Minutes-PC 1967/01/04ro
a ~
c
~ ~
a~
~'~+~
~^77,y
V ~ y
F~' O
w z
a ~
~
N
v
~
City Hall
Anaheim, California
January 4, 1967
A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN
;' .:~~A S
•~ ~ ~
s:
s
:)
~ I
_1. ;
~`
R~ '
~;.~ ,~*
t'a j .
i .;
,,
~ ~ ~-
~ - ---
RE3ULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called
to order by Chairman Camp at 2:00 o'clock P.M., a quorum being present.
PRESENT - CHAIRh1AN: Camp.
- COMMISSIONERS: Allred, farano, ~auer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland.
ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: PJone.
PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Robert Mickelson
Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompson
Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts
Office Engineer: Arthur Daw
olanning Supervisor: Ronald Grudzinski
Associate Planner: Jack Christofferson
Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs
INVOCATION - Reverend Kenneth Behnken, Assistant Pastor, Zion Lutheran Church
,
gave iF~e invocation.
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Farano led in ':he Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
APPROVAL OF -
THE MINUTES The Minutes of the meeting of December 19, 1966, were approved with
the followin
co
ti
g
rrec
on, on motior. by Commissioner Mungall, seconded
by Commissioner Gauer
a~d MOTIO
,
N CARRIED:
Page 3283 - paragraph 8, line 2, should read: "line 1, substitute
the word 'transi*_ion' for the word 'buffer'."
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. JOHN T. STOWERS, P. 0. Box 247, Corona Del Mar,
PERMIT N0. 908 California, Uwner; requesting perm.ission to ESTABLISH A PAWN SHOP
on property described as: A rectangulariy shaped parcel of land
having a frontage of approximately 25 feet on the south side of
Lincoln Avenue and having a maxim.m depth of approximately 162 feet, the westerly
boundary of subject property being approximat=ly 170 feet east of the centerline of
Lemon Street, and further described as 162 West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently
classified C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIkL, ZONE,
Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed the proposed use of subject property and
the f=ndings and recommendations of the Intardepartmental Commi.ttee and Development
Services Department.
Mr. John ~*;~uers, t!-~e petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that the
proposed pawn shop would deal in fine instruments only; that the plans for the downto~an
area would support the proposed usc; that if redevelopment would require ,~ portion of
subject property, this could be made by agreement; and then stated he was available to
answer any questions the Commission might have regardiny his background or the proposed
use.
The Commission r,oted the plans submitted indicated a basic layout, and inquired of the
petitioner whether or not he planned to remodel the facia froni: of the bu~lding.
Mr. Stowers replied that after discussion with members of the Ueveloprient Services Staff,
he had agreed t~ renovate the front of the building in order to present a more complimentary
view to the area and tt~e adjoining properties.
The Commission ~ecretary read a petition of oppcsitio.~ signed by 60 dc..ntown businessmen
opposin9 the pz•oposed pawn shop on the basis that it would encourage similar uses on
Lincaln Avenue and would not contribute to the bettermeit of the overall downtown urban
renewal plan.
TNE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
3295
~
, i
,~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 4, 1967 3296
CONDITIONAL USE - The Commission noted that if subject petition were approved, this
PERMIT N0. 908 might set an undesirable precedent for similar or like uses on
(Continued) Lincoln Avenue; that although the petitioner might operate a respect-
able establishment, other types of business which it might encourage
to operate on Lincoln Avenue might not be as complimentary to the
downtown area; that the use might have a d::leLerious effect on the downtown area and with
the plan as presented by the Gruen Repor'•? that although the proposed operator might run
an a,~tstanding establishment, in the ever:~ of resale, the City could not be assured that
the new property owner would operate in a similar manner; and that the land use was not
the highest and best for the down±own area.
,,~~~ C!•~mi5~ioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC67-1 and moved for its passage and adoption,
,'i ••,econded by Commissioner Rowland, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 908 on
":~~ ~ the basis that it would set an undesirable precedent for similar uses on Lincoln ,~venue
~?~ in close prox:mity; that the use might affect the redevelopment of the downtown area in
~ accordance with the recommer.dations of the Gruen Report; that redevelopment which had
occurred in the block ir. which subject property was located was on the north side of
i Lincoln Avenue; and that possible resale of subject property could introduce an undesir-
~ able element io the area. Furthermore, the majority of the businesses established along
~~ _ Lincoln Avenue had submitted a petition opposing subject petition. (See Resolution Book)
(. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
~~ AYES: CUMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.~
,,1 NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
) j ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. DELMAR E. JACKSON AND aJYLE W. HILL, 322 South Euclid
PERMIT N0. 909 Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; ELEFTt'FRIOS PP.GALIDIS, 11222
Pemberton Street, Rossmoor, California, Ager*.; requesting permission to
ESTABLISH A CHILD DAY-CARE NURSERY WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM SIDF YARD
SETBACK on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage
of approximately 80 feet on the south side of Broadway and having a maximum depth of approxi-
mately 205 feet, the easterly boundary of subject property being approximately 505 feet we='
of the centerline of Loara Street, and further described as 1658 West Broadway. Prop~rty
presently classified C-1, GENERF~L CUMMERC?AL, ZONE.
Commissioner Rowland left the Council Chamber at 2:15 P.M.
Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed the p:•oposed development and the findings
as indicated in the Report to the Commission.
No one appeared to represent tt~e petitioner.
No one sppeared in opposition to subject petition.
Mr. Christofferson further stated that he had been unable to contact tne petitioner
regarding the areas for residential use, and it was his assumption that perhaps the lunch
area might b~ used.
Commissioner Gauer offered ~ mction to continue consideration of Conditional Use Permit
No. 909 u~til later in the meeting in order to have the questions thn Commission desired
ar.swered, whereupon Mrs. Paoalidis, agent for the petitioner, appear 9 before the Commission
and stated she had assumed the architect fo: the proposed development .._~ld represent her;
however, since that was not so, she would attempt to answer questions.
It was noted by Lhe ayent that there would be a maximum enrollment ~f 90 children, and that a
janitor would be residing on the premises to act as custodian.
THE HEARING WAS CLCiSED.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC57-2 and moved for its passage and adoptior.
seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant PEtition for Conditional Use Permit iJo. 909,
subject t.o conditions. (See RPsolution Book)
~~~ ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the follcwir.g vote:
~, A.YcS: COMMISSIONERS: Fllred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Camp.
NOES: COfviMISSIONcRS: None.
"~ ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIUNERS: Rowland.
:i .~
~'
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CO.MMISSION, January 4, 1967 3297
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. THE SKEOCH COMPANY, 524 West Commonwealth Avenue,
PERMIT N0. 910 Fullerton, California, Ownex; FREDRICKS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIU~!,
524 West Commonwealth Avenue, Fullertor,, California, Agent; requesting
permission to ESTABLISH A WALK-UP RESTAURANT on property pescribed as:
A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a fron:age of approximately 142 feet on the
north side of Lincoln Avenue and having a maximum depth of approximately 156 feet, the
westerly boundary of subject property being approximately 740 feet east of the centerline
of Dale Avenue, and further being described as located at the northeast corner of Lincoln
Avenue and 5yracuse Street (as proposed). Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL
COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
T;~g~ Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed the oroposed development as indicated in
~~ the Report to the Commission, and noied that in the recommendations of the Interdepart-
~~ ' mental Committee and Development Services Department, Condition No. 1 should be deleted
~, because this referred to the R-3 property northerly of subject property, and that revised
conditions would be read by the Commission Secretary.
Mr. D. J. Gardner, representing The Skeoch Company, appeared before the Commission and
stated it was their intent to conform with all of the Anaheim code requirements and the
recommended conditions; that adequat~ ingress and egress for both automobile and pedestrian
'~ traffic would be provided; furtherrnore, commercial development would be proposed shortly to
the north and to the west of subject property.
Mr. Gardner also noted that ttie operator of the proposed restaurant was in the Council
Chamber to answer any quzstions about the operation of the restaurant, if the Commission
i, so desired, and that the proposed restaurant would be both a walk-up and sit-down type
restaurant, serving regular-type seafoods as well as providing for take-out.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petiticn.
The Commission Secretary read the revised conditions, if subject petition was appro~•ed,
to the Commission.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Rowland entered the Cour,cil Chamber at 2:25 P.M.
Comnissioner Mungall offered Resolu~ion No. PC67-3 and moved for its passaqe and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to qrant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Na. 910,
subject to the revised conditions read at public hearin9 to the Commission and the petitioner.
(See Resolution Book)
On roll ca11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the .`ollowing vote:
AY~S: CUN1`dISSION~RS: Allred, ;=araro, Gauer, Herbst, hlungall.
NOES: ~OMN1IaSI0NER5: None.
ABSFi~T: CUMMISSIONEFS: None.
ABS'YAIN: CU,Wv1ISSI0NERS: Camp, Rcwland.
VARIANC:. 0_ 1848 - PUBLIC HEARING. RAYMOND G. SPEHAR, 730 North Euclid Street, Anaheim,
California, Owner; WALTER L. BROOKS, 2312 South Susan Street, Santa
Ana, California, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF FREE-STANDING SIGN
L.OCATION ,n~,~roperty described as: N rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage
of approx'.niately 132 feet on the east side of Euclid Street and having a maximum depth oi
approximetely 615 feet, the southerly boundary of subject property being approximately 860
feet n~~rth. of the centerline of Crescent Avenue, and further described as 730 North Euclid
Str2e[. F,.•c~erty presently classified C-1, GENERAL CUMMERCIAL, ZONE.
Assoc:ate Planner Jack Chris`.offerson reviewed the proposed sign re~uest and the recommended
concitions af approval.
' Mi•. Walter Brooks, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that
because the landlord was nr.~ ;iesirous of having a sign on the front of the building, it was
necessary to place the proposed 30-square foot sign to the side of the building; however,
because the sign cannot be defined as a wa11 sign, and wes designated a free-stand.i•~ig sign
~~~ which would have to be located 53 feet from the north property line, it was rather.• impossible
to meet these requirements, and the requested variance was then filed. Furthermore, the
~ vacant parcel to the north would not be affected in future develop~er.t by the proposed sign,
~~ and that the proposed operator of the "Fireside Thrift Store" was present in the Council
~ * Chamber to answer questions.
i~ i ,~fx
The Commission reviewed the proposed sign request.
~,
E
.:
~, ~ ~
~ {
~ * ,
E3 ~ I
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January d, 1967 3298
VARIANCE N0. 1848 - No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
(Continued)
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Cor.missioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC67-4 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Farano, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1848, subject to
conditions. (See Resolutzon Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONFRS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COMA1ISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. DICK H. ABLES, c/o Jordan, Dodge d Loveridge,
N0. 66-67-45 1010 North tvlain Street, Santa Ana, California, Uwner; JERRY A. BRUDY,
730 North Euclid Street, Suite 115, Anaheim, California, Agent; property
VARIANCE N0. 1649 described as: A rectangularly snaped parcel of land situated at the
southeast corner of Euclid Street and Cerritos Avenue and having a
frontage of approximately 117 feet on Euclid Street and approximately
157 feet on Cerritos Avenue. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL,
ZONE.
REQUcSTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED VARIA:4CE: WAIVER OF M~AXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT.
Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed the proposed reclassification and use for
subject property, together with the past zoning action on said property, and indicated a
cor*ection to the prooosed height wai•rer in Section 18.40.0?0(3-a) should be "24-foot
setback proposed for the south property line", rather than the north property line.
h9r. Jerry Brody, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission, noting that it
was proposed to build a"Speedee Mart" type of development, and then submitted a colored
rendering of the pioposed development whir,h he noted would be a convenience-type market
for the R-1 and R-3 properties in the area. The agent als~i noted that the proposed sale
of subject property was contingent upon the approval of the reclassification, and that
subject property no longer was desirable for residential purposes because of the heavy
traffic along Euciid Street.
Mr. R. C. hlaus, 1680 NJest Cerritc- P.venue, appeared be;ore the Commission in opposition
*_o subject petitions and stated he represented six persons present in the Council Chamber,
as well as 43 property owners who had signed a petition of opposition; that the proposed
reclassi:ication would aggravate an already hazardous traffic problem by adding commercial
traffic to Cerritos Avenue, a residential street; that there were more than adequate com-
mercial facilities in close proximity to provide for the proposed use; that the oroposed
reclassification would lower the land values if further encroachment of commercial uses
was permitted in the existing residential environment; and that the petitioners were pro-
posi~~g a high-rise structure which would affect the residentia: integrity of the adjoining
single-family homes.
P~1r. Frank Clayton, 1018 South Euclid Street, appeared before the Commission in favor oi
sub~ect petitions, and stated that the opposition dio uot seem to ur,dersLdnd that the
reauest for waiver of the height on ttie proposed structure wouid not mean a high-rise struc-
ture, but only a sir.gle-story structure; that the property along Euclid Street was no
l~nger desirable for residential purposes because of the heavy traffic which included
trucks; and that the opposition from owners on side streets should not oe given as much
c:edence because they wert not affected by the traffic along Euclid Street.
~dr. Robert Kent, representing the developer of subject property, appeared before the
Commission and stated he would like to assur? the single-family homeo~~ners that all that
was planned was a small, convenience market which would be an asset to the area because
of the fact that subject property has not been maintained in a manner which would be
complimentary to the area.
The Commissio~ inquired what was proposed to be done with the ~ump on subject property,
whereupon Mr. Kent replied that since other properties in clo:;e pr~Yimity were connected
with the pump, the pump would have to be retained on the property, and that the waiver of
the setback was requested because the required parking was designed with "straight in"
parking; however, the requi:ed setback could be retair,ed if angle parkir~g was designed.
THE HEARING WqS CIASED.
!
~~INUTES, CITY PLANNING COMM~SSION, January ~, 1967 3299
RECLASSIFICATION - Discussion was held by the Commission and Staff regarding the require-
N0. 66-67-45 ments of the C-0 Zone in that 20,000 square feet was necessary, or an
area development plan must be prepared and advertised.
VARIANCE N0. 1849
(Continued) Commissioner Allred offered a resolution to approve Reclassification
No. 66-67-45, subject to conditions, seconded by Commissioner Mungall.
On roll call the motion lost by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allreo, r'arana, Mungall.
NOES: COMMISSIUNERS: Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Camp.
Commissioner Rowland stated that, in his opinion, regardless of the type of commercial
zoning considered for subject pr~oerty, this property should :~ot be considered for commer-
cial uses on the basis that the ~olume of traffic caused the use to be undesirable for
residential purposes.
Mr. Brody then asked to be heard again, requasting consideration of a lesser zone, namely
the C-0 Zone, so that a use variance could be applied for to permit the proposed use since
more control over the type of development would assure the single-family homeowners of a
more desirable development; that previous zor.ing applications were turned down - however,
' the property has not been developed for residential purposes, and probably would never be
developed for residential purposes.
Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that although C-0 Zoning was
a less intense use for the property, the City Attorney had stated in previous changes in
zoning that where the property does not conform to the 20,000-square foot requirement, an
area development plan was to be prepared; thus it would be necessary to continue any
reclassification until an area development plan was prepared and set for public hearing.
Chairman Camp inquired of the opposition what there feeling was regarding a lesser zone
as suggested by the agent, whereupon Mr. Maus stated that he would like to analyze the
requirements of the C-0 Zone as they applied to the area rather thzn give an opinion now.
Discussion was held by the Commission and Staff as to the length of time subject petitions
should be cor,tinued in order tc re-advertise the petitions and prepare an area development
plan for consideration at public hearing.
' The opposition was then advised they would be given notice of the new public he=_:ir.g as
' they had been given notice of today's public hearing.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petitions for
Reclassification No. 65-67-45 ano Variance No. 1849 to the meeting of January 30, 1967,
in order to re-advertise subject petitions, for the development of an area development
plan, and for possible submission of revised development plans by the petitioner.
Commissioner ~llred seconded the motion. N~TIUN CARRIED.
AMENDMENT TQ TITLE 18 - PUBLIC HcARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing an
amendment to Chapter 18.08, Definitions, by the addition of
Section 18.08.511, Section 18.08.612, Section 18.08.613, and
Section 18.08.614.
Associ~te Planner Marvin Krieger reviewed the proposed additions to the Definition Section
of the Ananeim Municipal Code, stating that considerable time had been spent since the
Staff had first started investigati~n of the various operations of rest~urants; and that
in the development of these definitions, the Restaurant Association and other outside
people had bcan very cooperative in their formulation.
No one appeared in opposition to subject amendment.
THE HEARING WAS CL.OStD.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC67-5 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council t;~at Title 18 of the
Anaheim Mun'_cipal Code, Chapter 18.08, Uefinitions, be amended by the addition of Sections
18.OS.b11, 18.08.612, 18.08.613, and 18.08.614 encompassing enclosed, semi-?nclosed, walk-
up, and drive-in restaurants, as depictec~ nn Exhibit "A". (See Resolution Book)
, On roll call the fore9oing resolution was pass=d by the following vote:
~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland„ Camp.
x NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: CAMMISSIONERS: None.
a
~ 1
MINUTES, CII'Y PLANNING CUMMISSIUN, January 4, 1967 3300
AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18 - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOIv,
ANAHEIM MUNICIFAL CODE 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Califorr,ia; proposing amendments
to Chapter 18.38, C-0, Commercial Office, Zone; Chapter 18.40,
General Commercial Zone; and Cha~te= 18.52, Light I~dustrial Zone.
Associate Planner Marvin Krieger advised the Commission that the changes to the varicus
commercial and industrial zones were necessary ir. order to include the new definitions
for restaurants as they pertained to the various zones.
No one appeared in opposition to subject amendments.
, ,~ THE I-~ARING WAS CLOSED.
:'~4 ~ Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC67-o and moved for its passage and adoption,
'~~ seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that amendmentsto Title
18, P.naheim Municipal Code, Chaoters 18.38, 18.40, and 18.52 be aporoved as indicated on
~ Exhibit "A". (See Resolution Book)
`:1
I On ro11 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
i
,.~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COW/ISSIUNERS: None.
~~ AbSENT: COMMISSIUNERS: None.
';1 AMENDMENT TG TITLE 18 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARI[dG. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING
~i ANAHEIht MUtdICIPAL CODE C~MMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California;
~ proposiny the addition of Chapter 18.37, C-R, Commercial-
i Recreation, Zone.
{ Subject amendment was continued from the meetings of November 7 and December 5, 1966, in
order to allow further study cf the proposed amendment.
Associate Planner Marvin Krieger reviewed for the Commissi~n the previous considerations
~ at public hearing of the proposed amendment to Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code by
the addition of Chapter 18.37, C-R, Commercial-Recreation, Zone, noti:~g that numerous
changes have been recommended at work sessions; that development had occurred in the area
- designated as the Commercial-Recreation Area with no specific zone, and the uses were
- established by variance or conditional use permit; that as a result of v~ork sessions and
:.j previous oublic hearings, the primary uses permitted :n the proposed zone ~n~ould F,? hotels,
;'I motels, enclosed restaurants, skating rinks, howlin9 al?eys, art 9alleries, and service
stations limited to the intersections of arterial hi:;;,;vays. The accessory uses which would
~:~ be permitted within a primary use complex,a::d wo•..•!ibe cl?arly incidentaland integrated within
F_j this complex,were banks, drug stores, iloral shops, souvenier shops, photo supply shops,
~ clothing stores, day nurseries, barber shops, beauty shops, ticket agencies, travel agencies,
~j on-sale of alcoholic beverages limited to e:iclosed restaurants, off-sale o: liquor, candy
~ stores, jewelry stores, custom print shops, concession stands or shops, auto rental agencies,
C~ radio and television studios, dog kennels, and signs as permit^ed in Section 18.37.040. All
'~ other uses would be required to submit a conditional use permit which would be subj?ct to
~~ I site development standards. Furthermore, because of a possible legal interpretation of the
code, it was dztermined that the special setback should be made a separate section o` the
zoning code, and this was scheduled for public hearing before the Commission on January 16,
~:, entitled "Section18.85, Special Setbacks in the C-R Zone".
p
~, Commis5ioner Rowland requasted that changes be made to 18.37.030(b-2) entitled "Interior
Setbacks" where reierence was made to minimum 20-foot centers - should read "maximum".
~ t Chairman Camp inqu~red - under Section 3 of the Site Developmen~ Standards, entitled
j "Landscaping", what would be the type of review made by the Development Services Department?
t
~ Mr. Krieger replied that the normal checkin9 required by code would apply.
• I Mr. Krieger noted, upon Commission questioning, that no reference was made that carwashes
were r,ot included as a portion of Item 7, entitled "On-Sale of Alcoholic Beverages" since
it was knuwn as Item 8; that under the landscapiny requi:ements, trees were required for
every 10,000 square feet, and the ordinance would not be retroactive in requiring the exist-
`; ~ ing established uses to comply - however, if a chanye or expansion was proposed, the land-
- scaping requirement would then be enforced.
. Considerable discussion then was held between the Commission and the Staff relative to
~ ~ the administration of enfor:.ing the code requirement of landscaping where expansion of an
~,,y ~ existing use which had been established requested approval, and whether or not a specific
, percentage of increase should be the criteria foz requiring development of landscaping in
~.:j : accordance with the new code. At the conclusion of the discussion relative to said
~ ~
~`~{
~.;
r.
t
.
MINUT~S, CITY FLANVING COMMISSION, January 4, 1967 3301
AMENA'MENT TU 1'I?LE 18
l+hAHEIM MJtdiCIE%i,L CUDE - Chapter 18.37, C-R, Commerci~l ;,ecreation, Zone. (Continued)
E
s
~ landa:.aping, the Commission directed the Staff to redraft that portion of the proposed
C-H 7_one to reflect that landscaping would have to be in accordance with code for an
entise parcel where 25% or more addition or remodeling was to take place.
Cumnissioner Farano inquired whether or not the Council policy for the establishment of
the Commercial-Recreation Area would be circumvented by the oroposed ordinance, and whether
or not development could occur in any part of the City with commercial-recreation uses or
where a 10 to 12-acre parcel witt~in the heart of the Commercial-Recreation Area could be
developed for single-family uses.
Assistant Development Services Director Robert Mickelson advised Mr. Farano that the
Commercial-Recreation Policy had been incorporated in the proposed zone: that the proposed
zone was not rezoning specific property - this would only occur when a reclassification
petition was submitted to the Commission; and that isolated C-R or R-1 uses would not be
encouraqed because they would be in conflict with the General Plan, and a General Plan
amendment would be necessary in order to reflect any change in use.
Mr. Krieger then reviewed the balance of the proposed ordinance, noting that the height
limitation was in accordance with the Height Standard Guidelines established under Map
Ivo. 1124, entitled "Height Standard Map"; that the off-street parking proposed was arrived
at after considerable research and discussion with the various motel people who felt there
was a need for requiring one parking space per motel unit.
Commissioner Rowland complimented the Staff on the parking section of the proposed ordinance,
noting that it was a very well written document.
Mr. Hiooshi Fujishige,1854 South Harbor Boulevard, appeared be:ore the Commission and stated
that he owned the farm land just south of the wax museum and inquired what effectthe proposed
zone would have on his property.
The Commission and Staff attempted to clarify the proposed zone for Mr. Fujishige, noting
where uses were permitted by right and those uses which would require a conditional use
permit.
Deputy City Attorney rurman Roberts, in response to Commission Farano's questioning, stated
that although the zone could apply to any area in the City, it was specifically designed
for the area presently designated the Commercial-Recreation Area bounded by Vermont Avenue
on the north, Orangewood F.venue on the south, Walnut Street on the west, and the Santa Rna
Ereeway on the east.
Mr. Fujishige inquired whether or not he would be required to improve his entire property
before he could have a portion of the property developed.
Mr. Roberts advised Mr. Fujishige that submitting a legal d2scription for the portion he
proposed to develop would be the only portion that would be required to i,nprove; that the
entire Commercial-Recreation Area around Disneyland was presently zoned R-A which was not
tl~e zone for the type of uses which had 6een developed in the area, si;ce these vrere done
piecemeal under a variance or a conditional use permit, and the propo;ed zone, then, would
requirn the filing of a reclassification for development of any of the undeveloped R-A
properties in this area - however, the City could initiate reclassification proceedings
for the area known as the Commercial-Recreation Area, establishing a resolution of intent
with specific conditions which had to be met, and no future public hearing would be required
at the time anyone wished to develop his agricultural property - this would insure the City
and the property owner somz protection based on standards which were uniform and which would
be coinplimentary to his and the adjoining property.
Mr. Fujishige commented that whenever a zone change became effective, this automatically
caused taxes to go up.
~~ ~ ~
R
~
Mr. Roberts advised Mr. Fujishige that the zone would be changed only at the time the owners
of the R-A parcels were ready to develop.
Mr. Mickelson then stated that what was being considered at the public hearing today was
the establishment of a zone - however, it did not reclassify any properties, and further
advised Mr. Fujishige that at the Commission rneeting of January 16, special setbacks for
Harbor Boulevard, Katella Averue, and West Street would be considered, and the policy
established for Harbor Boulevard by the Council several years ago, requiring a 50-foot
setback, still would be maintained.
l
~ I
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 4, 1967 3302
AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18
: ANAI-IEIM MUNICIPAL CODE - Chapter 18.37, C-R, Commercial-Recreation, Zone. (Continued)
Mr. Roberts advised Mr. Fujishige that in his contact xith the nssessor's office, he had
been informed that the Assessor's policy was an estabiished one and not controlled by the
City of Anaheim; however, they were not necessarily carried away by proposed zoning for
an area, and the Assesso*'s valuation was changed enly at the time the surrounding property
was developed for a more intense use.
Mr. John Thompson, 335 West Orangewood Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated
` he owned property adjacent to the Fujishige property; that it was his hope to develop his
~ property in the near future with a high-rise type of development; and inquired whether the
proposed zone would permit undesirable, "junky" development since plans would not be
~ presented at public hearing for interested persons to review, and small, narrow parcels
could be developed with u~desirable structures which would not be complimentary to the
Convention Center, noting that the "Latin Quarter", an apartment housing development was
on a narrow parcel, and only one street served this development; that ne was required to
construct a fence in. order to keep the people from enterin9 his oranqe yrove and doing
ir~eparable damage.
-~ Chairman Camp advised Mr. Thompson that the proposed ordinance would be more restrictive
than that pr.esently existing.
i '
I Mrs. Mary Jones, representing Disneyland enterprises, appeared before the Commission and
stated Disneyland was generally in agreement with the proposed ordinance, and it would be
a significant step in the orderly development of the Commercial-Recreation Area; although
Disneyland did no~ entirely endorse the landscaping section which the Corw~ission had dis-
cussed relative to requiring landscaping in the parking area, they would review this prior
to the next public hearing.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
i
Further discussion was held by the Commission relative to whether or not the proposed
ordinance would supersede the Commercial-Recreation Policy.
. Mr. Mickelson informed the Commission that the resolution the Commission and City Council
; adopted in the past in the Commercial-Recreation Area served as one of the major basis
~ for establishing the C-R Zone which ;7e Commission was considering, and by establishing
- it as an ordin~~nce, rather than as a policy, this made it less subject to criticism by
j the court - or law suits.
Mr. Fujishige asked to be heard a7ain, and inquired whether or not he would be permitted
to establish a trailer park on his property if h:: so desired. The Commission and Staff
then clarified this for Mr. Fujishige.
Commissioner He_bst offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue consideration of
amendment to Title 18 of the A~aheim Municipal Gode, Chapter 18.37, C-R, Commercial-
Recreation, Zone to the meeting of January 16, 1967, in order to allow the Staff time to
amend the landscaping requirement, and for the Staff to advertise Chapter i8.85, Special
Setbacks for the Commercial-Recreation Rrea. Commissioner Farano seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
. h RECESS - Chairman Camp declared a 10-minute racess at 4:00 P.M.
1 ~ RECONVENE - Tne Commission reconvened at 4:15 P.M., all members bein
~ ,~ g present.
~ .~ ''
~i REPORTS NND - ITEM NU. 1
; RECOP.I~.7ENDATIONS Termination of Variance No. 1451.
,~ '
Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed the Report to the
If ° ' Plaening Commission, noting that Conditional Use Permit No. 889 a
~ Commission on October 10, 1966, for the expa~sion of the existingPChurch andt~~e Planning
parking in the front yard, covered the permit
parcel to the north; thereiore, new de•relopment plans andlcor.ditions4werenapplicableltong
~' ~ the property, and Variance IJo. !451 was no longer in effect.
~ Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution P2o. PC67-? and moved for its passage and adoption,
, seconded by Commissioner idungall, to terminate all proceedings on Veriance No. 1451 on the
`~ ~; basis that Conditiona: Use Permit No. 889 superseded,wi~h new development plans and condi-
tions, Variance No. 1451. (See Resolution Book)
. ,+t~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 4, 1967 3303
REPORTS AND
REC6MMENDATIONS - ITEAi N0. 1 (Continued)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followin9 vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: CON~ISSIONERS: None.
ITcM N0. 2
Conditional Use Permit No. 312 (Gertrude Howell).
{ ~ Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed the Report to the Commission relative to
~ Conditional Use Permit No. 312, noting that the petitioner had requested a 3~-year exten-
sion of ~ime to meet the conditions of subject petition, and also an amendment to Condition
No. 3 to permit the conversion of the existing garage to a playroom. The time extension
would then expire approximately April 1, 1967. However, none of the conditions had been
met, and the original conditional use permit had ne~ier been exercised. Furthermore, the
conversion of tl~e garage to a playroom, which was no*. requested under thP conditional use
1i permit, woulo require a va:iance from the Anaheim Municipal Code and should be set for
public hearin9, ii the Cor,unission so desired.
Discussion was held by the Commissioz r=lativ~ to the length o: time which had expired
since the last request for an extension of ti,me, the fact that the petitioner had not
exercised the use granted, and that substantial changes were proposed which could not
be considered under the existing petition.
Commissioner Rowlar.d offe.-ed Resolutivn ^lo, PC67-8 and moved ior its passage and adoption,
seconded by Cornmissioner Herbst, to terminate a11 proceedings on Conditional Use Permit
No. 312 on the basis tha; the petitioner should :•e-apply for a new petition since substan-
tial changes had taken place, a~d a period of 3 years had taken place since the last
request for an extension of time, and the property had never been used for the use requested.
(See Resolution Bookj
Un roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
_I AYES: COM~~IISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: CO!uUAISSIOIJERS: None.
ABSENT: COMhiISSIONERS: lJone.
ITEM N0. 3
Orange County Tentative Map of Tract No. 6286
DEVEi~PER: Rinker Development Corporation, 10600 Katella Avenue,
Anaheim, California. ENGINEER: Anacal Engineering i.ompany,
222 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. Sutject tract,
located east of the City of Anaheim limits north of Urangethorpe
Avenue and west of Orchard Drive, containing 1.52 acres, is
proposed for subdivision into 5 R-2, 5,000 single-family lots.
F; ~a Associate ~iznner Jack Christofferson presented Orange County Tentative Map of Tract
E f~d No. 6286, noLing the location of subject property; that the tract was originally part
~ ~, of Tract i~o. 4241; however, because the property was within the Coanty of Urange juris-
~ diction, the Commission had recommend2d that the portion outside the jurisdiction of the
•~ City be developed as a separate tract.
i
i The recommended conditions if the tract was recommended to the City Council for approval
wtre also reviewed, namely dedicatio~ of Urchard Drive for a half width of 45 feet; a
~ 6-foot masonry wall along Orchard Drive, stepped down to 30 inches in the front yard
setback; and dedication of vehicular access right~~ along Urchard Drive except at street
, openings.
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to recommend to the City Council tha1, the Orange
County Planning Commission be urged to approve Tentative A1ap of Tract No. 6285 subject
; ~ to the following conditions:
~
1. That the owners of subject property shall dedicate a strip of land 45 feet in
_ width, from the centerline of the street, along Urchard Urive for street
h~ ~ widening purposes.
"~ 2. That a b-foot masonry wall shall be constructed ~long Urchard Drive, except that
~; along Lot No. 1 said masonry wall shall be stepped down to 30 inches ir. the front
~ I' yard setback.
iy
.•r
~t! ' .i~t
~ 1 ~ . . .. ... __ .._.... .. . . .__.. ...
r,
F
~ .~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 4, .1967 3304
REPORTS AND
RECAMMEN~ATIONS - I7EM N0. 3 (Continued)
3. That the vehicular access rights, except at street openings, to Orchard
Drive shall be dedicated to the County of Orange.
Commissioner Gauer secondej thE motion. MOTION CARRIED.
~. .."''i~
~~~
ITEM N0. 4
Urange County Use Variaice No. 5837
l~etitioner: Herman Lehner - Requesting permission to enlarge
an existing equiament rental busir.ess (light gardening and
construction tools) and the establishment of a sign in connection
;:herewith in the h-] General Agricultural District on property
located on th~ north side of Lincoln Avenue, approximately 950
feet east of BGtavia Street, north of the Orange city limits.
Associate Planner Jack Christofferson presented Orange County Use Variance No. 5637 to
the Planning Commission, noting the location of subject property and the requested use.
'~ Previous County action on subject property was also re~•ie~ved.
Mr. Christofferson also noted that current annexation policies between the Cities of
Anaheim and Orange indicate subject property would be annexed eventually to the City
of Oranae; however, because of its location on Lincoln Avenue, which is the primary link
between AnaheiR~ proper and the Nohl Ranch area, the City may be concerned with the appear-
ance of the use since the rental of small equipment is a permitted outdoor use in the
Anaheim M-1 Zone, and a contractor's storage yard is a permitted outdoor use in the M-2
Zone.
The Commission reviewed the map presented and the recommended conditions if subject
petition were to be considered favorably.
Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that Orange County
Planning Commission be urged to consider the following if Orange County Use Variance
No. 5837 is considered favorably:
1. That continued use of the property for commercial-industrial purposes be
accomplished through a reclassification to the appropriate zone.
2. That appropriate site development standards be required, such as:
a. Adequate landscaping adjacent to Lincoln Avenue to conform with the
surrounding area.
b. A building setback comparabie tc ~?tbacks established in the area
and in conformance with the City of Orange standards.
c. All outdoor storage to be completely screened.
d. L'edication of land and street improvement along Lincoln Avenue.
Commissioner Gauer secondeu the motion. MOTIGN CARRIED.
ITEM N0. 5
Conditional Use Permit No. 785 - Restaurant - 1C40 South Harbor
Boi~le~vard. Conditional Use Permit No. 858 - Un-sale liquor in
conjunction with restaur~nt. Louis Walter, et al, owners.
Request for appro~~al oi revised plans (Andersen Pea Soup Restz~rant).
~~~
~
~
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson presented revised plans for an existinq D~nish restaurant
known as "The Viking" located at 1840 South Harbor boulevard - now proposed to be developed
as the "Andersen Pea Soup Restaurant", noting that the basic changes proposed were:
1. Addition of approximately 650 square feet for a merchandising area (single-story
tower) at the southwest corner of the existing structure which w:.ll project
approximately 10 feet into the setback of 50 feet established by City Council
policy for Harbor Boulevard (40-foot * setback proposed).
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 4, 1967 3305
REPORTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 5 (Continued)
2. Parking in the front setback previously provided for two cars will be
eliminated, and the entire setback will be fully landscaped. An existing
mutual parking agreement with the wax museum to the south indicates more
- than adequate parking will be provided, even though the square footage has
been increa;ed (surplus of 16 spaces).
3. ?he proposed signs are not in conformance with the sign ordinance.
T:~-~
:? ~ ,
:S.
~ I
Mr. Borge Neilsen, representing the petitioner and the proposed ooerator of the new
restaurant, appeared before the Commission and noted that the roo: would be a shake
roof. Furthermore, in making a survey of the Buellton ope;ation of the oroposed
operator - 25% of the business was from Orange County, and many of the patrons inquired
when the operator would establish a restaurant in Orange County.
Mr. Louis Walter, the owner, appeared before the Commission and stated that altnough a
shake roof might not be approved in a commercial area, he had cor,tacted the Building
Department, and had been advised that a shake roof would be permitted provided that an
asbestes shingle roof was placed beneath the shake roof.
Commissione: Herbst offered a motion to approve revised plans marked Exhik~it Nos. 1, 2,
and 3, for Conditional Use Permit Nos. 785 and 858 (restaurant with on-sale liquor).
Commissioner Murgall seconded the motion. MOTIUN CARRIED. Commissioner Camp asked
that the Minutes show that he abstained from voting.
ITEM N0. 6
Southern Cali.fornia Planniny Congress.
The Commission Secretary inquired of the Commission who was planning to attend the
Southern California Planning Congress which was being held at "?he Hideaway" in Burbank.
Commissioners Go~ei, Farano, Rowland, and Mungall indicated they would attend.
ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Mungall
offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commission>r A11red
secor~ded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
The meetin3 adjourned at 4:30 P.hi.
Respectfully submitted,
~ ~~ ~ r ) ~~J
ANN KREBS, Secretary
Anaheim City Planning Commission
,
., i
~
~
r.
t
E ~ r'
~