1959/03/11
3235
---""~....---
C.1. t Y
!:La i z
Ar.~,Cl tl:~ i n'1 u c ~~-=~~:_~~~Ma I C.t1
lO~ 1959 - 7:00 PaM.
Ccupci .mar P~a son me
C~(JUrlCi j,D16 Bo~r,jfrl Sf 1"':,df:l~j r;t
d GUT'n to March iI, 1959, 7:00 PaM.
MOTION CARRIED,
ADrOURNED~ _ ;5L P M
SICiNED: ~/(._~~~
'\ :._.," t",'-';";--.-,7 ,l(
.._._~.___ CllL.. Hd _ L '1c,..!.:I.~2.:'Jei L~..;~_;.~.;:3 i .fi2"L~..:-~_.~Ci!'ch 11 ~ 1959 ~ 7: 00 P ~ Mo
"['r: ~:'j
1 M.(j
IT! rnl?
n adjourned regular
"-=;f- S
'::~.~ n9
t ngl;30 P0Mo)9 Coons,
'~35 P0M., returned 9:30 P.M.),
ill;. t: t j w:3 8;:2 5 P 3 M 0 ) 9 and S c hut t e ~
Da.; ~L s,
i~' t Y
t.. d · n t'-
PRESENT:
CDUNCILMtN: Beru
Fht:~;ENT;
ADMIN!SlRA: VI:
i=IfY AI-T()HNE::Y~ P::
C r fY ,'::;LERK ~
f / ENC I NT tR ~
C:-r. r y P LANN" M3 :.(f E J::I:: ; DR ~
w
Ma/C') '~. '..1
w:.:) ~J t'_ i r'u~:j pub
pu pc~; f~Gr j
C .,. AJid lm~
d rg or ri0J announced that this
"V'., ]1;: e tJ ng ot Ma leh 4, 1959 for the
q ')I'd'\: piGpJS"~J..;ompre rl'::'C'S iVf': :,',on109 ordinance for the
.
:;mrr1t r' .1' i tv t ~\" c.:::.r:{ Pi- r'n~ ng Comm:i s s~. on 0
.a 'H
>r<,~
Ji.. ,)
v: fP f'
f ~.
~~\ T" .;
J~ r.a. (h~jrc-.'sspcj tne Council and made a
p.opos~d ord'nance of those persons who
M:
1:.: sr,-
P .:in"" t'
"I,j ,..., 0' :.:" t t r j r 1 .,. h ,) p r
'''(1':....1 r rq
1 :',~-
~ k
w': S
ddreSS the Council.
My
1<'. Jin K CW' !~; td 'e h St. t3c:jressed the Council re~
mi n~rnum .~lU'1;;>~ ti1.~': . ow,:; t) t-' d n y one bu.: Idi n9, and expre s s ed
that th.;:' en; ~mum shouL.i !::t: lowered ::.0 "1.000 square feet, as older
peop ~) 'ide,) f'O J'p:,-.j for iarger dwc: 11.0950
TJ r~:j ! L~? t h"
op:; n~ or-
d (I.d 'if~ t r p,j
Coune cmar, Scens [i:t:lTi:-J trlf propos(~d ordinance, wherein a per-
01.3 Of: C f !-,he r;011i'O S -)' d '..1..' t ffi.j be':) f sma 1. h::T s'i Z'.: 0
M:r~ Bob BacK'.us~ ~,t:, North P~dce[itla Ave.flue" addressed the Council,
oblHc't; ng to tf-)J-? pstab ; 5hmdY':', of ~H)I j~~n n~,ttj min5mum house size requiremento
Hf- f~)""', tha+ t_fH:I," Wt-~ a f',~j'3 w, :;;r' Ct':{ where -soy new home would be an
ass e+~ ">0 the sommuc t. y
:iny w:;\/
To further clarl nps
n h'.S uncklS-+>jnd~ ng <:.r.a.
:: rn t t h t':l si ~~ 0 f hOJ S
~emarKS, Counc~lman Coons asked if he was
Mr.'", Bel ckus fE,: 1 t that the Ci ty should not in
'::,0 r.:':" f: ::t
,.... :'. ![ ;:',
rJ,:: neE' "
To ~rd s Mr. Backus nsw(~n-,(L ves
Mr~ Wo C Maxwell, 2801 West Lincoln Avenue, addressed the Council,
calling attention to the section of the proposEd ordinance relating to the
establishment of a Board of Rev ewo He was of the opinion that this Board
could become a pOW0Tfu' fa~~oT ~nd djd not approve the power granted to the
Board of Review. A..-tertion W05 al~o ~alled to Section PRO 5 regarding notices
of public hear ngs Mr MJ~w~;~: fF' tthat the property should continue to be
posted and the peap ~ w~th r 300 foot rad~u5 of the property under consideration
net::. f'; ed
Mru F:sner e~p~a. purpos
wnjC[J appl1es +,0 orl V .:eI:;J {' ar(C;dS wht:re
the plans w' i be r \' f"wed by t~l: S Boa~'j,
s of cre~ting the Board of Review9
n ~t states in the ordinance that
fhat the power and authority of this
_.............__.;..-~+._~""'" '""",:,,--,,,,,,,,,,),,,,,~~,,,,"~"'__~_'''W._",~'';;,;,,;;;~j:_-.-
3236
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - March ll~ 1959 - 7:00 P~M.
Board is limited to the extent provided in the ordinance, and in every single
instance, actions of this Board are subject to appeal either to the City Planning
Commission or the City Councile
Councilman Coons stated, regarding Section PRO 59 the mailing of notices
to the Applicant wi thin three days only applies to the Appli"cant, and that PRO 6
refers to posting and notice requirements"
,-
I
Mro Halvorsen requested an explanation of this section from Mro Ei.snero
Mro Eisner explained the State law regarding architectural controls
surrounding civic centers, parks, etco9 as outlined in Chapter 4 of the Conservation
and Planning ActG
Mr. James Do Watters, 1464 Birchmont Drive:? addressed the Council
regarding C-7 zoning, where it allows two story structures within 25 foot setback
abutting residential propertyo He felt that if such a request was made by
variance, it would be deniedG He also expressed concern regarding the limited
restaurants as allowed in C-7 zones and felt that the resulting noise, food odors
and flies would be an undesirable featureg Mr. Watters suggested that these pro-
visions~ that is, the allowance of the two story structures and the limited
restaurants be omitted from the C~7 zone, and that this be extended to all com-
mercial zones that abut residential districtso He further advised that these
suggestions would be presented to the City Council at a later date in letter form.
Mro Richard Lower~ 921 Minerva Place9 addressed the Council and presented
in letter form the suggestions made orally by him at the last meetingo He advised
that the suggestions were the same, with the exception of one regarding height
limitations in R-2 and R-3 zones~ and suggested that the 2-story dwellings be re-
stricted near alleys.
Further discussion was held regarding the Review Board and the question
was asked, would an application for variance regarding building and height
limitations go to the Review Boardo
Mro Eisner answered that a variance would still necessarily go through
the variance procedure; that the Review Board is to generally see to it that the
provisions of the ordinance are complied with, and are not to be a variance board.
Mro Hardy further explained that the Board of Review can only pass on
the site plan in an R-2 and R-3 zone where there is more than one structure pro-
posed. That yard requirements must still be meto
Mro Lower felt, regarding the posting of notices, that this should be
required in every instanceo
Mro Eisner explained the State law which actually does not require posting;
that this was a matter for each community to establish for themselves, however,
publication which is required by law and notice of hearing by postcard for
conditional use permits and variances is set up in the ordinanceo
Councilman Coons further explained the intent by eliminating the re-
quirement of posting of every lot, that i.f more than a certain area is considered
it could be done by advertised noticeo
Mr. Orval Halvorsen, resident at the corner of Euclid Avenue and Ball
Road, addressed the Council, advising that the Real Estate Board does not yet have
a prepared statement to make regarding this zoning; that they were in the process
of formulating their objections; that the statements made to the City Council this
evening by him were his own opinions. With reference to Section 9200 DRB-6, he felt
that this gave the Review Board a considerable latitude and could be abused, and
compared the present arthitectural board method with the proposed activities of
the Review Boardo Regarding lot sizes and R-l, he stated he did not believe it
would be good to indiscriminately throw down all barriers, but did believe some
provision should be made for people who do not demand these map standards that
are set up, as there has to be planned wi.thin this city a place for all people to
live. In his opinion, the 70 foot frontage standard was too great a minimum. He
referred to, as an illustration, a very nice lot on Clementine Street which had
only a 50 foot frontageQ
~!~~""_'""""""~~_'_'"'~"~'4,.~~.=.,,,~ '.....f-+ II
3237
City Hall, Anaheim, California - March ll~ 1959 - 7:00 P.M.
Mr. Lower advised that the best answer that the Council will re-
ceive regarding sizes of lots and homes, will be at the 18th meeting, from
one who speaks with authority on small homes and small lotso He reiterated,
that in his opinion~ the minimum 7200 square foot lot area and minimum
1225 square foot house area were not in excesso
Mru Eisner made reference to the R~l D zone, wherein the lot
width is 60 feet with the exception of the corner lots, and further advised
that the 7200 square foot minimum lot area was standard in Orange County,
San Bernardino County and actually below standard in other areaso
Mro Joe Madigan~ 1101 East North Street, addressed the Council
regarding the omission of garage doors and was of the opinion that this
request was made in order that apartment costs could be reduced. He felt
that the City Council did not give sufficient explanation as to why certain
actions are taken; and further, that the zoning will not be ultimately
realized because of the variance procedure~ He expressed the need of in-
dividual citizen~ viewpoints on this matter and did not believe that citizen
groups were the answers to the problems~ He advised the City Council of
their obligations to the voters and the taxpayers who have invested their
money in the lando
Mro Dave Collins addressed the Council and advised that realtors
subscribe to a pledge to perserve and protect property values. He referred
to the map considered as the general plan whi.ch had not yet been officially
adopted by ei ther the C1 t.y Plann:L ng Commi s S1 on or the C.i ty Counci 1 0 He
felt that there were ljmitat~ons in the ordinance have been needed for a
long time and still others that should be changed. He referred specifically
to the waste of land, such as the widening of the parkways from 8 feet or
9 feet to 12 feet;p the downtown commercial requirement of 10 foot landscapingo
Mr~ John Griffith, builder9 addressed the Council regarding alley
requirements along major arteries, specjfically, adjacent to residential use.
He felt an alley was not necessary@ He stated that women prefer to drive in
past the front of thpir homes to their garages rather than a dark alley, and
that these alleys become unsightly and are a waste of lando
Mr. Richard Guthery, 1910 Random Drive, asked MrG Eisner to explain
trH.? purpose of provjj~.ng an dllf.::y !Jprdl1d an R-l subdivision9 is it for safety
or for the movement of trafflC~
Mra Eisner explained that only major or secondary streets would
require an alley; that a driveway break every 60 feet is considered to be a
major traffic hazard~
Mayor Schutte asked if there were any more questions to be asked
regarding the ordinanceG
Mro Lower advi.sed that the presentation he referred to for the next
meeting deals with the ordinance, not just the zoning, and requested time for
this presentations
It was agreed by the City Council that this could be taken care of
at the beginning of the next meetingo
Mro Eisner added that all of the letters now being prepared by the
Realtor Board, citizen1s groups, and individuals should be turned in at any
time during these public meetings, and felt it wise that these things be in
. t.
wrl_lng.
Public hearing on this new proposed comprehensive zoning ordinance
was ordered continued to Wednesday, March 18~ 1959, 7:00 PQMo on motion by
Councilman Borden, seconded by Councilman Coonso MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Borden moved to adjourn to Tuesday, March 17, 1959, 7:00
PoM. Councilman Pearson seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNEDn
SIGNED: 4!?lL- h. )~
City Clerk
,.."............,....,,,.. -,"",,;,._ L'. ..",.",.._.';'''~''''_"",;,,,,^_."~<__..,,,,,....~,,,,,,,=~..,,..,.,,,,,,,,,,,,__