Minutes-PC 1966/03/14city xaii
Anaheim, California
Msrch 14, 1966
-. ~
~~i
A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAI~IM CITY PLANNING COM~ISSION
REGULAR ~±EETING - A regular meeting of the Aneheim City Planning Co~ission was called to
order by Cheirman Mungall at 2:00 o'clock P.M., a quorum being preser.'~.
PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Mungall(at start of ineeting)
Camp (temporary during eleation)
Camp (eleoted for the forthcoming year)
- COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland(entered at 2:05 p.m•)
.PAESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Robert Mickelson
Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompson
Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts
Offioe Engineer: Arthur Daw
Associate Plaa•ner: Jack Christofferson
Planning Co~i~sion Secretary: Ann Krebs
Zoning Division Stenographer: Carolyn Grogg
INVOCATION - Reverand Relph Wi~kerson, pastor of tho Christieai Center Church, ge.ve the
invocation.
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Perry led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
P.PPROVAL OF - The Minutes of the meeting of February 28, 1966, were approved with the
THE ~92NUTES following correction: page 2958, paragraph 3, line 14 should read:
"opposed to establishment of the uss - however ....
ELECTION OF - Commissioner Allred offered a motion to eleat Commissioner Camp as temporary
1966 OFFICERS chairman. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Temporary Qhairman Camp asked for nominations for Chairman of the Commission
for 1966. Commissioner Rov~land nominated Commissioner Camp. Commissioner
Mungall moved to alose the nominations. There being no opposition, the
Commission elected Co~issioner Camp es chairman UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Camp asked for nominations for Chairman pro tempore. Commissioner
Rowland nominated Commissioner Perry. Commissioner Mungall moved to close
the nominations. Commissione.• Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
There being no opposition, tiio Commission elected Commissioner Perry as
chairman pro tempore UNANIMOUSLY.
Commissioner Gauer nominated Ann Krebs as Co~ission Secretary. Co~issioner
Mungall moved the nominations be olosed. Co~issioner Rowland seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED. There being no opposii,ion, the Co~ission eleated
Ann Krebs as Co~i~sion Secretary UNANIMOUSLY.
CONDTTIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. GARY MC CONNELL, 2742 1Nest Orangethorpe Avenue,
PERl~IT N0. 807 Suite M, Elillerton; Celifornia, Owner; requesting permission to ESTABLISH
TYPO WALK-UP RESTAURANTS on property described as: A rectangularly shaped
parael of land v~ith a frontage of approximately 146 fset on the south side
of Ball Road and having a maximum depth of approximately 276 feet, the wc,sterly boundary of
subjeat property being approximetely 205 feet east of the aenterline of Dale Avenue. Property
presently olassified C-1, GENERAL COMN~EtQIAL, ZONE.
Subjeot petition was continued from the meeting of February 16, 1966, to allow time for the
petitioner to submit revised plans.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that a request had been received from
the petitioner requesting an additional two a~eeks for the submission of revised plans. The
Com:nission questioned whether two weeks was adequate, since Commission policy required that
revised plens be in approximately 12 days prior to the meeting it was to bo coiisidered; where-
upon, Mr. Thompson stated that two weeks would be adequate.
*~yI Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to continue aonsideration of Conditional Use Permit
~ No. 807 to the meeting of March 28, 1966. Co~issioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION
-~r~.~ CARRIED.
< -?961-
E
MIAiU'I~S, CITY PTsANNING COM6~ISSION, Maroh 14, 1966 2962
~~~
• ~~ #
.`~
'i.
,~
CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. vARY MC CONNELI,, 2742 West Orangethorpe Avenue,
PERMIT N0. 808 Suite M, F4illerton, California, Owner; requesting permission to ESTABLISH
A RESTAURANT VPITH ON-SALE LIQUOR (BEER) on property desaribed as: A
rectangularly shaped peresl of land with a frontage of approximately 146 feet
on the south side of Ball Road and having a ma.ximum depth of auproximately 275 fest, the
westerly boundarq of sub~eat property being approximately 205 feet east of the center line of
Dale Avenue. Property presontly alassified C-l, GE1dEERAL COMMERCIAL, ZOIVE.
Sub3ect petition was oontinued from the meeting of February 16, 1966, to allow time for the
petitioner to submit revised plans.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission the petitioner had submitted a letter
requesting an additione.l two weeks for the submission oY revised pla,ns.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to continue oonsideration of Conditional Use Permit No. 808
to the meeting of March 28, 1966, es requested by the petitioner. Co~i.ssioner Allred seoonded
- the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC i~ARING. ANDREW M. ZURICK, 519 North Dale Avenue, Anaheim,
PERMIT N0. 809 California, Oa~ner; VERNON T. NORMINTON, 1591 Mells Lane, Anaheim, California,
Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISR A HOFBRAU INITH ON-SALE BEER IN AN
ERISTING STRUCTURE WITH 4VAIVER OF MWIMUM REQUIRED PARKING SPACES on property
described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximatel; 120 ieet
on the south side of 1Ninston Road and having a maximum depth of approximately 107 fect, the
easterly boundary of subject property being apprc+ximately 225 feet west of the centerline of
Anaheim Boulevard, and further described as 120-122 Winston Road. Property presently classified
C-l, GENERAL C09E~~RCIAL, ZONE.
Sub,ject petition was continued from the meeting of February 16, 1966, in order to allow the
petitioner time to submit revised plans.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson odvised the Commission that a letter had been received from
the agent for the petitioner requesting an indefinite continuance to allow the petitioner time
to resolve objections from the businesses and residents in the area; and that the Commission
may wish to oonsider continuing subject petition for four weeks.
Commissioner Allred offered a motion to aontinue public hearing of Petition for Conditional
I7se Permit No. 809 to the meeting of April 11, 1966, as requested by the agent for the petitioner,
in order to allow time to resolve objections and for the submission of revised plans.
Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. CHARLIE N. BROCK, 3133 West Orange Avenue, Anaheim,
N0. 65-66-98 Califurnia, Owner; Ben Cheek, Jr., 4303 West 5th Street, Santa Ana,
Californie, Agent; requesting that property described as: An irregularly
shaped parcel of land oontaining approximately 3.15 acres, with a frontage
of approximately 500 feet on the north side of the Carbon Creek channel and having a maximum
depth of approximately 271 feet, the westerly boundary of subject property being approximately
750 feet east of the centerline of Western Avenue be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL
ZOTi~ to the R-1, ONE FA~LILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the petitioner had indicated
that negotiations are prooeeding for acquisition of the half-acre parcel presently o~med by
the Orange County Flood Control District lying easterly of sub,ject property, therefore, he was
requesting a four-week continuance in order to allow time for the completion of these negotitions.
F~rthermore, the Tentative Map of Tract No. 6163 which would be considered as the next item of
the agenda enaompassed sub,ject property.
Co~issioner Allred offered a motion to oontinue public hearing of Petiticn for Reclassification
No. 65-66-98 to the meeting of April 11, 1966, in order to allow the petitioner time to negotiate
for additional property to the east. Co~issioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: R. J. BERRY, 4~14 West 3rd Street, Santa Ana, California.
TRACT N0. 6163 ENGINEER; Raab and Boyer Engineering Company, 1731 South Euclid Street, Suite
~, Anaheim, California. Subject tract, looated northerly of Orange Avenue and
easterly of Western Avenue, aontaining approximately 3.1 acres is proposed for
subdivision into 12 R-1, ONE FA~LILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONED lots.
„~ ~~ Sub~ect tract was oontinued from the meeting of February 16, 1966, in order to sllow the developer
time to negotiate £or additional property to the east.
~~ }
MINiTTES, CITY PLANNING COM~dISSION, March 14, 1966 2963
TENTATNE MAp OF - Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the developer
TRACT N0. 6163 had requested an additional four weeks time to complete negotiations for the
(continued) parael to the east.
Commissioner Allred offered a motion to oontinue consideration of Tentative Map of Tract
No. 6163 to the meeting of April 11, 1966, and to be considered in conjunction with Petition
for Reclassification No. 65-66-98, in order to allow time for the developer to negotiate for
additional property adjacent to the east. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. idOTION
i CARRIED.
, Y"ARIANCE N0. 1770 - PUBLIC HEARING. EVA BIELANSKT, 2700 West Crescent Avenue, Anaheim,
CaliPornia, Owner; JACK D. MC CLEAN, 310 Rosebay Street, Anaheim, California,
TENTATIVE ~AP OF Agent; requesting waiver of: (1) REQUIRED FftONT SETBACK: AND (2) MINIMUM
?'RACT N0. 6192 IAT INIDTH AND LOT AREA on property described as: A rectangularly shaped
parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 352 feet on the south side
of Crescent Avenue and having a maximum depth of approximately 393 feet,
the westerly boundary of subject property being approximately 310 feet east of the centerline
-, of Dale Avenue, in order to permit the development of a single-family detached subdivision.
DEVELOPER: ORANGE COUNTY IIEAELOPMENT CORPORATION, 310 Rosebay Street,
Anaheim, Californis. ENGII~ER: McDaniel Engineering Company, 222 East
Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. Subject tract, located on the south
side of Crescent Avenue approximately 270 feet east of Dale Avenuo and
containing approximately 3.5 acres, is proposed for subdivision into
1? detached single family dwelling units on proporty which v~as approvsd
for R-3, 6~ULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
Mr. Jrsck ~dc Clean, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the
proposed development of subject property, noting that homes in the general vicinity were also
developed with 6,000 square foot lots, and that it was his intention to develop homes similar
~ to those he had recently biiilt east of subject property.
; No one appeared in opposition.
- , THE I-IEARL~TG WAS CLOSED.
The Commission noted that the proposed request ~;~as similar to the recommendations mede by the
Commission several years ago for subject property, except that the R-1 site development standards
v~et•e required; and that the proposed subdivision was an alternative method of providing privacy.
Co~i~-sioner Perry o.ffered 5esolution 210. 1968, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and
adoption, seconded by Co~issioner Rowland to grant Petition for Variance No. 1'7U, subject tD
condiiions and a finding that the proposed 6,000 square foot lots offered an alternative method
of providing privacy to property owners which could not be accomplished if s~~bject property were
developod for multiple family residential development. FLrthermore,that subject property be
required: That on each lot in the proposed subdivision shall be constructed only one detached
single family dwelling unit with accessory buildings in accordance with Section 18.28.020(e).
(See Resolution Book)
On roil call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AsES: COMEAISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMSGISSIONERS: None.
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to approve Tentative ~Aap of Trac~ No. 6192, subject to
the following conditions~
1. Tliat should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision
thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval.
2. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 6192 is granted subject to the completion
of Reclassification No. 63-64-58, and approval of Variance No. 1?70.
>~ - 3. ~'hat the vehicular acoess rights for Lot Nos. 1 and 15, to Crescent Avenue, shall be
,~j t, dedicated to the City of Anaheim.
~ ~
~
MINUTES, CITy pI,ANNING CO~SSSSION, March 14, 1966
2964
VARIAN:;E PlO. 1770 - 4. Thet the drainage shall be handled in a manner to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer.
TENTATNE MAp OF
TRACT N0. 6192 5. That on eact~ lot in the
(oontinued) only one detached singlePfamilyddwellingsunit9with accessoryubuildings
in accordance rvith Section 18.28.020(a).
6• That the north-south street shall be named Colgate Street.
Commissioner Allred senonded the motion. MOTION CARRIED,
VA!?IANCE N0. 1767 - pUgI:IO HEARING. DOUGLAS T. MC DONALD, 6872 Vie Sola Circlo, Buena Park,
California, O~rnor; rsquesting permiasion to waive•
(2) M2NIMUM FRONT YARD ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED as: A rectangu~lar~lylDhapedD~
PBra~ of land appro.~mately 134 feet by 34 feet, situated tangent to and southeasterly of the
cul-de-sac of Via Sola Circle, the easterly boundary of subject property bein a
630 feet west of the centerline of Knott Street, in order to permit the constr~uctPonXOfBaely
single family residenco. Property pre~ently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZON~.
No one mas present ;o represent the ~etitionor.
A letter from the City of Buena Park was read to the Commission relative to subject petition.
Di~c•ission was hold by the Commi~sion with the following facts being noted: 1) Fieid check
of the property indicated the possibility that adjacent property owners in Buena Park and
Anaheim may tiiish to purchase portions of this small strip of lsnd; 2) the utilities ~rou].d
be served by the City of Buena Park; 3) that access to subjoct property would be from a cul-
de-sac street in Buena Park; 3) need for discussion with the City of Buena Park for possi~le
de-annexation, as well as discussion with the City Manager of Anaheim regarding the same.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commissiun that since development plans were
in flcr,ordance with Code requiremonts, a t~vo-week continuance would be suffiaient to obtain
answere to the Commission's questions.
Commissioner Roerland offered a metion to continue publio hearing of Petition for Varianae
No. 1767 to 'Lhe meeting of March 28, 1966, in order to allow time for the staff to contact
the Anaheim City Manager and the City of Buena Park, as we11 as property owners regarding
acquisition of subject and adjoining property which represeni:s a 34 foot strip betweon tho
two cities. Ccamissioner Ge.uer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED,
VARIANCE N0. 1769 - PUBLIC HEARING. MELVIN C. JOHBISON, 1551 Chaieau Avenue, Anaheim, California,
Owner; requesting peraission to WANE MINIMUM REq;JII~D (~AR ~ARD SETBACK
on propsrty described a~: A rectangularly shaped parcel of lahd with a
frontage of approximetely (q feet on the north sida oi Ch~teau Avonue and having a maaimum
depth o;. approximately lU3 feet, th~ westorly boundary of ~ubject property bein a
605 feet east of the centerline oi Loera Street, ~nd furthar described ss ].551 ChateauXAvenuey
to permit an addition to an exis+,ing residenco within six feet of the roar property line.
Proporty presently classi£ied R-1, ONE FAdffLY RESIDEN"'IAL, ZONE.
Mr. Melvin Jotinson, the petitioner, eppeared before the Commission and rovie~ved the propo:ed
- additian to his property.
Mr'. Johnson also presented a petition signed by owners of 20 homes in close proximity in
favor of subject petition.
No one appearod in opposition.
='HN% I~'~ARING 'iJA5 CLOSED.
Cammissioner Mungell offerod Rosolution No, 1969, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer to grent Petition for Variance No. 1769, subjec~t
to a condition.(See Resolution Book)
F~.~ ~
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSION~RS: Allred, Gauor, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Cam~.
- NOES: CO~dMISS20NERS; None.
~ ABSEI~'f; COJdMISS20NERS; None.
~
E
BEINUTES , CITY PL~ANNING COA~AGISSION 9 March 14 , 1966
?965
VARIANCE N0. 1772 - PUBLIC HEARING. ARSEN OHANIAN, 1028 West Linooln Avenue, Anaheim,
Californis, Owner; JAMES NIR, 344 VPest Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California,
Agent; requestir.g permission to WANE LOCATION OF FREE STANDING SIGN on
property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land situated at the eou~heast corner
of Linooin Avenue and West Streat, and having frontages of approximately 62 feet on Lincoln
Avenue and approximately 148 feet on West Street, and further described as 1022 VGest Lincoln
Avenue. Property presently classified C-2, GENERAL COMSdERCIAL, ZONE.
Mr. James Nia, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Comedssion and reviewed the pro-
posed sign request, noting that if oonstruated in accordanoe with the Sign Ordinanoe the sign
would be located directly in Pront of the existing beauty shop, and the sign was necessary to
~ advertise one of the tenants looation.
€
No one appeared in opposition.
THE HEARIIda WAS CLOSEA.
Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the fact that sub~ect property had no sei;back;
that the location of the sign would have to be in a ple.nter area and might project above the
roof overhang; thay the petitioner was proposing an additional sign to advertise the location
of only one tenant, v~hereas the sign ordinance permii;ted only one £ree-standing sign that would
serviae ell the tenanta; and that the Co~ission was not desirous of deviating from the Sign
Ordinance, beaause this would be granting the petitioner a privilege not enjoyed by other
property ovmers in close proximity; furthermore, this v~ould set a precedent for similar reuqests
to erect signs for individual tenants of properties throughout the city.
Commissioner Allred 'offered Resolution No. 1970, Series 1965-66, and moved for its pacsage and
arloption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to deny Petition for Variance No. 1772, based on the
fact that the proposed sign request,if granted would set a precedent f.or similar requests to
advertise individual tenants; that no hardship ~vas proven that the variance was necessary; and
that ihere were no exceptional or extraordinary oiraumstances or conditions to ~varrant the
Commission's deviation from the Sign Ordinance.(See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was pa~sod by the Pollowing vote:
' AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, E~Ysud, Cemp.
ATOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSEpNT• COMMISSIONERS: No~e.
~C?~2~ee~ .. /a.~c-~«.~~~
CONDIiIONAL USE - Pi1BI,IC HEARING. DON M. FLb,fiCHER, 718 North Baker Street, Santa Ana,
PERMIT N0. 820 Califr,:nie, Owner; DAVID S. COLLINS, 1077 West Ball Road, Anaheim, Californis,
Agont; requesting permission to ESTABLISH AN AIITOMOBILE SALES AND SEAVICE
AGENCY WITH WAIVERS OF: (1) NUMBER OF FREE STANDING SIGNSi AND (2) LOCATION OF
FREE STANDING SIGN on property described as: A triangular.'.y shaped parcel of land situated at
the northwest aorner of the interseation of the Santa Ana Freeway and the Anaheim Boulevard
overcrossing and having frontages of approximately 450 feet on the Santa Ana Freeway and approx-
imately 365 feet on Anaheim Boulevard overpass, and further described as 1535 Sou~h Anaheim
Boulevard. Property presently alassified M-1, LIGfiT INDUSTRIAL9 ZONE.
No one was present to represent the petitioner.
The Commission was desirous of asking the petitioner ans~Hers to a number of questions, and
noted that answers were needed relativo to access, turn arounds for fire and trash trucks,
policy of the State Department of Highu~ays regarding use of the eccess road, parking on the
access road, size of the parking stalls, etc.
Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that subject petition could be
delsyed until later in i;he meeting; whereupon Chairman Camp declared that subjoat petition
would bo considered as the last item on the agenda. (See page 2972 for balance of Edinutes.)
*
~
MINU1'ES, CITY PLANNING COM~ISSION, Ma~•ch 14, 1966 2966
~, ..-:~~
~~~i ~ '
COND~IONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARiNG. Cu~~g g, F~K, 325 North Pine Street, Anaheim,
PERMIT N0. 821 Californie, Owner; requesting permission to ERPAND AN ERISTING TRAILER PARK
on property desaribed as: An irregularly shaped parael of land v~ith a.
frontage of approximately 55 feet on the east side of DEountain View Avenue
and having a mea„ximum depth of approximately.357 fest, the north line of subject property being
approximately 598 feet south of the centerline of Katella Way, and further described as 1846
Mountain View Aven~ie. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZOPL.
Mr. Charles Frenk, the petitioner. appeared before the Commission and stated he was available
to answer questions.
The Commi.ssion inquired why an attempt was not made to acquire all the property on the east
side of Mountain View Avenue to Katella Avenue, where vras acaess proposed ~or the one parcel
v~hereupon, Mr. Frank stated it was impossible to acquire th9 propert- -:ortherly because the
owners were asking $175 to $200 per foot, and might be the reavon tht r. ~erty mas not teing
deeeloped; that he had a potential six spaces for income of $350 per month, that it wa~ his
desire to realize this income for the next few years, although the existing park had not
reeahed it aapacity; and thst access for the one portion of the property which wouZd be an
extension of the mobile park would have access through the park itself; however, the home would
probably be used by himself to live in.
Mr. Frank questioned the conditions of approval namely trash storage areas, fire hydrants,
and a modified cul-de-sac, since it was important to keep offsite improvements to a minimum
to realize any minor profit on the additional area.
Offiae Engineer Arthur Daw, in response to Co~nission questioning, stated that the approximate
cost of a modified cul-de-sac was $600; that fire hydrants would be required, if the Fire Chief
determined that the existing fire hydrants were inadequate; and that the tr~sh storage require-
ment was standard for all mobile parks; however, if the Public Works Directo.- determined that
trash facilities were adequate under the present park facility, no additic:~ai trash areas would
be needed.
The Co~i.ssion was of the opinion that it was importent for the safety of the mobile home
. tenants, that the petitioner provide fire hydrants if it was found to be necessary.
- No one appeared in opposition.
THE HEARIN~ VPAS CLOSED.
R
~
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1972, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commis~ioner Herbst to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit
No. 821, sub,jeat to the reaommended conditions.(See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYESt C01~6ISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowlan3, Camp.
NOES: COM~ISSIONERS: None.
ABSEN'i; CO~SSIONERS: None.
CONDITIOt3AI., USE - PUBLIC IiEARING. ARTHUR SHIPREY, BETTY SHIPKEy, CATHERINE SHIPKEY, AND
P~'RMI~' N0. 823 A. H. SHIPKEY, SR., P. 0. Box 7, Anaheim, California, Owners; JAMES WALKER,
300 North lNilshire, Suite 5, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission
to ESTABLISH A WALK-UP RESTAURANT on property described as: A reatangularly
shaped paroel of land with a frontage of approximately 158 feet on the south side of Lincoln
Avenue and having a maximum depth of approzimately 170 feet, the easterly boundary of subject
property being approximately 590 feet west of the oenterline of Cliffrose Strset. Property
presently classified C-1, GENERAL CO~ERCIAL, ZUI~.
Mr. Arthur Shipkey, Jr., representing the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and
reviewed the proposed use, noting the use would not be detrimental to the area, since similar
establishments were already loaated in the City; further, in response to Co~ission auestioning,
stated he was aware that an additional three Peet would be required for street widening purposes.
~91~..>- -
r,
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CO~ISSION, March 14, 1966 296~
CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. Charles Franklin, representing the lessees of the property (Ma Donald's
PERMIT IQQ. 823 Ilrive-in) appeared before the Commission and stated that the proposed walk-
(oontinued) up-drive-in restaurant would be identiaal to others in operation throughout
i the nation; that he woul~ like clarification on several of the recommended conditions of
approval - namely requiring that the petitioner provide for an additional foot for the existing
wall on the south property line, sinoe he could not understand how the Commission could require
aonstruction on someone slse's property; f~:rthermore, the finding that the two new office
. . buildings located on ~the north side of Lincoln Avenue could not be considered, since McDonald's
x~9~ were located at the intersection of Anaheim Boulevard and Ba11 Road which was in close prox-
I imity to commerciel development; and that they operated a clean establishment, a~hich should
'f ' be considered in the Cammission's consideration.
Mrs. William L. Taylor, 111 Evelpn Drive, appeared before the Commission in opposition, and
~tated that in discussions with surrounding home owners it was determined that they were all
opposed to the proposed McDonald°s Drive-In; that while she realized Lincoln Avenue was zoned
for commercial uses, some discretion shoul.d be exeraised in determining v~hat was more appro-
priate in close proximity to well established residential tracts; and, although the proposed
drivein might be operated as a clean establishment, the proposed use v~ould be an objectionable
type of operation because of the twin arched lighting, noises, odors, and the fact that it
would result in a"hangout" for teenagers.
Mr. Dennis Johnson, 209 De,te Street West, appeared before the Commission in opposition, and
stated his property was i~ediately adjacent to the south of subject property; that he was
conoerned that the lights from the proposed development ard the hours of operation would
disrupt the rest his four children needed; that he ~vas considering constructing a.55,000
addition to his home and the proposed use might detract from any improvement he would construct
on his properiy; that two of the bedrooms presently were within 17 feet of the property line
abutting subject property; and that he planned to have l.arge bay windows at the rear of his
home.
Mr. Franklin stated the operation would be open from 1.1 a.m. to 11 p.m. and that every effart
would be made to direct the lights away from the residences to the south.
Deputy City Attorney F4irman Roberts, in response to Commission questioning, stated that it was
not likely that the petitioner could add an additional foot to the existing five-foot wall
without the owner°s consent, and offered two alternatives: 1) that an additional fence or wall
be constructed parallel to the existing fence; or 2) that the existing wal'1 be heightened an
additional. foot upon mstual conaent of the owner of the fence; that the addition would have
to be aonstructed of a type of ineterial which would conform with the ex3sting wall; however,
the C-1 site devel.opmeni standa:ds required a six-foot masonry wall be constructed separatin~
the commeroial use~~ from the resid.antial uses.
I'he Commission noted that an ~ddition to the existing fence would bo impossible due to the
fact tha~t the existing reinforcing footing might not be ~turdy ~lougnt to withstand the
sdditional height.
Mr. Johnson, in response to Commi~sion questioning regarding the requirement of an 8-foot
masonry wall instead of a 6-foot wall. statad that while odor from the proposed use would
enter his rear yard, and airculation of air might be the best, if subject petition wa~ approved
by the Commission he would prefer having an 8-foot masonry wall; that he was also concerned
that trash would be blowing over his back fence, since the trash storage was looated at the
southwest oorner of subjeat property; and that the proposed use might turn in~,o a hang-out for
people of undesirable oharacter.
Mr. Rober~s also noted that in a recent oomplaint which the City processed, noises from a
record player and a radio were a me,jor cause for the disturbances reported.
Mr. Franklin reappeared and stated he understood Mr. Johnsun`s concern; that ~c Donald's hadbeen
in the city for approximately two years and they would do anything possible to resolve the
problems presented; furthermore, in response to Mr. Robert~ question, the establisliment did
not have record players or eny music playing which would be disconoerting to the peace of
the neightborhood.
The Commission discussed the type and effectiveness of screened planting which could be
utilized in the three-foot landscaping area proposed on the southerly houndary of subject
property. It was determined that the moximum height of effective screen planting to separate
the proposed use from the residenti~l development to the south would be fiftesn to eighteon feet.
~
.. _ .. '~ -
MINU'PES, CITY PLANNING CO1dM2SSI0N, March 14, 1966
2968
CONDITIONAL USE - A showing of hands indicated that three persons were present in opposition.
PERMIT N0. 823
(continued) THE HEARING PIAS CLOSED.
Discussion was held by the Commission with the following facts being analyzed: 1) location
of drive-in restaurants adjacent to residential tracts and its incompatibility and harmful
ePfects to the residential integrity; 2) landscaped screening which might be utilized, and
. the possibility that the ligh•ts from the proposed drive-in presenting an insurmountable p:oblem
' in an effective screening; 3) hours of oporation, and its effect on the peaoe, health, and
.=a~, general welfare of the residential area ocoupants; and last, the location of drive-in restaurants
~'~
should be confined in shopping centers, where the hours of operation, lights, noise, and odor
~~ would have less harmful effects on the commeraial center than adjacent to residentiel areas.
~`l,
i•'~ Commiasionor Herbst offered Resolution No. 1973, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and
~; adoption, secunded by Commissioner Mungall, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 823,
~~ based on the fact that the proposed use was not desirable at the proposed location; that there
~ were other aore a
;~ ppropriate 7oaA+9_ons in the City where the disturbanceof noises, hours of
,1I operation, bright lights,and odors would beless objectionable than where it would be adjacent
,,~ to residential uses; and that the location of the proposed use would have a deleterious affect
i,~ on the established residential integrity of the area to the south and east.(See Resolution Book)
II On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by tne following ;rote:
~, J
;'~~ AYES: COMM25SIOIvERS: A1].red, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp.
ATOES: CO~dMISSiO.T~RS: None.
' i AESEN^: CO~dM.ZSSIONERS: None.
;~
~ The Commissian, in their vote of deniel, stated that there would be no adequate way to buffer
'i the lighting proposed and it would reflect not only to the residential tract to the south, but
j.,~ elso to those homes to the north; that a shopping area would be a more a
the proposed use where it would create less harmful effect on residentialPuses;8andlthatlpossibly
, the Commission might inve~tigate the advi~abil.ityof allowing the proposed type of restaurants
~ _ adjacent to single family residential uses, because of the potential prcblems which could result
from the two incompatible uses.
:I
Commissioner Camp loft the Council Chamber at 3:20 p.m., Chairmsn pro tempore Perry then took
?, aharge of the meeting.
+ CONDIlIONAL USE - PIIBLIC HEARTNG. RAR~~HO LIWE RF,A?~TY, IN:.ORFORATED, 1234 East Lincoln Avenue,
i
J FERMIP N0. 825 Anaheim, Californie, Owner; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A HOF&RAU WITH
,~ 0:~ SALE LIQUOR AND WANER OF TF~ REQUIRED PARKING SPACES on property described
~ as: An irregul.arly shaped pe,rcel of land with a frontage of approximately
153 feet on the east side of 7effarson Street and having a maximum depth of approximately 190 ft.
~ the sautherly boundary of subject property being approximately 132 feet north of the centerline
I of Santa Ana Canyon Road, and further described as 108 North Jefferson Street. Property is
K ~ presently classified C-1, GE.^1ERAL CO~RCIAL, 7.ONE.
Mr. Ted Fish, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and reviswed the proposed
use for an existing structu~e, and then noted that any further questions the Commission might
have would be answered by Mr. Jack Stanfield, one of the partners of the proposed hofbrau.
I
{ Commissioner Gauer expressed opposition to t:~e proposed developmAnt, noting that the petitioner
,~ ~ was proposing the sale of hard liquor; that i.he restaurant portion was not separated from the
i bar portion, as ~s~s required by the Commission in almost all previous similar requests; that
j children under 18 would not be able to accompany their pe,rents under regulations set forth by
; i the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, since the bar was an integrel part of the hofbrau; and
~
that pool tables were not considered a piece of equipment compatible with the proposed use.
s Mr. Jack 5tanfield appeared before the Commission and stated he was unaware that A9C required
'~ separate entranoes for the area serving food and liquor; whereupon, Mr. Stanfield stated that
this would necessitate amending the plans.
;~~ 3 The Commission inquired c~hether or not the petitioner intended to serve har liquor now or in
the future, whereupon Mr. Stanfield stated that if the public demanded it he would provide
'~ ; this servioe.
`I '
~ ~ it
~ ~ ,
r,
)
MINU'i'ES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 14, 1966
2969
CONDIiIO*:;L USE - It was also noted by the Commission that the kitchen facilities were too
PERMIT NO_ 825 sme,ll to acoommodate other than the serving of sandwiches and quick lunches;
(aontinued) that the pool tables were reminisaent of the old
petitioner planned only to serve on-sale beer andPwinehinlconjunationtwith
the serving c° food, the plans would have to be amended, so that a bar was not indicated in
the aenter of the proposed hofbrau; and that, even though the petitioner might submit revised
plans, this was not indiaetive that the Commission would approve the proposed development,
, only that further oonsideration would be given to the revised plans.
"••-~-~~ Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that revised plans would have to be
~S in the department no latex than Friday morning March 18, in order to be considered at the
;. ~ next Commjssion meetin~ of Marah 28.
~ ~•
Chairman pro tempore Perry expressed aoncern that the petitioner was proposing a hofbrau in
~~ a small neighborhood oonvenience shopping oenter; that the aommercial development was surrounded
by residential uses, and many children came to the shopping area for small purchases for them-
~' selves or on errands for their parents; that the proposed use would have an unsavory influence
;i an the children patronizing the shopping area; and that he felt the use would be incompatible.
No one appeared in o
j' pposition.
~1 THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 1974, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commiss~oner Rowland to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit
No• 825 on the basis that the use was proposed for a neighborhood convenience shopping area,
patronized by children and would have a deleterious affect on the children; that parking was
inadequate for the proposed use, and would further create parkin~ problems in a shopping aree
slready below standard parking requirements of the City; that the kitchen facilities were not
adequate for proper preparation of focd; that there was no separation oP the bar from the
dining area; and that the proposed hofbrau was located in area surrounded by re~idential uses,
creating an undesirable atmosphere for residential uses.(See Resolution Book)
~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
_ AYESo COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
NOES: C02~TSSIONERS: NONE.
AESENi: CO',~ISSIONERS: Camp.
Commissioner Camp returned to the Council Chamber at 3:25 p.m.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUALIC HEARING. ERICH PJINGER, 258? West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Californie,
N0. 65-66-94 Owner; LLOYD BENSON, 1803 North Old Tustin Avenue, Santa Ana, Californie,
Agent; requesting that property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel
of land containing approximately 7.3 acres, situated at the n.~rtheast corner
of Lincoln and Magnolia Avenues, with frontages of approximately 523 Yeet on Lincoln Avenue
and approximately 625 feet on Magnolia Avenue, and further described as 2587 West Lincoln
Avenue, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-1, GENERAL COI~ERCIAL, ZOAiE
in order to establish a service station and possible future commercial shopping ~enter on
sub,jeot property.
Mr. Ei•ich l~ingar, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and steted that when the
realassification petition had been filed it was his intent to develop the property with a
service staiior, and shopping center; however, since filing the potition, plans for the com-
mercisl shopping center had failed to materielize, therefore, he was requesting that the
reclassification encompass the serviae station site only.
Zoning Supervisor Rona].d Thnmpson advised the Commission thai: a new preliminary t~tle report
would have to be submitted by the petitioner covering the service station site only, if subject
potition was ag~roved for the service station.
NLr. Lloyd Benson, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the
c zoning and development in close proximity to subject property, noting that the proposed use
~,~ would be compatible with the area. A colored rendering of the proposed service station was
~,{` submitted for incliision in the file,
Mr. Benson noting that a slight revision would be made
~ to the ststion proposed for subject property in that two aanopies ~vould be constructed instead
I ,
~j of the single one shown.
~j *~ No one appeared in opposition.
: ~ 1
d
MINCTES, CITy pLAN~i2NG COMMISSION, Marah 14, 1966
2970
?~CLASSIF'ICATION - Tf~ HEARING WAS CLOSED.
N0. 65-66-94
(oontinued) Commissioner Herbst ofPered Resolutian No. 1975, Series 1965-66, and moved
for its passage end adopi;ion, seconded by Commissiuner Mungall, to reoommend
to the City Council that Petition for Reolassifioation No. 65-66-94 be
approved for the service station site only, as requosted by the petitioner,
subjeot to oonditions and the requirement that the petitioner submit a revised
preliminary title report for the serviae state site.(See Resolution Book)
On roll oall the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
~~5: COA~ISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: CO~ISSIONERS: None.
'RSETdI': COl~ISSIONERS: None.
RECLASSIb'ICATION - PUBISO HEARING. C. E. COLEBROOK, 1841 Chelsea Drive, Anaheim, California,
N0. 65-66-95 Owner; requesti
ng that property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel
of land situated at the northwest corner oY State College Boulevard and
Chelsea Drive and having frontages of approximstely 126 feet on State College
Boulevard and approximately 39 feet on Chelsea Drive, and further described as 1841 Chelsea
Drive be reclassified from the R-1, ONE FAMILY RESIDENPIAL, ZONE to the C-1, GENERAL C05~E4ERCIAL,
ZONE in order to establish an antique shop on subject property.
Mr. C. E. Colebrook, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that his home
was the lsst in the blook along State College Boulevard to be developed for commercial uses;
that he had originally purohased the home for residentisl purposes, but the traffic along the
street together with being ad,jacent to commeroiel uses made it impossible to use as a residenoe
and it was his intention to remodel the existing struature to present a commeroial appearanae
removal oP the garage to provide adequate parking, and to operate the antique shop himself.
Furthermore, ha was in oonaurrenae with the recommendations to the Cammission.
Mrs- Glenn Sorrell, 550 Revere Street, appeared before the Commission in o
her propertq was aaross the alley from sub,jeot property; that sub ect PPosition, and stated
enough to permit property co~tercial development with oPf street parking~Pthat ifsthetpeti8loner
'N8S Pr°P°SinB' en antique she would have less ob,jeotion to that than if subjeot property were
permitted to develop for general oorsuaeroial uses tivhich would permit a possible night club for
the property; that although a wall ~eparated the commeroiel uses from the residential uses, the
noises still penetrated to the residential property; that the debris and refuse oolleoting on
the oommeroiel property was conducive to the breedinS of flies and rodents whioh oould be
harmful to the ohildren in the area; that the petitioner had started his antique shop without
having the proper zoning, and she had oomplained to the City; and that in disoussions mith
the petitioner he had stated he wss ~lanning to sell the property and the home would be removed
to be repleoed with a night olub.
A letier of opposition from the property owner at 554 Revere Street v~as read to the Commission.
Mr. Colebrook, in rebuttal, stated that when he moved to sub ect
had some excess furniture which he had sold in a garage sale~ howevererhe hadmnever~conducted
a regular commercial oporation on sub,ject property. Responding to Commission questioning ,
Mr. Colebrook stated hours of operation would be from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.; and that he would
stipulate to operation of an antique shop on sub,ject property and the hours of operation, if
the Cc;umission desired.
Ohairman Camp advised the opposition that if the petitioner was proposing to develop a night
club, this was not permitted in the C-1 Zone without filing a Conditional Use Permit and having
it approved, since the sale of liquor on the premises for nonsumpticn there was not permitted
by right in the C-1 Zone.
withinS30n feethofdeachtother~andiinquiredlof Office EngineereArthur~Dawgwhetherrorbno~s
was permitted by the Traffic Engineer. t this
Mi'• Daw stated that curb breaks were permitted, however the engineering staff t;ried to discourage
curb brealts where they seemed unnecessary, and that upon review of the development plans for
, sub,jeat property it was noted that parking was proposed on the south side of the structure,
and the only reason Por the northerly curb break sesmed to be to
provide for tresh trucks,
* l~owevor, this could be remedied by relocating the trash area.
~x ~
.. . ~ - --.~...__.,___ _
- -- ~ - -..~s~; ~~
~ ,
E' ( ~
r. ~
t1 '
~~.1 ~x ~
MINVI~S, CITY PLANNING COM~A.ISSION, March 1S-, 1966 2971
F~CLASSIFICATION - Discus~ion was held between the Cou~ission, the petitioner, the office
N0. 65-b6-95 engineer, and the zoning supervisor regarding the proposed curb breaks,
(aontinued) at its oonclusion, the Commission inquired whether or not the peti.tioner
proposed to remove the masonry wall beta~een his north property line and
the commeroial development to the north.
Mr. Colebrook stated that he planned to remove the wasonry wall.
The Commission then stated that the northerly curb break to provide access to subject property
would have to be eliminated from the development plans snd the curb break which the petitioner
stated already existed would also be eliminated.
~ THE HEARING wAS CLOSED.
Co~missioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1976, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Co~issioner Perry to recommenE to the City Counoil that Petition
for Realassification No. 65-66-95 be approved, sub,ject to removal of the mesonry wall a•t the
north property line, relooation of the trash storage area to the southerly access, and the
elimination of the northerly curb break, and conditions.(See Resolution Bookj
On rol.l oell the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: CO~ISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rov~land, Camp.
NOES: CO~Rd2SSI0NERS: None.
ABSENT: COM~GISSIONERS: None.
RECLASSIFICATION - P'JBLIC HEPRING. A. H. STOVALLy JR., ~ DOROTHY WILEMAN, 11045 Cameo Place,
N0. 65-66-96 Granada Hills, Califorria, O~mers; JAMES K. SCHL'LER, 914 East Katella
Avenue, Anaheim, (;elifornia, Agent; property described es : An "L" shaped
CO'~fDIi20NAL•LTSE parcel of land lying south and west of a 135 by 135 foot parcel of land
PERMIT N0. 822 situated at the southwest corner of Lincoln and UPestern Avenue~; said
properties having frontages of approximately 165 feet on the south side
'vARIP.NCE N0. 1771 of Lincoln Avenue and approximrstely 125 feet on the west side of western
Avenue. Property presently cla~sified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
RE@UESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COMt~RCIAL, ZONE
REQUESTED CONDI`PIONAL IISE: ESTABLISH A WALK-IiP DRNEIN RESTAURANr
REQL~ES•~ED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF: (1) MAXIMUM STR~CTIIRE HEIGH'~'
(2) REQUIRED SIR-FOOT MASONAY WALL
Zoning ~~upervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the reolassification petition
was for the entire parcel, the condi~ional use permit petition was for a MaDonald restaurant;
and that the variance petition was to encompass other than the drive-in restaurant property.
Pdr. A. H. Stovali, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the
development of sub,ject property, noting this would provide for a substantial improvement for
the area; and that the only person affe~ted by the development would be his father who o~cned
the property to the west and the service station to the east, therefore, a six-£oot masonry
K~ould be unecessary.
Mr. Thompson stated that tho C-1 Zone required where oommercial property tvas adjacent to
single family residential, in this instanoe, the R-A parcel to the west a setback of 40 fest
was required whereas only a 10-foot setback was onl; required if the development to the west
was zoned C-1; and that the petitioner was proposin~ no setback from the west property line
because it was his intentior. to expand Building "F" at some future date.
Mr. Stovall then stated that it was their intent t~ aonstruct the McDonald's res~aurant first,
and then proceed lvith the commeraiel struoture southerly i~ediately afteri:erds; and that the
struoture proposed to the south would be Spanish architecture for a neighborhood shopping
center.
Mr. James Sohuler, agent for the petitioner, advised the Co~ission that all the convenience
stores such as a"Tiny Tim" ma,rket, barber, beauty shop, launderette, cleaners, etc. would
be aacommodated in the shopping center; that a waiver was needed for the required setback to
the west, although the petitioners' father had future plans for extension of the commercial
development to and through his property ad~acent to the west; furthermore, if the Commission
had additional questions regarding the McDonald's drivein, a representative was present to
ansvrer these questions.
~
ML'NUTES, CITY PLANNIDIG CONAQISSION, Marah 14, 1966
ij ~~.
:~ 4
k
j~ ~
~1~
Fi ' ~
r~ ~
f
~`~ ~ ~
4i
j~,' i :
~~ '
2972
RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Salomenahi, ropresenting the McDonald's Drive-in restsurants,
N0. 65-66-96 appeared before the Commission and noted that the proposed development
~or MaDonald's was a national trademark to whicfl the company was legally
CONDtfIONAL IISE entitled, and that thore were others in Orange County.
PERMIT N0. 822
The Commission questioned the architectural compatibility of the Spanish
VARIANCE N0. 1771 motif for the shopping aenter and the ultra-modern golden arches of the
(Continued) McDonald restaurant.
Mr. Sohuler stated that the shopping center would be located to the rear, and should present
no problem arohiteaturally because they would be separated by a large parking area.
No one appeared in opposition.
Tf~ HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1977, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passa~~;
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that Petition
~ Por Reolassification No. 65-66-96 be approved subject, to conditions.(See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COt~42SSI0NERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COM~4~SSIONERS: None.
ABSENT; CO~G2SSIONERS: None.
Commissioner Rov~land offered Resolution No. 1978, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seaondod by Commissionor Herbst to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit
No. 822, based on the fact the the drive-in restaurant vtould be a part of a commercisl shopping
oenter, and would not be detrimental to the residential development to the south since structures
would separate the restaurant from the residential uses, and that a school was loca~ed northerly
of subject property; furthermore subject to conditions.(See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution wa.s passed by the following voto:
AYES: COME~ISSIONERS: P.llred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp.
NOES; CO~d2SSI0:~RS: None.
ABSEAIT: COMEdISS20NERS: None.
Co~issioner Mungall offered Resolution No. 1979, Series 1965-66, and mcved for its passage
and adoption, seaonded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1771,
~ubjoct to conditions.(See p~solu-tion Beok)
On roll call the foregoing resolution tias pessed b; the following voto:
A~S: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONF;RS: None.
ABSENT: COMEaISSI0NER5: Nane.
CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. David Collins, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission
PERMIT N0. 820 and reviewed the loaation of subject proporty together ~vith the proposed
(cont. from page use, noting that the representative of the British Motors Company was unable
2965) to be present beceuse of a previous commitment; that subject property was
considered the ideal location for the Southern California headquarters of
the aforementioned company; that questions presented in the report to the Commission oould
be answered by him regarding the trash areas, adequate aacessways, and parking facilities;
that the architect had misunderstood the instruations when he redesigned the plans, thus
the revised plans did not reflect accurately what was proposed; that adequate parking viould
be provided on the site, so that parking on the frontage road would not be neoessary; tha.t
the width of the acaessway v~as one foot less than tho maximum 30 feet ellowed by the City;
that tho motor oar company had their warehouse in Torrsnce and would not be parking all of
the cars sh~pped from abroad on the proposed property; that there ~ras adequate space for the
displey of r.ew and used cars,as tivell as, providing for parking of customers and employees;
and that the plans w~uld be modified to reflect any changes the Commission felt were needed.
_' '"" .. ~.-~VwiOL:.. ~ .".'~+'it....
F
€ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ~arnh 14, 1966 2973
CONDITIONAL USE - E~-. Collins then stated that if any corrections were necessary, Car. Jaycox,
PERMIT N0. 820 representing the architect was present, and would be able to answer questions
(~ontinued) whiah the Commission might have.
~ Considerable disaussion was then held by the Commission, agent for the petitioner, the repre-
i ' sentative of the architect, and representatives of the Engineering and Development Services
~ Departments re ardin
~ g g parking; adequate access for trash and fire trucks; inaccessibility of
; the trash storage areas to the main structures; landscaping along the frontage road, the parkin~
I zrea, as well as the freeway frontage of subject property, because subject property was loca-
ted at the entrance of the city and should present an appearance compliment~ry to the city such
.-=~~ as Buzzo Cardozo Company did; that the revised plans were submitted too late to be reviewed in
li
"~ detail; that a minimum 27-foot turning radius was neaded at the end of the perimeter drive;
!~ ~ that parking along the frontage road should be prohibited; that the revised plans indicated a
;i~ possiUle third sign which could nut be allowed; and that the freeway frontage sign should be
~ relocated toward the centei• 40$ of `.hat frontage.
~ No one appeared in opposition.
,i _, THE HEARING WAS CL05ED.
I• Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1971, Series 1965-G6, and moved for its passage
~ and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbs~~: to grant petition for Conditional Use Permit
No. 820 with findings that the action taken b~• the Commission in approving the freeway frontage
,~ sign would take precedence over requirements of' Chapter 4.08 of the Anaheim Municipal Code;and
I that the Commission deems it necessary to recommend to the City Council that parking along the
frontage road should be prohibited in order to provide the width of the frontage road for moving
~ traffic; furthermore, that landscaping shal'1 be in accordance with the C-1 site development
~ standards; that adeqi:ate access be provided subject to the approval of the Chi,ef of the Fire
I Department; that customer and employee parking shall be in conformance with the city's parking
, standards, and conditions.(See Resolution Book)
~I . On roil call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
I ~ AYES: COE~LISSIONERS: Allred, Qauer, Herbst, ~dungall, P~rry, Rowland, Camp.
i
_ ; NOES: CO~dISS20NERS: None.
;~ ABSENT: CO~d2SSI0NERS: None.
~
i RECESS: Commissioner Rowland moved for a ten minute rec9ss. Commissioner Allred secondod
' the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting recessad at 4:25 p.m.
Ea
~'`~ RECONVENE: Chairman Camp reconvened the meetin at 4:35
~,i ~ B p.m. ell Commissionars being present.
~j ~ Alu1ENDMENT TO - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY T?~IE CITY PLANNING COM~GIS520N, 204 East Lincoln
~~ ~ TITLE 18 OF Avenue, Anaheim, Californie to consider an amendment to Title 18, Chapter 18.40,
j~ ~ THE ANAf~IM C-1, GENERAL CONOQERCIAL, ZONE, Sectior, 18.40.070(6) Site Development Standards -
I~ :.'UNICIPAL CODE Walls of the Anaheio Municipal Code.
~ ~ ssociate Planner Marvin Krieger reviewed for the Commission the background data action b
_.~ the City Counoil which prompted the study of an amendment of Section 18.40.070(6) erta' Y
'• to wells separating aommerciel p B P ining
~.~ .~ pro erties, to ether with the recommended amendment to the
I aforementioned Section of the Code.
~ I~
C~ ~ Chairman Camp inquired whether there was anyone present who wished to speak for or against the
p~ ji proposed emendment, and received no response.
~ ii
THE HEt1RING V7AS CLOSED.
i
I Discussion was held by the Commission relative to problems which might arise regarding parking
. if expansion was planned; setback requirements, and easement requirements.
Mr• Krieger stated that since the C-1 Zone had site development standards it was no longer
necessary that the Commission or City Council review plans on straight C-1 Zoning, and that
`~` revised plans would orly have to be reviewed in the event a conditional use permit had been
granted in conjunction with the C-1 Zoning.
i
'~ ,~ Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1980, Series 1965-66, aiid moved for its passage and
~ ~ i adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that an amendment
to Title 18, Chapter 18.40, C-1, General Commerciel, Zone, Section 18.40.070(6) VIALLS be as
;`j "~ ~ follows:
~
~ ,
;~ •
`-] ~
~
,~
'? i _,
.j
M.IIdUTES, CITY PLANNING COMN[ISSION, Marah 14, 1y66 29~4
AMENDMENT TO -";6) WALLS
TITLE 18 OF
Tf~ EINAHEIM e. -Phere the C-1 Zone abuts a residentiel zone, a six-foot solid nasonry
MUNICIPAL CODE wall shall be constructed at the zone boundary. Said wa11 shall be
reduced to 3G inches in height within any setback area adjacent to a
street or highway. The wall height shesll be measured from the highest
finished grade level of subject property or adjacent properties, which-
ever is the highest.
b. -Phere a general commercial developme:it is c~~ntiguous to an alley
proposed to serve residential as well as con~meraisl property, the
wall requirement may be v~aived by the Director of Development Servioes
or his designate if the conditions set forth in 1) and 2) below are met.
1) The design of the commercial center provides for adequate screening
of loading and trash collection areas from any view from the
residential area.
2) No major traffio problems will bo created by joint use of the alley
c. The wa11 requirement may be waived in whole or in part if the City
Engineer aertifies that the topography is such that the ereotion of
the required wall or fence would not be practical
d. WY:ere general commercial shopping facilitias are planned or constructed
ir_ such a manner that parking areas are contiguous, or that ingress or
egress from one area of the facility must be through another area of
the facility and such right of mutual ingress, egress or parking right
is guaranteed by means of a recorded document, no walls or fences shall
be constructed within the shopping facility that wculd restrict the flow
of vehicular traffic in and on ~ihe facility's parking areas or accessv~ays."
On roll oall the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Ro~vland, Camp.
NOES; COMASISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: CO~L~62SSIO~RS: None.
REPORTS AND - ITEC~ N0. 1
RECOL~NDATIONS Broedway-Brookhurst Annexation - Interim Zoning
Associate Plannor Marvin Krieger presonted the proposed Broadway-Brookhurst Annexation to the
Commission and reviewed the staff study of the oxi:'ing County zoning, comparable City zor.~ng,
and the suggested interim zoning as follows:
Subjeot annexation consists of that County territory extending from Orange Avenue on the south
to Catalina Avenue on the north, lying westerly of Brookhurst bet~veen Orange and Lincoln Avenues
and straddling Brookhurst between Lincoln Avenue and Catalina. The arteriel streets serving the
area are Brookhurst, Broadway and Lincoln. In compliance with Section 18.12.030(4) which states
"That the Planning Commission shall investigate and determine the existing County zoning .
and shall determine those zones in which the City of Anaheim which most closely approxieiates the
County zoning whioh apply to said property and shall report their findings to the City Counail
prior to the oompletion of annexation prooeedings". Tho followin~ information i.! supplied.
(See Exhibit "A"):
Parcel No. County Zone Comparable Zone Proposed Interim Zone
1 R-1 R-1
R-1
2 C-1 C-1
C-1
3 R-3 R-3 R-3
~ R-3 R-3
R-A
5 C-1 C-1(R-3) R_3
6 C'1 C-1
C-1
~
'"~ ~
`~ '
~
.*x
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Ma,roh 14, 1966
REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 2(continued)
RECOI~PIDATIONS Broadway-Brookhurst Annexation - Interim Zoning
Parael No. County Zoning Comparable Zone
7 C-1 C-1
8 C-1 C-1
9 C-1 C-1
10 R-1 R-1
11 R-1 R-1
2975
ProPOSed Interim Zone
C-1
C-1
C-1
R-1
R-1
12 R_p ~_p ~_~
13 R-P C-0 C-0
14 C-1 C-1 C-1
15 R-1 R-1 R-A
16 C-1. ~-1 R-A
PARCEL 1: Paroel 1 is oomposed of two existing single-family traots with the remainder of
the area developed for single-family homes with some agriculture in the southwest corner,
and is,therefore, reaommended for an interim zone of R-1.
PARCEL 2: Parcel 2 is zoned C-1 ir. the County with a servioe station at the northeast corner,
and is, therePore, reaommended for an interim zone of C-l.
PARCEL 3: Paroel 3 is zoned R-3 with one multiple-family development on one lot with the
other three lots developed in very nice, well-kept single-family residences and is, therefore,
reaommended for an interim zone of R-3.
PARCEL 4: Paroel 4 is zoned R-3 in the County, was never developed nor created as a paroel
as shown and it is in agrioultuisl use. Twenty-five (25)feet of dedication is needed along
the Braedway Prontage and is, therePore, reaommended for an interim zone of R-A.
PARCEL 5: Parael 5, while zoned C-1 in the County, was developed as an R-3 Planned Unit
Development under the old C-1 provisions of the County. It is, the^ofore, recommended for
an interim zone of R-3.
PARCELS 6, 7, 8, and 9: Paraels 6, 7, 8, and 9 were zoned and developed as C-1 propertiss
under the County and are, therefore, reoommended for an interim zone o£ C-1.
PARCELS 10 aud 11: Paroels 10 and 11 are developed as single-family traots under the County,
and as suah, are recommended for R-1 interim zoning.
PARCELS 12 and :. These parcels are the lots straddling Brookhurst Street northerly of
Lincoln on whici.~~`,ne County has pleoed R-P, Residential Professional zoning. The City's
comparabla zone would be C-0, Co~eroial Office. A dediaation of 20 £eet is required for
the widening of Brookhurst Street, and it is, therefore, reao~nended that due to the char-
aoter of the existing development (tho use of existing residentisl strunturos as commercial
of~ices) an interim zone of C-0 be placed on these paroels.
PARCEL 14: Parael 14 is an existing aommeraial developoent with full dedication and improve-
ments having already been given and installed. It is, therefore, recommended for an interim
zone of C-1.
PARCEL 15: Paroel 15 was zoned R-1, Single-Family in the County; howevar, it is still in
agriaultural uso and is, therefore, recommended for the R-A, Agricultural, Zone as interim
zoning. Twenty-five Peet of dedioation is required along this parcel on Broadway.
PARCEL 16: Parael 16 was zoned C-1 under the County. However, it is still in agricultural
use, ~vith 25 feet oY dedication needed on Boradway and 30 feet of dedioation needed along
Erookhursi;. Therefore, an interim zone of R-A is renommended.
~
_~ k
.. t
~
~.
MLNUTES , CITY PLANNING COIdMTSSION, M~:•ch 14 , 1965 2976
REPORTS AND - ITE;M N0. 1(continued)
RECOMMENDATIONS Broadway-Brn~.;k2iurst Annexation - Interim Zoning
4Yhile Section 18.12.030(4) recuires only that the Planna.ng Commission report the City Zone
most olosely approxime,ting the Count,y zoning, it is suggested that the Planning Commission
may wish to reaommend to the City Council the interia zones as listeP. above."
Cou~issioner Ro~uland offered a motion to recommend to the City Council ':hat interim zoning,
as depicted on Exhibit "A", be asvablished as being comparable to that zoning established on
prop~rties .n the Broadway-Brookhurst Annexation while said property was under the jurisdiction
of the County. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. M0~'ION CARRIED. Commissioner Camp
ebstained.
Co~issioner Mungall offered a motion to recommend tc the City Council that the Broaciway-
Brookhurst Annexation be approved as a logical extension of the City's boundaries in an
area which reprasents an island between two City of Anaheim boundaries. Commissioner Perry
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEEQ N0. 2
City of F4~llerton Planning Co~nission, request to permit the
erection and maintenance of a temporary subdivision direction
sigri to be located on the ~~est side af Stai,e College Boulevard,
400 f:~et south of Orangethorpe Avenue.
Associate Pls:uiar Jack Chri=tofferson presented a legal notice from the City of Fullerton,notin~
that the Fullerton City Planning Commission was considering at public hearing March 23, 1966,
at 7:30 p.m. z request to permit the erection and ma'.ntenance cr a temporary subdivision dir-
ection sign whiuh would be located on the v~est side of Sta`e College Boulevard, 400 feet south
of Crangethorpe Avenue, and that tho proposed sign would be approximately150 feet north of the
City limits.
Discussion ~vas held by the Commission as to requirements for similar signs within the City,
~vhio'.z include a time limitation, as e~sll as, assurance, through the filing of a bond, that
the sign would be removed after the time ex.pired.
Commissioner Herbst offered a mction to recommend to tha City Council that the City of
F~llerton Plann:ng Commission be iniormsd that t;le Cit;~ of t~naheim had a policy regarding
the brention of temporary ~igns, and if the roquest ~.as approved, that they aonsider requiring
a time limitation of six mor_ths, together with posting of a bond to insure removal of the sign
after the time limitation expired.
Commis~ioner Mungall secondod the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEPG N0. 3
City of Fullerton Zone Change from C-7_, General Gommercial, C-M, Commerciel-
Manufacturing, and M-1, Light Manufacturing, Zones to the C-1, Limited Com-
mercial, erith a designation that it is poten+,ielly suitable for uses permi.tted
in a C-3, Central Business District Commercisl Classi£ication - property
located on the noc•th side of Orangethorpe Avsnue, between Harbor Boulevard
an!~. Lemon Street
~'~ t
Associ~te P'lanner Jack Christofferson presented to tho Ccmmission the City of Flillerton's
pr~posed Zone Change proposing C-l, Limited Co~ercial, Zone with a potentisl for C-3, Central
Bu:~iness District Zoning for porFerty bounded on the south by Orangethorpe avenue, on the esst
by Lemon Street, and on the west by Harbor Aoulevard, eaid parcel containing approximately
40 acres.
Coumiissioner Herbst, in leading the discussion witl: the Commission, stated that the properties
in r,uestion were located directly ~vest of ~he partially developed industriel property in the
City of Anaheim; that there were threo existing sma'_1 industrial plants on Pomona Stre6t in
Fullorton; that a traffic problem existed because of the narrow ~~idth of Lemon Street on the
Fullerton sido; that proparties in this area had drainaee problems which might present diffi-
aulties in developin~ them for industrisl purposes; and that because of the asking price for
properties in this area, it vias doubtful thosa properties would be developed for indus~i•ial
purposes.
_ Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission thera µ~as a possibility of indicating
that general area be~ng considered for rozor.in~ as a cegional shopping center on tne General
~ Plan, bec.aa.;. of the recent expansion and adui'..ions of now commercial faoilities in this
„tx general £~rea.
_._._.~
F
MIN[Pi~S, CITY PLANNING COI~d2SSI0N, March i4, 1965
REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 3(Continued)
RECOMA~NDATIONS City of Fullerton Zone Change
2977
Co~issioner Herbst offered a motion to reoommend to the City Council that the City of
Fullertoii Planning Comm3ssion be informed that the proposed reclassifioation of that
property looated on the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue, between Harbor Boulevard and
Lemon Street would be nompatible with the existing and projected future development in
the area. Commissioner Allred seaonded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM N0. 4
Conditional Use Permit No. 372
Sports Reureation Center, hotel, bank and service station
property located at the northwest corner of Orangethorpe ?lvenue and
Dowling Street - request for termination
Assoaiate Planner Jack Christofferson presented a request from the attorney of the former
property owners of property approved by the Com~ission for a recreation-commeraiel center
on February 18, 1963, and approved by the City Counoil on April 2, 1963; that a six month
extension of time was granted by the City Counoil on October 29, 1963 and a 360 day extension
of time was granted by the City Council on Maroh 31, 1965; that dedication for street widening
of Dowling, and Cro~vther Avenues had bean reoeived; that a street improvement bond had been
filed; that a slepe easement had been reaeived; and that street light fees in the amount of
$2C54 had been paid; however, the surviving property owner had requested termination of all
proceedings of Conditional Use Permit No. 372, because he had siace sold the property, and
did not intend to exercise the use granted by City Counoil and Planning Commission.
Coa~issioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 1981, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seoonded by Commissioner Rowland to reaommend to the City Council that all
proceedings and action of Conditional Use Permit No. 372 be terminated as requested by the
attorney for the former property owners. ;See Resolution Book)
On roll oall the foregoing resolution v~as passed by the following vote:
AYES: CO~ISSIONERS; Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungsll, Perry, Rowland, Camp.
NOES; COMMISSIONERS; None.
ABSENi; COMhdIS3I0I~RS: None.
ITEM N0. 5
ond~nal Use Permit No. 517
Carpenter's Hall, 60$ SYest Vermont Avenue
Request for a one year extension of timo to complete conditions.
Associate Planner Jeck Christofferson presented to thc Commis~ion a request from the United
Brotherhood of Carpenters end Joiners requesting nn edditionnl extensir,~ of time to complete
conditions of Resolution No. 1002, Series 1963-64 ~renting Condi~ionc•. ifse Permlt No. 517;
furthermore, ti;at ti:is 1•oqu~. t v;~ ;, +,_,e t}lird r~ade b;; the ei,itioners;~.•~
tims extendeci ~o Jenuary 24, 1966, with the stipuletion that the street lilg}tlfee betpaid~n of
prior to said expiration; however, these fees had not been paid.
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to grant a one year extension of time to expire dqnuary 24,
1967, provided however, that tiie petitioners pa,;; tho street light feo of $394.00 ~rith;n two
~voeks. Commissioner Roerland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRI~D.
ITEM N0. 6
Conditionnl Use Permit No. 756 - establ9.sh a cat boarding fecility on
propert;~ located at 928 South t'lebstar Si,reet - requost for extension of
time to complete conditions of P,osolution No.1772, Series 1965-66 dated
Se~tember 13, 1965.
' Associate Planner Jaok ~!iristofferson presentod ;o the Commission a requost from the petitionor
Fdvin C. Sackett requesting an oxtension of six months for the completion of conditions of
Resolution No. 1772, Series 1965-G6, dated 5eptember 13, 19G5 approving Conditional Use 1'ermit
Na• 750• It ves noted that not one of tho conditions had been met as of this date.
' Commissioner Horbst offered a motion to
` of conditions of Resolutior. No. 1772, Ser~iest19G5i66 grantingtConditional1UsefYermit Nomp75~ion
said extension of time to expire September 11, 1966. Co~issioner Allred seaonded the motion.
* A40TION CAf2RIED,
,~x.
,,
~:
__.. .,
T
MINIJTES, CITY PLANNING CO~dMISS20N, March 14, 1966 2978
REPURTS AND - ITEM N0. 7
RECOMMENDATIONS Conditional Use Permit No. 781 - establish a mobile home park
north of the northeast corner of Lincoln and Grand Avenues
Amendment recommended regarding conditions of approval
~
~
A~sociate Planner Jack Christofferson presented recommended changes to the Commission's action
granting Conditional Use Permit Na.781 in Resolution No. 1843, Series 1965-66 dated
November 8, 1965, not3ng that subject property had a resolution of intent approving it for
a one and two-story multiple family planned residential development; that mobile home parks
were a permitted use in the R-A, Zone that Condition No. 1 of the Commission's granting the
mobile home park required oompletion of conditions of Reclassification No. 63-64-35, which
would not be necessary if subject property were developed for a mobile home park; and that
Condition Nos. 2-d and 5 of the City Council Resolution No. 63R-844 aovering street light
and street tree fees would still be applicable in approval of the aforementioned petition.
Furthermore, the petitioners had complied with street dedication and street improvement bond
posting.
The action taken by the City Council reg~,rding the Conditional Use Permit No. 477, approving
a planned residential development in conjunction with the reclassification of the property,
wes no longer applicable, since the property ovmers now planned to develop the property as a
mobile home park, Mr. Christofferson stated; however, the Commission action recommended at
this time was the amendment of the conditions ~ranting Condltional Use Permit No. 781, and
at some later date the Commission might wish to reco~end termination of the other CUP.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution 1Vo. 19A2, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Co~issioner Gauer to amend Resolution No. 1843, Series 1965-66
granting Conditional Use Permit No. 781 as t~ollc•AS:
DELETION OF CONDITION N0. 1.
The addition of the follo~ving conditions:
10. That the ovmers of subject property'shall pa;~ to the ~ity of Anaheim
the sum of $2.00 per front foot along Grand Aven~ie, for street lighting
purposes.
11. That the o•.timers of subject property shall pay to tho City o£ Anaheim
the sum of :~2 per front foot along Grend Avenue, ior tree planting
purposes.
12. That Condition Nos. 10 and 11 shall be complied wii;h prior to final
building inspection.
On roll call the ioregoing resolution •r~as p~.ssed by the folloaing voi;e:
~~5; COMMISSION~RS: A11red, Gauer, Herbst, Mungsll, Perry, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ITEM N0, f3
Orange Coun~y TentaLive ~dep of Tract No. 4817
Property ].occ~ted aost o£ Richfield Road, approximately 1,500 feet south
of Buona Vist~ Avenue in the Yorba Lind~ aree - subdivision into 54 planned
development lots;vrithdre~vial of the ti•act by the subdivider.
Associate Planner .iack Chris~offerson ndvised the Commission that tno Or~~ge County Plannin~
Commission had approved a requost oi the subdivider of Tontative Map of Tract No. 4817 to
v~ithdratii tho tract map. The location of i:ho tract and the action by -*,t~o Commission taken
previously rvas also reviewed.
Co~issioner Gauer offered a motion to receive and file the communication regarding Orange
County Tentative Mcip of Tract No. 4817. Commissioner Rov~land seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
~~' 1 ~
r~ ADJOIJRNMEDIT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Rowland offered a motion
~i , to adjourn the meeting. Co~issioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRI.ED.
`~'he meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.
~° •
~~~ ~y
;{ Respectfully sub itted,
.' ! il
~: ,Secretary
~.
E
,__ a?"a
,~ax