Minutes-PC 1967/01/30; }
City Hall
Anaheim, California
January 30, 1967
A REGULAR MEETING OF THE AIvAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGUTAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called
to order by Chairman Camp at 2: 00 o'clock FoM~, a quorum being present.
PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Camp. -
- COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gaue*, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland.
ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: None~
PRESENT - Development Services Director: Alan Orsborn
Assista~t Development Services Director: Robert Mickelson
Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompson
Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts
Office Engineer: Arthur Daw
Associate Planner: Marvin Krieger
Associate Planner: Jack Christofferson
Pianning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs
PLEDGE OF
4LLEGIANCE - Commissione: Allred led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag~
: APPROVAL OF
` - The Minutes of the meet.ing of J anuary 16, 1967, were approved with the
THE MINL'TES following correction, on motion by ~ommissioner Herbst, seconded by
Commissioner htungall, and NOTIO N CARRIED:
Page 3315, paragraph 4, line 1 - substitute the word "arcritects"
~ for "developers".
~ CONDITIUNAL USE - PUBLIC F+.EARING. DOYLE 3 SHIELDS REALTY COMPANY, INCORPORATED,
•~ ~ PERMIT N0~ 915 1333 South Euclid Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; JOHN R. KELLY
AND MARY LUCILLE GIBBONS, 1600 West Broadway, Apartment 17A, Anaheim,
_ California, Agents; requesting permission to HAVE ON-SkLE BEER IN A
_ ~ROPOSED PIZZA PARLOR RESTAURF~T on property described as: A rectangularly shaped par~el
vi land wit5 a frontaae of approximate'_y 344 feet on the east side of Euclid Avenue and
having a maximum depth of approximately 264 feet, the southerly boundary of subject property
being approximately 200 feet nortt~ of the centerline of Ball Roud, and further described as
940 South Euclid Avenue. Property presently cl~ssiiied C-1, GENERAL CO.MMERCIAI., ZONE.
Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed the proposed petition as presented in the
~ Report to the Commission which noted the location of subject property and the hours of
k operation, together with a previous petition which was denied by the City Council,
Mro John Kelly, one of the agents, appeared before the Commission and stated the letter
which he had submitted ~~ith the petition was self-explanatory and expl:,i~Pd the proposed
operation,
It was noted by the Commission that no service har was prcposed for the sale of alcoholic
beverageso
'~ ~
,~
1 '
~
'~ .AY
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THE HEARIN~ WAS CLUSED.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC67-21 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 915,
subject to conditionsa (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISS:ONERS: None.
3320
~ .
A4INUTES, C?TY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 30, 1967 3321
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. NIAURICE GA!.E HARTMAN, ZULETTA COLLIER, .4ND Ei.IZABETH
PERMIT N0. 916 TREMBLE, 2406 Ivy Place, Fullerton, California, Owr,ers; requesting
permission to ESTABI.ISH .4 COIN-OPERATED CARWASH on property described
as: A triangularly shaped parcel of land situated i~:st south of the
intersection of Palm Street and Harbor Boulevard and having a frontac~ ~f approximately
120 feet on the west side of Palm Street and a frontage of approximately 120 feet on the
east side of Ha.rbor Boulevard, the southerly propcrty line of subject property being
approximately 345 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road~ Property presently classi-
fied C-3, HEAVY COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
, Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed the proposed development and location of
_~~ the property and reviewed the results of the meeting held between the property owners,
En9ineering, the Development Services Department, and 'cne City Attorney's office to
~s , clarify the issues involved in providing the ultimate right-of-way of Harbor Boulevard.
Mr. Maurice Hartman, one of the petitioners, appeared befo:e the Commission and revie~ed
the recommended cor~ditions of approval, noting that t'ie onl~~ condition they wo:,ld agree
to would be the tree plantin~ fee; that the reauirement of dedication to the fu11 53-foot
half-width for the entire property would be a hardship since th~ barber shop would be
compl?tely eliminated, and half of the liquor store would be affected, as well as the
-. proposed coin-operated carwash; that income from this property helped tc suoport three
families; that street lignts along Palm Street were unnecessary because it ~.aas t;eing used
as an alley; that sidewalks were unnecessary; that when subject parcel was reclassified,
considerable discussion was held at the Council meeting relative to the dedica~.ion, ar,d
at that time he had informed the Council this would be impossible; and then requested
clarification of the requirement of a oarcel map being filed since there w~s no intent
to sell the property, said property beiny owned by the three petitioners, ard ar.y split
would reduce the value of each piece - which would limit its sale.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson stated tnat a parcel map was required ir, tne event of
resale of the property since only a portion of the triangle was advertised fer considera-
tion oy the Commissior.,
The petitioner ~oted the petition w~s submitted for the carwash property only,-:nd was only
portion of the C-3 p:operty since they were not interested i~; a char~ge for the balance
of the property~
, h1r. Thompson advised the Com~i~sion and the petitionei that. one of the conditicns of
_ approval, which was a policy of t;1e City Council, was tne reouirement of dedicotion ar.d
improvements if the property was not already improved. Furthermore, t};e normai I~ter-
departmental Committee requirement would be dedication of tne entire parcel sir.ce suuject
property was under one ownership,
The petitioner again noted that the barber shop and liyuor store would 've serioiisly
~ affected if dedication were required, and ti~e lessee would 'oe faced with r reduction
in the size of the building, whereas he was nski~,~ fo: more space in his leose.
ly1r. Thompson noted for tt~e ~ommission, by referrin.~ to the colored slide or, su~ject
~ property which was projecteo on the west wa11, how ti~e property wo~ild t~e oifected i:
~ dedica~ion were reauired.
The petitioner also reviewed the Staff's findi:;g that only five p::.king spaces were
proposed for the carwash, wiiereas Code required seven parking spaces; however. it w~~s
his opinion the Staff had not taken into cor~sider3tion tlie tr:o p~rkina spaces iu Lhe
~arwash buildira as part of tne p;;rkiny oroposed; tnat tne four alternativHs prese;,t~o
to the Commission, one indicating that an irrevocahle offer of dedicatior~ witi:in ten years,
were wholly unacceptable i~ecause tnere was a yreat possibility tiie entire ~rea wo:,ld i,e
:.hanged within ten years; and that the requirement of complying with the condii.ions wit!~in
six months was a hardship, as well as the reouirement of complying prior to finnl uuildiny
inspection.
The Commission noted that the only condition to which ti:e petitioner had expressed no
opposition was the tree fee condition.
The petitioner noted that in 19~9, when subject property was reclassified, ±i~e oetiti.e,:e:
had agreed to a certain item regardiny dedication; that at tiiat time it was noted c~efore
, the City Council that lessees' leases would not permit him to comply with ti~e street widen-
ing - that if more property was needed, the City could request additional property ;ro~ the
west side of Harbor Boulevard since that was not develo~ed; and ti~at the curuside parkina
. was not a necessity for subject property. Furthermore, sidewalks and driveway appio~ci~es
* were not necessary, and that there would be a minimum amount of trash - tiiereiore, he saw
~ no reason for complying with the provision of a trash storage area.
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 30, 1957 3322
CONDITIONAL USE - No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
PERMIT N0. 916
(Continued) THE HEARIIJG WAS CLOSED.
Discussion was held by the Commission regarding the proposed use for
subject property, together with the fact that dedication was necessary in or~er that
the street widening program proposed by the City for Harbor Boulevard could be imple-
mented - said street widening would provide for the heavier traffic now using Harbor
Boulevard to gain access to the Commercial-Recreation Area, and that subject property
was a part of the gateway to the Commercial-Recreation Area, and said area should have
, a complimentary appearance - and the carwash was not considered one of the better
~;~ commercia: uses which would be complimentary to tt~e areao
p~ ~ Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC67-22 and moved for its passage and adoption,
1S seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Perinit Noo 916,
{ on the basis that the size and shape of the property were not adequate to provide for
~ full development of the proposed use which would not be detrimental to the peace, health,
i safety, and general welfare; that the location of the property was at the gateway of
~ the Commercial-Recreation Area, and the u=_e would not be the best land use for that area;
~ and that inadequate circulation was bein9 provided b?cause the petitioner would not agree
~ ~ to street dedication and improvement. (See Resolution Book)
f On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followin9 vote:
I
~ AYES: COMMISSIUNERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall~
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland, Camp~
1 ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None,
i Commissioners Rowland and Camp, in tneir vote of "no", stated that some appropriate
agreement could be reached in order that the petitioneis might be able to develop their
~ property, and the requirement of the dedication within ten years might assist the property
; owners in amortizing their irvestment.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. fED AIJD DORIS M. CORtiELL, i3122 Rosalind Drive,
PERMIT N0. 917 Santa Ana, California, O~vneis; HANS NIETER, 17509 Chatsworth Street,
Granada Hills, California, P.gent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH
- A CHURCH AND RELATED FAC?LI"iIES, N'ITH WNIVER OF A4INIMUM PERtJ;ITTED
- HE?GHT OF SIGN DISPLAY SURFACE or. property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel
of land with a frontage of approximately 95 feet on the south side of Orangewood Hvenue
and having a maximum depth of approximately 270 feet, the westerly boundary being approxi-
mately 710 feet east of the centerline of Mountain View Avenue~ Property presently classi-
fied R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed tfie location and proposer~ use of subject
property, noting that the parking layout propos?d was rather awkward, and the Staff had
drawn alternate means for parkiny. Furthermore, the sign proposed was oriented in such
a manner which would minimize any possible traffic hazard at the height projected.
(
~ Mr. Hugh Scallon, attorney for the peiitioners, 1010 I~orth Main Street, Santa Ana, presented
+ a colored architectural rendering of the proposed church structure which was similar in
I design as the plot plans, notir.g that the landscaping was also adjacent to the six-foot
~ fence, and that the proposed sign would be only one to identify the church.
Mr. Scallon also noted that the church's reliyious beliefs were similar to the Lutheran
Church.
~
~
i
The Commission noted that plans indicated school rooms and inquired whether or not this
meant Sunday School classrooms only, or was it their intent to have a reg~lar Christian
day school on the premises.
Mr. Scallon replied that this was for Sunday School classrooms only, and there was no
intent to have regular school classes on the premises.
Mr. Keith Pressor., 410 East Orangewood Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition
and presented a petition of opposition signed by 16 property owners - with four persons
present in the Council Chamber - and stated it was diificult to oppose the construction of
a church; hov~ever, he was more concerned with the use since most of the adjoining property
owners felt they would prefer to have these long, narrow parcels developed as one parcel
for single-family homes; that the property owners were concerned that the use would create
unnecessary noises which would disturb the peace and q~iet of the neighborhood; and that
it was their desire to maintain that entire area for residential use only.
r,
~
MINUTcS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Januaz•y 30, 1967 3323
CONDITIONAL USE - The Commission noted that the petitioner had stipulated to a maximum
PERMIT N0. 917 seating capacity of 145, which represented a rather smaller church than
(Continued) was the pattern in Anaheim, and tt~at the attendance would be mainly on
Sunday and should not disturb the neighberhood unless it was an unusually
noisy church.
Mrs. Presson appeared before the Commission and indicated on the colored slide the loca-
tion of their property in respect to the church and noted that properties to the south
of these deep lots were all developed with single-family tractso
Mr. Scallon, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the church affiliation
~~~ would never expand beyond the seating capacity of 145 since it was their belief to main-
tain a small church membership, and when the membership approached the capacity, another
4 , congregation was formed; that the proposed church had 68 members, with an average attendance
~ of 50 members; and that based on the present usage, there would be more than adequate park-
' ing space.
Zoning Superviscr R~~nald Thompson advised the Commission that the parking proposed was in
conformance with C~de requirements, whereupon the Commission noted that even if double
sessions were FroFosed on Sunday, there would be no overlap which would require adciitional
- parking.
Mr. Scallon further noted, upon Commission questioning, that the only weekday activity
proposed was a mid-week, 8:00 P.M, service, and that the proposed structure would be
the only building constructa~,
Assistant Development Services Director Robert Mickelson noted that if the church proposed
a Christian day school, it would have to be under a different petition because the request
under subject petition was for a church and related facilities - not a scnoole
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolutio~ No. PC67-23 and moved for its passage and adopticn,
seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 917,
subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book)
; On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
- AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
• ABSENT: CUMMISSIONERS: None.
VARIANCE N0. 1850 - PUBLIC I-~ARING. ATLAIJTIC RICHFIELD OIL COMPANY, 1786 West Lincoln
Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; FEDERAL SIGtJ 3 SIGNAL CORPORATION,
1100 IJorth Main Street, Los Angeles, California, Agent; requesting
WAIVER OF MAXIMUM PERMITTED SIGN HEIGHT on property descriued as: An irregularly shaped
parcel of land situated at tl~e northwest corner of Ball Road and West Street and having
a frontage of approximately 140 feet on West Street and approximately 150 feet on Ball
Roado Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 'LONE.
Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed the location and proposed use of subject
property, noting that the City Courcil on December 13, 1966, had approved the construction
of the service station on said property; that the proposed sign was located approximately
1,200 feet from the Ball Road overcrossing of the Santa Ana Freeway and approximately 600
feet west of the ofi-ramp of the freeway.
'~
I Mr. Christofferson also noted the zoning of the properties in close proximity; that the
~ requested waiver was from the R-A Zone in which it was located - however, a single-family
subdivision was located approximately 350 feet to the west, which would limit the proposed
sign to 30 fzet; that an existing service station site was located approximately 300 feet
west from subject property - which had a sign within the requirements of the Sign Ordinanceo
Mr. W. E. Lentz, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission
and stated that the requested sign height was based on the future development o: the proper-
ties to the east; that similar signs on the east side of tne Ball Road overcrossing were
permitted at 70 feet; and that adequate signing was necessary for the survival of the
service station.
! The Commission inquired whether or not the petitioner was attempting to advertise to
*~ obtain :reeway traffic, to which Mr. Lentz replied that they were attempting to reach
any line of traffic.
2
)
MIyUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 30, 1967 3324
VARIANCE N0. 1850 - The Commission also noted that if the property to the east developed,
(Continued) in all likelihood the 70-foot height sign would be obstructed from
freeway traffic view since plans for a high-rise hotel had been
approved previously, and if subject petition were approved, this
mioht set a nrecedent for similar requests from the service station located approximately
350 feet to the west, or any of the motels located in close proximity.
Mr. C. M. Chaplin, owner-operator of the Stardust Western Motel adjacent to subject
property to the west, appeared in opposition and ststed that the proposed sign would
also obstruct his sign which was his only method of advertising his motel and would be
detrimental to the hotel property because of tF~e height and the lightin9, and that the
` location of the sign would be too far from the freeway to obtain the freeway trade, and,
therefore, was unnecessary.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC67-24 and moved for its passane and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Farano, to deny Petition for Variance No. 1850, on the basis that
the petitioner had not proven a hardship existed; that any height increase of signs granted
for subject property would set a precedent for similar requestsfrom service stations and
motels in close proximity; and that the location of a freeway-oriented sign was too far
removed to be of any benefit. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call t.he foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Campe
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSiONERS: None.
RE.CLASSIFICATIUN - CONTINUED PUBLIC NEARING. DICK H. AND EUI~ICE M. ABLES, 1010 Main
N0. 66-67-45 Street, Santa Ana, California, Owners; JERRY A. BRODY, 730 North
Euclid Avenue, Suite 115, Anaheim, California, Agent; property
VARIANCE N0. 1849 described as: A rectangularly s' oed parcel of land iocated at the
southeast corner of Euclid and Carritos Avenues and having a frontage
of approximateiy 117 feet on Euclid Avenue and approximately 157 feet
on Cerritos Avenue. Property present.ly classified R-1, UNE-FAN~ILY
RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICA?ION: C-1, GENERAL CO~~IdERCIAL, ZUNE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: 'f0 PE(~MIT THE ESTA4LISfiMENT UF A CONVENIENCE rOUD MARKcT
ON R-1, ONE-FAh1ILY RESIDENiIAL, ZON[D PROPERTY.
Subject petitions were continued from the meeting of January 4, 1967, in order to allow
time to readvertis? the variance, at the request of the petitioners,in order to give them
a maximum degree of flexibility, both before the Commission and City Council.
Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed the location and use proposed for subject
property, noting that no changes were made in the plot plan in that the C-0 zoning suggested
originally by tt~e agent for the petitionerswas not advertisPd at the request of the agent
in order that the petitionersmight be allowed the wider latitude through either the reclas-
sification or variance to permit the proposed use. However, the basic issue oefore the
Commission was wiiether or not the land use was proper and compatible with the residential
character of the area~
Mr. Jerry Brody, agent for ~he petitioners,appeared before t5e Commission and reviewed
happenings at the previous hearing and the reason why he had requested that the zoning
originally proposed remain, since it was his feeling that the proposed use could be granted
through a use variance since the variance provisions were quite broad~ Mro Brody then
reviewed the requirements for granting a variance and noted that one of the hardships fac-
ing the petitionerswas the fact that the property was located at the intersection of two
arterials; that tfie petitioners had dedicated their property for street widening purposes,
and if other owners along Cerritos Avenue had dedicated their properties, considerable
traffic problems could have been alleviated; and that the proposed convenience market would
not be detrimental to the residential character of the area.
~~~
Mr. Brody then stated that the hours of operation would be from 7:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M.;
that otner C-1 uses were more objectionable than a convenience market; that the petitioners
' would comply with zny requests for controls which the Staff might recommend; and that
R changes in close proximity along Euclid Avenue warranted consideration of a change in
„~. land useo It was also noted that in a study made by the City of Santa Ana regarding
~
• e ,
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 30, 1967 3325
RECLASSIFICATION - convenience markets, theleast objectionable place for a food market
N0. 66-67-45 was at the intersection of two arterials, and if adequate site develop-
ment standards were applied, these markets would not be detrimental to
VARIANCE N0. 1849 residential properties.
(Continued)
Three persons indicated their opposition to subject petitions.
Mr. R. C. Maus, 1680 West Cerritos Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated that
at the last public hearing he had presented a petition signed by 43 property owners, all
in ~pposition, and requested that subject petitions be denied on the basis that the
properties to the~northeast, east, and south were single-family homes; that the markets
within two blocks of subject property were adequa~e to serve the needs of the area; that
a traffic problem could result with two curb breaks to permit ingress and egress to
~ubject property from Cerritos Avenue; that he taught school in Garden Grove, and the
scnool was directly opposite a small, neighborhood shopping center which had become a
hangout for high school students who purchased soft drinks, smoked, and ate, and when
they were finished would throw their li9hted cigarettes, empty bottles, and papers over
the fences into the yards of the single-family homes; that many of these markets did not
police their property, and this caused a very untidy appearance; and that subject property
would be similar because Loara High School was directly across the street from subject
property.
Mrs. Ilah Hoke, 1686 Mells Lar.e, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated
that tnere would be less opposition if the petitioners would consider a medical-professional
office which would blend in with the decor and landscaping of the homes valued between
$30,000 and ~50,000; however, a Speedee Market was very undesirable and would be detrimental
to the R-1 homes.
Mr. Kent, in rebuttal, stated he represented the developer and noted that the traffic
problem might be resolved if all the property owners along Cerritos Avenue dedicated
so that the street would be wide enough to handle the present traffic, and that the proposed
structure would be complirnentary to the neighborhood.
T(-IE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
?he Commission reviewed the past zoning action on subject property, noting that the uses
were becoming less intense each time; that the opposition's reference to tYie convenience
market being in close proximity to the high school was a valid complaint, and if subject
petition were approved, the single-family homeowners would be subjected to all types of
debris; that the proposed use was not a proper land use, and something less intense than
a convenience market would be considered more favorobly since this would not be complimentary
to the adjoining single-family homes; furtl~ermore, where commercial ~ses were approved
adjacent to single-family homes, one of the requirements was the provision of a 20-foot alley
to separate the commercial from ihe residential uses, together with site development standards
of a block wall and landscaping.
Commissioner Farano noted that the General Plan proposed low density, residential use for
subject property, and to approve subject petitions would be setting a precedent for similar
requests along Carritos Avenue: furthermore, consideration should be given to a planning
stua.y for the area.
Commissioner farano offered Resolution No. PC67-25 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Counr.il that Petition for
Reclassification No. 66-67-45 be disapproved on the basis that no land use change had
t.aken place to warrant consideration of commercial uses for subject property; that the
proposed use of subject property would be detrimental to the residential environment of
the properties to the northeast, east,and south; and thatthe hours of operation and lighting
would be detrimental to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the neighbors,
(See Resolution Book)
On ro11 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: CGiW'dISSI0NER5: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
Commissioner Rowlard offered Resolution No. PC67-26 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to deny Petition for Variance No. 1849 on the basis that the
proposed request would not be in conformance with the land uses established in the area, and
the hours of operation and lightin9 from the proposed use would be detrimental to the peace,
health, safety, and general welfare of the adjoining residents. (See Resolution Rook)
~
---- ~»
~ .
~~
~ ~
= ., ~
~.
"~
~~~ ~
i _
3 -
, i ~x
MINUTES, CITY PLAI
RECLASSIFICATION
I~. 6u-67-45
VARIANCE N0. 1849
(Continued)
VNING COMMISSION, January 30, 1967 I 3326
- On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following
vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall,
Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1
RECOMMENDATIONS Parking ordinance for camp cars, trailers, etc., proposed
by the Committee appointed by the City Council and comments
by the City Attorney's office - Parking regulations for
camp car trailer ordinance proposed by the Trailer Coach
Association and comments by the City Attorney's office.
Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts reviewed for the Commission the various ordinances
presented to the Commission for their consideration, noting that copies of the ordinance
' sutmitted by tiie Commission ior the City Council consideration were also included, and
that copies of the City of Burbank ordinance re9arding parking of vehicles in the front
setback area of residential zones were also submitted for their perusal.
Mr. Roberts further noted several members of the Committee were present to speak by
9iving a summary of the proposed ordinance and to answer any questions the Commission
might have.
Mr. Alexanc_r Discoe, Chairman of the Citizens Committee appointed by the City Council,
appeared before the Commission with the following being a summary of his comments:
1. The Committee's recommended ordinance, although permissive, was the best for
the general public.
2. The Committee inc:;:ded a numher of restrictions which they originally felt
were too restrictiv=.
3. The Committee, in considering both the proponents'and opponents' desires of
use of the front setback area for storage and parking purposes,felt that their
proposed ordinance was the most feasible, and it was hoped that the Commission
would accept it in the spirit it was presented.
4. The Committee did not give sufficient consideration to the problem of storage
of the vehicles other than in the front yard setback.
5. That the Committee determined through fact thzt there were a number of iiomes
where vehicles could not be stored in the rear yard because of inaccessibility.
6. The ordinance was written covering consideration of people owning camp cars,
trailers, etc.
Mr. Frank Shilling, representing the Trailer ~oach Association, appeared before the
Commission to review the Association's proposed ordinance as follows:
1. The procedure to be followed if neighbors complained.
2o Restrictions of use of private property would be condemnation without due
process of law.
3o Trailer coaches could not be considered structures because they could be
relocated.
4. Comments regarding enforcement of the Association's proposed ordinance.
5. Response to Commission questioning regarding the Burbank ordir.ance having
been considered prior to his assignment; however, he was working with the
City of Huntington Beach regarding the parking of trailers.
The following is a summary of the Commission, City Attorney, and Staff comments regarding
the ordinances proposed by the Committee and the Trailer Coach Association:
1. Interpretation of the two new proposed ordinances.
2. Excessive number of vehicles permitted in the front yard setback.
~
, ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 30, 1967 3327
REPORTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0~ 1 (Continued)
3. Difficulty in Code enforcem?.` under the proposed ordinances.
4. No consideration or protection given a majority of property owners who prefer
having their front yard setbacks to remain uncluttered.
5. Length of vehicle permitted and possible dangers from obscured vision of
traffic flow.
' • 6. Restrictiveness of Section 15.28.240 of the Anaheim Municipal Code prohibiting
•-"'~~ the parking of the aforementioned vehicles, and the lack of enforcement by
~4 , permitting vehicles to be stored in the front setback.
7. Basic reason for both front and side setbacks is to provide light, air, and
space buffer of street traffic noises and dust for the residences.
8. Review of the City of Bu:bank ordinance.
_. 9. Both ordinances proposed being too permissive, thus creating a pendulum action
from a too rPStrictive parking code to a too lenient parking code.
10. Purchasing of vehicles such as boats, camp cars, trailers, etc., without any
thought being given to its ultimate storage and parking.
11. Possible effect on areas in which new front setbacks might be considered, and
whether those existing areas would qualify, thus making a portion of the existing
front setback available for parking or storage.
12. Difficuliy in storinq in the rear yard where homes do not have secondary access
such as an alley. Present side yards too small to gain entrance to rear yards
for storage purposes,
13. Length of time for amortization for disposal or relocation of vehicles which
owners have been unable to place in their rear yard or garage.
_ 14. Need for regulations without delay, because of the increasing interest in owning
_ th~se vehicles. Needed so that future subdivision will be provided with access
to the rear yard for storage purposes.
15. Possible revision to Section 15.28.240, incorporating the basic principles of
ttie proposed ordinance, and strict enforcement of this revision.
16. Proposed ordinance of the Committee would favor a minority, whereas ordinances
should govern a11 people.
17. Trailer Coach Association ordinance would d~prive the Plar.ning Commission and
City Council their right to administer the required setbacks, throug5 zoning
actions, by allowing complainants and individual property owners control of the
front setbacks for parking and storage purposes.
Commissioners Camp and Rowland were of the opinion that the Commissior~ should take no
action on the proposed ordinances until ttie Commission had studied in detail their
proposal to the City Council as compared to the Committee's and the Motor Coach Association's
proposalso
j Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to conzinue consideration of the proposed camper
i trailer parking-storage ordinance presented by the Committee and the Motor Coach Association
to the meeting of February 15, 1967, in order to allow time for further study of the pro-
. i posed drafts in comparison with that proposed to the City Council by the Planning Commission
August 16, 1966. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTIUN CARRIED.
ITEM N0. 2
Conditional Use Permit fJo. 590 - Addition to existing motel
located at 1836 South Araheim Boulevard - Request for an
~ extension of time.
, 1 Associate Planner Jack Christofferson presented Conditional Use Permit No. 590 to the
Commission and reviewed the letter requesting an additional extension of time for the
* completion of conditions
granting said petition under Resolution No. 1254, Series 1964-65,
~ ~ in July, 1964. It was also noted that four 180-day time extensions had been granted;
however, the last extension granted by the Commission was made with the stipulation that
~.
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 30, 1967 3328
REPORTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 2 (Continued)
the petitioner dedicate property for street widening purposes within 30 days - otherwise
the extension would become null and void - and the petitioner had not made the necessary
street dedication in the time specified by the Commissa.on. Therefore, in the opinion of
tha Staff, subject time extension request should be denied, and the petition should be
terminated.
Discussion was held between the Commission and Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts re9ard-
in9 the request for an additio:ial extension of time, noting that since one of the conditions
of granting the last time extensien was to require street dedication within 30 days, which
had not been met, and, furthermrre, since none of the cond?~;c~;; had been met, considera-
tion should be given to termination of subject petitio~~.
Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC67-27 and moved for its passaoe and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Allred, to terminate all proceedings on Conditional Use Permit
No. 590 on the basis that the petitioner had not complied with the conditional approval of
the previous time extension, and that no street dedication was submitted to the City within
the 30 days as stipulated by the Commission. (See Resolution Book)
On roli call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: CGMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: CONVu1ISS10NERS: None.
ABSENT: COAM9ISSIONERS: None.
I?EM N0. 3
City of Orange Zone Change No. 472 - Initiated by the City of Orange -
Property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel situated on the
north si~ie of Katella Avenue extending westerly from Batavia Street
to the Santa Ana River, said parcel having 297 feet of frontage on
Batavia Street and extending along the Santa Ana Rive* to a depth of
1889 feet. Present classification - Pd-1 Light Industrial (Orange
County Zoning). ?roposed classification - M-2, Industrial.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson presented City of Orange Zone Change No. 472 to the
Planning Commission, noting the proposed reclassification of property and its location.
Discussion was held by the Commissio~ regarding the location anci intended use of the
property, and the previous study made by the Anaheim Staff regarding industrial land use
along the Santa Ana River. Upon the conclusion of the discussion, the Commission was of
the opinion that t5e proposed zone change would be consistent wi~h the existing and pro-
jected industrial land use for the area along the Santa Ana River.
Commissioner Niungall offered a motion to recommerd to the City Council that the City of
Grange ?lanning Commission be adviseo that the proposed Zone Change No. 472, alony the
north side of Katella Avenue between Batavia ~treet ~nd the Santa Ana River as being
consistent with the existing and projected industrial land use for those areas along
the Santa Ana River in ±he City of Anaheim. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion.
MOTIUN CARRIED.
ITEN~ N0. 4
R=classification tdo. 63•~54-62(3) - Approval of development plans
for proposed R-~ property located at 80a South Webster Street.
E~.~ i
~
~
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson presented development plans as required by resolution
of ~ntent of the City Council re9arding Reclassification No. 63-64-62(3), noting that
the development plans we:e substantially in accordance with requirements of the resolution
of intent, and that the designer of the plans was available toanswer questions.
The Commission reviewed the development plans and recommendations made by the Staff.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to approve development plans submitted for Reclassi-
fication No. 63-64-62(3), property located at 804 South Webster Street, as being substan-
tially in accordance with requirements of the resolution of intent. Commissioner Allred
seconded the motion. MOTIUN CARRIED.
E
MINUTES, ~iTy pLANNING COMMISSION, January 30, 1967 j
3329
REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 5
RECOMMENDATIONS Reclassi°ication No. 66-67-112 - Amendment to legal description
(Continued) of propei•ty recommended for reclassification under Planning
Commission Resolution No. 2049, Series 1905-66, dated May 23, 1966.
Associate Planner Jack Christofferson presented Reclassification No. 65-66-112, reclassi-
fication of the Muckenthaler property from R-A to C-1, located south of the Carbon Creek
Channel located on the west side of Loara Street, northerly of Crescent Avenue, noting
that at the time the petition was submitted, subject property was divided into two separate
legal descriptions; however, at the time the Commission's resolution was recommended to the
City Council, only the southerly 100 feet of the property had been submitted in error, and
the small, pie-shaped wedge immediately adjacent to the south of the Carbon Creek Channel
had been inadvertently omitted. Therefore, an amended legal description was in order so
that all properties advertised for this reclassification would be placed in their proper
zone.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC67-28 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that the legal description
submitted under Resolution No. 2049, Series 1965-66, be amended to include the small, pie-
shaped parcel located between the southerly boundary of the Carbon Creek Channel and the
legal description submitted originally under the aforementioned resolution. (See Resolution
Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: CO~~ISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowt.and, Camp.
NOES: COMMTSSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ADJOURNMENT - There beinq no further business to discuss, Commissioner Mungall
offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner pllred
seconded the motion. MOTIOfJ CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 4:20 P,M,
Respectfully submitted,
Q; ~ .: ~.~ ~~ -G:~i
AN,v KREBS, Secretary
Anaheim City Planning Commission
`I ~
~
~g. i
E''
~
~.I ` ,
~y ''
i';~ V** ~
,,
r
-- ..~~
€'~F
~