Minutes-PC 1967/07/31
4 ~ '
.~ ..,..~ ., . .... ~ i',-..; .. ,....~. ....:.
~~t" 3 ... ?.'.~. .. ~.\- ~' 7:::., ~._~. r ...,.:., ,~, . ;.... . :: 1 ,
~~~i . ., r ... ~:.. _ . ....... _ ~.. . .i ..
. . . ~
~
~ ~~
~ .
~ ~ ~
City Hall ':g
Anaheimy California 'sf;a
July 31, 1967 s
~
'
~
A REGULAR MEETING OF TI'.E ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ~~'~
• ;,?
;~
REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission v:as called `~
to order by Chairman Camp at 2:00 o'clock P.M., a quorum being present.
• ~~s
PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Camp. ~:~
"~
- OOMMISSIONERS: Allred,•Faxano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland. i~
ABSENT - CAMMISSIONERS: None.
PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Roloert Mickelson
Zoning Supervisor: Ronald ihompson ,
Planning Supervisor: Ronald Grudzinski
Deputy City Attorrrey: Furman Roberts
Office Engineer: Arthur Daw _
Associate Planner: Jack Christofferson
Associate Planner: Marvin Krieger ~•;,;
Plannin9 Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs W;,;;;'.
PLEDGE OF •
ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Farano led in the Pledge of Alle9iance to the Flag.
APPROVAL OF - The Minutes of the meeting of July 17, 1967 were approved as submitted
TI-lE MINUTES on motion by Commissioner Allred~ seconded by Commissioner Mungall,
and MOTION CARRIFDo
IENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVEIAPER: Co MICHAEL, INC., 8501 Bolsa Avenue, Midway City, California.
TRACT N0. 6409, ENGINEER: Raab and Boyer Enginee.ring Co., 14482 Beach Boulevard, Suite
REJISION N0. 2 "I", Westminster, California. Subject tract located'north and west of
Ball Road. and State College Boulevard containing 45 acres, is proposed
for subdivision intr~ 173 R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 19 R-3,'MULTIPLE-
FAMILY RESIDEIvTIAL, and 6 M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONED lots.
Associate Planner Jack Christofferson presented Tentative Map of Tract No. 6409, Revision
No. 2, to the Planning Commission, reviewing past Commission zoning action in Reclassifica-
tion No. 66-67-68 and Variance No. 1897, and also noting that subject tract was continued
from the meeting of July 17, 1967 in order to allow the developer time to provide a street
in the tract map along the west property line of Portion No. 3 designated for R-1 development.
Mr. Christofferson also noted that while the 54-foot wide street was provided along the west
proper:y line, two R-1 lots still sided on the industrially zoned property to the west.
The Commission reviewed the revised tract map with the staff and Deputy City Attorney Furman
Roberts, noting that a 6-foot masonry wall would be required between the M-1 and R-3 lots,
between the R-3 and R-1 lots, and between the Mwl and R-3 and R-1 lots abutting to the west.
Furthermore, if the property to the west, now zoned M-1, does develop for industrial purposes,
the use of the proposed residential street would act, as a buffer, and,access to the residentia
street by traffic from the industrial property wou1~9 be prohibited; therefore, costs for Lot
"A" would not be bourne by the industrial property.
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of I'ract No. 6409, Revision
No. 2, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the approval of Tentative Map of ?ract No. 6409, Revisiort Noe 2, is granted
subject to the approval of Reclassification Noo 66-67-68 and Variance No. 1897.
2. That~should this subdivision be develo~,ed as more than one subdi~rision, each sub-
division thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval.
3. That the vehicular accc~ss rights, except at street anc~/or alley openings, to
State College Bouleva.cd. excluding Lot No. 193, shall be dedicated to the City
of Anaheim.
3534
,. . ,_, `
::
2 t... N' C4 '. F.~~u'i.. P ~~~ ~`F ~`~f X~~4`~ ~~~ ~~W M ty LN~4''~~.f 4~`c "y ~ MY,~ .
~ ~, .: ':~ . ~ . Y..,
. :...' . .~ . .:~. .. . . !f
.::~ ':',~ • ~~ ~ ; .. ~~~. .. ~~.:: ... ... : ,_ ~ , -~~+` ~ y,1~.'bJ.' zs . K. ~ '
t .~ .~.. ~ -~',. . ,.~ ..~ ': ~ . . : ~ ~ . ~ .
~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 31~9~7 ' ~
r.' . ' 3535
f TENTATIVE.MAP AF - 4e .That the owners of subject property.shall pay to the City of
TRACT NQ`. 6409, Anaheim.the sum of $2.00 per front foot along State College
} REVISION N0. 2
,~ Boulevard and Ba11 Road ~or,street lighting purposes, said
ti '(Continued) amount to:tse paid as a~
poricion of the subdivision fees.
5e That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry
z uvall shall be constructed on the easterl
ing Lot Nosa 1 througn 18, 31y.32 173 y property line separat-
~ College Boulevard, except that~corner Lot Nosan1,131,a32,S173e
- 174, and 192 shall be stepped down:to a height of twenty-four
inches in.the front one-half of the front yard setback, and a
height of forty-two inches in the back one-half of said setback,
_ and except that pedestrian openings shall be provided in said
walls where cul-de-sacs abut the planned highways right-of-way
line of an arterial highway. Reasonable landscaping, including
- irrigation facilities, shall be installed in the uncemented
portion of the arteriaL highway parkway the full distance of
said wall, plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and
subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Mainte-
nance. Foll,owing installation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim
shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping.
6. That a 6-foot masonry wa11 shall be constructed alon9 the northerly
property line for Portion Noo 1; along the southerly property line
for Portion Noe 3; and alon9 the westerly property line for Portion
Noe 2 and along the westerly property line of Portion No. 3 whare
said property abuts the M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE.
7e That Lot "B" shall be shwon on the final map as Lot Noso 183-A
and 184-A, for the construction of masonry wallse
8e That a predetermined price for Lot "A" shall be calculated and
an agreement fo.r dedication entered into between the developer
and the City of Anaheim prior to approval of the final tract map,
provided,howeveir, that if the M-1 Zoned property does develop for.
the existing,zoning, the cost for Lot "A" shall not be nourne by.
the developer of the M-1 property, since industrial access to a
residential street would be prohitiitedo The cost of Lot "A"
shall include land and a propartionate share of the underground
utilities and street improvements.
9. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground
u+.ilities.
10,
Comtpa6s~oner Allred seconded the moti~ne MOTION CARRIEDe
~
VARIANCE N0. 1891 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING BALL-LOARA, INC,~ 606 South Euclid Street9 ~~
Anaheim, California, Ownr,. 4LBERT FIEDLER, 606 South Euclid Street, ,~
Anaheim, t;alifornia, Age~~~ re uestin 1
SIGN, WITH WAIVERS OF (1) PERMITTED SIGN LOCATION AND (2)gMINIMUMSSIGN ELEVATIONAonEXISTING
described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a fronta ~ of a Property
9 pproximately 70
feet on the east side of Euclid Street and having a maximum depth of a
the southerly property line of subject property bein a PProximately 117 feet,
centerline of Alomar Avenue, and further described as 606 SouthtEuclidSStreetnor~tsoPertye
presently classified G1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE, '
Subject petition was continued from the meeting of July 6, 1967, in order to ailow time for
the petitioner to submit revised plans>
Associate Planner Jack Christofferson advised the Commission that the
mitted a letter stating that the proposal previousl Petitioner had sub-
would be economically feasible;'therefore no revised plansnhad beentsubmitted,ch he felt
~
'~
That Street "A" shall be recoxded as Verda Straet; Street "B"
as Wayside Street; Street "C" as Barnett Street; Street "D" ac
1dcCloud Street; Street "E" as McCloud Street; Street "F" as
Cortney Way; Street "G-1" as Turin Avenue; St.reet "G-2" as
Bassett Way; and Street "H" as Alcove Waye
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~I ..:
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 3~, 1967 3536 `.
VARIANCE N0~ 1891 - Mre Christofferson then reviewed subject petition, the location of ~` `
(Continued) subject property and uses established iii close proximity, together !-.,r+
- with ih~ Report to the Commissione ,.,,:;~
Mre Albert Fiedler, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted
that the existing sign was constructed three years prior to the time the Sign Ordinance
became effective; that since the Sign Ordinance had been adopted, the existin9 sign was
non-conforming, and it was their desire to enlarge it to provide f,or identification for
new tenants in the structure; and that in order to comply with Code requirements, the
cost of installation would be $600,'wheieas th~'original sign had cost less-than $500.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitione
THE HEARING WAS CIASED.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC67-168 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to deny Petition for Variance No. 1891 on the basis that
no evidence had been submitted indicating a hardship had been established; that the Sign
Ordinance was very liberal and specific as far as non-conforming signs were concerned;
that if subject petition were approved, this would set a precedent for similar requests
for expansion of non-conforming signs within the city; and that the signing of subject
property could be accomplished within the confines of the Sign Ordinancee (Sre Resolution
Sook)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the follow~ng vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Campe
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee
VARIANCE N0. 1896 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. CRAIG JEWETT, 1303 West Valencia Drive,
Fullerton, California and IMPERIAL HOUSEHOLD SHIPPING CO,, INC.,
2809 Columbia Street, Torrance, California, O1:~ners; JOE LANE, 1335
West Valencia Drive, Suite G, Fullerton, Califosnia, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISI
A BILLIARD PARLOR AND PIZZA PARLOR WITH ON-SALE BEER (PORTION N0. 1) AND TO PERMIT A PARCEL O]
LAND HAVING NO FRONTAGE ON A DEDICATED SI'REET (PORTION NOa 2) on property described as: A
rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 218 feet on the north
side of Orangethorpe Avenue and havin9 a maximum depth of approximately 365 feet, the easter-
ly boundary of subject property being approximately 182 feet west of the centerline of Orange•
thorpe Park and consisting of Portion Noe 1- the southerly 222 feet of subject property,
and Portion Noe 2- being the northerly 143 feete Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL, ZONEe
Subject petition was continued from the meeti.ng of July 6, 1967, to allow time for the peti-
tioner to resolve easement problems on subjerst property.
Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed sub~ect petition, the location af subject
property and uses established in close proximity, noting that a landlocked parcel had been
created illegally by the subdivision of an M-1 lot into two portions; that the rear portxon
would be developed for industrial purposes, and the front portion for commercial purposes,
and that the revised plans submitted indicated the structure to house the billiard hall and
pizza parlor would be located along the westerly property line and the easement along the
easterly property line; however, parking for the front portion would back into the easement
portion, thereby creating a conflict in passage of trucks across the proposed easement,
Mr. Joe Lane, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that there
were substantial changes in the plot plan; tfiat he had contacted both the Planning and
Engineering Divisions regarding the revised ~lan of development; that the revised plans had
been submitted to the ownexsof the rear portion, and they had indicated their approval of
the easement as being a better plan than originally suixnitted; that the opposition expressed
by the owners of the industrial tract~ of which subject property was a part, had been over-
come through a meetin9 with the presii3ent, in which he had clarified what was proposed; and
that the opposition indicated the proposed easement might be a benefit to his development
in providing additional access for the property to the easto Furthermore, the opposition
indicated they intended to submit a letter to the Commission withdrawing their opposition9
and also the staff had been notified they could contact the Long Beach police to determine
how the facility in that city was operating.
Mro Lane also referred to ihe statement in the Report to the Commission regarding the compati-
bility as to land use, noting that this operation would serve the industrial area, and this
site was selected on the basis of the location and area it would be serving, as well as the :--
fact that the land use pattern along Orangethorpe Avenue was chan9ing to commercial rather '
than industrial. ~• ""
- y, ~ ~"~~+^~.{,~qA4e'P~ir?I3$~~i,y..,c`''X'{'~~ "~r? ~E h~ ~ 1fN x~; 1v ~ v""i°'2' .-.`'S y4 v~~}7'n wr Ft F:, ~p jY+~~ry ~:
~~y,y5 r. Y ~ I r
, `, ~ ~ ~J
MINUTES, CITY pLANNING COMMISSION, July 31, 1967
. 3537
VARIANCE_N0. 1896 - Mr, Lane, in respon~,e to Commission questioning, stated that most Qf
(Continued) the daytime trade would be during the lunch hour, for a two-hour period,
and the billiards woul,d be an evening trade, starting around 6:00 P.Mo,
closing between 11:00 and 12:00 P,M., since this was mainly an evening
operationo
Commissioner Farano inquired as to the minimum age of users of this facility, whereupon
Mr, Lane noted he had reviewed this aspect thoroughly; that the control factor of the Police
`~ Department, Alcoholic Bevera e Control Board and other Cit controls almost
9 ' y prohibited any
juvenile problem, since if beer were sold to underage persons, the license could be revoked;
that the Long Beach location had a minimum age of 18 to 21 for one side and over 21 on the
_ other side; arid that the drivers' licenses would be pioked up at `the time the underage
patrons entered so'that beer would not be sold to these patrons. Furthermore, beer was not
the main factar since only 15~ of the business would be for beer.
Commissioner Farano further inquired as to the control on the gamin9 psactices wherein
"sharpies" would patronize the facility to play billiards for money, whereupon Mr. Lane
~:. noted that the Police Department vice squad often frequented these places - therefore this
control would be well covered.
7i
i Mr. Lane also noted that the
' proposed facility would take young people off the street, and
~ i that any other remarks he expressed were through experience of the two other places operated
~ by the proposed developer.
~ T]-~ HEARING WAS CIASED,
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson noted that the president of the Orangethorpe Industrial
Park had submitted a letter withdrawing his opposition,
Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that the billiard and p3zza parlors,'if approved,
would inject commercial uses in an area primarily developed for industrial purposes since
industrial development existed to the west, south, north and east of subject property;
that although the owner of the Orangethorpe Industrial Park had withdrawn his opposition,
the lessees of the industrial development had not been advised of the p~oposed use to express
their concern if they knew the City was considering approving commercial uses adjacent to the
industrial complex, since the two uses were not compatible-with different traffic patterns
and usage of'the property in the evening when most of the buildings,would be unoccupied for ~
industrial purposes, thereby encouraging vandalism of these buildings. Furthermore, this ,
use could not be compared with the Anaheim Stadium since the stadium was entirely separated
from industrial uses, had its own pattern of traffic flow, and occupied a maximum of three
hours per evening, one-half month at a time, whereas the proposed use would be there continu-
ously for a minimum of twelve hours a day, seven days a week, which could also encourage
absenteeism from work, .and when the stadium was proposed fo: that area, the Chamber of
Commerce Industrial Division, of which he was head, had opposed it since it was their feel-_ ~
ing it did not serve the Southeast Industrial Area.
Commissioner Herbst also noted that this would remove prime industrial property from an ~
ideal industrial street, which had railroad siding on the property, from an already rapidly i
reduced amount of industrial land in the city and might deter further development of the ~
industrial property to the rear of subject property.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC67-169 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Mun9a11, to deny Variance No. 1896 for Portion No. 1, which would
permit the establishment of a use not permitted in the M-1 Zone, on the basis that it would
have an undesirable effect on continued development of industrial property in close proximity~
would inject incompatible commercial uses into an area developed primarily ior industrial or
related purposes; and approval of the lot split to provide subdivision of the property into
two portians, subject to conditionse (See Resolution Book)
Mr. Craig Jewett, the petitioner, asked to be heard by the Commission, noting that one condi-
tion of approval required development in accordance with plans, which would indicate the
easement would be along the easterly property line, and if Mr. Lane did not appeal the
Commission's action, he was desirous of having the right to place the easement so that it ;
would be compatible for both the rear and front portions of subject property. {
Commissioner Herbst amended his resolution, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to include, I
"provided, however, that the proposed easement shall be submitted to the Development Services i
Department and Engineering Division for app•roval prior to review and approval by the Planning ;
Commission",
<
7 t~~~ ~'~N' f"'~g~v+' ~1 T7' 37 "R~n. +vRk'S i i,'w~'r fi^ i-M / H r~'. ~S v ~~- a '~Y ~ v ~ r;~ .' :m ti i:: ~. ~lw
i ~
~ r .' t : ~~i~
~~ ,, . ~ -____. ~. ~~~~
~ ~ 1 .
~
MINUT"zS, CIFY PY.ANNIt~ OOMMZSSION, July 31, 1967 3538 ~,
VARIAIJCE N0, 1896 - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following ~
(Continued) vote: (:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, ~arano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Campe ~`
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Rowlande ~
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. I '
Commissioner Rowland, in voting "no", noted he agreed with Commissioner Herbst's stand '
to retain industrial land for that use; however, it was his opinion this was a combined r
use in which recreation was bein, '•
g provided for the small industries in the area and was I `
~:: just a minor deviation from the restaurant and motel .uses permitted in the M-1 Zone as "'`~~'
`" compatible usE;io `;;
,:~~
z
~~! Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts noted that Gondition Noe 4, which would require sub-
mission of a legal document for easement across the front portion, would not control the
exact location, only the fact that the easement was a proper document assuring access j
across the front portion of the two parcelse y
Commissioner Herbst left the Council Chamber at 2:55 PoMe
VARIANCE N0. 1900 - PUBLIC HEARiNGe WALTER FURIE, 1800 East Ocean Boulevard~ Long Beach,
California, Owner; WALTER BROOKS, Exceil-Ad Companyy 2312 South Susan
Street, Santa Ana, California, Agent; requestin9 permission to ERECT
~' IWO ROOF SIGNS, WITH WAIVERS OF (1) NUMBER OF ROOF SIGNS PERMITTED, (2) MINIMUM DISTANCE
•;~'~ BEIWEEN FREE-STANDZNG AND ROOF SIGNS, (3) PERMITTED ROOF SIGN LOCfiTIONS, AND (4) AGGREGATE
'.
~; SIGN AREA on property described as: A•rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage
~ of approximately 240 feet on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard and having a maximum depth
~~~.. : .: ;;:
~ ~ of approximately 320 feet, the southerly boundary of subject property being approximately
~ ''" 400 feet north of the•centerline of Palais Road, and further described as 1354 South Anaheim
~ ~~ Boulevarde Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE.
~r~ a~ Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed subject petition, the location of subject
,,,,_r,~ property and uses established in close proximity, together with recent zonin actio a
9 n pproved
I~1 ~~ by the City Council in January, 1967, permitting free-standir.g signso Zt was further noted
~~ £~~ that'the petitioner stated the roof sign was necessary to con£orm to national standards for
~~~,~;{ the dealer to maintain his local franchise, and that plans indicated the erection of a 3 by '
~~,~ 26-foa~ roof sign over the agency office.
~ ~ ~~y~
~~ Y~ No one appeared io represent the petitioner. I
~ ,/:~ i
,„~ No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono
=.• n Ti~ HEARING WAS CLOSED. i
~'~ -:...
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that when Variance No. 1846 was
considered by the Commission, no one appeared to represent the petitioner at that timea
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noo PC67-170 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to deny Petition,for Variance No. 1900, on the basis that
subject property was more than adequately signed; that the Anaheim Sign Ordirance provided
for adequate signing of subject property; and that additional signing which was now non-
conforming, would be expandeda Furthermore, at the time the previous petition was approved
for free-standing signs, no indication was given that the sigriing was not part of the
comprehensive re-signing program originally'initiated. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES; COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland, Campa
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst.
Commissi.oner Rowland directed the staff to address a letter to the marketing and advertising
managers of the Ford Motor Company, advising them et the existing Sign Ordinance within the
City of Anaheim and the national signing program of their company did not meet the standards
of the City; furthermore, t~is letter should be signed by the chairman of ihe Planning
Commission.
~ S~" ~ x,-i o ~ -7. . ,t+t} ~y' 2 _ fc r .1~++ ,~ , ~ f .. {'„~^ ,,~ . ` t . y, . " '
~ ,
~' ~~`~~~ ;,~'S+~1 lz~;r~ i~ Jd y i '.~3r ~ !:, t' -W^j~ ° '' t ~ ^k'~ r i j. ': r ~ ~.
~ . ~~~ i ~~~ . . ~~__~.
~
~ . .. ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \l ~,'.
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 31, 1967 3539 ~`':':
' .i
VARIANCE N0. 1901 - PUBLZC HEARING. RICHARD J. WOOD, 9302 Weldon Drive, Garden Grave,~ ~.';,
California, Owner; requesting permission to CONSTRUCI'ONc FREE-
STANDING SIGN AND ONE ROOF SIGN~ WITH WAIVERS CF (1) HEIGHI' OF :. i~:
A FREE-STANDING SIGN, ~(2) DISTANCE BEIWEEN'A FREE-STANDINu SIGN AND A ROOF SIGN, AND j",.-
(3) LOCATION OF A ROOF SIGN on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of I','
land located on the northeast side of Anaheim Boulevard, having a frontage of approximately
220 feet on Anaheim Boulevard and a maximum depth of approximately 875 feet, and further ~;
described as 1710 South Anaheim Boulevard. Property presently classified C-3, HEAVY
COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed subject petition, the-location of subject
property and uses established in close proximity, noting that the existing s3gn was located
there at the time the street was widened and the frontage road placed there; that the exist-
ing sign would be increased to 344 square feet and 70 feet in height; and that the petitior.er
had stated that because of the construction of the Katella overpass of the Santa Ana Freeway,
the line of sight visibility of the ori9inal sign had been obscuredo Furthermore, the resi-
dential structure. limited the height of the sign to 50 feet - however, the residence:was a
non-conforming use~ in the C-3 Zone, and that the roof sign,as indicated on the slide, would
be removed if subject petition were granted>
Mr. Milo Artino, representing the sign company, appeared before the Commission and stated
the reason for the roof sign was because of the overpass and curve of the frontage road
obstructed the view of trucks traversing Anaheim Boulevard, causing them to slow up in order
to 9ain entrance to the property, thereby slowing traffic to the rear, said traffic being
only one lane.
Zoning SuperVisor Ronald Thompson noted that the height of the free-standing sign w3s
advertised because it was a'technicality due to the fact that an old residential structure
to the north limited the height of the sign; however, the structure was a non-conforming
use in the C-3 Zoneo
Mr. Thompson further discus.,ed the proposed request with the Commission, noting that the
roof sign would be a form of directional sign which was a permitted sign if located on the
surface; however, becau~:; of the Katella Avenue overpass, these surface signs were not
readily visible, and t':ie roof sign would give ample notice to trucks needing the service
of the petitioner. '
No one appearQd in opposition to subject petitione
THE HEARING WAS CIASEDo
Commissioner Mungall offered Resc?.~.:tion Noo PC67-171 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1901, with the findin9
that due to the Katella Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard overpass of the Santa Ana Freeway,
together with the curvature of Anaheim Boulevard, visibility was blocked for subject
property at normal sign height, and that the residential structure to the north ~f the
property limited the sign height to 50 feet - however, the residence was a non-conforming
structure in.the C-3 Zone, and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst.
VARiANCE NOa 1902 - Associate Planner Jack Christofferson advised the Commission that
subject petition was advertised incorrectly; therefore, it~had to be
: readvertised for the meeting of August 14, 1967e
Commissioner Allred offered a motion to continue Petition for Variance Noe 1902 to the
meeting of August 14, 1967, to allow time for readvertisement of the property, encompassing
all property requested for consideration. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motiona
MOTION CARRIEDo
~ ~ . ~
MINUTHS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 31, 1967 3540
VARIANCE N0. 1903 - PUBLIC HEARING. HARTFiELD-ZODYS, 1800 Avenue of the Stars, Century City, ~
California, Owner; requesting permission to INCREASE HEIGHT OF AN~EXIST ~;
ING FREE-STANDING.SIGN ON ORANGETI~ARPE AVENUE on property described as: ~
An irregularly shaped parcel of land lying east and south of a 150 by 145-~oot parcel of '~
~:
land.located at the southeast corner of Orangetharpe Avenue and Lemon Staeet and having
frontages of approximately 410 feet on Or,3ngethorpe Avenue and approximatel~ 670 feet on
Lenon Street. Property presently classified G2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONF.o
Associate Planner Jack Chrlstofferson reviewed subject petition, the location of subject '
property and uses established in close proximity, together with the ~eport to the Commission,
emphasizing the fact that the height limitation was based on the fact that a residence existed ,:
260 feet to the north, and a second residence approximately 400 feet to the east, both resi-
dences being non-conforming in an M-1 Zonea
Mre Lee Freedman, General Manager of Zodys located at Orangethorpe and Lemon, appeared before
the Co~nission, noting that the 100,000 square foot structure had been developed at this
location and an attempt had been made to conform with all requirements of the Anaheim Municip
Zoning and Building Codes; however, upon opening o£ the new facility on July 19, 1967, it was
determined that the 25-foot high sign on Orangethorpe Avenue was inadequate due to the fact
that other larger signs existed in the immediate area - therefore a request for increase in
height of the Orangeth~orpe Avenue sign to 50 feet was deemed necessaryo
A letter from the City of Fullerton~ requesting consideration of limiting the height of the
proposed sign to 42 feet, was read to the Commissione
THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDe
The Commission then discussed the height of the sign for the dentist's office westerly of
the existing Zodys sign with the staff,9 Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson noting that the
dentist's property was located 400 fpet to the west of the residential uses; therefore, he
was permitted to construct a sign at :5 feet.
Commissioner Allred offered Resol~tion No. PC67-172 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Variance Noa 1903 on the basis that
the height restriction was due to the fact that two residences existed in the M-1 Zone;
therefore, the waiver wes deemed appropriate, and subject to conditionse (See Resalution
Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland, Campo
NOES: CdMMISSIONERS: Noneo
ABSENT: ~MMISSIONERS: Herbsta
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. JOSEPH AND ANN SILVER, 232 S~uth Alta Vista Boulevard,
PERMIT N0. 954 Los Angeles, California, Ownersq ARMANDO MENDEZ, 6825 Westminster
Boulevard, Westminster, Califurnia, Agent; requesting permission to
HAVE QN-SALE BEER IN A PROPOSi?D RESTAUR/!NT IN AN EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER
on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approxi-
mately 110 feet on the south side of Ball Road and having a maximum depth of approximately
620 feet, the westerly boundary of subject property being approximately 520 feet east of
Knott Avenue and the easterly boundary being approximateiy 720 feet west of Oakhaven Drive,
and further described as 3414-A West Ball Road. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL
COMNERCIAL, ZANE.
Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed subject petition,.the location of sub3ect
property and uses esteblished in close proximity, previous zoning action, and the Report
to the Commission, emphasizing the faot that the floor axea was similar to that previously
denied, which had a minimal kitchen area, no separation of the bar and dining areas, and that
the facility would be similar to a beer bar, rather than a bona fide restauranto
Mr, Aan Reagan, 1010 North ~4ain Street, Santa Ana, representing the owners a2d agent, who
would be the proposed lessee of the property, appeared before the Commission and noted that
the prior application was made by another agent whose wife was on record as opposing that
petition when protests were made to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, whereupon that
petitioner had withdrawn his request before the AeBaCe; that he had discussed th~ Report to
the Commission briefly with the staff and the petitioners, since there seemed to be an
indication that the Commission would also express similar concern; that the property owners
had plans for redevelopment of the entire shopping center and would like to get some idea
from the Commission of the requirements which would be necessary to obtain approval; that
the existing masonry wall would be reconstructed; and that the petitioners might also plan
to request C-2 Zoning for the property.
-.::,~
~ - --~
, :,~
:
s': ;s
;'-i
~~ ~ ~ t ~ s! S r~ ~~~.~ ,. a a~ ,~_- ,.c c Si S t.~ ` ''~
~?'~ t~~.: 4:.~~..a.T~~i Y^'~f j~~ ~aY t`~'~„~}' 3b iG ~ p~.~' ~ t~ w' a.- r , ~;; r ..: u , r
jh~ix ~~;~a ~. 7. v'.,~ ,T S`'~ 5. ;r~ ,.x!'€e~- i X e :.
_=~'r
. . . . , . ~ . . . .. . . ~ . . . - k:
~ . . " .. . ~ ~ ~ (..~~ ) ~ ' '. -'E
~ ~~0~ ~, , .~.
MINUIES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 31~ 1967 3541
7i
CONDITIONAL USE - Commissioner Gauer noted that the plans indicated a beer bar; that ~
PERMIT NOo 954 kitchen facilities were inadequate to operate a restaurant; that no ~ `
(Continued) separation was proposed between the bar and dining areas; and that ,..~
the Commission had considered many beer bars coming in under the name ,-~
of a "hofbrau"e
_. Mr. Reagan noted that perhaps a happy medium could be reached between a regular restaurant
and a beer bar since this shopping center could not support a regular restaurant; and that
the petitionexs might be able to submit re.vised plans more in keeping with the Commission's
desirese
Chairman Camp noted, in partial answer to the agent's questions, that the Commission had
~ attempted to require other than a beer bar and "rubber sandwich" operation in a small
shopping center by requiring that more food be served when this type of facility was proposed,
becatise of the incompetibility in usese
Mre Reagan then noted that on that basis they would like a continuance of two weeks in order
to meet with the staff and submit re'vised plans or request C-2 Zoningo
Chairman Camp inquired whether or not the petitioners had contacted the school nearby,
whereupon Mr, Reagan stated that opposition was voiced by the Hansen School of the Savanna
School District to A,BoCo, and A,BeC. stated that the Hansen School P,ToAo had also voiced
opposition, saying the children will go across subject property to the school; however, if
they were able to satisfy the requirements of the City, they were sure AeBoC. would be more
agreeable since there were two fences, one alongside the school property, one alongside the
railroad'right-of-way, and a masonry wall which would prevent the children using subject
property as a short-cute
Mrs. Borrell, 3035 Rome Avenue, appeared before the Commission and noted that in addition
to the Hansen Elementary School, there was also the new La Palma Junior H9.gh School which
would be opening this fall, and consideration should be given to opposition expressed regard-
ing children cutting through the shopping center as a short-cut to their homes.
The Commission noted that if revi:,ed plans were to be submitted, they should be filed with
the Zoning Division no later than Friday, August 4, whereupon Mr. Reagan indicated it would
be necessary to have a four-week continuanceo
Commissioner Mungall offere@ a motion to continue Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 954
to the meeting of August 28, 1967, to allow time for the petitioner to submit revised plar.s<
Commissioner Farano seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDe
AMENDMENTS 1'0 TITLE 18 • PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,
ANAMEIM MUNICIPAL CODE 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposing
amendmentsto Title 18, Chapter 18v04, General Provisions and
Chapter 18018, R-E; Residential Estate, Zonee
Associate Planner Marvin Krie er ~
9 presented the proposed amendments to the Anaheim Municipal ~
Code, noting that these were in accordance with the request of the Peralta Hills Homeowners
Association to maintain the area as an equestrian-oriented area, and that the Peralta Hills
area would be part of the City of Anaheim within a few weeks since a recent vote of property
owners in that area had indicated their desire to annex into the Citv of Anaheima Furthermore,
the amendment to Chapter 18s04, General Provisions, was the deletion of r~ference to tne R-E,
Residential Estate, Zone and Section 18004>020(6) and an amendment to Section 18004.020(6-c)
to read: "Cattle, sheep and goats shall be permitted on parcels of land one (1) acre or more '
in area; howevex•, the number of such animals shall not exceed a total of two (2~ per acre";
and that a new section into Chapter 18,18, R-E, Residential Estate, Zone would be added to
provide for animal control in said codeo
No one appeared to express any opinion ~=garding subject amendments.
THE HEARING WAS CLG~FD.
Commissioner Gauer ~~ffered Resolution No. PC67-173 and moved for its passage and aduption,
seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council inat Title 18, Ghapter
18.04, General Provisions, Secti,~r~e 7.8o04v020(6) and 18.040020(6-c) be amended as per
Exhibi•t "A". (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing sesolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. ' ~ ''
~ _ , `-:~;
~/ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 31, 1967
t i S• ~ ~ -"°~5~..
~
~~
~ ~ ~
3542 ~'. : `?
I
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 18 - Discussion was thett held relative to the addition of Section i`
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE_. 18e18.020.relative to tne possible_conflict of the first ~`
(Continued) paragraph (d) and the fifth paragrapho j= ^'
~ ~
Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that the Health Code was repealed
in 1963, requiring a certain distance from any living quarter and was never reinstateda
Mre Krieger then advised the Commission that the County had recently amended their require-
ments to 15 feet.end at the discretion of adjoining property ownerse
After considerable discussion between the Commission and the staff and the City Attorney's
office relative to the responsibility of maintaining corrals a specified distance from any
window or door for health purposes, and whether a non-conforming structure and building
could or could not enlarge on these non-confoxming uses, Commissioner Rowland was of the
opinion that those people having corrals which would be closer than that required by Code
should be made to understand this was of a temporaxy nature and conformance with Code
wou3d be necessary upon development of adjoining propertyo
Commiasioner Rowland offered Resolution Noe PC67-174 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recommend to the City Council that an amendment to
Title IS, Chapte.r 18e18, R-E, Residential Estate, Zone by the addition of Section 18a18v020,
paragraph (3)r sub-paragraph (d}, as depicted on Exhibit "A", be approvedo (See Resolution
Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: CAMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland, Camp,
NQES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
A$SENT: COMtdISSTOhERS: Herbste
GENERAL PLAN - PU~LIC HEARING< INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,
AEAEI3DMENT 'NOo 93 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposing an
amendment to the Circulation Element, Highway Rights-of-Way
of the Anaheim General Plan to designate Convention Way between
Harbor Boulevard and Haster Street as a major arterial highway, and between Haster Street
and Anaheim Boulevard as a secondary highway~ and Clementine Street between Katella Avenue
and Orangewood Avenue as a secondary highway,
Associate Planner Marvin Krieger presented General Plan pmendment Noo 93 to the Commission,
noting that prior to City Council public hearing for the proposed amendment, as recommended
by the Planning Commission in Resolution Noe PC67-89, the staff had requested that subject
General Plan Amendment ~e referred back to the Planning Commission as a result of a satura•-
tion land use study for the area south of Katella Avenue, which the Traffic Engineer had
made revising his traffic generation and flow estimates to the point that an increased•.width
was deemad advisable for certain portions of Convention Waya Furthermore, as a resuit of
this re-~evaluation, the Traffic Engineer now estimates that the future traffic load would
require six moving lanes, plus necessary turning lanes and parking (102 feet of paving on
a 120-foot :ight-of-way for d major arterial highway); Convention Way between Haster Street
and Anaheim Boulevard and Clementine Street between Katella and Orangewood Avenues would
remain the same, namely a secondary hi9hway wi.th a 90-foot right-of-waye
Mr. Plant, representing the Foxy Glenn Associates, owners of the apartment complex at
1911 South Haster Street, appeared in opposition, noting that at the previous hearing
the property am-iers he represented understood tha•i, the street would not intersect their
property - therefore, they presented no opposition, but since then, after reviewing the
proposal N'th the staff, he was desirous of making some comments: first, the apartment
development consisted of 86 apartments which the owners had acquired approximately four
years ago, and since then he had spent considerable money in the maintenance and beautifi-
cation of the project; that he had been told by many people that the Foxy Glenn development
was the nicest project of its kind in the immediate area; that 'they had paid a substantial
amount of taxes, both to the County and the City; that because of the increase in width of
the street, their apa~tment development would have 45 to 5u parking spaces removed, making
the d?velopment in violation of Code requirements, as well as removing ingress and egress,
and possibly even eliminating some of the units which could cause a considerable damage to
the development; that it was not necessary to have this development located on a major
arterial since their present location, in the center of the block of a residential street,
was more compatible; that he was aware that when the City attempted to change a street
designation, they would compensate any loss - however, this loss to the apartment owners
would not have affected apartment complexes several unit depths away; furthermore, he
inquired whether or not it was possible to defer any Consideration of this right-of-way
consideration so that no damage would occur to the apartment complex on Haster Streeto
t ^u^ ~ h-~ u~~v t ~~ 1 Rh t 7 ~1 x ~ '~ _ ?~ ::x ,~' ~' <J
:~ f ~
~c~' . ~ ~,.Y ~ ! .,. :YJ
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING ODMMISSION, July 31~ 1967 3543 ~`;•!;;~
i
GENERAL PLAN - Chairman Camp noted that even though the General Plan Amendment ~ 't3
AMENDMENT NQo 93 was approved, this would not necessarily mean the street would be `~=~;
(Continued) located at a specific area, just in the general vicinity between ;,~
Orangewood and Katella Avenuese ~:~,j
Mr. Pla:it noted that he was not a real estate man but an accountant; however, when he lived
in Los Angeles,where a freeway had been contemplated, these property owners had been fore~
warned, and no major construction occurred anywhere near the right-of-way, but the Foxy
Glenn Associates' property was developed without any previous knowledge of this proposal
four yeais ago.
Chairman Camp n~,ted that there was no immediate consideration of construction of this street<
Commissioner Gauc~r i~quired what the difference in cost was between an elevated and surface
streei since ove~head construction may have to be considered, such as ari:as where the street
would move tlu~ough certain populated areaso Furthermore, how did the City compensate the
individua7S whose properties which had been developed would be affected by any extension,
and wculd the overhead construction leave the area below available for private usage? ,
"~ Assistant Development Services Director Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that these
1' questions were very difficult and almost impossible to answer since the precise alignment
was not being considered, and maybe these apartment developments would be, or would not be,
affected; however, the properties between Katella and Orangewood Avenues were not entirely
~i: built up, except for the trailer park and apartment buildings along the Haster Streetfrontac
,z~:
;,:;~; howevery some individual structures would have to be removed, and possibly the streets would
'~4r` have to be elevated, but the staff did not have any ready answer to these questions at this
'.',~' timeo
Chairman Camp noted that what the Ccmmission was considering was the necessity for saving or
projecting a specific area for street puxposes in the future; however, its exact location
was not being considered at this time, or how it would be accomplished, but there was evidence
that a street was needed in this general araa, and studies had indicated projections should
be made to consider six lanes between Harbor Boulevard and Haster Street rather than the
four lanes previously approved by the Commissiono
Commissioner Farano noted that he understood the necessity for indicating a street; however,
he was wondesing whether it was necessary to project this at any price with both land acqui-
sition and people d'zsplacemento
Commissioner Gauer irquired what type of convention was necessary as a test to determine
what traffic conditiont the city would be faced with in order to determine how to handle it~
Traffic Enginee~ Edward Granzow noted that he did not think this was a problem at this ~
locationo The Traffic nivision was primarily charged with determining what woul.d happen ~
if this area east of F!~rt~or Roulevard were built up in a form par~liel to that in the area
with high-rise buildino~~ motelsY or hotels as part of the area was now built, and the i
problem they were faced with was the amount of traffic this area would generate, and the
staff had to find out the existing capacity restrictions with existing intersections and '
roadways to determine what type of traff=c would be projected as a result of additional '
ccnstruction in the areao The traffic west of Harbor Boulevard could be handled under
the present setup, but if the area east of Harb4r Boulevard wer.e to develop with commercial-
recrea=.ion uses or high-rise office buildings, in order to handle the increase in volume of
traffic that would be generated by ".his type of increase, other faciiities than that presently.
existing would have to be provided to handle ito At ~resent there were some empty spaces
between the signals on Y.arbor Boulevard which could be absorbed, and ,s certain amount of the
traffic in the area could also be handled; hovever, the present circulation.would not be able
to handle complete development of these various vacant parcelso
Commissioner Herbst eztered the Council Chamber at 4:07 PoMo
Mro Granzow further noted that most of the property east of Harbor Boulevard,throuyh which
Convention Way was projected, was now in strawberry farms and orange groves, and in o:der
to permit develooment of this vacant oro~erty in the future, it would depend upon the circu•-
lation which was being providedo
Discussion then was held by the Commission relative to L:•e statement made that traffic west
of Harbor Boulevard could be handled with the present circulation, and it was determined
that mcst of this area was now developed for singlewfamily resident•~al purposes, but the
area to the east was vacant, and that the ultimate development could gene.rate as much traffic
as presently experienced with the existing developmenta
'~"~ =
~ ~ _ .~
~
MINUTES, CITY PZ.ANNING COMMISSION, July 31, 1967 3544
GENERAL PLAN - Zoni.ng Supervisor Ronald Thompson noted that costs for dama9es
AMENDMENT N0. 93 would be considerably more if a 15-story building were permitted
. (Contir.~ed) to be constructed in the ultimate right-of-way unless the City
' planned sufficie~~tly ahead to avoid this type of errore
Commissioner Farano noted that although the cost would seem to be monumental now, when
this ult3mate development took place, mose problems could incur, and this was a forewarnin~
to the property owners in the area since there was no measure of a yardstick which could
project the actual increase in traffic due to the addition of the Convention Centero
Mre Granzow further noted that what the traffic staff had done was to determine the maximum ' '~
usage east of Harbor Boulevard, starting with the total saturation since the existing street ~k
pattern could not handle this type of increased development, based on the fact that both
Katella Avenue and Harbor Boulevard had almost reached their maximum, and this could happen
throughout the city, and streets could be likened to water lines that could handle only a
i
i ~u.~
certa
n port
on of development o: property9 and when this saturation was reached, otiier ;,
~,
means had to be providede Furthe:more, if this vacant land were to develop, the flow of ,
',~:s+'~
trafiic could not be handled by Katella Ave~~ae or Harbor Boulevard, but would have to be °'~~~~
routed through other arease Also, in response to Commission questioning, Mr, Granzow noted ;,_.~}
!'=`~.
that the widening of Orangewood Avenue,and carrying it across the Santa Ana Freeway, was ~'~
taken into consideration when the traffic projections were madea ~~~7~
,, ~
Mre Plant further noted that he recognized all of the Commission's problems•since he.had ,.~
been a resident of the area fox the past twenty years; however, he represented the apart-
~
ment property owners and must be concerr.ed about their welfare since further conf2ict could .=,~
develop which would create rental problems for the entire area, and it could have an adve*:se ,
effect on the future rentai of the apartments due to the noise and debris from the additional
- ;~';~~
traffic, and
it would be almost impossible to determine what property values would be with ;~A'
these adverse features, and whether or not they would be recognized by the assessor when
considering the following year's assessmento Furthermore, when these apartments were ,`"
develo ed a
p, pproximately four years ago, they were oriented to Haster Street with recreation ~-`~
'
facilities and carports along the southerly side in order to t.ake advantage of the Haster ,,`~;~.°
Street frontage; however9 a new thoroughfare was not planned for in the General Plan and ;.,i
'>
considerable disorientation of the prope:ties might occuro t
Commissioner Herbst noted that the reverse effect could also happen if too much traffic ; ~.
`w:,
flowed through the property as it presently existed; the people who lived in the:apartments ~~
could not move their cars because of the number of people, and this would also be an un-'' ~~
desirable traffic problem. Furthermoie, development of the vecant land between the apart- ~
ments and Herbor Boulevard would dictate when and how the area would be servicedo •~
Chairman Camp noted that cost figures were not part of the Commission`s consideration; that ~~
~:~
this would be considered by the City Council and resolved between them and the property ';
owners, and the only thing under Commission consideration should be the need for possible
location of a major street between Katella and Orangewood Avenues running easterly to
Haster Streeto ,
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.,
Commissioner Rowland noted that the Commission was facpd with one of the most serious ~
problems ever considered by their Body; that the background work done before presenting ~
this to the Commission-for the proposed amendment to the GeneraJ,. Plan Circuiation Element-
was undoubtedly a good report on the basis of information they ha~s howeyer, the term "traffic":.
concerned movement of automobiles rather than people; that t•here were more than 200 to 300 ';;,
~.olumes written in the last twenty years on this subject; that this piece of property on the .
General Plan was the most important part of the community, and the financial well-being of i
every person rests at this time on the Commission's ability to expand ths Commercial-
R~creation Area in an orderly manner and to develop its potentiai in the way it has to this, !
point - however, according to everyone who writes on the subject of traffic, the surest way { ~
to strangle an area is to move more cars into it; that as the City continued to develop this `
to some area of saturation, the Commission could not base the saturation of development of ~
the Commercial-Recreation Area on its ability to move automobiles; that the question before ~
the Commission was most serious and would be more so if the Commission based it on the area`s
ability to produce or on its ability to absorb automobiles, end if this were done, the
Commission would be strangling the community's potential - couldn't the Commission consider ~'
something else other than the ability of moving automobiles? The Commission would be doing ~
the community th.e biggest disservice by not considering other alternativeso
i,
Commissioner Gauer noted that at the recent Convention Center dedication pEOple were asked
to park their cars at the stadium and be bussed over to the Convention Center site, and
those buses being used on that day wer.e practically filled to capacity; therefoxe, if the
City did purchase a large plot of land for parking of cars and bussing them to the Convention '
Center, this would cost the City considerably less money than the cost of extending Convention ~,~
~azt^ . -- .. . . ~ . ~ .
~ ~
MINUlES CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 31, 1967
'_y,
:;5~ ~7~i+r 'F.?'h~R' ,~s?" r
~ .,t
V•~
3545
GENERAL PLAN - Way where properties would be affected by concentrating parking
AMENDMENT NOo 93 away from the center, and this would alleviate having a)1 the
(Continued) traffic concentrated at the Convention Center sitee
Commissioner Farano noted a conflict could result i£ Disneyland, the Convention Center, and
;~ the stadium were all in operation et one timee
k .
I ' Chairman Camp noted that rather than bringing the people into the area with buses, if the
~ Commission were planning on doing anything, they should try to concentrate on the possibility
i ofi having'a public.transportation system, rather than concentration of a parking centero
~
: Commissioner Gauer noted that a monorail would require less land than a streete
~ : Commissioner Rowland noted that there were many forms of transportation which had been, and
would be'developed in the future; however, it seemed that much care and consideration should
be given to keeping through traffic out of the area as much as possible, and that perhaps
im,the space of 5-10-50 year projections this eventually would be•resolvede
~ Commissioner Allred noted that the weekend of July 29th Disneyland had the largest day -
~ some 66,000 people - and if the Angels were in town that day, there would have been an
, additional 30,000 peopleo
Commissioner Farano noted that prior to the Convention Center's opening, when the stadium,
Disneyland, and Melodyland were operating, traffic along Katella Avenue was stacked up as
far as Euclid Street~
Commissioner Hexbst noted that to have cars parked on the perimeter of the city might not
be desirable for people coming from out of state desiring to stay at their motels and have
a car at their disposale
Commissioner Gauer stated he was not concerned wii:h people from outside of the state - only
those who ~vere in nearby cities coming to the Convention Center site or the stadium, and
that the place of parking could determine whether or not people would be using these perimeter
parking.areasa
, Commissioner Rowland noted that the Commercial~Recreation Area had the same vit,ality and
meant'the same to the city as Manhattan did to New York; however, the city would suffer the
same problems that Manhattan'had, and many of the people who had made their money in
Manhattan were now moving out for the same reason - strangulation due to excess automobile
trafiice
Considerable discussion then was held by various members of the Commission relative to the
possibility of consideration of the designation of Convention Way as a major highway, or
to continue for further study of alternative methods of handling traffic in this areao
The staff then advised the Commission that tn4~ Planning Commission had previously considered j
extending Convention Way to Anaheim Boulevard; however~ at that time it was designated as a ~
secondary street, and the consideration before the Commission now was whether or not it i
should be considered a major street between Harbor Boulevard and Haster Streeta ~
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Commission's
original recommendation of the 90-foot right-of-way, secondary arterial for Convention Way ~
between Harbor Boulevard and Haster Street be maintained as previously submitted; furthermore,,; '~
that the Planning Staff and Engineering Depertment should jointly investigate the multiple ~
possibilities of maintaining the Commercial-Recreation Axea free from as much automotive ~
traffic as possible.
'i
Further discussion then was held by the Commission relative to the recommendations made by ~
the'staff relative to the fact that the Traffic.Engineer estimated the future traffic load
for Convention Way would require six moving laneso ~
Commissioner Rowland's motion lost for want of e seconda %
Mre'Hiroshi Fujishige, 1854 South Harbor Boulevard a ~
, ppeared before the Commission and ~
noted that he had not received a legal notice advising that Convention Way was being re- t ~
conaidered by the Planning Commission (however the Commissior Secretary noted that a 1e9a1 ~ ,
notice`had been submitted to Masao Fujishige,et ai,at Hiroshi Fujishige's address originally, i
and subsequently two notices were sent out first class to both Masao and Hiroshi Fujishige ~
at two separate addresses); that he felt Katella Avenue could absorb the traffic that was
projected for Convention Way and could see no reason for requiring Convention Way to be
extended across his property; furthermore, the striping of Harbor Boulevard was done in ~
such a mannex that automobiles wanting to turn into his property were unable to do so and
had to go several blocks out of theii way in order to gain access to his property from a ~ ~
southerly route rather than a northerly route.
~m 'P ~ $' f'r~0j: JW ST` ''~~5 ~'t,~.~? `'~` i i~ ff~t'~„~ ,~ _s :-; y~, r ki~, 1 ? r. i 7 :' ~' ' f '~- _ x ~~
~ '
_ .j: .~ r~: t
;r _ ?~
. ~ . . . -- ~'-y'~
~ ~ ~ a
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 37., 1967 3546
GENERAL PLAN - Mr, Granzow then advised Mre Fujishige that Katella Avenue was
AMENDNIENT N0. 93 now at almost saturation point and would be unable to take addi- .~{
(Continued) tional tiraffic from the undeveloped properties on the east side ~`"'
of Harbor Boulevard at such time as they would be developed;
that the road leading into Mre Fujishige's property was a dirt
road; and that recently the striping had been changed along Harbor Boulevard, making it
a broken line which permitted crossover from the north to southbound traffic to his
propertyo
% ,F
Mro Mickelson then indicated for Mr. Fujishige the proposed amendment, noting that there :~:~
was no precise alignment for Convention Way or its ultimate connection with Pacifico Avenue< w
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution Noo PC67-175 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recommend to the City Council approval of General Plan
Amendment No. 93, designating Convention Way between Harbor Boulevard and Haster Street
as a major arterial highway with a 120-foot right-of-way; Convention Way between Haster
Street and Anaheim Boulevard as a secondary highway with a 90-foot right-of-way; and
Clementine Street between Katella Avenue and Orangewood Avenue as a secondary highway
with a 90-foot right-of-way, to provide for a street projection in the event th= vacant
properties on the east side of Harbor Boulevard between Katella Avenue and Orangewood
Avenue would ultimately be developedo (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Camp..
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
ABSTAIN: CAMMISSIONERS: Rowland
GENERAL PLAN - PUBLIC I~ARING. INITIATED BY Tk~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,
APAENA~NT N0. 94 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposing that
Convention Way between West Street and Harbor Boulevard be
designated as a major arterial highway, with exception, to a
right-of-way width of 110 feet rather than the 120-foot width
projection of a major aiteriale
Associate Planner Marvin Krieger presented General Plan Amendment No. 94 to the Planning
Commission, noting that the Commission on June 5, 1967, had recommended Convention Way
between West Street and Harbor Boulevard as a secondary arterial highway on the Exception
List with the right-of-way width of 110 feet; however, since a land use study and traffic
generation estimates made by the Traffic Engineer, it was deemed advisable to have Convention
Way designated as a major street. Furthermore, with General Plan Amendment Noe 93 being
recommended for adoption for Convention Way ~ietween Harbor Boulevard and Haster Street as
a major arterial, subject General Plan Amendment would also be in order.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC67-176 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amendment
Noe 94, designating Convention Way between West Street and Harbor Boulevard as a major ~
arterial highway on the Table of Exceptions as a 110-foot right-of-way width, be approvede
(See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Camp.
NOES: CAMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Rowlande
REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1
RECOMMENDATIONS A study of the problem of reside~itial homes fronting on
arterial streets.
Planning Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski presented the summation of the three pievious work
sessions on the problem of residentiel homes fronting on arterial streets, further noting
that the Commission requested the fourth work session, which was today, was to review the
compilation of previous phases as a document, with recommendations to the City Council as
a conclusion. The previous three phases were as follows:
;
~ ~ ~J
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING CONNAISSION~ Ju~y 31, 1967 3547
REPORTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEA1 N0. 1 (Continued)
1. Define the extent of the problem by compiling statistics from survey studies
which catalogued every residential arterial front-on area within the city
indicatinge`
a. The number of properties in each area;
b. The classification of the arterial street;
c. The amount of dedication required, if any;
d. The presence of an alley;
e. The General Plan designation for the area; and
~ f. The existing and proposed land uses adjacent to the properties.
2. Impact o.f conversions which classified the front-on lots as:
a< Those lots having commercial conversion potential; and
b. Those lots to be retained as residences;
and explored the effect of the conversions on the General Plan Commercial Element.
3. Residential retention area site solutions.
The Commission, in summarizing the study, noted that a correction should be made to the
Visual 5creen Techniques, requiring a decorative masonry wall instead of a concrete wall,
and in the Conclusion, Page 6, the recommendations to the City Council, under Recommenda-
tion No. 2, requiring an Area Development Plan be initiated only at such time as the zoning
petition was received for a specific area; deletion of Recemmendation No. 3,- however,
retaining that portion referring to the requirement of a residential conversion to be in
full compliance with the Uniform Building Code.
After further discussion by the Commission relative to the specific areas baing recommended
for consideration as potential commercial conversion areas, the Commission directed the
staff to eliminate any reference to the west side of East Street between Sycamore and
Wilhelmina Streets, or the area known as Area Development Plan No. 68.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC67-177 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded,by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council a document entitled,
A Study of the Problem of Residential Homes.Fronting on Arterial Streets" for their perusal
and consideration as a pcssible solution for the many homes fronting on arterial streets.
(See Rasolution 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: CAMMISSIONERS: Noneo
ITEM N0. 2
General Plan Amendment Noo 90 - Reconsiderations of the
Planning Commission's recommendations - Property on both
sides of East Street between Sycamore Street on the south
and La Pa1ma Avenue on the north>
Planning Supervisor Ronald Gt~dzinski reviewed the Commission's previous recommendations
to the City Council on General Plar. Amendment No..90 relative to commercial-professional
designation for the west side of East Street between Sycamore and North Streets, and low-
medium density designation on the east side of East Street between Sycamore Street and
La Palma Avenue. ' .
Mr. Grudzinski further noted that the City Council had referred subject General Plan Amend-
ment back to the Commission for consideration of commercial-professional designation along
both sides of East Street; that the Commission had then advised the Council that final
recommendation could not be made until the Commission had completed the Front-On Study of
homes along arterials; and that the data then had to be evaluated<
The recent zoning requests processed by the Commission for properties along the east side
of East Street were also reviewed by Mre Grudzinski, notably approval of a child care nursery,
and a request for commercial office use of an existing structure, which was still pending
before the Commission.
~+y' 'q~t~Afila+n a~'~ Y. k .~3 Y r Pfh~ ~r* ~~ R¢~''~'~` ~1`~,,.~,r~ ~~ "~' ~ ~ 4~
a jt a -#~'V n` ( f ~+' . _'frt -'1-~ r :` ~' ~ }; f .~:T r ..._
i w'
~
L'!'~- aF'7 1 h ~ PM1 1
~5 l( ~
- !1
F
! W.
a- ?e~
W ..
~~h ~
~
^ ~ +~`~
~ .. ~ ,
M
~
~
`
.:~r.7'i
r
~y IAIUlES~ CITY PLANNING C O M M I S S I O N~ J u ly 3 T
1 9 6 7 "
9548 .`'~~,
~~ • ~:
ya ~ ` REPORTS AND . a
a;b _; RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 2(Continued) _.~
~ „~
~, ,:
Discussion was held by the Commission with the following being noted:
~
~
~ '
~
~
lo That the Front-On Study indicated that 17 areas were recommended for consideration
for conve
si
t
c .
; '{
x!
~~ r
on
o
ommercial uses which would add 495,600 square feet of commercial
offi
- ce space to the overall amount of available space within the city.
,~
~
~
2. That the area (East Street) could not reasonabl su
y pport any additional commercial
~'`°
~
~~.:. uses. , -
;.~
e~" : ;
~ 3. That continued expansion of outlying commercial-professional uses will discourage ~
_ redevelopment of the downtown area for high-rise commercial-professional uses. ~`'7
o~' '
=t< '
~'' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
4o That no evidence had been submitted to date that would indicate the homes frontiny ° ?I
on East Street were no longer suitable for residential uses.
~ 5. That the child care nursery was considered an interim use with the general character
of an educational facility, and would not have any appreciable effect on development
;;r
~; of the deep lots for low-medium density uses. °
~; E~e That previous Council action in approving commercial zoning on a lot in the middle
`
; of the block between Sycamore and Wilhelmina Streets was deemed by the Commission
to ha
t
b
i ~
, ve es
a
l
shed a precedent for C-P uses; however, this has not materialized -
,,~i% therefore, there now is no need for any C-P designation for East Street, and the *
..;~;
Resolution of Intent on Reclassification Noo 65-56-120 should be terminated. ,.
~
"
~5;
~"
, Commissioner Allred offered Resolution Noo PC67-178 and moved for its..passage and adoption
;k:..
~ ,
seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that as a result of the
;~
r Front-0n Study, amendment should be made to General Plan Amendment Noa 90~ deleting the
~~~.
~~
' commercial-professional use designation along the west side of East Street southerly of
r
=s?
F„~
~
~~ North Street to Sycamore Street, on the basis that
piecedent which the Commission had
determin
d h
d b
~~~ j
ti
~ e
a
een set for said designation when Reclassification Noe 65-66-120 was approved
~,,:~
~'
4 for the lot in the center of the stud area had not materialized• that the recently approved
~
x
;;
~, ~> .
~ child care nursery on the east side of East Street southerly of La Palma Avenue is considered
an interim sch
l
,
( oo
use only - therefore, does not establish a
precedent for commercial-
~j~~
~ professional designation or consideration by the Commissiore for said designation alpng the
east side of East Street
d
~,_ ; an
that low-medium density designation is deemed more desirable
r,~~~~
"
~ from a living environment standpoint, when adjacent to low density residential uses, than
~
,
~. professional-commercial uses. (See Resolution Book)
F f ,~~ .
r~
~~~.
r
'~
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
-
.r._;
4 ~,., . .
,
'wk~ AYES: CAMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer,.Herbst, Mungall, Ro;a~?and, Camp.
NOES
~ : COMMI5SIONERS: None.
~
~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
~
1
1 y ~~6 ~ ~
~~
f
~ IIEM NO. 3
,~,
~'„~
' Orange County Use Variance Noo 5939 (Asphalt Specialities)
?'-;
``e South of Orangethorpe Avenue and the AT 8 SF ReRe
~,;~ ,
approximately 240 feet east of Richfield Road in the
F~<< Atwood Cone area - Request for extension of two years
~~? for the existing use.
l~
~.
a%~;~ Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson ~resented Orange County Use Variance No. 5939 to the
~' Planning Commission, noting the location of subject property; the fact that the use had
been
t
bli
h
d a
~~~
~ es
a
s
e
s a temporary use for a.two-yeai period, said time having been extended
~.
~;~
~~ for an additiona l two years; an d t ha t i f th is extension were granted,'it would make a
t
t
l
f
i
o
a
o
s
x years which could be construed as a semi-permanent useo
~,r.~Y Mr. Thompson further noted that an inspection of the property was made by members of the
~ Zoning Division which indicated that the chainlink fence, which was required under the
~,
` original variance, was in a state of general disrepair;.that the overall equipment, struc-
a
'`' tures, and property were poorly maintained; and that some form of screening from the adjacent ~
~. areas, particularly to Orangethorpe Avenue, should be considered appropriate if the time
~, extension is approved. !
~"'
S~FNv
y` The recommendations made by the staff were reviewed and discussed by the Commission ~
'_~,* .
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange
~;,~+
~~ County Planning Commission be urged to consider the following, if the requested two-year
i
~
~~' extens
on for the use is granted, due to the fact that although the original request was
f
t
o ~
~
or
emp
rary use only, the newest extension if approved would make it a semi-permanent use: .
z~ `~ . . . . . , . ... _ _. . .. . . . . ~
."Y,i. i 'i[
~ ~
MINllTES, CITY PL~INNING COMMISSION, July 31~ 1967
REPORTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 3 (Continued)
~ '
3549 j '",
I'
lo Repair of the chainlink fencea
2< A,enexal cleanup ot the structures, equipment, and areae
3. Screening should be provided along the perimeter of the £acility in a manner
suitable to the Orange County Planning Commissione
Commissioner Farano seconded the mot3ono MOTION CARRIED.
ITEN N0. 4
Letter requesting consideration of commercial zoning
fox those properti2s fronting along the west side of
Dale Avenue, ~outherly of Crescent Avenue, as a result
of the Right-of-Way Division mailing voluntary dedication
requests to property ownexs in this areao
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson presented a request submitted to the City Council relative
to consideration of commercial uses for those properties along the west side of Dale Avenue,
southerly of Crescent Avenue, in exchange f~r dedication of a 45-foot half-width for street
widening purposese It was further noted that a member of the Right-of-Way staff had met
with the property owners who had indicated a willingness to dedicate a 40-foot half-width,
but the thought was also expressed that any such wideni.ng would generate increased traffic,
creating an undesirable residential environment; therefore, Mre Myers .had submitted a letter
to the City Councile ~
Previous zoning action relative t~ commercial uses for those properties at the southwest
corner of Crescent and Dale Avenues was also reviewed, noting that both the °la;~ning
Commission and the City Council had denied these requests, and that the 'Anaheim General
Plan indica.ted low density residential uses for the area under consideration; furthermore,
the Front-On Study just completed by the Commission and submitted to the City Council;did ~
not indicate this area for potential commercial land use, and that the staff recommended
that the petitioner be advised that the dedication request• sUbmitted to the property owners
of that area was the normal request and in no way indicated City involvement, other than
through prescribed channels, in any possible future coimnercial or other zoning changes on
subject properties,° and that the petitioner be advised that it was not the City's policy
to trade zoning for street dedication and improvemente
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that Mro Myers fie
advised that the dedication request'submitted to the property owners was the normal request
and in no way indicated City involvement other than through prescribed channels, in any
possible future commercial or other zoning changes on subject properties; and that Mro Myers
be advised that it was not City policy to trade zoning for street dedication and improvement>
Commissioner Herbst seconded the motione MOTION CARRIEDa
ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Herbst ;
offered a motion to adjourn the meetingo Commissioner Allred
seconded the motion> MOTION CARRIEDo
The meeting adjourned at 6:20 PoMo
Respectfully submitted,
C~~ %¢~%~=e~/JQJ
ANN KREBS, Secretary
Anaheim City Planning Commission
~ :~s
1
^ , ,... ,..
r I : - _ .. ,::
, ..., . : . . , ~
.- I
......C
1
~
; r -
1
. ~ . .~... ~ . ...
. . -~ .~~ ....._`_'./ '
o'~ r~ ) ,,~ ~, ~. ._ ~ ~ c :- r y },
~.s ~N ~~k. F.rt t~ ~' t ~ ~ i -{ .. - ~' i . ` .
~T~ko ~~~ ~''} `4r: k ~r u. ~ _ ~ ~, ; t ~.. ~~ ~~~t
[ c i
I ~+•~ h o ~ , ~ P ' ~~~~ ~. l ~ t
L~~.S ~t~~~ F 1 '* ~ ~~y I 1l1;~ t J1.
~ rJ -t' fi ~~ yc
q ~l ~ ~.V ~,~ r ; r H £ ~~.y ~~ 4)
y
~.+ r 1 h c } t . t _ i
S ~ i
k f
I
;f~~
I
~ R
C
/Rti,,_`.J ',,1
( `.'i . ` .' t
~ ~ ~~• ; , Y t ~.~ y ~
~~+ ~ : ' i ~ s ~ ;
',, ~ MJ` a ~F '' r ; i 1
i r ' '~ '~' ~> ~. ~~ , ' ~~ ~ :
~ ,r . r ~'~ ~ ~, ~ r :; ~ ~ A . a +- _ ~ .a
~ ~ ~ ~
s .r~,1 r ~~ r 5 ~?~ v ~ :,` ! ~ q~ ~.. ~ ~~ ' ^ ~ ~~
t1 ~. ~~ ~ n~cF S { ~ i L ~ t ~~ r < ~ ~, ~ ~
n'~r~v . i ~ '~ -!- ~ ~ ~:
~~ (F ~~~~f ; +~J, ~ :~~d~ ~ ; ~ s Y - 5
~ ~
t ~~ 1
t ~ ~ 4 ~
~ ~. + /
,.. . ... . . , 5:~~'~ . . . r . .. . . ... . . . .. . . ,. .
~4
- .~ .. .. :~'!
~4
,.
. ~, ~
:
- 1 ~
a ' + _
1
t ~ ~ ;ti d 1:~~.
&
T- ~
~
~ .
1 t
~ '
4
{ ~
~: i V 5
Y h ~ 1 ~' Y
A ~ 1 _
4 ~ r 7
~~'
,
t: ~
~Y~ ~ 1
r w ~
t
r °
~ ' n'
~
,~ i
I
y c r•, ~t
~ ~ ~c f ~ ~
r
_
;
f 4
:
~
r
~
`~ '
S . ,~
~
' .
t
.,
'
- z x.
~ .
y
'-3~
.
3 j r 1 V ;
` ~
~?
°+.~%.l~~Yn.. v d'~.I ~
r
.
. ,.. .
~ .~ ~-.~ - . :.,~~.y.
'
. . . .
~ . . . ~ ~ . ,~ _i~~'
.. . ,