Minutes-PC 1968/01/03r Rnsr.t~ ~~pa~~v ~ ;Y..i :,~w € ~~rr~ -.:°n"' ~
~ .vi ~~
x
.. M~ 4~~ ~ lst - . . . .
C~~ s ~?4 ,c C:. ~ 5r~ i ' n~~
s~y~ ~ ~~~, ^Kf ~~n~~ X .9'.~1~ ~~f ~s '.r .~~.r.;'tS'~'+r-~«~ K`"Ta e -'~'~ .. . , .
VG
~K '7~ R7 ~ 4~ ~~~v. w, t. ~~
~*. t r ,~ ~`~~'t~ r;~ r J~~' j~ '4 .,~
a~~t,,~~ L~a~~r. ~,b'~v.. J.'STy~ ~r~~ J~F< S$~' `a u~ }
•. Y(+ t a~. t 'te ~ n~KfiY~ "g~'~r'J- ~~~ ~. ' . . . . . ~ '.
y~~if,,,,~~g,"' a d '~'~`''i~-rs ~~~'4~~~"~''f ~i x ` ,~ ~~r+.~i ? ~~ ~'d~3 ° , . .
`~ .~~~ .~ ~~ ~~C~ rr~~' i?a'MC~p~ i~ ~,a xn~~L,.,.,"t ~,3~ ~~ y~t~£,. . . ;i
~3 , ~ ~ `4 1l. ~ ~U? .'. k_ J a.yt'~~tt~ ~ ~~? '~'4~n ~ A k " . .
,,, ~,y~ ad4~, N
c~ . r. es, ~~{!e~€~.~~, 'R'~r.~~ ~,'f~is~'~~n~~it~~ ~v~~{' . ~ ' .' .
~ ~ ~~ ~'~~~~~~ ~t,w:~S~pL~ ~ ,~r. '~+ `~ . . . ~ .
~._` i .
~ . t ~u- ~ry„~~ti ~ ~r8~'~ ,y+j, ~u~~*'v 7~' ~ ~.~~i?' . ~ . . . ~. ~ ~`•~ .
, ~ ~ , '."Jan. ~~~ L r}"~~R.l 44~~~~g ~ ~ ~ tl~c! b 4 . . ' . ..
"'y ~ µ,
~b. ~ ~tt F a.~ ~~~. fT I`tiTn.y,'~T J''L1N'~cc~ ~vjSt~ , r.~ !
.~.G h Y
$ S ~ i~.~t L t ~~"'k-~' ~ 8 Yt~ ~ ~ i ~', r ?,., ~ ~~ i ~'r{ "r ~ . . . ~ .~ .
. i t
S~"'' i n;~'K'Y'~ ~~FY ~IW~~:~~+~!"~`~~~ r''` ° 1o r' F~`°~r~,~
~ ,~ ~' a,u as r r ~ r'~ ~ '' ~ i ~ ,ta; ~ ~ - . ~ ~
~ ~' Y7 T ~dr~r' r ~'~~ n~t h°~e. .r " ~ T C g` ~. „r:. ~
~~~, w~' a~' 'r~y7~~1~~R- C;~ a} -'1~~, LSIj Y'?zv.
l~ • ,~ r+'w,~, ~ e~„~ i f?y~`q~ a~~ C'`~.# k I C ,~ - c
s~ a 1'!y~ 1~u. ,F~"C4Ysye'~p~.'fk".tisS~~i,nv",~ zh'J'y~~Ja'[ 'fiZ~'i r s ~ f~ ~ k, .
~Z7~y r'~i~r'2~k.~ 1~~.~k`~i~l'Y~~yd~7,MJ~' ~.. 1~.,. ~~ ~ . .
1 w <<' 4 µ~ f? N',.g ~'G``M1 `~Zi~-~ Jll ,~. . ~ -i ~ I ~i ~ t ~~ ~ ' ~ . ~
.. ~ v~~ ~~j~ ~~~t~m:h`~ '~.~xS~kr11 ~-tS! h 1~. ~ * 4~ . . ~ .
V
>• L ~A ~J`~~`yv~ ~'S14~a4~ Xk'"~ :4~+`x 3.: a~^ Rk 4 l . ' . ' .
~~ ~:~ ~ Y `S A ~ .
~ ~ "•vs'~Y~'r~ .tty~.la "~-,.l' ray ~'r~ xi"" ~4i'N ~ fk A'~v 4 ., ~ ~ . ~~} ~ . .
~ r L ~Z+.~ .l >'s~ hN' ~+ i 7
~• ~+c ~ys+~+r`~ `~r ~, h~'r a 1 r~a j rod~ u x ~ t i ~,;
~a s i ~ ~~`li~t t {,!+ "x'~ ~' µ ~ '~ 4t ~~ r ~ R~ ' •
,pp wy~^F. ~t~~"~'Y~5`~~ .r ~Ct4 b~y}~~~ a ~ ~r ~ { ~ ^c ~TS ,. ~~ ~ ~ ,
~~ ,M ~4~~'~~kL1, ~ +~~Yn~+~(,~ 4j~~~r~ µ; s'r ..~ r } J"r ~
',.~'~. g~4}~i~ §'P i~ J ~ r~, 2t" fry .. ~ t>~:~ ••
~,~it 1 } 1 k. ~,a t~n _ ~7 Li ~ .
k. "*~ ~t+ 1..~ r .{ ~,~„"p 9 4
t ~` ~s~:.d.> ik 7.
LI
; ~J "v`rs ~ : ~t ~ ~f tr 5_4.k ~./ 'Sti'.~Li
.i Y ~ r~ ~ ~j ~ ~ 1 +'~. ~ .
? `Y~ ~~F t~ ~, 4 v ~ ~ I ; F : e:
.`, y~?, } ~i, h 4 ~6 ~ 7 }" ~
~~, ~: ~ ~
l,~}'',r~J~'q{~ ~ ~ ~ J , a .
,, rf' tJ a) ~ : ~ .
~,st*~-",~ , raY
~, < ~
+~r.'f'~L~" ~~ +r t.'~ i, .
..~~ :~ f . ~~,.. .
r` Y v j~ ": ,~ i r '
;~~x a~ a t c .~ ~ ~.i~ ~!Sl::
4:iL f~ {~~~'. .~ ~ ~' ^.:
~ i~1, r ~ ~ . '.
~.Y ~~ ~ T. . ~_ .
~~t r A~~ 3 i . ~ \: ~
~~ 3~, tx.~N ~ ~M ~4 `, ~ p c ~ ~ ~ r - '~ ~-~ ~~ \ w ~
-f ~'4°~" k~c~-l~ ~ ~~' ~l ~s ,. , ,
~`~ 3~p ~,~ eF.~ ~"+R ' J t.; r,-~r~ ~,.~ t~„ ~C] ~: .
aE ~RJF ~,4-e.4~~ ~, ~'-' a ~ Tav f. . ~f ~ ~ x a ~; 0 ~ . . .
5~~' '~' L'~~.- r 7 ~i~° ;. ~ ~. ~T+ t '' ~ r y.; a s~ 1 . ~ ' ' ~
fp:,k ~` l~+qi ~ ~ y f ~~~ ~.. ~, ~, ~~~ .
rC'Y 5 ti~~' ~F, 1 a~s',Nf I ~ .
~+i~ ~k rRtr y ?3 y kF~' J} 3t t ° v'Cn: 4
~~~~~~~'~£ ~ ~ -.F . S \~O, .. . .
r+~~ ~,l.YC~}- X Z~ . . . . ..
'~ K ~ ~2 'z~ 'y' ' j~~ . ~-' ~ W . ~.'.. . . " .
.i ~ ~ + _
ie ~ )j ~ '} ~ . . ~ ... .
~~ _ si - ~ ..f ~ ,~~a] ~ ~ ..
ti+ ~ y
~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~
`~~ ~ ~
$
L~:
~, ~
F _ ' " ' . ~.. . _
rt
~} ti .
~
' ~ 1 ,. f . . ~ .
st ~ ~ .". 1 .. : ~ .~. ~ ,;_ . .. ' ~ ~ ~ . ~ . ,
f ' - . . ~ . ~ . . . _
; Q~l c
- a~~° s
~t
sa -~ -~ -
~ -
1 ~ t . ~~
, ~-° ~
.~ ~~ ~ 1 `~ l . -
~ } ~ ~ fi:9 ~
rs~ ~ -
~- ` Q~q _
,
, ~' ' " "
, ~ .
~ ~ :~ ~' ~ _ ~ ~ ,
~ ~ ~~'i ~'CG~~ 1 ~c, ~.,~j, ~. . ~S.~.N ~e~~, i I ~'~~
c d si~ x y,,.,E,y . }. ~~t:~. * ... , 1 I ~ - .
~ w" ,~ ~a yn . ~ . ~
bi~ ~•
. . ~ . . . . . . . . "~: ~..~'~_ ~~'
1 ~
~~..M'n ~a`a.
1 • ....tL~i`M~~Y r`.i k~
' . ' _ '' "1 }.i'
~~ M y
n , r
g,`n ,`k, n ~ t t`~~~ .. ; : ,~y .. .,-•
iSL~~,~~aS~'.R~'ll~M'(~S~her~Y~~~ NY .~:1 .A~.r.;Jll}. ~+~ ~:~: ~.1.z , `~ ..... i. ~._ ~ , ~ , .. >u1 ..i.... ,. 4., r, . .~. .. .. ..rLv. .. ,..~4v J._~ w.r ~,. .....e_, ~i t .11~ ~.vTlr'1,
~ m1~~ t ~.`f ~.F r Y~~'.~~ w~~~ ~~.cn~c,. .~ 9 r~ ,~;~' ~~
~E o
r~ rY; - . _ : j[
tr{~~
~
~
t~ i ~,~~''
~
..~.
City Hall
Anaheim, California
January 3, I968
A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
~~
REGULAR MEETING - A regular meetir}g of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called
to order by Chairman Camp at 2:00 o'clock P.M„ a quorum being present.
PRESENT - CHAIRMANs Campe
- COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano (entered the Council Chamber at 4s07 P,M.),
Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowlanda
ABSENT - COMMISoIONERSs None.
PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Robert Mickelson
2on3ng Supervisor: Ronald Thompson
Deputy City Attorneys Furman Roberts
Office Engineer: Arthur Daw
Associate Planner: Charles Roberts
Planning Commission Secretaxy: Ann Krebs
INVOCATION - Reverend Howard Dobbs, Pastor, East Anaheim Christian Church, gave the
invocation.
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Allred led in the Pledge o£ Allegiance to the Flag,
APPROVAL OF - Commissioner Rorvland offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gauer,
TI-lE MINUTES co~~veL % e Minutes of the my~'" ece~er 18, 1967, as ~SU mitted.
3 G q/,~..~. ~I ~.~.~Q'~ta~.+Q; . ~ .
STREET NAME CHANGE - PUBLIC HEARING„ INIT'ATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East
LINCOLN AVENUE TO Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; pro?osing that Lincoln Avenue
NOHL RA~CH ROAD east of the Newport Freeway, extending through to Nohl Canyon Lake
Roa~ (Walnut Canyon Road), be renamed Nohl Ranch Roade
Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the request to the City Council on ~ugust 7,
1967, of the Lusk Corporation and Mr. Louis Nohl, principal owners of the property through
which Lincoln Avenue traverses; the action taken by the City Council and the City of Orange,
and the fact that the City Council after having received the City of Orange action, recon-
sidered their action and refe.rred said street name change to the Planning Commission for a
report; and that the Planning Commission had set for public hearing consideration of the
street name change due to the amount of interest that had been generated and the lasting
effect such a name change would have on the community.
Mr. Roberts further noted that all correspondence and Minutes of the City Council meetings
had been submitted to the Commission along with the Report to the Commission.
Mr. George Lusk, Vice President of Lusk Corporation, appeared before the Commission and
noted that the public hearing had been a surprise to them since the City Council had taken
action to make the change in August, and the City of Orange had already signed that portion
of the street within their jurisdiction; that the State Highway Department had started re-
signing the freeway to indicate Nohl Ranch Road was easterly and Lincoln Avenue westerly of
the Newport Freeway off-ramp; and that the only opposition they ~ould note was the fact
that there were other streets within the Ranch having a similar name, and if this were so,
they would be willing to change these so that there would be no conflict. Furthermore, it
was imperative that the Ranch have proper identification.
~
Mre Lusk then requested that the Commission defer any further discvssion on his part until
Mr. John Lusk was available to give further clarification. ~
Reverend Willard Conradson, 420 Ferndale Lane, Pastor of the Trinity Lutheran Church at •the ~
corner of Lincoln Avenue and Nohl Canyon Road, appeared before the Commission in opposition
and stated he was opposed generally to the change of street names which were well known
historically in the City or County; that the continuity of street names was necessary,
especially streets which would be part of the vast m?galopolis which Anaheim and other
cities in Orange County would be a part of; that he was more concerned that the church,
which had the only developed prc:perty on Lincoln Avenue, should not be advised of the change
prior to the Council action having been made; that the c;~urch was a public institution and
depended upon easy accessibility and proper locational factors for parishioners tc find the '
i
s~io ~
- - ~.:
~. ~,~~~«~-'~ v~~ x~5~ry.';'A,~..Fk+~' d~yR1:.Pi~,{~W' tt: t t~r1~~?~'1`~ F~:
i ~ ~ ~ . ` ~ 1 + :p~
~ ~
-- _ .. .
~ ~ ~
' r
~.s
iNINUIES, CITY PLANNINu' COMMISSION, January 3, 1968 3711
SI'REET NAME CHANGE - church; that the churah was unable to expend money for an advertising
LINOOLN AVENUE TO
campaign to remedy the fact that all their existing advertising of
NOHL RANCH ROAD th
e location of the church, which was.now Lincoln Avenue and Nohl
(Continued) C
anyon Road, to r~ad Nohl Ranch Road and Nohi Canyon Road; that the
church occupied a 4,4-acre site and one-quarter million dollars had
already been expended in construction on the property, and there was
no intent to develop the property for other than chu
h ~
rc
purposee; that there wotr7.d be
considerable confusion with`a constant change in name as the years went by, and he strongly
urged the Commission to retain the name of Lincaln Avenue for said street; and that churches I
normally located on streets that were well knowne j
Reverend Conradson also noted that if the Lusk people and Mr, Nohl were so an:cious that the
Ranch b ~`Y
e properly identified, he could see no reason for having removed theold Nohl Ranch sign
and replacing itwi'th' a sign identifying the area
L
k E
as
us
bmes, with the Nohl Ranch identified
in considerably smaller letters; that th
a
e
ccess to the ranch was sufficiently identified
since it indicated this entrance was to the Nohl Ra
h
~
nc
area - and should be adequate to
identify the a.rea; and that being i.n the Hill and Canyon area made the church feel far
removed from the City of Anaheim itself, and to remove the one name which linked it to
the City Hall located on Li
l
k
nco
n
venue would destroy any vestige of belonging to the Cityo
Reverend Conradson noted he had contacted the City of Oran9e relative to the change in name i
and had been informed they only followed whatever the City of Anaheim did since ver
littl !
y
e
of their city was affected. ,
~ _ Reverend Conradson, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the cost for changing
the church incorporation address, their stationery, and their identification in the yellow
~ pages of the telephone directory would be but a small amount of the total cost the taxpayers
.; would have to pay for the change of street signs, Furthermore, he was not as concerned with
~~ the cost of the change to the church records as he was with the loss of an identity wbich
the church presently enjoyede
Mre Jahn Lusk,President of Lusk Corporation, appeared before the Commission and noted they
sponsored the request for the street name change, and they were sorry to liave overlooked the
church when contacting ~;arious homeowners groups, and if the church was to incur any undue
expense because of the street name change, they would be willSng to assist them in defraying
these expenses;,that they had felt Lincoln Avenue from Carson Street in Long Beach to the
Newport Freeway was generally commercial in nature, while on the other side of Santiago Road,
it became a local street, looping through 59500 acres of the Ranch, and the identification
of this area was important to those who would live there in the future since they were not
desirous of giving the impression this would be a ma3or thoroughfare; and, furthermore,
Lusk Corporation and Mre Nohl were paying for any resigning that would take placee
Mro Lusk also noted that the City of Orange had made the street name changes on the portion
affecting their city; that the State Highway Department was also starting to resign the
freeway, and, therefore, it was his desire t~ urge the Commission to give favorable considera-'
tion to the proposed street name changee
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commission inquired as to whether or not the proposed street name change had been
submitted to the Street Naming Committee, whereupon Mr. John Lusk stated this had been
referred to their bor~y by the City of Orange; however, the Committee took no action other
than requesting that the street have the same name throughout the Ranch area.
Commissianer Herbst inquired whether or not the Lusk Corporation and Mr. Nohl would be ~
willing to change any street in the Ranch that now bore the name ni Nohl, if Lincoln
Avenue were changed; whereupon Mre John Lusk replied in the affirmative.
Commissioner Herbst then noted that continuity of a street throughout the County was impor-
tant; however, i;~asmuch as the City of Orange had already changed the street name within
their jurisdiction, to dispel any more confusion, the City of Anaheim should rename Lincoln
Avenue to Nohl Ranch Road, but he would not be in favor of more than one street bearing the '
name of Nohl in t`-e Ranch area.
Mre Jr,hn Lusk noted they would like to reta?n Nohl Lake Road leading to Nohl Lake, and since
thP ~tanch was five miles long, the Lake Road would in no way be misinterpreted for the Nohl
ktanch Road. ~~
Reverend Conradson noted that the church referred to their address now as Lincolri Avenue and
Nohl Can~on Road because 4415 East Lincoln Avenue, the address assigned by the City, was
somewhat confusing since the City of Orange number on the south side of the street was con-
siderably lower, and the church would be stripped of their present identification from both -
streets if any change became effec~iveo ~
" ~.
.~ rxrv ~c.. .~i.` } / ~.._,.~.,~ .._. ..' ' - ~~.
1` ~
~ ~ ( * J :,
VY ~
MINUfES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 3, 1968 3712
STREET NAME CHANGE - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recomm.end to the City Council
LINCOLN AVENUE TO that Lincoln Avenue east of the Newport Freeway be changed to Nohl
NOHL RANCH ROAD~ Rai.ich Road. Commissioner Mungall seGOnded,the_motiono
(Continued)
' On roll call the foregoing motion lost by a vote of five to onea
, Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts then advised the Commission that since this was a form
', of denial, the Commission should offer a motion to deny the _equest for a street name changee
~ Considerable discussion was then held by the Commission relative to the implications of a
street name change; the fact that the City of Orange had already taken action, and the fact
;~ that the Orange County Street Naming Committee during the past fifteer~ years had been
attempting to simplify street names by removing as much as possible names from one street
~ which passed through several jurisdictions, and to approve sub~ect street name change would
~ be retrogressing ico the original position of a hodge-podge of street names existing fifteen
years ago; and that it was important that the County Street Naming Committee make some
positive comment regarding the proposed street name changey s3nce there had been three
different jurisdictions trying to determine the name of a streete
After the discussion, Commissioner Allred offered a motion to continue consideration of a
street name change for Lincoln Avenue east of the Newport Freeway to January 29, 1968,
and directed the staff to contact the City o£ Orange to determine what their reaction~wou:.d
be to convert their portion of the street again to Lincoln Avenue, for a definite comment
from the Orange County Stxeet Naming L"ommittee, and to advertise any street having the name
of "Nohl" existing within the jurisdiction of the City of Anaheim, to consider a street
name change (Nohl Canyon Road and Nohi Canyon Lake Road, the latter now a private road9 but
due to be annexed into the City)o Commissioner Mungall seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDa
SI'REET NAME CHANGE - PUBLIC HEARINGo INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East
CERRO VISTA DRIVE Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim~ Ca7.ifornia; proposing a street name change
(NORTH-SUUTH) TO for Cerro Vista Drive, running north and south from Santa Ana Canyon
CHRRO VIS'I:A WAY Road, to Cerro Vista Waye
Aasociate 1?lanner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of the street proposed to have a
name change, noting th~t said street ran both north and south and east and wast, and the
Post Office, Police, and Fire Departments had been contacted and no opposition had fieen
expressed to the proposed name change to Cerro Vista Way.
No one appeared in opposit±on to subject petitione
THE FiEARING WAS CLASED,
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC68-1 and moved for its passage and adopt~`on,
seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to r~commend to the City Council that the north-souzh
portion of Cerro Vista Drive, extending from Santa Ana Canyon Road to Peralta Hil~s Drive
in the Peralta Hills area, be renamed Cerro Vista Way. (See Resoiution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: ~MMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Nerbst, Mungall, Rowland, Campo
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano.
~ S'r
iF
~
VARIANCE N0. 1932 -, .t,'~i NI'INUED PUBI.IC HEARING. DEWAYNE AND L~RNA KROEGER, 328 North P,rookh~.~rst':
Street, Anaheim, Californ;a, and EMPIRE SAVINGS 8 LOkN ,ASSOCIATiONL.
6750 Van Nuys Boulevard, Van Nuys, California, Owners; EMPIRE SAVINuS 8
IAAN ASSOCIATION, 6750 Van Nuys Boulevard, Van Nuys, California, Agent; requesting a var:ance ;
to ESTABLISH IWO NEW SIGNS AND LeGALIZE 11N0 EXI53'ING SIGNS~ WITH WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM AREA ~
OF SIGN OFFERING UNITS FOR RENT AND (2) MAXIMllM AREA OF SIGN IDENTIFYING THE USE OF THE
PROPERTY described as: Those lots located on the east side of Brookhurst Street betwee:~ '
Catalina and Alameda Avenues and having a total frontage of approximately 369 feet, tF,e
southerly boundary of the southernmost parcel being approximately 110 feet north of the
centerline of Catalina Avenue, and the northerly boundary of the northernmost parcel being
approximately 121 feet south of the centerline of Alameda Avenuee Property presently classi-
fied R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE~
Subject petition was continued from the meeting of December 18, 1967, at the request of
the petitionero
_ ~.~;. . ... _;..- .., .. , -
. .
~ .. _..
~ ~ . .. 1' * ~.wr~.-..:g.. ~i'.~'. ~=.
.. ,
.
.
. .
. ,. . .. . .~.
~ . ~ • [
.. . . . ~ , - . . ~. ~ ' ~~' , .
. ...~.. _. . , / .: ::' .,
. r4 .... ~., , ~ ..i . ~. , - ~ . i . .. . '
t~'_i~;", -t~'gar~ ~ ~" .~ ~' _ ° ~ ~ ~ ; _ ~ - ~ ~~~
. J `4 ~ ._ _ ._.. _... ~`.__y.__~_-~~.~.~__~~ . . _. _ . ... ~
~ ~
w
MII~UIES~ CITY PLANNING COMh{ISSIONS January 3~ 1968
~;1
~ ,~
3713 ~ `
VARIANCE NOe 1932 - Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of sub3ect
(Continued) property, the uses established in close proxirtdty~ and noted that
illegal signs had been constructed on subject property in violation
of the Sign Ordinance, and that subject petition was necessary to
legalize the two existing signs and permit two additional signse
Slides of the signs as taken when the Zoning Enforce~ment Officer first advised the petitioner
that the signs were in violation, and subsequent slides of the property, were presented to
the Cammissione
Mre Howard Frye, representing the agent for the petftioner, appeared before the Commission
and noted the proposed signs would serve the 65 lots of the existing development, each lot
having four apartment units; that the Empire Savings 8 Loan Association financed the loans
for const•ruction of the existing development - however, because of a downturn of economics
in the County, the builder was unable to complete the development9 and Empire Savings 8
Loan then completed the developments that many of the apartments had been. vacant for some
time-however, they had a program to sell the fourplexes, and most of the purchasers were
people.who could invest in only one development, and, therefore, they had agreed to under-
take a central rental office for all owners of these fourplexes, at which time he had been
cautioned about the removal of the signs, and the signs in the public right-of-way were
then removed tmmedfately, but the rlare signs were left up - said signs in his estimation
were directional s.tgns, directing interested persons into the rental office; and that in
accordance with the Sign Ordinance, each individual owner of these 65 lots would be permitted
to erect a 30-foot sign on their pro.perties advertising the rental of their units - however,
this was not desirable or attractive, and9 therefore, the proposed sign waivers were being
requestede
Mro Frye also noted that other businesses along Brookhurst Street were signed, but the signs
proposed were in better taste and reasonable.
Chairman Camp inquired whether or not the petitioner planned to have one office for all 65
rentals, whereupon Mro Frye stated ~=r-=-~= " •• ~+ +hi ~ h~+ + e~ p~„q,j--~,P~er~ded,.
a~ it was their intent to turn back the rEntal office to the four a~soc:.ations which governed
the recreation area as they pertainec'. to the CCBR's, and that as developers of the original
lot they would be entitled to have a 250-square foot sign.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission,upon being questioned, that Empire
Savings 8 Loan would not qualify for this type of sign by matter of right, and would be
required to file a varianceo
Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that the sign refer~ed to by
Mr, Frye might be considered a temporary, off-site sign only on the initial sale or rental
of the units, and generaliy speaking, this sigr. was permitted upon the submission of a cash
bond guaranteein~~ the removal of the sign, and was usually granted for a period of one year,
after which time the Planning Commission and City Council had the power to require the sign
to be removede
'~
Mre Frye was of the opinion that one large sign would be unsightly located in the center of
the developmente
The Commission noted that the one large sign might be more advantageous to the development
than the existing signs.
Mr. Thompaon, in response to Commission questioning, noted that the two existing signs were
55 square feet each, and the two proposed new signs would be 48 square feet each, or a total
of 206 square feete
The Commission, in their discussion of the proposed request, noted that a precedent might be
established,if sz~bject petition were approved, by requests from many othex large apartment
developments in the city requesting the same type of signing waiver, and inquired of the
petitioner as to the length of time this central office would be in operation.
Mr, Frye noted they would be in operation until next year, and since the petitioner owned
10 acres of undeveloped property immediately adjacent to the east of Brookhurst Street, with
no firm development plans available, this might be longex - however, they were not obligated
to maintain this after next summer since there were four recreation building associations
formed, and it was the petitioner's intent to sell these groups the central office rental
areae
Mr. Frye further noted, after Commission questioning~ that they now had about a 5% vacancy
factor in the entire developmente
~' ^~,~
~ .,:.:
. z f.w',~ ~n ~
~' 1 ~ .~,~,'7a "~~ k~ i `fc` ! ,- , f r - v u [ ~ ~T _ T r . ~ ~ ~
j
; t
,~,1 . : . ,. ~
_ ~
'
. ~ ~ .. ~ ~ • ~ ~~ ~ • ~/ - ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 3~ 1968 3714
VARIANCE N0. 1932 - 1'he Commission noted the vacancy.factor was comparable with other
(Continued) apartment developments in the city, and if subject petition were `
approved, the Commission could not deny similar requests from other ~.~;
apartment complex~s. ~ ;,,;
Mro Frye noted that the rental office was there for a three millios~ dollar development, i , '
Chairman Camp noted that the Commission was of the opinlon there were other major apart- ; ;
ment comp3.exes on major thozoughfares, some with 320 units on one undivided lot, and there ~ <`
was no reason to deny them the same consideration as .being requested by the petitionere ,
Furthermore, the problem before the Commission was not necessarily ~ust consider3tion of ~ ~~
~ one request, but the possibility this request could set a pattern of requests for all large ~
! ' ' i:
~
apartment co~:~plexes throughout the city.
Mra Thompson noted that th2 Zoning Enforcement Officer was now in the process of checking ~ 4
p r o p e r t i e s o n w h i c h t h e r e w e r e v i o l a t i o n s o f t h e S i g n O r d i n a n c e, a n d he wou l d be reques ting
all vialators to comply with the City's Code requfrementse ~
;
Ns. Frye noted the sign rzquirements could be enf~orced through the CCBR`s; whereupon !
Mre Furman Roberts noted the City could only enforce maintenance and financing of the same, ~
but did not have the power to regulate all signs on the land through the CCBR`s since the l
City was r.ot the owner of the land and could only requi~e compliance through the Sign ~
Ordinanceo
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono
7HE HEARING WAS CLOSEDe
The Commission noted that although the petitioner had stated all pr~perty owners could sign
their individual lots, the only critical area were those lots fronting on Brookhurst Street,
and those fronting on Catalina and Alameda Avenues would be somewhat ineffective because
they would be on local streetso --
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC68-2 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Herbst, co deny Petition for Variance No, 1932 on the basis th3t ~.
the proposed request would set an undesirable precedent for similar requests throughout
the city where large apartment developments faced major arterials; that the petitioner had
not proven a hardship existed to warrant granting sub3ect petition; and that the petitioner
was requesting waivers of the Sign Ordinance of more than 300;be (See Resolution Book)
On roll call.the foregoing :resolution was passed by the following vot~;:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauery Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Campe
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ~
ABSENT: OOMMISSIONERS: Faranoa
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC I-~ARING, DICK ABLES, 34865 Acacia Street, Yucaipa, California,
NO> 67-68-42_ LEONARD SMITH, 1510 South Euclid Street,and FRANK CLAYTON' JR., 1516
South Euclid Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; HARKER DEVELOPMENT
CONDITIONAL USE CORPORATION, Po Oe Box 2547, Anaheim, California, Agent; property
PERMI7 N0~ 988 described as: Portion Noe 1- A rectangularly shaped parcel of land
located at the southeast corner of Cerritos Avenue and Euclid Stre~~+
VARIANCE N0. 1935 and having approximate frontages of 156 feet on Cerritos Avenue and
145 feet on Euclid Street; Portion Noo 2- A rectanguiarly shaped parcel
of land located at the northeast corner of Mells Lane and Euclid S+..reet
and having approximate frontages of 156 feet on Mells Lane and 110 feet on Euclid Street,
and further described as 1500, 1510 and 1516 South Euclid Streete Property presently classi-
fied R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONEe
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-I, GENERAL COMMHRCIAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CONDII'IONAL USE: TO PERMIT A SERVICE STATZOh WITHIN 75 FEET OF A
RESIDENTIAL ZONE (PORTION NOe 1 ONLY).
REQUESTED VARIANCE: TO PERMII' IWO FREE-STANDING SIGNS, WITH WAIVER
OF MINIMUM DISTMCE PERMITTED BEI'WEEN FREE-SI'ANDING'
SIGI~S (PORTION NOSo L AND 2)e
Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, the uses
established in close proximity, the proposed request for zoning to establish a service
station and a neighborhood commercial facility, together with waivers of the 5ign Ordinance,
previous zoning SE4ll~5~5 for more intense uses for sub~ect property, and action taken by
both the Plar~ning Comm~:ssion and City Council, noting that the most recent request was
-----~,- , _ -,~?.'-; -
r~a~+:~~ ~~~~ ,f,[ r ~+~.'e'^W ~r'-'SMn'~~.5li ~ ~ s ,.:~, '~~ a ~" '~'tix ~
~Y~ ,,~~,,._..~..' ' ~.~ ~_ ..- __~~_. _. . ..__._.._-- -.. . ~ ,..
, ~ ~ ~~
MINIITES, CITY PI,pNNING COMMISSION, January 3~ 1968 1 37I5
RECLASSIFiCATION - denied in Mazchy 1967, for the northerly portion of sub~ect property,
NOe 67-68-42 and the Commission would have to decide on whether or not the proposed
,?' OONDITIONi-L USE use would be the proper land use for sub~ect property as it pertained
PERMIT N0. 988 to uses already established in the area, Furthermore, if sub3ect
Y' VARIANCE 3~d D 1935
;;,_ petition were approved, a mutual agreement to provide for ingress and
:,;-`-' (Continued) egress would have to be recordede
~ .: -:; :
Mr> Warren Lefebvre, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared
w before the Commission and presented colored renderings of the proposed development and noted
that although the northerly portion of sub3ect property had been considered by the Planning
,. Commission and City Council a number of times9 this was the first time alI properties on
~~' ~-` the east side of Euclid Street between Cerritos and Mells Lane were being considered; that ~
, dedication had already been acouired for street widening aZong Euclid Street and Cerritos I
~' '. Avenue; that it was their opinion subject oroperty ~ras ideally located for commercial aoning9 '~
~° ~ a portion being at the intersection of a ma~or and secondary highway; that the traffic count ~,
~~~-- per day on Euclid Street had reached 27y000 cars in c~mparison with other ma,jor thorou h•-
'',~` fares, such as the intersection of e.~oorr.urst and Lincoln where the count was 24 400• at I
~~ Harbor and Lincoln where the count was 24,i00; Katella, west of Euclid 22y800; and Lincoln,
~~,- ;
y east o£ Brookhurst 25,500p and that in other areas where traf:ic was as heavy as the count i
-.,` on Euclid Street, commercial development had occurred9 whilein many areas in Anaheimx such as ;
,; along Ball Road. development :or commercial purposes had occurred due to increase in traffic •-i
- therefore, he feit subject pzoperty, with the heavy traffic along Euclid 5treet, warranted j
the same consideratione
Mr. Lefebvre further noted that throughout Anaheim and the County there were many R-1 homes '
, along arterials that had combined and developed for commercial-professional uses; that all
would agree subject property was no longer desirable for residenti.al use; that the proposed
development would not be spot zoning since there w?re existing commercialuses on the northeast !
side of Cerritos Avenue and Euclid Street; that the proposed development would include a
xanch-style Shell service station and a la:ge, ranch-type building for a Seven-Eleten Market, I
-;~ as well as other small stores; and that the architect of the development was available to
! answer questionse
Mre Don Graves, architect for the proposed development, appeared before the Commission and
reviewed the proposed development, noting that every attempt had been made to design the
development so that it would be compatible with the residential uses adjacent to it, and
this included a 5-foot buffer strip, as well as a 6•-foot masonry wall along the east property
liney and that the landscaping would be full-9rown trees rather than those that would take a
number of years to attain full coverage protection for the residences to the east; that the
west property line would have a masonry wall with wrought iron fencing to duplicate the resi-
dential character of the area; and that the air conditioning would be screened andso isolated
that it would not create a problem to the area,
Mr, Frank Clayton9 1516 South Euclid St:eet, one of the owners, appeared before the Commi;-
sion and stated he had resided in the house for the past six years, having received it from
his father who had resided there for eight years prior to that; that since he lived there,
he no±ed that with the noise and dirt from the heavy traffic, it would be extremely diffi-
cult to attempt to rent or sell these homes to reputable persons, and the only persons who
would ansvrer an advertisement would be the type who would be detrimentaZ to the neighborhood;
and furthermore, because of the heavy traific, sometimes numbering from 200 to 2,000 cars
per hour, there was little likelihood of being able to sel.l the home for residential purposeso
Mr, Rs CD Moss, 1680 West Cerritos Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition and
stated his property was immediately adjacent to the no¢~therly portion of sub~ect property,
and he presented petitions signed by 279 property owners, all in opposition, concurring in
the findings made by the Planning Commission when a similar request for a convenience market '
was recommended for denial to the City Council in February, 1967e Furthermore, he repre-
sented a number of persons present in the Council Chamber also in opposition, and a showing
of hands indicated 20 persons present in oppositione
;
MrA Moss, in response to Commission questioning as to what the property owners might feei was ~
more acceptable since subject property was undesirable ror residential use because of the
heavy traffic, stated that comme~cial office use or business and professional offices were '
more acceptable than the proposed use, and that normally the City req::ired a step-up of
zones, such as from R-1 to R-2 and then to R-3, before commercial development was permittede
Furthermore, in the petition considered last year it was for a Seven-Eleven store to be open
from 7:00 AeMo to 11:00 P.Nf, - however, these stores were now operating untii 12:30 AeM.
Mro Moss further noted that one of the access roads to the development would exit to Mells
Lane, a local street primariiy developed with residences, and to inject commercial traffic
into this residential street would be highly detrimentaio
. , - .~..
. r *:.
4~w r ~
. . . _ ,. . . . ~ . ~ ~ . . . .
y`r t.~'• .~'s-~'°ia~ •.sr,~'~-+'~;.s~"
` ~ z
" ',d '~ ,/ t.~' ~~r ? 'x^ y~£rn~ r ,.~ ~ a ~ 7:r r ; a~ nr~, r ,
,~' _ .__.._....~._ .. ~
A tP d 1 t
fi
~ ~.__ . . ... _ . . ~!'~.
~ U ~ \ .~..~..~~
;y
MZNUfES, CITY PLAtQNING COIIMiIISSION, January 3, 1968 37;(~ "~
REQ.ASSIFICAT~ON - M:e John Rothman, 1630 W~st Cris A,venue, appeared befoxe the Commission9 ~ ~
NOe 67-68-42 noting that his property ~rss two bloFks tro 'the south, and tha~ he was
CONDITIONAL USE present for another petitit~n - however9 h~e wa~ dess.poue of ~xpressing ~a
FERMI7 NOe 988 his opposition to the propased vse o£ sWbject propexty~ that E:~clid Street :;r
VARIANCE_NOo 1935 between Ball Road and Katel.Ia Avenue:~ w~th the exceptiod qf a small '
(Continued) parcel, was entirely developed for resYdential u~s~e; that tihe area h3d '''~
been established for residentfal uses and na liasic changes had taken /~
place to warrant granting this heavier commercial zone and use for this °~~
area as proposed; that everyone recognized ther~ was a heavy t~;a,~fic count on the street - `~'
however, if zoning were to be granted on the basis of traffic aount, many mor~ homes in the ~:'~
city would have requested commercial zoning where they were acF3acent to heavily traveled ;;~
arterials; that commercial office or medlcai buildings could be developed on subject property. "
which would be less objectioc3ble than a eervice station and a neighborhood shopping area `~~'
with its many lights, dirt, noiseg and hours of operation - interferinq with the peace and ry~
rest of the neighborhood; and that this could establish an undesirable precedent for com- ~ ,~
mercial uses for the vacant parcels in the areae ~i
Mrs. E:win Cuhen, 1b94 Me1Zs Lane, appeared in opposition, noting her property was directiy ~
to the south of one ~f the fngress~egress rosds to the shopping center, and the lights would
be very harmful to the rest of her family since automobiles leaving the center wouid have ~
their lights on end would shine i.nto their bedroom windows; that the petitioner was proposing'
off~sale beer and wine for subject property, which would be detrimental to the area because ;
of the location of Loara Hign School; and that the proposed commercial use wou~d be an i
i.nfringement on the privacy of the residents of the area by destroying the residential ~
integrity of the area with a service ststion and a sho in center - therefore9 she felt k.4
the r=ghts of the residents of the area should be as protected by the City as the rights ?
of +_he rroperty owners to develop their properties to the highest and best usee f
Mro Lefebvrey in rebuttal, stated that he had given further serious thought to the access to i
Mells Lane, and it was a possibility or,e of the drives would be eliminated - this would mean ~
a revision t,o the parkino facilities as well as the size of the structure - however, the !
staff felt the other drive wae necessary for adequate fire arotection and access was needed i
to the rear of the buiidings for delivexy purposese Furthe,-.mores this was a problem parcel, ~
and it was felt the development plans were much more compatible than any other presented
pr:viouslyy since they would take Snto consideration the residential homes in the area, and
the proposed development would be an asset to the community~
The Commission Secxetary indicated three letters of opposition had be~n receiveda
THE HFARING WAS CLOSEDa
The Cemmission discussed the proposed use and reclassification, being of the opinion the
use was one of the heaviest proposed for a residential area; that the problem of front-ons
along arterials had been the subject of lengthy work sessions, and the problem areas which
the Commission considered most likelv to be developed for commercial use were recommended
te the City Council, who adopted the st.udy as a tocl for commercial uses when considering future
requests, and that subject property ~ras considered to be least likely to be converted for
commercial purposes due to development of the surrounding area being primarily residential
in charecter, and no matter how careful:y a commercial development was planned, heavier
commercial uses sti.ll were not ccmpatible to the neighborhoodo
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noe PC68•-3 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi-
fication Noo 67-68-42 be disapproved on the basis that the proposed reclassification was not
necessary for the orderly and desirable development of the community; that a detailed study
made by the Commission and staff, entitled "The Front-On Study", indicated sub,ject property
was least likely to be affeoted by probiems along 3rteriais and would not be converted for
commercial purposes; and that the proposed use was one of the heaviest of the C-1 uses
proposed and would have a deleterious effect on the r?sidential integrity of the area, no
matter how carefully it was designede (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followiny vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Campe
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Faranoo
--- • ._ - -
~ ~
, ." `._ , _ .; . .
'wtf'~'~. ~~~+~ ,..'~'?'~a :.~ 1~ ~:r Kr. t~~ 4~,ip~+Cv. ~51 Ys }~y ~ ~ i~ t I i:_3 s- 's a. . y. 4 .:,y* r
. S ~'-'~~~' ' _ \
MINUTES~ ~Y pLANNING CAMMISSION, January~ 1968 ~
3717
RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No, PC68-4 and moved for its
N0. 67-68-42 passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to deny
CONDITIONAL USE Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noe 988 on the basis that the
PERMIT N0. 988 proposed,use would adversely affect the ad3oining_land uses and growth
VARIANCE N0. 1935 and development of the areae (See Resolution Book)
(Continued)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: GOMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Campa
NOES: _COMMISSIONERS; None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Faranoe
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC68-5 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to deny Petition for Variance No. 1935< ,(See Resolution
Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: OOMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Campe
NOESs CONN~IISSIONERS: Nonee
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Faranoe
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARINGe MINORU SHIOTA, 3139 West Orange Avenue, Anaheim,
NOe 67-68-43 California, and CHARLIE N. BROCK, 3133 West Orange, Avenue, Anaheim,
California, Owners; KAL RAAB, 14482 Beach Boulevard, Westminster,
California, Agent; requesting that property described as: An irregularly
shaped parcel oa .approximately 7 acres located at the northeast corner of Western Avenue and
Orange Avenue and northerly of the Orange County Flood Control channel, having frontages of
approximately 210 feet on Western Avenue and approximately 450 feet on Orange Avenue, and a
maximum depth of approximately 1,330 feet easterly from the centerline of Western Avenue,
be reclassification from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL,
ZONE.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING~ MINORU SHIOTA, 3139 West Orange Avenue, Anaheim,
NOe 67-68-44 California, and CHARLIE N. BROCK, 3133 West Qrange Avenue, Anaheim,
California, Owners; HAL RAAB, 14482 Beach Boulevard, Westminster,
TENTATIVE Mpp DF California, Agent; property described as: An irregularly shaped p3rcel
TRACT N0, 6163, of approximately 7 acres located at the northeast corner of Western
REVISION NOe 1 Avenue and Orange Avenue and north of the Orange County Flood Control
channel, having frontages of approximately 210 feet on Western Avenue
and approximately 450 fset on Orange Avenue, and a maximum depth of
approximately 1,330 feet easterly from the centerline of Western Avenue. Property presently
classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
~Q~STED CLASSIFICATION: R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY, ZONE.
TENTATIVE TRACI' REQUEST: Subject tract, located at the northeast corner of Orange and
iYestern Avenues and containing approximately 7.1 acres, is
proposed for subdivision into 39 R-2-5000 Zoned lots.
Associate Planner Charles Roberts noted for the Commission that both Items 4 and 5 covered
the same property, and perhaps the Commission would be desirous of considering them together
at this timee
Chairman Camp then indicated the Commission would consider both Reclassification Nos.
67-68-43 and 67-68-44 simultaneously.
Mr. Roberts reviewed the location flf the property, uses establ.ished in close proximity,
noting that no plans had been submitt~d for Reclassification No. 67-68-43 since the peti-
tiorter was proposing to develop the property for 5,000-square foot, single-family lots; tha~t
in 1964 the General Plan had been amended, changing the land use designation for subject
property from low density to low-medium density, as a result of the General Plan study of
100 acres in this immediate area, and since the General Plan indicated this was appropriate
for low-medium density use, the requested R-2-5000 would seem to be appropriate.
Mre Roberts furthermore noted that Reclassification Noo 67-68-44 proposed reclassification
to the R-2-5000, to subdivide subject property into 39 R-2-5000 lots.
Mre Hal Raab, engineer for the proposed development, appeared before the Commission and
stated they were proposing to develop these lots with homes in the price range which the
majority of the people could afford, rather than a select group of higher priced homes,
~:+~
~. ~N
~ r
r :.,:,
>..s~
t ~ :;~~
::,~
"~,
,:,
~ I :'~
~ ~~
~
"~°~ :-~
y".; k 4# auf ~!%'°'r^T A~,.. '~.nY"",'°71 i ~ ~!_/e r ~,:' ~-, i a •rf. .r ; ., ~. .r!.
O
MINUTES~, CITY PIy
RECLASSIFICAI'ION
NOe 67-68-43
RECLASSIFICATION
NOe 67-68-44
1ENTATIVE MAp OF
iRACT N0. 61b3,
REVISION N0. 1
(Continued)
~ ~~
'~NNING CODMiIISSION, Ja;iuary 3, 1968 3718
- and that subject property was a difficult parcel to plan, but it was
felt the proposed subdivision map would be highly desirable and would
be acceptable, and in recent months a plan for 40 units for a parcel
one-half acre smaller than subject property had been approvede
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions>
THE HEARING WA~ CIASEDe
A letter from the Orange County Flood Control District was read to
the Commission regarding erosion along certain lots, provision of a
chainlink fence, and possible drainage problems into the channels A copy of the letter from
the Orange County Flood Control District was presented to the engineer of the development.
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noo PC68-6 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi-
fication Noo 67-68-43 be approved, subject to conditionse (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: A11xed, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Faranoe
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No, PC68-7 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclas-
sification Noo 67-68-4a. be approved, sub~ect to conditions. (See Resolution Book)
`w~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
~. :~
+ ' AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Campe
~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee
~'^~"°~`~'~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Faranoe
~y, ,,.~~
ke Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract Noe 6163, Revision
't~,~ Noe l,,subject to the following conditions:
'~ ,r,~~ e
~;
'~~{'~ Ie That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each
~;,",4„+ subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approvale
J
~~ ~ .
,~~~ ~!;' 2a That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract Noe 6163, Revision Noe 1, is granted
~-,1,,,:,~;,: subJect to the approval of Reclassification Noe 67-68-44.
,i ,r~'
Y,,4~ 3. That the vehicular access rights, except at street and~or alley openings to
.k~ Orange and Western Avenues,shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim.
~ ,t ~
4o That in accordance with City Council policy a 6-foot masonry wall shall be
constructed on the southerly and westerly property lines separating Lot Nose
1 and 32 through 39 and Orange and Western Avenues, except that corner Lot Nose ~
1 and 39 shall be stepped down to a height of thirty inches in the front yard
setback, and except that pedestrian openings shall be provided in said walls
where cul-de-sacs abut the planned hiqhways right-of-way line of an arterial
highway, Reasonable landscaping, includ3ng irrigation facilities, shall be '`
installed in the uncemented portion of the arterial highway parkway the full
distance of said wall, plens for said landscaping to be submitted to and
subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Follow-
ing installation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsi-
bility for maintenance of said landscaping.
5e Tliat all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities
unless release from this requirement is granted, in writing, by the Public
Utilities Director.
6e That a 6-foot chainlink fence shall be constructed ,31ong the southeasterly
property line where lots are adjacent to the Orange County Flood Control
channele
7. That Street "A" shall be named Bridgeport Avenue, and that Street "B" shall
be named Bridgeport Waye ,
Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIEDa ~
:t
~•
~S ~ _ .-~- ,
v~~ r ra. .'"SN~ r'~~ ~ ;,; j~-, ''y ~ ! 4t n .,
,
_, .
~ .. ~
~
>, . ._.--- -. ....~-.~._ -- . ..__.. _ _
i ~ ~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 3y 1968 ~
3719
'
RECLASSIFICATION - P(JBLIC HEARINGo DEMETRIOU ~ND DEL GUERCIO, 612 South Flower Street,
NOo 67-68-45 _ Suite 412,
Los Angeles
Calif
.
,
ornia, Owners; VERIVpN p~pNROE, 2200 East
Coast Highway, Newport Beach, California, Agent
CONDITIONAL USE
o
t
i
; pr
per
y described
as: Portion Noe 1- An irregularly shaped parcel of Iand having a
PERMIT N0. 993 frontage of a
i
,
pprox
mately 120 feet on the west side.of Manchester
Avenue and a maximum depth of approximatel
240 f '
y
eet, the northerly
boundaxy of sub~ect property being approximately 1,180 feet south of
the centerline of Orangewood Avenue
a
d P ~
,
n
ortion No. 2- An irregularly shaped parcel of
land having a frontage of approximately 115 feet on th
e west side of Manchester Avenue and
a maximum depth of approximately 240 feet, the northerly boundary of sub3ect
ing ad3acent t
th
o
property be-
e southerly boundary of Portion Noe le Property presently classified
F2-A~ AGRICULTURAL~ ZONE. '
+4~ ^ REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL
ZONE ~
} ~
.
~ REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A SWIMMING POOL SI~WROOM AND DISPLAY AREA ~ J
:; ,
WIT H W A I V E R O F R E Q U I R E D 6- F O O T M A S O N R Y WALL (PORTION
N0 . 1 ONLY) ~
Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed subject petitions, the location of the property,
and uses established in close proximity, noting that subject property was a portion of the
Melrose Abbey p~operty, and that the southerly portion had been approved for C-1 zoning ~
however, no conditions had been completed, and the parcel was still zoned R=A, Furthermore,
a trailer park for a portion oi the property had been approved, but to this date was not
developed, and that in 1967 the General Plan for. this area was~changed to reflect Manchester
Avenue as being more commercial because of "The City", which was planned for Chapman Avenue
in the City of Orangea
Mre Roberts noted Lhat the repuested waiver for the masonry wall applied to the norther~y
property line, extending 85 feet westerly from Manchester Avenuee
Mre Vernon Monroe, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed
the uses in close proximity to the proposed development of the swimming pool showroom and
display area, noting that the proposed operation would be attractively landscaped and set
into a park-like setting, with a swimming pool similar to the one on Harbor Boulevard in
Anaheime
~i
Mre Monroey in response to Commission questioning, stated thet the Harbox Boulevard facility
would be closed, and this would be a relocation of that facility,
No one appe~red in opposition to subject petitionso ~
~'.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ ._
Commissioner Mun9a11 offered Resolution No, PC68-8 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi-
fication No. 67~~68-45 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
A~S~ COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMA9ISSIONERS: Faranoe
Commissioner Herbst offered Resoluti.on No. PC68-9 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to 9rant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 993,
subj~ct to conditionse (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: CONIMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp,
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee
ABSENT: ~MMISSIONERS: Farano.
~
I
`t+? I
r~v.i•'~.~ .
ti~';; ~ ', :
j -:, ;. ,
~; ;;r:; :. ;
TT ~'...:M1'31nTTl.
}
~fI ~ i.~~ i ~. .h~_. 9Ia ~
,
~ v
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 3, 1968
~~
3720
f ~~
~
OONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARINGe Ae Ae SHAMALEY, 310 Rim Road9 E1 Paso, Texas, Owner;
PERMIT NOe 990 DON LEE REALTY9 1008 Sout.h Anaheim Boulevard9.Anaheim, Califoznia,
Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH AN AUTOMATIC CARWASH WITH
INCIDENTAL GASOLINE SALES on property described as: A rectangularly
shaped parcel of land located at the southeast corner of Anaheim Boulevaid and Lorraine
Drive, and having frontages of approximately 80 feet on Anaheim Boulevard and approximately
143 feet on Lorraine Drive. Property presently classified C~1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONEo
Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed subject petition, the location of the property,
and the uses established in close proximity, noting that the petitioner was proposing an
automatic carwash structure with two entry drives from Anaheim Boulevard and one from
Lorraine Drive, and an additional outlet to the alley easterlyo Furthermore, the peti-
t:loner had indicated the proposed type of carwash was new to the area since the owner of
the car could drive his car into the operation and remain in the car while it was being
washed, and that the staff had visited a similar operation in Tustin, and one of the
objections they seemed to have was the fact there was an excessive amount of noise from
the dryer; however, the petitioner indicated they would not install the dryer on sub~ect
propertyo
Mre Lee Webb, representing the agent for the petitioner and the owner who lived out of
state, together with the proposed lessee of the automatic carwash, noted subject property
was zoned C-1; that the owner had been attempting to find a proper commercial use for
subject property for the past ten years; that subject property was one of 30 unimproved
parcels on Anaheim Bou7.evard between La Palma Avenue and Ball Road; that the carwash pro-
posed was different than other types in existence in the city in that it provided a service
which the city did not have at the present time; that the proposed service wpuld be a type
of service which most persons could afford, rather than that offered by many other carwashes
which had vexy expensive equipment and numerous employees, said facili~ties raising the price
of a car wash far beyond the average person's ability to pay; that the proposed development
would be a completely enclosed, smail building and would be noiseless because it was not
planned to have blowers for drying purposes, and the only noise which might be heard would
be the water pressure needed; that the use~ would be compatible because of the many auto-
mobile dealers and gar3ges in this area; that there might be opposition :rom the residents
to the east •- however, tney have also complained about an office building now being con-
structed to the south of sub~ect property; that the proposed development would be more
successful than the existing carwashes because of the minimum amount of overhead; and that
the blowers used in other installations have not pzoven satisfactory - therefore they would
not be a part of this operationo
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thomps~n inquired of the agent for the petitioner whether or not
he was a~tare of the additional street dedication required, as indicated in Finding No, 9;
whereupon Mro Webb stated they were aware of this condition~
Mre Woodrow Norton, 505 Monterey Lane, San Clemente, owner of property at 955 South Claudina
Street, appeared tefore the Commis~ion in opposition and stated the proposed operation would
be contrary to the established uses in the neighborhood, and that subject property should be
developed with some type of commerciai office building or neighborhood commercial stores;
that the operation would be too noisy and would be harmful to the residences to the east,
even though the agent stated the blowers would not be installed; and, furthermore, if this
were to remain open all night, it would be detrimental to the peace and health of the
neighborhood.
Mrs.G. S. McCulloch, 961 South Claudina Street, appeared in opposition and stated that her
home w3s directly across the street from subject property; that she was not desirous of
having a heavy commerr,ial type of facility which would be detrimental to the residential
environment to the east; and inquired as to wt~ether or not this facility would be open 24
hours a dayo
Mre Webb stated he could see no reason why the Commission could not requ~re certain hours
of operation by requiring the facility to be closed from midnight to 6:00 A,Me
Mrse McCulloch further noted she was in opposition because this might depreciate the value
of her propertye
Mr. Murray Weisberg, operator of "Angel Car Wash", 558 South Anaheim Boulevard, appeared
before the Commission in opposition and related 'the problems carwash operators had in the
City of Anaheim, noting that the proE~os~d use would be insufficient in area and would be
unsuccessful due to the overabundance of this type of facility.
Chairman Camp noted for Mro Weisberg that the Commission was not considering the economics
of the success or failure of the proposed type of operation at this hearing, but was con-
cerned with the compatibility to the area and whether or not it was a pxoper land use for
subject property.
_ ~_~
" - _ `ti
. , ~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CI7Y PLANNING CpNV,QISSION, January 3, 1968 3721
CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. Weisberg then noted that because of the change in.off-ramp traffic
PERMIT NOe 990 ._, fsom South.Anaheim Boulevard the subject of economics was brought up;
(Continaed) however, he also felt the use was not desirable at this small location
adjacent to a local street, as well as residences abutting to the easte
Mr. Webb, in rebuttal, noted the failures of other carwash operations had no bearing on
::hether or not the property could be used as proposed, an~ that the property was a~arcel
on which very few commercial uses could be placed because of its size and location, siding
onto a short, residential streete
Commissioner Farano entered the Council Chamber at 4:07 P,Me
The Commission inquired of Mr, Webb the length of time it would take to wash a car, and
where would these cars be parked while being hand dryed since this was a basic problem in
trying to keep cars from being parked on public thoroughfares, thereby creating a paxking
problem and also blocking the flow of traffico
Mr. Thompson not.ed the staff had •recommended certain changes in the plans originally
presented, anca th±s had been remediedo
The Commission further inquired whether there was adequate parking if the customer desired
additional services, and how many cars would be parked there when the gas pumps were in
operation, since the petiti~ner indicated there would be one attendant for both operation
of the pumps and chamoising off the carso
Mr. Webb noted that the operation of washing tt~e car to:!c only two minutes, and there would
be very little backup of cars in the street io create a traffic problem, Furthermore, the
pumping of gas was only incidental and probably would not be utilized as much as personal
attention to automobiles.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED~
The Commission noted the gas pumps might be just an incidental service to the main use •-
however, there would be a problem as to how many cars required both gassing and special
services; that the petitioner was proposing a rather heavy use at the intersection of a+;
major artQrtal and local street, and there was also little difference between the propos'ed
use and a service station if the carwash were not successful-since the pumps were already
installed„ there was not much to be done before this could become a full~fledged service.
stationy and, furthermore, since Anahe3m Boulevard was not a fvlly improved width of a'
major arterial, a traffic problem could be created Af there was a backup of cars attempt-
ing to g~in entrance to the carwasho
Mr> Norton advised the Commission he would not be in o ~'~';~
open at nighto pposition if the carwash were not ~~
~:
i,i
Commissiooer Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-10 and moved for i.ts passage and adoption, ~,i
seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 990 on the
basis that the proposed use would have an adverse effect on the adjoining land uses; that
a traffic problem would result in cars backing up on Anaheim Boulevard which is not, and
probably will not be, widened io meet the traffic volume for the street; and that the
hea~y commercial use ro osed wou h
P ld ave traf
P fic f
lowing onto a residential street which i i;~;
would be incompatible. (See Resolution Book) ~: :I;
, ,:.
On roll call the foregoing resoluticn was passed by the following vote: ;~
' %
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland. i,,
NOES: ~M4(IgSIOi~ERS: Campe
ABSENI': COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ ~,
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. ~"!;,
Commissioner Camp,in his denial, stated sub~ect property was the only undeveloped parceT` i''
between Lorraine Drive and Clifton Avenue along Anaheim Boulevard which had G1 Zoning, f'~,
and he had not seen any demonstrated opposition ti~at would make the proposed use incompatible ~ i
IEMPORARY RECESS_ - Cha i r m an C amp move d for a ten-minute recess. Commissioner ~
Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting
recessed at 4:17 PeMe
~~N~~ - Chairman Camp reconvened the meeting et 4:30 P.M., all
Commissioners being present. ,
.t 1 't ~ ~ Cd 7y ~ 1 , ~ ~.~~. ~ * '~yt.~i~j 1 ~i'~A, 4 ~~-0 ,. rY •'te~ _~ PS.2~~~~L~~~ ~i4.~ ~+'=t°~ '~ 1 `m" l: f~ y'~"~ ~~. ~~ k
~" ~ ! ,~ 1 tti ~~ r
" " v
`.:9;~~'~~Y.-;yx " 41 ._ t .../,~ K~.
{ r i~
u.~ . . . _, ~...L_.._. _ _.
.__
_
_. _- -
_____ __
:;rr
~ ~~ ~~ '.
MINUIES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 39 1968 ''
3~22
CONDITIONAL USE - I~UBLIC HEARINGa Jo W, AND OLA MAE RUSSELL, 905 North Emily Street
PERMIT N0
989
n
,
;
A
aheim, California, C~wners; req_uesting permission to ESTABLISH A
GUEST HOME FOR ELDERLY PERSONS on property described as: A rectangularly
shaped
arcel
f l ';,:5
p
o
and located at the northwest corner of Emily Street
and Mills_Drive, and having approximate frontages of 135 fe
t `:
e
on Emily Street and 55 feet
on Mills•Drive, and further described as 905 North Emily Streete Propert
re
tl
~
`
y p
sen
y classi
fied R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
ZONE ~~
,
e ,;,
"Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed sub3ect petition, the location of the
Property,
the Report to the Commission
a
d r~
~;~;
,
n
uses est~blished in close
proximity, ,
~W
Mre James Russell, the petitioner9 appeared before the Gommission and stated they were
licensed by the Stat
f C
i ;xx
e o
al
fornia to operate the existing facility, and they presently
had five persons residing there; however9 it was their intent t
i
o
ncrease this to six persons
Mre Russell requested clarification as to the requirement for street lights since street
lights were already in exist
th `~'
ence
ere, and the home had been built some time ago.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised Mre Russell that although street lights may have
been there, whenever a zonin
t
g reques
was processed before thp Commission,ff said street
lights had not been paid by the property ownex
thi
h
y
s was t
en required of them.
The Commission inquired as to whether or not subject p~operty could have a greater capacity
than six persons; whereupon Mr
Ru
ll
o
sse
replied it was not their intent since there were (
too many regulations of the Fire Department to meet
such a
a
l
b
,
s
n e
a
orate sprinkling system ~
which would be considerably more than they could afford - therefore
they were just
i
`
i y
=
± m
,
ma
n-
ta
ning six personso +
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono i
~
TY~E HEARTNG WAS CLOSEDo
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution Noe PC68-11 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner MungalZ
t
t P
~
,
o gran
etition for Conditional Use Permit No. 989,
subject to conditionso (See Resolution Book) '
~~~
, -"~
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: CONVdISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Geuer, Herbst, Mung311, Rowland, Campo I
NOESo' COM~IISSIONERS Nonee
ABSENT: GOMMISSIONERS: Nonee
~NDITIONAL USE - PIBLIC F~ARING. CpRL RAU, 923 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California,
PERMIT NO_ 991 Owner; Re A, BpKER' 3233 Miraloma Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent;
• requesting permission to S1'OCKPILE TOPSOIL ANA STORAGE OF EQUIPMENT
NECESSARY ~OR LOADING AND HAULING OF THE 'IDPSOIL on property described
as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 220 feet on
the north side ~f Miraloma Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 1,140 feet, the
westerly boundary of sub,ject property being approximately 1,330 feet east af the centerline
o~ Kraemer Boulevard (formerly Dowling Avenue), and further described as 3233 Miraloma
Avenuee Property presentiy classified R~A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONEo
Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed sub3ect petition, the location of the property,
the uses established in close proximity, and noted that although sub3ect property had R-A
zoning, it also had a resolution of intent to M-la Furthermore, the petitioner had indicated
that all 90 acres in close proximity were being used for agricultural purposes even though
the M-1 Zone was pending, and it was not his intention to request reclassification since he
still wanted to use the home on tne property as his residence, and that if the Commission
deemed this an appropriate use for subject property, that a time limitation should be estab-
lished so that eventual development of tY;s property would be in conformance with the estab-
_ lished M-1 usese
Mro R, A, Baker, agent and operator of the stockpiling operation, appeared before the Cor,mission
and noted that he had been using,this .location for a two-year period, but because of the
inc~rease in taxes which were considerabZy higher than the agricultural use of the prope:ty,
he would eventually have to look for an alternate place for the existing use; that he was
limited in the amount of work he could do, due to failing health; that no dust should affect
the developed Autonetics property to the south because of the prevailing winds blowing
northeasterly; that they had installed sprinklers to wet down the topsoil so that it would
not blow away; and that he was requesting use of sub~ect property until such time as he
could sell it and relocate in a less strategic areae '
a
~
r`~-rJj~aTMX•~,~tNf;g' ~q~ '^.~h~ ;,ra .rt~ ;:.,tva'2' S~ 4 ~~{r'~ / i t,~ ~-_.__~_, t ~~. ~, .~r GC'f'.
~ 1_ l
~ ~~ ~ ____ ___ .. ;
MINUTES, ~ITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 3, 1968
3723
CONDITIONAL USE - htro Baker, in response to Comrc,ission questioning, stated it was his
PERMIT N0. 991 intent to remove several of the trucks on the property, only retaining
(Continued) two trucks for hauling purposes since his health did not
operation, Furthermore, the Orange County Flood Control District torger i
the north and east of his property had 50,000 yardc of topsoil being
stored, and all he was asking for was permission to store 1,000 yardso
t: ~;
,' Mr. Mike Hartunian, 101 West Estrada Drive, Fullerton, California, appeared before the
Commission in opposition and stated he owned the property to the west as an investment;
that he was presently leasing his property for agricultural purposes, and the return from
this rental covered approximately one-third of the taxes, which had greatly increased in the
,~ ~: last few years; and that the tenant farmer had advised him there was considerable dust,
~ as well as weed seed, being spread from the stockpiling and it was affecting the straw!:,erry
i;~~ farme
.~ ~~ ~Y~~,$
"'`~~ Mr. Jerry Davis9 representing North American, Autonetics Division a
Commission in o 9, pqeared befpre the
;, pposition and stated several of their new buiidin s re uired com lete dust-
free air; that the landscaping treatment of their facilities had received top honors in
;';? attr3ctiveness in the United States for industrial complexes; that they had a difficult
=;;, time trying to keep the normal dust from entering these special structures; that they had
"_' one million dollars invested in these two buildings, and they were experiencing difficulty
~ in keeping these buildings completely dust free during the dry weather when the strawberry
`:'+ plants were being planted; that the guidance control system which they manufactured for
"~ 80~; of the total amount needed for defense systems in the United States was being manu-
'`~' factured in these buildings - therefore, it was urgent all the money being spent for
l;'~ defense purposes be utilized in the best possible surroundings, and the stockpiling of
'-;^~ topsoil which blew dust did not help their probleme
`~,~
"'`" The Commission inquired of Mr, Davis as to what steps were taken when the Santa Ana winds
5~~u~ were blowing; whereupon Mr, Davis stated this was a constant battle, even feathers were
;~j caught in their ventilating systems, but he felt the stockpiling of topsoil would add to
"'• the problem they had in maintaining a dust-free atmosphere in the buildings mentioned.
~X~
{._'°.~i The Commission further inqui~red of Mr, Davis whether maintenance of the stockpiling by
wetting down and keeping zt at a maximum amount designated by the Commission would be of
~ some help;,whereupon Mro Davis stated it would depend upon dry conditions next summer and
` the direction of the windo
' t~...Ec./ t
;~ Mro'~, in rebuttal, stated there was more dirt blowing from the sand pit which was closer I
°;7~ to the buildings Mr,Davis mentioned than this property, and this sand pit would eventua2ly
~;~~ belong to the City of Anaheima ~
,,;x;
~~ Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the
~ property was under the
U~, jurisdiction of the Orange County Flood Control District~
3 ~~'
'•~ Mre S.au noted subject property was west of the Autonetics buildings discussed, and to his
-~ knowledge there had never been any dust blowing easterly to create a problem; however, he
y:~~ would make every effort to eliminate any possibility of dust since his son was an asthmatic
"~ patient and dust was one of his main irritants.
'~ THE NEpRING WAS CLOSEDe
~`3~
The Commission noted that prevailing winds would not blow the dirt in the direction of the
buildings of Autonetics, and if this topsoil were constantly wetted down, no dust would ariseo
Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution Noo PC68-12 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noe 991 for a
period of one year, with any requests for an extension of the use to be considered at a new
public hearing; that a maximum of 1,000 yards of topsoil could be stockpiled at any one time; ~
that the petitioner had stipulated to a maximum of seven vehicles, including trucks and mix- I ,
ing and loading machines, on the property; and that all top soil must be wetted down in order
to control the dust which may be generated by the stockpilinge (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: Nonee
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
,g .;. -
f
r
tij'
;;;,
z'
':~i :.
2[5~g7i~,*Y'~'.c~t^'~' ~'~"rTiX"~~~`;k~,~ "^~~Tv+i `.r ~ 'fii"~'~+, ~"`":'~~`~c~~ ~ ,: '¢w~'Tx ~;-,+.a^ ~~ . ~ .;;i' 1 r .,~ ` v~ a ~, e ~ , .
"~ ' r
-'-- ~;~
~ ~ ~i
~ ~ s
MINUI'ES, CITY PLANNIA'G ODMMISSION, January 3, 1968 "
3724
VARIANCE_NOe 1936 - PUBLIC HEARINGe WILLIAM CRAMER, 2332 Canal Street, Orange, California,
Owner; requesting WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED ACCESS on property described
as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land containing approximately 4 acres
and having a frontage of approximately 15 feet on the south side of Peralta Hills Drive and
a maximum depth of ap~roximately 1,060 feet, sub~ect property being located approximately
600 feet southeast of the intersection of Cerro Vista Drive and Peralta Hills Drivee Property
presently classified R-E, RESIDENTIAL ESTAI'E, ZONE.
Associate~Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property and the requested
waiver, together with the Report to the Commission, noting that if sub~ect petition were
approved, this might set the pattern for development within the Peralta Hills area.
Mr, William Cramer, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated it was his
desire at the present time to ad3ust the lot lines of his father's and his property - however,
when he requested that the parcel map be drawn, it was suggested that his lar.ge lot could now
be subdivi~ed for future development; that the proposed location of his home would be on one
of the few level areas of the parcel, and at the same time would have a good view o~ the area;
that it was ur9ent consideration be given to his request 6ince his present home was i.n escrow,
pending building of the property in the Peralta Hills; and, furthermore, he presently was
desirous of only building his home and revisi~g the lot line between his and his father's
property, but there was no intent for some time to develop the balance of the property, and
at the time of that development, a better access to these parcels might be more feasible.
The Commission noted they were not opposed to construction of the home the petitioner planned,
but they were concerned improper access to the property would make it difficult to provide the '
normal city services, such as trash pick-up and fire and police protectione
Mre Cramer then noted the three different homes that were presently using the existing access
drive and noted he h~ad been attempting to negotiate another access drive for some time.but
had been unsuccessfule
The Commission further noted that the property to the east was under consideration for sub-
divisiondevelopment; whereupon the petitioner noted the trees were being removed, so he was
aware the property might develop - however, he did not think he could get an alternate
access through that tract since they would have to provide a street along his east property
].inea
The petitioner, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the addition of a street
along the easterly property line would not affect his proposed site plan, and that the home
he planned would be approximate3.y 100 feet from the easterly boundary of sub3ect propertyo
Assistant Development Services Director Robert Mickelson noted for the Commission that they
might have an additional consideration, namely, allowing the rel.ocation of the lot lines for
the petitioner and his father's property, and if any future subdivision of the larger parcel
were considered, then an alternate access might be required for these lots.
Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the possibility of approving the parcel
map, but limiting development of the parcel which the petitioner might sell to provide better
access; that the petitioner could not provide the required 20-foot access road as approved
under the Hill and Canyon General Plan since a large ravine existed to both sides of the
existing roadwaye
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson noted that even if the petitionvuere approved for a parcel
map for two lots, consideration would have to be given to granting a variance from the
requirement of a structure being located within 400 feet of a dedicated street and street ~
standards, and if a fire such as was recently experienced in the Hill and Canyon area entered ~
this area, the water pressure was such that if fire plugs arid fire equipment did enter the
area, the five-pound pressure would be insufficient to take care of the fire, even if the
equipment were able to traverse the unimproved or improved drives.
The petitioner noted that the ranchers used to cultivate their lands to ke;~ down the weeds
which would feed these fires; however, since much of these properties have been purchased
for subdivision development, the weeds had been allowed to grow, creating many fire hazards.
Mr. Thompson further noted that if subject petition were approved, the waiver to permit
construction of a home would also require a finding and condition that if additional sub-
division development of the property were considered in the future, the parcel map providing
for this subdivision would have to be in accordance with the Peralta Hills street etandards,
providing adequate access for these properties.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitione
THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo
~ S , ~r ,~ ,:Y
~ ~l ~ c~
,.~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMN-ISSION, January 3, 1968
4s
~
372~
, i';I VARIANCE NO.. 1936 - Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission thcat if
(Continued) subject petition were approved, granting the variance from Se~ction
` 18.18.030(4) would cover adequately any unforeseen street pr,~blems.
~
~ Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noe PC68-13 and moved for its passage and adoption,
~~ seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Variance Noe 193G, +_~ g?rmit conW
~ struction of a home as shown on the existin
~~~ if the two existing lots were to be further9subdi'videdfinethetfutureCiaynew parcelmmaphat
w, should be filed to insure that any new lot split would be in compliance with all
e ` of Chapter 18.18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code; and that due to the existing topographicons
~ 1 problems existing on sub~ect property, and the fact that the petitioner stipulated to the
t ~`$ subdivision into two lots, there would be such a slight variance to the existing property
; lines that granting of this variance is deemed proper. (See Resolution Book)
~~
a'~~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
~~
,
~. AYES: COhWIISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COAMQISSIONERS: Nonee
~` ' ABSENT: CONpu1ISSI0NERS: None.
CANDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC E~ARINGe JOIaN WRIGHI, 1620 South Euclid Street, Anaheim,
PERMIT NOe 992 California, Owner; VERNON DAVIS, 11933 Beach Boulevazd, Stanton,
California, Agent; xequesting permission to ESTABLISH AN .ADULT ONLY
land having a frontageAofEapproximatelyp650YfeetconbtheaeastAsidetof9Euclid Street andcal of
maximum depth of approximately 1,270 feet' the northerly boundary of sub3ect property being
approximately 112 feet south of the centerline of Cris Avenue, and further described as
1620 South Euclid 5treete Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NEa
Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed subject petition, the location of the property,
uses established in clos~ proximity, and previous zoning action on subject property, together
with the Report to the Commissione
Commissioner Rowland left the Council Chamber at 5:20 P,Me
7he Commission Secretary read a letter from the Southern California Edison Company opposing
any development within the 1?5-foot easement on Mre Wright's property for transmission line
purposese
Mre fiarry Knisely9 attorney for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated
he had had a discussion witr.:"~r, L3cy, District Representative of 5oythern California Edi=on
Company, several times in the past few daysy and Mr. Lacy had indicated they were not in
opposition with the proposed development or the recreation area; however, they would have
to receive permission from the main office regarding the recreation facilities proposed for
the Edison easement, as well as the right-of-way street which would be within the easement,
and after this was a21 resolved, then the development plans would be revised to reflect these
changeso
Mre Knisely further noted that the connotation of a mobile home park in the minds of many
people was similar to that of the old trailer park; that he had investigated the most recent
mobile home park application proposed for the east side of town, and after having checked
the file, the proposed development had many differences than that petition, namely, a better
Iayout, adequate guest parking, and considerable landscaping; that he had met with the staff
and told them the developer of the mobile home park would submit plans that would meet the
requirements of the trailer park ordinance and provide.adequate protection for the R-1 homes
to the north and east, and that the recreation area and drive were oriented awa;. from the
R-1 - this,together with the fact that a masonry wall constructed at any height the Commission '
might deem adequate and fully grown landscaping, would provide for the protection to these
R-l homes; that if lowering the grade of subject property were deemed necessary, this would
be done; and, furthermore, during the past sixty days legislation had been passed which would
permit removal of the wheels of trailers, permitting them to be placed on blocks - this, to-
gether with the lower grade and the type of landscaping proposed, would completely hide from
view the fact that subject'property was being developed for a mobile home park.
Mr, Knisely also noted that there was also a difference in the type of land uses established
in the proposed park, to that on the east side of town, namely, that the street had a high
traffic count; that subject property had a 175-foot power transmission easement and a rail-
road spur to the south of it, which isolated it from residential uses to the south; and
that commercial and multiple-family uses had been established in close proximity along the
Euclid Street frontage - therefore, subject property was deemed not suitable for single-
family residential subdivision developmento
,-~ .'+
F z; ~ ~: ~,,~ ,
, ;
-~ ~
::~.: ~: ~ ---- - - ---- ----.
:,.:
~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 39 1968 3726
CONDITIONAL USE - The population density was also compared by Mre Knisely, noting that
PERMIT NOo 992 the proposed development would cater to adults only, which would mean
(Continued) a maximum of ~wo persons per trailer9 whereas single-family homes
would have up to four persons per home - thus making the population
density considerably less than that of single-£amily residential
, development.
Mro John Wright9 the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated he recognized
the single-family homeowners' concern regarding the proposed development; however, he wished
to pres2nt his problem to the Commission and hoped consideration would be given to that also
since subject property had the lower 175 feet devoted to the Southern California Edison
transmission easement, and a railro~d track adjacent to sub,ject property; that since the
previous pro3ect for a tr3iler park had been denied by the City, the railroad had an
increase in traffic due to the expansion of induetrial uses in the Cities of Cypress,
Garden Grove, and Stanton; that heavy trucks were reouired to stop at the railroad crossing
all hours oi' Lhe night9 which meant a shifting of gears and creating a considerab~e amount
of noise; trat the Planning Commission in 1958 had approved a mobile home paxk for subject
property - however, before the matter was considereci by the City Councii, the mayor had
asked him to withdraw his petition, but did not give him any reason, and in the meantime
his property was tied up, and that later he had been informed his property had been con-
sidered for the Loara High School site, which did not materialize; that there were a number
of people in the area who had contacted him stating they were in favor af the proposed
development since it would not in3ect any children into the schools or park facilities -
however9 he had not canvassed the neighborhood to obtain signatures of approval since he
was not desirous of creating disha:mony between the property owners; that a narcotics
problem existed in the area due to persons gaining access to the grove which he owned;
that he had attempted to develop a quality-type mobile home park, considering the residen-
tial environment of the area; that many of the trailers that would use these facilities
were valued at approxirnately the same price as the homes in this area, and with the legisla-
tion to remove the wheels from the trailers, this would bring the height of the trailers to
be approximately that of a homey and people would never know there were trailers on the
property because, in addition to the masonry wally heavy landscaping would be planted to
isolate this facilityo
Mre John Rothman, 1630 Cris Avenue, appeared before the Commission and requested that those ~, ;;
in opposition present in the CounciZ Chamber indicate their oppositione A showing of hands
indicated approximately 37 persons present in the Council Chamber in oppositiono ;
Mro Rothman the~ stated he had a petition signed by 291 persons, all residing in the ;
surrounding single-family tractsy opposing the trailer park - noting that a previous request i
for a trailer n~rk had been disapproved by both the Planning Commission and City Council,
and then reviewed the findings of the Comm:ssion in denying said petition; that the Planning !
Commission had based their denial on the results of an extensive planning study referred to
as Area Development Plan Noe 54 (Planning Study Noe 54-50-2)9 which indicated subject property'
and the property to the south of the railroad tracks was of low density, single-family resi-
dential character since the existing land use and development i:rends in the area indicated
this pattern, and subjeat and adjoining properties should be developed at a density of 5.8
dwelling units per net acre to insure compatibility; that he urged the Commission to require
any development of sub~ect property to be the same density as that already established in
the areay namely, approximately 5 dwelling units to a net residential acre9 while the pro-
posed development pro~ected 10~4 trailers per net acre since no land use change had taken
place to warrant consideration of a heavier density; furthermore, any consideration of a
narcotics problem in the grove on subject property should be referred to ~he Police Department
and should not be considered a land use probleme
Mrs Knisely, in rebuttal, stated the opposition had indicated no land use change had taken
place; however, this was not so - that the proposed uevelopment was not similar to that
formerly considered by the Commission and City Council; that he would not disagree with
the fact the plan presented did not meet staff's requirements9 and he would cooperate in
every way to provide anything the Commission might desire, since the only point of argument
was whether or not this was a proper land usee
Mre Knisely further noted that the proposed density would be 7 to an acre, and the homes he
lived in were 5 to an acre, but the proposed trailer park would have less persons, since
this would be an adult only park with no children being present, and the average R-1 devel-
opment had a minimum of two children plus two adults per lote
Cortunissioner Farano inquired of Mre Knisely what means he would be using to assure the
Planning Commission,the property owners opposing the mobile home, and the City of Anaheim
all applicants for their mobile home park would be screened, permitting adults only; that
he was not opposed to mobile homes, as suchy if they were properly screened, but one of
the major concerns of the Commission was the quality of the park and how the park was
maintained since this was a portion of considexatiqn under land use which the Commission
~~ :
~s.A `~4,3 ~ t ;t. ~ 'r 1 ~~"~' ~ i ~"~. ~y e~~, i~~~i.~`.' ~N~.,TxR,~'+~i'~f'f'~;<'"~i0'~'+FC~~?'~v''~,
t, dK
y}~S. ~ IF•. t f } 4 Y ~ -0'3- 1 (_' ~
LYJ'_'~~ ~ e } _ 0' ~_ ' \
., ~ R ` ` ~
~ ~~ 3727
CITY PLADiNING COMMISSION, 3anuary 39 1968
MINUTES,
CONDITZONAL USE - should discuss and give couaii~TaTesident6 whoCmaintainedttheirbmobile
PERMIT NOe 992 hoRe parks did have high-q but mobile home parks did have some trashy
(Continued) homes in an acceptable manner,
type.s of people, and there was nothing more undesirable i.han a trashy
mobile home park; therefore, he felt some woxthwhile guarantee should
be made to maintain the high integrity of the area it was proposed to be established ine
Mr, Knisely then stated this could be a condition of granting tinterestingnsinceeatethe ~
and one of the statements made by Commissioner Farano wae very
time the Riviera Mobile Homewith variousepersonsnregarding~their~involvementewith mobile
Palm Springs for consuiting
hom~ parks and had been informed by the City Manager of Palm Springs that mobile ome
resid9mts were the most desirable of any residents who had come to that mobileshome parks
had no •pplice problem, and they attracted some of the best people;
15 years ago were considered trailer parks9 with a different qualiand somesofethe homese
trailers - however9 the present mobile homes were very expensive,
in this axea would not cost as much as the tri tlthe°pTOposed developmentiwould provide
p; type o£ living had grown during the yearsy
daily trash pick-up and cleaning of the area; that no transienis would be permitted to
bring their mobile homes to this park; and that statistics ~ad proven residents of mobile
home parks resided longer in their mobile homes than single-family homeownerse
Commissioner Farano indicated U~ the o~eratorsrofdthe~facilities99since a 5096 higher Who
resided in the mobile homes, b p ark than th3t permitted in the R-1 Zone which
density wae PTOPaaea enthtohs bjecteproperty=
was immediately 3
~
I
i
Commissioner Farano then dixected a question to Deputy City Attorney Furman Rober s I
requesting how the petitioner co~ild guarantehimselfW~wouldehaveatolenforcemthelrulemlimitk~
whereupon Mro Roberts stated the landowner, ~
ing tha ages and types of persons for the facility since this could not come under the
jurisdiction of the City ~ therefore, it could not be made a condition or as part of approval`
of subject petitione 4
Considerable discussion was then held by the Commission relative to the proposal of guaran-
teeing this would be an adult only mobile home park; the fact tha~hehC mmission1anddCity
Company had requested certain conditionro ertypratiwhichetime aydetailed plar.ning study
Council for a simil3r use for subject p p for Iow density residential
had been prepared by the staff which pro3ected subject property
development; that consideration should be given to updating the plannin9 study and area
development plan to incorporate the latest in~hat~if~theeCommission~deemsithecpropertye any
decision as to the use for subject propertyi ment there was a possibility consideration
inadequate for low density residential develop ~
might be given to the R-2-5000a single-famil.y home - although the General Plan indicated
this general area for Low density residential development, not for low-medium density resi-
dential developmente
M~r, Paul Allen, 1672 West Cris Avenue, appeared before the Commission and reviewed some of
the comments made by the petitioner and his attorney relative to the reasons why sub3ect
property was no longer desirable or suitable for single-family re~uidential uses, and e
the noises from four trains a day and oas txucks going up and down
could see no reason why
Euclid Street should bea~comiarisonaofethe pricerofsmobile homestto9the homesrinethe area,~
the area; furthermoin~the vicini.ty of $30,000 to $40,b00, seemed illogical because he could
which were selling 000 to $40,000 trailer would care to be aubjected
'~'' not understand why persons owning a$30,
~`c. to noises from trucks and trainse
w:
~.;
r;~_ Commissioner Gauer noted that trailers Wthe ori inaldinvestmentmof au$22,OOOatrailer~would
and depreciated by the year; therefore, 9
~i greatly depreciate while a home was taxed oh land and home and usually ihcreased in valuee
p4F,~
~~n°~;3 Commissioner Herbst then expressed the desire to explore further the possibility of devel-
~"~~'T' oping subject property with single-family residential sa~d~hessailroad trackstshouldrnot m
~ss; relative to noises from the trains and trucks stopping
~~~ be considered a hardship since the train raand~allithese singlenfamily h mesrweressubjected
~^'~'"' family homes easterly of subject property,
~~ to the same so-called hardship~
; NIr, Wright, in response to Commission questioning, stated he had purchased the property
~ ' that when
"`R~ after the eaeement had been granted to the Southern California Edison Company;
~``~^:~-1 the sin9le-family subdivision had been built there had been indicatlons the railroad would
be abandoned - however, this had not occurred, and during World War IIy this had served as
'=~, a military highway to March Field; that if subject petition were not approved, the only
° --- ~ s-a :~
~
~« '~'.,
; ' ~ ~ :,a ~jet „~ r~ Y '~:- it y .s° ~ Ta'~y ~ `.~_ _ ~.
'
t
SZ ,~, ~ ~~
~
fa1
~ ' ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
~
~
t _
`
'
~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 3
1968 ,
,
, 3728
~..
~ CONDITIONAL USE
PERMII' N0. 992 - thing he could suggest for subject property would be multiple-family
develo
ment
that h
h
~
,
(Continued) p
;
e
ad lived in
nat desirous of pulling u
ro
t
~ this area for a long time and was
h
,
~. p
o
s
the peace and quiet they formerly owever, he did not feel they had
had when the
o
i
i ~
r ,.,,- the property. y
g
r
nally purchased ,
Mre Allen again appeared before the Commission and stated that as a property owner whose
property backed up to the proposed court, he could visualize approximately 358 cars running
up and down behind his fence, and he felt there were insufficient parking spaces for the
guests who would visit the trailer park, and that the traffic along the exit from this park
would be similar to that along any local street, which would be highly detrimental to the
residential environment of the single-family homes abutting sub~ect propertye Furthermore,
many homes were now being constructed along Brookhurst Street which were backing up to a
highly traveled residential street, and the homes were being sold at the rate of $35,000
which did not seem to be a deterring factore
~ Mre Wright then advised the Commission he had been informed by persons well versed in the
~ happenings in the City of Anaheim that these single-family homes would no longer be in this
~~. '~ area within the next ten years since Disne land's
~ ' Y growth was pro3ecting the area for other
i::;:';~; uses, and that the developer has indicated this was only an interim use until the character
~':
'``~ " of the area had changede
` Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to continue Petition for Conditional Use Permit No.
t '~ 992 to the meeting of January 29, 1968, scheduling it as the second item on the agenda, in
` ~ order to allow time for the Southern California Edison Company and the petitioner.to resolve
~~'„ ,ti;, their problems relative to use of the easement for recreational and street purposes, and
y, ' for the staff to i:omplete updating Area Development Plan Noe 54 (Planning Study 54-50-2),
~ as well as for the staff to present overlays indicating how subject and adjoining properties
~ ,i' could be developed for single-family residential purposes. Commissioaer Farano seconded the
~;: : ;,a motione MOTION CARRIED.
REPORI'S AND - ITEM N0, 1
RECOMMENDATIONS Reclassification Noe 67-68-35 - City Council initiated
petition from R-A to C-1 - Property on the south side
of 5outh Street, west of State College Boulevard -
Request for earlier consider~tion of petition at
public hearinga
Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed a letter from the agent for the petitioner,
Ann Madison, requesting scheduling of Reclassification Noe 67-68-35 for earlier considera-
tion than February 26, 7.968a
Z~::ing Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission if this were considered favorably,
an additional charge of $50 would have to be paid to cover the expenses for readvertisement
and renotifying all property owners in this area.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to advise the agent for the petitioner of Reclassi-
fication No. 67-68-35 that subject petition would be rescheduled for the January 29, 1968
meeting, provided that a fee of $50 be paid prior to January 15, 1968, to cover the cost
of readvertising and renotification of the change in date; however, if said filing fee was
not received by that date, consideration would still be for the February 26, 1968 meetingo
Commissioner Allred seconded the motione MOTION CARRIEDo
ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Herw;~
offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Allred
seconded the motione MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 6:20 P.M.
Aespectfully submitted,
- i~~/ `"`--~vJ
ANN KREBS, Secretary
Anaheim City Planning Commission
~ 9'i . ... . "' ' ' I ! , ~ ~ ,. - 1t4iV
,.4 . ~ ~
~ ,y
}' _
_~
1
rt?af.~ ~~ F{ i~fN~, ~r'i ~t^ r ... f i'~ s:-~ f i ~ t~-.
A~ {.f.r vh 1 ~t ~ ~~ ~ t
~
+ ~~
~~ ~~
~
~ ~
R, i
i.
t
~
x
`
d t f
~T,~~.
i
~
j~~ ~"{
V.t ~{
~
' ~
,
1
y
M
'
.
~
,f
e ~~. 3~~ ~ 4'~ a~ ' # . \ t - '
9.
~L
~
~
T f t j
'~
-,`
3
,
t. xi;~
r
f J v 1 ;
'
t
~ '` i,
r : 'r +
~ 1
~
"
, ~ i' r. ~,: ~: . ~~, '
~ ~ i
a
~:C ~ ~ ~ _. ..
~ , ~ ' ~
~ ii~
~ 1 . ..
{ 1~ i
) ~
~ t
1 1 1 _
~
~ 5 i ... . 'F
j .
~ y.
~ ~
i ; -
~.
: . , .; '
~ r
,
~ .
, ., ;
x
r f
~ t - ;i
;'4 7 ~- ~ i . ..
4
3
?,
3 i "Y
.
" r2 ^~ " .
r . '
y
~, ~ l ~ ~ ~' ~. .~}
~
S ! '. . ~
'. :'
f ~ i .
J ~ `'.` . ;.', ~ .
~
y
ti u o ~ ' ~++~ ~ .
:~ ~~ '
~
a
~
. ~
:. R . -
i 'aCi ,
r ~~ i _ i.
},
~ :'
r
<t ~
'y
*
,.. .4
..
i
5 ~
~ <
Y
~
4': `
k ~ 3
t - '
._ .~~,., ,.:,. ... . ,
h_
L
~_ ::: .,'._. , ' : . ,.". ' . .. ,, . . _ .. .
~ ~ .,....• ,. . ... .
.
.1'~~.: . . :. . ..; .,'.' . "'.. . _.. ..~.~. . , .. ' . . .. .
1 7
~ .
V
~
t
)
t /
} ,
1 ~:
~
~,
~ . . ._J:~ .
~ ~ ~
.
:
.... . .. ~.~..
~. . , . .,.,.;' . :~-.'r°' :.5 S ~. :~:~'. ~.:.„"
+ J.-~ . .~ . . . . . ~: ~..~
_ _ 7••'' ~T -.:~;,;,- ,._.., ~.~.,._
. . ~ ~ ,