Minutes-PC 1967/05/22INVOCATION - Reverend Lee W. Morris, Pastor of The Church of Christ
invocation. ~ gave the
PLEDGE ~F
ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Faranq led in,the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
APPROVAL OF - The Minutes of the meeting of`April 24, 196Z were approved;with the
THE MINUTES following correction on motion by:Gommissioner Heibst, seconde,d.by
Commissioner Allred, and MOTION CARRIED:
Page 3411, paragraph 2, line 3, should read: "(3).no evidence j
- submitted that there were sufficient 62-year.old.r:.themselves'.'i:
i,,,,! i
',
The Minutes for the meeti'ng of.May 8,:1967 were`approved with the
following correction.on:motion by Commissioner. Allred; seconded by
Commissioner Mungall, and MOTION CARRIED:
, para ra h 11 line 1 shou "'
Page 3439' g p , , ld read: "Mr:,Robert Borden..
..noted that.. < ,_:
~
. ~
VARIANCE N0. 1859 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. JERRY MARKS, 2144 West Lincoln Avenue, ~
Anaheim, California, Owner; R. L. COONS, 111 West'E1m Street,,
Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting a variance to PERMIT A +
20,000-SQUARE F001' WAREHOUSE WITH R00= PARKING TO BE LOCATED AT THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF
TI-IE EXISTING HARDWARE FACILITY, WITH WAIVERS OF (1) MINIfdUM BUILDING SETBACK`AND (2)
MINIMUM PARKING SPACE SIZE on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of
land (appxoximately 150 feet by 332 feet), the southerly'boundary of subject property
being approximately 136 feet north of the centerline of Hiawatha Avenue and the northerly
boundary being approximately 510 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, and
further described as 2144 West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently ciassified'.P-1, ~
AUTOMOBILE PARKING, ZONE. , -=
Subject petition was continued from the meetings of March•13, 27, and April 24, 1967,
to allow'time for the petitioner to submit revised plans. '
Associate Planner Jack Christofferson advised the Commission that the agent for the
petitioner had submitted a letter requesting an additional cor.tinuance to the meeting ~
of July 3,.1967, since they had not hed time to complete the revi~~d plans.
Mr. Larry W. Bolin, 2137 West Hiawatha Avenue, appeared before the Commission in o F'`
stating that he had e roblem to a pposi'tion, i
P ppear at each continued meeting since he had to request j
ti
no e off from work; that he had additional facts to present to the Commission which were ~''
t submitted at the original hearing; and that the property owners o '
deyelopment be given~ s o m e c o n s i d e r a t i o n w i t h s a m a ny c o n t i n uances. pposing the proposed ~
The Commission advised Mr. Bolin they would consider his additional evidence at the meet- '
ing of July 3, 1967, at which time the petitioner was expected to have completed.his
revised plans. ~
i
3446 j _ ~_
,~ 5'P'S n~$ '^,~ °"fj?.~ ~i °,~M~t ~,.., t T"~~'~" / a+ X 2 ti 3*~u4 ..4 3 i..~~ y,~., (_tz v ) Y^
~'. ~" ~~ ~r~' ~~ 1 1 z u i:
~[~. ~.,ry~t, ~...~ 5'~~ - .
. ._....._ __ __ _. . .
C~ ~ ~~ .
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CCAMaIS5•ION, May 22, 1967
3447 ,
VARIANGE.NO. 1859 - Commission~r Mungall offered a motion to..continue Petition for
(Continued) Variance No. 1859 to the meeting of July. 3, 1967, and that new
notices be sent to all property owners regaiding the new date of
consideration of the revised plans. Commissioner Farano seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CONDITIONAL USE - CANTINUED PUBLIC HEpRING. ANA PARK,.INCpgppRATEp~ 1557 West Mable
PERMIT N0. 939 Street, Anaheim, California, Ownex; KENNETH HOLT, 1557 West Mable
Streety Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH
A PRIVATE SCHOOL AND RELATED FACILITIES on property described as:
An irregularly shaped parcel of land located at the southeast corner of Loara Street and
Mable Street and having frontages of approximately 125 feet on Loara Street and approxi-
mately 810 feet on Mable Street. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL,
ZONE.
Subject petition was continued from the m=eting of April 24, 1967, in order to allow time
for the petitioner to submit revised plans incorporating ~uggestions made by the Commission.
Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed the proposed request, the location of subject
property, and the changes made to the plans as requested by the Commission in their previous
consideration of subject petition.
Mr. Kenneth Holt, director-owner of the school, appeared before the Commission and noted
that the revised plans indicated the development as it would occur in two phases. Further-
more, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the school was in operation for
17 years on.the property to the north; that the property was zoned R-A at the time the
school was established and was later zoned M-1; that the reason for proposing a grape~take
fence was because one already existed on the property to the east, and they had a consider-
able amount of fencing remaining which they were desirous of utilizing; that the school was
enlaxged in.1961, at which time six classrooms and restroom facilities were added; that
they presently had an enrollment of 350 students, and it was anticipated to accommodate
450 upon completion of the first phase and 500 when the second phase was completed; that
classes ranging from kindergarten to eight grade were provided; that they have never had
problems with the industries established in the area except during the time children were
loadedland unloaded from buses and parents' automobiles; that only the seventh and eighth
grade students were allowed to cross the street, and then only with a crossing guard; and
that when the first phase was completed, the higher grades would be utilizing these facili-
tie~, thus eliminating the necessity of crossing the street except 'for gymnasium classes.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THE E~ARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst expressed concern that to approve subject petition would divide an
M-1 parcel so that it would discourage industrial development of the remainder because
this plaaed a school in the center of industrial development; that although other schools might
be faced with similar street crossings, it was not the same as crossing a local, industrial
street; that industries had developed on the assumption that the existing school would be
the only non-:ndustrial use,without anticipating enlargement of the school; and that school
traffic was not compatible wiLh industrial traffic.
Commissioners Camp, Gauer and Rowland noted that schools existed in the industrial area in
Los Angeles; that there would be little industrial property left to develop even though
subject property split an industrial parc'el; and that the property was originally intended
for a YMCA development.
Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC67-105 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 939,
subject to conditions established in the Report to the Commission, and further, that a
6-foot masonry wall be provided along the south property line and a chainlink fence along
the playground area. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. •
; ,~
~
~ ....~ ~ . _ ~ ~ ~ . . ~~
~ . ...r .: .~s
.;r
`,
r ~.~
~ ~:'
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 22, 1967 3448
CONDITIONAL ~SE - PIJBLIC.HEARING. RUBY SAMPLES, 2406 West Commonwealth Avenue, Fullerton,
PERMIT N0: 942 California, -0wner; MARTHA HAGER, 312 South Kroeger Street, Anaheim,
California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A BOARDING HOUSE
on pioperty described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with
a frontage of approximately 50 feet on the east side of Kroeger Street, the northerly
property"line being located.approximately 172 feet south of the centerline of Broadway,
and further described.as 312 South Kroeger Street. Property presently classified R-3,
MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. `
Assoctete Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed the proposed request, the location of sub~ect
property,.,and the uses established in close prox.imity and noted•'that the Anaheim Municipal
Code peimitted up to five unrelated persons to live together as a housekeeping unit; how-
ever; seven persons were proposed in this instance, necessitating subject pet:~,on, and
that no alterations were anticipated - therefore, no development plans had been submitted.
Mrs. Martha Hager, agent.for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that
the proposed students came from all parts of the United States and Alaska, ranging in age
from 20 to 30 years and were transported to the trade school and would reside in the City
for approximately six months.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC67-106 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Farano, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 942,
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, Campe
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT:_ COMMISSIONERS: None.
VARIANCE..NO. 1876 - PUBLIC 1-I~ARING. C. W. MAUERHAN, 210 Narcissus, Corona del-Mar,
`California, Owner; W. B. JILES, 3036 South Oak Street, Santa Ana,
California, Agent; requesting permission to CONSTRUCT A NENi FREE-
STANDING SIGN (REPLACING THE EXISTING SIGN), WITH WAIVERS OF (1) SIGN AREA, (2) SIGN
HEIGHT, AND (3) FLASHING SIGN PROVISIONS on property described as: A sectangularly shaped
parcel of land located`et the southeast oorner of Katella Avenue and Casa Vista Street and
_ having frontages of approximetely 195 feet on Ketella Avenue and approximately 250 feet on
Casa ~Gista Street, and further described as 1166 West Katella Avenue. Property presently
classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed ttie requested waivers, the location of
subject property,and the uses established in close proximity, noting that the proposed
sign would replace an existing free-.standing sign already in excess of that permitted by
the existing Sign Ordinance, and was proposing a height 100~ more than that permitted by
Code.
Mr. Frank Jiles, representing the Federal Sign Company, appeared before the Commission
and stated he was available to answer questions.
The Commission inquired whether or not the Federal Sign Company had been present, or was
represented, at the time the City considered adoption of tha Sign Ordinance since the sign
people had indicated they could live with the ordinance as proposed by the City, whereupon
Mr. Jiles stated they were represented at said public hearing.
The Commission further noted that signing of subject property could be accomplished adequatel~
within the limitations of the Sign Ordinance, and to grant subject petition would be setting a~
precedent for requests from other cownercial developments in the area for signs greatly in `
excess to that permitted,'thereby establishing e pattern of requests for waivers of the '
Sign Ordinance.
Mr. Jiles noted that the petitioner was proposing to erect a more modern sign with a lighted
ball, and that the bear would be revolving.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THE HEARING WAS CIASED.
~, ~
i 2 1 6 ~. ,~..~ r.,•~~
~~
MINUTES,.CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 22, 1967
3449
VARIANCE N0. 1876 - Commissioner Herbst offe~ed Resolution No. PC67-107 and moved for its
(Contiaued) passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to deny Petition
for Variance No. 1876, on the basis that it had'not beeri proven that
• denial of the proposed sign waivers would create a hardship; that the
petitioner could construct a new sign and still comply with the Sign Ordinance; and that
to grant P oximitpetition would be granting a privilege not generally enjoyed by properties
in close y. (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: COMMISSIONERS: None.
~ VARIANCE N0. 1877 - PUgLIC E~ARING. SKEOCH COMPpNY, 524 West Commonwealth Avenue,
~ . Fullerton, California, Owner; ROCKET NEON COMPANY, 2850 Temple
Avenue, Long Beach, California, Agent; requestin
,, CONSTRUCT BOTH A FREE-STANDING AND A ROOF SIGN, WITH WAIVERS OF (1) DISTANCESBETWEEN
~ SIGNS, (2) SIGN HEIGHT, (3) SIGN AREA, (4) SIGN LOCATION, AND (5) AGGREGATE AREA on
~`~ property described as: A rectan ularl sha ed
~ approximately 142 feet on the north side ofpLincolneAvenueaandhaving frontages of
on Syracuse Street, and further described as the northeast cornerPofXLincoln Avenueet
r ~; and Syracuse Street. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
g ~, Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed sub'ect
ti ~j property, uses established in close • ~ Petition, the location of subject
prox:.mity, and findings of the Report•to the Commission.
~~
~! Mr. Jack Coughly, representing Sam's Sea Food, appeared before the Commission, noting that
% due to un emergency illness, the authorized ac~ent was unable to appear; that reference was
tG` r made in the Report to the Commission that the proposed sign was a roof sign - however, the
y-~ , proposed sign on the parapet roof was in the form of decorative marine life, made of plastic;
z;~;'~:;;':;-; that no wording would be placed on these advertising anything specifically; that in his esti-
~;" ~ mation, these should be considered not as si ns but
~
~~ , He also noted that if the Commission had anygtechnicalrquestionsdregarding thetsign,rtheure.
~f~,,.',~ representative of the sign company was available to answer these questions.
s~
~~n tf' No one appeared . in o
~ _ pposition to subject petition.
~*G THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
~
4"'.,-,;_:.I;~' ., ' . .
>'~~ Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the
ic proposed sign qualified as a roof sign; that the sloping roof could not qualify as a parapet '
~ a~ wall, and, therefore, the sign could be interpreted only as a roof sign; and, furthermore,
~., if this were projected as a wall sign, the only waiver necessary would be the height of the
~.~ free-standing sign, and the Sign Ordinance was very specific as to the descriptions of wall
and roof signs.
Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts then advised the Commission that a parapet wall was
defined .in the Building Code as an extension of the wall of the building; that even though
this appeared as a slightly slanting roof, almost resembling a wall, they proposed projec-
tions into the air similar to a roof sign - therefore, it could not be considered a wall
sign; and that the City would have to draw the line where a parapet wall and a slanted roof
differed.
Commissioner Rowland then stated there was no question this was a roof sign, regardless of
how the roof was attached to the side wall; that the Sign Ordinance was very specific in
the defini.tions of a roof sign and a wall sign, and if this portion of the Ordinance was
~ not clear in its intent, then the Ordinance needed re'vision.
Mr. Tom Drucks, representing Fredricks Development Corporation (Skeoch Company), advised
the Commission that the sign could be constructed as a parapet wall or a soffit.
Commissioner Rowland then defined a parapet wall as it appeared in the Building Code, and
noted that a soffit was part of a ,, not a roof.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution N. PC67-108 and moved for its passa e and ado ti
seconded by Commissioner Allred, to deny Petition for Variance No. 1877, on the basis thatn~
no hardship had been proven; that the Code was very specific in its definitions of a parapet
wall and a roof sign; that the height was far in excess of signs permitted in this area;
and that the City was in the process of upgrading community values regarding signs which
_ ~ '~i ~s ;a~ :
J i
-~
tk'~, 47L~ a~-7` ~ .. ~ ~ ,F • r!
~ .,,,
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 22, 1967
3450 I ~;
VARIANCE N0. 1877 - were nonconforming prior to the Sign Ordinance and would be amortized;
(Continued) whereas to grant the proposed sign would be approving another noncon-
forming sign, thereby establishing the beginning of the breakdown of
the Sign Ordinance. (See Resolution Sook)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland. ~
NOESs` COPNuIISSIONERS: Farano. ,'~
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. -;;~;
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONHRS: Camp. ~'';:;~";~
. : wG
~.,.:l;;i
VARIANCE N0. 1878 - PUBLIC HEARING. E. M. DENVER, 712 North Clementine Street, Anaheim, 1X
~
California, Owner; requesting WAIVER OF MINIMUM LOT WIDTHS on property ;:
desc.ribed as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage +
of approximately 144 fee~' -n the east side of Clementine Street and having a maximum depth (
of approximately 154 feet, tine southerly property line being approximately 120 feet north
of the centerline of Wilhelmina Street, and further described as 712 North Clementine Street. ~
Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. ;
,
Associate Planner Jack Christo£ferson reviewed subject petition, the location of subject ,
property, and the uses established in close proximity, together with the findings of the
Report to the Commission.
'
Mrs. E. M. Denver indicated her presence and availability to answer questions. ; ;:
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. "'"'
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC67-109 and moved for its passage and adoption,.
seconded by Commissioner Farano, to grant Petition for Variance No.1878, subjectto conditions.
(See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Heri~st, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. i
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~
VARIANCE N0. J.879 - PUBLIC HEARINGo FLORENCE TAYLOR, 942 Emerald Bay, Laguna Beach,
California, Owner; CHARLES TAYLOR, 942 Emerald Bay, Laguna Beach,
California, Agent; requesting WAIVERS TO PERMIT A SMALL COMMERCIAL
CENTER, AS FOLLOWS: (1) MAXIMUM BUILDING i~IGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF A SINGLE-FAMILY ZONE
AND (2) REQUIRED 6-FOOT MASONR~ WALL on property described as: An irregularly shaped
parcel of land located at the southwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Citron Street and
having frontages of approximately 230 feet on La Palma Avenue and approximately 80 feet
on Citron Street. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMA~RCIAL, ZONE.
Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed subject petition, the location of subject
property,,and the uses established in close proximity, as well as the findings of the
Report to the Commission.
Mr. Charles Taylor, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted
that a sight line was created by a 9-foot differential between the proposed structure
and the R=0 property to the south since subject property had a grade elevation 4 feet
below the southerly property, and that the smaller portion to the west of the R-0 property
was landlocked; however, this was their property.
Considerable discussion was then held by the Commission relative to the landlocked parcel
in that this could be sold off, and the Commission could be faced with a request indicating
hardship in development of the property and relief would be sought.
Mr. Taylor noted that the design of the neighborhood shopping facility was i;he most ideal
way for d;evelopment of this odd-shaped parcel and still provide adequate parking, and that '
they had had difficulty in trying to develop and utilize the property for a number of years.
The Commission, the Staff, and the petitioner then held lengthy discussions relative to
relocation of the structure on the property and means of utilizing the landlocked parcel. i
r ~' S' a~ u"~~r ,s~ ~rr!`~- p• a '~-~"~e n ~° t ~'~r~~,y `wi.,' w' u~ { f ~ , ' ~y ,~ ~ 7 ~z m ; r h.; ~ ~ ; .. z -r.. ..
g~~ h" ~.1 y a7 1
1.:.s~~ Ff"..P ,
'~ . . . -' __"
\
. ~ ~ ~ ~~ . . ~ ~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNIA]u COMMISrION, May 22, 1967 • 3451
VARIANCE N0. 1879 - Chairman Camp advised everyone interested that it was not the duty
_ (Continued) of the Commission to do land planning on the site, and if the petitioner
was desirous of developing his property, his architect should contact
the.Staff in order to attempt to resolve the various difficulties
expressed in the Report to the Commission and discussion held by the Commission.
Assistant Development Services Director Robert Mickelson noted that if the building was
relocate~ so that it would be an L-shaped building having it boundaries closer to La Palma
A'venue, pr.oviding an access drive to the rear,~ the landlocked parcel could be utilized. .
The Commission further advised the petitioner that no concern would be expressed by the
~ Commission relative to the setback along the west property line; however,.further considera-
' tion should be given to the property to the south where a single-family home was in existence:
Mr. William.Burrell, 956 North Winter Street, appeared to represent the property owners to
the sou.th and west of subject property, noting that they ~vere glad to see the property
develop,.but were concerned with the request for waiver of the maximum building height
adjacent to the R-0 Zone; that there was a 4-foot high differentiation in the height of
the property, and when the Commission previously considered subject property, there was
general discussion that there would be a sloping,green area for this small, jutted parcel
abutting the R-0 property, and inquired about whether the maximum building height would
also be considering the signs which might be projected for the roof - whether'there would
be a free-standing"sign or whether they would have a flashing sign.
Mr. Thompson advised Mr. Burrell that the waiver of the maximum height was for the one R-0
parcel abutting to the south on Citron Street; that the signs proposed would be within the
Code requirements; and that any 6-foot wall required would be measured from the highest
grade level, and this .naturally woula entail a retaining wall to pre'vent any earth
movement.
The agent for the petitioner again appeared and stated that no roof sign was proposed, and
the suggested 20-foot drive utilizing the rear portion would not meet the desiree of the
proposed tenant of the small market because this will not give him the exposure he desires.
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to continue Petition for Variance No. 1879 to the
meeting af June 19, 1967, in order to allow the petitioner time to submit alternative
plans and to meet with the Development Servicea staff to resolve the disposal af the land-
locked parcel projected, and suggested that the petitioner and his architect meet with
the Staff so that no hardship could be claimed later for any landlocked parcel. Commissioner
Rowland•seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
,,,~
~ VARIANCE N0. 1880 - PUBLIC HEARING. ANDREW GIANELLI, 1232 North Citron Lane, Anaheim,
- California, Owner; requesting permission to EXPAND AN EXISTING
RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE, WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK on
property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approxi-
mately 67 feet on the east side of Citron Lane and having a maximum depth of approximately
90 feet, the southerly property line of subject property being approximately 400 feet north
of the centerline of La Palma Avenue, and further described as 1232 North Citron Lane.
~ Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
r ti
:~ Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed subject petition, the location of subject
;"`_~ ro ert and the uses established in close
p p Y~ proximity, as well as the findings of the
~•^~'~ Report to the Commission.
0 ~
~ ;? Mrs. Andrew Gianelli indicated her presence to answer questions.
ti~,..
}k ~; No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
;,,.,.> ; ;F
x~ ~;~; THE HEARING .WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Mungall offered.Resolution No. PC67-110 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Farano, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1880, subject to
conditions. (See Resolution Book)
On xoll 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.
/~~ . .. . . .. .. . . . .~ . . ., . . . . .
.. , ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~~ ~ ~ . ..~ ~ . . ~- .
MINUTES, CI•IY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 22, 1967 3452
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC f~ARING. WILBUR WRIGHT, ET AL, 1304 South Claudina Street,
N0: 66-57-65 . Anaheim, California, Owner; FREDRICKS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
-:- 524 West Commonwealth Avenue, Fullerton, California, Agent; pr~perty
VARIANCE N0. 1881 described as,: An irregularly shaped.parcel of land having a frontage
of approximately 525 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue and
- having a maximum depth of approximately 805 feet, the westerly boundary
of subject property•being approximatel~{ 585 feet east of the centerline of Sunkist Street.
Property presently classified R-2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE. '
~' REQUES:fED ~lARIANCEe ESTABLISH A 156-UNIT APARTW~NT COMPLEX~ WITH WAIVERS OF
~ ' (1) MINIMUM DISTANCE BEIWEEN BUILDINGS, (2) CARPORT LOCATION,
AND (3) MAXIMUM DWELLING UNIT DISTANCE FROM A DEDICATED STREET.
~`' ~ Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed subject petitions, the location of subject
~~ property,.and uses established in close proximity, together with the findings of the Report
to the Commission.
~
:'.
;'~
~.
~ Mr. Henry Fredricks, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted
the unusual shape of subject property - the fact that it abutted the proposed Orange Free-
~, way, and that they were projecting this development for an adult community; that they were
x,.,0.; setting back.the required 150 feet adjacent to the R-1 to the south; that Spanish architec-
ture was proposed for the structure; that the private street would be similar to the one
"' in their development on Palm Lane; and that in his estimation, development of subject property
.::.`,~ would not set a precedent for similar uses in the area, due to its unusual shape.
' ~Ry Mr. Richard Taormina, 8049 Taormina Drive, appeared before the Commission and requested to
~;_~~~• review the drawings before he could determine whether or not he was in opposition to subject
, .~.
'i:x;;;~ petitions.
~~.1~
~F";=,., .
~ ~ 4~'s`
~„:~, Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson reviewed the plans with Mr. Taormina, whereupon Mr.
~Y~ Taormina indicated.he would withdraw any opposition he had indicated might be presented.
L:.~,~...,..
THE HEARING WAS CLOSHD.
The Commission noted that one of the findings of the Report to the Commission indicated
that the petitioner had verbally consented to relocating the carports so that they would
abut the east property line in order to eliminate any possibility of an area that would
be unattended, and there would be driveways between the carports and the Orange Freeway
right-of-way, and inquired of the petitioner whether he would stipulate to that statement.
Mr. Fredricks stated that they would relocate the carports along the east property line.
Commissioner.Farano offered Resolution No. PC67-111 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclas-
sification No. 66-67-65 be approved, subject to conditions, including the requirement that
the carports be relocated easterly to abut the Orange Freeway right-of-way line. (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.
ABSEN'I: COMb1ISSI0NERS: None.
Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No..PC67-112 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1881, subject to condi-
tions, and the requirement that the proposed carports shall be relocated easterly to abut
the proposed Orange Freeway right-of-way. (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.
ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS: None.
.r
~;,- _ - ,
0 ' ~:::
~ (~
MINUTES, CITY.PLANNING COMMISSION, May 22, 1967 3453
RECLASSIF.ICATION.- PUBLIC~HEARING. INITIATED BY TI-IE CI'!Y, PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East
N0. 66-67-63 Linqoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing that property described
as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land containing approximately 177
acres, the southerly boundary`of subject property being north of the
Santa Ana River and having frontages of approximately 430 feet on the east side of Lakeview
Avenue and approximately 2,530 feet on the south side of Orangethorpe Avenue, and further
described as the Warner-Lambert Annexation,.be'reclassified upon annexation from the Ml,
LIGHT:INDUSTRIAL,AND',SG, SAND AND GRAVEL, DISTRICT8 (County Zone) to the R-R, AGRICULTURAL,
ZONE (prezoning property pending annexation).
Associate Planner Marviri Krieger reviewed the proposed Warner-Lambert Annexation areay
noting the existing uses established in the County and the fact that the Warner-Lambert
Pharmaceutical Company proposed to develop an industrial cot::plex on the easterly two parcels
~ northerly of the La Palma Avenue extension.
Mr. Krieger, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the advantage of prezoning
prior to'annexation into the City was cnerely more assurance that upon annexation into the
City established zoning would be available, and that subject property was located within
the Northeast Industrial Area.as established on the Anaheim General Plan.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Gau~er offered Resolution No. PC67-113 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclas-
sification No. 66-67-63, establishing prezoning for property known as the Warner-Lambert
Annexation, be approved. (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: Noneo
ABSENT: COMMZSSIONERS: Noneo
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East
N0. 66-67-64 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California;.proposing that property described
as:, ParcelrNo. 1- Al1 that real property situated in the proposed
Warner,Lambert Annexation to the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, '
State of California, as recorded in book 7563, page 252 and in book 7563, page 262 of ~
official records of said Orange County; deeds recorded June 21, 1965; conveyed to the
Warner-Lambert Pharmaceutical Company, A Corporation, and further described as the easterly
portion of seid Warner-Lambert Annexation, approximately 650 feet along the south side of '
Orangethorpe Avenue, extending 2,536 feet, plus or minus, southerly, being bisected on the
southerly portion by the extension of La Palma Avenue; and Parcel No. 2- All that property
within the Warner-Lambert Annexation wester.ly of Parcel No. 1, extending approximately 600
feet westerly and southerly of Orangethorpe Avenue to the existing Anaheim city limits, as
depicted on Exhibit "A", prezoning property from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the M-1,
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE.
Associate Planner Marvin Krieger noted for the Commission that in order to provide for
controlled development for that area in the Northeast Industrial Area, designated as the
proposed Warner-Lambert Annexation, initial prezoning to the R-A, Agricultural, Zone with
a later rezoning to the M-1, Light Industrial, Zone would be in conformance with the Anaheim
General Plan; that vehicular access would be provided by the extension of La Palma Avenue
easterly from Lakeview Street to Imperial Highwey, and the proposed Orchard Drive extension
to connect Orangethorpe and La Palma Avenues in a north-south direction; that the La Palma
Avenue extension was scheduled for completion August 15, 1967; however, the precise align-
ment and construction date for Orchard Drive had not been established.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner~Mungall offered Resolution No. PC67-114 and moved for its passage and adoption, ;
seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclas-
sification No. 66-67-64 be appr.oved, establiahing prezoning for that property known as the
Warner-Lambert Annexation, and'that a further recomnendation be made that an ordinance be
read on Parcel Noo l as shown on Exhibit "A° (Warner•-Lambert Pharmaceutical Company property)
at such time as the property was annexed into the i:ity, on the basis that all conditions of
approval being established in'the Resolution of :intent to M-1 had been meto (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: COMMISSIONERS: None.
~ a ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 22, 1967
3454
GENERAL PLAN. - PUBLIC HEARINGc INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East
AMHNDIuIENi N~..•.85 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing an amendment to the
Hill and Canyon General Plan designating an area to be known as the
. Gypsur~ Trai1 Special Park located in Gypsum Canyon Area of Northern
Orange County.
Associate Planner Marvin Krieger advised the Commission that it was the Staff's recommenda-
tion that Item'Nose 12A and 12B regarding the Orenge County Master Plan of Riding and Hiking
Trails and the General P1an Amendment No.,85, encompassing the Gypsum Trail Special Park
designation on the Hill and Canyon General Plan, be tabled until further study had been
made by the:Staff through contact with the Orange County Planning Department.
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to terminate proceedings on General Plan Amendment
No. 85 as requested by the Staff. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIEDo
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to terminate all consideration of an amendment to the
Orange County Master Plan of Riding end Hiking Trails within the Anaheim planning area for
further study as requested by the Staff. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIEDe
REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1
RECOMMENDATIONS Conditional Use Permit Noo 799 (Sham-Webster) - Request for
an extension of time for completion of conditions.
Associate Planner Jack Christofferson noted that the proposed Taco Bell was.to be located
the east side of East Street, approximately 275 feet north of Lincoln Avenue, on property
zoned C-1, approved under Conditional Use Permit No. 799; that the agent for the petitioner
had requested an additional 180-day time.extension for the completion of conditions; and
that conditions under Resolution No. 1902, S'eries 1965-66 have not been met as of this
date. Furthermore, the Planning Commission had granted one 180-day extension of time on
August 29, 1966, said extension expiring January 22, 1967a
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to grant a 180-day time extension for the completion
of conditions of Conditional Use Permit No. 799, said time extension to expire July 17,
1967e Commissioner Mungall seconded the motione MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM N0. 2
Conditional Use Permit No. 894 (Hsritage Towers) - Request for
an extension of time.
Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed for the Commission the request of National
Coordinators, proposed developers of~the Heritage Towers, to be located on the north side
of Katella Avenue, approximately 725 feet east of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard in
the Commercial-Recreation Area, proposing to establish a 12-story, 151-foot office build-
ing under Conditional Use Permit No. 894, and that the Interdepartmental Committee recom-
mended that if the Commission considered the 180-day time extension favorably, Condition
No. 1 of Resolution No. PC66-138, requiring the dedication for street widening purposes
of Katella Avenue to the City of Anaheim, be complied with within 30 days.
Commissioner Farano offered a motion to grant a 180-day time extension for completion of
conditions in Resolution No. PC66-138, said time extension to expire November 22, 1967,
provided, however, that Condition No. 1 of the aforementioned resolution, requiring the
dedication for street widening purposes along Katella Avenue, be completed within 30 days,
or June 21, 1967. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM N0. 3
Variance No. 1817 (Highland Properties, Incorporated) -
Termination of the request for waiver of minimum front setback.
Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed for the Commission a letter from the aqent
of the proposed developers of property located on the west side of Manchester:Avenue, south
of Katella Avenue, proposing the construction of an industrial building on the front portion
of the site, with waiver of the 50-foot building setback, in which the petitioner indicated
they were not intending to exercise the variance because the building was not to be con-
structed and requested that Variance No. 1817 be terminatede
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC67-115 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Farano, to terminate all proceedings on Petition for Variance
No. 1817 on the basis that the petitioner requested the termination. (See Resolution Book)
;. ' . ~ . .. ~ .
MINUTES, CIIY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 22, 1967
REPORTS RND
` RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0, 3 (Continued)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENTq COMMISSIONERS: None.
ITEM N0. 4
Conditional Use Permit No. 702 (Byron Dahl) - Request
for an extension of time to establish a church.
~~
3455
~wi
Associate Planrrer Jack Christofferson reviewed for the Commission the request of Mr. Byron
Dahl for•an~.extension of time for completion of conditions granting Conditional Use Perm~t
No. 702, in Resolution No. 1622, Series 1964-65 on May 10, 1965.
Mr. Christofferson further noted that the petitioner had been granted three previous six-
month extensions of time, the last extension expiring May 18, 1967, and that Condition
No. 1, requiring a bond for street improvements had been met; furthermore, the Staff recom-
mended that if the six-month'extension of time was to be granted, the Commission require
payment of street light and street tree fees within 30 days.
Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to grant a 180-day time extension for the completion
of conditions in Resolution No. 1622, Series 1964-65, dated May 10, 1965, 9ranting Condi-
~Lional Use Permit No. 702, said time extension to expire November 13, 1967, subject,
however, to the requirement that street light and street tree fees be paid within 30 days.
Commissioner Farano seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM N0. 5
Abandonment of Rio Vista Street from Wagner Avenue southerly.
Associate Planner Marvin Krieger reviewed data submitted to the Engineering Division and
other City.departments regarding the request of the owner. of the property to the east,
west and south of the proposed abandonment of Rio Vista Street, noting that Rio Vista
Street wes the only north-south street east of the Orange Freeway, and that if the abandon-
ment were approved, this would necessitate a General Plan amendment, due to the fact that
the General Plan projected extension of Rio Vista Street southerly to Ball Road; however,
the precise alignment was never indicated on the General Plana
Mr. Harry Basse, 2781 East Wagner Avenue, appeared before the Commission and noted that
no precise plans or costs by the City have been projected for the extension of Rio Vista
Street southerly to Ball Road; that this worked a hardship on him regarding the possible
development of the balance of his property - therefore, he had requested abandonment on
the basis that, in his opinion, the proposed extension would never be a reality.
Mrs. Ann Madison, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted it
would cost three-quarters of a million dollars to project the right-of-way of Rio Vista
Street over the existing gravel pit, even if the City did not run the street in a straight
line to Ball Road, and there would be some conflict with the Orange Freeway on-ramp, thus
requiring realignment easterly; that the property owner was desirous of abandonment of the
street because of a hards:~ip in the development of his property since it would be bisected.
Discussion was held by the Commission as to the methods of using the property until such
time as the City extended the street, whereupon the agent stated there were preliminary
plans for a convalescent hospital or church between the gravel pit and the residential
uses to the west, and a driveway coulc. be projected for this to have access to Wagner
Avenue when Wagner Avenue was extendec9 to the park property.
The Commission further noted that the Traffic Engineer urged that the extension of Rio
Vista Street should be retained, whereupon the agent'noted that the Orange County Road
Department hed abandoned all thoughts of extending the street easterly across the river
(Ball Road).
Discussion was held between the Commission,Mr.o Basse, and Mrs. Madison regarding the condition
uf the property in close proximity, methods to be uced in development of the property if
abandonment was approved, the fact that the.General Plan projected the..extension.of.Rio
Vista Street southerly, and the fact that the cost of the extension had no bearing en
the Commission's consideration,.since if circulation was necessary and vital for this area
as projected on the General Plan, it was not within the Commission's jurisdiction to recom- ~----
mend anythirig unless a General Plan amendment was considered.
~ x ~r "A' ~
~ .
~ r,:i,.~.~~3^%~ 7.c ~` t..~.Y j'.i ~lh:'RP1 MC i h.YJ.:~~. l~Y '~~.i__ .1.
I . ~ . ~ ' Y, . ' . . ~
,; : . ..,. . . . . .'~~ . ~ . . . . . . . .
~ . . . ~~ . l . . . • . . . ~ ' ~ '
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 22, 1967 3456
REPORTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 5 (Continued)
Mr. Basse noted thet his request had been before the Engineering Department and City
Council for six months,:and he felt any further study would be unnecessary.
The Commission~wa~s of the opinion that the professional recommendations made to the
Commission indicated there would be some effect on the General Plan, and further study
should be given to this. .
Traffic Engineer Ed Granzow advised the Commission that the Traffic Department was con-
cerned about- th~ freeway connection at Ball Road and the propo.ed extension of Ball Road
across the river; that it wes necessary to provide proper circulation in the area when
the Orange Freeway was completed since the only other north-south street was Sunkist
Street, and the on-ramp traffic would be hampered unless better circulation were provided.
Mr. Granzow, in:response to Commission questioning, stated that the on-ramp was projected
midway between Rio Vista Street and Sunkist Street, and the on-ramp would not be as large
as that projected for Lincoln Avenue; that the cost would not be any different regardless
of the alignment approved; and that it would be unacceptable to have the street so aligned
that it would create a five-point intersection.
Mr. Krieger noted that the Engineering Department had an alternative plan, whereupon the
Commission, Mr. Basse, and Mr. Granzow reviewed this plan.
Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to continue consideration of the abandonment of
Rio Vista Street to the meeting of June 19, 1967, in order to allow time for further
~tudy and the presentation of additional layouts, at which time the Commission could
decide whether or not a General Plan amendment should be set for public hearing.
Commissioner-Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT FOR DINNER - Commissioner Farano offered a motion to adjourn the meeting
to 7:00 P.~N. for a work session. Commissioner Allred seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned temporarily
at 4:15 P.M.
RECONVENE - Chairman Camp reconvened the meeting at 7:30 P.M. for a work
session on the Front-0n Study. All Commissioners except
Commissioner Rowland were present.
i _ ~:a
Planning Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski reviewed the previous work
sessions the Commission had regarding the Residential Front-On Study and the fact that at
the last meeting of February 20, the Commission requested additional information regarding
the number of residential retention areas that had secondary access, the affect of addi-
tional ornamental screen masonry wall on the tax assessment, and cost figures for sample
areas utilizing Site Solutions "B" and "C".
Associate Planner Marvin Krieger presented the Residential Front-On Study summary, and
after discussion both pro and con by the Commission, with suggestions being made, Chairman
Camp directed the Staff to draft a composite report encompassing all of the study made by
the Steff and the Commission at the work sessions to be presented within approximately
four weeks as a Report and Recommendation so that a special recommendation could be made
to the City Council before any considerations of General Plan amendments or area de~sslop-
ment plans could be considered. This would then give the City Council adequate time for
revi.ew and suggestions of further ideas which they might have.
Mr. Grudzinski then noted that on the morning the composite report was to be presented to
the Commission the Commission would be notified previously to meet for a field trip to
review the specified areas for commercial uses only.
ADJOURNMENT - Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Commissioner Farano seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 9:52 P.M.
Respectfully submitted
. .~il7'~/
ANN KREBS, Secretaiy
Anaheim City Plannin9 Commission
+~K,~ '•''%H"' . `~h
~ • ' ~ . . . ~ . . .
.,:.:• , r: _'.:, . ,
.. /.....~ , .,..
~
-.+ i s~_-
i
~ x~
~
~
~
_ ~
'~~' ~
. _ .•~~.~~.o~~~.. . -_-~ . .................: ...~_
.. . . ..~_^' . . . . . .
., ., . ~~~~., . . .. ..'.. . .• , . ~
. . . . . . ~ . . h. .... ~`.',i •~. ~ :: ~.~ W.v.~.~
4 . . . . ~ . _ ~ •
Mi.... .. _. . . . . . .. .., .. ... . ~. _ ..., . .. . . ''•M 1 . . . .