ ~} ty,~'sH`- i a.+ r'S ~~ ~ L .i ~3} ,~ ~"~ .Aw ~_. uR~ ~~ 1.x r J a.+'y nu n.~ r s..
in
.. ' ~..~ . ~ . ~ .. \~ ' .
Q' ~ ~
. ~ . . . ~ :.`,~y'
Jk~
. . . . . . ' '.~W
MINU'.CES, CITY PZANN7I~TG COMEQISSION, August 28, 1967 3564 !~
; ~ ::~~s
1'ENTATIVE MAP OF - Offiae Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Co~ission that the construotion '~
TRAOT N0.,4476, of a me,sonry wall ad~eoent to arterials was a City Oounail poliay, and .~
REVISION N0..2 in the past any traot aotioa by their body where a portion ot the prop- ~:_x;
(Oontinued) erty was ad~aaent to aa erterial the masonry w~all was always required. ;_-_:~~
Oommissioner Mungall of3ered a motion to approve Teatative Map of Treat No. 4476, Reviaion
No.,2, sub~eot to the following oonditions:
1.. That should thie subdiviaion be developed as more than one aubdivision, eaah aub-
division thereoP shall be submitted in tentative Yorm for approva]..
2. That the approval o£ Tentative Map ot Traot No. 4476, Reviaion No. 2, ia granted
aub~eat to the oompletion oP Varianoe No. 1766.
3. fihat the alignmeat o~ the traat boundary ad~aaent to the freeway right-oP-way
shall be approved by the 3tate Division of Iiighways.
4. That a six-Poot masonry wall ahall be aoastructed ott the southwesterly property
line of Lot I~os. 1 thru 13.
5. That Traot No. 4476 shall be developed aPter Traot No. 5593.
Oommisaioner Iierbst seaonded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
TEI~T~ATI~E MAP Ob' - DEVET,OPER: RI1~II~ER DEVELOPMENT OORPORATIONi 10600 Satelle Avenue,
TRACT N0. 5591, Anahoim, CaliPornia. ENC}II~ER; Raub-Bein, Frost, and Asaooiates,
REYISTOIG N0. 1 i36 Rooheater Street, Costa Mesa, Oa11i'ornia. Sub~eat trsat, loaeted
north and eaet of the Riverside and Newport Freeways'interseution, and
oontaining approximately 16.1 aores, ia propoaed for subdivision into a
97-unit single family development (5000 square foot lots) on property
having a resolutioa o~ intent Yor R-3, M[TIIPIPLE FAMZLY RESTDENTIAL,ZOI~.
Asaooiate Planner Jeak ChriatoYPerson presented Tentative Map of Traat No.5591, Revieion
No. l, to the Planning 0o~isaion noting that the revision was neaessarq due to the fsat
that the State Division of Highways.had aoqujred s portion of the traot for Purther freeway
developmentt and thus reduoed:the size oP thei treat; however, 3t was still propoaed to be
subdivided into 5000 square Yoot lots for oonstruation oP detaohed residenoes.
Co~l.ssioner Mungall offered a motion to app~•ove Tentative Map of Traot No. 5591, Revision
No. 1, sub~eat to the Yollowing conditiona:
1. That ahould this subdivision be devel~ped as more than one aubdivision, eaah sub-
division thereof shall be submitted ~.a tentative form for approval.
2. That the approval of Tentative ?:sp of Traot No. 5591, Revision No. 1, is granted
sub~eot to the oompletion o? Varianoe No. 1766.
3. That the alignment of the traot boundary ad~aaent to tY:~~3 freeway right-of-x~ay shall
be approved by the State Division of Iiighwaqs. ,
4. That a 6-foot masonry wall. shall he oonstruoted on the southwesterly, westerly, and
aortherly property lines oP Lot Nos. 1 thru 38.
5. That Traot Na. 5591 shall be developed aPter 1`s~sat Ido. 5593.
6. That vehioular aooeas rights, to %verdale shall be dediaated to.the City oY Anaheim.
Coa~issioner Herbat seoonded the motion. MOTION OARRIGD. i
Co~i.ssioner Rowland lePt the Oounail Ohamber at 2:13 p.m.
+4 J~ ~ y~~ „R. ; ., u ~ ! f y ~~'X r~y K'~ V~'~ _~ ~ 4.~ ~ 7~ T-;Y Y H
] ~
~ ~ ~~ `
MINUTE3, GITY PLANNING CO~i283I0N~ August 28, 1967 3565
CONDITIONAL USE - PZTBLIC HEARING. ANAHEIM ~ORTAL H03PITAL A3SOCIATION, ]NCORPORATED,
PERMLT N0. 958 1111 VYest Ia Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CaliPornia, Owner. Petitioner
requeats permiseior. to ERPAND AN E%TSTIN(3 H03PITAL VPITg Tf~ ADDITTON
OF A THREE-STORY STRIICTURE AA1D yVAIVER OF M:LNTSdUM 3TDE YARD SETBACg on
property desaribed as: An irregularly shaped perael oY land laoated at the northwest
oorner of La Palme Avenue and -Pest Street and having Prontsges oP approximetely 540 Peet
on Ia Palma Avenue and approximately 442 feet on 9Vest Street, and further desoribed as
1111 West La Pa7.ma Avenue. Property preaently alassiPied R-A, AGRICIILTITRAL, ZONE.
~~'~ Asf~ooiate Planner raok Chriatofferson rbviewed subJeot petition, looation of sub~eot
"r proper'ty and uses established in close proximity, as welY as the Report to the Commission,
~ „ emphasizing the faat that the three-atory atruature would be approximetely 3 feet 3rom
* the property line as well as extending into the R-1 lots proposed for parking faoilities.
~'>:;:`;' It was also noted that the staf~ had been 3nformed that the petitioners indioated today
':~ that the remaining R-1 lots fronting on the east eide of Lombard Drive had been purohased
y?_ by them, and the Co~i.ssion might wish to alari3y this from the representati~~es of the
" ~~` `; ~; hospital.
A' Mr. VPallaae Fryer, representing the arohitects, appeared before the Gommission and noted
:;,:,:;~? that the three lots remaining on the east side of Lombard Drive were now in eaorow pending
' aation on sub~eat petition.
~ 3;
No one appeared in opposition.
' ;7
~ {~'' THE HEARIl~T(~ WAS CLOSED.
~ r ~w
~~ 9a~istant Development Servioes Direotor Robert Miakelson noted for the Commission thst it
~~-,.:'?_?,,~ might be pointed out tha~ sinoe the lote along the east side of Lombexd Drive were all R-1,
~?;.;:p,.^T the ~ommission might wish to take aotion on sub eat
~ petition and oontinue the varianoe until
~;;~;;;~,} additional legal desaription for the petition was reoeived and advertised.
~~~'`''^~~~¢~ Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson then advised the agent that in order to minimize the
~j ~~T~
n~,~-~, confuaion it might be best to continue the varianoe, and after the petitioners had submitted
~~r~ a letter of authorization the varianoe oould be readvertised to inalude the additional lots.
~` <~~.
~~~ Oo~3.asioner Herbst ofYered Reaolution No. P067-187, and moved for its passage and adoption,
~:~::,;,;~~ seoonded by Commissioner Gauer to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 958, sub~eot
~~ ;~ to aonditions.(See Resolution Book)
F r- On roll oall the foregoing resolution was paesed by the following vote:
~,
-.;~~''Y , AYES: COME~:CSSIONERS: Gauer, Herbat, Mungall, Camp.
`; ~-;:~, .
r :;~; NOES: COM6~TSSIONERS: None.
~`~ ABSENT: COM~AISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Rowland.
VARIANCE N0. - PIIBLIC HEARING. ANAI~IM ~ORIAL HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED,
1908 1111 West Ia Palm~ Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner. Petitioners request
permit to ESTABLISH AN AUTOMOBII~E pARIfl,'NG LOT TO SERVICE TE~ E%ISTING.H03-
PITAL AND GONSTRIICTION OF A PORTION OF THE PROPOSED HOSPITAL E%PANSIONI OPT
property deaoribed as: A reotangularly shaped paroel of land, oonsiating of six reaidential :'
lota, having a frontage of approximately 360 feet on the east side of Lombard Brive, and
having a maximum depth of approximately 100 feet, the southerly property line being app?~oxi- i
ma.tely 165 Peet north of the centerline of I,a Pa].ma Avenue, and further desoribed as 1100, ~
1116, 1120, 1126, 1130, and 1136 Lombard Drive. Property presently alassified R-1, ONE ~
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. ~
~
Inasmuoh as the petitioners had aaquired the remaining three lots of the property to the
north and south of sub3eot property, Co~.i.ssioner Her.bst offered a motion to aontinue I
sub~eat petition to the meeting of September 13, 1967 to allow time to advertiae the remainin~
properties. Commissioner Gauer seoonded the motion. MOTION OARRIED.
t ?;~;
~
W/
Y ) ='~ _
~
~' 3+ Q~'~1' PL•ANNING C01~I3STOIV, August 28 ~ 1967
3566
COAID1fiI0NAL IISE - PtTBI,Ta HEAgINQ.~ ~~~ON p~ FIRST SAYIN(~3 d~ LpAN AS30CIATION, 2650 Zoe
PER~T N0. 959 Avenue, Huntington Park, QaliYornie, Owner; J'AMES H. 3AIILS, JR,, 710 North
Euolid Street, SuJ.te 207, Anaheim, Oalifornia, Agent; requesting permission
r0 ESTAHLTSH A p~7,yA~ CLUg AI~ID'1~CREATIONAL FAC77,'P'rP~ ypTTg ON-3ALE I,IQIIOR
AAID UPAIVER OF Tf~ WALI, HEIqiT IN~ FRO~ ~~+gAtl$ ~A3 oa property desoribed as: A rectang_
ularl~ ahaped paroel running Yrom Lemon Street to Anaheim Boulevard, aontaining approximately
4.62 aarea, with frontages oP approximately 360 Yeet on both Lemon Street and Anaheim Blvd.,
the southerly boundary of sub~eat property being approxime,tely 400 Peet north of the aenter-
line of Ball Road, and ~urther desoribed as 1025 South Anaheim Boulevard. Property preaently
olesaified 0-1, (}ENERAI, pp~QY~~ ZOI~.
Mrs. Doris Sauls, one oP the agettta for the petitioner, appeared beYore the Commisaion and
inquired why the new owner was being required to pay for a sewer oonneotion that was in
exietenoe sinae 19557 '
Zoning 3upervisor Ronald Thompaon advised the agent that the attorney~s ofPioe had ruled
that theae Pees were ~till due the Oity and are legally oolleotible, and that et the time
Loren YPagner owned the property aevoral attempta had been made to aolleot the fees, however,
the Gity was never suooeasful.
Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberta in response to questions by Mrs. Sauls relative to time
lapse and requirement that new owners pay these fees, stated that it was imme,teriel who
paid the sewer feee, but the faailities oould not be used until the fees were paid, and the
City was not desirous of aompounding the error time and time again.
Mr. Thompson Purther advised the agent that although Condition No. 10 required aoapliance
prior to the issuanae ofi a building permit or 180 days, if the escrow had not
been completed by the time the 180 days were up,they oould request in writing an additional
180 days.
Commisaioner Rowland returned to the Oounoil Chamber at 2:26 p,m.
Mr. J'oseph Danhoff, 1123 South Lemon Street, appeared before the Oommission and expreased
conoern that a use will again be granted without requiring aurbs, gutters, sidewalks, and
street improvement Por Lemon Street. It was also noted that the hours of operation of the
previous operation were from 7 a,.m~ to after 2 a.m. with early morning hours being pieraed with
whistles or gunshot when startittg the ewim raoes, and the evening.houra being interupted
with boisterous noiaea, whioh were only quelled after the policemen~were oalled itt; Yurther-
more he was opposed to having traffio having aooeas to Lemon S~i~eet beoause of the late
houra of operation entranoe of automobile trafPio on the reeidential street disrupted the
rest of oardiaa reaidents, who aould not af£ord to move elsewhere.
Mr. ChristoPPerson noted that although dedioatiott of eooess rights to Lemon Street ~was not
required,the plans do not indioate that aaoeas will be taken sinae it was proposed to aon-
struot an 8_foot wall on the Lemon Street side.
Chairman Camp noted that quite a problem did exist for the residents of that area beaeuse of
the prior operations, and inquired ae to the type oP olub that was being proposed.
Mr.r.Sauls replied that a family type olub was proposed with reareational Yaoilities Por the
entire family ittoluding swimming, exeroise rooms, sauna baths; that it was hoped to have the
luau-type entertainment whioh had proven eucaessful at danaes, and that loud speakers would
not be used.
Mr. William Ary~in, owner of the apar.tments immediately to the south along the east side of
Lemon Street appeared before the Commission, and inquired as to the hours of operation, sinoe
he had been losing teneats beYore .beaause of the late houre o£ operation and the inoome was
neaeasary to meet his taxes.
Mr. Sauls noted that it was proposed to hold danoes on the patio outsi,de, whereupon Mr. Arvin
noted thi.s'patlo was direotly below the windowa of the apartments.
Chairman Camp thea asked the question again as to hours of operation, whereupon Mrs. Sauls
tootohillyt furthermore,dsheiwiahed~to~empheasizetthat thisvwouldfberalfamil~ teoause it was
y ype operation.
~ f ~~ ~ ~ :
~ -
O
~
3567
L ~:`:
~TNQTES, CITY PLANNING COMt~I3SI0N, August 28, 1967
CONDITIONAL• IISE - Commissioner Rowland noted that even though an 8-foot wall was proposed
PERMIT NQ. 959 any two-story apartment structure would be aYfected by noises at the upper
(Continued) level apartments.
Wr. Peter Warnoff, 1309 Iris Street, owner of the property immediately to the north, appeared
be£ore the Commission and noted yhat sidewalka should be required along Anaheim Boulevard
as well, that the 4-foot adobe wall ahould be removed sinoe none of the commeraial property
had walls; that when he developed his commeroisl property he was required to oonatruot
t ooncrete drivewaye, whereas sub eot
~ property does not have this; that a chain link fenae
with shrubbery along the north property line obstruated the aigning oY his property, because
of the requirement o3 a 60-foot building setbaok; that all this fencing was illegal if the
C-1 requirementa were enforaed; that the debris from winds blowing would pile up alongside
the adobe wall where the area was a aomplete weedpatch; that when Mr. Wagner operated the
Tamasha Club he had promised to install the sidwalks and a~t the weeds,however, as of this
date nothing had been eaoomplished; and thet all the aYorementionad complaints should be
reatified along Anaheim Boulevard to add to the appearance, eapecielly since a new 3-story
offioe building would be ereoted aaross the street £rom sub3ect property. Furthermore, if
the sidewalks were nut ia they would run into a portion of the wall, since the street ran
on an angle at one portion of the property.
Of3ice Engineer Arthur Daw, in reaponae to Commisu~an questioning, stated that he had no
figures to verify that that the adobe wall was or was .~t in the public right-of-way.
Mr. fihompson noted for the Commission that Anaheim Boulevard and Lemon 5treet in this
general area still had the parking-landsoaping zone.
Asaistant Development Services Direotor Rober;; Miakelson noted for the Commission that me,ny
of the complsinta and problems brought before them oould be resolved iY the Report to the
Commisaion were reviewed, 31nce aut+~eat petition was the first applied for, and he aould
not recall under what authority the private olub had been established, therefore, this was
the Yirat time the the Commission could review the recommended conditions by the Interde-
partmeatal Committee - the reoommended conditions were then reviewed for the interested
opposition. 'The faot that the exiating adobe wall wss 4 feet high and the requirement of
oode.was a maximum of 30 inohes whiah the Commission aould require then the existing wall
would have to be lowered, wea also noted; and that'the Oomm.tesion aou7.d approve the wall
at its presant height i3 they so desired.
THE HEARIN(} WA5 aT.aSED.
Disnuseion was held by the Commission as to the procedure whiah their body aould.follow
on sub~eot petition and that if the petition was denied ell the improvements which the
opposition wanted installed woLld not be obtained; that the proposed 8-£oot wall along
the west property line would aid in diffuaing the sound away Prom the R-1 to the west;
that removal of the adobe wall would not aooomplish line of sight of the signs to the
north, sinoe this would be blooked effeotively if landsaaping were required in the park3ng
area - as required in the C-1 Zone; and that the existing wall provided a better sareening
of the parking area from the atreet than any landsaaping whioh could be required.
The Co~ission further determined that all acoess rights to Lemon Street should be required,
as well as a solid masoary wall along the west property line.
Com~i.eeioner Rowland ofYered Resolution No. PC67-188, and moved for its paseage and adoption,;
aeaonded by,0ommisaioner Herbst to grant Petitioa for Conditional Use Permit No, 959,
sub3eot to conditiona as outlinedand the Yurther requirement that all aoaess rights to
I,emon Street be dediaeted to the City; and that an 8-Poot masonry wall be oonstruated
elong the west proporty line.(See Resolution Book)
On roll oall the Poregoing resolution was pasaed by the following vote:
AYES: CO~SSIONERS: aauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COM~ISSIONERS: None.
AH3ENT: COM~E:CSSIONERS: Allred, Farano.
~ ,
~
MINiTTES, OITY PLANNING COMNIISSION, August 28, 1967
r. n } -aj
. . :.,``~`.~..-."
.;\
~
3568
CONDITIONAL IISE - PUBL•IC HEARING. TOHN R. AND E~A SiT~RS, 1239 South Magnolia Avenue,
PERMIT N0. 961 Anaheim, California, Ownera. VERNON D. B. PERERA, 12072 Cole Street,
Gerdan C:rove, GaliYornia, Agent. Petitioner requeata permission to'
ESTABLISH A PRE-SCHOOL AND NURSERY SCHOOL IN AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL' -
STRUCTIIRE on property desoribed as: A reatangularly.shaped_:parcel of land with a'frontage
o£ approximately 82 feet ott the weat side oY Magnolia Avenue and having a magimum depth:
of approximately 504,Peet, the northerly boundary oY sub~ect property being approxiatately
560 feet south of the oenterline of Ball Road, and iurther desaribed as 1239 South Magnolia
Avenue. Property presently alassified R-A, AGRIQIIIIPURAL ZONE.
Assooiate Planner Jaak Christofferson reviewed sub3eo,t petition, looa~Eion of subjeat property
and uses established in close proximity, as well ae the Report to the Commission.
Mr. Vernon Perera, agent for the petitioners, appeared before the Commiasion reviewing
the goels af the Monteasori method oY tee,ahing, noting that the sohool was not operated
as a baby-eitting sohool; that although the petition had indiaeted a maximum of 45 students,
this figure ~vould probably be lesa in order to meet the requirements set by the State
relative to sahool space and outdoor play area; that if the Commission required it, a
oiraular drive aould be oonstruoted to per~it piokup and dropo£f of studenta during the
rush hours of the day; that the noise from this type of sohool would be oonsiderably less
than regular publio sohools beoauae the nhildren were under oonatant supervision; that
tY,e proposed sahool would be less ob3eationable than nommeraial or apartment development of
the property; and that it was their intent to reside in the home and farm the rear portion
of the property not designated for sohool purposes.
The agent also inquired whether or not it was the City's poliay to install improvements if
dedication of land for street widening purposes was given. Whereupon the Commission stated
where a more intense use of land was indicated, dedioation was required as well as street
improvement.
Mr. Perera, in response to Commission questioning, stated that meais would not be prepared
for the students and they would te required to bring'their own lunohes'with the school " .
providing milk snd cookies.
Mr. Edward Rhinehart, 8892 Lola Avenue, Stanton appeared before the Commission end.indicated`
that he and eight others were present in the Counoll Qhamber in opposition, furthermore, he'
wished to present a:petition signed by all but three residents withia 300 feet of sub3ect'
property also in opposition, noting that the proposed request would inter~eat oommeraial
uses in a quiet neighborhood developed primarily with better than average homes, and the.
possibility of aonstruotion of a pool with 45 children Would oreate oonsiderable more noise
than the existing use of the property; that the agent's statment that the ohildren;would'be
bringing their lunohes was indiaative that adequate trash storage areas were neaessary;
and ~.f the,petitioner was desirous of selling his property, this could be aaoomplished by
providing e street to the rear of the property so that it could be developed with homes.
Mr. John Summers, the pe'citioner, stated his property was in the City of Anaheim, and all
the opposition resided in the City of Stanton; that a bloak wall existed between tHe R-1
to the south end his property whioh he had ereated himselY~sinoe up until'the present
time he used the property for agriaultural purposes with aattle and hcrses; that'he had
purchased the property at the time Lola Avenue was juat a bean field; however sinoe his
son was now grown, the maintenanoe of the property was beaoming a burden and they had
phased out the livestook until only two sheep remained to keep the weeds down; that the
noise from the subdivision was considerably greater than that from the proposed sohool,
whioh would be opereting 3rom 7 a.m. to 4 p.m.; and that the existing fenoe was not high.
enough to keep the debris from being tossed into his y.ard Yrom the subdivision.
Mrs. Wi~?tc~w Booth, 8901 Lole Ave., 3tanton appeared in opposition, noting that although
theq had lived in the neighborhood a short time, the neighborhood seemed to be quiet,' not
even any Pights had oaaurred; that their biggest problem was being able to slow down in
time to make the turn into Lola Ave. beoause of its oloseness to Ball Road whioh is
signalized, and there would be a bigger problem if loading and unloading'of the sohool
ahildren ooourred on the street itselP; and that she preYerred two sheep to 45 ohildren.
Mr. Perera, in rebuttal, stated that there was no intent to aonstruat a swimming pool;
that one seatlon oY tho property was not Penoed, but this~oould be aoaomplished if the
Commiseion required it; aud that he was sure the oppoaition was not familiar with the
type of sohool they proposed, sinae there would be little noise Yrom the sohool ohildren,
due to the type oF training they would be reaeiving; and that if anyone wished to visit
a BAonteasori sohool the one in whittier would be similar to i;hat being proposed for ~
subjeot property. •
~.:.. :
~ .
~
x~ (
~
MINGTES ~ OIT~' PLANNINC} COMd[ISSTON* August 28 , 1967
CONDT~.`IONAL USE - THE HEARINC} WAS CLOSED.
PERdCPP N0. 961
(Continued) Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson noted that the development plans did I
not utilize a greater portion oY the property attd that Yrom past Commiesion~
eotion it was not desirous to have the entire front yard in aephalt, thus
retention of the residentiel landaoaped appeeranae wea urged.
Oommisaioner Rowland noted thst on a previoua nursery sohool approved on East Street, it
was determined that the use was more nearly oompatible with the reaidential uses than any
other, therefore, he aould 3ee no reeaon Yor assuming sub~eat petition and its use was not I
also more oompatible to the residential uses; that the narrow deep lots existing in the City
had always preaented a problem for more intense use, and the property did not lend itself to
be developed for commeraial use; and that development oP the property with 30 apertments
would be far leas deairable than that proposed.
Mr. Summers, in reply to Oommi.ssion questioning, atated it wea their intent to sell the I
entire parael to the agent for the petitioner, and that the only area open was approxi- !
mately 300 Yeet from the street, whereas tha sahool was proposed for the fro~t whiah would !
be completely fenaed off. '
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC67-189, and moved Por its passage and adoption,
seaonded by Commissioner MunRall to grant Petition for Conditional IIse Permit No. 961,
sub~eat to conditions, on the basis that the proposed use would be more aompatible to the
exiating residential uses than multiple family or commeraial use, and further sub~ect to
providing a parking area and an unloading and loading area on the property itself while
maintaining the residentiel appearanae of the propertq.(See Resolution Book)
On roll oall the foregoing resolutioa was passed by the following vote:
AYES: OOL9~SSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COE~IISSIOIQERS: None.
ABSENT: CO~IS3IONERS: Allred, Farano.
VARIANOE - PIIBLIC HEARTNG. GERALD ERLAPIDSON, P. 0. Boa 246, Fullerton, California, Owner;
N0. 1909 requesting a var]a~oe to PERML'P A SECOND DWELI,ING ZTNl'P WITH WANERS OF: (1) M:Lv~uIUM
FLOOR AREA, (2) M.tNIM6~ RE@BIRFD pAgI~IG SPACES, AND (3) MIIJI~IIM SIDE YARD SETBACK
on property descired ea: A reotangularly shaped parael of land having a frontage '
of approsima,tely 48 feet on the west side of Sabina Street and having a maximum depth of
approximately 115 feet, the southerly boundary of sub~eot property being approxime.tely310 feet',
north of the oenterline o£ Wilhe7.mina Street, and further desaribed ea 725 North Sabina Street.
Property preaently olaesified R-2, MIILT=pLE FAMILy RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
Assoaiate Planner J'aok Christofferson reviewed sub;eat petition, looation of sub~ect property,
uses established in oloae proximity, and the Report to the Co~iasion.
Mr. Gerald Erlandsor., the petitioner,appeared before the Commission to answer questions, and
noted that only two treea would be removed; that the present home was a one bedroom house, and
that it was not eoonomiaebly feasible to provide more than the proposed two-aar garage.
The Commiss'ion noted that iP the proposed garage were relocated further in,two uncovered
parking spaoes oould be provided with tandem parking.
Mr. Erlandson noted that neighbors to the south did not have garages, and that most of the
homes in that area had only one car garagea with eooess gained from the alley, and that he
onlq ob,jeoted to ~he tandem parking with the garage being 25 feet from alley was beoause
it would not aonform with the other development in,the area.
NO one appeared in opposition.
M,.
fi~
~'._.~"~'i't
:'r,
,: ;;.:~
~: ~s
;c
;: ~:~
~5
1~is
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. !
Commisaioner Mungall o3fered Reaolution No. PC67-1q0 and moved for its
aeoonded b Commissioner Herbat to ~' passsge and adoption,
Y , grant Petition for Varianae No. 1909, sub~eot to providing
two aovered and one unoovered parking spaoe by relooating the proposed garage 10 feet further
in from the alley, and sub,jeot to conditions.(See Resolution Book)
!
-.~2-
~:.:
;. _
~ ,;~;.Y - _...._.. _.__ ~~
C~ ~ ~ ~ ,.} k
~ '~
~ ~
MINUTE3~ OI1'Y PLANNTNG COMDEISSION, August 28, 1967 3570 ,
`t:`' "- VARIANaE - On ro11 oell the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~
No. 1909
~~ (Oontinued) AYE5: COM~ISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. ,
t
NOES: CO~IISSIONERS: None.
~~~"~~`;
; »,r ,
~ ABSEN7: OOM~TSSIONERS: Allred, Farano.
I -,;,,;
, ~,"~
YARTANCE - PUBLTC HEARING. HUMBLE OIL COMPAD]Y, P. 0. Box 1254, Orange~OaliPornia, Owner;
~ ;; N0. 1910 BTLL WINTERBERG, 923 Arlee Plaoe, Anaheim, California, Agent. Petitioner
4 ~:. requesta varianoe from Code to permit A FREE-STANDING SIGN, WITH WANERS OF:
(1) MARTMIIM N[TMBER OF FREE-STANDINaS SIGNS; (2) MARIMUM STGN HEIGHT; (3)
~
~,,, MARIMUM SIGN AREA; AND (4) I,OCATION OF FREE STANDING SIGN on property desaribed
~~ as: An irregularly shaped parael of land looated at the northeast aorner of Ball Road and
4 -t" Harbor Boulevard and having frontages of approxime,tely 150 feet on Ball Road and approxi-
"'~ mately 130 feet on Harbor Boulevard, and further desoribed as 519 West Ball Road. Property
~~ presently olassified C-2, GENERAT, COMhQERCIAL, ZONE.
Assooiate Planner Jeak Christofferson reviewed sub3eat petition, location of sub~eat property,
:;~:.
uses established in close proximity, previous zonittg aotion, and the Report to the Commisaion.
,~ Mr. Bill Winterberg, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that
the petitioner was requesting equel signing o3 the servioe station as the two on the weat
side oY Harbor Boulevard;tha~ the petitioner was presenting revised plans which indicated
~
~ ;': a 70-foot sign height, similar to that existing to the west, orienting the sigr. to the
~;,,,..: ~ 3reeway in order to aaquire some of the business ooming off the freeway auch as the Shell
,,
~,±~ stetion was obtaining; and that the petitionars would not spend money for a s~.gn if they
ti;~~';. :;~i were not aonfident it would be advantageous to the operator of the station.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson noted that under the existing aode requirements no sign
would be permitted in the ultimate right-of-way, and inquired whether the petitioner proposed
to relocate the sign behind the ultimate right-of-way.
Mr.'Winterberg atated he would preYer to have an agreement wa~h the City that at suah time
as the dedioation was needed they would reloaata the sign, at no expense to the Oity, to
the rear oY the right-of-way.
Mr. Thompson also noted that if any future alterations were made to the servioe station other
than signing this would require dediaation whioh would entail a aonsiderable expense to
relooate the sign.
Office Engineer Arthur Daw, in response to Oommisaion questioning, steted that disaussion t~ad
been held as to the ultimate widing for 3a11 Road, however, the City was not desirous of
paying for the acquisition of property for street widening purposes, sinae many of the
other property owners had stated they would not dedicate their property at this time. Mr
Daw further noted that if the traffia engineer determined that a right turn lene was needed
at this interseotion dediaation might be required sooner from sub3eat property.
Mr. Thompson further noted that the City did not require dedioation with the approval of
a sign varianoe, however, if the underground tanks were located ia the ultimate right-o£-
way, this might present a problem when thay were reloasted because of the expense in
removing them from the sewer feailities and underground wires.
NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSIZ'.CON.
THE HEAR'QdG WAS CLOSED.
The Oo~ission noted that the oil oompanies were the prime violators of the sign ordinance
by requesting higher and more signs trying to orient them to freeway exposure, end that
no land use change had taken pleoe to warrant the Commission ohanging their previous aation
or the City Counoil's aation of May 9, 1967.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PQ67-141, and moved for its pessage and adoption,
seaonded by Commissioner Mungall to deny Petition for Varianoe No. 1910, on the basis that
the existing sign ordinaaae provided adequately for the signing of sub~eat property; that
one oommeroial use should not be favored over other oo~eraial uses; that the area in which
the sign wae proposed was along the gateway to the oo~eroiel-reoreation area whiah should
be inoluded in the aity beautifiaetion progrem; and that no land use nhange had taken plane
to warrant the Commission reveraing their previous aation on the signing of sub~eot property.i -
(See Resolution Book) j
~
~ ~ q'
"-~~
r 7 P ; y d... ;. ".~
; ~1a
~ Q ~,~ ~~
~ ~ ::~
`= M]STU'lE3s CI~YY' PLANNINa COMMISSTON~ Auguat 28, 1967 3571
.~:
~~ .
~k_~ VARTANCE - On roll oall the Poregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
~~.:~ N0. 1910
+~4 , (Oont.) AYESs OOMB~CCS3TONER3: (3auer, Herbat, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
,,~ - NOES: COMML3SIONERSs None.
~'` ABSENTS COMI~ISSIONERS; Allred, Farano.
',~i;;~S., ~~"~ AEOESS - Ooa¢niseioner Rowland o3fered a motion to reoesa the meeting for ten minutes,
~ ~~ Ooamiissioner Mungall seaonded the motiott. MOTION CARR~D. The meeting reoessed
at 4:10 p.m.
~ RECONdENE- Chairman Gamp reoonvened the meeting at 4:20 p.m., Oouenissioners Allred and
~•-. ,, n Farano being absent.
'` VARTANOE ' PL'BLIa HEARTNG. FREDRIC&S DEVELOPMENT QORPORATION~ 524 West Commonwealth Avenue,
N0. 1912 Fullerton, California, Owner; AD-ART, 14365 Firestone Boulevard, La Mirada,
Oalifornia, Agent; requesting a varianoe to PERMIT A FREE-STANDING SI(iN, 9PITH
WANER OF MI~I'~UM DISTANCE BETWEEN FREE-STANDING SI(3NS on property desaribed as:
~ f!; An irregularly shaped parael of land lqing north and east of a 150-foot by 150-foot parcel
;' ~_; oY land looated at the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue and State College Boulevard,
~;:,_ ~: and having e frontage of approximately 530 feet on the north side oY La palma Avenue and
r approximateay 450 feet on the east side of State Oollege Soulevard. Property presently
~.,,,, ,. classi£ied C-1, GENERAL OO~SEROTAL, ZONE.
,;"'
~ ` Assoaiate Planner raak OhristofYerson reviewed sub~eot petition, looatian of the proposed
ti~;,~' :~t~;j~ sign signs i~} olose roximity, and the Report to the Commission, oorreoting the Finding
4t No. '/ to read a 1-Poo~ 6-inah pro~eotion.
~ x~
;~•~;;;:~;:.~ ' Mr. Russ Betker, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Coa~ission and oommented
~ on the Report to the Commisaion noting that the proposed sign would be a part of the
"~ ~ Grenada 3quare to identiYg the te{~ents of the ahopping aenter; that the Manny restaurant
~~~ si n oould nut be inte
~,.Y,.:r} B grated into the proposed sign beaauae oP their hours of operation-
~ ; 24 hours a,day; that they were requesting waiver of only 80 Peet and were uomplying with
~ i' aIl other requirementa of the sign ordinanoe; and that beoause signs wcre limited within
~ ;,~ the shopping oenter itaelP eome means of identifioation was necessary along the st^eet
frontage. Furthermore, the 1-foot 6-inoh ro~eotioa was an arahitectural error and ~he
~: sign would not pro~eat into the publio rig~it-o£-way.
i No one appeared in opposition.
'~ *:
~ . THE HEARIlVG WAS CLOSED.
'r Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that the proposed sign differed £rom that previously '
~ ' oonsidered on the servioe station in that on one wa!,ver was bei
"~. ~Y n6 requested and the peti-
_.,; tioner was proposing an integrated sign whiah was more desirable for proper identlYiaation
+ ' of ell the tenents of the shopping center, exoluding the restaureat~and that approval would
,.,,,,~ be in the best interesta oY the area as a whole.
~
Commissioner Herbet offered Resolution No. P067-192, and mo*red for its passage and adopt'ion,
eeoonded by Oommiasioner Mungall to grant Petition for Varianae No. 1912, on the basis that
the sign aonformed to the height and area pex~wi.tted, and integrated aigning for the entire
neighborhood shopping oenter is-deairable, sub3eat to oonditions.(See Resolution Book)
On roll oall the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: CONID~ISSIOI~RS: Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland.
NOES: CO~MISSIOPIERS: None.
ABSENT: COMh~I$SIOI~RS: Allred, Farano.
ABSTAIIQ: COMSSISSIONERSs Oamp.
- - ,~r.
~b ~ ~~~ ~f ~ ~~~. ~ r , ~ 'T : ~ K ~~ ~1~'a'~" ~''~ ~"..~'Y ~ ~ ~. Sx 2 "r7 s i,: y :. r r
~ ~ M
:F;~+'F~ }i . 4 i~,r ~ ~l~ ~,.,,'r
.. ~ ~. . . . ,\
~
1~.INQ'PES, CIT`d PLAN?~2TG COM~GISSION~ August 28, 1967
3572
~j'~ ' RECLASSIE'IOATION - PIIBISC HEARIN(}. EMMA M. PELI,Epp, 2500 Eaet South Street, Anaheim,
't~~` ` N0. 67-68-15 Cali£ornie, Owner; ROBEKT' DE RL1FF, F. 0. Box 1133, Newport Beaoh,
~;f ` California, Agent; property desaribed as: An irregularly shaped
fyT~ .
°~ YARIANCE N0.~1907 paroel of land loaeted at the southeast ooraer of South Street and
%ws~~ Sunkist Street, containing approximately 9e5 aares, and having
'~ fiENTATIVE MAP OF frontages of approximately 670 feet on South Street and 630 Peet on
~;~::;:; .:.
r~?'~-•,: rRACT N0. 6452_ Sunkist Street. Property presently al~,saif~.ed R-A, AGRIGIILTURAL, ZQI~.
'"' ~~ REQTiESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE
~'~
F #, ~,•
'~ REQUESTED VARIANCE: T~J PEA~dIT A 39-LOT, R-1 SDBDNT3ION, WIfiH
-" ":' WA11r"ER3 OF: (1) MIN~SpM gEQIIIRED FRONT
'~~~ YARD SETBACK~ APID (2) MINIMUM IAT -CIDTH
`~ ~NTATNE TRACT: Looated at the southeast oorner of South
~r and 3unkist Streets and oontaining 9.5 aares,
~~ is proposed for aubdivision into 39 R-1,
Zoned lots..
~;
: Aasoaiate Planner Jaok ChristofPerson reviewed sub~eot petitions, looation of the property,
"., '~ and usee established in alose proximity, and the Report to the Commission noting that the
`r ~; petitioner was proposing some lots with a 20-foot setbaak, however no Ploor plans were
-~ . P submitted and the Commission might wish to determine the number oP lots involved in this
~^
t }; reduoed Yront setbaok. Furthermore, the staPf reoo~ended that a resolution be enaated
~~ ~° to rename Keller Street, a stub easterly o£ the propoaed traot to Bethe~'1 Drive in order
~.~;•;~;;~?
~ ~3 to aonYorm to the tract name whioh extanded from west of Sunkist Street~, since geller
Street would have no homes affeoted by the name change.
~ ,_.,~~
~~~;;~;Y-;:1
Y Mr. Robert Ae Ruff, agent for the petitioner noted that all lots
~ would be baoki
nB up to
~a;';;;
~
~
~;
~"~
' South and 3unkist Streets
, that the
property had no aooess rights to South Street beaause
s~
s~,.4,
i;
p
of the Puture under ase of
g
the Oran e Freewa
Y•
Y ~i ~+~ . . ~ . , ~ . . ~ .. ~ .. ~ ~ .
~~°1~ qonsiderable disouasion was
l
tiv
to then held between the Commission, the Staff and the developer
t
' rs
a
e
the variable se tbaok weiver requested, and et its aonoluaioa the developer
~
1
i
~ requested aonsideration of setbaok of 20 feet Yor 7-8 lots, whiah should be on the 100 foot
,~y ~;x
'' lote, sinoe the aul-de-sao lots already permitted a 15-foot setbaok, and the deep lots did
-`~
}+
.~,.=~,:':~:w not need this waiver.
Mr. Tohn MaKinney, 2430 Hethel Drive, appeared before the Commission in opposition noting
that a11 other lots in that general vioinity were required to have 72-foot widths and it
was the opinion of other homeownera in that area that a 60-foot wide lot would not permit
as desirable development. Furthermore it would be difficult to gain entranoe to the rear
yard with boats and trailera if the lots were only 60 feet{ and that the requeated waivers,
if approved, would affeat the valuation of the homes already developed in the area.
The Commission noted that with the development of sub3ect property there would be an auto-
matic increase in valuation of the ad3oining properties of at least 20,~.
Mr. McKinney noted that if the builder had submitted floor plans showing the type of homes
proposed perhaps most of the opposition would be withdrawn if the homes were aomparable to
those in the area.
The Commission further noted that in mcst of the R-1 tracts which had appeared before the
Commission there were few that met all of the requirements of the R-1 Zone as to lot siae '
depth, and frontage; that the petitioner was proposing at least 7200 square foot lots, and
was asking for waiver o£ the lot width for only the deep lots on lots backing onto South
Street i.n some instanoes.
Mrs. Ann Madison, broker for'sub~ect property, appeared before the Commiseion and noted
that sub~eot property had been under consideration for development for R-1 homes for some
time, and after oonsiderable study by several engineers, the proposed subdivision was the
most Peasible due to the faat that Bethel.Drive angled thru the property to aonnect with
the stub street to the east.
Mrs. Charlotte Hardt, 2431 Bethel Drive, appearod before the Commission expressing concern
that less desirable homes would be built in the area whioh oould be detrimental to the
$400,000 ahurah built aoross the street, and then inquired what the priae of the homes
would be.
Mr. De Ruff advised the Commissian that the price of the prope.rty would overrule building
less than average homes, sinoe the aost of eaah lot would be approximately $10,000 eaoh.
_
~ ~ ~
~
MINQTES, CITY PLANPiING OOM~ISSION, Auguet 28, 1967 3573
RECLA5SIFIOATION - Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts noted that the size of the side
N0. 67-68-15 yards was not diotated by looation of aemp aara in the rear yard,
and that the side yards propoaed ~vere not greater or less than other
VARIANOE N0. 1907 required aide yards in Californis.
'PPII4TATIVE MAP OF Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompaon then reviewed the traot with the
TRACT N0. 6452, opposition noting the lote whiah mould be affeoted by the requeated
(Continued) waivera.
t Mr. De Ruff, in response to Commisaion questioning, atated that sinoe the oost of the lots
was eo high a 1525 square foot home would be below what they proposed, and with proper
arohiteotural design the homes would be considerably larger ranging from $29,000 to over
$30,000. Furthermore the width of the lot was not important, sinoe he preferred a nerrow
lot with aonaiderably more rej,r yard.
I THE HEARTNG WAS OLOSED.
Gommissioner Rowland ofPered Resolution No. PC67-193, and moved for its passage and adoption,
seoonded by Commissioner Gauer, to reaommend to the City Counoil that Petition for Reolassifi-
cation No. 67-68-15 be approved, sub,jeot to oonditions.(See Resolution Book)
On roll oall the foregoing resolution was peased by the following vote:
AYES: COM~ISSIONERS: Gsuer, Herbet, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: CO~MISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: CO~MISSIONERS: Allred, Farano.
Commissioner Mungall ofYered Reaolution No. PC67-194, and moved for its passage and adoption,
seaonded by Commissiotter Herbst, to grant Petition for Varianoe No. 1907, sub~eat to aondi-
tiona, and the requirement that not more than 25,~ of the lots requiring a 25-foot front
setbsak may be developed with a 20-foot setbaok.(See Reaolution Book)
On roll aall the Yoregoing reaolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: GOMMI3SIONERS: Gauer, Herbet, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: CO~II3SIONERS: None.
ABSFNT: COMNLISSIONERS: Allred, Farano. .
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to approve Tentative Map o~ Traat No. 6452, sub,jeot to
the following oonditions:
1. That should this aubdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, eaah subdiviaion
thereof shall be aubmitted in tentative form for appraval.
2. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 6452 is granted sub~eot to the approval
of Reclassifioation No.67-68-15 and Varianoe No. 1907.
3. That in aooordanae with City Counoil poliay, a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructc~d
on the westerly and northerly property lines separating Lot Nos. 1, and 26 thru 39 and
3unkiat and South Streets, exoept that corner Lot Nos. 1 and 39 shall be stepped down
to a height of thirty (30) inahes in the front yard aetback, and exoept that pedestrian
openings shall be provided in said walls where aul-de-saos abut the planned highway
right-of-v~ey line of an arterial highway. Reasonable landsaaping, inaluding irrigation
feailities shall be installed in the unoemented portion of the arteriel highway perkway
the Yull distaaoe of said wall, plans for said landsosping to be submitted to and sub3eot ;
to the approval of the Superintendent oP Parkway Maintenanoe. Following installation and ;
sooeptanoe, the Cit,y of Anaheim shall assume all responsibility Yar maintenanae of said ~
landsoaping.
4. That the vehioular aoaess righta, exaept at street and~or alley openings, to Sunkist
and South Streets shall be dedioated to the City of Anaheim.
5. That Bethel Drive shall be developed with a 40-foot roadway within the 60-foot right-
oP way.
6. That only 25$ oY the lots requiring a 25-foot Proat setbaok may be developed with a ----
20-foot setbaok.
Coa~issioner Mungall seaonded the motion. MOTION OARRIED. {'' -
~
~~ 1 ~~ ~'. ~ .'3 ~ a Y ~ ~i~`"F~R~°'
~ ~Y l ~ 1 ' b. ~
'. Y}J f Y r~ «r ?~.
,
,. : 1 +
r-.- ` '~' ' .__,. '
~ '~ . ~~ ~ :
M'Il~N'PES, CITY PLANNIIv4 OOM6~2;!SION, August 28, 1967 , 3574
RECLA3S]S~'TOATION - POBLTC HEARIN(}. Vp(}E~ INp~~ 7601 Crenshaw Boulevard, Los Angelea,
N0. 67-68-16 and CaliYornia, Owner; ROBERT ORR~ 336 North Central, Glendale, California,
Agettt; property desoribed ea: A reotangularly ahaped paroel of ].and
CONDITIONAL II3E looated at the,southwest oorner of 3outh Street and State College Boulevarc
PERMIfi_N0. 960T and having 3rontages of approximately 200 feet on South Street and approxi-
mately 170 4eet on State College Boulevaxd. Property preaently olaeai3led
0-1, (}ENERAT, CO~ERCIAL, ZONE (deed restriated to busineas and professione7
oPfiae uae).
~_~ST~ OLA33IFICATIONS AMGNDMENT TO DEED RESTRTCTTON3 ~CH 7~IA~T Ti~ II3ES OF SUBJECT
PROPERTY TO BIIS7NE3S AND PROFE33IONAL OF'FICES, TO PERMIT A
AESTAURANT.
.REQUESTED COND2~nNaT, n.c~; pEA/~tTT ON-SALE BEER AND 1AII~ ai A PROPOSED RESTA4ltANT~ iNITH
\:~ YPAIVER OF THE REQIIIRED 6=FOOT MASONRY WALL. ,
" Asaooiate Planner Jaok Christofferson reviewed aub eot
:' uses established in close ~ petitions, loaetion oP sub3ect property
~; proximity, and the Report to the Commiasion.
Mr. Robert Orr, agent for the petit3oner, noted that the me,sonry wall waiver was a misunder-
standing on the arohiteats' part, and that the orientation of the struoture to State College
:. Boulevard oould be aooomplished sinoe the plot plan was only on a preliminary basis. ~rther-
;,`;;:~~; more all air-aonditioning would be hidden from view because of a speciel built channel on the
'~~`~'s. roof which would shield Yrom view sll air-aonditioning fsailities.
``?i
Mr. Domiao Ferdelle, vioe preaident of the Amigo Restaurants, proposed operators o£ the
restaurant appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed use noting that this
would be a familq-type reataurent serving both Mexiaan and Amerioan foods; that the deaor
of the restauraat would~be Spanish Medi'terraneen~and that landsoaping plsyed an important
role in the outdoor denor of the struature. Furthermore, the hours nP operation normally
would be between 11:30 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.~however there was a possibility that these hours
might ahange depending upon the area in w~iioh a restaurant was loaated and the demand for
later houra; and that the sale of beer and wine would be with meals only and no bar was
proposed.
Mr. Robert K. Mathison, 1915 Eaet South 3treet, appeared bePore the Commiasion in oppoaition, '
noting that he had resided at the aforementioned address sittoe 1960; that he represented three:
other property ownera immediately aaross the street from sub~eat property also in opposition;
thet the propoaed restaurant ~at this intersection would pro~eat a heavier oommercial use than '
was normally permitted,~dwould be detrimental to the residential environment of the srea due
to the elemeats of noise, bright lights, and other problems assooiated withthis type development;
that the reaidente oP the area were appearing for the fourth time in opposition, and~eaoh
previous time the Gommission and City Counnil had upheld the original deed restriationa; that ~
he was not opposed to commeraial uae of sub3eat property, however if aubjeot petition were
approved it would deterioriate the residentiel integrity oY the area, and the only reason the
opposition was at the hearing was beaause the petitioner has refused to adhere to the
Commission and Gounoil requirements for sub~eot property.
Zoning Supervisor Roneld Thompeon noted for the Coamisaion that it was the staff's desire
to emphasize that a wall was required by Code where 2/3s of the blook was developed with
residenoea, however, if the wall were required and ingresa and egreas were permitted to
South Street this oould areate some additional traffio hazard. Thus aaaess to South Street
should be dadioated to the City. Flirthermore, the primsrg aonsideration beYore the Coonnission
was the matter of land use.
Mr's. Ann Madison, representing Calvary Baptist Churoh, 1906 East South Street, appeared '
before the Commission and stated that the ohuroh had not Yiled a proteat with ABC, since
they were not aure what effeot approval oY sub~eot petitions would have on their request
for an extension of time,as well as the request for the establishment of a ahuroh sahool
on the property. However, if there would be unneoessaxy noises with loud entertainment,
eto., whiah would deiaturb the peaoe and quiet oY the neighborhood, they would submit a
protest. Furthermore, if the ahuroh requestad aonaideration of the denial of a request
to waive'the six foot masonry wall along South Street and dediastion of ell aaoesa rights '
to South 5treet with the orientation oY the restaurant to State College Boulevard, a oom-
meraia3. street rather than South Street whiuh was reaidential in ohareater.
Mr. Ferdella advised the Commission that.ABC would not aonsider their application until
the Oity had approved thru zoning aotion the restaurant and on sale besr and wine request.
;;:~
V
~
MINUTES~ OITY PLANN'.CNq~ COMMI33ION~ August 28, 1967
REOLAS3IF'IOATION - Mr. T}iompson noted thet under Aeports and Reoommendations the request ~~ `
N0. 67-68-16 and for the extension o~ time Yor the use of the property to the weet Yor I ~4
ohuroh purpoees, and the request for temporary approval of the property ~ ~'
CONDTTIONAL~USE Por sohool purposea would be ooneidered. ~ ~
PERMYfi N0. 960 I'',,;,' ~
(Oontinued) Mra. Vivian Englebreoht, repreaenting the property ownera of property -
i~ediately to the south of sub~eot property appeared before the Commisaioi~-'.=~lyf~
and noted that the entire property along State College Boulevard had had ~" ;;
deed restriotions Por a number oY yeara; that the unique depth of the <~~.`.i~
propertiea made it neoeaeary for some ao~eroisl development, and that ~w~i
her alients were not oppoaed to amendment to deed restriotions to permit `
the establishment of a reataurant as proposed.
~. ~ Mr. Ron Sima, 1909 East South Street, appeared before the Co~nisaion and noted that the
`,;;~ aommeraial uses mentioned by Mre. Englebreaht were not immediately to the south, but one
:;',~~ blook away; however he was oonaerned that the deed restriationa would be amended to permit
any type of aommeraial uae, rather than the buainess and profeasional uaes, and that the
''`~! property oould be developed with thia business and professional building if the petitioner
,~ ._,, would adhere to:the City 's reatriotions.
_ . :_:;1f TE~ HEAR7NG VPAS CLOSED.
Disaueaion was held by the Co~.i.esion relative to the proposed use, whether or not aooess
rights ahould be dedioeted and a deoorative masonry well along South Street ahould be required
and whether the AAO might not take oognizenoe of the faot that a ahuroh was i~ediately ;~
ad~aaent to the property.
The Commisaion then inquired oP Mr. Ferdella iY they would aontinue to pursue the reataurant
development iP beer and wine applioation be£ore the ABa wea not approved.
Mr. Ferdelle adviaed the Oommiasion that they would aooede to dedioatioa oP aooees righta j
and orientation of the atruoture to 3tate College Boulevard; howover whether they pursued j
the propoaed development without the approval oP ABO would be aonaidered by.their board ~
of direotore, sinoe this wae e ohaia operation and they planned to develop 18 in southern
CaliPorulaJ with thoae now developed aerving beer attd wine.
Further disoussion by the Oommi.seion summarized as foll'ows: reaommending amendment to
the deed restriations•to permit a reataurant only; property has been aonaiciered a number
oY timea by the Oity, however, there seemed to be a leak o£ interest in buainess and pro-
fessional ofPices in the aity due to an overabundenae; that the resi~dents muat realize
the petitioner had an expensive pieoe of property whioh should be taken from the tax rolls
as an undeveloped paroel; that if-reoommendation was made for amendment to the reatriations
the masonry wall ahould be a decorative one with oonaiderable landsaaping in order to soften
the appearanoe of the property to the single Yamily homes, and requirement that thie should
be developed in aonordanue with plans, thus limiting the type of development of the property.
Oommissioner Herbat offered Resolution No. P067-195, and moved for its passage and adoption
seoonded bg Gommiasioner Mungall to reoo~end thru approval of Reolasaifioation No. 67-68-16,
the amendment of deed reetriotions on sub~eot property to permit the establishment of a
restaurant, sub~eat to development substantielly in accordanoe with plans submi~tted, dedica-
tion oY aoaess rights to South Street, and the construction oY a 6-foot deoorative masonry
wall along South Street to preserve the residentisl environment oP the area, and further
provided that the struoture will be orien'~ed to 3tate College Boulevard, and aonditions.
(See Resolutioa Book)
On roll oall the Yoregoing resolution was pasaed by the following vote:
AYES: COMIdT33I0NERS: Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIOI~IERS: None.
ABSENT: COM~LSSIONERS: Allred, Farano.
Co~lasioner Rowland oYPered Resolution No. PC67-196, and moved for its passage and adoption,
seoonded by Commissioner Gauer to grant Petition for Gonditional Uae Permit No. 960, sub~eot
to orientetion oY the struoture to~State College Boulevard, dedioation of eaaess rights to
South Street, oonstruotion oY a 6-foot deoorative masonry wall along 3outh Street and the
west property line with landeoaping in aaoordenoe with Code requirements, and development
aubstantiallq in aoaordanoe with plans, and oonditions.(See Resolution Book)
On roll aell the foregoing resolution was pasaed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: GO~SSIONIDRS: None.
ABSIIVT: COMMISSTONERS: Allred, Farano.
~'~' h~~'~,~k ~LA:. ,{.. {i ~ ~" '~' '~+ ~ Z S ~ ~' 4 . ; r~ ~;
: ry' '~1~J ` . ~
~ ~ ~ ~~
,r~
,;~
MIIQi3TES, CIT'Y PLAIVIJIN4 CO~MISSION.~ Auguat 28, 1967 3576
REPORT3 AND -ITE~ N0. 1
RECOM~NDATIONS OONDI'PIONAL USE PER~Q.I'P N0. 753 - Oalvary Baptiat Churoh
1906 East South Street, request for extenaion o~ time
Assooiate Planner raok ChristoPYerson advised the Commiasion that a requeat had been
reoeived from the ag'ent for the t3elvary Baptiat Churoh requesting a one-year eztenaion
of time for the temporary uae of the property at 1906 East South Street far churoh purposea.
b~-= Oommiasiotter Rowland ofPered a motion to grant a one year estension of time for the uae
yY y1
~~~5 under Conditional Use Permit No. 753, said time estension to expire Septembar 13, 1968.
:'~'! Oommisaioner Mungal aeoonded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
i'i ITEM N0. 2
''~j Requeat Yor temporery uae permit to oonduot a Chriatian day aohool
°~~.' at 1906 East South Street
Asaooiate Planner Jaok ChristoPPerson advised the Commiasion that sinae many of the persons
~: present in the Counail Chamber would elso be ttoti3ied by legal notioe of the request for
the establishment oP a Ohristian day sahool in the Oalvary Baptiat Churoh property filed
under Oonditional IIse Permit No. 963 saheduled for publio hearing September 13, 1967, tha
request of the agent Yor the petitioner to grattt temporary uae prior to approval or oon-
'~~ sideration o3 Conditional IIse Permit No. 963 was now Ue£ore them.
:~
f ~
4~ Mrs. Ann Madison, repreeentiag both the Calvary Baptist Churah and the propoaed operator
t ;
of the Christian day sohool appeared bePore the Oommiasion and atated
that the operator
~ $; of the sohool whiah had been looated at Magnolis and Orange Avenuea was £oroed to vaoate
~~ ; the property beoause it was sold, although she had students signed up for tha ooming
~ ~ sohool yeex who had attended the sohool last year; that the requeat for temporary use
a
~i was beaause the sohool year would start prior to aonsideration of the September 13, 1967
.
' .,..
'
'
'y hearing of the aforementioned ~etition; that the sohool would operate 5 days a week, and
~
~~"
'
~
:~~":ii;•i-'"si that the operator would explsin the sohool
Proaess.
Mrs. Velva Gardner, operator oY the proposed sahool noted that hours of sohool would be
from 9`a.m. to 3 p.m., however, they also had extended day aare for morking parents
whioh would extend the houra from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 or 6 p.m.; that the ohildren would
be kept indoors after sohool and would not areate any disturbanoe; that the sahool had
been established sinae last year, and taught on the same priaoiples as the ohuroh taught;
that the grades were from kindergarten to fiPth grade with two teaahers in.addition to
heraelY and operated on the prinaiple of a country sohraol.
Oonsiderable disausaion was then held by the aommission relative to whether or not the
Commission should give any aonsideration to the requeat, sinoe this should be under the
3urisdiation of the Oity Council, and to make any reoommendation would be prezoning
the property priar to legal publia hearing.
Upon oonclusion oP the disausaion the Oommission were unanimous that no aation should be
taken by the Gommission whatsoever.
RECESS FOR DTNNER - Commisaioner Herbst offered a motion to reoess the meeting for dinner
and to reoonvene at 7:30 p.m. due to the fsat that the afternoon
session was lengthy. Oommissioner Rowland seoonded the motion.
MOTTON CARRIED. The meeting reoessed at 5:50 pm.
RECONVENE - Ohairman Camp reaonvened the meeting, all commissioners being present
except Commissioner Allred. The meeting reoonvened at 7:45 p.m.
~~~~
~
r
, , ~;~-'t•
-;~ --
'
? ., s>,.. ... w., %. r, ~ .,..~ ,. . , . . . _
,~ a ~; a rr .., a { TF
~
~
~
MIN(JTES} CITY PLANNING OO~SSION, August 28, 1967
3577
CONDP'IONAL USE - pUBLIO HEARING~ FIRST CHIIRGH OF THE NAZARENE, 1212 East Linooln Avenue,
PERMIT N0. 957 Anaheim, CaliYornia, Owner; CLIFFORD C. I{ENT~ 924 East Linaoln Avenue,
Anaheim, Oelifornia, Agent; requeating permisaion to have Yuture expansion
oY an existing ohurah on Portion No. Z; snd PEAMIT A SIINDAY SCHOOL AND
PRE SCHOOL ICINDERrARTEN IN E%IST7NG RESIDENTTAL STRIICTIIRES On Portion Nos. 2 and 3, on
property desoribed as: Portion No. 1- An irregularly shaped parael of land having a fronta
of approximately 335 feet oa the south side oP Linnoln Avenue and having a maximum depth of
approximately 185 £eet, the weaterly boundary being approxime,tely 133 feet east of the aenter
line o£ Last Street; Portioa No. 2: A reatangularly sheped parael of land looated at the
northeast aorner oY East Street and Oak Street and having frontages of approximately 110 feet
on East Street and approximetely 175 feet on Oak Street; Portion No. 3: A reotangularly
shaped parael of land having a Pro~tage of approximately 117 feet on the north side of Oak
Street and having a maximum depth of 110 Peet, the westerly boundary being approximately
450 feet east of the oenterline of East Street. Property presently alassified C-2 on Portion
No. 1 and R-1, ONE FAMILV RESIDENTIAL, ZONE on Portion Nos. 2 and 3.
Associate Planner Jaok Christofferson reviewed sub~eat petition, location of sub,jeot property,
uses established in close proximity and the Report to the Commission emphasizing the three
problem areas which the Commission me,q wish to give consideration to that being;l) dedication
of aocess rights to Oak Street - now or in the future; 2) effeat ap¢roval would have on the
three homes remaining whiah are not in churah ownership between Portion Nos. 2 and 3; and
3) whether the pre-school and Sunday school should be reversed on Portion Nos. 2 and 3, so
that the more intensive use (pre-school) is on the corner rather than in the center of the
other homes in the traot. It was further noted that no development plans were submitted for
the expansion of the ssactuary.
Mr. Clifford Rent, egent Yor the petitioner, appeared before the Commission, noting that
he was a member of the ahurch and a member of the board of truatees; that for a number of
years the church had felt the pinch of their present quarters, with a Sunday school overflow
class being held in the church bus; that future building was proposed to the east with
the addition of kitchen facilities; thst sometime ago the churah had consulted with the
Planning Department as to the method the churoh should approach for expansion, and the staff
advised the ohurah that the oritical area would be providing adequate parking. Subsequently,
the ohuroh,set out to purahase the 8 homes on the north side of Oak Street and the building
to the east of the churah; however the homes at 1221, 1225, and 1239 aould not be purchased.
Nevertheless, the churahvas willing to negotiate for the homes at 1221 and 1225 at market
value and were willing to pay the eppraiser''s fees. If the owners of the property were not
willing to sell, the ohurah would do everything possible to proteot their privacy. The
finanaing of the purahase of these properties would be between two and ten ;tears, and aon-
version of the homes to the proposed uses would ocour when the property beoame available
or those homes now owned by the church became vacant, thereby alleviating the overorowded
conditions oP the Sunday sahool classes and further provide for a need for pre-sahool chi7?
care £or the members as well as residents in the surrounding area; and that if sub~ect
petition is approved the petitioners were agreeable to reloaeting the pre-school in the
westerly two homes. Mr. Kent also noted that the ohurah oonaurred in all the reaommended
conditions of approval.
Twelve persons indicated their presence in opposition to sub~ect petition.
Mr. A. E. Rogers, 1225 East Oak Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition, and
submitted a petition signed by 26 persons all in oppoaition requesting denia_ oP the use
of the R-1 homes for churoh purposes; that he had purahased his home in 1950 and the uses
on Oak 5treet have always been residentiel, however to allow use of the homes for sahool
purposes both Yor ohi.ldren and sdults where inadequate sanitary fsailities were available,
and parking would be pro~ected into the narrow 50-foot wide street would be detrimental
to the residentisl integrity of the street; that illegal parking was constantly observed,
as depioted on the photographs submitted with the petition; thst 98~ of the property owners
on Oak Street had signed the petition all expressing ooncern that the ohurnh was not sub-
mitting development plans for the sanotuary, since any expansion would also add to the
traYfia and parking problem elready existing along the alley and Oak Street.
Rev. Murray Morford, pastor of the ohuroh for 15 years,appeared before the Commission
stating that he wanted several things olarified sinae Mr. Rogers stated there were inad-
equate sanitary facilities in the ohuroh - whereupon Mr. Rogers stated he was referring
~~ the homes - that the day care nuraery would be developed in aooordanoe with the require-
ments o£ the State of California, if and when this sahool was eatablished, sinoe this was
only in the planning stages, the board of truatees felt it would be easier to request all
of the proposed uses at one time rather than file a new petition for eaah new use; that
during the 15 years the ohurch had baen in this area they had attempted to me.intain tha
best relationship with the immediate neighbors and it was hoped to continue maintaining
this relationship; that the sanctuary expansion was embryonia in £orm at the present time,
i
b~,~
~ ~~
a.~
l ~ry
I
i :'•)
{
~ .'~~
; ~::~~
5
i~
ge ~
_ ~,'~
i•: ,; ~
~:;.;~
~fj'~'3tT~~~-~I''~;"~ar ~:k"s°3 'w`Fin.` YJr'~',~'~-w~ ~', N`~4~1 P'ZJ.' i:i i;; ?:
fi
~;/'
\~
`~J
MIIQIITES, OTTY p7,AIdNING COMdCISSION, August 28, 1967
3578
~3w, ,~~
.-~~
•~ ~
~ , ':'~
~ 1
,~
~
~ ~
CONDITTONAL USE - however, it was also felt neaessary'to inalude it in sub~eot petition.
PERMIT~NO. 957
F'urthermore
i -~
.
,
n response to Commiasion queationing, noted that the ~
(Continued) pre-sohool wea e,ntiaipated~to be
in in
t
g
one
o two years - the date being '
dependent an finanoing and highly qualified teachittg personnel for this
type of sohool, however, plans had not~beer_ aompleted in final form; that
the ohuroh was willin
to
g
reverse the use of the homes so that the pre-sohool students would
ooaupy the most westerly homes, and that it wea ho
ed t
th ;'.:;t
p
o uae
e other homes for Sunday sohool
e~ soon as possible; that a fence would be aonstruoted along the Pront
f th `
o
eae home~ so that
they would be oriented tok•ard the north, and no paTldng would ooour on Oak Street; and that
thi ,'~
;~
s was the Pirst time he had beaome aognizant of the faat that the neighbora were unhappy
with the parishoners parkin
habit
hi
h .:
g
s - w
o
would be reotified the following Sunday. Further- ~
more, if~ and when the sanetuarg was expanded
two or three of the h
~
omes would be removed and
the lots uaed for the expansion of churoh parking, this oould oaaur anywhere Yrom 2 t
10
~
o
yea,n
Mr. Rogers again appeared and stated that he was not desiroua oP entering into a aontroversy ~
with the ohuroh
d it
asi
wea not his intention to oomplain ta the ministar eaoh time the ~
pariahotters bloaked hia drive approaoh
however
he f
lt th
,
,
e
at if signs were posted on the
property along the alley, these signs should be reapeated. Furthermore
he had tto intenti
~
,
on
of selling his home, since it would be very difficult to purahase a comparable home at the ~
appraised value of th
h
~
e
ome he now had, and that iP the use of the homes was approved, this
oould affeot the reYinanaing oP the homes beoause of the i
ti
~
n3eo
on oP other than residential
uses.
Mr. Glenn Stroud, 1239 East Oak Street, appeared before the Commission and noted his home
was the last one at the end of a dead end street; that he had not been approaohed by the
churah to purahase his home; that beoause o£ the narrowness of Oak Street, and the alley
existing to the east oY the dead end street, any use other than residentisl would oreate
a ooasiderable traffic hazard, sinae the apartment at th~ east end areated considerable
trafYia in the a.m. and p.m. to prohibit use of the alley to gain exit to Esat'Street,
and that if sub~eat petition is approved, some method should be required to prohibit the
ohildren from both the pre-sohool and 3unday sahool from having aooess to Oak Street,
both pedestrian and vehiaular.
Mr. Lyle Diggens, 1238 East Oak Street, appeared in opposition, noting that the onlq way ~
He pould`gain entranae to hi3 garage was the alley to the north, and regardless oP what !
is done in using the homes for other than residential purpoaes, more traffia will be plaaed
not only on Oak Street but aheatnut Street as well, whiah would be oontrary to praotioes of
the oity in the past.
Mr. Kent, in rebuttal, stated that before any espansion oP the ohuroh oould be aaaomplished
it would be neaessary to find spaoe for parking Paailities; that the only way this'could be
aoaomplished was to purohase property immridiately ad3aaent to the ahurnh, and sinoe the
ohuroh did own these homes they should be ellowed to use the property to alleviate parking
and olaseroom shortagee.
TI~ HEARIldG VPAS CLOSED.
The Commi.saion expressed eanaern that the petitioner was proposing enaroaahment of ahurch
uses in a small residentisl txact in the hopes of acquiring additional homes for treir
expansioa plans; that Qhese homoowners had their life savings invested in these homes,
whiah aould not be replaaed at appraised valuea in another area; that t?~e suggestion of
a wall to bloak off use of the street for parking purposes wea also r~r3es'rable sinoe
it did not present a desirable sight in a primarily residential area, : the remaining
lots on both sidea of the street would be aYYeated adversely.
Co~i.ssioner Farano oYfered Resolution No. PC67-197, and moved Por its passage and adoption,
seoonded by Commissioner Herbst to deny the request for the use of residenoes Por Sundsy
school and pre-sohool nursery purposes on Portion Nos. 2 and 3,however, granting the expan- '
sion Yor the sanotuary, sub3eat to Condition Nos. l, 5, and 7, as they applied to Portion
No. 1 ottly.(See Resolution Book) ;
On roll oall the Yoregoing re~solution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: CO~ISSIONERS: Gauer, Farano, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: OOb1EQ2SSI0NERS: None.
ABSENT: OOMMISSIONERS: Allred.
- ;.~ - ,~. -
, .~ ~
~~ w 5 N i ~ ~
.~ ,. , )6^n4. t,. . .. t.~ .. .. . . . . .. . , . .
~.J : ~ ti
~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNINa,CO~~EISSTON~ August 28,'1967 3579
RECLA3SIFICATTON
- - PIIBLIC.HEARING. EARL DAHI,~QAN, 1111 River Lane, Santa'Ana
California
N0. 67
68-17 .
" ,
,
and CLARKE -VIl~GERT, 125'Rio Vista Street, Anaheim., CaliPornia, Owners;
CONll2T20NAL IISE FREDRTCBS DEVELOP~OENT,CORPORATION, 524 YPeet Commonwealth Avenue, F'ullerton
Os1l~ornia
Agent; property deso
ib
d
P
r
n
PERM.IT N0.'962: ,
r
e
as:
o
tio
No. 1: An irregularly
shaped ps~oel'of lend lying north:and east of.a 200-foot by 180-foot
VARIANCE N0. 1911 paroel of land looated at the northesat oorner of Linooln Avenue and
Sunkist Street, sub~eot property having a Pronta
e of
p
i
g
a
prox
mately
300 feet on the east aide oP Sunkiat Street; and Portion No. 2c A reo-
TEN'FAZNE MAP OF tangule,rly ahaped paroel of land having a Prontage oY approximately
TRACT N0. 6459 185 fset on the east side oY Sunkiat Street and having a maximum depth
G of approximately 1,150 feet, the southerly boundary oP sub~eot property
~ being approximately 530 feet north of the centerline of Linaoln Avenue
and being ad3aaent to the northerly boundary of Portion No. 1. Property
preaently,olassiPied R-A, AGRICUIIPURAL ZONE.
REQIIES~ED CL,ASSTFICATTON: R-3, MIILTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE
REQUE3TED CONpITIONAL IISE: POEiTION N0. 1: TO ESTABLTSH A 204-IINI'p ApygTMENT COMPLEA,
WITH WAIVERS OF: (1) MIl~AUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS;
(2) MAXI~EIIM DVOEI,LING IINIT DISTANCE FROM A 5TANDARD STREET;
(3) CARPORT LOCATION
REQIIESTED VARIANCE: PORTION N0. 2: ESTABLISH A 16-I,OT, R-3 SUBDNISION, WITH
Ar'TE~RS OF: (1) MINI~dUM SIDE YARD SETBACK; AND (2) REQIIIRED
6-FOOT MASONRY WALL
T~NI'AfiIVE TRACT: DEVELOPER: FRLDRICKS DE6ELOPMENT CORPORATION, 524 West
Commonwealth Avenue, Fullerton, California. ENGINEER:
Phil~.p A. Gustafaon, 524 West Commonwealth Avenue, F'ullerton,
OaliYornia. Sub~eot traot located north and east oP the
interseotion oY Sunkist Street and Linaoln Avenue aotttaining
5.16 aorea, is proposed Por subdivision into 16 R-3 Zoned lots.
Assoalate Planner Jaak Christofferson reviewed sub3eot petitions and tentative traat, noting ~
the looation oY the property, uses established in olose proximity and'the Report to.the
Gommisaion emphasizing the ~aat that oonsideration be given to the land uae established in !
the area, and the pro3eations as depi~ated on the 4eneral Plan, together with the faot that !
the State Division oP Highways had notified the stafY that an additional portion of the
Portion No. 2 would be aoquired,along the easterly boundary,,however the State had not ~
Yirmed up their requirements, therefore it did not seem neoeasary to require a revised mep;
and that'the oiraulation of the planned residentisl development was proposed thru extensive I
use of alleys rather than standaxd streeta.
Mr. Henry Fredrioka,.representing the agent for the petitioners, appeared before the Commisaior
and noted that after aonsiderable time had been spent determining what could be done with the
property it uas deaided that the property aoted as a transitional pieae of property vrhich
aoted as a buffer between the R-1 and the freeway to the east, and that the property ovmer
to the north had requested a chainlink fenoe instead of the required masonry wall to deter
ohildren from climbing over and damaging the fruit trees; that the development was designed
to be a self-aontained development with aome apertments faoing onto Sunkist Street which
was deaignated as a seoondas~ highway.
Mr. Robert MaKenzie, 125 South Sunkist Street, appeared beYore the Commission in opposition
noting tnat the area in whioh suU~eot property is looated is part of the leat of the East
Anaheim area lePt and and is designated for low density residentiel use; that the intrusion
of the proposed uae would be detrimental to the entire East Anaheim area; that there was I
no reason for the'Commission or the petitioners to oonsider other than low density, sinoe
the p~,ttern oY development had been establiahed; that many of the homeownera had made a
thorough inveatigation of the area prior to purohaeing _their homes, and these were purohased
on the assumption that the City would retain this general area for low density residential
deqelopment; that the statement made by the Oommisaion that s man's home was hie oastle ~~~~
sittoe many of the homeowners had spent considerable money in improving their homes so that ~
their valua~tion has inoreased upwards of $35,000;':that residenta o£ aparbments would not j
be of the permanent type, and he'aould see no reason for iaterupting the oontinuity of
low denaity development for the entire East Anaheim area.
Mr. Don Greek, 206 Oarouael Street, appeared before the Commiasion in oppusition, noting
that sub~eot petitions were non-aonformanoe Kith the General Plan, and no evidenoe had
been submitted to oonvinoe the property owners that the General Plan should be ohanged;
furthermore, 1Y it u~as deairous to develop the px~operty so that more inaome aould be -
asaigned to the sahool distriot, then industrial development would be ~ust as logiosl,
ainoe they would not be utilizing the sohool fsai~lities, but would be paying taxes; and ~,~~
V '
~S 4taFi i ~... n.1 ~ : f ° ~i '. :~ 5.
v ~,:..~.
- u. ~
. . . ~J ~ `\ ~ 3
~ . .r
MINL'I'r;S, ,CI'i'Y PLANbTING COME~23SION, August 28, 1967
RECLASSIFTOATION
N0. 67-68-17
OQUIDTTIONAI, IISE
PERI~ N0. 962
VAR2ANCE;NO. 1911
3580
- that there were many similar situations where properties were ad~aaent
to'the proposed Preeway, however, there were ma,ny traots in the East
Anaheim area whiah had developed beaking onto the freeway, thue sub~eot
property should also be developed for low denaity residential use.
Dr. H. D. asrber, 303 North 5unkist Street, appeared betore the Qo~i.ssion
in opposition and noted that the East Anaheim area was the moat desirable
residentiel area in the aity that many oY the homea had extonaive additions
added whiah inareased the value of the hpmea to $40-50,000; that the
Sunkist Oivia Assooiation ob~eoted to spot zoning and the inoompatibility
of the proposed uae as well as the servioe station at the interaeation,
and many ob~eationa were expressed at the time the Conditional IIse Permit
Yor the servioe was aonsidered; and that in all the publio hearings held
on the servioe station site as well as aub~eot petitions he had yet to
hear engone in Yavor of the proposal.
T~NTAZ`1VE MAP OF
TRAtlT N0. 6459
(Oontinued)
The Commission 5ooretary indiaated that tx petition signed by 298 property owners in the East
Anaheim area opposing the realassifiaation to R-3 was reoeived_
Mr. Fredricks, in rebuttal, noted that there was considerable prurerty in the East Anaheim
which was still undeveloped, and if low density development was so desirable, building
developers of these homes would have rushed in to develop; that the reason subject property
was selected £or development was for the same reason the opposition expressed, since it was
not their desire to develop anything that would degrade an area; that subject property had
no frontage on Lincoln Avenue because of the proposed off-ramp; that the change in the
tract was minor and continuance was not desired in order that the 8tate Division of Highways
cosld submit the amount of lend they would require; and that the acquisition would be approved
by Sacramento in about two weeks.
The Commission inquired the reason for requesting the various waivers, whereupon Mr.
Fredricks stated it was their desire to incorporate as much of the land as possible in the
recreation area rather than have dead space between the oarports and the units, and that
this had been done on other deeelopments of theirs throughout the city.
Mr. Greek, again appeared before the Commission, and noted that tha reason so much land
remained undeveloped was because the landowners were asking an exorbitant' price for their
land, and he could see no valid reason for a land use change other than that ~ndicated on
the General Plan.
Mr. ~ichael Pettite, 110 Normandy Court, appeared before the Commission, and noted that
the proposed apartments would add considerably to the traffic along the street; thereby
creating hazards to children going to the sahool on Sunkist Street northerly of subject
property.
A showing of hands indicated approximately 100 persons present in opposition.
THE fiEARING WAS CI,OSED.
The Commission then discussed the evidence and summed up their conclusions on sub,ject
petition as follows: a) That the approval of•the reolassification to R-3 wou].d set
a pattern of development for the balance of the R-A parcels in close proximity on both
side af -the freext-y right-of-way, injecting a density of 1000 to 1500 dwelling units
which would add considerably to the arterial trafPia which had not been anticir~ated
when the General Plan arterial streets and highways was adopted on the Circulation
Element. b)That land uses already established in the area had predetermined development
for the area in that many R-1 tracts had been developed over the past few years. c)That
the service station and freway right-of-way could not be considered as a change in land
use since many R-1 treats were developed in the general vicinity backing up to the frseway
d)That the density of the project was much more than the limited access could handle to
and from the arterial streei(Sunkist Street), therefore, this dici.ated a lower'density
development for subject property. e)That although the Oommission was cognizant of the
quality of the developments which the developer had throughout the city, this could not
be taken as proff that multiple family development would be compatible with the area
in whiah single family development had occured, and that the success of this developer's
projects was based on,their management skills, whereas the Commission must jadge on
land use compatibility.
/" `'t
~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY,PLANN2NG COE~SSION, August 28, 1967 3581
REGI,ASS]FICATION - Commissioner Mungall offered`Resolution No.._Pb67-198, and moved for its
N0. 67-68-17 passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer to.reoommend.to the .
Qity Council'that Petition for Reclassifscation No. 67-68-17 be;disapprod,ed
CONDITIONAL:USE on the basis, that the proposed reale§sificatiori would be deleterious to`''
PERMIT-N0. 96~ the residentisl'integrity established north and west of subject property;'
with single family tracts;'that approval of subject petition would set'en `
VARIANCE.NO. 1911 undesirable:precedent for: similar requests for the remaining undeveloped~;.,
property in the immediate vicinity; that no land use had taken,:place"to
'~~i TENTATIVE MAP OF werrant consideration of a more intense land`use of the property; that
TRACT N0. 6459 a considerable-increase in traffic would be experienced along,Sunkist
' (Continued) Street which could oreate an undesirable living environment for the sing].e,.
fami.ly homes fronting on said street, and traffic hazards for the childrenl
attending elementary sohool northerly of subject property; and that the
proposed reclassification would be detrimental to the peace; health,:sa£ety
and general welfare of the oitizens of the city by injecting additionaY
traffic into the area.(See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMuIISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABBENT: CONMISSIO?u'ERS: Allred.
ABSTAIN: CO~ISSIONERS: Camp.
Co~issioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC67-199, and moved for its passage and adop,tion;-
seconded by Com~issioner Mungall to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 962, on '
the basis that the proposed use would adversely af£ect the adjoining land uses and the proper
growth an~' development of the area in which it is proposed to be loaated; that the size arid
shape of:the site proposed for the use is adequate to ellow for the full development of the .
property with single family homes;'snd that the<injection of additional traffic'irito:the,~area'
would be detrimental to the peace, health, safety; and general welfare of the citizens"of'the
City.(See Resolution Eook)
On roll call the foregoing nesolution was passed•by the following.vote: ,
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Geuer, Herbst, ~Gungall, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSEN'i': COMMISSIONF~RS: Alired.
AB6TAL~i: CO~.MISSIONERS: Camp.
Commissiener Farano offered Resolution No. PC67-200, and moved for its passage and adoption,
seoonded by Commi.ssioner Herbst to deny Petition for Variance No. 1911, on the basis that
there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstanoes or conditions applicable to the
property involved ortA the intended use that do not apply generally to the property,or class
of use in the area; that the requested variance is not necessary £or the preservation and
enjoymer.t of a substantial property right possessed by other pr.aperty in the same vicinity ~~'
and zone, and denied to the property in question; and that the site is adequate to allow
for the full development of the property with single family residential homes as is indicated t
on the Anaheim General Plan.(See Resolution Book) ~
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the £ollowing vote: ~:-
i:
AYES: CO~A2SSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, C~ungall, Rowland.
NOES: CONL~dISSIONERS: None.
AbSENT: C0~9SSSIONERS: Allred:
ABSTAIN: COGR~'2SSIONER5: . Camp. _
~',
Commissior_er Herbst offerE~d a motion to deny Tentative Map of Tract No. 6459, on the basis ''
that,reclassification of-aubject property was also recommended for denial. Commissioner ~
Gauer seaonded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Camp abstained from voting.
_. .. . ,.~ -..., .~ ,
~.
~ . ~ ~~
MINUTE$, CITY PLAt3NING COMt~CSS20N, August 28, 1967 3582
RECLASSIFICATIO?d - PUBLIC HEARIIJG. IATITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East
N0. 67-68-12 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. Property described as:
PARCEL N0. 1: An irregularly shaped parcel of land having a Frontage o£ approximateiy
690 feet on the ~.ort:i side of Santa Ana Canyon Road and tiaving a maximum
depth of approximately 1,080 feet, the westerly boundary being adjacent
to the east side of Addington Drive;
PARCEL N0. 2: An irregulaz•ly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately
2,250 feet on the north side of Santa AnaCanyon Road and having a maximum
~ depth oY approximately 2,000 feet, being bounded on the west by Parcel _
No. 1 snd on the north by the Santa Ana River;
PARCEL N0. 3: An irregularly shaped parcel of land oon~isting of those parcels on both
sides of Siarfire Street, Starling Way, and Beauty Drive;
PARCEL, N0. •~: An irregularly shaped parcel of land located on the north side of Sants
Canyon Road, consisting of those lots on both sides of Maychelle Drive,
Mar_ti Drive, Citrus View Drive, McKay Circle, ~IcKinnon Drive, Wesatch
Drive, and Deseret Circle;
PARCEL N0. 5: An irregularly shaped parcel of land bounded on the west by Parcel No. 4,
and having a frontage of approxinately 480 feet on the north side of
Santa Ana Canyon Road and having a maximum depth of approximately 1,860
feet;
PARCEL, N0. 6: An irregularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately
2,140 feet on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road and a maximum depth
of approximately 1,800 feet, the westerly bouizdary being adjacent to the
easterly boundary of Parcel No. 5; and
PARCEL N0. 7: An irregularly shaped paroel of land located on the south side of Santa
Ana Canyon Road, bounded on the west by the westerly portion of Peralta
_ Hills Drive, and on the east by the easterly portion of Crescent Drive
and having a maximum depth of approximately 3,000 feet; and further
described as Peralta Hills Anr_exation No. Z
CLAS3IFICATIO?G OF PROPERT'3: PARCEL NOS. 1, 3, and 4- COUNTY R1 DIStRICT;
PARCEL NOS. 2, 5, and 6- COUN2'Y A-1 DISTRIC_': ANJ)
PARCEL N0. 7- COiJNTY E-1 DISTRICT.
PROPOSED CLAS32FICATION: PARCEL NOS. l, 3, and 4- R-1, ONE-FA~d2LY RESIDENTIAL, ZO_NE; ~
PARCEL NOS. 2, 5, end 6- R-A, AGRICULTURAL ZONE; AND
PARCEL N0. 7- R-E, RESIDENTIAL ESTATES, ZONE.
Planning Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski noted for the Commission that the Peralta Hills
Annexation No.2 would be official approximt~tely September 13, 1967; t~at the Commission
could hear both Item Nos. 18 and 19 at the same time; that the properties being considered
were on both sides of Santa Ana Canyon Road, and the proposed reclassification of the property
was necessary to establish comparable City of Anaheim zoning; furthermore, Parcel Nos.2 and
5 would be considered further to establish a resolution of intent to R-1, since the Hill
and Canyon General Plan indicated these properties for low density residential usa.
Mr. A. M. Bartick, 300 Redrock Street, appeered beforo the Commission, asking for clarifica-
tion of the legal notice, since many of the people were not familiar with the legal termin-
ology;that the residents of that area were very aonaerned with tne effect the proposed z^r.ing
would have on the established traats in the area, the proposed routing of the Riverside
Freeway taking a portion of the esteblished tracts, and whether the proposed zoning would
have any effect on the alignment of the freeway.
Mr. Grudzinski notA~ that the zoning proposed was only comparable city zoning +.o existing
County zoning; that the R-A Zone within the City of Anaheim was a holding zone when there
wex~e properties being annexed in the city which were vacant and had no crops; that the R-A
zone permitted agricultural use as well as limi.ted residential use; that Paroel No. 2 had
R-1 Tentative Tracts approven on it, and the city was establishing a resolution of intent
to ffi for Parcel No3. 2 and 5 in order to obtain street dedication within these parcels at
such time as they developed, as v~sll as normal trant improvements; and that overal intent
of the proposed rezoning was to m~~_•itain those properties on the north side cP Santa Ana
Canyon Road for R-1 uses, and on the youth side of said fioad for R-~, RESIDEA~TIAL ESTATES,
ZONE which permitted homes on a minimum one acre parcel.
~. . , ~ :.
-:,
~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CI~PY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 28, 1967 3583
RECLASSIFICATION - the rights of the property owners after the freeway was oonstructed,
N0. 67-68-12 and that if the State Division of Highways had to acquire additional
(Continued) propert3• this would not affect any zoning established in the area.
Offioe.Engineer Arthur Daw advisecl the Commission that the latest plans reoeived from the
State Division of Highways -.availablb in the City Engineer's office, Robert Jones, in
Subdivisions; that Parcel No. 1 is now under development, and one of the last discussions
with the State they indicated that approximately five homes would be acquired on the south
,~ side of Addington Drive - these being the models now on display; that a discussion was
` held with one of their engineers on August 25, 1967, in which ne indicated there was a
possibility that the State would remain within their present right-of-way; and that if the
State decided to acquire additional right-of-way there was nothing the City of Anaheim could
do or say about it. Furthermore, in response to questioning, that the State ultimately
planned to have the Freeway a 12-lane thoroughfare with 6 lanes each way.
dlr. Adrian Kuyper 1357 Sierra Alta Drive, Tustin, owner of property at 18646 Crescent Drive,
appeared before the Commission and stated that he was in agreement with the proposed zoning
for Parcel No. 7, and that he hoped to construct a home on the one-acre parcel he owned there.
Mr. George G. Montgomery, 18382 East Crescent Drive, noted thst he owned property in Parcel
No. 7, however, he was interested in agricultural property, and his biggest problem was the
v~atter of taxes where zoning other than agricultural was projected, there£ore he was inter-
ested in property whiuh was primarily zoned for agriculture in the city.
The Commission noted that the tax rate was not based on symbols as depicted on the City's
General Plan but on the potential use of the land; that the tax assessor viewed the fact
thatyou are in the center of residentiel use, therefore you would be taxed accordingly;
that there were many property holdings which could be called grazing lands, and the sale of
the land would be based on the potential use of the land and any classification given by the
City's zoning would not make any differenoe in the assessing of the properties.
Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts noted the only provision of the law relating to true
agriaultural uses in California was the Conservation Act oP 1965, and following a good deal
of red tape you ma.y have minimum paraels of 100 acres classified as agricultural under this
aot however, this must be agreed to for a minimum period of 10 years.
Mr. H. Clay Kellogg, 17532 Santa Ana Canyon Road, appeared before the Commission and noted
that many years ago the property owners in the Santa Ana Canyon area had entered into an
agreement with the State of California regarding the Riverside Freeway right-of-way which
established the route so that it would be the least offensive and would not detract from
the beauty of the area; that the oitizens of the city had to look to the politic body for
assistance in attempting to retain i~his area for its beauty, however, if the City did not
assert itself the private rights of the property owners wi11 be constantly •~iolated by
the encroachment of freeways; that the freeway route was now proposed to be changed agsin,
and he hoped the City of Anaheim could urge the State to route the freeway in as close
proximity to the Santa Ana River as possi.ble in order that the beauty o£ the area is not
further destroyed; that the City of Anaheim and the County of Orange entered into an
agreement with the State to establisn the access points, route and development of the San~L•a
Ana Canyon Road in September 1966, and at the publia hearing before the County of Orange, he
had inquired why the State did not plan to retain the original route along the river, and
he was informed this would en+.ail construction of a bridge which was not budgeted for.
The persons being affected by the proposed change would not be the original 5000 i;o ].0000,
but 50,000 to 100,000 people after ultimate development of the properties in the canyon
area. Therefore, he urged the City of Anaheim to adopt a resolution urging the State of
Californie to set aside the Santa Ana Canyon area as a scenic route, so that conversion
of the r~~~ute of the freeway will not destroy the only scenic area in the north Orange
County a; 9r~.
THE IL+;l~: ING WAS CLOSED.
Commi~sioner Rowland off9red Resolution No. PC67-201, and moved for its pessage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Farano, to recommend to the City Council to appruve Petition for
Reclassification No. 67-68-12 establishing comparable City zoning for the area laiown as
the Peralta Hills Annexation No. 2.(See Resolution Book)
On roll ca11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COMNIISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: C06RAISSIONERS: Allred.
.. _,Al:~(:=;::
I ..,+`.`.r+~ !:~-.
~ . . ~ ~ ~ . . . .~ ~
~
MINt~iTES, C7.',I~' PL+ANNIIVG CO~dISS20N, August 28, 1967 3584
RECL•ASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARII~G. INITIATED BY THE GITY PLANNING CWR~ISSION, 204 East
N0. 67-68-13 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim-0alifornie. Property described as:
PARCEL N0. 2- An irregularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately
2,150 feet on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road and having a maxi-
mum depth of approximately 2,200 feet, the westerly boundary of subjeot
property being approximately 800 feet east of Addington Drive, excluding
those parcels on both side of Beauty Drive, Star£ire Street, and Starling
~ Way; and
PARCEL N0. 5- An irregularly shaped parael of land having a frontage of approximately
~SO feet on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road and having a maximum
depth of approxisately 1,830 feet, the westerly boundary of subject
property being approximately 750 feet east of the northerly extension
of the westerly portion of Crescent Drive;
and further described as a portion of the Peralta Hills Annexation No. 2.
CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY: R-A, AGRICLZTU-RAL ZONE.
PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION: R-1, ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
Planning Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski noted for the Commission that sir.;3 subject property
was recommended for R-A Zoning on the previous petition, subject petition would establish
a resolution of intent to R-1, ONE FAMIL`! RESIDENTIAL, ZONE in order to assure the City
that proper dedication for streets, street improvements, etc., could be obtained at the
time the properties were to be developed.
No one appeared in opposition,
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC67-?02, and moved for its passage and adoption
seconded by Commissioner Herbst to recommend to the City Council that Petition for
Reclassificetion be approved subject to conditions.(See Resolution Book)
On roll ca11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
A1'ES: COMARISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COM~AISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: CO~MISSIONERS: Allred.
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to reoommend to the City Council consideration of
submitting a resolution to the State of California and the County of Orange urging the
establishment of the Senta Ana Canyon area as a scenio highway route, in order that the
area might be basically retained in its present manner, thus discouraging further enoroach-
ment of freeways into the area. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOT:iuN CARRIED.
I?'EM N0. 3
REPORTS AND - street ame Change for Norwood Avenue located in the west Anaheim area
REGONAAENDATIONS south of Ball Road and east of East Gates Street.
(Continued)
Associate Planner Jack Christofferson noted for the Commission that the name"Norwood"
was assigned to two streets one in the east Anaheim area and one in the west Anaheim area;
however the street in the west Anaheim area was only a stub into what was formerly vacant
land, but which wes now developed with a mobile trailer park, and Norwood Street in the
east Anaheim Area had ten homes whiah would be affected by the street name change. There-
fore the staff recommended that Norvrood Avenue be renamed Le,nerose Drive since it was a
logical extension of that street.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC67-203, and moved for its passage and adoption,;
seconded by Co¢missioner Herbst to recommend to the City Counoil a street name change for
Norwood Avenue to Lanerose Drive on the basis that no homes fronted on the street; that the
name "Norwood" was also assigned to another street which had ten homes £ronting on it.
(See Resolution Book)
~£ :,.
~ ~ . t ~s . ,^t ( r P:~..:
t
i
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNIIVG COMtdISS20N, August 28, 1967
3585 ~
~`~:~
~:~
REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 3(aontinued) -'::;`'
RECO~NDATIONS
(Gontinued) On roll aall the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: --
AYES: COM~6ISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
• NOES: CO~CSSIONERS: None. -
~~ ABSENT: CO~GISSIONERS: Allred. ~"'`.~.;''
;3~r - ITEM N0. 4
' ~~ Street Name Change for Keller Street looated in the east Anaheim area
~~`,,
~<` '!; Assooiate Planner Taok Christofferson noted that when Reclassific;ation No. 67-68-15
x.;. :
;:; ` was reaommended for approval in the afternoon meeting, he had mentioned that a stub
~`i`•. ``,'=` street designate~3 as Keller Street would extend into the adjoining tract propt+sed
S<,..; : ~
- to the west, and that BetY:el Drive was proposed as the street name within the said
trsat, since it wes a logical extension of tho street to the west of the proposed
~` ~ new tract. Therefore, the staff reaommended that Keller Street be changed to Bethel
r,~`, ~: Drive, sinoe no one would be affected by the street name change, and that the recently
°'~ • 3~ a roved tract had assi
~,,-•,~,r, pp gned Bethel Drive, the same name o£ the street directly to tho
;;~..~.;;;: west of Tract No. 6452, approved at the afternoon public hearing.(See Resolution Book)
~
~~ r,
~ ,. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
p f;.
,~ ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Mur_gall, Rowland, Camp.
~ Y'
~`„_ ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
,.
~~~ ~:
~usy ;~p ABSENT: CO~ISSIONERS: Allred.
~ ~J ABSTAIN: COD~ISSIONERS: Faraao.
~r ~;~~
~,~ ,~i ADJOURNb1ENP - There being no further business to disouss Coa~missiomer Gauer offered a
~+ ~~ motion to adjourn the meeting. CommissionFr Herbst seconded the motion.
A_. x.~ MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 5~:45 p. m.
.~~
. ,,.,,._:.,-, RespectYni7y submitted,
~~~/
Secretary
. ~>
~..~~f ~'t,;.. T~i'+ [!~. tr~+~'..,~ 54 t. .~"'G
s4f"4~ ~:~ ....*~ u""
( L "`~ ~'I
,. . ... ,.. ... .. . _ . .,_ _ . . . ~ ~ . ~ .. ~ . 2 ~ . . ..
, . .
,~ , ,. . . ,, ..,
, _. . ~ i ,
4-..~ .. . . ~.. . , I . - ,.. . .~~~ . .
. - `~
1M
'•:!
~ r;
~~
~
2
.i~~'~~'~~1d ~,., f~.. '~ , '.. 1 ti. X
- 1 t~tF ~ ~ j A, ;,t ~~ ~: S
;
4
~
'
t' °
'~a `, ,- p .: c ~c;!
~
u i.
{
iu
F
,
.,.
~.
~ '~ + t ~ f~+
~ x ~i~
~ 3
.
~
:,p t.y { sr y~. . ~~ ~. .
.
,
i~
~ .
~
s
-~T y
~~ i j' ~
Tr, . r I .
~
~ ~. 7
' k
? . , t ' ... ;
~. LSrY
r
t
J il 1
~ j
~. r
~
'
"R~ 5.,
~
~F , l 7
C I _
5`
~ t
~
I ~
~ !
?
~
Y~
i ' j
i ~,.^ ti f . ~ ' ~ ~ ,
•~'f 1 .. , ~ ~ ~ . ..
'~
i~„ ~
1
..
'~ 1 r
^
e,i ~ ~
J/
~ ~ . ~ . . . . . .. . . .
. . . ... . . . . . ~
. ~ . .
. . .
~ ~ ~ ' . ~ . .
~ 1'~'. .
I'
. ~ ,. ~ ~~- ~ . ' '~;_.. .. ~. '. ~ ~.. - : . .;. , . ~. .. ~. , .. ' '.
1 . .. . . . . .
' ~ . . ' ' ..
. . . . .. ..
. ... . .. .. . .
\
* .. . . . . - ~ . ~ .
~~+L , ,
1 . . . . ' ~ ,
. ~'. .
~ . . ., ,_.. _ . .
~