Minutes-PC 1966/11/21,.~ f ' 7
,. ~
City Hall
r1naheim, California
Nuvember 21, 1966
A REGU~AR MEETING OF THE AUA~~EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
' 7.
3~ ~
~
' "3 ~
REGULAR MFETING - A regular meeting of th~e AnahPim ~;ity Planning Commission we.; ca~1e;:
to order by ~hairman Camp at 2:00 o'clock P.M., a quorum beir:i ;resent.
PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Camp.
- COMh1ISSI0NtRS: Allred, Gau,s~.. ii?rbst, Rowlanci, b1u~,aalla
APSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Farano.
PRCSENT - Assistant P.evelopment Servi:~& :::;ec;;nr: Robe:t Mickelso~~
Zoning ~•upervisor: Ronald Thompsor.
Deout~~ ~:ity Attorney: FurRan Roberts
Office :r~yineer: Ar*_hur Daw
?lanning Supervisar: Ronald Grudzins;ci
A sociate Planner: Jack Christoff~_ison
~lanning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs
INVt~CATION - Revere,u;4~~iiiiam Hoover, ~asto~ of Sunkist B~Ntist Churc:~, gave
the In•m_ t;~~n.
PLE'JGE OF
ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Rowland led ~n the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
APPROVAL OF - The Minutes of the meeting ~f Novemb=r 7, 1966, were held ov~r to
THe MINUTES the meeting of DecemCer 5, 1966.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. HUGHES MAkKETS, INCORPORATED, 2716 :~a.~ Fernando Road,
PERMIT N0. 895 Los Angeles, California, Owner; PACIFIC OUTD(~R ADb'ERTISING COIJ~PAN~',
P. 0. Box ;159, Termina! Annex, ~os Ar.u2les, Cali?orr~:z. Aqent, rey.~esti-:.a
permission tv CO'JS?R;'CT A i''1iPCqaC. ~:'r~'- 'P'4i'.F.P,S l~F !, ~~ -~~
. ~n;,'?TeD
AIiLPOARD ARL-A, A\~G (2) '~'~~Xi~~"~li".'. A?i~°OAR:~ i'EIG~'T, o~ prooer~y descri;ed , ~aec*.=;~g,:iarly
shaped parcel ef land located at the southeast corr.er ot ?~e3ch Bou'.eva: ,• ~u Ur~ng<_• Ave~~u~~,
and h:ving frontages of approxin~tely S1~ fEet o.^. rea~.h„oulevard and iq,~roximatel~ 5'~ f~~~t
on Urange Avenue, Froperty prese;,tiy ciasai`ied .;-;, GEf.;eRAL CJ~J,~J;ERCIAI., ;~~;E.
'.r, J. F,. Kingrey, rep:esenti:,g tt,e P~ci~~c _.td~~~ kd~,.rtisir,g Co~npany, ~F.~,~ared 'ceiore t~,e
Gommission a.id presented pictures su eriT ~;ir , •
P P~ +: :.roposed siar. or. the ex?stiny s:gr.,
ncting that '_~is would be ch:ngaao.~~ cery wit: ~d~;ertisers ourcn~5:~.~ tvreive c'r~ar~ges o:
signs every tiiirty daye, ano ti.ii type ~, sig:: ~Nas ir. 144 1oc~tio::.; tha? t1,e ~~,;qt,es Company
had tentative pla~.s tu construc~ t.:e cam~e*c:a] marketi~r,, fa~ility witn;r. !.i:r r.<~~ t~vo years;
and th:t the si~s. c.:~oar.y f:ad a thirty-dav o~;*ior en t;:? p*,oper:y.
Zoninq Supervisor Ror.aid ihompson, in. resoonse to Cummissicn -r~esr.ori;.o, sia;A~ ti,.~' ti;e
existir,g sign vias 3: feet nign, and ti-:e proposed sign oaould i,e 3!~ f~et f;i~h, ,:,~i tt:at t:.-
advertisiny copy would extend approximately 22 feet to t':e lef~ cr thE e;;;_t:r,a sian.
Associate F~lanner Jack ~:hristeffe.sor, advised t%:e ~ommissie~ ~~~? ihe rew RiilF,oaid C•d` ance
aoproveri hy the City took i;;to c;,r.side~:,tio~~ reside~:l_,i st:uct~i:es witl:in 300 i=et oi a~}•
proposed nil!board sia,r..
Mr. Kingrey, in response to questi~nin,, hy the Staif, stated t~.at *_hc rioooscd sig::::~uid
h3~~e the same angle as tne existi;.n siq .
P!o ore appeared ir. opposition tc ~~~bject pEr.ition.
TriE HEARIidG NlAS CLOSED.
Tne Commission reviewed tne propose,~ s~ ^ ovaria~~s and discussed t!:e ~vaivers :~:ue_t=c' .~5
they compared with Che existi.ng 3ilic~oa.d Urdi.~ar.ce, i~ keiny detertrir.en ;.;~a;: since ;he
~illboard G*di^ar,ce provided for a 300-square foot bil;board ?.r. cert-~in areas, t't:e ~om;rission's
primary concern was whether or not the pr^posed sign was apprcor~at~:, ;nd ,vt.ett:tr ~: not
granting subject petition wuuld set a prec;dent for sir,i!,~r t:l_'roard r~y,;esis aiono F.eacn
F~oulevard. -
-3262-
F
;
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSI0~1~ Novems;.r 21, ]~~66 3263
4'~l
r~
F -
iJ *
!~
CONDI',"IONAL USE - Commissioner Mungall offe*ed k=solution No. PC66-149 and moved for its
PERMiT N~~. 895 passage a~id adoption, seconded cy Commissioner Allred, to deny Petition
(Continued) for Conditional UsP Permit No= 39~, on the basis that the existing
Billboard Ordinance adequately pro~~i.ded for any advertisina sign necessary,
and there was no reasun for gr~ntir.g any waiver of the Billboard Ordinance;
furthermore, residential uses were esiablished to thf~ east and northeast, and the proposed
sign would have a deleterious effect on these reside,ices. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resclution wa=, passed by the followi^; v~te:
AYES: ~:ON~MISSiONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowlan~:, G.....N.
NOES: l'-0MMISSIONERS: iVa~2,
ABSENT: COMNiiSSICiJr:;S: C-ara~-~.
CO[dDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. JACK GREENLY, 1:~•12 rdest Lincoin Avenue, Anaheim,
PERMIT N0. 8~% California, O~vn~r; idARK FIRESTUNE, 11~3 WPSt C'arson, Torrance,
Calif~rnia, Age~~t; reauesting permissir,r: t~ ~~:~ABLISH A WALK-UP
RESTl, 2ANT WITH W,9IVERS OF (1) MINIMUN rPJti: .3UILDING SETBACK,
(2) MINII~;~JM REQUIRED LANi~SCAPING, (3~ MAXiM:"~ SIGN ~REA IN FR~"~f SETBACK, AND (4)
CU7E PROVISION PROHIBITiNG ROUF SIGNS iN TY,~ N-1, LIGHT INL"~TRIAL, ZONE, on property
described as: An irreg~lar'.y shaped parctl of land locatel at the southwest corner of
Lincoln ar.d Manchester kvenues and having frcntages of ap;~roximately 75 feet on Lincel;
Avenue a•~d a,~proximately 140 feet on Mancheste: Avenue, and further described as 1500 West
Lincoln Avenue. Property presently ~lassified Ni-1, LIGHT IIJDUSTRIAL, ZUNE.
Mr. Psiciota, representir.g the proposed developer cf sub~ect property, appeared before the
Commission and stated that althouah a number of ~~i•.~~:rs were requested, this was neces=ary
because of the existing zoning on subject property, ar.d that when plans were drar~r., he wa~
of the opinion that 10 i~e~ of land~capin~ was beii;a pi~vided in th= setback s•aa.
?he Commission noted that ;~st of the area had 10 feet -.: landscaping.
Zoning Supervisoi Ronald T:~mpson noted for the Commission that the City Council had estab-
lished a 35-:o~t bu~idir~g .,ziback alon9 Linculn Aver~ue which had been adhered to in the
developmpnt of tha p*operty west of Lcara Street.
7he Commissio;i inquired whether or not the pe`itiuner could comply nri?n the sign require-
ments as per~nitted by C:ede,
Mr. Thompe.;n :,ated ti:at tne M-1 Zone did not pezmi~ a roof sign, ~r.d permitted only a
100-squ~rE foot, free-standing si~n ir. the front 50-foot setback, wher.eas the proposed
sign was lb•9 square fee':, and that the G2 Zone permi~ted a 350-square ;oct =ign h~sed
o^ 2 feet fo: each lineal foot of street front,ag~~.
Mr. Pe.;~io;.a, ir, resFc~se to Commission questioning, stated ~~ the proposed operation
would be the second in the City; ?nat the:e were 87 similar operations in Califo:nia, and
c,~ly two we:e not payin9 their way; ~hat the proposeri location wouid be c~mpany-operat?d;
~hat eUo~~t ~~:; i~ '~ur instaJlations was operated by the company and othPcs were under
frar.chises; and that ,~erhaps a reclassification peti~ion would have oeen a bett~r ~ehicle
in obtairing approval of Lne prcpos~.d use.
T~c Commi,si~n inquired of Office ~ngireer Art~w r Daw the t,~pe of improvements proposed
under the Victor Gruen fic~ort.
Mr. Daw stated that this report proposed changes east of Manchester Ave;w e.
!dr. Mike Hulett, 701 DJorth West Street, apnea_ed before the Commission, noting he ownec
the property immediately to the west, kno~vn as 1520-1534 West Lincoln Avenue, and inc,.~ired
whether or not the petitior~er proposed to remove the existing billboard; that he had never
received a notice reyarding construction of the billboard when it was erected tr.ree years
ago.
The ager.t stated that they were attempting to t1•eak ti~~ lease wit~, the i~ii'.Loard compar~l
=inc2 it would have a o~t:imental ef:ect on the propcsed structure.
hir. 1?uiAtt then inquired what effect tfie r~quESted waivers wouid hhve o;, his property in
the event the negotiatior.s i:eing planned ;or redevelopment of nis property were ;ina;ized;
whether or rot the reouested 1C-foot setback, if 3pproved, w;~:lr; have : datrimer:ta; efiect;
that under thP existing zoning, they would be requized to set bacl: 50 ieei for tne tr~.~ o;
development they proposed, and his clients would be penalized by not havir,y tF.e ::roper
e~cposure to passing traffic; and that if he were reauired to set back in accoida,~c~ wit.h
.-._:. ,: _ _...,
..r.;,~ '--T7-~~~-~-- . --....... . ~ -~~~.,.~..-.
_ ... ..~..~.4~~,,.~,~.~""'~~~'~ ~ ~.;~,=-~.~e.;
~._;: ~
r
` Y
MINUTES, CI7Y PLANNING COMMISSION, November'21, 1966 '
3264
CONDITlONAL 'JSE - Ccde, and tt~e petitioner wa~ granted the waiv~rs requested, he would be
PERMIT N0. 897 in opposition. However, if upon development of his property at a future
(Contir,u~d) date he would be granted or. issued a similar waiver of the setback require-
ments, his opposition would be withdrawn.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC66-150 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by l;om;nissioner Mungall, tc grant Petition for Conditional UsP Permit ~40, 897,
subject to conditions. (See Resolution 9oQk)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COMM?SSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: CO1~IdISSIONERS: Farano.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. CHRISTIAN CENTER CHURCH OF ORANGE COUNTY, P. U. Box 510,
PERMIT N0. 898 Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A PRIVATE
EDUCATIGNAL INSTII~UTION on property described as: Parcel 1- A rectangularly
shaped parcel of land with a frontago of approximately 62 feet or, the east
side of Norwood Street and having a maximum depth cf approximately 100 feet, the southerly
boundary of subject property bein9 approximately 335 feet north of the centerline of Kenwood
Avenue, and further described as 1326 Norwood Street; and Parcel 2- A-ectaneviarly shaped
parcel of land havin9 a frontage of approximately 60 feet on the west side of Candlewood
Street and having a maximum depth of approximately 100 feet, the southerly boundary of subject
property being approximately 335 feet north of the centerline of Kenwood Avenue, and further
described as 1327 Candlewood Streeto Property presently classi:ied R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDEi4-
TIAL, ZONE.
Reverend Ralph Wilkerson, Pastor of the ct~urch, appeared before the Commission and stated
that the educational facilities recently completed by the ch~rch had already been outgrown,
and ?t was necessary to find additional space for a Sunday School; that the church was attemot
ing to relocate ir~ a larger facility - however, in the meantime, they had neootiated to purch~s
these properties for the associate pastor's residence and the custodian's residence, and these
were now being converted into facilities for Sunday School and would b= used only one day a
week; thai the recommer,ded masonry wall for tt~e southerly property line of subject property
would be constructed if the Co~mission desired; that the residential appearance of the homes
would be maintained, and at the time the church was to be relocated, these homes wo~ld be
resold as residences; that a gardener was rr.aintai;~ing the lan9scaping of the property, and
the appearance was better than it had been in the past; furthermore, in response to Commissi;n
questioning, stated that tt~e addition to one of the hom~s had not been authorized - that one
of the parishioners had been over-enthusiastic ir. I~is attempt to keep out the cold air from
the Sunday School classes and ilad completely cemented the screened porch, and the ciiurch wouid
make an attempt to rectify this mistake.
Mr. Ben Consmo, 13631 Carlsbad llrive, Urange, app?ared before the Commission, statiny he was
one of the board members of the church; that sin~e tt~e church was first started :n the
Assistance League building three years ago with 65 rnembers, the membership had c,rown to
o~~er 400 in the new facility, and between 1,600 and 2,000 people attended church services
a; the Christian Church on Sunday; that the church was attempting to accommodate the man}•
children who were corr,ing to Sunday School; that the home which had bsen purchased 'nad a
screened-in patio, and one of the eager members in attempting to wind-proof the home hod
deci~ed to improve it as well; tiiat the board was attempting to negotiate for approximately
20 acres and was proposing a master plan of developaent of the church and school facilities
for this property, and with this master pian it was intended to have a sanctuary seating
3,000 persuns so that these facilities woutd not be outgrown as quickly as the present ones.
Mr. Duane Sto~lt, 1316 Candlewood Street, anpeared before the Commission and stated it seemed
rather unreasonable to him that the church was proposing to use two $20,000 homPs for one
hour per week, and the $4Q,000 could have well been used to apply to the educational facili-
ties which had just been coinpleted; that he was opposed to changing tne use of the residences
for other than a parsonage or a custodian's residence; that the residents of the area were
opposed to using tne homes for scheduled nieetin9s sirce the one home on Candlewood Street had
been used already for six months without an official permit from the City, ano if previous
church growth was any inJication, the church would be gradually creeping down both Candlewood
and Norwood Streets in an attempt to handle the increase in membership, which would be detri-
mental to the residential integrity of the area.
~;~ Mr. Don E. Smith, 1303 Norwood Street, appeared before the Commission and stated that he lived
?; o~ the west side of Norwood Street; that his concern was further encroachment on East Street
"~'t ,~ adjacent to the residential homes; that a study should be made to determine whether or not
,~ "~
~ ~ v ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 21, 1906 3265
CONDITIONAL USE - this commercial encroachment should inciude those lots on the west side
PERMIT N0. 898 of Norwood Street; ~hat the City had recently vacated an easement which
(Continued) was an indication that commercial uses would be continued along East
Street; that the church had been using the homes for church facilities
prior to this petition; that a traffic problem ~resently existecl because
of the number of cars coming to cne church facilities, and it tiad become very difficult to
attempt to gain entrance to the homes during the church services; that even if the properties
were sold to another church, there was no guarantee that this chur.ch membership would not
increase as regularly as the existing one, and then there would be this continued encroach-
ment into the residential uses along Norwood and Candlewood Streets; that some people were
speculating on the possibility of commercial uses, ar,d this further reduced the desirability
of the homes; that he felt the Commission should not consider subject petition until a study
was made to determine the proper uses for the homes in the area, and a statement made as to
what types of uses would be permitted wnere homes were adjacent to East Street; that the
Union Oil Company had indicated they proposed to establis:~ a walk-up restaurant at the inter-
section of Norwood and East Streets; and that deed restrictions wer~ filed at the time the
tract was developed, and he was sure the builder did not inte~~d to convert these existing
homes fo- Sunday School purposes.
Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts stated that private deed restrictions meant that the
property owners had recourse tnrough 1ega1 counsel in maintaining the residential intearity
of th~: area, ~nd while ttie City should giv~ some cognizance to this fact, since the irend
of development had been other than residential, these restrictions might not be honored by
the City.
REVe:end Wilkerson, in rebuttal, stated that the reason t!~,e church was ir.terested in spending
the money they dio for the homes was that it was important to maintain the church growth to
tahe care of as mar:y chi!.dren as possible; that the hom~s had been upgraded, and landscaping
had been taken care of, making it better in appearance th~n many of the homes in the area;
that he felt there would be no detriment to the residenti~l integrity of the area by the use
of these homes for one hour a week for Sunday School; tnat each home would serve between 50
and 65 Sunday School students ior one hour a week, and classes would be held b?tween 9:45 and
10:45 A.h;., and would not be used the balance of the week; that the church board felt.this wasa
good investment in the youth oi America; that or.e of the opposition had indicated the homes
should be used for a parsonage and a custodian, and tnat since the church had been built, one
of the members of the church had provideo a home for the excess flow of Sunday School students
and ihat he fel~ the use for tnree years of these homes would be more than adequate and would
meet their needs until new facilities were constructed.
ihe Commission inquired of the Staff what type of chan9e would have to be made to the homes,
or what was the reason for Condition No. 2 regarding conversion of the structures to meet
the Uniform Building Code.
Zoninc Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that this was a standard requirement
of use of existing homes to afiord some protection to children because of the possible fire
hazard, and that these buildings would have to compJ.y with the re~uirements of the fire depart-
ment relative to exits and material.
THE HEARING WAS CiOSED.
Commissione_~ Herbst offered a motion to approve Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 898,
subject to use of the buildings for Sunday School purposes for one hour a day only, no change
in tne appearance of the structuies, a time limitatior. of three years for the proposed use,
and conversion of the homes to residential purposes upon resale.
On role caii Commissioners Allred, Gauer, Rowland, and Camp voted "no". Commissioners ~erbst
snd Mungall voted "yes", Commissioner Farano being absent.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution i~o. PC66-151 and moved for its pass~oe ar.d adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Allred, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 898, on the
basis tnat the proposed use of ttie structur~s would set a pattern of oossible furtner encroach
ment into the residentia: area; that tne structures, as constructed, might be unsafe in tne
event of fire because 50 to 65 children would be using these facilities; and that the u~e
would be adding to the present traffic problems on two ra~~~ential streets. (See Resolution
Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COAM4ISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Pdungall, Rowlan.,, Camp.
* NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst.
~ ~~ ABSENT: CUMMISSIONERS: Farano.
MINUTES, CITY PiANNING COMMTSSION, November 21, 1966 3266
~'. f ~
CONDITIONAL USF - PUBLIC HEARING, JAPANESE AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES, 5511 East
PERMIT N0. 9Q Lincoln Avenue, Cypress, California, Owner; ?cAN ISNIDA, 11222 Santiago
Boulevard, Orange, California, Agent; requesting permission to have
ON-SALE BEER AND WINE on property described ~~s: A rectangularly shaped
parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 398 feet on the north side of Ball Road
and havin9 a maximum depth of approximately 250 feet, the westerly boundary of subject
property being approximately 465 feet east of the centcrline of Beach Roulevard, and fu:`her
described as 2937 West Ball Road. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL,
ZONE.
No one appeared to represent the petitioner.
Reverend John Emmans, Pastor of the Anaheim Community Church at 2930 West Ball Road, appeared
before the Commission in opposition and stated that the church had been locateo on the south
side of Ball Road on a 3.2-acre site since 1958; that the executive board had i;,structed him
in the name of the congregation to appear in opposition to the conditional use permit for the
o•~-sale of beer and wine because of i;he proximity of the proposed use to the youth cer.ter
recently built on the church property; that, on a direct line, the distance from the church
door to the door of the restaurant would be a total of 302 feet only, and mAasur~ng from the
door easterly to Gaymont and then southerly and west to the :estaurant wouid measure 567
feet; that the proximity of the restaurant to the church makes the serving of alcoholic
beverages undesirable; that the Anaheim Community Church had an active youth program, and
the new facilities would be dedicated December 18, providing activities for the youn9 girls
and boys almost every evening of the week; that the training program also included S~~nday
School and Sunday evening oroups; that the youth certer was not only for the church members,
but also for the use of tt~e community, a~:d as such, represented a vital addition to the area,
and the sale of alcoholic beverages in close proximity to tne church facilities would have a
detrimental e!fect; furthermore, residential uses were es:ablished to the east and north of
the shoppi.ng area in which the restaurant was located~
The Commissicn noted that similar requests for on-sale beer and wine had been deni=; by the
Commission wh~re churches and schools were located within 600 feet, although thi_= .as the
prerogative of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
. Commissicner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC66-152 and moved for its passage and adoption,
-_ seconded by Commissione•: Allred, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No, 900, on
the basis that the proposed use would adversely ~ffect the adjeining land uses alre~dy estab-
lished ir the arez; that the proposed use would be detrimental to the peace, healtn, safety,
and general weliare of the citizens of the rity; and that the proximity of the church to the
proposed use would have a deleterious effect on youth programs established in said church.
(See Resolution I~ook)
On roll cali the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COMMISS:ONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Faranoo
; II VARIANCE ~0. 1843 -?UBLIC HEARING. RICHARD YOUNG, 2665 West Crescent Avenue, Anaheim,
' N California, Owner; requesting permission to WAIVE THE REAR YARD SETBACK
r N in order to permit the cor.struction o: a room addition into the minimum
~ required 10-foot rear yard setback on property oescribed as: A rectangularly shaped parcel
! of land with a frontage of approximately 63 feet on the north side of Crescent Avenue ard
having a maximum deptti of approximately 100 feet, the westerly boundary of subject prooerty
~~ i- being approximately 223 feet east of the centerline of La Reina Street, and further described
~ as 2665 West Crescent Avenue. Property presently classified R-1, O~E-FAMILY RESIDENTlAL, ZONE
c
;: Mr. Richard Young, the petitioner, appeared bef~re tne Commission and stated he was available
,` to answer questions, and that ihe proposed addi;:ion would take care of providina additional
~` rumpus room space for the children, as well as providing an area to entertain since he a~d
' his wife enjoyed having guests at their h me.
F': No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
r
~ - THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
~•
Commissioner Mungall off~rec+ Resolution No. PC66-153 and moved for its passage and adoption,
CJ - s=conded by Commissioner ;;erbst, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1843, subject to
conditions. (Ses Resolution Book)
~~ ~~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
~` AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
i.i NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
~ ! ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano.
.,
~ . .,.: -.._.. .. _ :. .
._ .. ....__
'~ - ' ~ - - -
~ - --- . - _
~ ,
r
MTNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 21, 1966 3267
~
RECLP.SSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. JOHN EAKIN, 2100 South Euclid Street, tinaheim,
N0. 66-67-39 California, Owner; HARRY KNISELY, 1523 West }•:atella Avenue, Anaheim,
California, tigent; requesting that property descriked as: A rectanyularly
shaped parcel of land located at the southeast corner of Orangewood Avenue
and Euclid Street and havin9 frontages of approximately 173 feet on Orangewood Avenue and
approximatel)' 175 feet on Euclid Street,be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICUI.TURAL, ZONE to
the C-1, Gr',=RAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE to establish a service station.
Mr. Harry Knisely, agent for the petitioner, apoeared before the Commission and stated that
no waivers were being requested; that it was the opinion of the proper:y owner that subject
properiy was a co~~ercial site; that some people were concerned (relati•ie to the h~alance of
the properties which are undeveloped) of setting a precedent with appr~~val of subj?ct peti-
tion by predetermining commercial use for the adjoining properties - h~~wever, this was not
under consideration at the present time, and the economics would deternine what use would
be placed on the parcels.
Mr. Roger Pannier, 2056 South Loara Street, appeared before the Commission, stating he
represented himself and his mother, Mrs. Howard Pannier, 11611 South Euclid Street, having
a citrus ranch directly across the street from subject property; that upon ti~e Commission's
shoulders rested the trend of any future deve2opment of the undeveloped properties in close
proximity to subject property; that although the balance of the properties was not under
consideration on subject petition, whenever a service station gained a foothold in an area,
thzs encouraged a precedent for further commercisl uses; that recently the northeast corr.er
of Orangewood Avenue and Euclid Street was appro~~ed for a combination shopping center and
service sta~ion - this was approv~d after many years of proposals by the property owners;
however, it was his opinion that a service station was not an acceptable use for subject
property, although he was in sympathy with the petitior.er, being a citrus rar.cher himseif
and knowing the pangs of economic pressures - however, the final result rested in tne
Commission's hands.
tdr. Knisely, in rebuttal, stated that he was aware of the zoning ~ction at the northeast
corner of Orangewood Avenue and Euclid Street; however, ne did not ieel the remair~ing
properties would convert to commercial uses, and this was not the question before the
Commission - only the consideration whether or not subject preperty was a commercial corner.
THE HEARING WAS CUJSED.
Chairman Camp stated that for clarification purposes, the Report to the Commission was a
bit misleading, in that Finding No. 3, relative to the uses established in close proximity.,
did not include the approved service station and shopping center at the northeast corner
of Orangewood Avenue and Euclid Street.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that this action had recently
been aporoved by the Commission and City Council; however, to his knowledge, it had r.ot.
been developed.
Commissioner Herbst stated that tne s?rvice station was already u;:dei cor,struct~or.
Commissioner Allred offered Resclution No. PC66-154 and moved for its passage and adoptio~,
seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petitior, for Reclassi-
fication iJo. 00-67-39 be disapproved on the basis that the proposed service station site,
t>ing a heavier than average commercial use, would set 3n undesirable precedent for co;nmer-
~ial uses of the remaining 9 acres of undeveloped property in close proximity to subject
property; that there were other major r irners within one-quarter to one-hal* mile or, wi-:ic^
a service station site could be include~ '.hat a service station should be inteyrated into
a shopping center complex rather than establishing a service station and then developing
commercial uses around said service station, since no other uses were comoatible with ~
service station site than commercial uses. (See Resolution Bookl
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, ~auer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano.
Commissioner Herbst stated he wished to qualify his vote by stating tF~at if subject property
were permitted to develop with a service station, this would set a precedent for development
of the undeveloped properties ir close proximity for commercial uses; that a service station
was the heaviest of commercial uses in the C-1 Zone and is considered a dirty, noisy opera-
tion which would limit the types of uses for the adjacent parcels to commercial uses only;
however, the area was not sufficiently developed to support the additional commercial estab-
lishment of 9.2 acres.
M?NUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 21, 1966 3266
RECLASSIF:CATION - Commissioner Gauer stated that the oil companies w~re doing themselves
N0. 66•-67-39 and the City a disservice by proje~~ing so many service stations at
(Centinued) intersections; that food was equally as important a commodity asgasoline,
but there were not food stores at every intersection; thata service station
should be a part of a shopping center and should not be located at every
intersection; that there were numerous se:vice stations in ttie confines of the City of AnaheiR
which were vacant and not being used, or were up for lease, and the belief of some of the
citizens of the City of Anaheim that every man had a right to go broke in his own business
reilected on the City and other people who v~ere dependent upon his business, since his failure
meant they would have to absorb many losses while servicing him, and that for each new service
station established, every service station would be affected because of the reduction in
income due to the limited amount of gasoline and oil automobiles in the City could be provided
and that the Commission has a duty to consider tne economics of a request, as well as the land
use when it affects the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLTC HEARING. JOPAR, INCORPORATED, 5681 Deborah Street, Long Beach,
N0. 66-67-40 California, and P4UL UON ESSEN, 5723 West 75th Street, Los Angel~s,
California, Owners; K. E. JOHNSON, 8151 Orangethorpe Avenue, Buena Park,
CONDITIONAL USE California, Agent; property described as: Parcel 1- An irregularly
' PERMIT N0. 895 shaped parcel of land situated at the southwest corner of Crescent Avenue
and Dale Avenue and having frontages of approximately 155 feet on Crescent
VARIANCE N0. 1842 Avenue and approximately 150 feet on Dale Avenue, and Parcel 2- A rectangu
larly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 69 ieet on
the south side o; Crescent Avenue and having a maxi~um depth of approxi-
mately 150 feet, the easterly boundary line being appro~imately 195 feet west of the center-
'~ line of Dale Avenue and being adjacent to the westerly boundary of Parcel 1, Property
presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL CUMMERCIAL, ZCWE.
REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: PARCEL 1- PER~~IT A SERVICE STATION WITHIN 75 FEET OF A
RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE IN AN R-A ZONE.
REQUESTED VNRIANCE: PARCEL 2- WAIVER OF (1) MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKI[•7G SPACFS, AND
(2) MAXIMUM BUILDIIJG HEIGHT.
Mi•. Keith Johnson, agent for the petitioner, appeared before tt~e Commission and stated tnat
' a Shell service station was proposed for the interse~tion of Crescent and Dale Avenues, and
a Tic Toc Market for the balance of the property, which was felt to be the highest and best
use for the property; that several of the property owners adjacent to subject property had
indicated their approval of the proposed development.
Mr. Fred Barhour, 13171 Galwa•~, Garden Grove, appeared before the Commission, stating he
represented the Tic Toc idarke~t operations in Orange County, which were all geared to neigh-
borhooc development; that al'_hough waiv~>r of the requ?red parking was requested, the proposed
parkiny was two more spaces than was necessary and experienced by other Tic Toc N~arkets; that
more than 10% of the property was beiny landscaped; tF,at tne shopping facility was a natural
i adiu;~ct to a service station at an intersection and would be a conver.ience facility to many
~' childrer, in the neighborhood.
Mr. L. J. Myers, 533 North Dale Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated he was in
favor oi ihe proposed use, and that his property was immediately adjacent to the south of the
„ proposed service station site.
.~
Mr. James Brown, 8392 Crescent Avenue, Buena Park, appeared before the Commission and stated
that although he lived on Crescent P.venue, he had purchas>d his home ten years ago to reside
~here and was not attempting to make a profit by resale of his property; however, in fairness
to the owners of subject oroperty, the proposed uses should be considered since there were so
many other similar uses already establis,ied north of Cresc=nt Avenue, and a solution had to be
arrived at; that when Buena Park perriitted homeowners to have their lots enclosed with masonry
walls along Crescent Avenue, this was indicative tnat a more intense land use or heavi~ar
traific was anticipated for Crescent Avenue; that h: had been contacted by the City of Buena
Park to dedicate an additional i5 feet for street widening purposes, which was also indicative
that Crescent Avenue would have more than normal traffic; and that the properties on Crescent
Avenue would be difficult to sell unless o firm policy ~vas established as to the ultimate
development and uses for those properties on Crescent F,venue, botn in Anaheim and Buena Park.
Mr. J. D. Romanoff, 8424 Planetary Drive, B~~ena Park, appeared before the Commission in
opposition, representing property owners and others present in the Council Chamber, and
stated that approximately six months ago subject property had been considered by the Planning
Commission, at which time the Commission recommended denial, and the petitioner withdrew the
petition before it was considered before the City Council; that at th~t hearing a petition
signed by 100 property owners was presented in opposition; that no change in iand use h;d
~
[
~ ~
_~ , ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CCMMISSION, IVovember 21, 1906
3269
~ RECLASSZFICATION - taken place since that time t~o warranf approval of subject Fetitions;
N0. 66-67-40 that the homes i
~
~ n the area were valued at $25,000 to $30,000, and to
approve a service station would be detrimental t
CONDITIONAL
~ o tne residential
USE integrity of the area; that any commercial use for subjeci pro ert
PERMIT N0. 896 would increa
th
P
se
e traffic on both streets; that there werF 12
markets
and 20 service stations with 108
pumps within one mile of subject pro ert
VARIANCE Np, 1842 which was more than adequate to serve the needs of th
(Continu
d)
P
y~
l e
e area; and that
the
petitioner had not presented evidence to ~
n
a
e
, requested
were necessary to insure that he might be
able to
'
V
I
~ en
o
tne
Same
others in the vicinity had, since only residents w
es2s
y
P
, ere
r, tne area
the church.
besid
,~~,
:~;s The opposition also presented a petition signed by 85 property owners opposing subject
petitions.
~ ~ ~
~'
"~ ~~r• A• G. Trout, 527 North Dale Ave~ue, Anaheim, appeared before the Co;nmission and stated
that Mr. Romanoff expressed hi,s feelings re
di
i gar
n the
he was unalterably opposed to any reclassification
~
r
s
l
t
, to comme
cial
uses
for
subject pro ert
P y.
~~
~ - Mr. Johnson, in rebuttal, submitted a letter from seven adjoini~g propert~ owners in favor
of sub ect
J petitions and noted that if
.
I subject petitions were approved, the owners of
subject property could realize some return from thei
i
• r
nvestment since rentals caused so
much damage that rents did not cover the costsof
i
`) repa
r, and that the vacan~ lot at the
corner could be developed, thus presenting a bette
j r appearance for the area; furthermore,
the City of Buena Park approved the service station adjac
t
,,~ en
and Beach Boulevard.
to residential uses at Crescent
~ Mr. Barbour, also in rebuttal, stated that because of the heavy traific, subject
could not be developed fo
ro
t
;I p
per
y
r residential purposes, and that the proposed development would
be an advantage ratner than a disadvantage.
' Letters of opposition from the City of Buena Park and the Anaheim Christian Reform Church
were read to the Commission
It
' I .
was also ncted that two other letters of opposition were
on file.
: ~ THE 'rIEARING WAS CL(~SED.
'I _ In the discussion held by the Commission it was noted that approval of subject petitSons
'i _ would introduce strip commercial uses ~long Crescent ar.d Dale Aver,ues in a predominantly
:,i residential area; that no ecor.omic or land use chsnge had talen place to warrant favorable
'•i consideration of subject petitions; and that because of the residential uses established
j in the area, subject property could also be used for residential purposes.
~
~j Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC66-155 and moved for its passage and ado
~~
seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recorr~mend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi-
~•~ fication No. 66-67-40 be disapproved on the basis that no land ~~se or economic change had
~f taken place to warrant favorable consideration of sub'ect
;I could be utilized for single-family residential use; ard tPatparservicetstationtwouldehave
~~ a deleterious effect on the peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the residents of
~ the area.
~ I (See Resolution Book)
Un roll call the foregoinr~ resolution was passed by the following vote:
i. AYES: CUMMISSIUNERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano.
1 `;
Commissioner Herbst off~red Resolut,ion No. PC66-156 and moved for its passage and adootion,
I ;`; seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to deny Petition for Conditional L'se Permit Plo. 896 on
i Y the basis that the proposed use adversely affect the ad;oining land uses and would be
,, detrimental to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the area.
~ (See Resolution Book)
~ '
i s: On roll call the furegoing resolution was
' 4, AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst,eMungalle Row~and,gCampe•
;t NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
• i ABSENT: COMMISSIUNERS: Farano.
. i:i
;~ , Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC66-15~ and moved for its passage and adoption,
~~` F seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to deny Yei.i*_ion for Variance No. 1842, based on the fact
s ~het the petitioner had not proven the adjoining properties had a privilege not enjo}~ed by
~1 - ~ petitioner. (See Resolution Book)
~~ ~, ~ Un roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
;~ ~ ,~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, '~iur.gall, Rowland, Camp.
~_} ~ NOES: CUMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano.
~ : 'I'~
,~ •
`:'~':,ti„~
P
I ' , /
E MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION, November 21, 1966 3270
f
~ STREET NANfE CHANGES ~ PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLAfJNING COMMISSION, 204 East
Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposing street name char.ges
for Blue Gum Street extending from its new aiignment southerly to
La Palma Avenue to Blue Gtim Way; La Palma Avenue between the River-
t side Freeway and Blue Gum Street within the City of Anaheim to W1i.ite-
f star Avenue; and the frontage road along the Riverside Freeway between
~ Chantilly Street and Newkirk Road be named Frontera St=eet.
i
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson reviewed for the Commission the basi:, for the change of
- street names due to the construction of the La Palma Avenue overcross~ng of the Rive=side
Freeway, makino a new alignment for Blue Gum Street - thus a small portion of the ~riginal
~:~~~~ alignment was cul-de-saced, and two streets had the same name; furthermore, the original
'~~ ' alignment of L.a Palma Avenue had been cul-de-saced with this said overcressing of the
~~t; Riverside Freeway, and this was a natural extension of the angled connection over the new
.7 alignm~nt of La Palma Avenue with Whitestar Avenue to rename it to Wh:testar Avenue; and
{ that the police and fire departments and ambulance services had difficulty in locatin9 the
'~ frontage road since it was referred to by many names, although no official name had been
,{ assigned to it.
Mrs. Jessie Coykendall, 15332 East La Palr.va Avenue, appeared before 'the Commission and stated
she was in accord with the proposed chan9E~ of La Palma Avenue to V+'hitestar Avenue since
Whitestar Avenue represented the combined names of the'Whites and the Morningstars, original
owraers of the property in that area.
No one appeared in opposition to subject street name changes.
THE HEARING WAS GUJSED.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC66-158 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to r.ecommend to the City Council that Blue Gum Street,
extending southerly from a point approximately 65U feet south of Coronado Street to the
north side of Old La Palma Avenue, be renamed "Blue Gum Way". (See Resolution Bookj
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the fol;owing vote:
A'YES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowlar.d, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano.
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution [do. PC66-159 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that the 350-foot portion
of the original ali9nment of La Palma Avenue within the jurisdiction of the City of Anaheim
be changed to'~Whitestar Avenue', and that the Orange County Planning Commission be u;ged to
rename the old align;nent of La Palma Avenue within the County's jurisdiction to "Whitescar
Avenue". (See Resolutior. Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foliowing vote:
AYES: CUMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, A4unga1l, Rowlard, Camo.
NUES: COMN'~ISSICNERS: None.
ABSENT: CUMMISSIONERS: Farano.
Commissioner Rowland oftered Resolution No. PC66-160 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Co~ncil tt,at that portion of the
frontage road southerly of the Riverside Freeway between Cha~tilly Street and a point ap~~roxi-
mately 300 feet west of the Orange County Flood Cortrol Channel be named"Frontera Stree:", and
that the Orange County Planning Commission be urged to name the frontage road between a pcint
350 feet west of the Orange County Flood Control Channel and Newkirk Road "Frontera Street".
(See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoinca resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMI~SIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Gamp.
NOES: COINMISSIONERS: None.
ABScNT: COMMISSIUNERS: Farano.
~~~ ~
~. ~: ~
~
` '~
.~
~
i~
t~~ ~ ~ ~
i.i
rs
~,.
i `. :~
; .~
, `~
~
,~E
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN, November 21, 1966 3271
REFORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1
RECOMMENDATIONS Conditional Use Permit No. 780 - Travel trailer park located
on the west side of Beach Bou:evard, adjacer.t to the north
city limits - Request for an extension of time.
Associate Planner Jack Chr~stofferson reviewed for the Commission the reques~ of the
petitioner regarding Conditional Use Permit No. 780, noting the location of subjwct
property and the request of the petitioner for a six-month extension of time duP to
financing problems. It was further noted that none of the conditions of Resulution
No. 1842, Series 1965-66, had been complied with, and that one previous six-month
extension of time had been granted March 28, 1966.
Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to grant a six-month er~ension of time for the
completion of conditions in Resolution No. 1842, Series 1965-66, approving Conditional
Use Permit. ~o. 780, said time extension to expire March 23, 1967. Commissioner Rowland
seconded the motion. MOTIUN CARRIED.
ITEM N0. 2
City of Fullerton - Reclassification from Zone M-P-100,000 to C-1
or to any potential or intervening zone classification, and fer a
Conditional Use Permit for the establishment of a 150-room Holiday
Inn Motor Hotel coffee shop, lounge, dinner house, and banquet
facilities on property located on the east side of Raymond Avenue,
adjacent to the Riverside Freeway off-ramp in the City of Fullerton.
Associate Planner Jack Christofferson presented to the Commission a reclassification
~ petition before the City of Fullerton proposing commercial zonin9 for property on the
east side of Raymond (East Street) P.venue immediatel~,~ north of the Riverside Freeway
off-ramp to permit the establishment of a motor hotel of 150 rooms with accessory uses
for dining. It was also noted that the proposed use would be permitted in the City of
Ananeim M-1 Zone; however, it was not permitted in the City oi Fullerton ~d-1 ~one.
i Discussion wa, held by the Commission as the Lse pertained to establishments of similar
i uses in the City of Anaheim, and upon its conclusion the Commission determined that the
~ proposed reclassification have no action.
Commissioner Allred offered a motion to receive and iile City of Fullerton Reclassification
from Zon~~ M-P-100,000 to C-1 or to any potential or intervening zone classification, and
for a Conditional Use Permit to pex•mit a 150-room motor hotel on property located on thz
east side of Raymond Avenue r.~.r*.herly of the Riverside Freeway off-ramp. Commissioner
Mungall seconded the motion. b~UTION CARRIED.
ITEAi td0. 3
Work Session - Ncvember 28, 1956.
Planniny Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski pres~ented the agenda for the work session to be held
on Dlovember 28, 1966, noting that °hase II of the residential front-on study would be
presented~ as well as a motion picture produced by the IJational Hssociation of Homebuilders,
entitled Open Space Communities - H New Enviror.ment for America",
TEMPORARY ADJOURNMEN( - There be?ng no further business to discuss, Commissioner Allred
offered a motion to adjourn the meeting to 7:00 P,M.~ Novem'aer 26,
1966, for a work session. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIEU.
The meeting adjourned at 4:00 P.hi.
Respectfully submitted,
G~, . ; ~ ~~ ~~~
ANN KREBS, Secretary~
Anaheim City Planning Commission
,~ ~~
~
,... ~s'i~.
G
F
G'~
~x