Minutes-PC 1968/07/29~i~~v~ t~ 'F,.-.3 Y~ f"E.1h 0~~'Iy+f A~ y4 S 'L-.' .`S. ;~i ' ~Y ) ,Y ~.
."R~~e'+3C "~ irds„ " ,~ .. ~ hs ~ ~'. ix d.ct twsN Pt a
~2 A'' ~ ~ e -r .,t~ ' R'' r ~^r~.t' ~.a~~ u~ °w~ +, y.~.. ~" v :~i'
"
,"`S ~
K~, ti
~i.Vc~L"~
a
S""t~1
~ ~ } V
~
~' i
'
~
.
,~
u
~
i
-
;
S : ,
::'.- ..~. . . .
.. . . .... .,. : ,,
{ .. ~~i
, ..,f
;
' , ; . .,,- ,
. . .. ~
~,,:2,k, .: ~ ~ ..
"s.. _~:
~ f {~
~, Nti.
.:
~y
~
~ . i ~_ .. :~_ . . . . ' , ~ . _ ~ . . ~ ~ ~ ~;
'
, r
. .
..
~ ~ ~S
_ .
. . .
. . . ,
. . . . . . ~ . ~ . . - . .
. _
. .
- .
.
~ :~.
t
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . ~ .. .. . . . .
~~ >y~
~i~5ffi
, .. . , . . ~ . .
.
. . - . . ~ . . . . . ~
C ~
~ . lt
Hall
Y,
_....-
, ,~,~.
_. ,
~
~
Anaheim, Californie ~
July 29, I968
_ ,
,~,~f~
-~`'
ry
A REGULAR MEEPING OF THE ANAf~IM C137 PI~ANNING COt~AISSION -
,~.
;, . -:
~_
~GULA~ MEETING - A regular meeting of the AriBheim City Planning'Commisoion avas ~ ,,.~
'~
oalled to order by Chairmsn pro tem Rowland at 2:05 o'cloak ~,'•
P.M.;.e quorum,being ~reaent, .
-s.~
PRESENT
- CHAIRMAN PRO TE~: Rowland. ;~.,
``~
,
t~
i
~
- CO1~dISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall. !,
~ µ`~~
~S~T= - CO~MISSIONERS: Allred.
~ ~ ±' ~~
` `'?
PRESENT - Assistent Development Servioes Direotor: Robert AQickelson
, Assistant City Attorney: John Dawson
Deputy City Attorney: Frank Lowry
Offiae Engineer: Arthur Daw "''•
Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompson ,„~<~ ~ `
Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Pat Hrown
Planning Commission Seoretary: Ann Krebs "
Y
PLEDGE OF ~i
ALLEGIANCE
- Co~issioner Mungall led i.n the Pledge of Allegianae to the Flag. `~
,~,~
APpROVAL OF
- Minutes of the meeting of July 15, 1968 were approved with the
Tf~ ~GINUTES
t "~'
'~}ti
fo
].].owing aorreotion; on motion by Commissioner Farano, seconded
by Commissioner Mungall and MOTION CARRIED: .
;~
`~°
"
. „ .. . .. . ... . . . . :... . , , . . r ri~
Page 4005 - Commissioner Mungall gave the Pledge of Allegianae. ~~~
RECLASSIFICATION-`CONTIlVIJED PUBLIC HEARING. ,:FAED. C. BAANDT, 2638 YPest Linoolr~
N0
68
69-9
~''
~
~;
,
.
-
Avenue; Ansheim, Californis, Owner; DALE L. INGRAM, 10316 Asher
-Street, E1 Mont
C '
e,
alifornie, Agent; property desoribed as:
CONDITIONAL USE A reotangularly shaped paroel'oY a
proaim
t
l
2
'
p
a
e
y
.0 aores of lrind
PERMIT N0. 1042 having a frontage of approximately 150 feet on the south side of ~"?
Linooln Avenue and s meximum depth oP approximately 598 feet
the ^•+t.'
,
easterlq boundary of said parael being approximately 450 feet west ,
'',!"`
oP the oenterline of Magnolie Avenue. Propertq presently classiPied
R-A
AGRICU r'~~
,
LTURAL, ZONE. :~..
REQUESTED CLASSIFIC9TION: C-1, GENERAI, COE~ACIAL, ZONE. ",'
'?~
REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: TO PERMIT A• 155-[iP1IT, THREE-STORY ~LOTEL, YPITH ~ '
YVAIVER OF MAXI~UM BUILt~Il3G HEIGHT. ~
Sub3eat petition~s were,continued from the meeting oY July 15, 1968, in order to
i ellow time,for the petitioner to o
nsid
e ~ `~,
~ '~'
~
o
er a r
vised plan of development inoorporating
adequete ciroula;tion as reoommended by the Interdepartmental Committ
f
r
f °
~s
ee
o
Publio
Sa
ety and Ganeral YYelfare. ~
,. ' ;,,
~r
:
;
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat BTOws reviewed the looation of sub eat
3 property, the
proposed zoning request and avaive
n i
~
'~'9'
.,~{
rs,
oting that the Ir,terdepartmental Committee for
Publia SaPetq and General WelPare had m
t
d
s ~
e
to
iscu
s ar alternative regarding the
original request.for a 54-Poot;wide street
u ~ ' .:,tf
as.req
este~i by,the Commission, at whioh
time`it was determined that s 30-Poot aide half-width street oould be
id i ~"{'~
j `~
'~
prov
ed for,
and as properties to the east developed, the essterly '30 feet of 'the street obuld
be dediaated as s oondition of ap
rov
l f
us ,
s( ~y~
'
p
a
or
e of these,properties; however it
was still important that.adequste niroulation be providrd'for
'all th
e d
~ p '
'
~
~~
.
es
eep
lots;
and thst. sPter meeting with the agent for the pet'xt'Y~onez't~+ advise him of' th
' ; ; ~
~
'~~
e new ,
requi
rement, he indiaated that even the new proposal aould be unsatis£eotiory to the
_developers of.tHe projeat;
i
i
w ~ ~,''~
s
noe
t
ould still areate a naed for a aomplete revision
of their standard plans of development. No revised plans ware submi.tted. '
~c
°~''
=4032- ~
,,'`'s
- -- %~n
. ."~ ~l
.
. . . . . . . . .
. . ~ ~ . . . : ~ . ~ ~ . . ~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ., . ~ ~ . ~ •
:.,~ . ... . ' . . .
, ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ - ;?i 1
. ;~' i
~~
:~
i ~
.
. ... .
.
-z---r~~+~.r.r~w~.~ ~~. . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - --- - .
..
` . 1~ ~~;:.
.. l fi`~~'
i .
1 {
~ x+. .,rs- r r.+. n v si~'~C ~ ~ c~^ / Y tc ;<
~ /,~"' S ` '.' ~ - f
~ X ~. ! -: 119 T~
~ r .,A3,+
.. ,1
r
.
:
~ ~ ~R~ r~~.
~:~~
~ . s ~~ ~ ~ x . ~
' '~ .~
{
..,
~ .t:~; ~~
~ , •- .. , ~' -~ ~
. . ~
i ..
i '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ ~
'' c'
~~ ~~~~
• f ~ -
4033 ,,~~
Mi,NUTES:, CITY PLANNING COM~ISSION, July 29, 1968
~
' i?'9:~LASSIFICATION - Mr. Dale Ingram, agent ±'or the petitioner and the developers
'
'
,
~~
~
.T.: b8-69-9 appeared before the Commission and noted that he had disoussed
with the developers the-request of tFie staff and the Commission
~ONDITIONAL USE regarding additional oiroulation; however, if the 30-foot wide
PERMIT N0. 1042 dedioation were granted, thi§ would be requiring approximately
20,~ of subjeot nroperty ,snd would reduoe the lot aidth to less
ti,~.~ ~ than 125 Peet therehy plaaing development of the property in the
~~ ,,,., grey area , whioh meant thai there was a good possibility the development would not `~y
+ oaaur; that they were agreeable to providing an alley elong the south property line
~ for seoondarq oiroulation to Stinson Street; that the real problem in his'estimation
. was seaondary oiraule,tion and not primary oiroulation; that requiring a street vfithin
300 Peet of Stinson Street and 400 feet from Magnolia Street having aaaess to Linaoln
A
4 venue did not seem plausible; that the City had not required street or slley dedica-
- tion for.the other two mQtels they proposed, nor had they required street or elley i
~ dedioation when the property to the southesst of subjeat property was permitted to
develop with carports on the property line for multiple family purposes
and if this ~
,
were done there ~vould have been better airoulation planned for the dee lots;
£
it was the developers opinion that the request for street dedication was a hardship
on ~ ~
them, sinoe development plans indiaeted interior oiroulatian whiah would have no aocess '
to the oroposed new street. ~„
THE HEE1R'T ~= ~VAS CLOSED.
'~` Discussion was held by the Commission regarding the request for street dedicetion '•'~
,
whereupon Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson explained to the Cammission that the
~' Interdepartmental Committee felt with the intense use proposed for sub~ect property
i ,
in all likelihood this area aould develop with 900 uni.ts without a stande,rd street
which would provide for airoulation thereby areating quitc? a traffio problem.
~~ v~~.
~~~ The Commission then noted that if a"t" alle was
p Pro~eoted from &SBgno7.ia Avenue
ne ".
~
i~
~
4' oon
ctin with the
B proposed street, that the request'for s ha1P-wid.h s~treet dedioation
` ~w'~
~s
;
~
~' i
. did
not seem to be unrealistia, and if all these'properties would develop at the density
oY th
~
'
~ e proposed develo ment or a p per unit s day,
P pproximately 800 units at nine tri s
this would
laae 60Q0
h
~,,~
fi,~ ~, r, p
ve
icles per day on a 20-foot alley whioh was a3.mo~t impossible
to imagine .
k iii~;'
'' '~°"'
• The Commission then inquired of the a ent how he p
~ pro osed to have trash oolle~tion
3
~ y~ ; servioes mith only e 10 or 20 foot stri Por elle
P 9 P~'Poses sinae this wo~ld require
the te
t
t
l 1
~;,,;
nan
o wa
s
k a consideraL'~9 distance with their trash. Furthermore, the
Fi
D f
;,;
..:~~ re
epa~tment would be unable tq gain aoaess to the easterly portion of the p~operty
with the airaulation th
t i
a, e pe
itioner proposed.
~ ~ Mr. Ingram advised the Commi.ssion that they were providing a 25-foot roadway whiah would
ti
i
, ;k
'
~ e
n with a 20-3oot alley to the south, and that austodians would oarry the trash to
the trash exeas
~
;~~ .
, ,:~
t y'~
~~
Mr. Thompson then noted that the Interdepartmental Committee felt that a minimum
~
'=~'
` 30=Poot half-stre9t would be needed alon the east
B property line for fire proteation
a
,Y~ ,
said street then would ultimetely develop into a 60-foot street at suah time as the
,~~ properties to the east developed.
~ t ~,
~ ~~
'
y Mr. Ingram, in response to Commission questioning,stated that they did not feel they
,
~i' ~n aould dediaete the 30-foot half street as requested, however they were desirous of
C
i
i
a
omm
ss
oa
ction today.
~~~ ~~ :r~
'
*fi`r`
~ Commiasioner Camp oYfered Resolution No. PC68-225 and moved for its passage and adoption
~
~i +~ ,
seconded by Commissioner Mungall to reoommend to the City Counoil that Petition for
Realassifioati
n
~r .~
,.~ ,, o
No. 68-69-9 be disapproved on the basis t
hat the reoommended 30-foot
halt width street could not be dedioated
that
h
i
a~~ ,~ ;
w
en more
ntense uses are proposed for
properties oomprised of deep lots that adequate oiraulation sho
ld b
t
3~ f~ u
e provided to per-
mit adequate traffic flow; and that the petitioner was proposing only a 20-foot alleg
~~ ~,~
^ along the south propertq line as a seoondarq means of handling traffic.(See Resolution
B
k)
e
~,' +~ oo
c ~ :t,~~
~
~ ~?
, On roll oell the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
~
''~ ;
~
'
AYES: CObIDGISS20NERS: Camp, Faxano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall
Rowland
-
'
. ,
.
NOES: CO~ISSIONERS: None. !
, ; AHSENT: CO~ISSIONERS: Allred. 1•
~
~ j
~ ,
'!
,
~ ~ --- - - - ~~~ ; ,~,ti:
>~ ~ -
ra~ ~. ~ ~ ~
r,
tf..--,~; ~ ~ . . .. : .~ .. ~ . ~, . -. : . ~ ~ .
~ ~f ; :.i .. . . . . .
; ~,:- .. . . .
f ', . .. . . ~ .. . . .
k ,, 4034
f ?.r:~...~ . .
rn.~;',;, _-:. , ~ ~ . . . . .
t,;.~ MINUTES, CITY pLANN2NG CO~GMIISSION aul 29 1968
~~. . f t Y r
ti« ;~ AECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. PC68-226 and moved for
~. : N0. 68-69-9 .
f~:.`, its. passagc and adoption, seaonded by Commission?r Farano to
,~ >' deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. l(t42, on the basis
CONDITIONAL IISE that the petitioner would not agree to providing adequato ciroule-
` PERMIT N0..1042 tion as reaommended by the Commissi-on.(See Resolution Book)
~~; ~ On roll oell the foregoing resolution was passed bg the following
, ~ vote:
+' ,: AYES: CO~ISSIONERSc Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland.
y
NOES: COD~ISSIONERS: None.
;~e
ABSENT: CO~ISSIONERS: Allred.
; ~
~' Commissioner Camp left the Counail Chamber at 2:28 o'cloak P.M.
A;
"~;. CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ROBERT HANELINE, 2856 Petaluma Avenue,
~?;y; PEAMIT N0. 1039 Long Beaoh, California, and GERALD MC GINNIS, 3568 Brenton Street,
Lynwood, California, Owners; MARVIN GUNNUFSON, 12022 Marths Ann
`~ Drive, Los Alamitos, California, Agent; requestin
g permission to
^;~~ establish A 150-BED CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL, WITH WAIVERS OF (1) MINIldtJM REQUIRED BUILDING
;..,
!;s.t SETBACK AND (2) LOCATION OF REQUTAED PARKING on property desoribed as: A reotangularly
~ 1., shaped par~el of approximately 1.8 sores of land having a frontage of approximately
r,n 210 feet on the north side oP Bell Road and a maximum depth of approximately 343 feet,
iz;" the westerly boundary of said paroel being approximately 460 feet east of the aenterline
d=??~a' of Knott Street. Pro ert
~~~'M1, p y presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
K
~ v;;:~v;~ S .
;'~
~~
f `'m
,~"~
. .~
~:i
,~
j~.~
;~;
~~l
:; ~
~;r
~~
~.
'~
i
`1-?~
~~~
ub3eot petition was oontinued Yrom the meeting.of July 15, 1968, to permit the ~ `~y'
petitioner,time to submit revised plans that would ~`;•`:
provide suae tabl 1
~,~~
t~
~ for emergenay vehioles.and fire P e oirou ation
proteotion.
~ n~
,
~
~
;~tr2~~:=
r Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the'looation of sub3eot ~roperty
the
~~,
,U~, ,
propnsed request, noting that revised plans had been submitted whioh indioated taat
`~~yn,
~
~ all parking would be to the rear of the struature; that a 16-foot drive was proposed
~~
:~;
i : Y,~'
~
i to extend from Ball Road northerly with a turn-arouna'l erea looated to the rear of
th
,~
~
~ e property, and that although only a 5-Poot setbaok: was proposed adjaaent to the
e
t
P~oel to th
hil
o
'
~
,`
` e
as
w
e C
de required a 15 foot setbaok, the possibility that
+
~
i~ the
property would develop for other than multiple-familq or oommeroiel uses was
i~~+'~ somewhat remote, there£ore, the waiver request would not appeax to oreate any serious
~
+ k
~
a problem in the future.
r~
J~
~, ~~r The agent Yor the petitioner indioated his presenoe and availability to answer any
,,,i;,
~y} .~ questions the Commission might have.
~
;~~~ ~
~
r
~~~z~^ No one appeared in opposition.
,~w ~~. _
~~"'~~
,n ~ . ,
e THE HEARING WAS CIASED.
~~ ~n
s
r
~
~
~
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-227 and moved for its passage and
sj
i~
f~
~ adoption, seoonded by,Commissioner Mungall to grant Petition for
Oonditional Use
Permit N
103
j
y~~ o.
9, subjeat to oonditions. (See Resolution Book)
~' l
~~~~'~~ _
On roll oe11 the Yoregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
, ' ,
.
'
~ ~~~ ti4 :
.
. . . .
' ,r,,~
*~~'~ AYES: CO~ISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland.
;1~~ NOES: CO~QISSIONERS: None.
t ~~~N ~ . . . . . . . . . .
~~; ~ttt~u~~ /l.BSENT: ' CO~IISSIONERS: Allred, Camp.
" ~, ~ a `~,~
s,
~~`,;,~
~ z ~ ~
Commissioner Camp returned to the Counoil Chamber at 2:31 0'olook P
M
~~ ~ ~45 ~M
~
.
.
It .v~Fk~
h ~ 9r? •'~
a
. . _ . . . . . ~
„ ~
"' ~ ~~~~:
~ .~~i. y7~,
. . . ~ . . . ~ . .
~
~
u'
~
~ Url7S : '~
, „yi .
. .
, .
~
. .
~ ~
. xf ~`e.+ .
_ . . .
. . .
1r`
~1.
ti~
f ;
= K H ~
1Y. ~. ~'~~~~
(' S y'~i
`~ q .;,~!
7e n . . ~ . . . . . , - . . .
. . ~ . ~ . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . , . . . ~ ~. ~ .
}'' . ~ .~ ... .
V
idINUTES, CITY'PLANNING COMMISSION, July 29, 1968
TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: PERAIIPA HILLS GROUP, DAN NINBURG, ET .9I,, 1781 Romneya
TRACT N0. 6066 Drive, Anaheim, Californie.: ENGINEER: Anaaal Engineering Company,
REVISION N0. 8 222 East Linooln Avenue, Anaheim California. Subjeat tract, located
south of the Riverside Freeway at the interseotion of Cerro Vista
and Peralta Hi11s Drive oontaining approximately 13.23 acres, is
proposed for.subdivision into 13 R-E, RESIDENTIAL ESTATES ZONED lots.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Hrown reviewed the loaation of sub~eot property, noting ,
that the lots would be a minimem of one aore as required in the R-E Zone, and that at
the Interdepartmental Committee meeting it was noted that there was a definite need for !
adequate aaoess for fire and tresh vehioles to undevelo~ed properties located west and j
south o£ the proposed traat; that these aoaessways would be developed by mutuel ease-
ment and improvement agreements between developers of the tract and adjacent property
owners; end that the suggested looations of these aaoessways was between Lot Nos. 6 and 7
(to the west) and along the southeast-northwest property line of Lot No. 8(to the south).
i -:
~
~.. .
,
~.
Mr. Norman IR. Goodwin, 402 North Highland, Fullerton, representing the developers and
property owners, appeared before the Commisslon and noted that the owners had been
attempting to determine what problems might arise if they developed their property, but
had not antioipated the request for an easement between the two proposed lois for aooess
from the west, therefore, they were opposed to granting this easement; that the property
owner to the west was aware of the oiraule,tion prot~l.ems when he purohased his property,
therefore, to request that the ad~oining property owners provide his ciroulation was a
hardship; that the ad,joining property owner had oontacted him regarding his airoulation
problem, therefore, he hed presented the problem to the property owners of subjeot traot,
however no agreement was reeahed beoause they wanted to retain a rural atmosphere which
mould limit the number of automobiles in the street and the additional trafiio oould
areate a hazerd. Furthermore, to grant the easement would,,jeopexdize the loaetion of
the home`sinae they proposed to build a pool, whioh oould plaoe the home on the property
line adjeaent to the easement; that the traffio engineer indicated that better ciroula-
tion should be provided in this erea; and that it was the owners of Lot Nos. 6 end 7
opinion that the property to the west had adequate ares to provide their own oiraulation.
~he Commission inquired of the staff the reason for requesting the easement.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that this ;,raot was no
different than any other traot in the City where developers were required to put in
40-foot stub streets to provide oirculation for ad~oining properties when they developed;
however the Interdepartmental Committee felt that only a 26-foot easement was needed
to meet the requirements of the R-E Zone, and if this area is to be developed in a
proper and orderly msnnar, oiroulation is needed for fire truoks and other emergenoy
vehioles; that it was almost impossible for the property to the west to develop unless
the easement reoommended is given, sinae it had very limited frontage on a street; that
the property nould be subdivided into four or five lots but needed more than a small
8-foot driveway to serve these homes with fire and emergenoy vehioles in the event of
fire or other emergenoies;,that the staff was aware this was the property owner's
aonaern, however, the City also had a responsibility to provide streets to plaoes where
it is deemed neoessary for the publia interest; that any street widening would be
impossible from s praotiosl standpoint for the e,aoessway. the property to the west had,
beoause of a deep ravine, and if this ravine were filled up there would be oonsiderable
drainsge problems; and that the staff, therefore, felt the additional oiroulation was
quite neoessery and vital.
The Commission inquired es to the inoraase in vehioles to the street from the easement
if required. Whereupon Mr. Thompson stated that an additional 4 to 8 vehi;oles would
use the street, and that the easement would not oreate as muoh a hardship than if a
40-foot wide street were required.
Mr. Thompson further noted that propertq t~ the west oould readily develop i£ the
easement mere required, however, sinae it was looated on the east side of a ravine,
this mede it impossible to provide their oarn oiroulation,'end that the property was
immedietely ad~soent to sub3eot property. F~irthermore the easement road would be
very di~Yioult to oonneot with the ezisting road to the west beoause of the ravine.
The Commission further inquired what type oP oiroulation would be provided if the
easement was not grented to the property to the west of sub3eot property.
Mr. Thompson noted that the,property owner to the west might be able to provide a rather
narrow road but this would be insuPficient Yor emergenoy vehiales and it would be
r,- . . .
. _ ,:. . _ . , ,.
> ~,x~ ;
. ~ ~
~ ~~ . .
~ t~ ~`~~
' ' ~Ftr~~
.
- ~ ~ yJ~~
• ,
{
~
~ 1
4036 , `,. ~
a:
_ ' ~~
MINUTES, CITY PI,ANNING COD~4ISSION, July 29, 1968 } w"~"' ~~ ~
r~ ~o~
F
TENTATIVE MAP OF - almost impossible to fill in the ravine without oosting an excessive ~~ "'y~
TRACT N0. 6066 ~amount of;moneq; however, if development.did oaour, then in all '` ~~~,,~
'
REVISION N0. 8 likelihood_e varianoe from the'R-E Zone standards would have to be ~~
'~ ~°'~_
'
~
granted to`permit the existir~g roed to serve'the.:properties when_ ~'
~ ~~~~
they developed.
~ '~.;'~~.`s'"~`'
x'~~'~'
c ~` ~
The Co~.ission then in tiired as to the `
4 possible legal implioetions if the property to .
.
sa r~~.,
"~'`^' u~''^^
~;,~
~~
the'west beaame landlooked arid no eesement was approved through subjeat property.
' . _
.
.
~ ,
,
tt~~,~r
.
.: . :
...
. . .... '. ..; ~
~
Deputy Ci.ty Attorney Frank Lowry advised the,Commission this would be a type of reverse y f 4'I '",..'~
(
,
x~'
oondemnetion, and the oourts aould aesess damages against the City, therefore, the ,
~~
requirement o~ the easement would be £or the proteotion of the City. ~t~!
_ ~
Mr. Thompson reviewed a previous varianoe petition on the property'to the west, wherein ;
.~
they requested permission to subdivide into four or five lots, however the Commission ~,
,
'~'
and Cit Counail conaurrin
Y g granted permission to move a:lot line in order to permit ~`'
the oonstruotion of a seaond home on the aareage, snd at thet time disoussion and
evidenoe was submitted regarding the 3eat that the property to the west had insdequate
saaess to a standard street, with .the Commission and Counail expressing the feelin6 .
that some means of a standard eaoess should be provided, therefore, the proposed sub-
division of sub3eot property was the first opportunity the staff had to request this ~"" ~:'
oiraulation. ~,, ,~ a`.
. ,' . ~. . q
~
Office'Engineer Arthur Daw advised:the Commission that the -0ity normally requires that 3
~ i ir
~~' ~;
the developers of a traat provide`a stub street into undeveloped property whiah must ;? ,'~~
be fully improved, however, in this inste,noe only an easement was proposed,.and.when . ,~~.`~
the p:operty owner to the west desired aoaess to this easement, he would be responsible ,;'
~ w~
Por.full improvement of the easement. ,
;i
~
Dr. Jaeger, appeared bePore the',Commission noting that he,;:would'be the owner"of Lot, ,
' ~i;~ r' ;a~a
Nos.;, 6
and 7 and did not?want,.an easement going ~through the aenter of hi's property• ,}~ ~ F+~ k„M'`j
furthermore!,, when the property was purohased' he had been informed' that a` oul de='saa °Yr {,',' `~i'~u~lt' ~
type of street should•be>tprovided; that all the neighbors of thi's°traot had small
' ~, ,;! ~;i~~i~
ahildren aho
oould be in 3eopardy with the<inorease in trafPio; and that he d'id not fi} ~~'y?
intend to subdivide,his property therefore he'aould`see no reason'for tfie,easement,
~ ~ , ,
s .
" ,a'~
~ ,,
, ~~~
Mr. Thompson noted that the eesement aas not'an arbitrary loaation, and aauld be at r
'"r;
the junation of`any of the lots elong'the western;portion of the traot; that no ,
~
legal lots had:been'oreated, but es far as the City,was aonoerned, sinoe this paroel
was a 13-aare one,they were only interested in the future development of the erea.'
After oonsiderable disaussion between the Commission, steYf, owner and representative ~
of the petitioners, it was determined that Purther study should be'given to find '
another solution to the oiraulation problems Yor the property to the west, before
the Commission aould,determine if an easement should be required. ~`
Commissioner Camp offered a motion to.oontinue oonsideration of Tentative,Map of
Treat No. 6066,-,Revision No. 8 to the meeting oY August 12,'1968 in`order to'allow - ` ;
time Yor the staff snd the engineer to meet.to determine if alternativa mathods of ; ~;
providing airoulation to the property to the west oould be found. Commissioner , ? ,;4,
Farano seoonded the motion. tdOTION CARR~D.` i
'
~ ~ i
~
~ s` ~
Commissioner Geuer left the Counoil Chamber, at 2:55 o'alook P.M. ~~'
~ ,
,::.
.
TI ~
,`.
RECLASSIFICATION - PLTBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNI
G COb1~ISSION, `;
N0. 68-69-1 204:Ee,st Linaoln Avenue,,:Anaheim;'Californie,'proposing that ~ ,'i;
property desaribed as: 'Four.lots located generally'at the 'i';
northwest.oorner,of.Linaoln Avenue"and Olana•Way, the oombined I '+
frontage of said lots being approaimetely 270 feet on the north side of Linooln
Avenue and;havin 8a max
B p pproximatel
eet, the westerly boundary
th
~
5 ;
oxl'mate1
330 feet east of
of.said lots bein a y nterline of State College
the
oe '~
Boulevard be reolassified Yrom the R-1, ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to'
the C=O, ,
' `.
,
OO~EERCIAL-OF'FICE, ZONE;
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Broam reviewed the loaetion of subjeot property,
noting that these lots represented one of 17 ereas deemed`appropriate for'aonversion
of homes Yronting on arteriel streets to business-and.professional oFYioe use;`that ,!
the East Anaheim Shopping Center wes direotly_ta the south o£ subjeot p'roperty, and
other aommeroial uses to the pest, with residential uses to the north and east; and
_,,
~
».~.__ 4! ' ~
,¢ Ar
J~~,~" 4 ,~
~'
0 ~
V
4037
MINUTES; CITlC PLANNING COI~dISSION, July 29, 1968
~ RECLASSIFICATION - that an area development plan was not prepared because adequate
N0. 68-69-1 secondary airculation in the form of an alley was available; how-
ever, if the existing residenoes'are pronosed to be utilized for
aommeraial-offiae use, the owners would ';~+.ve to apply for and
.reoeiee approval of ~ aonditional use permit to allow use of the
properties, since none contain 20,000 square feet as required in
the C-0 Zone,yet the lots could be oombined, the structures removed
and replaced with commeraiel struatures if 20,0000 square Peet or
more was provided.
dlrs. Riohard Houck, owner of property at 2125 East Lincoln Avenue, direot3.y aoross
Olana Way from subject properties appeered before the Commission and expressed agreement
with the proposed petition, noting that the lots fronting on Linooln Avenue direatly
aaross from the East Anaheim Shopping Center were no longer suited for residential
uses; furthermore, the shopping nentar was greatly expanding and this would greatly
inarease the flow of traffia into and out of the center, creeting aonsiderable more
noise as well as disturbanoe from lights on vehioles leaving the aenter.
No one appeared in opposition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commi.ssion was of the opinion that subject properties were more suited for the
aonversion of residentisl homes to aommercial use than many other homes in the oity
and that the separation of a street of the remeining homes from thosa westerly eated
as a good buffer between commeroial and residentiel uses. Furthermore, this area
oould be a means of demonstrating that aommeraial office use of properties abutting
residential uses would be aompatible.
Oommissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-228 and moved for its passage and
adoption,°seaonded by Commzssioner Camp to reaommend to the City Coenoil that Petition
for'Re'classifiastion be approved,'sub3eat to oonditions as being e logioal means of
utilization of selected homes fronting elong arterisls for oonversion to oommeraial
uses.(See Resolution Book)
On roll oall the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COd4dISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Herbst, Mungell, Rowland.
NOES: COt~IISSIONERS: None.
' ABSENT: CO~dISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer.
PUBLIC HEARING.
GENERAL PLAN - INI~IATED BY Tf~ CITY PLANNING COtuIDdISSION, 204 East Linooln Avenue,
AMEND6~NT N0. 104 Anaheim, Californie to consider a land use ohenge for the area
generally bounded om the west by Dover Street~on the north by Sevoy
Pleoe, on the east by State College Boulevard, and on the south by
South Street from low density residential to oommeroial professional
use Por properties determined to be appropriate for oonversion of
homes fronting`on arterial highways as depioted in "A Stud;~ of
Problems of Residential Homes Fronting on Arterial Highways".
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviev~ed the general area o£ the proposed
amendment noting that uses to the west were residential;to the north residentiel, and
farther north aommeraiel; to the east two servioe stations end two single-family homes
on t~vo large eareage paruels, and to the south a ooffee shop, nhuroh, and single-family
homes.
Mr. Brown slso noted that there';iad been s definite trend towards oommeroiel uses elong
both sides of Stete College Boulevard both in this aree and extending from La Palma
Avenue on the north and Ba11 Road ori the south; that subjeot area.wes one of the seventeen
areas designated for front-os oonversion to offiae and professional or generel oommeraial
usos, as a result of the City Counoil's adoption of "A Study of the Problem of Residential
Homes Fronting on Arteriel Streets";and then reviewed the number of vehioles presently
using State College Boulevard, e primary street, and the pro3eotion for the street in
ten years, es well as South Straet, s oolleator street; that properties along South
i
' I .i
'~;r
`'i-~
'r:i
;,
~~
~,~,,
:_,,
'~ ;;
, ~ .,
':r;i
~ ;.~
. „"'~
;K
(`:';
,:~
`''J
r.,,,
's ~i
,r, ~
.;~„
,
~ ~~~~.'';i~
~ ;`;
. . . .a~'%'~.. . _ ,.,r,'.1,:~'~;`
~1,,~,.. ~ { ~ .,r ~` A-t ~a'.~'~ ,~Y'u ~"Y~E.s-d~,. K y S~'`~5t~3~''f- r.~~f~yry ~ '~ ~ J i77t '~'`~.`tr``I .+~ly~ 1~` ~ } ~ } ~4.. "~ i :r
5'w f~ ~7 we z ~ t ~. ~ d ~ ~aY+, ~ v~i ro. i
M~ ~ ~, `~ '~' ~ ~' z ~~ .~ '~` w ~ i ~ .~ '~ .T ti
3~~: n~.?~." ...a ~r~ ~ r~ Ts r 'i.
~Y " _._..._ __._'_, :~. . _ -
~
~ ~ ~ . .. ~ ~ ~ . . . . . V ~
4038
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COI~4ISSION, duly.29, 1968
GENERAL PLAN - Street had primary vehicular aocessways to South Street and Dover
AMEND~ENT N0. 104 Stree-~, however, no seoondary oiroulation (alley) was available;
that the properties along State College Boulevard had prima,ry
aaaess to the alley to the west; that the area was served with
very few oommeroiel-professionaT uses and,a large oonoentration oP low-density xesi-
-dentisl uses in this area indioated a definite need Yor many o£ the servioes the
commeraial-professional uses aould provide, however, beoause of the large nommunity
shopping oenter at Linaoln Avenue and State Gollege Boulevard and neighborhood aom-
meroiel shopping Paoilites Yurther down State College Boulevard, generel commercial
uses would not prove eoonomioelly feasible beoause of the small lot siaes; and that j
the Commission would have to determine whether the area under consideration would i
serve the needs as well as being an appropriate land use of these single £amily homes. ~
Furthermore, the existing structures could be utilized subjeot to the approvel of a ,
aonditional use permit, sinae the C-0 Zone requires a minimum of 20,000 square feet ~
of land, or the structures could be removed and lots aombined for redevelopment with
aommeroiel struatures.
A showing of hands indioated 12 persons present in the Counoil Chamber in opposition
to the proposed amendment to the General Plan.
I Mr. Charles Bealer, 1918 Dover Street,Bppeared before the Commission representing the
i opposition, and presented a petition signed by 67 propertq owners all in opposition,
stating all were opposed to anq land use change beoause therewould be no buffer zone
between the proposed commeraisl use and the existing single family use; that the
property values of their homes whioh had increased in the past years would be markedly
affected by a reduotion in value; that the traffio Ylow would increase iizto the resi-
dential streets endangering the lives of the ahildren living i~ this general area;
that a parking problem would result and the home owners would be deprived of the
privilege o: parking in front of their homes; that the noise, lights, additional
traffia, would,detraot from the.leisure time spent in homes surrounding the proposed
bommeraiaY.aree,; and that the beauty oY the aommunity'area in the proposed vicinity
would be degraded, after years of persistent toil and effort on the part of the
community;homeowners.
Mr. Bealer further noted thet they had made a study of the new shopping aenter et
State College Boulevard and La, Pa1me Avenue whioh indiaated a 23~ veaancy faator of
the existing shops; that there was no need for additional oommeroiel uses in the general
area;that; the only ~ooes,s available to the ohildren going to Junior and Senior high
sohool, that being at ~outh Street and the in3eotion o£ additione,l commeroiel uses
would inarease the trafficc hazard for ahildren walking on the sidewalks adjacent
to the proposed oommeroial area; that parking along State College Boulevard would
inarease adding a further hazard to ahildren attempting to oross the street; that
South Street now handling only residentiel traffio would have e, considerable inorease
in oommeroial traffia as well as oommeroiel parking on the street; and that the oon-
tinuous rezoning of residential homes for aommeroiel uses in the outlying areas will
further reduae ti:.e potentiel of rebuilding the downtown srea for high rise offioe
buildings, something that the city of Anaheim needs, and the improvement of the down-
town area is very important. F`urthermore, utilizing the alley for both aommeraial
treffi~ and the storage of trssh will areate a health hsaard for the residential
community.
Mr. Louis Massengale, 729 South State College Boulevard, appeared before the Commission
in opposition and stated that they had'lived in the home for ten yeers having improved
it to th~ point where theq enjoy their home, and he was opposed to any oonsideration
of oommeraial uses for the property along State College Boulevard in the area where
he resided.
The Commi.ssion then noted that only 3 signatures on the petition of opposition were
property owners of the homes under nonsideration „and inquired whether any of the
other owners were'present to present their views, however, no one aame forwexd.
Mr. George Roahford,'705 South Dover Street sppeared before the Commission in opposition
noting that although he would be affeoted by the proposal, he had not reoeived a legal
notioe, but took the time to conteat all those persons who had signed the petition of
opposition, however he did not have suffioient time to oontaot all the property owners
a£Yeated by the proposed land use ohange; that the woman who spoke or. the previous
petition also voioed their feelings that oommeraisl uses would destroy the residential
?~
;;~
`;1
~''ii,
;~
1r
~
t ; ,i
~;
.~
`';
-. ;',.~
;E,,
~ f"~
;~-~t ^ ,,,;;y,~' ~
p ~ }.-.
'
' , . : . _ ~ -. . ... ..... .- ..... .. ,:
...~ ~.. ..,.~ ~.•.:
~
~
r
_
~ ~ sA•
4~
~
R , . .
.
. .
. . l~.* 1~ . . ~ ~
~
~ _ ..;~~
'.~ '.~
~
. . . .
~
\.J
~
~ ~'
. , . ~
. ~
. `~
.
.
.
- 4039 .
. . ~
~
~
~ "~
; .±~
. .. . .
~ .. . . .
~ ~ ~
~
- ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COI~ISSION, July 29, 1968 ~ ~~.'~~
4
~
~
.
~
. . . . .. . . : L~
GENERAL PLAN - integrity of the area;:.that all the residents were very muah .
;~~
A1~NDMENT N0. 104 ooncerned with;the deterioration'of the downtown area, and the ~'~
approval.of aommeroial uses extending more and more intothe °~~
residentiel areas in the outlying districts wouZd reduae any ~?~~
~ ohanoes of.a revival of the downtoivn area, something that was '°~z
urgently needed if-Anaheim was to take its plaoe as a aity o£ `''i~
'
importanoe . . : :
^~
:'~~'
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ;` ,
;t
~
.
~~
Disoussion held by the Commission resulted in the Commission determining that all ~
, evidenoe presented was against any aonsideration of land use change at this time I
,
and that although the Front On Study deemed this area appropriate for commeraial
conversion, it mi~ht be somewhat ~remeture to oonsider it at this time. (A late
letter of approva was reaeived a ter the Commission hearing.)
~
Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. PC68-229 and moved for its passage and '
adoption to reaommend to the City Counoil that General Plan Amendment No
104 be ~
.
disapproved on the basis that no evidenoe was submitted that the land use change I
was appropriate at this time, and all opposition was expressed by the adjoining .
~
-
~
land owners, with three property oavners affected by the proposed ohangE also in ~
opposition, and no one appeared in favor of the proposal, (See Resolution Book) +
;
On roll oall the foregoing resolution was passed bq the following vote: ~.~~'
~;"~
.
t~
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland.
NOES: CO~IDGISSIONERS: None. {
;
ABSENT: CO~ISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer. i `
~ --*
AECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY TI~ CITY PLANNINC, COI~ISSION ~
,
N0. 68-69-2 204 East'Linaoln Avenue, Anahaim, California; property desoribed
as: Two paroels of property generally looated at the northwest
AREA DEVELOPMENT aorner.of South Street a
d Stat
`
n
e College Boulevard, and further
PLAN N0. 98 desaribed as follows: Parael No. 1- Four lots fronting on the ~ ''
north side of South Street, the westerly boundary being Dover
Street and the easterly boundary being approximately 160 Yeet
west of the oenterline of State College Boulevard
a
d P
l
;
n
aroe
No. 2- Seven lots
fronting on the west side o£ State College Boulevard, being bounded on the north
by Savoy Avenue and om the south by South Street. Property presently classi~ied
R-1
ONE FAMILY RESTDENTIAL
ZO
;
,
NE.
PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION: - C-0, CO~RCIAL-OFFICE, ZONE
AREA DEVELOPA~NT'PLAN N0. 98 - To oonsider seaondary aooess solution for ell ;;
paroels fronting on 5outh Street.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown noted for the Commission that tha proposed
reclassitioation was Yor those properties'~ust reaommended for disapproval for
more intense land use on the General Plan, ead that the Area Development Plan
indiaeted thst an additional three feet of dedioation w~uld be required from the
lots fronting on State`College Boulevard for street widening purposes, and that
th
iz r
e s
e of the lots fronting on South'Street would be reduoed to 77.5 feet, sinoe
the C-0 Z
r "
one
equired seoondary airoulation(elley);.furthermore,
beoause of the ~~
,
shellow rear yard depths of:the South Street properties,'in order to provid^ parking "'
in:the rear, the struotures would have to'be removed; however only the anoessory
struatures for the State College Bouleva
d
e
w `~~~
r
prop
rties
ould have to be removed
to rovide parking in the reer. _
P ; i~
s ',
Mr: Brown further noted that there were three alternatives for the development j
of the properties: (1) Development in aoaordanoe with'all the site development `^
standards of the C-O Zone, inaluding,the requirement Yor e minimum 20,000 square
foot`site area; (2) Adoption
b
res
l
ti
r a
~
'
,
y
o
u
on A
ea Development Plan No. 98 (Exhibit A)
whiah would allow development st less that 20
OOO
q
e
fe "
,
,s
u
re
et, but require all the
other site development standards of the C-0 Zone; or (3) Development using a oombina ~';
`~
-
tion of both l and 2 in order to sssure.adequate vehioular oiraulation.
;: ':7
.R
~.~.. ..._ _, ~~ ' r; ,:~ ~,,',
~y }''} ; ~ _ - , ..., , .
~~,~ ,
Y S~. r . ~ . . . . , ~ . ~ . . ~ ~ ~ ~
.P..' . , .. . ~ . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~
.~, . . ~ ~ ~ . - . .
n'~'~' . . . . ' . ' . .
~'~ ~~, ". . .. . . 41JY0 ~ .
~ ~~',~; r'~ . . . . .
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CO~ISSION, July 29, 1968
,;;,
RECLASSIFICATION - The opposition indiaated their oomments made r,egarding the General
~..;> N0. 68-69-2 Plan Amendment No. 104 were elso appliaable to the reclassifiaation
petition and area development plan.
~, ~,~; AREA ' DEVELOPMENT
'~ PLAN N0: 98 THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst ofYered Resolution No. PC68-230, and moved for its passage and
". .`E''rP adoption, seaonded by Commissioner Mungall, to reaommend to the City Counoil that
Petition Por Reolassifiaetion No. 68-69-2 be disapproved on the basis that the change
is not warranted at this.time, and properties are still usable for residentiel purposes
(See Resolution Book)
, ~~~
`I_"'~? On roll oall the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
'ti
}~ AYES: CONIDLISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland.
;~~
`~~.; NOES: CO~ISSIONERS: None.
~~
' + ABSENT: CObIMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer.
_: ~;
: ,;t'
Coummissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. pp68-231 and moved for its passage and
,`~ adoption, seaonded by Commissioner Mungall, io reaommend to the City Council that
'''..,c,
Area Development Plan No. 98 be disapproved.(See Rssolution Book)
~~ On roll aall the foregoing ~esolution was passed by the following vote:
~ ~~~.
:: ~'f~fr
~~:?,;;u:; AYES: COE~EISSIONERS: Cam Farano Herbst Mun all Rowland.
-,x.,_ P~ ~ ~ B ~
NOES: CObWdISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: CO~ulISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer.
GENERAL PLAN - PUBLIC HEARING. IlJITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COD~IISSION, 2Q4 East
AA~NDt~NT N0. 105 Linooln Avenue, Anaheim;,Cs].ifornis to oonsider a land use chenge
Por the.area generally bounded on the west by Citron Street extending
', RECLASSIEICATION northerly approximately 158 4eet, on the east by Harbor Boulevard,
N0. 68-69-3 and om the south by Broadway from medium density residential to
ao~ieroiel professional uses.
PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COI~EISSION, 204 East
Linaoln Avonue, Anahei~, California proposing that propertq desaribed as: All those
lots fronting on the iiorth side of Broadway between Citron Street on the west and Harbor
Boulevard on the east be reolassified from the R-2, MUIIPIPLE FAMILY AESIDENTIAL and C-2
GENERAL COh~RCIAL, ZONES to the C-0, COdmdERCIAL OFFICE, ZONE.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pet Brown noted for the Commission that as a result of the
Front-0n Studq, sub~ect saendment and reolassifioetion petition were initiated; that
xio previous General Plan ~lmendment had been oonsidered for this erea, although Area
Development P1an No. 11 was approved for this area by the Gity Counoil on Deoember 15,
1'JE4; that several zoning;petitions had been prooessed for this area, the reolassifioation
petition and varianoe Yor the fourth lot to the.west aras epproved, homever, the oonditions
of epprovsl had`not'been met; two;oonditional use,permits, one for use of the western two
paraels Por a ohuroh now existing, and one to permit the third lot from the west to be
utilized for Sunde,y sohooT olesses in an existing multiple-femily residantiel struoture;
snd that a varianoe to permit a real estate offioe in an existing residential~struoture
for the seventh lot from the west, and one'to permit a legal offioe in an existing
struoture the seventh lot from the east hed been granted, however the uses were not
being exeroised at this time.
Mr. U. E. Hsuer, 106 North Claudins Street indioated to the -0 ommission that the
Reolassifiaetion and ~srianoe petition for the fourth lot from the west was still
aative,,and that he was in fevor oP the proposed General P1an Amendment and Realassifioa-
tion petition.
No one eppeared in opposition.
THE HEARING YPAS CLOSED.
; `;;,;:
~
~ ~,^;
i
~
~
I
~, ..
;,, ,;.
's
~"~ ` r, };;~
~, . ,
• _ ,_ _.... . - -_-_
.
, ,_ ..:. . , ..,. ..,.
-
-
Q ' ~ ~
4041
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COI~.iSSION, Julq 29, 1968
GFmt~'RpT+ PLAN - During the disoussion then held by the Commission it was determined
A~GENDD~NT NO."105 that the proposed sr~~a was e logioal one for aonversion to the
oommeraiel professicmal or offiae use, since the lots had oottsiderable
RECLASSIFICATION depth whioh couId p:rovide for the widening of the elley, as well as
N0."68-69=3 the required rear yerd parking.
Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC68=232 and moved for its passage and
adoption, seaonded by Commissioner Herbst to.recommend to the Ci,ty Counail that General
P1an Amendment, No. 105 be approved (Exhibit "A"). (See Resolution Book)
On roll oall the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYESa CJMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland.
NOES: CO~SSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: CONID4ISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer.
Commissioner Farano ofPered Resolution No. PC68-233 and moved for its passage end
adoption, seaonded by Commissioner Herbst to reaommend to the Citq Council that Petition
for Reolassifiaetion No. 68-69-3 be approved, subjeot to aonditions.(See Resolution Book)
On roll aa11 the Poregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: CO~dISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland.
NOES: CO~i2SSI0NEAS: None.
ABSENT: CO~ISSIONERS: Allred, vauer.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. FRANK HORNY, 353.South La Brea Avenue, Los Angeles,
I{N
PEA~IT N0. 1050 Californie, Owner; HARRY I{NISELY, 1741,South Euolid Street, Suite "B",
Aneheim,,California, Agent; requesting permission`to establish a
333-unit; THREE STORY !!~ANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPI~NT WITH WAIVERS OF
(1) MAXIMi7M BUILDING HEIGHT; (2) ~LINIMUM.HUILDING SITE AREA PER DWELLING UNLT; (3)
MINI~UM FLOOR.AREA'PER DWELLING UNIT; (4) MINIldU~G BUILDING SETBACK; AND (5) MINIMUM
NU~LBER OF REQUIRED COVERED PARKING SPACES; (6) REQUIRED MASONRY WALL on property desoribed
as: An irregularly shaped paroel of approaimately 5.9 aores of land having a frontage of
epproximately 396 feet on the north aide of North Street and a meximum depth of approxi-
metely 839 feet, the easterly boundary of said paroel being Lido Lane and the westerlq
boundary being approximately 280 Yeet east of the aentarline of Loara Street. Property
presently olassified R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
Mr. Harry Knisely, agent for the petitioner, requested to be heard prior to any report
on sub,jeat petition, then noted thati the Report to the Commission indioated the possibili-
_ ty that the Citizens Capital Improvement Committee for Cultural Arts snd Reoreation was
proposing to reaommend thet Sage Park, ad~soent to sub3eot property be expanded by
approximetelq three sores to the west of the present loaation; that the Perks and
Reareation Depsrtment had indiaated aonaurrenoe with this reoommendation, feeling that
this additional area is nenassary not only for reorastional uses, but to provide a more
Punotional oiroulation pattern to'the park, sinoe its only eooess at the present time
is vie Lido Lane, whioh had proven to,be verq inadequate. Therefore, sinoe the City
Counoil was soheduled to hear this at publio hearing on August 5, 1968 and the Priority
Commission to aonsider it possiblq,at the August 7 meeting, sub3eot petition should be
oontinued in order that'this new data might be assessed by the petitioner, in the event
it is recommended tha enlargement of the park take plaoe within the nexttwo years, for
the possible submission`of revised plans.
Chsirman Rowland advised the:agent that the Committee's:Report would have to be approved
by the City Counail, and the soheduling oP the purohase of the land might take some time,
therefore, the only eation whioh oan be taken st Paoe velue by the petitioner`within a
two-week oontinuanoe was the faot that the City.Counoil approved the reoommendation.
A showing of hands indiosted that approximatelq 25 were opposed to sub3eot petition, and
l0 were in Pavor.
w ~,
;: ~~
~{. ~~i
~r'
';+ ~~j
:ti
~
~
:Y
; ,,r
,r
;, '~
^,
~;:'
i a~
~
~ 'i r~d
; ~l;
V'
n',:
;`sy:
x~
:;ti
+,
,
- ••;~ ,~;~
r;
~
.+_W°`"
~i rU~~:~ !«~+",G' ir 'Y'~ "i
~
~J ~ f /~~:. ~ - ff ,, t~y~~l,~
l ~
-
~
~,~7~~
f
;,~ '
'
~
~
"".
1.~ \\
~
4042
' MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CO~~LISSION, July 29, 1968
r. .
Y ~~s. ~~. ~ ~ - ~
r.~. ~; CONDITIOIdAL USE -~r. Ralph Callen, 1443 Park Avenue, eppeared before the Commission
~F;;~ . PER~EIT-N0. 1050 and presented e petition signed by 159 persons in this general area,
all in opposition, and stated tha~ all the persons present came to
~ g voioe their opposition to the proposal whioh was far beyond the soope of the area; that
~~: traffic would inarease greatly in an area already subjected to oonsiderable traffic due
to the shopping oenter; and that those in opposition were opposed to continuanoe of
~d,~~ subjeot petition.
, ; :~
~'~" Ddrs. Ruth Green indiaeted that she oonaurred with Mr. Callen's statements.
~;.,;,:;
;>t; The Commission then inquired of the agent whether the plans under aonsideration would
';~ not be oonsidered invalid, if the City Counoil aaaepted the reoommendation of the
;:T Cultural and Reoreation Committee, sinoe the land would then be acquired through oo:ldemna-
;y tion or negotiation.
1J
Mr. Knisely replied in the affirme,tive~ but stated further that he would be unable to
' answer anq questions beoause af the unoertainty of the existing plans; however, the
~~' Commission oould hear testimony from both the proponents and opponents and reserve
judgment until a later date. Furthermore, he had handled other properties in which
the City had indioated an interest for publio purposes, and this was the prinoipal
`N~ reason for requesting a continuanoe due to the faot that sub'ect ro
developed under the site development standards of the R-3 Zone, but ifrthe6land is
~;F': to be used for a park, then the plans would be null and void.
The Commission then expressed the opinion that more than two weeks would be needed for
any eotion on the proposed expension of Sage Park, and to consider any further evidence
would be uncalled for until preoise plans had been formulated in the event the City did
acquire subject property or a portion of it. Furthermore, there was a possibility that
eoquisition might not be for several years, and it was doubtful that the owner would
defer development until,the City fin$lly deoided when to purahase this land.
Mr. Forres Lamoreaux, 1308 Lido Plaae,'advised the Commission that with all the Little
League games going on at Sage Park, residents oP the apartments on Lido Plaae were
unable to enter their garages beoause people were parking in the private alley, and
if the proposed development was approved this would inorease the parking problem.
Therefore, it was his reoommendation that the Park Commission aoquire adequate land
in order to take nare of the automobiles driving to the park.
Chairman Rowland advised Mr. Le,moreaux that he should present his problem to the
Park and Reareation Commission, and then advised him the date, time and plaoe of the
meetings.
I Commissioner Herbst o3fered a motion to oontinue Petition for Conditionel Use Permit
No. 1050 to the meeting of August 26, 1968 to be soheduled as the first item on the
agenda, in order to allow time to determine the aoneptanae of the Cultural and
Reoreation Committee's reoomntendatian Yor eaquisition of additional a~oreage to enlarge
Sage Park to the west, whioh would enoompass a portion of subjeot property, and for
the petitioner to reviem the reoommendation as it pertsined to the proposed development.
Commissioner 56ungall seaonded the motion. ~LOTION CAftRIED.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. EPHRAIM BEARD, ET AL, 10181 Beaoh Boulevard,
N0. 68-69-11 Stenton, Californie, Owners; property desoribed as: A reatangularly
shaped pe,rael of approximately 4.7 aares of land having a frontage
VARIANCE N0. 2001 of epproxime,tely 330 feet on the west side of Beaah Boulevard and
a masimum depth of approximately 620 feet, ~the northerZy boundary
of said paroel being approximately 330 feet south of the oenter-
line of Ba11 Road. Property presently olassified R-A, AGRICULTURAL,
ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION:` C~3,,HEAUY CONID~RCIAL ZONE
VARIANCE REQUEST: For the southwest portion(approximately 2.O.eares) of the afore-
mentioned pe,rael; said portion being a reatangularly shaped
- parael having dimensions of 500 feet bq 173 feet, and whose
easterly boundary is looeted approximately 160 feet west of
the oenterline oP Beach Boulevard - WAIVER OF PERMI7.TED USES,
TO PERMIT THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF AN ERISTING AUTO SALUAGE
YARD.
~ ;:;
i.
i
~
~
I
I
~ ;~
f
r:_,::~:
i
,
~"~' ' l~y,`~a
~. .r~~~~ ~ r ,:,. .- .. - -
'~- . ~7} . Q - ~ . . ~ ~ _ . . .
~~ ,'ri/15fa b ~ . ~ . . ~}_ . . ~ . . .
i 1
7M ~ r . . . ~ . .
t~ 17
~.:a ~ ~ i,:
tx~; at
k ~." ` . . . . . , .
~.LF ~51 . . . . . .
~4 . ~ . . ~ . . . ~ ' . .
t'y~-`~r- y ~ 4 ~~ . ' . ' .
;G a-~. c r . -, 4043
i.~ , .~ :
~•;~ ~
x~~ t~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING CO~ISSION, Julq 29, 1968 ~
: 34~~ :~ ' . .. .. . .
*~V A u . . . . .. . .. - ~ ~ . . .
",~~`;,`4+r ~ RECLASSIFICAgION - Ass3stant Zoning Supervisor Pat 3rown reviewed the location of
~-~,~~ ~',~~~'~; : N0. 68-69-11 subjeat property, uses established in alose y, g
~, ~ a~ ;. proximit notin that
~~~ ,, ,, the egisting auto:salvage yard was an expansian of the salvage yard
~r.""; `,' VARIANCE N0. 2001 immediately to the aouth in the aity of Stanton; that the only zoning
~~,,` ~~`°~" - eation on sub3eat property.wss a aonditional use ermit
1959 by.the City Cpunail to permit the establishment of a mobile homeP $ranted in
sub eat park on a part of
3 propertq; that salvage yards are not permitted uses in the R-A Zone; that the
b~ :y~' Zoning Enforcement OfPiae of tfie City advised the petitioner that the use was not per-
r ~1 s! mi.tted in the R-A Zone; consequently, the subjeot petitions were filed for rezoning of
~,,.~..:;;; the property; that the petitioner proposes to rezone the entire parael to the C-3 Zone ,
9~ , however,plans'submitted by the petitioner indiaated that he intended to use only the
;,.~ southwest portion of the paroel as a salvage yard(the varianoe petition applies to this);
~~; that the salvage area is presently surrounded by an 8-foot high, corrugated metal,
,,; bakelite-finished fenoe,while the balanoe of the Beaoh Boulevard frontage and the
;~; northern portion is proposed to be developed as a Volkswagen new and used asr sales
- ~ and service agenay; and that the General Plan indicates oommeroial uses for this general
~; area; however,the Commission would have to determine whether either or both of these
~;,~r uses were appropriate or desirable for this aree, and i~ so, consideration should be
.r~, given to requiring all development to be in acoordanoe with the site development standards
;~ of the G1 Zone.
•- -~;
,, petitioner a
;~i Mr. Ephraim Beard, the , ppeexed before the Commission and advised that the
i,. salvage yaxd had been in existenae for 22 years and was established while still under
4~y~_;,_:.?~ the jurisdiction of the County; however, it was not as large as it presently exists.
y`'~~'~ The Commi.ssion in uired as to the t
r~..?:. 9 ype of salvage operation the petitioner nad.
"~'r ~~~ Mr. Beard re lied that the
~~r,.li+~ ~ P y purahased late model autamobiles whioh were wreaked and
~ ~- dismentled them, selling parts for other new automcbiles whioh had been involved in
~-~y~ aooidents; and that all-the flismantling was done behind the high 8-foot fenoe. Further-
,~~`~ more, it was their intent to establish a Volkswagen dealership; however, this aould not
~`~m> •' be eooom lished until the
~,,~~,ti~~ P proper zoning was grantedrand the sales and serviae feaility
~ ~~ ~°~~- was oonstruated.
~ ~ z,~ , .
S ,~~
~s,t~r~ The Co¢miission then inquired whether or not a selve,ge operation would be,continued after
+~ F~ the new ~ar agenay was granted him; to whioh the petitioner indioated his intent to have
~ ~,?;;~ both operations.
, ,~ ~~,~
= Mr. George Naganishi, owner of the mobile home park at 3050 West Hall Road, appeared
r, ~
;;t before the Commission and ob3ected to the faot that the existing salvage yard was
~~
t
' areating quite a problem, sinoe persons, not residents of the mobile park, were driving
~s ~~ ~:;.
~, in late e,t night using the existing 6-foot masonry wall to vault over the 8-foot fenoe
~~,~ .,~~ to burgle parts from the petitioner's faailities, and these persons were breaking down
a .~,~
' the wall as well as all the landsoaping, creating quite a disturbanoe, oausing the
,+,
,j~
..r , residents of the mobile park some aonoern.
~~'~~~
`
'
~ Mr. Beard advised,the Commission that there was very little burglarizing prior to the
<i,
N
~. ereotion of the 6-foot masonry wall, sinoe it was diffioult to soale an 8-foot fenoe.
~ T ,~„'E
~' ~ti?'
The Commission inquired of Mr. Nage,n3shi whether or not the salvage operation was
~„
^ t~ ~it~
~
'~5 aausing any problems with the tenents of the park. Whereupon Mr. Naganishi stated
th
t h
b
t
~ t
,~~d
~'
`
~ a
e o
jeoted
o the use of his ro ert to 3 property; that
P p y gain aooess to sub ect
h
t}r
~ k~~
„;
;~t e had complained meny times to the poliae, but reoeived little or no action, and this
invasiom oP th
#
t
~~ i~,,
' e ~
ivaoy of
he tenents of the perk to,suah en extent that some oP the
~~
~ + ! ~~ .~^E~
~ A~t.~G~ .
~ S~ residents had indioated they were moving beoause of ell the disturbanoes.
~ ~ . .
~' ~
t
, ~~
~,~,
~}.~ Mr: Beard, in rebuttal, stated that although he was aware'there hed been thefts
it was
o~
~' ,c~~~
' ,
his opinion that there were femer thsn the opposition indiested; that they had tried to
~~ ~
~
y~~t : ~,
~~x~
~~~?tS~~ be good neighbore, however, he oould not stop the thefts; and then in'response to
Commission questioning stated tHet they had 20 polioe reports in the,past 12 years.
F
th
~,W _
' ;,,~~,~
° ur
ermore, they had a guard servioe for the Pront
portion, and the theives aould
~,~~i~ s~~~,
~ only gain saoess to the salvage;yard'from the mobile park whiah abutted the yard;
~,~
`' r4°~~
~ and that even if subjeat petition were denied, the use had been established legally
~,a ~ z
,
~
- ~~y°
~
~f+
: snd would remain there, however, they mere attempting to develop the property, and
iP the pro
t
,~ ~
.
` H4
~
"
' per
y were developed this would reduae the number of thefts.
tc
~ ~
-~
'~t "
~ ~.~rh~?,: THE HEARIlVG WAS CLOSED.
~
~~ i ~Y t r
~ ,~+ T! T.tt,`
~ ~I l r~~ '
~}
~ . ' ~ ' '
' ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
~.I
Mf .
f
i '4yr
1 l lll~r;y~ , " , . . .
. . .
~ . . . . . . ~ . . ~ . ~ .. ~ .
IL~} Z.. . ~'
~ , . . . . . . . . , ~ . .
~
< h ~c i
~ ~
~±~+r { . .
. . . . . . . .
~~ ~' 1
i j~ ~,J
y ~
~°
'~ M ~
S.a> na a ;~' a
k
~.~~C~e~,.aA1r... w:C ~:~sT:x.._ .
.,'~ ;~,,. .. . .. ..,.:. .. ~ -: ~.-... . . . . ~ . ' .. ~. .
~f ~~,~.v .. ~~_Y' '~ ~ht ~`f s, . ~ ~` ~ " ~~r,, ~+ ~ +t'r~k ~*J ym ~~ 4`,~,. ~ f°a~u ~g`,~, x#-•*~.~ t.~ r ? n r +~ c wF F :
s's" Z a+ `.~..i.~ : T ~'',', : k~N'"r f~:.~t *yf~ "f11~~. r~ ~~~ R-x ~y , A,~rl?4.~ ~+4 ,-~ rC'Se h P' E~~'h' 5: ,~s v~
',,
,
,~.4.;E....'S' c~ ...: ,y ;.r -'~~ ~.
.., ~. ~~ ,-~,
- . . ,:.. ....6.. s....... . ... ,~. . . ..~~~ .~ .
' ~~ ~~.~ , ~ . ..~.. ~ ~ . ~ ~ .
ao~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION , July 29, 1968
`"~~;~^. ~ , ; , j `.
k RECLASSIFICATION - Disoussion was then held by the Commission su¢marized as follows: `~h
. w~e„ /^..,'~.i ~ r
~, ~, ~~,.~,~~,, , N0. 68-69-11 1) that the salvage; operation had been in operation for a number
4~5 tiL~ of.years, however, the use and property was no longer agricultural, '~
s~ ai = VARIANCE N0. 200..1 therefore, the Commi.ssion would have to decide whether or not the ;:'~
'i ~- .
vs`~ """• t.~~ zoning requested was appropriate or whether a lighter oommerciel s:~
eoning with e varianoe to permit the ezistin and 'x~
should be required~ 2) that the salva e g proposed use ;
~ g yard was one of the best maintained throughout "t~
~~; Fti s.4~ the County; 3) that heavy oommeroial uses mi ht not be a ~~'f,
B ppropriate for Beeah Boulevard, ,F~~
,~,~;' ,~, ;~ and expansion of the salvage yard should not be permitted beyond its present limits; i •~,4~'
~,, ''..;~ 4) that the reaommendations of the staff regarding requirement of development in aooord- ~
~;~ .~ ,; anae with the site development standards of the C-1 Zone would plaoe some landsaeping ~ '~~
~; y'.,~~ in the area thereby making it more oompatible and in harmony with the other automobile
;~ agenoies in the City; 5) that the Co~.ission was not opposed to an automobile agenay, ~ ?
X; but the granting of a blanket C-3 Zoning~sinae plans of development were not submitted;
~~ :~ . and that perhaps a C-3 Zone with deed restrictions might be the answer.
j!~
" Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the City Counoil had been ~I
" ~ disaouraging the filing of dsed restrictions and development in accordanoe with these 1
~'
~cfi deed res+,Tiations; however, one of the most critiael considerations before the Commission
,~' ,~,~ wes the approval of a servioe faoility along with the existing salvage yard in alose
;,~;; proximity to the mobile home park, whiah was strictly a residentiel use. Therefore,
}~ ~` a possible alternative was to require develo ment.: lans a
~' P p pproved by the City Council
~~ ~ prior to issuanae of a building permit, which would then limit the type of use rather
than the filing of private deed restriotion4. ~
s ri
~ ~
r :;'~~ Mr. Thomas ~Liller, the proposed operator of the car agenoy, appeared before the Commission
; ~~,, and stated he now opereted the car lot on Beach Boulevard, and the rezoning o£ the
~`~ property was to meet the City's requirements; however, it was also proposed to have used
,,, cars as well as new nars, and the servioing of both.
c~ ti,°'._ ;i
~` a~ ~'~~~ A£ter further disaussion between the Commission and the staff~ it was determined that
~' ~~~'~ the7Planning Commission was limitad in denying aontinued use of the salva e ~
g qard on the
~~ ;~';~ky~y,~~ basis that people were burglarizing it by gaining aooess"from the mobile home park, since {
Y' ~~ 't~ the use, elthough e non-aonforming use,had been established for a aonsiderable length of ,
Ihi'eR N. . .
:, pr1F,~F;~ : time while under the jurisdiation of the County. .,
$ 4w ~ . '
d ` ~~, ~ perha s both ~
The Commission then deoided that p petitions should be readvertised permitting ~
:~.~~, C-1 Zoning~and the varianoe to allow the two separate uses, so that adequate oontrol
' tis'`~'~ could be meintained in the event both uses beoame ob3ectionable to the area.
1'v r, ~~
j' ~;~; Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to reopen the hearing an~ continue Petit~one for
~ ~~ Reolassifiaation No. 68-69-11 and Varianoe No. 2001 to the :neeting of August 12, 1968,
, ;.~ direoting the staff to readvertise the petitions Yor C-1 Zr~ning and two separate waivers
~ ;~ for the two uses proposed for the property, and to require submission of development
4~ x,. plans for approval to the City Counoil prior to issuanae of a building permit for the
'~ ~'~ automobile agenoy. Commissioner Farano seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
i>as ,,~`
~au~ ,~~± Recess - Commissioner Herbst moved for a ten minute reoess. Commi.ssioner Farano seoonded
7~"U~ ' the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting reae~sed at 4:15 p.m. ~
+k~l o .. . . . ' . ~ . _ ~ , .`ti'
,~',yrif: Reaonvene - Chairman pro tem Rowland reaonvened the meeting~Commissioners Allred and 1
~~+',,,x~ Gauer being absent~ at 4:28 p.m.
,F RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. MILTON HITGHES 12215 Hrookhurst Street, Garden Gruve,
~ ~ ~~
"~~~' N0. 68-69-12 California, Owner; GEORGE P. KARCHER, 10301 Perdido Road, Anaheim,
a v~, ~'~.~ '
~; `~+~A;~ .- Californis, Agent; requesting that<property desoribed as: A reotang- '+
~. y~yt ularly shaped paroel of land, aomprised of two lots, having a combined frontage of
r~ ,.~~~",~~ approximately 198 faet on the west side of Eualid Street and a maximum depth of approxi- '''
';. ~'yc_ matel y 142 fee t;' t h e n o r t h e r l y b o u n darq o f sa i d parce l being approximetely 520 feet south :,
~~'Y'N; of the oenter.l.i.ne of Ball Road have'DEED RESTRICTIONS DELETED LIMITING THE USE TO BUSINESS
` yy~"',r', 4 , ~ ,
,. ~t°rs~ AND P80FESSIOI~lIli'• OFFICE USE in the C-1, GENERAL COD~LERCIAL, ZONE.
44+r . .. : . ~ ~ . .
y ~~ ~yF y~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ' . ' , ~ ~ . . ~ . ~ . . . . .
~,~}~, Assistant Zoning.Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed for the Co~ission the loaation o£ subjeot
~ r+~~ property, uses established in alose y, P
y, proximit deed restriotions im osed on the use of
*~ , subjeat property by the City Counoil, together with the faot that development would have
,- "r.• to be in aoaordance with Exhibits on file with the original reolassifiaation petition, and
~ `" that the
petitioner proposed to extend the eaisting neighborhood shopping oenter southerly. -
e;~ ~~
;iY,. .,
, ;",~, ~;
~ ~s;, 'y
7 j. • ~ti
~~ t ~~"ki.5~i. _~~ .v.,.~:.rauu..W.. . ...,. ... ......... . . ... ~ , ~ . . ~ ~ .- ~ ~ - ~.'`^'L'ac~?R. /'- ~V'~1
~,. i~.
.24^
4 ry~.,~ r.., u t "' i rS 2, ia h ~ M, st
~.
i'e .t i~+' ~ ~~i'~ ~~ ~` 's'~ ~' ~-; 1 ~y~
_ s ^ N`t ~yY. y 1 ~ i b~i~ ~,
~„ \
Jr
~
'
~
~
k~ } ~ ~
,
~
t. .` y ~
,
_
_~_ _
/ f
,~
1
t' `
,
~~
{.*.G
~. : ~
' . . 1
~ . . .
~
~
~
~ '~ ~~
~ f
. .
.
~ ~
~
~ ~
~Y:
. .
,
.
. ~ ~ . ~ . y
~.': :~
. . ~ . . ~ . . rrJ
4045 ~ ~ ~
,,Y, ~~:, . M17VUTES, CITY PLANNING C0~62SSION~ July 29, 1968 I '. . ~:,
~=. •
RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Brown further noted that the General Plan depioted this area for ~
' N0, 68-69-12 1ow density residential use, however zoning for bueinesa and profess=..
~`.:' ional land use had been approved for subjeat and the other lots ~
`J'~ extending to.Chalet Avenue; and that it would appear that no signifi- `,~~;;
aent land uses had.oaourred whioh would warrant Yavorable oonsideration
.
~;~ of removal of the deed restriations to permit a more intense oommeroial `
'~ti
• use for subjeot propertg. -
~-~~
~y Mr. Geor e Keroher, a ent for the
B g petitioner, appeared before the Commission, noting the ~~~s~'`~
~t
~
~ ' petitioner would aomply with the reoo~ended oonditions of approval; that the property !t~
. was directly south of the existing shopping oeriter at Ball Road and Euolid Street
and r
,
was doing a very good buainess; that the petitioner had been attempting to interest
physiaians and dent~sts through aontaat with various real eatete offioes in developing
, subjeat propertq, however, the only response was from pereons interested in a small
. shopping center; that an off-set printer was in need of a larger faaility, and sub,jeot -
~; property would suit his needs verq well; that the shopping oenter to the north encroaohed
~
' more on the single family homes abutt4ng it than the proposed use of subjeot property,
~ beoause an alley~extending from the southerly bounderq of tlie shopping center to Chalet
Avenue~could serve as a good buffer together with a six-foot masonry wall, and that the '
y proposed use of the property seemed to fill a need for aontinuanae of the shopping center
,: due to the feat that the remeining three oorners of the intersection of Ball Road and
' Euclid Street were already developed with commeroial development wh`iiiqh would be serving -
~`r~ the many multiple family units being aonstruated along the east side~of Eualid Street.
`
1,~ ~~~
~ Dr. A. J. Dietriok 10732 Katella Avenue a
, , ppeared before the Commission and rioted that ``~
if subjeat property were developed in a manner that would be in h e r m o n y w i t h t h e a r e a,
~ ~
this would inorease the value of the area; that he owned the remaining vaoant parael,
r`'`~ but had been unable to develop it due to the faat that to make it eaonomioally feasible
s two-story construction was neaessary, and a two for one setbaok from the single family
~
.,;~; homes was requz..ed.
'
a
,~ kr,~ )
Dr. Dietriok, im response to Commission questioning as to whether he intended to request 1
~.a
` removal of deed restriations on his property if sub~sot petition was granted, stated that ~
;
~_' he would need e varianoe.to build two-story on his property, however, he wes not certain ~ i~:
r.s~y whether he would ask~.for deletion of the deed reatr.iat~ons.
+ iti'•
~~ ~
Dr. A. R. Budd, 1311 South Euolid Street, owner of the ~
professional offiae building to ;
~ the south o£ subjeot property eppeared before the Oooomise3on in opposition, noting that
-'~f'
a
' the original plaxi was to develop al•1 the property for offioe-pro3esaion~ use as the !
ti~',~;+ deed restriotions indiaate; that he had invested aonsiderable money in the buildings on
his property oomplying with these restriotions, and to,p~~ the deletion d~ these
~`.~ deed restriations would be unfair sinoe they had developed in good faith, and the new
-;r' owner of the two lots under oonslderation had purohased the lots ]mowing full well that
`i;-;
k the property was limited to business and
professional uses; that the lots under oonsidera-
;_;a,;: tion are oonsiderably shallower than the adjaoent oommeraial. development, therefore,
:~ development we~~.'. more diffioult; and that there is no need for additional oommeroial
7 stores,sinoe four oY the stores have been vaoant for more than a year, while quelity
~u~ aommeroial-professional faoilities will be an asset to the area
.
,~
'
Mr. Phillip Younes, 1315 Falaon Street, appeared in oppoaition representing several
`-~ residentiel property,owners present in the Oounail Chember, and presented a petition
;~j signed by 12 property owners abutting sub3eot property to the west also oppos5d to the
;,; request for deletion of deed restriotions, sinae the existing zoning had been approved
,r~ after considerable ogposition from the xesidents of this general area who had finally
$}
' agreed,to the professional-office zoning beoause it offered the least in terms of noise,
r
iy t l. ~ light, hours of operation, end traffia hazards; that the residents in this area took
. , . . . . .
~k~ ~ great pride in me,intaining,their homes and yards, and any heavier aommeroiel enoroaahment
~,~ will detraot from the area; and that he urged the 0ommiss•ion to deny the request for
r~
,t deletion of the existing deed restrictions on aub3eot property.
~,~,:,'~
r,'fi Mr. Karcher, in rebuttal, noted that the stores whioh had remained vaasnt in this area '
YcY
` was beoause the owner was very seleotive as to his lessees; that there was a definite ~
~;~ need for stores in this area,-and the stores in the oenter abutting sub3eat property ~
,4~
° had been consistantly oaoupied; that the distanoe between the alley;and~'.the proposed
,~;;~ store would be the seme as that to the north and the arohiteoture would be similar;
s~f~ that the owner was hopeful of,removing the existing masonry wall between subjeot and
*~ the aommeraiel_property'to the north in,order to have adequate parking sinoe only
~ ;~
~'-'~~
~;'r
. one tenant would oooupy the new buil
ding. .-. _ _. _..;,.,;
-
r
,
~
t.r
~
~'
~~*
,
74~ _ _
..,, ,
W
. ,~:-..,
.,.,,
~.
_.~.__._ ..___ .
,.__._._.w___~...__... _. _ .. ~:•"~I
_,.,..~_...,. _ _ _-- _. .,~, . .. .
.,__ ... ~~'1
?; ~
, < `~4 r ti y .f FR,~+'.r~ j~-~c ~ tl M ~ e~ JY,~~t _ *. ~~y~A.ns'---~ ~ ~'}~ ~~1~~ ~``~7 ~ ~' ~ i + ` ~ r i # ::'
-: ~~_•rw~~ a ~~~y,F. 1 ~tf~+f .di. at~ x ~ x i~~ a {r~. r~'f x a~' v 5yx + J ~, ~, ~
~f~ t, r ..:Y :~ •:~ ~ ~ ~ J ~ ` -r`
~
}
~ ~;,~
~ (, L;.,
J ~ ``~~~
.;
~~
~.~
4046 ~~ ~
MCNUTES, CITY PLANNING CO~GISSION, July 29, 1968 ~;_„'
::
RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Karoher, in response to Commi.ssion questioning, stated that the ...,;
w
,::.~.~
"
N0. 68-69-12 petition~,r was attempting to provide faoilities for whiah he had t
tenants; that the proposed structure would not down-grade the area; ~i
that the City would derivo more revenue from regular commeroial uses ;~'~
than if developed for professional-offioe.use, and that plans o£ development oould be •:'~~
submitted to indiaate that the development would`be as good or better than that to the ~~
north. F'urthermore, the present owner.did not plan a aooktail lounge or bar as the
~
~
i ~~
';a,
i
prev
ous owner had requested. .
,,y..
Mr. Younes, then stated that the removal of the existing wall adjacent to the commeraial ;
~n
I
property to the north would open up the alley, permitting aommeroial truoks and other },
~~
vehiales to use the alley whioh was also used by many of the small children living in ;.:,~~
;
`':4~;
the ad3soent homes; and that the proposed printing firm for the building proposed would .
areate oonsiderable noise and odors would be most objeationable to the single family
residents to the west.
, ' '.
~
y
3
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
~: Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-234, and moved for its passage and
~;;,~;, adoption, seaonded by Commissioner Camp to reoommend to the City Counail that deed
,.:`~~~` restriotions not be removed from subjeot property by disapproving P.etition for
a~~ Reclassifioation No. 68-69-12, on the basis that no land use ohange had taken pleoe
`.,* to warrant Pavorable aonsideration of the deletion of deed restriations; that full
;"Sr
~~ C-1 Zone uses would be detrimentel to the residential integrity of the single family
s~ homes to the west, as well as to the professional offiae buildings established in
`.~:~ oonPormanoe avith the deed restriations, and that more intense oommeraial uses of the
~~~-~ alley to the rear aould oreate traffio hazards. (See Resolution Book)
i :? ~~
~
~;~~ The Poregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
u;;~.:~
AYES: , CO~ISSIONEF.S: Camp, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland.
NOES: CO~SISSIONERS: ~'arano.
ABSENT: CO~LNI2SSTONERS: Allred, Gauer.
Commissioner Farano in voting "NO" stated that ohanges had taken pleoe on Euclid Street
and would aontinue to take plaae, thus regular aommeroiel use of the property would be
more appropriate, hoaever, he was not in favor of a printing shop, as the agent had
indioeted would be the tenant.
~"
~ ;rr~ RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. A. ~LTNG, 114 North Coffman Avenue, Anaheim,
N
,~
' 0. 68-69-13 California, and ROBER PANNIER, 2056 South Loara Street
Anaheim
M. ,
,
Californie, Owners; AAMOUR HUILDING CO~GPANY, P. 0. Box 3236, Anaheim,
~ s•~
" CaliYornis, Agent; requesting that property desaribed as: An
,
;~
~'~ irregularly shaped paroel of e,pproximatelq 29 aores of land generally looated north of
th
~~ ~
~ e Santa Ana River and south of the Riverside Freeway, having a frontage of approximately
1
0
.r ,1
0 feet on the south side of Frontera Street and a meximum depth of approximately
'
,~
: 1,200
feet, the easterly boundary of said parcel being approximetelq 1,000 feet west
of th
o
~~
~ e oenterline
Y Kraemer Boulevard be reolassiPied from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL
ZONE
k r=,
a ,
to the R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL,'ZONE.
- , ~
.
a LR~' 'r,'i5 Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the loaation,of sub3eot property
the
~
i~ ,
proposed zoning, previous zoning aotion on the property, noting that the petitioner
~~~ t
~,k,~„
~^ proposed to develop sub3eot property,for apertments in three approximate 10-aare
inore
e
t
-h
e
,
i° y
'~`"~
~
~ m
n
s,
om
ver no development plans had.been submitted; Purthermore, prior to
th
c
m
l
ti
'^ ~ ;
,
nP";. ~:
7r ~ e
o
p
e
. , .
on of the Report to the Commission; the petitioner had met with members
of the st
ff f
t
Z~ '
'
~
?}~~ a
or,
he purpose,of devaloping a oonoept plan the~t would meet the intent
a
+
;
, nd purpose of General P1an Amendment.No. 97; and'Area llevelopment Plan No. 37
5~ ~~Y 'r~ reooamiended for approval by.the Commission; and that the oonoept plan`would be submitted
~~ Y~~L~r~ to the Commission at the hearing today. However, 3f the oonaept plan is'oonsidered
5 ~
~'
+ ' ~n n
~~ ~ w
~` '~ favorably, the staYY would reoommend a aontinuanoe oP subjeot petition for the purpose
o
~
;
~ t,
~ f working out preaise zone bouttdaries.
~ ~r'~ ' ~
~ ~'~
~, i
i ~a~ w5,
~i ~~~ . . . , . . . . .
~ . ~ .
~ .t ~ !ff~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ . ~ . , .
~
5~ 5Y
~~~~,~ 1 _
~ ~ "';S
~ ~71 .
. . ~ . . . .
. . . . ' . . . ~
V~ ~
t~ r,
~~ 1 -~ :~
a~"~'
~
~...~
N . .. ~ - . . ~ ~ . . ~ .
. . ~ .
~ . .
~
.'
~~'~t th ~ .
~;7~e~ '
~ ±
~
1 ' i7~• '
L
~ . . . . . .
. . . .
. ~ . . . .
' . ,. . ~ ..
.
~ 11' 'f
LJr~ns'..). l
k
d.M.S:.'i ..
-_. ~ . ~ ~ ~ . . . . . . .
_ .;,;
~;
` ~b~
~, ri
~ i=~
i:i~i
-;w
~ ~~;
,;
`s
;'t,
,1,
. : ~.i v ~ ~e.u~'tc,rGa .b+~.r.::~4x c
y ' .}, b ! t! Y
tl . 's ro e;' z i ~t 1 ~'!~ ~~*"1 ~ ~.~d+r~"'+, i Sr~';•~,„;~.: ~ r~~'§~'` ,~ ~° rv'~~~ .~l j
~
~
X
_
~ ~ ~ ., ~
w~Y?y,,~~
.S
~, t
~ ~~) >n"W1n .
~, . ,. ~
k
~
r
~~~
Z
~
, . . . ..
. . ~~ . ~ .. Yv
~~
~~r
4 xjk {~~
. .
. . . ~ . . . ~ ~ . F~ $~~~ ~
~ ~
, 4047 ~~
t'~ ,.t~.,~,~~'~,
MIlJUTES, CITY PLANNING CO~LISSION, July 29, 1968
.
~
~ ~i~~~ t '
,~ , w,..~: +
. ,..,
.. .
~.~...,~ ~. . . .~-;. ..... .. . .... . . ,
< RECI;ASSIFICATION - Mr. Lsrry Armour, agent for the.petitioners, appeared before the ` .. r ~ ti ~{'~~~~.~ ~
~'~~"~"
NO:. 68-69-13 Commission and
presented a aonaept plan'indiaating.an-axea for
" 'xL ' ''``'~
~+i`' "~'`~`
~
,, R-2, 5000
development and the balance Yor R=3,:noting that the ~ ~ ~v;~
~y ~~
present request was.Por R-3 Zoning, however, since the Co~i:ssiori
h
d
n ,
"~~`~'`'~'
a
reaomme
ded General.Plan Amendment No.•4Z, togetfier with Area.Development Plan ~
~`~~
No. 37, they now.:proposed the;R~-2 5000 along-the southerly,portion of the propertq, and
th
R
3
d ,
~~~~
e
-
ra
ius aould be approximately 300 feet from the nearest R-1 to the south; that
h
w mxk
~~~~"
e
as awere that this was the first request for zoning in.this general area,.but he
felt th ,
t~ ~~
e proposal r.ow before the Commission,in the form oP tHe bonaept plan,was.oon-
sistettt with th
e
t
s ~
~,~'~'x
~
e r
oommenda
ion
made by the'Commission. r °''
~
~
No one a eared in o
PP pposition. ,
; ~
?` ~`~
or;
: vr
THE HEARIldG WAS CLOSED. ~;
Commissioner Farano offered a motion to approve Petition for Realassification ;, ~,
~~`
No. 68-69-13 based on the oonoept plan-submitted. ~
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson then inquired of Mr. Armour whether he was ready to ~;
'
establish zone boundaries based on the conaept; or whether he wished to have sub3eat '"~ ~ ~
petition aontinued until a subdivision me,p and a leyout of design showing the exsat ~6`
;
boundaries and airoulation oould be drawn: ,M1U
R t ~~~`' 4
Mr. Armour then stated they were desirous of hsving the property rezoned so that they
l ~
''v
~
k
wou
d lrnow what they were doing; the,t they would not neoesserilq file e traot map,
i
a
th ,.
,
' ,tf`~
s
n
e
ey did not lmow the preaise straet alignment, and that a leyout of design
c
u ' a~''~~
o
ld not be drawn until all these problems had been resolved
. . ~ t°
'
, . . .
.
. . . . . . . ~ ~
.. ~ . . . ~. .., ,. .
~~ ~
r
r~
.. .
.
Mr Thompson, in response to Commission questioning as to the exhibit recommended -
`~
for adoptian to the City Counoil; Yor ciraulation, stated ttiat this`' was onl an a~
Y PProxi-
mation
that when more
reoi
de
me
'
~ dk~rx
~„,' °„ ~~~
~
~
,
p
se
velop
nt
plens.were submitted these mi ht re uire a'
o
t ,+n
^~~~~'^~
~
ondi
ional use permit; parael map, traot msp, and ar varianae, and his only reeson
f
qu
n
: ~'"~'
~~`
or
estio
ing Mr
Armour es to the zone.boundaries was to;,save aonside'rable paper ~ 1;i
f`~
,
work; sinoe'e resolution oould onlq be passed with preoise metas e;nd bounds of eaoh ,
`~~I
,:~'
ahange in alassifiaetion, sinoe the conaept plan iridioated two di£ferent zones proposed. :
r '.'~7t;
' S ;
Mr. Armour then stated the zoning request was`needed in order to determine the Commi.ssior~
3eelin
on th
o `' ~~
g
e pr
posal. VPhereupon the Commissiom indicated they oonaurred with the` j ~';;
aonaept.
~
Commissio r•Farano then withdrew his motion of approval,and of£ered a motion to ~ ~
reopen the hearing and aontinue Petition for Realassifioation to the meeting of
September 23, 1968, in order to ellow the petitioner time to submit more precise
zone bounderies and other pertinent datia for further aonsideration. Commissioner
Herbst seoonded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. MORRIS CARROLL, ET AL, o/o T. VP. Ma~iohael Company
- ;
,
N0. 68
69-14 469-A West Valenoia Drive, E'ullerton,'California, ~wners; S. W. ; '~~
MoMiohael,Companq, 469-A West Valenoia Drive, Fullerton, California,
TENTATIVE MAP OF A
ent
ro
e
d ~`
~~
g
; p
p
rty
esoribed as::PARCEL A- A reotengulerly shaped paroel
TRACT'N0. 6691 of approximatel
3 eo
f
l ,~
y
res o
,
and having a frontsge o£ approximately;
651 feet ;, }
on the south sifie of Linooln Avenue and a maximum depth of
210 t,
fee
the westerlq b'oundary
bein a
p
imet
l
b j ~
; ~ t
,
,
g
prox
e
y
54 feet east"of the aenterline of
Magnolia Avenue; and PARCEL B- A reotsngularly shaped parcel of approximatelq 16 sares
of land liaving a frontage of approximstely 651 peet on the north side of Broadway and e ~:
P PP Y , ,
terl boundar bein a
6541feetae
r
l
S
t
l~ `
~
sst oY the
oenterline
of
Magnolia
Avenue
Property presentlq alassified
R
A A r,,
R
~
-
GRICU7IPURAL, ZONE. ~
REQUESTED,CLASSIFICATION: PARCEL A- C-1, GENERAL CO~RCIAL, ZONE 4~ ,
PARCEL.B - R-2-5000; ONE FAMILY, ZONE ~"
TENTATIVE TRACT PROPOSAL: Sub3eottraot looated sast of Magnolie Avenue on the north
~~
~
side of Broadway oontaining approximately 16:aores, is
f
proposed Yor subdiqision:into 91 R-2-5000 ONE FAMILY ZONED lots. ~
, ~
.,,.
: ~;.
,
~ ~ ~
--~-r~ ~~w. . ~ ~ ,
:,
,
~~ ,- ~;
. ~:, ~ .v ~` T,~
~
~~~ r `4 h , ~ . ~~ ~~ ,F.
- ; x~c'
~~
i ,:A
~
~~
ti,~
;,i
'3
1q~F~ K~.~~`5~ r'`; .
~
r 4048 ~
~,~;
s
~
'~`'~"' `
.
t*~
~
~`f~
~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COA~GISSION, July 29; 1968 '
;
~
.
a,.`~ #`
c
`~
"^}F , ~
a
~
~ "~ ~t r Art ~-.1
'
`
~'
~' RECLASSIFICATION N0. 68=69-14 - Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the :~
~
>
~'
~i
~ .
}'~roH~';
~ location of sub3ect property, uses established in olose
TENTATIVE MAp OF TRACT N0
669' ;. ~:,,~;
F,
~ r ~ •
" .
proximit
y a;,ting that no previous zoning action had •=~i
~
rt~t ,, .;
~'
~
fi
~
~: taken ~laae on the property; that the General Plan
' de
i
t
l
- `•~
:'
r`5~Y
~,
1
f ; r,~
~
,
, p
a
u
ow
density residential uses for tfiis general
area, however reoent multiple-family anal
si
i
di .
~;~
y
s
n
oates.that this general area would be
suitable for medium residentiel d e n s i t i e s; t h a t t h e C o m m i s s i on wou l d
i
h t
~ !.;~
{t
s w
s
o
aonsideretion to the land uses as give primary
proposed espeaially the additional aommercial land
l
n ~~
'
X;
~% ;~ ,
~
~ a
o
g Linooln Avenue, si n c e m u o h o f t h e e xis ting oommeroit~ l ly zoned property is still
' ~x~
u
tti,
~~,,,
} if
;~
V&68ri
t, and in some recent instanoes, commeroial land had been reclassified and developed
• for multiple-famil
e
id
t ,
`~a
`'' w
n, 'y y r
s
en
iel uses, therefore, it would seem that the entire parcel
aould be developed for R-2
5000
4
~~ ,_:~ -
uses, utilizing a"rear-on!'treatment along Linooln ~
' Avenue similar to that immediatel
to the
t
f
'
~
v`:
;;~ y
eas
o
sub
eot
~ property; and that the tract i
mep had been revised to re£lect vehiaular acoess to Lincoln from the
d
;
,~~ propose
tract, as
suggested by the Traffic Engineer. I
ti, ; , ~
,:~ '°
' Mr. Calvin Queyrel, engineer for the ro osed traat a
P P , ppeared before.the Commission
' i~
` ,
representing the develo ers and noted that 10 g y prepared a traat map
for sub'ect P years a o the had I
o
t
J
b
R
' ~ pr
per
y
ut it was never developed; thet the proposed use of the land is
more appropriate beoau
f
~ ~
~
± se o
existing commercial and multiple family uses established ~
to th "'-
, i~,
"~~ e west, and that the requirement of a 64-foot street as indicated in the Report i
t
th
C ~
`
r`` ~'~~~ o
e
ommission was in crror, sinoe he had discussed a 60-foot street with the City I
Engineer
F
th
:,~ r~; .
ur
ermore, he also wes not in agreement with reaommendations that the ~
property be develo
ed in it
' ~'
~
!„~ x,, p
s entiret for residentiel
Y purposes because of possible 3
,w~ {yj ~
exoess oommeraial property along Linaoln Avenue, and if the aommeroiel land proposed
~
` ~ ti~
[t~ were developad properly it would serve a need in the area; and that the requirement
of e
t
i :`
~
'~ s
reet extending from the proposed traat to Linooln Avenue would make the property ~
more desirable
~r ; ~,
~
r~},~ ~„-1 .
,:; ~~~'„~~~
~' I~r. Queyrel also noted that the developer was not desirous of extending the street to
,~r
`'
'
~~~ I
Linooln Avenue at the present time „ but would post a bond to insure its ultimate develop- i
ment
and th
t
~ -~- ;
,~ra
, ~y,~~ ~
~ ~- , ;
a
any further questions would be answered by the developer. ~
s ;
~
~ ,
~
~.~,, x~v
~~~
~~ ,~u` Mr.`Riohard Heakell~~ 111 Level Plaoe~ a pposition to
+ , ppeared before the Commission in o ~ '
'
;'? ~
~~
~ the bommeroiel development proposed immediately adjaoent to the single family homes to ,
~
?y
~
M' the east, noting thet many of the people were aonoerned with the noise
late hours of ~
r ','
~
~~; ~A
J ~
5~
~
~ ,
ope
ation end general disturbanoes if s ooaktail lounge and restaurant were developed
in th
e ,
'
,
,
~
'~
~`
T e oomm
raisl portion of subjeot property; that there was plenty of noise now £rom
th
e '~
1
~ ~
~
'
r ?; e sup
r-slide and other reoreation.faoilities on the north side of Linooln Avenue, !
without being subjeated t
th
.;~; o
e loud voioes, soreeahing of brakes and wheels spinning ~
when automobiles left the oommeraisl development
e
nd elthou
h th
~
~
~ ,
,
g
e rush of traffic
along Lincoln Avenue was disturbing, it was nothing nompared to the start and sto
~
a
r p
of automobiles immediately adjaaent to one:'sproperty. j
~
'S'~
,~
~
Y Mr. Haskell then inquired of the Commission if there was any way that these noises
4 oould be controlled, or aould the residents be given some assuranaes thai the noise
l
l
~ eve
would not inorease.
~ ~
~p ~ ~
~
' Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson noted that the site development standards of the C-1 -
A
`
~ Zone had speaial setbaoks both ~rom Linooln Avenue and adjoining residentiel property
~~ ~ ,
xequired screened landsaaping where parking was proposed adjaoent to residentiel land
,~x ,
however, nothing was contained in the Code that would limit the types of businesses
,f, if;the land were zonad.
~~
{ I
;, ~
,~~''
~`s~ ~ The Commission then noted that the
proposed oommeroial zoning did not offer the type !
°
xb
~f^~
of restriotions that the residents oP that area wanted, however, some of the more ~ ,
~~
~
5
~
~' c,ritical uses:suah as walk-up, drive-in restaurants, on-sale alcoholio beverages in {
r
s
a
;~
`; ,
E
4rr
4~
~ a
e
t
urant, bars, eto. would require a conditional use permit in addition to the
m ;i
; ~,
~~ aom
eroiel zoning; and that a 6-foot masonry wall would be required adjaoent to ~ '?
;;
'a ' ~~ y~
6~:ti~rr ~
~i~ residential:uses, together with a two for one setback for,buildings. However, there ~
were e nu
b
f
r '
~~ ,~a
~
~~'
"
Y m
er o
aomme
oiel uses permitted by right, and the City,Counail has been
di
o
a
e
1
; t
A
~
~+~~ t~
'
`
~ sa
ur
ging de
d restriotions limitin the professional
g property to business and
f ~
~;
~ a,
„
~~x
~r of
iaes, sinae the C-0 Zone permitted those.
,. . ~ ;
ti
~'
+ ' ~;~i., _
*' . . . . .~ ~ ~. . ~ . .. . . .
Mr. Haskell then noted that 10 of the families who would be primarily affeoted by the
4.
~;
~r%
~ proposed aommeroial use were ademant].y opposed to the oommeroial zoning proposed adjaoent
~ t
t
~
~ ~
~ ~
~~ .
t.
~ o
Heir properties.
~
~ ~ ~ r
{ i
,
~ Jt~,
it
~t
f} _
:;
,, ;
{
r~~ ~ ~ ,~y '
~ ~ ~ ~
, ':
i,. µtA ~ i .
~~~ ' ~.~ . - ~ . ~
. ~ . .
~ . ~i
3
EI
4M1
~ Ir
~.? ~6 . ,4
X
t ;
~-.:,. . .. . ~ ' ' ~ .. .' . . _.___
~ ,
lufINUTES; CITY PLANNING COMI~ISSION, July 29, 1968
'4 ': rn d~ 1.
`t
~ - f JA~,~
k+n~
'°
i
~
~ i
~ ~ Y 'L
'~
~,
.
~ ~ /
~
'
. .
. . . .__
~~ ";ti,
.-
'
`\ r?'1'~
~ ~. ,~f
I
s~
r
~
~
"
4049 , i?
•'~~
?`j r.~
~„3
~
~d
RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Robert Cross, representing the developer, in response to `;,; ~
N0. 68-69-14 Commission questioning stated that the existing well site would ;r:'~
be abandoned et the time of development; that the aommeroial `';'~
:sx
TENTATNE MAP OF property would be retairied by the developer, who pro osed to '~'
P " ,;~
TRACT N0. 6691 develop it in e similar manner as the Spanish style adopted for ;~;~
the property at Magnolia Avenue and Winston Road: F~rthermore, ';z~
sinoe,the prospeative purahasers of the homes would also be „1~~
inquiring as to.what was proposed for the parcel to the north the developer wanted ~
to be sure of the aommeroial development, therefore, was retaining aontrol of it, ,.,.;~,.„;~
to insure that the development will provide servioes for these new families. ''"~;
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Considerable disaussion was then held by the Commission relative to the opposition's
aonoern regarding the inorease in noise adjaaent to their homes, as well as the problem
the new homes would have baaking onto a heavily travellad arteriel, however, if a plan
of development had bean presented a solution to these aoncerns might be resolved. ,
Z ~r ;`;~; Mr.'Thompson then 'noted that the City Counail had been disaouraging development plans
~, :y~ on requests £or reolassifioation, sinoe it was seldom that development oacurred as
a ~-~~~
' original plans were presented, and considerable time was spent by both the staff and
F
~„ ,y .,
~ ~
~L ~,
the Counail.in reviewing various revised plens.
~
~`~
~~ . ~~ Commissioner Camp then inquired of the developer whether they would agree to providing
~,
` ,~~ w"
: C-0 Zoning £or the easterly 100 feet of the commeraial property, sinae this would limit
~ e~
{~ the hours and noises from automobiles driving in and out after 5 p.m.
~ ~}~
C~
~
,,,,~ t 'N
'
~k
~
' Mr. Scotty Ma ~Giahael then advised the Commission that they were not desirous of
~;,
" ~~
`r"~
''
` backing homes en Linooln Avenue, and felt that a nioe aommercial develo ment would be
p
~,~ ~
~ ~
.~ less harmful to fewer ,people.
'
, P r~ ~,y
r
~v y f1;*'±~~
~ After Commissioner Camp and Mr'. Mobliohael conferred as to the suggestion made,'LIr.
N
~~,4~ ~~,J
~~- MaMiahael agreed to C-O Zoning elong`the easterly l00 feet for the full de th of the
n
P
n
,'li4o'r '
o ~s~~r ;~r~v
v
BY
r
> x:a Parael
,
A
<
~'~~ , ~
~
~ ~~ Mr. L. R. Davies, 102 South Level Plaae advised the Commission that he had spent
~, h~ is~ considerable money to make his home as attraotive as possible and felt that some
n
~
r~ k<.,,
~
proteotio
should be given homes adjeaent to aommeroial development.
~
~
?
~ "
~~ Mr. Thomgson advised the Commission that the C-0 Zone did not require single story
~
~-
c,• construotion, therefore, if a portion of the
property was reaommended Yor C-O Zoning
;~~~ the Commission might wish to limit it to one story only.
t ~ ~~ ~
~
~~ ~
Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC68-235 and moved for its passage and
~~% adoption, seaonded by Commissioner Camp to reaommend to the City Counail that Petition
~;~ £or RealassiPioetion No. 68-69-14 be approved with Parael "A" being divided and the
a a,~:~, easterly"100 feet to be reclassified to the C-0, CO~GERCIAL OFFICE
ZONE with the
,' ~'~~
,~ ,
balanoe of said , ~~ ~~
paxael to be C-1 and Paroel B to be R-2 5000 Zone, and subjeat to
~~ ;~ - the C-0 Zone being single story oonstruotion for the entire width and length oY the
F F~'~
r property, and subjeat to oonditions. (See Resolution Book)
~
~
` ~.
'
,
R ~~
T
;
~ On roll oall the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
~I
~
~ k
,
~~;~ AYES: COA~ISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland.
J
`~~ ~,~ ~
"
~~
~
i t ~,
~
1 ~,~
~ NOES: COM~GIS520NERS: None.
Y~j~,
,~i'
~
~~ '~µc'R
~~'.~`F~
~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ . . ~ ~ '
ABSENT: COM~ISSIOIVERS: Allred, Gauer.
, .
. ' ..
' ~ ~
~ ~'
~y
N
a ~ .
~~
~ .
. . .
. . . .
.
.,. .. .
. .
~
~ ~ ~
4~
~
~;~,i ~ ~~ ~
,~ {??~ . . .
~
Commissioner Camp offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Traat No. 6691
subjeot
~,~
'~ ~~r~a;tr
~C qy ,
to the following oonditions, seaonded_by Commissioner Mungall, and MOTION CARRIED:
~
~ ~
~~~~ ~~ ~: ~5 ~x~~~ ~ . .
. . . ,
. ~ . ~ ~ ~
~
~ ~. .
1. That-the approval of Tentative Map of Traat No.. 6691 is granted subjeat to the
~~{+ ~~~ r; ;, approval of Reolassifioation No.'68-69-14.
~
~ ~
h*,
~
,~'
'~fiy`~,
~
~
; ~i
"~~;
,~t
~~~ 2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, eeah
subdivision thereof shall be s
bmitt
~
,
~ ~,
,
~~' u
ed in tentative form for approval.
FnM1,`
M
? 7r~~tiA4
7 f~ '
z,
. . ~
..
i 1~ ~ , ~~
~
~1?° r~~ii/~I . . . .
.
. . . . . . . . . . .
~
} ~, blr~~, Y~~r~j ~
SYr . ~ . .~ . ~. ... ~ .~. .
~ ~ . ~ .
~
~ ~ ~ .
~ ~
IId {' 1 ~k_r
~LLK ~w~L;Sh l.~ j
~~Sk:~ClT .
. .. .
~ . . .
w~
,,;
},T.
hr
~
1Yr
~
y-
~.
:
j
i . ,.. - -
~~~~~~~-~ r".'h;1''+
., ..,_..~,.e.~,._ , . .._ . . . . . _
_
:. : : :;
_
,
., . , . . . ~.:
.:
.
. . _ ~„„ _
.... _
: . : ..... :
-r
. . ,
. ..
. :
~"` ~, ~
,.
4050
MINUTES,, C1fiY. PLAPINING C01d~2SSI0N, July 29, ` 1968 -
RECLASSIFICATION ~-. 3. Tkiat the vehioular eoaess rights, exaept:at street and/or
.,
N0. 68=69-14 alley`~openings.:to.Broadway, shell be dediaated to the City
_ ; of..Anaheim. _ _
` TENTATNE MAP OF
! TRACT N0.:6691 4. That in aaoordanae with City Counoil policy, a six-foot'masonry '•
" wall'shell be aonstruoted'on the southerl '
y property line separ-
ating`Lot Nos: 1, 55 through 58 and 91 and Broadway, exoept that
aorner:Lot Nos: 1; 57,,58, and 91 sha11 be stepped down to e
height of thirty inches in the Pront yard setbeak, and exoept
- that pedestrian openings shall be provided in said walls wHere cul-
_. de=sacs abut the planned highways right-of-way line of an
arterial highway. Reasonable landsaaping, inoluding irrigation
£eailities;-shall be installed in the uncemented portion of the
arteriel highway parkway the £ull distanae of said wall, plans
for said landsae,ping to be submitted to and subjeot to the
approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenanae. Following
installation and eaoeptanae, the City of Anaheim shall assume
the responsibility for maintenanoe of said landscaping.
5. That all lots within this treat shall be served by underground utilities.
6. That Hampton Street shall be 60 feet in width and extended northerly to the north
treat boundary.
7. That Street "A" shall be named Hampton Street; that Streets "B" and "G" shall be
named Gain Street; that Street "C" shall be named Chain Avenue; that Street "D"
shall be named Transit Plaae; that Street "E" shall be nemed Mall Pleoe; and that
Street "F" shall be named Flxlorum Place.
AMENDMENTS TO - PUBLIC HEARING. IIJITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COt~6ISSI0N, 204 East
ANAI~IM;MUNI- Linaoln Avenue, Anaheim, California to aonsider amendments.to Title
, GIPAI;.CODE:: IB,; Chapters 18:16,.R=A,:AGRICULT[TRAL,'ZONE:,18.18, R-E,,RESIDENTIAL
TITLE'18 ~ES~ATES,•ZONE: AND 18:20, R-O; RESIDENTIAL-SiJBURBAN,'`ZONE to implement
permi.ssion to ereot,8-foot walls,'fenoes, and/or=sareen landsaaping
within!the front`setbaok of;homes fronting on`arterisl highways.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat,Brown noted'that the following,paragraph would be.an
addition to the,R-A, R-E end R-0 Zone, the latter also aovering the R-1 Zone wherein
the addition would`permit the use`of the,screening teehniques approved by the adoption
, of "A Study of the Problem of Residentiel Homes Froating on Arterial Highways", those
sections being Seotion 18.16:030(11) Front On Lots; Seotion 18.18.020(4) Front On Lots;
, and Seation 18.20.010(12) Front on Lots:
' "Where e residentisl struature fronts on an arteriel street as designated on the General
Plan, an eight (S) foot high wall or fenae and/or sareen type planting (no maximum height)
shall be permitted within the front setbaok, but to the rear oP the ultimate right-of-way.
Said fenoe, wall and/or planting is permitted as a means of retaining a residential
environment.°
Furthermore, in Seation 18.20.010(12) this wes divided into two sub-paragraphs, "a"
being as'just reviewed and "b" as follows:° In the interest o£ publia safety, all
plans shall be reviewed by the Traffia Engineer and the Development Servioes Department."
A1so sinae the R-2 and R-3 Zones refer to the R-0 Zone this addition would also apply
to said zones. -
No one appeared in opposition.
THE`HEARING;WAS CLOSED. . _
Commi.ssioner Mungall oYfered Resolution No. PC68-236, and moved;for its passage and
adoption,,seaonded by;:Co~.issioner Cemp,to reoommend,to the City Counoil amendments to
Title 18 of the Anaheim Muniaipel,0ode by the eddition to Chapters 18.16, 18.18, and
18.20 permission to use the soreening teohniques as'approved by the adoption of the
Front On Study referred to as`Exhibit ''A'~.(See Resolution Book) .
,
~
_ ~
._ ~~
N
~ .,
~
~
~
.,~:
.. . . . .:.. . ., . .. ,....._ _. ~ r
~ c~~x~'~'~~rx/~ ., ..,. „... .. _ ~ I _
~., :~ ..._'.~ . ,.
~ ;~~vi~ Fk'~3`~ ' ~te~ ~ ~ . . ~ . . _'
~~SAS' ~ Y k ~. ~ ~
`7~2 T r . . . . .
"`'.~,~r"'t:J~::[ '' . . . . . f~~l . . . . . , .
1„J
i` ,~t~jaE~a f o-i.ti , .. . . . ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . ~ .
~~ ~~n~ ~. ~ . ~ ~ ...~ , . . . .. . . .
~~'si'~ 4 ~i e,~:,:. . . .~ . ~ ..
SY ' ;n
~,~ H.~ r ~ . ~ ~ . ~ . . . . . .
~ ~~} ~r 'c'` 4051
~~{~ s~~,,;~ A,' MINQTES, CITY PLANNIn1G CO~ISSIO?~T, July 29, 1968
~~ ~ x
~iR,;,~.~C}J ' AD~NDMENTS TO - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed bg the following vote:
~,~5~. ~: ~ ANAHEIM MUNI-
~"'~~'~~+ ~ CIPAL CODE AYES: CO~MISSIONERS: Cam Farano Herbst Mun all Rowland.
r~ ~y~,
~~~~i~'" ~~k i. T~'~'~': ~.8 p,i r r g f
~i:`~Y~ ~u,`-:~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
f;~~f`?.~ ~.' '
~.,~ ~, ~ i~ ~~= , i
~- ABSENT: CO~ISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer.
~i REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1
'~,ra~-, ~~;:'~~` RECOMMENDATIONS CONDITIG~TAL USE PEr~bI2T N0. 739 - east side of Kraemer Boulevard,
`' ~': "~ ~ approximately 500 feet north of Miraloma Avenue - request for
' `~ µ? termination.
~ ~~ +:,7
< ~ t.,`~ Assistant~Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown noted for the Commission that the original request
7 , i~ for the use of subjeot property was a restaurant with a cooktail lounge which was granted
~ ; :;.` by the Planning Commission August 16, 1965 in Resolution No. 1732, Series 1965-66, sub3eot
~ ; to oonditions; that none of the oonditions had been met, and plans had been reaeived in
~h y: the Building Division proposing an industrial use for the property; therefore, subjeot
~ ` 1,`~ petition was null and void beaause the use was not exercised.
x
~'~` ~,~ ~~ Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-237 and moved for its
passage and adoption
r ~'"~; seoonded by Co~i.ssioner Mungall to terminate all
r prooeedings on Conditional Use Permi.t
t';~ No. 739 on the basis that the use approved had not been exeraised sinoe development plans
~ a>~ submitted proposed industriel development. (See Resolution Book)
,, t
~. , ~_~
F ~~,;~ On roll oell the foregoing resolution was passed by tha following vote:
~ ~q ~S 3~,~~
~ ~ , ,~, AYES: C0~6NIISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland.
'~ j~ • ~ =-~{'s~ NOES: CO~SISSIONERS: None.
~~~ ~ fi~~~ ABSENT: CO~~dISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer.
~}
~~ ~- s'~•
~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~:~.~` ITEM N0. 2.
~'s4 ° ~`~'4-~ CONDITIONAL USE PERM~P N0: 753 - 1906 East South Street
RM
~`~ ~~~;~('~•- request to permit a mission in an existing residential struature _
~k , ~'~ ~ l~~ termination:
F~w ~x } ,~~
i~ ~,~~ a~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown noted that sub3eot petition had a time extension
~~ ~~ ,; whiah would expire September 13, 1968; that the new owners had requested termination oY
~ ~'~~~~, the petition, however, the ahuroh was still oaaupying the premises; therefore, the
~ cr ~^~.~r~ Commission might wish to eat on the request, however make the effeative date of termina-
~ ,;:,~ tion September 13, 1968.
f.~ + ~;:~ ~ ~
w Commissioner Farano oYfered Resolution No. PC68-238 and moved for its passage and
, ;z;~ adoption, seoonded by Commissioner Herbst to terminate all prooeedings on Conditional
Use Permit No. 753 to beaome effeotive on September 13, 1968, as requested by the new
' ~`~ owners. (See Resolution Book)
~
, y~ On roll oell the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
K ~ti~"
$"~ i'~ AYES: COD~ISSIONERS~ Camp, Farano, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland.
~m
..?~ NOES: CO~SSIONERS: None.
~ ni~` %=;.",~+ ABSENT: CO~GISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer.
4 ~~~
,.- ~'r+
;E~} ~~of~~ ITEM N0. 3
"~ 's Street Name Chan e- East Street to Ra
~l+ ~. ,~~ 6 ymond Avenue north of the
srt ~,~,~:, Riverside Freeway - reoommendation of the Orange Countg Street
'~, , ,y;~;~ Neming Committee - set for publio heaxing.
3~~ ~'~''" _
t ' ~ k ,
,~x ` ~T~"' Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pst Brown noted thet a xequest had been reaeived addressed
~ra?~ ~?,~m` to the City Counoil Yor oonsideration of a street name ohange for East Street within
~~,r r`~f; the City limits of,Ansheim northerly of the Riverside Freeway, beoause of the oonfusion
~,~ ~' kr of two`street names~sinoe the west side of the street was within Anaheim and the east
~~ Y ~~ ~y side within the City o£ Fullerton.
~~ F
)~ ~y 4t~
~~''x,~' ~.' i'~ ^'~` Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to direot the Commi.ssion Seoretsry to set for public
s~'J~ '+:., ~,}nti~, heering oonsideration of a street name ohenge for East Street north of the Riverside Free-
r ~ ,,~ ~
~,ti , ~ way to Orangethorpe Avenue. Commissioner Mungell seoonded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
y'~rah t '~'+:~,4 Publio hearing set for August 12, 1968.
~~~~~~`'1; ,E }'~;. ADJOURNMENT,- There being no further business to disouss Commissioner Herbst offered a
~„~„ ,~ I~~~ motion to ad3ourn the meeting. Commissioner Farano seoonded the motion.
~,~~,~ ~~ ~,~~j MOTION CARRIED. Meeting ad3ourned at 5:4~ ~~
~,E~ ,~i Respeatfully submitted ~ retary
~r„r. . ~.~: .?ip:".. .'. , ~ . . . , .. . ~ ~ ~ . ~~ ~ ~ o^~- .
F~
''r.'"oi
r~
f
~r
3
,~8
'y~
-s r
~ :~
>r
; ~~
~
'~
;,~
,,,~
E~