Minutes-PC 1968/05/06~ f 1 ~ , ~ ...
i;. . City Hall
Anaheim, California
May 6, 1968
A REGULAR AM1EETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called
to order by Chairman Camp at 2:00 o'clock P.M., a quorum bein9 present.
PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Camp.
- COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer (who entered the Council Chamber at
2:26 P.M.), Herbst, Mun9a1~, Rowland.
ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Rowland (evening session only).
PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Robert Mickelson
Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompscn
Deputy Cit;• Attorney: Frank Lowry
Office Fn,Yneer: Arthur Daw
Associate Planner: Charles Roberts
Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs
INVOCATION - Reverend H. F. Steif, Pastor, Grace Lutheran Church, gave the
invocation.,
PLEDGE OF
, ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Herbst led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
APPROVAL OF' - Minutes for the meeting of April 8, 19e8, were approved with the
THE MINUTES following corrections, on motion by Commissioner Herbst, seconded
by Commissioner Allred, and MOTION CARRIED:
Page 3840, paragraph 3, line 7 should read, "of a multiple-family....";
Page 3846, paragraph 2, line 2 should read, "the Peralta Hills with
sewer facilities...."; and
Page 3858, paragraph 6, line 3 should read, "lots in the tract, since
R-A....".
Minutes for the meeting of April 22, 1968, were approved as submitted
on motion by Commissioner Herbst, seconded by Commissioner Mungall,
and MOTION CARRIED.
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. CLIFFORD C. BOTTENfIELD, 732 North East
N0. 67-68-54 Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; A. E. SANDORF, 13224 Newport
Avenue, Tustin, California, Agent; property described as: A
VARIANCE N0. 1954 rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approxi-
mately 75 feet on the east side of East Street and a maximum depth
of approximately 271 feet, the southerly boundary of said parcel
being approximately 245 feet north of the centerline of Wilhelmina Street, and further
described as 732 North East Street. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: TO CONSTRUCT SIX TWO-STORY APARTMENT UNITS, WITH WAIVERS
OF (1) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT WITH=N 150 FEET OF
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES AND (2) REQUIRED MASONRY WALL.
Subject petitions were continued frcm the meetings of March 11 and 25, 1968, in order
that additional parcels in the area could be advertised for R-3 zoning, and in order
that various departments in the City might give additional consideration to vehicular
circulation and access problems in the area, and for action on an overall reclassifica-
tion of properties along East Street.
Associate Planner Charles Roberts advised the Commission that the petitioner had
requested an additional four weeks' time in order to revise plans to more nearly
conform wi:•,h the R-3 Zone standards.
3888
, ,.: :.: ; .. ~
jk .~'.Y'S' .. ~,.2 ~b '1F `A''`. ti ~y L: % ~r 1 r ; L i,v ~ i ~ i.' t I . . rr c ~ .: ~di ; :
~ ~ ~ ~
MINUIES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 6, 1968 3889 I
RECLASSIfICATION - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to continue consideration of
~NO. 67-68-54 Reclassification No. 67-68-54 and Variance No. 1954 to the meeting j
of June 3, 1968, in order to allow the petitioner time to submit !
VARIANCE N0. 1954 revised plans which more closely coincide with the R-3 Zone i
(Continued) standards. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION ;
CARRIED. '
i
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. PALMER AND BLANCFiE SANDENO, ET AL,
N0. 67-68-.73 9902 East Orange Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; FREDRICKS
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 524 West Commonwealth Avenue, Fullerton,
~ VARIANCE N0. 1970 California, Agent; requesting that property described as: Approxi- ,
mately three acres of land comprised of three parcels - ParcelNo. 1:
~ A rectangularly shaped parcel of approximately 112 feet by 265 feet,
the northerly boundary beiny approximately 325 feet south of the centerline of Orange
Avenue and the easterly boundary being approximately 400 feet west of the centeriine of
Brookhurst Street; and Parcel Nos. 2 and 3: An irregularly shaped parcel having a
frontage of approximately 322 feet on the south side of Orange Avenue and a maximum
depth of approximately 330 feet, the easterly boundary being approximately 400 feet
west of the centerline of Brookhurst Street. Property presently classified C-1,
GENcRAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE (PARCEL N0. 1) and COUNTY R-4-6000 AND PD-4000 DISTRICTS
! (PARCEL NOS. 2 AND 3).
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE
(PARCEL NO5. 1, 2, AND 3).
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACKS,
(2) LOCATION ~F ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, (3) MINIMUM
DISTANCE BEIYJEEN BUILDINGS, AND (4) MAXIMUM DISTANCE
OF A LIVING UNIT FROM A STANDARD STREET, TO PER.NIT A
73-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX.
Subject petitions were coatinued from the meeting of April 22, 1968, to allow time
for the petitioner and his agent to consult with the Fire Chief and then to submit
revised plans if necessary.
Associate Planner Charles Roberts advised Lhe Commission that the agent for the peti-
tioner had submitted a letter requesting an additional two weeks' time to complete
revised plans.
Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to con~inue Petitions for Reclassification
No. 67-68-73 and Variance ~io. 1970 to the meeting of May 20, 1968, as requested by
the petitioner. Commissioner Ra~w2and seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
VARIANCE N0. 1972 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ~MPIRE SHVINGS 8 LOAN ASSOCIATION,
6750 Van Nuys Boulevard, Van Nuys, California, Owner; property
TENTATIVE MAP OF described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of approximately
TRACT N0. 6509 9.7 acres of land having a fror,~;age of approximately 657 feet
on the east side of Aladdin Street and a maximum depth of approxi-
mately 642 feet, the northerly boundary of said parcel being
approximately 615 feet south of the centerline of Crescent Avenue and the westerly
boundary being approximately 1,350 feet east of the centerline of Brookhurst Street.
Property presently classified R-3, MUL'fIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF MINIh1UM LOT WIDTH TO PERMIT A SUBDIVISION COMPRISED
OF 36 R-3~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONED LOTS.
TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: PERMIT THE SUBDIVISIGiJ OF SUBJECT PROPERTY INTO
36 R-3 ZONED LOTS.
Subject petition and tract were continued from the meeting of April 22, 1968, to allow
the petitioner time to submit a revised tract map.
Associate Planner Charles Roberts advised the Commission that the agent for the peti-
tioner had submitted a request for an additional six weeks in order to complete revised
plans.
Commissioner Hertst offered a motion to continue Petition for Variance No. 1972 and
Tentative Map of iract No. 6509 to the meeting of June 17, 1968, in order to allow
the petitioner time to complete revised plans. Commissioner Allred seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
PZ
~ R
~
~~
4'.
~:: _;
i.
~
`~~"
'~`,^' ti ~, -
~~ m Au~{: 'r~./~ ,,~'y't [!xt*YY~S'i~'!'`~"„3 °P~{~`N r tn'y,:, ~~"p Y x .~~. ry .~ `~ ~ v~ 1 5 t' i~."
~ ~~ F r~
i
-
~
~
____
~ ~ ~ a.
~~~
~~ ~~ ai
{ )
V
' i ~
MINUI
ES, CIIY PLANNING COMM~ISSION, May 6, 1968 3890
~
VARIANCE N0. 1976 - PUBLIC HEARING. BARRY AND SANDRA REYNOLDS, 613 South Agat;e ::treet ~
,
Anaheim, Californi.a, Owner:,E requestin9 WAIVER OF MINIMUM RE(~UIRED `~
SIDE YARD SETFlACK, TQ ESTABLISH AN E:CISTING ROOM ADDITION AS A
CONFORMING USE ~'~
on proper•ty described as: An irregulsirly shaped parcel of land located
at the northwest ccraer of Agate :Street and R
d ~ ,:a
, an
om Drive, having approximate frontages
of 87 feet on tine west ~iue o{ Agate Street and 63 feet
o
th
• ~
~'
.
n
e r~nx
th side of Random
Drive, and further described as 613 South Ao,ate Street, Prog~r~y presently classifi
d j '
e
R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESILENTIAL, ?.ONE. I :;,;,~
~ssociate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, the uses
established in cl ~
~--:: :
ose proximity, and the ria~or: for the proposed request, noting t~~at
the petitioners were attempting to consummat
-~'a
r~`~,
"~~ e a sale of th~ pr.inerty; however,; they
had bean informed that in oxder to dbtain financin
o
tP~• !'
~
' g
n
, propesty~ aIl structures
must comply with City zoning regulations, and that the recreaticn
o `~
'; s
om was_added without
benefit of a buildin
icienci
p
r
e
h
e
f
l
es
which would have to be
brough+. up
to
standard
if
subject p=}~tion
were
aqproved
-
~ Mr. Roberts noted that anoti~er poiM: ta cor.sider was the fact i!~,at .a w~~ll site owned
by the Cit
wa
?
t
, y
s
oca
ed to tt~e norih, immediately adja,:ent to tt,~ nnnconforming recrea-
tion room, and said site was r
ot
build
bl ~
~ ,
~
a
e site - the.r°iore, if i:~e water well were
ever abandoned, :i: would seem :o;,:cal to assume the owners of subjECt
t ~
proper
y would
have the first onportunity to acquire the property, ~;~d if this were so, there would
b ±
~
e no problems as far as yard requiremerts ~,~are coi~cerne^I. ~
I
•~
F~ Mr. Barry Reyuolds, one of the petitioners, app~ared before the Commission and noted
they had purchased the ~
~~
~ property four years ago, and it t~,s:9 not occurred to them to
consider checking a building permit relative to the addition; however
i
d ;
' ,
n or
er to
consummate the sale of the home for a VA or FHA loan, a ~
pprova, cf the va
i j
r
ance was
needed. +
.;i i
In response to ques~ioni:~g, Mr. Reynolds stated that the cabana and rumpus room w~re
constructea when they purchased the home
and if
h ~ `~
~;:j ,
t
ey were required to remove the fivt~
feet from the pie-shaped rumpus room, this would destro
the e
ti ~
'
~~ y
n
re use of the room. f
~
` No o:~e appeared in opposition to subject petftion. `
;
~
~
~ ~
~
~4 ~
'
~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
~
i
h~ I i
_
x;~~
i Commissioner Herbst left the Council Chamber at 2:15 P.M.
, ,',4;~
'~
'~ ~dr. Vic Newtor., d representative of `he Buildin De art~ent ir r?
ion
questior
ing
nt~ted that
r
P
~
'~~ .
,
ev~:n though the one-hou
fire wa.l~. wauid be
requiredC
there
would be acequate ventilatinn and light becaus
ti
'n` e
~ere were many windows in the raarea-
tion room.
~
Commission2r Herbst returned to the Council Chamber at 2:1' P,M. '.
,j;;,
;''J' Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC68-118 and moved for its passage ar,d
ado
tion
d
d b
, p
, secon
e
y Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Valiance No. 1976,
subject to conditions
d
k an
a finding that ~Fe parcel to the north immedi.ately a~ijacent
to the room addition was a City ow;ied well site
d if
=~~a
,:;~n , an
the well ever wEre aband~ned,
it would seem logical to assume that t!~e owner of subjF~ct property would ha
th
fi
r;:~i~:
~s' ~~ ve
e
rst
opportunity to acquire the property. ~S@E Resolution. Book)
.~
,,'. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passec~ by the foll~~•ring vot.e:
'~'
'I AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Mungall, Rowland, Car +.
- NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. "
ii'I ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer.
;;:,,.y
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst.
r,~
r
,
,,
,
~ CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. WESTERN L. CORPOP.HTION, 315 South Broadway
PERMIT ~
~ ,
N0. 1023 Los Angeles, California, Owner; LET1'Y WID~BURG, 620 West La Palra
;.
;:~;"
"
*' Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permissio:~ to fiAVE
•'r
'P ON-SALE BEER AND WINE IN AN EXISTING JELICATESSEN on ~ert
described as: An irregularly shaped
arcel of l
~
Pr~~ y
;y p
and bein
a
y part of the shopping center
located at the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Citron Street
said
l h
~;: ,
parce
aving
a frontage of approximately 60 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue and
i
*J a max
mum
depth of approximately 260 feet, the westerly boundary of said parcel being approximately
:190 f
t
t
ee
eas
of the centerline of Citron Street, and further described as 620 West
La Pa2.ma Avenue. Propert
res
tl
l
i
y p
en
y c
ass
fied C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
. '
~
isti~ %~1 •
---~+e~'~°'~ ~., r,,.-^ ,~ , " ~,~ ~ , ~ ~~,':
. .,., . ~. , . , . .i -~/~
sr'w ~;y:'~ 7n :;~ ~ :.1^, c Ft : ~ ~~ ,;
1 1 .: ,,
, _ ~:
~
r r ~ y w,fi}
~
~
F~ MTNUTES; LII'Y PLANNING COMMISSION
May 6
196f3
N ,
,
3891
~~
r .
fOt~"ZT]'ONAL USE - i,~sociate i~lanner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject
~
:
J
, ~
,~;,M~
. 1023 property, thE proposed request, and the uses ertablished in close
=~~`"
~~~'' ~w:n;inued) proximity, noting that meals would be serv~ed in conjunction with
'E'~~
~ the delicatessen, and the requ=st for the serving of beer and wine
with these meals was proposed: .
~
: `~ It was azso noted th~re would be no bar, and the proposed fa;,•ility did qualify as an
,.y~
1 enclosed restaurant~ furthermora, the Commis>,ion might wish to require that a f:nding
~
%"
~' be made that the sale of beer and wine was incidentaJ_ to the serving of food.in
•er
,;;k~~;.
•
~
` .
to recludE the
P possits.ility, at some future date, of a future tes~ant converting .
-
;:
:
~. .
use into a beer bar. "
3~
`~~ ' sr
~
,;
~. Mrs. Letty.Wideburg, agent for th= ~e~:it:i~ner a"~?ar
, N~,.. _ed ~efore the Commission and
~~F ~
.
Y stat~d the prcNOSed reyuest was i rr5~nns~ to customers who hr;d as~cd to have beer
~ ~ or wine served when they ate ~paghet~i at tht delicatessen, and `_he~:e would be no ha*
~ since she was unfamiliar with the op~ration cf a bar.
'~
~' No :,ne ax~peared ir. opposition to sut~ :ct petitior..
f:`i :
.
i: '
~: THE HEARI:yG WAS CLGSED.
=~'
k~, ~'~ ~- ~ .
' Commissior.er Rowland ofrered kesolutian No. PC68-119 and maved for its passage and
k; adoption, seconded by Commissioner A11red, to grent Petitio~i for Conditional Use Permit
~ No. 1023, i;ubject to condiFions, and the added cor~dition that ihe sale of beer and wine
,
;~;. should be considered incidental to the serving of food. (See R~solution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was pass2d iy the follcwing •;ote;
•' s
:
~ AYES: COAIMISSIONERS~ Allred, Herb-:t, Munyall, Rowla~~9, Camp.
;;:
, ~ NOES: ~C;:w1ISSI0NERS: None.
~;.,;`; ,
~~ ABSENT: CCMMiSSIONERS: Farano, Gauer,
," CONDITIONAL '~SE - PUBLIC HEARIA::i. A. N. AND MARIE SKINNER, 16721 Ba.rtlett Lane, No. 1,
jr~; PERMIT N0. 10^5 Huntingtor. Beach, California, Owners; ORANGE COUNTY LIFT TRuC7i. COMPANY,
~~i
i„ 235 Eas+. Ball Road, Anaheim, California, A9;,~nt; requesting permission
" to ESTABLISH OUTDOOR ST.7R,4CrE AND RENTAI, OF LARGE EQUIPMENT, VIITH
= WAIVERS OF (1) MIiJIMUAS REQUIREn BUILC.P:G SETBACK, (Q) MIPJIPnt4H ftEQUIRED LANDSCAPItJG, AND
;~ (3) REQUIf".ED ENCLOSURE OF AN OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA on property described as: An ;.rregu-
-;~ larly shaped parcel of Zand ;:a•ving s fruntage of approximately 15J feet on the north
side of Ball Road and a maximum depth of approximately 296 feet, the westerly boundary
~"s~ of said parcel being appxoximotely 3~0 feet east of the center~ine ~f Claudina Place,
~~~ and further described as ~35 Easi: Ball Foad. Pro ert
'1 INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. P y Presently classified M-1, LIGHT
^~
;i Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed tne ~ocation of subject ~roperty, the uses
, established in close proximity, and the proposed reque~st to contir.ue to operate a
?:~; heavy equipment rental; sr;ies ar,6 service cperation with the equipment being displayed
, in the fror.t setback arez.
Mr. Roberts noted that since the building setbacks and landscaping requixements were
added to the Ni-i Zone in order to enhance the appear:~nce of the industria!, uses, it
wou.ld .seem appropxiate that all industrial uses located ~vithin the City sheuld conform
to tnese standards; the.refore, the Planning Commission might wish to discuss with the
petitioner the possibility of providing the required iandscape area adjacent to the
Ball Raa~ fron+.age and permit ti~a display of the rentai equipment to the rear ef the
?andscape a~ea since zt least 17 feet would still be available between the building
and the landscaping.
Mr. Walter Hamilton, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the
Commission, noting that subject petition was applied for with the intention of allowing
the display of their trucks in order t~ advertise their sale and rental.
~~
:'~
;a
~ ~;~
I
f
; ~
1
Mr. Hamilton, in response to Commission questioning, stated that there .would be no
problern in meeting the landscaping requirement - however, it was their feeling that
by installing the i0-foot landscape strip, this would seriously hamper the maneuver-
ability of the heavy equipment in the area because of the fact that the canooy was ~
in the front of the buildir.g, and the equipment was comparable in size to an automobile,
and to turn and meve them would be difficult. '
Cummissioner Herbst inquired of the agent for the petit:i.uner whether he felt it was
necessary for them to display their equipment in 1;he setback while ot.hers were not
' ~ r ~sT' r :f' . ~' y,. •',~.!.'~.(EFI
Jt ^ h ~ ) r ,~ ~ ~ 1 ~ . .w . ~' .y ~ '~ ~1w '~~
1 . Y . ' ' . ' ~' J,.~„W~i
fr .:1 i ~' ~~J ~..
_. . ~,.~... . . ., .. 1r~ _~. ,r .~~.v. . , - . . ~ . w , . . . . . ~ . .. _ . . .. . .
,
if '
} . . . . ~ . . . .
.. . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ,
MINUI'ES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 6, 1968 -'3892
CONDITIONAL USE - permitted to display theirs; tivhereupon Mr. Hamilton said he felt
PERMIT N0. 1025 they were not doing anything out of the ordinary in the proposed
(Continued) request.
Commissioner Gauer entered the Council Chamber at 2:26 P.M.
Commissioner Herbst then noted that if subject petition were granted to permit encroach-
ment into the setback area, this might set an undesirable precedent for similar encroach-
ments of other industriel businesses in the area.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the staff was of the
~ a~ opinion that if the petition were approved, a 10-foot landscape area in the front
fi~~~ setback should be required, and this still would leave adequate display area, together
; with providing two to four on-site parking spaces off the driveway.
~J
Mr. Rito Madrid, owner of Anthony Draperies and Interiors, 301 East Ball Road, appeared
before the Commission in opposition and stated that if denial of subject petition would
cause the agent for the petitioner to lose business, he would withdraw his opposition -
however, he felt the request for display of the lift trucks in the front setback was
harmful to his business; that he had a$175,000 business, with a considerable amount
of carpeting which he would also like to display; that they had spent considerable money
improving the area and many trucks refused to make deliveries because of the difficulty
of gainin,y access to the rear portion of suUject property where the storage facility for
the r~ags was located, and that the situation was due to the fact that the petitioner's
customers were parking their cars in the driveway, thereby blocking any truck traffic to
the rea*; and that the display of these lift trucks made it impossible to have any front
setback parking. Furthermore, the adjoining business had advised him they also planned
to improve their facility because of the improvement he had made, and this improvement
wouid enhance the entire area. Also, many people used the driveway to turn around when
they had lost their way to Disneyland.
Mr. Richard Bush, owner of Richard's Upholstering and Manufacturing Company, appeared ~':~
before the Commission in opposition, stating that he was opposed to the display of the Afi
~
vehicles in the front setback area, and that he intended to spend considerable money y
in improving the front area of his building; that people making an attempt to locate ~y~
his'building were unable to do so because of his buildin9 being set back a con~iderable '~ w:~
distance from Ball Road; and that he had a number of customers who had indicated they `~~
. were unable to locate his place of business because of the cluttered appearance along F',."t~
the Ball Roa9 frontag= - therefore, he was opposed to display of these large trucks in j, ~;1
the rront yard setback. , ,
. f
. ,35K
,.
Two letters of opposition, one from John B. Kilroy Company, representing a number of ~'!
i~.dustrial developments in the area,and one from the owner of the property to the west !
of subject p~operty, were read to the Commission.
7HE HEARING W;S I.LOSED. i
+'r':
b!r. Thompson, in res~onse to Commission questioning, stated that many of the commercial
businesses had been ~:stabiished in the area at the time they were allowed in the M-1
Zone.
Commissioner HerCst offered Resolution No. PC68-120 and moved for its passage and adoption, i;
seccnded by Commissioner Allred, to deny Petition for Conditional Use ?ermit No. 1025 on ,`•
tt;e basis that it would set an undesirable precedent for encroachment into the front
se•tback area of the industrial zone and would be granting the petitioner. a privilege not t;
enjoyed by other businesses in the area. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
;,.:;:;
~YES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. `~"~~:
AR~FNT; COMMISSIONERS: Farano.
ABS7'AIN: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer.
.
.
Commissir~ner Gauer stated that although he was abstaining from voting because he had not
considered all of the evidence submitted, he was unalterabiy opposed to any encroach-
ment into the front
setb
ack area, and had consistently voted for the maintenance and
the integrity of the M-1 Zone.
_, , - -
,. _, . ,, r
.
.;. _. . ;:
, , ~. . ~ ,.: ~~-: ,~ .~.
~
, ,. ;:~ _ , .... _
''~~ ~*',?~~~~#•~"~ ,!+d'nr 5 ~ ~~' ~ ~i ~'Jririfi~ ~'~ -~,x ~ ,= E5+"+?x^r; v .-'~..' t s .~ `rT.'!,'r "~~;X' ~:%
d
~ • W ~
MINUIE$, CITY PLANt:ING COMMISSION, May G, 1968 3893
VARIACJCE N0. 1975 - PUBLIC HEARING. GODFREY L. GOGERTY, 243 South Walnut Street,
Newport Beach, California, Owner; RONNIE H. FRECK, 1314 North
Lemon Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission
to EXPAND AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING USE, TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW AUTOMOBILE
SHOWROOM on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a
frontage of approximately 156 feet on the east side of Anaheim Bo~levard and a maximum
depth of approximately 109 feet, the northerly boundary of said parcel being approxi-
mately 238 feet south of the centerline of Water Street, and fu~ther described as
626 South Anaheim Boulevard. Property presently classified C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL,
ZONE.
y~~,.~-~ Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, the uses
~:4~,.,.,,~~
i~`°,'i established in close proximity, and the proposed request, noting that the C-2 Zone did
#., ,;,, not permit, by right, the es~ablishment of the existing nonconforming use; that the
petitioner had indicated subject prop^rty had been used for twenty years as an auto-
mobile sales facility and was permitted in the zone prior to rewriting the C-2 Zone;
that he was proposing an additional showroom of 2000 square feet along the northerly
~ i portion of the property, which would be used as an automobile display area and several
~; r; sales offices; that the mast appropriate way to handle the proposed request was to
~°:.: ~: rezone the property to C-3 and establish the most appropriate zoning on the property,
]-, - and then any future expansions could be handled through the issuance of a building permit
~~ without the necessity of any zoning action - however, the petitioner had indicated that
~
, due to trte timing involved, he preferred to use the variance procedure rather than
o,:. •
,~; ._;;= reclassification of the property.
~ Y
fi' Mr. Roberts further noted that the Circulation Element of the General Plan designated
c
t` Anaheim Boulevard as a primary arterial highway exception, and all buiidings were re-
FF r; quired to have a minimum setback of 40 feet from the centerline of the street - however,
jH~ the lans submitt=d b the
p y petitioner indicated the building would be set back 41 feet,
~9 ;,~~ 7 inches from the centerline of the street, and a 2~-foot overhan9 would encroach into
~,~ ='~ this 40-f~ot se*back. Furthermore, improvement of subject property wouTd enhance the
~~'"_~+.~~'+~ street which had been turned into an "automobile row" durin the ast few eazs.
~c~;~ ;!.'r::.~ 9 P Y
Mr. Godfrey C3ogerty, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that the
existing sheNroom was built in 1938 and was an old service station used by the Chrysler-
~~lercury agency; that they planned to remove the structure and co~struct a new sales
showroom; and that the overhang as projected would be revised so that the building and
overhang would be a minimum of 40 feet from the centerline of the street.
Zoning„Supervisor Ronald Thompson inquired as to whether or not any opposition would
be made to requiring the 3-foot landscape se+.back along the Anaheim Boulevard frontage.
I~ir. Vince Mellozzo appeared before the Commission and stated they had considered the
]andscaping; however, they could not plant landscaping which would be three feet high
because this would hide from view the sma17 foreign cars they sold, and suggested that
perhaps the Commission could approve the use of four redwood-type planters in the front
of the showroom in lieu of ihe three feet of landscaping required.
Mr. Thompson noted for the petitioner that if he had observed the various automobile
agencies along South Anaheim Bou?.evard, a similar landscape treatment could be proposed
and developed along this property - not necessarily three feet high, as proposed in the
Report to the Commission.
Mr. Mellozzo then stated they did have grass in the front of the used car display area,
and it was intended to have other landscaping - however, no definite plans had been
formalized as yet.
Mr. Vernon Wright, 619 South Claudina Street, appeared before the Commission and noted
that he was not in opposition to the proposed use, but requested that a masonry wall
be required along the alley to the rear of subject property.
Mr. Thompson noted that severaT years ago the T~evelopment Services staff and other City
officials had visited the area im:nediately adjacent to Mr. lNright's property to observe
the operation of a body shop across the alley and inquired whether or not Mr. Wright
was.still having problems. _
Mr. Wright stated that the problem was not as intense as it formerly was since the noise was
not concentrated there, but it was his desire to Yiave a masonry wall as well as a new
ouilding.
'~
5~
~
I
~
~ `,i
~ `t~
i
~ ;:~
;' ;,:~a
~ ?''r,
I '"s
~
~i~?."~>~"'beE "'r'.",i~' fl~~~SP1~( av, ^5- ~F~~'{+! ,=ca fi Y~ "~` 'w, re., v ;~.y $ j -..,.~, .,~„f'Y T,~,':~
' *' . .' .. ':.. ~ ' .~~ ~ '' _ " . .
. :~.,. ~ , ~ '. . ~.
`~ J `j'~
..-.., . ... . ... . . . .. ' . ,-. .~. .. ,. . .. ~ -:. -,'~kS
. ~ ~. ~ ~. .. . ~ ~ __~__-__ ..~ ........._ . ~ .. ~ : :;".;
r~,~~~ ~ ~.r~ `~
MINU'LES, CI7Y PLpNNING COMMISSION, May 6, 1968 3894
VARIANCE N0. 1975 - Chairman Camp inquired of Mr. Wright his particular reason for
(Continued) requiring the wall; whereupon Mr. Wright stated that due to the
fact that many cars were parked there, some of which should be in
~, a jynk yard, the erection of a wall would hide some uf the unsightli-
'?':' ness from the property to the east.
In rebuttal, Mr. Gogerty stated that the problems relative to noi.ses had occurred prior
to his owning the property, and any undue noise would be taken care of with the erection
of a new building. Furthermore, the older cars would be removed from subject property
as soon as possible - however, he felt the erection of a six-foot masonry wall should be
on Mr. Wright's property and not on subject property.
~
'"'';~~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
rr~3-, ; The Commission noted that the rear of th~ building could act as a concrete wall -
` ; although it would not extend across the whole property line adjacent to the alley.
~
k ~ Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC68-121 and moved for its passage and
~ adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1575,
'~'~', ;~ subject to conditions, and the a~quirement that the equzvalent of three feet of land-
scaping in square footage, normally required for the front setback, should be accom-
modated in some manner on the site, as well as the 2% required in the parking area,
~' and that this landscaping should be administered by the staff. However, it was not
~ necessary to have the three feet of landsca~ing across the front of the property.
; (See Resolution Book)
i~ :'
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vcte:
, AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
~; ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
; ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. WILLIAM AND MARGARET SANGSTER and LONNIE AND
PERMIT N0. 1024 MARY DUNN, 2019 South Ritchey Street, Santa Ana, California,
Owners; requestis~g permission to CONSTRUCI' A IVJO-STORY, 34-UNIT
MOTEL on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel
of land having a frontage of approximately 100 feet on the east side of State G~~llege
Boulevard and a maximum depth of approximatel;~ 254 feet, the northerly boundary of said
parcel being approximately 285 feet south of , e centerline of Orangewood Avenue.
Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUS,RIAL, ZONE.
Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property and uses
established in close proximity, noting that the proposed development for a two-story,
3~-unit motel included kitchen facilities for 32 of the units; that although the M-1
Zone permitted service businesses to serve c~mmerce and ir,dustry, consideration should
be given to the _`act that the proposed motel with its indivi~ual kitchen facilities
might be viewed as an efficiency apartment complex rather than intended to serve
commerce and industry.
Mr. Charles Schlund, representing D~nn Development Enterprises, appeared before the
Commission to answer questions and noted that it was proposed this iacility be a motel;
however, in the winter months when the motel businese was slar,k, these facilities could
be used as efficiency apartments, and they were proposing to develop them similarly to
the Water Wheel and ~1 Coco Palms facilities.
Mr. Julius Tuckler, representing the Orange Drive-In, appeared before the Comrtiission
and stated they were not in opposition to motels as such; however, pratection must be
afforded the Orange Drive-In theater from the intensity of lights and signs usec! to
attract the trade, since this would be detrimental to the operation of the thea,`.er
due to the fact that intense lights blotted out the picture, and that he was opposed
to any request for signs which were freeway oriented because they would present a
similar prnblem - intensity of lighting - and it was not their desire to have any
more lighting problems than they already had with the stadium now washing out the
picture.
Zonzng Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised Mr. Tuckler that one of ttie recommended
conditions of approval was that all exterior lighting shall be directed downward and
away from abutting property lines and that all signing shall be in accordance with the
Iv1-1 Zone, which would permit a 100-square foot sign in the 50-foot setback area, and
up to a 200-square foot sign if set behind the setback area. Furthermore, the M-1 Zone
did not permit a roof sign.
•;f
t :i~
~.
'a
n~ft~w ~'?~~s h ~Ffe"'~~,m.~ dh;3}~j 'a' ~'r~..t'7'ss" f:~' ;
1 _
;1.:;.: :
,
~..~.
I
_ C~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLpNNING COMMISSION, May 6, 1968
3895
CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. Schlund then advised the Commission that the rear of the
PERMIT N0. 1024 groposed structure would be f~cing the drive-in theater - therefore,
(Continued) no lighting problem would be involved.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst noted that a point he would like to bring before the Commission's
attention was the fact that a motel in an industrial area must be capable of servicing
the industrial area, and in his estimation, the salesmen who would be utilizing the
motel facilities would have no need for kitchen facilities - therefore, these kitchen
facilities should be reduced or completely eliminated.
~'~; Mr. Heibst further noted that since tha petitioner was aware the motel was to se. re
§,
~' the industrial area, in the future no consideration should be given io a claim of hard-
~: " ship because signing tor the property was not freeway oriented. Therefore, no considera-
~.' tion of any future reqaests should ba considered favorably by the Commission.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resol~tion No. PC68-122 a~d :noved for its passage and i
adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, te grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit
No. 1024, subject to a reduction of the kitchen facilities to 10% of the number of units,
and conditions, together with the fact that any signing shall be in accordance with the ~
M-1 requirements, and that in the future no claim of hardship should be honored, due to
the fact that the proposed development was not signed with freeway orientation. (See
Resolutfon Boo!~). •
On roll call the fore9oing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: CUMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowlznd, Camp.
NJES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. ,
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to direct the staff to make a stud~~ to determine
whether an amendment should be made to the Anaheim Municipal Ccde relative to the number
of motel units which should be permitted to have kitchen ur.~ts, and to present the study
to the Commission for fu:ther consideration at public hearing. Commissioner Herbst
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. WEST ANAHEIM CHURCH OF THe NAZARENE, 511 South
N0. 67-68-74 Loara Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; J. W. MC MICHAEL,
469-A West Valencia Drive, Fullerton, California, Agent;.property
T~NTATIVE MAP OF described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of approximately 1.47
TRACT N0. 6615 acres of land havin9 a frontage of approximately 166 feet on the
west side of Loara Street ~;~~ a maximum depth of approximately 365
feet, the northerly bounda~y ~f said parcel being approximately
1,125 feet south of the centerline of Broadway and the westerly boundary being approxi-
mately 145 feet east of the centerline of Arden Street. Property presently classified
R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY, ZONE.
TENTATINE TRACT REQUEST: SUBDIVIDE SUBJECI' PROPERTY INTO 9 R-2-5000 ZONED LOTS.
Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, the uses
established in close proximity, and the proposed request, noting that the General Plan
indicated a general area in this vicinity for medium density southerly of Broadway
between Euclid Street and Loara Street; that the R-2-5000 Zone was permitted in the
low-medium and medium density designations on rhe General Plan, and the Commission must
determine that the symbology on the General Plan included this area, o_ that the scope
of the,proposed reclassification, if approved, does not warrant a General Plan amendment.
Furthermore, in September, 1967, the City Council approved a request for R-2-5000 zoning
on a 3.25-acre parcel approximately 300 feet west of subject property, and even though
the R-2-5000 approval was immediately preceded by approval of an R-2 proposal on the property,
the R-2 proposal was withdrawn following approval of the R-2-5000, and it was noted that
the scope of the proposed reclassification was not sufficient to require a General Plan
amendment.
Mr. Calvin Queyrel, representing the engineer for the proposed tract, appeared before
the Commission, noting that the proposed development would be similar to that which was
being developed to the west of subject property,,and this was the last lot which was
not developed except for the frontage along Euclid Street. Furthermore, the average
.~ .t.R 4~ ~ ',~? ~,"'ti
` . - - _.._ ;'~:j
V I
; i; . ~'.
~_ x~r' .,~y ~,u,n ~, j . {r ~'a~ x~ r fR,.~~~'~ ~ ~t4z._k J~
Y"4P• i' ~y xT" ~~ }~. ~~t Y.r~i d.ny ~M
f } P S i h ~~ r f ~ ~ ~
Y" S. I ~
_ J ~` aP ~ t et . '~ .:~ ~~ ~ '~~
7 r,^ ~~ „t ~c
r ~
~ I ~~'
~_~,
. . . . . . . - ' . .^il
~ ~ ~ ~ w
MINUIES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 6, 1968 . 3896 ~
. .. . . .
.:
4~i
.
RECLASSIFICATION - lot size of the proposed tract was 5600 square fezt, and ~he,lots .
~~
N0. 67-68-74 ranged in size from 5300 square feet to 6000 square feet, and the ~
homes built on the lots would range in price from $25,000 to $26,000. .
TENTATIVE MAP OF `!:i;:;
TRACT N0. 6615 No one appeared in opposition to subject petition and tract. `:~~
(Continued)
~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
~
~ ,; ~
r
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC68-123 and moved for its passage and adoption, J~
seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to qrant Petition for Reclassification No. 67-68-74, '~~`
subject to conditions, and the firrz~.?r,3 tha•i the density was suitable for the area, and 'i:i"?
no General Plan amendment was necesyRary. (See Resolution Book) ,_.,,,
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONEP,S: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano.
Cortunissioner Gauer offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 6615, subject
to the following conditions:
1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 6615 is granted subj+~ct to
the approval of Reclassification No. 67-68-74.
2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each
subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval.
Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Commissioner Camp left the Council Chamber at 3:10 P.M. Commissioner Allred assumed
the chair.
RECLASSIfICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. CALIFORNIA FEDERAL BAVINGS 8 LOAN ASSOCIATION,
N0. 67-68-79 - 5670 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, Owner;
COVINGTON BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, 2451 East Orangethorpe
VARIANCE N0. 1973 Avenue, Fullerton, California, Agent; property described as: A
, rectan9ularly shaped parcel of approximately 5.95 acres of land
. having a frontage of approximately 475 feet on the north side of
Lincoln Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 547 feet, the easterly boundary of
said parcel being approximately 865 feet west of the centerline of Magnolia Avenue.
, Property presently classified G1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIutNTIAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED 'iARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM FLOOR AREA OF UWELLING UNITS~
(2) MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK, (3) MINIMUM DISTANCE
BETWEEN BUILDINGS~ (4) MINIMUM NUMBER AND TYPE OF
REQUIRED PARKING SPACES, AND (5) IYlAX3MUM DISTANCE
., BE'IWEEN REQUIRED PARKING AND A LTiYING UNIT~ TO
. ESTABLISH A 192-UNIT APARTMENT COMPI:EX.
Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, the uses
established in close proximity, and the proposed request and waivers, noting that there
were several ma3or points for consideration by the Commissio m namely, that the General
Plan designated this area for low-medium density residential development.which permitted
up to a maximum of 18 dwelling units per net residential acre, whereas the two northern-
most parcels of subject property were proposed for a density of 32~ dwelling units per
net residential acre, and the two parcels fronting on Lincoln Avenue at a density ef
approximately 55~ dwelling units per net residentiai acre; that the petitioner was
requesting waiver of the long-standing City Council policy of a 35-foot setback along
~ Lincoln Avenue, and if this wai~er were granted, it would probably be necessary to either
amend the sEtback requirement or consider approving additional variancP requests to waive
this requirement; thaf the petitioner was proposing a waiver ol the minimum floor area of
: 700.square feet to permit development of bachelor units of approximately. 420 square fee*,
and~.thg City was receiv~ng an ever increasing number of requests for the smaller type,
single or bechelor apartments which might indicate there would be a demand for this type
of dH•elling unit - however, zoning regulations within the City of Anaheim have not taken
thi~ into consideration - therefore .if the Planning Commission and City Council determine
there were a place and need for a smaller type unit, that consideration should be given
to amending the zoning code to handle these requests as conditional uses within the zone
~~;? ~,'$'" ~.1+73 :sr3'" f~''..~i` ~K~ `P"~jy~J'~~" 7~i ~ ~.,, r ~; r:. M ~ ,,~ ..:
x ~~
r~ ~
~'.~ . , ' ' ~ ~~
'";"~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 6, 1968
~~
3897
RECLASSIF.ICATION - in which it was proposed; that with the req~ests for bachelor-type
N0. 67-68~79 units, the waiver of the minimum required number of parking spaces
would also have to be considered, since the petitioner contended
VARIANCE N0. 1~973 that since the units were designed for occupancy by one person,
(Continued) there was no need for more thaii one parking space per unit; and
. that the petitioner alsa was proposing a planter in the center of
the cul-de-sac, and upon consultation with the City Traffic Engineer
relative to whether or not there would be sufficient room for larger trucks to negotiate
the turn, the Engineer indicated that for the type of trucks that would be using the
cul-de-sac, there would be no difficulty.
Mr. Gared Smith, architect for the developer, appeared before the Commission and noted
that the proposed bachelor unit facility was a new c•oncept in the City and County; that
there v+as a great demand for the smaller unit - therefore, the variance request and the
proposed yield; that the resident of a smaller unit should not be considered a transient
type person, but a person having less means and less need, and there was a tremendous
market for this - therefore they had incorporated a separate area, which increased the
density - however, the single units would have only half as many people as a one or two-
bedroom unit, and the square footage needed would b~ only half the amount normally
required for an apartment; and that the proposed development would not be adding more
people or automobiles per acre that units twice the size would have. Furthermore, the
setback variance for Lot Nos. 3 and 4 were made to permit staggered walls along the
Qrivate patios proposed, and the request for waiver of the setback along Lincoln Avenue
was to give a more desirable development, and by merely "flopping" the development and
having parking along the Lincoln Avenue frontage, would comply with the 35-foot setback,
but from an esthetic viewpoint, it was more desirable to pro~:ide off-street parkir.g from
a street within the development rat}:er than having ingress and egress from I.incoln Avenue,
and that waiver o.f the parking in excess of the minimum of 200 feet was only to maintain
the two-story development more than 150 feet from the R-1 properties to the north.
Mr. Smith also stated that although the General Plan indicated subject property for low-
medium density, the property had been zoned for a number of years for commercial use,
and the hignest end best use for the property would be for medium to high residential
density use.
Mr. Smith also noted that each of the four parcels would be self-contained as to facili-
ties and tiash storage.
Commissioner Gauer inquired as to what assurance the petitioner would give the City that
the bachelor units woul.d house only one person, and if two persons were permitted, this
would mean the possibility of more cars. Furthermore, the waiver of the setback along
Lincoln Avenue would create a;; undesirable liv,ing environment, and the units would not
rent as easily, and no evidence was submitted to substantiate the need for a waivPr of
the setback which had been a long-standing City Council policy.
Commissioner Gauer also noted that the City of l3naheim had a multiple-family development
code which it would like the people to live by; otherwise it would have to be changed,
and the many waivers requested seemed unreasonable.
h~r. Smith noted that the developer had built this tyNe ~f f;cility in other communities,
and they were rented only by one person; wherer~~~~~r; Commissioner Gauer stated that this
might be a statement made by the developer, bu: .~•~ assurance was made that couples would
not reside there - where they had no children a, r~oth were working, thus necessitating
two cars, and it hardly seemed likely that one c~,:• would suffice, although this might
be an ideal situation to declare rentino only to c•~na person.
Mr. Smith then noted that approximately 80 of the bac;helor-type units were developed
in Tustin and in Orange.
It was then noted by the Commission that those two cities did not have industrial
developmeat as did the City of Anaheim, and there might be a greater demand for
regulation type apartments in ir,dustrial areas.
Mr. Smith furthex noted that the develo?er felt ihere was a need for this type of apart-
ment development in Anaheim, and Covirg`on Brotners ,vere not interested in having disuse
of their development by permitting more than one person because of the use of the facility
and the noise factor. Furthermore, there would be no more usage than one or two bedroom
apartments where more parking also would be needed; that this was a concept which they
felt was very good for the city, and if the Commission or the City of Anaheim did not
agree on the concept, then the development would not be considered on common grounds.
7he Com~oission further noted that it was undesirable to dilute the parking under any
conditions, regardless of the number of persons,since the present Code required only
1~ parking spaces, and evidence had been submitted that considerably more was needed,
- ~=
. i.
~ .. . ~ ,. ~
i~'' f ?.~w, c e " ~ ~',,,~r'n' ,..
1~ ~ ~"e 9~"~,, ~ ~i ,, ~ ~ ~w~-~w~~m s /N~y~r~.+rt~t " r.~+yr~? "~"i'~. `~' "°X~ e u at r ,hr,,'t~o ~ "9w~ ~ y ~ . a;
~ ~ `
~ "
~ ~
F
~ _ ~ Q ~ +
4
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 6, 1968 ~
r"
~
3898 ..;,~.
RECLASSIFICATION -
N0
67-68-79 and many cities nowiwere requiring 2 spaces per dwelling unit
. due to the fact that public transportation was not available and
VARIANCE N0. 1973 two cars were almost a necessity in every family. Therefore, if
only 1~ parking s
aces w
(Continued) p
ere-required, this still would mean a
shortage of parking.
a Mr. Smith noted that where there were two or three bedrooms, 1~ parking spaces were
,,,.,r,.;, , insufficient when he projected any plans of development; however, in bachelor-type
'~ apartments, one parking space was deemed adequate, and it seemed possible that a sliding
k} . scale for parking requirements could be considered - 1 parking space for bachelor apart-
,~~ ments, 1~ for one-bedroom apartments, 1~- spaces for two-bedroom apartments, and so on up.
`,~'; Also, the City of Anaheim was the only city that required covered parking spaces, and no
;~ provision was made for open parking, and his standards for apartment developments were
-?td;::, higher than the City of Anaheim for one and two-bedroom apartments.
~~5~:.~• ..;:w•
. k... ~... .
„'°" Mr. Smith then noted that if the Commission was not receptive to the bachelor-type concept,
` he would withdraw the request for multiple-family development for Lot Nos. 1 and 2 and
~ retain the commercial zoning on the property.
~.. :~
~ The Commission expressed further concern that so many bachelor units were proposed for
.?< one development.
~
Mr. Thomas Sullivan, 2661 Yale Avenue, appeared before the Commission, representing a
number of persons present in the Council Chamber in opposition and inquired wh~ether or
y not the garages would be ±he full width of the property abutting the single-family homes
,,, ~, to the north since they were not desirous of having access to the single-family develop-
", ment to the north from the apartment development to the south. Furthermore, they were
opposed to bachelor apartments since this could indicate a police problem, and he was
"- desirous of rataining the residential inte9rity of the well established, single-family
s ,; subdivision to the north.
~ ; w~
~ ~f Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson reviewed the plans with Mr. Sullivan, noting that there
*!N. •..,;.1
~ would be no outlet to Yale Avenue - therefore there would be no R-3 traffic to the single-
"~'''`' -'~~ family development.
ns::;~;_;~,
'` ~
'~ ~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
~ ~~
The Commission noted that the proposed development was not the major issue to consider,
but whether or noi the City of Anaheim was interested in pianning a community increasing
the density to that proposed when all of the City's public facilities and public services
were geared to a lower density, and if the Commission considered favorably the increase
in dens.ity for subject property, then the Commission must also permit a similar increase
in density for other R-3 areas, and the community was not geared for that density ;
that the size of the units had little to do with the quality of the units, and the Com-
mission's only basis for administering this was something that one could measure at the
Planning Commission level, and the Commission had been unable to measure this quality in
any other way than by the number of units and coverage. Furthermore, a determination
would have to be made whether or not the City should change its standards, and this should
be based on the demand, not whether or not the City considered it a valuable asset to the
City as a way to take care of people who patronize this type of facility. However, any
changes shoul9 be done as an amendment to the Code rather than on specific projects
through.a variance precedure.
Further discussion was hek3 by the Commission relative to the possibility of considering
bachelor apartments, and whether or not a certain percentage should be considered; the
fact.that the petitioner was asking for six waivers and proposing a xather substandard
type development, with a density of 55% for one-half of the prop~erty under consideration,
Commissioner Gauer took issue with the request for waiver of the setback along Lincoln
Avenue when the front-on study of homes on arterial streets indicated heavily traveled
streets should not be utilized for residential purposes - therefore it was also to be
assumed that apartments should not be close to heavily traveled streets.
Assistant Development Services Director Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that the
35-foot, setback requirement along Lincoln Avenue had been a long-standing City Council
policy; however, the ordinance for the R-9 Zone required only a 20-foot setback, but the
35-foot setback was almost unanimoasly maintained along Linr^~~ ;,venue.
Mr. Thompson noted that the proposed development, as to Parcels 3 and 4, presented no
parking problem, and trash storage areas were located 25 to 30 feet from the rea: property
line; however, the Commission might wish to consider other alternatives - the Commission
could approve R-3 for the northerly portion only, or R-3 for both the northerly and the
_
.,.,. ,... _ _ -~a"=k:
~'.° -
*~+~ g~.•FS ~n, ~ ~v3+ r ~ .~' i ~~3"{g/ ( w
`~ ~ _~.
~ , ~~
t ,;.t a
..'.?;
.
-------...- :%~
!~ '
i
MINUTES, CITY PLANNYNG COMMISSION, May 6, 1968 . 3899
RECLASSIFICATION - Lincoln Avenue frontage, and a xesolution of intent coul•d be
N0. 67-68-.79 established far R-3, but the property would~still rema3n C-1 until
:~ARIANCE N0. 1973 Commissioh deemedethesentire areatsuitablelforfinedium~densityhe
(Continued)
Commissioner Rowland expressed concern that the Anaheim Municipal
Code did not provide for the proposed type of development, and the
Commission was somewhat restricted because of Code requirements. Also, in regard to
public ~atilities, the City was bound by what was established in the Code now.
Commissioner Herbst inquired of the staff that if subject property were reclassified
to the,R-3 Zone for the entire parcel, could the rear portion be cleveloped and the
front portion retained for C-1; whereupon Mr. Thompson replied that the General P1an
indicated this area fpr low-medium residential development, and the rear portion could
be developed with the front portion remaining undeveloped until future plans were
established for the property - however, the rear portion could only be developed if
the entire street were dedicated and improved, and the Commission could make a finding
that ir,dividual parcels could be reclassified after street dedication.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-124 and moved for its passage and
adoption~ seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that
Petitior for Reclassification No. 67-68-79 be approved, subject to conditi.ons and
the recommendation that each of the four parcels could be developed individually,
provided, however, that the new street is fully dedicated ar.d improved. (See Resolution
Book)
On roll.call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followin9 vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSEN'C: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Camp.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC68-125 and moved for its passa~ge and
adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Vari,ance No. 1973,
in part, denyin9 waiver of the building site area per dwelling unit,.the minimum floor
area of dwelling units, the waiver of the 35-foot setback along Lincoln Avanue, and
minimum number of required parking spaces - al~ deraials bein9 on Portions 1 and 2
- fronting along Lincoln Avenue; and granting waiver of the side yard se.tbacks for Lot
Nos. 3 and 4, th? yard and building setbacks on Lot Nos. 3 and 4, and the maximum
distance between required parking spaces and units which they were to serve. The
denial of a portion of the variance was based on the fact that the density proposed
was too 9reat for the area in which it was proposed to be located, and front-on studies
indicatedthat residences too close to heavily traveled streets were undesirable. (See
Resolution Book)
On roll call the fore9oing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENI': COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Camp.
Commiss,ioner Mungall offered a motion to direct the staff to consider an amendment to
the Anaheim Municipal Code to allow bachelor apartments and to determine whether or
not a percentage should be allowed, if considered favorably. Commissioner Herbst
secorided the mation. MOTION CARRIED.
RECLASSIFICATION - PIJBLIC HEARING. WALTER A. GOODEN AND PAllL PLETZ, 1222 West Lincoln
N0. 67-68-80 Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; COVINGTON BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION
COPdPANY, 2451 East Oran9ethorpe Avenue,,Fullerton, California, Agent;
VARIANCE N0. 1974 property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of a
2.7 acres of land located at the easterly terminus of Pampas~Lane,ely
having a maximum dimension of 360 feet by 336 feet, the northerly
boundary ot said parcel being approximately 290 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln
Avenue, and the westerly boundary being approximately 665 fe~et past of the centerline of
Euclid Street. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL and C-3, HEAVY COMMERCIAL,
ZONES.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAi, ZONE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM FLOOR AREA OF DWELLING UNITS,
(2) MAXIMUM DISI'ANCE OF A~,I1/ING UNIT FROM A STANDARD
STREET, AND (3) MINIMUM NUMBER OF COVERED PARKING SPACES,
TO PERMIT A 76-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX.
~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PI,pNNING COMMISSION~ May 6, 1968
~ ~ r ~ py' ~~;r ~ .'~P
V
! AECLASSIFICATION 3900
( ND• b7-68-80 - Associate Planner Charles Roberfis reviewed the location of subject
property, the uses established in c2ose proximity, and the request,
VARIANCE N0. noting that the General Plan designated this area for medium density
1974 residential development, and the
(Continued) of 35.4 dwelling units petitioner was p g der.sit
per net acre which was within~the medium y
., density category - therefore the proposed development would seem to
tion was the requPSted waiverroftthe~minimumrfloor~arearforhdwelling unit
petitioner was prime point for considera-
Munici pr~Posing bachelor units of approximately 425 square feet,sand thetpnaheim
pal Code has made no provision for this smaller t
Mr. Roberts also noted that in order to extend Pampas Lane'easterly0inbthe mannerawhqent.
was proposed on the plans, it would be necessary to acquire a strip of land a
30 feet in width from the Loara Elementary School located sou ch
theil~ of subject property,
and the. staff had contacted the elementary school district in an attempi to determinetely
whether necessary arrangements had been made for the acquisition of this additional
property. The business manager of the school district had indicated it would be neces-
sary for the matter to be taken to the school board for consideration -
district would not be in a position to deed the land to a
but could possibly honor. a request for dedication if initiated b the Citowever, the
proper~y would be dedicated directly to a Private party or organization,
public agency. Y Y, and thus the
Mr. Gared Smith, representing the aoent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission
and noted that the proposed development was similar in character as that
presented to the Commission; however,these single units were integrated within the complex
of one and two-bedroom units - therefore the density was within the medium densityY
Permitted. Mr. Smith further noted that in regard to Pampas Lane
obtain,the dedication f~r the full width of the street, one-half of it being from the
elementary school district, they would be ha '~f the Ciiy would
Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commiss onothatrofe the entire street.
one of the requirements of approvel would be street improvementcfor both sides of the
street, not necessarily the one side adjacent to subject petition were approved,
City's concern as to who would be paying for said improvement~rtYFurtt~ermores not the
had indicated they might be willing to dedicate the land
for the.improvements. , the school
- however they would not pay
Commissioner Gauer expressed concern that there might be legal implicetioi~; in a
the dedication of school property; whereupon Deputy City Attornmy Frank Lowry note
there.could be problems as to acquisition, but they might not a ~9uiring
development. d that
pply to the proposed
1Nr. Daw then stated that right-of-way had been acquired from the school for im rove
of an a11ey adjacent to the properties fronting on the west side of Harbor Boulevard,
and the school board might take similar action after obtainin a p ment
as to their right. 9 legal interpretation
Assistant Development Serviees Director Robert Mickelson noted that as a
fication of those properties fronting on Fiarbor Soulevard, an al~,ey was required because
dedication..of access rights to Harbor Boulevard necessitated the alley circulationeCandsi-
the land acquired was from the school playground area.
Discussion was held by the Commission, the staff, and the representative of the developer
relative to continuance in order to sesolve the access
Art Daw advised the Commission that if they felt the
dedication were required, the Ri ht-ofi-Wa problems, and upon its conclusion,
district for dedication of a triangular Y Division would~submit~aerequestrtosthebschool
property - this would then
necessitate revised plans;,whereupon, the~Commissionhfelt negotiations should be made
with the school district relative to the full width of Pampas Lane, and if this were not
obtained, then consideration should'be given by the school district for dedication of a
triangular piece of land to the southeast of the
present terminus of Pampas Lane to
provide a semi-knuckle to extend the street with full dedication for said street b
petitioner. ,
Y the
Mr. Ted Fi~}~, 1234 East Linco?n Avenue a
h'u'• Walter Gooden, one of the ' PPeared before the Commission and noted that
petitioners, and himself had met with Mr. Franzen of the i
Anaheim Elementary School District several weeks a o
although he thought the 9' however, Mr. Franzen could not '
advise them that anything definite could be assumed relative to street dedication,
proposed development was a ressonable one, and that the school
i
would not need access to Pampas Lane, but if Loara Street were widened then ~
the school would consider having Pampas Lane as an alternate means of having ingress and ~,
egress to the school. ~ Perhaps ~
~'~ -
t~':': "
~.,.
~;''~ ~:
z, ,
1
~G~%. .
9" •
<i'."., ". ..: `,
,~,.
~~ ~;,
`V( t 7 ,r ,.. ~ ~'",~:A' ~:~ ir2h e'~; f ~ P{, .. ~
J ~ .k ~
p. i ~ '3~,C 3 '~ ~ .
~.! ~~
MINUI'ES, CITY PLANNING COMWIISSION, May 6, 1968
RECLASSIFICATION
N0. 67-68-80
VARIANCE N0. 1974
(Continued)
ya~. ~ ~~)"f'~'~ 'qKS
~
3901
- Zoning Su,pervisor Ron~ld Thompson advised the Commission that if
acti3n were °taken dn subject petitions this date, and other means
werQ needed to providp airculation, revised plans could be reviewed
later by the Commission.
s
Ido an2 appear~ed in o~pos3tion to subject petitions.
THE HEARING 3~AS CLOSED.
The Commission continued+ discussion regarding the study which the Commission had directed
the staff to make relative ta consideration of an amendment to the Anaheim Municipal Code
to permit bachelor apartments; that the proposed development showed 42~ being developed
for bachelor apartments, bu•t the proposed plans showed a mixture within the same buildings
with one and two-bedroom apartments.
Assistant Development Services Director Robert Mickelson noted that there was one basic
difference between subject petition and the previous petition considered by the Commission,
and that was that the petitioner was not asking for an increase in density in units, nor
the lot coverage.
The Commission, in discussing the possibility of consideration of studies for amendment
to the Anaheim Municipal Code to permit single or bachelox-type units, noted that there
might be a need for this type of facility; however, no more than 25% of a development
should .be devoted to single units.
Mr. Smith, commenting on the Commission's statements, stated this was the first time the
developer had attempted developing this type of unit, and a need had bezn expressed for
this type of dwelling unit. However, there was a need to have a sufficient number of
units to get the feel of what the demand would be, and to approve only about one-half
dozen would not prove anything.
Mr. Thompson noted that if the Commission felt this was a reasonable request, the
Commission might wish to indicate the overall density within the medium density develop-
ment since the bachelor-type units proposed for the previous petition indicated a 55%
coverage, and the proposed development was within the density permitted by the R-3 code.
Mr. Smith noted that in all of the discussion no consideration was given to the number
of peop,le utilizing these single units, but consideration was given only to the dwelling
units to determine density; that schools could be affected where two and three-bedroor~
apartments v,~ere proposed, while the smaller units would have no children to consider -
however the same taxes and base would be obtained. Furthermore, there would be no
parking problem for either type units.
Commissioner Herbst again noted that he felt the decision the Commission made on subject
petition at this hearing would establish a pattern for multiple-family development in
the city regarding waivers of number of parking spaces and number of people in bachelor-
type apartments.
Commissioner Rowland noted that the Commission had stated many times previously that
anyone who had a different idea should present it to the Commission for consideraiion;
that under the planned residential development this could be viewed as to quality,
depending upon the scale of the individual presentation; that the variance procedure
may be the wrong vehicle, but it was used in the same manner as the planned residential
development within the conditional use permit vehicle. However, the Commission could
consider all of this on a precedent basis, making it an exception, but in view of the
quality the Commission would still have the prerogative whether or not it was a variance
or conditional use permit vehicle since each should be viewed and.decided upon on an
individual merit.
Mr. Thompson noted that the Commission could view this as an extension of the planned
residential development concept; however, this was a unique idea since it did not have
indiuidual number of buildings that the planned residential development had, and this
was the reason for suggesting the variance vehicle.
Commissioner Gauer felt that since subject property was a problem parcel, approval of
subject petition as presented might be a good research project to see how this would
work out as to compatibility and other thin9s that might ensue.
Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC68-126 and moved for its passage and
adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that Peti-
tion for Reclassification No. 67-68-80 be approved, subject to conditions, and the
findings that the planter proposed in the center of the cul-de-sac would not interfere
T{' R Nv
~~~
~
~
„i„~,~~. ~ f d' ,~ ~,~,s ~, z
k IhM r1 jf~,y ~~, ~ 2 ,~.
} ~~~ ~i~„ ~ ~! T~ 1 I ~ ..
r.~~..s~. ~*fi"v~r~~'ow~~..,, ti....t,.. . . .M'.-:~.. Y, . ,
'~,,'R.F" „'~ ;`R',A f
7
~
r: ~ r ~ .,~r / t r•.. "9t ~ t y..~ . +~
t ;
~ -~^ ,`
~ ~ ~ x
I
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 6, 1968 ~gp~
RECLASSIFICATION - with movement of vehicles, and since the landscape treatment would
N0. 67-68-80 provide additional esthetic appeal, the City Council was eacouraged
to approve this part of th~ development plan; that the Commission
VARIANCE N0. 1974 determined there was a need to extend Pampas Lane easterly in order
. to provide adequate circulat~on to the proposed development, said
street to conform with City of Anaheim street standards; that the
Planning Commission determined the density a~d coverage proposed should be given utmost
consideration in any multiple-family request - although 42% of the proposed units would
be single, bachelor apartments having less than the ninimum permitted square footage
per unit, the overall density and coverage would fall w?thin the framework of the R-3
Zone; and that the Plannin9 Commission had initiated studies to determine whether there
was a need for an amendment to the R-3 Zone to permit a certain percentage of units to
be developed as bachelor apartments. (See Resolu~tion Book)
';~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vot~:
~~ ' AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland.
ry NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
, ABSENT;. COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Camp.
;; . 1_
~^~" Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC68-127 and moved for its passage and
t` adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1974,
subject to conditions, and the findinqs that although 42~ of the units proposed were
~ ~ single apartments having less than the minimum permitted square iootage per unit, the
~'~'';.:<~~~ overall density and coverage was less than the maximum permitted in the R-3 Zone -
~ ~ therefore the requested waiver of minimum floor area was 9ranted in recognition of
~~;;.:; -;,. ; j
~ z, the fact that there was now ademand for smalJ:er, high quality.apartment units for single
~" ~ people; and that the Planning Commission had initiated studies to determine whether the
~=`'~';''~ Anaheim Municipal Code should be amended to permit a certain percentage of this type of
~, }~ unit in a multiple-family development; that the proposed development might be considered
~,,,;;,.:.~~ an extension of a planned residential development concept, but since no other provision
'.5 7~~ was made for such a development, the variance procedure was bein9 used to er.amine the
~i~~ a merits of individual proposals; that subject property was a difficult parcel to develop,
~,,••:~ and the waivers granted undei this petition should in no way be construed to be establish-
-~~'~ ing a precedent for such approval on other parcels throughout the City; and that it has
y,~ been determined through discussions with the TrafFic Engineer that the planter proposed
~` in the center of the cul-de-sac would not interfert+ with the movement of vehicles -
~,~~,~~~ _
9.~ i therefore the Commission recommends to the City Council that the proposed planter be
~~,~`,, ~' approved as a part of the development plans. (See Resolution Book)
~~~ E~~i ~
~~, h~~~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
} f d~
~<<~fi, AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Mungall, 3owland.
c' ~~ NOES.: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst.
~ y~~'k ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Camp.
~, ~re;
~ ~ Commissioner Herbst, in voting "no", stated that it was his opinion this would be setting
~,r~2:M, a precedent for similar requests throughout the City where R-3 multiple-family development
~ r~~;:~ had ~een developed, therebp allowing a greater percentage of single apartments than the
;~`,x,,;~~.'• Commission might determine was suitable in later studies.
AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18, - PUBLIC HEARING. INI1'IATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing to
consider an amendment to Title 18, Zoning, Chapter 18.12,
Zones Established; Section 18.12.030, Rules for Interpretation.
Zoning_Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the proposed amendment
to Title 18 should be continued four weeks~to allow the staff time for further study.
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue consideration of amendment to the
Anaheim Municipal Code, Section 18.12.030, Rules for Interpretation, to the meeting
of June 3, 1968, to allow the staff time for additional study. Commissioner Herbst
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
- i~
_~ ~ ~ . ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 6, 1968' 3903
REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. T
RECOMMENDATIONS CONDITIONAL USE pERMIT N0. 964 - R~equest for an extension
of time to establish a rest home for ambulatory aged at
- 2248 South Loara Street.
Associate Planner Charles Roberts presented a request from the petitioner for a six-
months' extension of time for the completion of conditions of Conditional Use Permit
No. 964.
It !:~as aTso noted that although the Commission approved subject petition in Resolution
No.PC67-208,dated September 13, 1967, the City Ceuncil had also considered subject
petition at public hear'Yng and had approved it under Resolation No. 67R-607, dated
October. 31, 1967. Therefore, the Commission could oniy recommend an extension of
time.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that a six-months'
extension of time be granted for the complction of cond~t3ons of Resolution No. 67R-607,
dated October 31, 1967, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 964, said time extension
to expire October 24, 1968. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. t~TION CARRIED.
ITEM N0. 2
VARIANCE N0. 1913 (Classic Development Corporation and
Tiara Estates) - Request for an extension ~of time for
completion of conditions - Property located on the east
side of Euclid Street, approximately 6b0 feet south of
Katella Avenue.
Associate Planner Charles Roberts presented a request from. ti~e petitioness o€ Variance
No. 1913 for a siic-months' extension of time for completion of conditions in Resolution
No. PC67-214, dated September 25, 1967, granting Variance No. 1913 in gart, in which
the petitioner stated that various problems had pr2cluded ~evelopment before the noranal
expiration date of the variance, and that no previous extension ~of •time had beer requested
prior to this request. Furthermore, the six-month time limitatian for completion of
conditions had expired March 24, 1968; therefore, any extension should be retroactive.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to grant a six-months' e~ctension of time for the
completion of conditions in Resolutioh No. PC67-214, dated September 25, 1967, granting
Variance No. 1913, in part, said time extension to expire September 25, 1968. Commissioner
Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM N0. 3
Consideration of removal of the P-L Zene along
Vermont Street.
Assistant Development Services Director Robert Mickelson noted for the Commission that
a request had been xeceived for the removal of the P-L Zone along Vermont Street, which
required a 50-foot building setback, and that structures on the north side of Vermont
Street were not required to set back at that distance; t~~=refore, consideration should
be given to amending this requirement for the south side oi Vermont Street.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to direct the si:aff to set for public hearing
consideration of removal of the P-L Zone from properties along Verment Street, said
public hearing to be set for June 3, 1968. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion.
MOTION,CARRIED.
RECESS
, RECONVHNE
- Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recess the meeting
for dinner. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motian.
MOTION CARRIED. The meeting recessed at 4:35 P.M.
- Chairman Camp reconvened the meeting at 7:30 P.M.,
Commissioners Farano and Rowland being absent.
,'i
I;1:
`: ; ~
,V
~~~;;
`r','
~
}lii''
','~i
_ ~
r ~
4s ~ r ;:^~c
. ._.. , ,..._J.~. ., _.. .....s: -
. . .. . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:~/ ~ . ~~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 6, 1968 , 3904
GENERAL PLAN - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING
AMENDMENT N0. 97 COMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California;
to consider increasing residential densities for properties
. east of Rio Vista Street and north of Linco.ln Avenue.
Subject General Plan Amendment was conti w ed from the meeting of April S, 1968, to
allow.time for the staff to prepare alternate exhibits which more nearly conform with
the Commission's desires.
The Commission determined that General Plan Amendment No. 97 and Reclassification
No. 67-68-64, Variance No. 1960, ~nd Tentative Map of Tract No. 6607, Revision No. 1,
should;be considered jointly.
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. RICHARD ~:J, tiENNING, 2~51 East
N0. 67-68-64 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; WILLIAM S. PHELPS,
914 East Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; property
VARIANCE N0. 1960 described as: An irre9ularly shaped parcel of approximately
12 acres of land, having a frontage of apFroximately 890 feet
TENTATIVE MAP OF on the north side of Lincoln Avenue and a maximum depth of
TRACT N0. 6607, approximately 750 feet, the westerly bounaary of said parcel
REILISION N0. 1 being approximately 460 feet east of the centerline of Rio
Vista Street. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL,
ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF MAXIMUM BUILDING AND STRUCTURAL
HEIGHT LIMITATIONS.
TENTATIVE TRACT PROPOSAL: 30 R-3 ZONED AND 23 R-2-5000 ZONEC LOTS.
Subject petitions and tract were continued from the meeting of April 8, 1968, in order
to allow time for the preparation and filing of a revised tentative tract map.
Assistant Planner David Williamson reviewed briefly the previous presentation made to
the Commission and the exhibits which had been presented, noting that the Commission
had directed the staff to present additional exhibits depicting a decrease in density
from medium along the commercial boundaries to low density adjacent to the R-1 subdivi-
sion to the east of subject property.
New Exhibits "C", "D", "E", and "F" were then reviewed by Mr. Williamson, who noted
that the density ranged from 4.8 acres for the medium density adjacent to the shopping
center for Exhibit "C"; 11 acres for medium density for Exhibit "D"; 34.5 acres for
low-medium density for Exhibit "E"; and 11 acres for medium density and 23.5 acres
for low-medium density for Exhibit "F".
Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the Commission's reasons for continuing
the reclassification, variance, and tentative tract map, noting that a revised plan
of development now proposed multiple-family development with a combination of one and
two-story, R-3 for 30 lots on subject property, and the balance to be developed into
R-2-5000, One-Family, Zoned lots for a tier of lots adjacent to the ?-1 easterly of
subject property; that the plan did not seem to meet the intent of the Commission's
recommendations when subject petitions were conti.nued for incorporating a suggested
layout by the Commission - therefore the staff had prepared two exhibits which more
nearly reflected the Commission's thinking regarding development of subject property,
with Exhibit "A" reflecting one tier of R-3 development, and the remainder either
R-2-5000 or R-1, 7200-square foot lots, and Exhibit "B" reflecting R-2-5000 or ^-'.,
7200-square foot lots for the entire parcel, surrounding the shopping center and t::cend-
ing to the.R-1 development to tne east. Furthermore, the Commission could recommend
that i:he westerly 324 feet be approved for R-3 and the balance for either R-1 or
R-2-5000; and that the City Attorney had advised the staff ihat since a lesser zone
was recommended, there -yas no need for additional advertising of subject property.
Mr. Joe Farr, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted
that they wEre attempting to comply with the Commission's request made at the.last
public hearing - however, every deeeloper had a financial interest in his development,
and the developer of subject property felt the proposed plan would satisfy both the
City of Anaheim requirement and still meet the needs of the developer; therefore he
recommended consideration of approval of suhject petitions and the tract as presented.
~v;
.v
':_ .,,~;-:?,:
` „',;
`{;
0
- ~:
~ `°
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 6, 1968
3905
GENERAL PLAN - Mr• James Geriak, 2913 Hempstead Road, appeared before the Commission, ;'~,y~-
AMENDMENT N0. 97 representing approximately 100 persons present in the Council Chamber,
t •~ >,i
~4~i
RECLASSIFICATION all in opposition, noting that in order to obtain a more coheren '
;'~7
67-68-64 picture as to the feelings of the property owners to the east,
N0 ;
:
.
VARIANCE N0. 1960 colored slides would be presented to emphasize the quality.of the :
~
TENTATIVE MAP OF residential development; that it would be the responsibility of the ,„Ij
rr
Commission to adhere tA the General Plan unless circumstances changed
TRACT N0. 6607 ^
~
'
r
,
REVISION N0. 1 in the area to warrant a change in the General Plan - however, no ;
e
U
(Continued) evidence had been submitted whatsoever to warrant a higher density; '~
thai: whatever decision the Commission made at the hearing would set `*,
a precedent for development of the properties to the north, consist- ,
,
~
ing of about 50 acres; and that although the Commission had viewed subject property Y
~
personally, the slides he presented 9ave evidence of the representative type of dwelling
ld substantiate
h
d `~
ou
s
on Kings1ey Street, the entrance to the subdivision development, an
f retaining subject property for low density development. Furthermore,
i ~;'::„
on o
considerat
shopping cent.er was a very small~ one! in comparison with others, which should reduce
the -i?;~
._
the fear that single-family residential use was not compatible adjacent to shopping
centers themselves, and patronage at this shopping center was less than most shopping
ll with automobiles;
f :
'c`;j
u
centers since the parking area was never more than three-quarters
to consides was the fact that the shopping center was built while
thin
th _
g
er
that ano
under the jurisdiction of the County, and the six-foot masonry wall normalT:/ required
by the City of Anaheim was not constructed - however, this was not a critical problem ;
since screening and a suitable wall could be required if subject property were developed `
adjacent to this shopping center. -~
.
~
then noted that the overall plan for subject property should not be affected
Geriak
Mr ::,J
_
.
by the approval of apartments immediately adjacent to both sides of the Orange.Freeway .<
'
B
since it was rational to expect apartments adjacent to the freeway, while subject property ..
was far removed from the freeway on and off-ramp traffic; however, it seemed irrational ~:<
`?
to extend the apartment development a11 along the Lincoln Avenue frcntage to the boundary ,;
.
of the R-1 tract to the east, thereby havin9 a concentration of high density which was not „'
'
reflected on the General Plan, and it would set an undesirable precedent which would be ;;
:~
~~
detrimental to the entire area; that all those in opposition were present as citizens uf
e
f ti
d
` ~
~;:
m
;,
o
the City of Anaheim who intended to reside in the City for an extended perio
h ~,
is
that both he and his neighbors had dcne a considerable amount of thinking regarding t
' ; v
°
the
and at the last meeting he was unprepared to give a comprehensive report of
problem,
" 5
y~;
.
opposition which should have been expressed and was now prepared to reflect the single- y+;
r}
family homeowners' concern regarding both the GeneralPlan amendment proposal and the
reclassification of the p*operty by the Hennings; and that he had studied a number of, , ;;
similar areas where R-1 development was adjacent to small shopping centers, i1: being ~
noted that both the shopping center and the homes were better maintained than if apart-
~
ments were immediately adjacent to the shopping center to act as-a buffer between the ,;
commercial uses and the low density residential uses established. ~;
Mr. Geriak then noted that the revised plans were not in conformance with the desires ~'!;
expressed by the Plannir.g Cotrunission since two tiers of R-2-5000 lots were proposed, y;
with the balance of the property developed for apartments. Also, there was insufficient ,
area to have a gradual transition from R-3 through R-2 and R-2-5000 until R-1 was devel-
oped adjacent to their txact, which then would create a jumble of zones in this area. ~;,
Furthermoze, the exhibits developed by the staff as alternatives to that proposed by
the petitioner indicated a more logical transition, although most of the opposition 1
favored Exhibit "B", since Exhibit "A" involved access for two streets to Lincoln Avenue ,~;~
and with only a single-lane bridge across the river, together with additional traffic ~4;;
coming from the off-ramp of the proposed Urange Freeway, this could cause considerable p,~,
traffic problems in egress and ingress to this area, while Exhibit ,"B" proposed one ~;~•
access to Lir.coln Avenue with another street proposed to have access northerly.and , i.
eventually going westerly to Rio Vista Street. j.,:
_s
Mr. Geriak also qeestioned consideration of R-2-5000 since no evidence was submitted i
that would.indicate a land use change to warrant heavier density unless the Commission t
considered this a better transition to the single-family development to the east of i
subject property, ard suggested that a single tier of R-2-5000 lots also could be ;:t
considered adjacent to the shopping center - however, the change would be so small ~
as to density, that a land use change need not be considered then. i
In conclusion, Mr. Geriak noted that the best solution for the problems presented by
the General Plan a.mendment and reclassification was to retain the area for low density
residential use because the area easterly had been developed with 247 high quality
homes, which should be sufficient evidence that the area could be retained for single-
family subdivision development. Furthermore, people occupying apartments in this area
would have to be more than tolerant of children since the majority of the single-family.
homeowners had large families, and the reason the homeowners chose this area was because
rx:U- '"~"'~.~<,~x~'y e ,N ~
~:~.. ~ 4, ~,-
~ J ,
~
' . ~i
~~..
MIhUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 6, 1568
mt~~„UY."~° .r--=:.. -r ~r- ::~4 't S ; :~ ~s~,.' ~:1` r
~
390fi
GENERAL PLAN - of the environment - the area was a stable community and had a wide
AMENDMENT N0. 97 diversity of interests, which was a basis for a solid foundation
RECLASSIFICATION for a city - even though many of them had to commute to Lns Angeles
N0. 67-68-64 for their places of business every day. Therefore, if favorable
VARIANC£ N0. 1960 considerable were given to apartment development, this .would be a
TENTATIVE MAP OF motivation for these people to find residences elsewhere since the
TRACT N0. 6607, two r=sidential environments were not c~mpatible, and this would be
RHVISION N0. 1 a serious concern for the City. Thus, the reason for the General
(Continued) Plan was to permit a city to develop in an orderly manner, and a
chan9e should be considered only when there was a streng indication
that the area was changing, which cauld hardly be the case for this
area.
Mr. Farr,_in rebuttal, stated that the developer was given the impression to come up
with the plan as presented - tnus this was the reason for proposing two streets to
Lincoln Aver~ue. furthermore, the developer proposed fourplex apartment buildings which
were rather large and should fit into any residential neighborhood.
Mr. Joseph Ersek, 520 North Citron Street, speaking for the petitioner, appeared before
the Commission and noted that the petitioner had been born and reared in this area; that
he wishe~i to congratulate the opposition in their sincerity to present their concern
about development of the area, but he would like to point out that the law of the land
authorized_cities to pass ordinances which protected both the petitioner and adjoining
property owners relative to peace, health, safety, general welfare, and morals, which
included the suir~unding pioperty, but did not exclude the property owner as far as
petitioning for a change in ordinances; that in all the discussions held at both public
hearings no mention was made regarding the safety, morals, and welfare except for noises
that children might make; that the petitioner had a right to request a change in zone
when he felt the property was no longer suitable for his personal use, such as an increase
in traffic; and that a precedent had been set with approval of apartments at Sunkist and
Lincoln. Also, there was no need for high price or medium price homes,and multiple-family
site development standards of the City of Anaheim would govern proper development of
subject property for R-3 uses, and, furthermore, it would be a considerable increase in
tax incom~ if developed for apartments - therefore, it would be logical to assume that
low-medium and medium density would add more money to the City's treasury.
Mr. Ersek also commented that he was glad the residents stood up for their rights -
however, the Commission must consider both sides, that of the adjoining property owners
and the petitioner, in determining what was right for the City and to protect the City
as to peace, health, saf~ty, morals, and general welfare.
Reverend Gabriel Ashie, 141 KingsleyStreet, appeared in opposition and stated that one
thing which came to his attention when viewing the slides was the fact that he had
visited other areas, but there were so few shopping centers in thcse areas he had viewed
which indicated that R-1 development had been established in close proximity. One area
he had looked at was along La Palma Avenue, east of Sunkist Street, where a small shopping
center was integrated in the center of R-1 - however these homes were not the size of the
homes east of subject property, which were up to 2700 square feet, and, therefore, a
comparison could not be made. Furthermore, one of the Councilmen had commented during
his campaign for City Council that zoning was based on the philosophy that if it would
benefit the City and yet not hurt his neighbor, then the zoning request should be passed.
Mr. Geriak, in response to Mr. Ersek's comments regarding health, safety, morals, and
general welfare, stated this was one~of the reasons for controlling development of the
properties.- so that no nuisance development could occur to harm the adjoining property
owners, and a legal connotation should not be considered since everyone present at the
hearing was interested in keeping the City of Anaheim from growing into a town with
incompatible, non-public uses, and to have orderly growth and planning for the City,
and this was the basis on which the Commission's decision must be based; namely, was
there a.chenge in land use, and if not, then a change in zoning should not take place.
Mr. William Hiner, 227 South Kingsley Street, appeared before the Commission and stated
he had moved both his place of business and his residence to the City of Anaheim after
checking other towns in Orange County since he felt that Anaheim was built on pride
with good, honest values and was a well balar~ced community with pride in home ownership;
however, he did not feel that tearing down the values of these homes in the area by
ir.jecting.apartments was in the best interests of the City.
Mr. Hiner further noted that the petitionerwas an old established family, but he felt
they should take more pride in the City. Furthermore, the Commission should also have
pride in retaining this area for low density residential use and approve multiple-family
development in an area more adaptable for heavier density.
-.,'3P .~~ .` _ A'rf `~ ,.7 }$'~i~,y ~ d' rt ~ ': ~ ..;~t %° ~r ` ~~ ': r t~
;i f i ;i ~.L=
. - . . . , - --- "---'-".._, .. _ : ~
~ ~~ v f ~~'
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 6, 1968 3907 ~"'
~
~~ GENERAL PLAN - Mr. Hiner then urged ;:he Commission to allow the development of
n t" AMENDMENT N0. 97 or.e area in Anaheim which would not be a hodge-podge mixture of
~~,
~~j~"` RECLASSIFICATION
9 ~
zonin
"°-
s N0. 67-68-64
~
'
,~};'a:= VARIANCE.NO. 1960 Mr. Richard Hennin one of the etitioners a
9~ P , ppeared before the
,
r';:~~::.` TENTATIVE MAP OF Commission and noted that he had been offered $5,000 more per acre
~
~ TonCT N0. 6607, several years ago; however, we was desirous of develoQing the
tir
~ RcVISION N0. 1 property in a manner that would be an asset to the City, and he
~t; (Continued) took as much pride in the development of the City of Anaheim as
~
~~ any other resident since he had been a resident of the area all
~~ his life and planned to reside in the area for some time. Further-
, more, he had cooperated with the City in order that the R-1 tract easterly of subject
.~~ property could be developed, by granting easements for roads and drainage facilities
~`<'~~
~t,•
1 as well as ublic
p utilities and that the
, proposed request was a step down in zoning
,
.t
,,.;;,-,,~ since the property had G1 zoning at the time it was ar.nexed into the City. Mr. Henning
also notetl that he had his sights on the future of the City, while he felt the opposition
4~`>`'' was looking backward.
" Mr. James Jamison, 2923 Winfield Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition
~..,:~s, and stated that one consideration which should be taken into account was the fact that
subject property abutted properties along Kingsley Street, and as one turned into the
',~ tract from Lincoln Avenue, the uppermost part of the land was owned by the petitioner,
and less was done to enhance the value of the Kingsley Street entrance. Furthermore,
,•~ on taking a walk to the shopping center one was faced with the barbed wire fence which
~',.,~ added nothing to •the area; that there were no sidewalks for the pedestrians along the
>~:=' frontage of subject property which necessitated that pedestrians had to walk along
'`~`'`~"~' Lincoln Avenue because an arroyo was adjacent to the fence.
' ~ ~:
~, ~~ Mr. Henning noted that the arroyo was the result of granting a drainage easement from
~;;,!'~s`M~~ the tract through his property.
Mr. James.Kappos, 147 South Kingsley Street, noted that the representative of the
builder had stated that if the zonin9 were granted, they would build hign quality
apartments; however, there was no guarantee this would happen, and there was nothing
in the law which could require him to build a specific, high quality development since
this was not part of zoning.
The Commission advised the opposition that development would have to occur in accordance
with plans,approved by the City, and if any substantial change in revised plans were
noted, this would have to be approved by the Commission or City Council, even if the
property were sold to another party.
Mr. James Sauls, 137 Glendon Way, noted for the Commission that the statement made that
financing.could not be obtained for single-family homes was erroneous since he was a
mortgage broker and would be happy to finance building R-1 homes. Furthermore, Orange
County had.an apartment vacancy facior of 40% at one time, and with the influx of new
multiple-family developments in the City of Anaheim, he was concerned that the City
would be encouraging a large vacancy factor - thus the area in which these apartments
were built would deteriorate since many apartment dwellers were transients and offered
little stal~ility to an area.
Mr. Miles Devore, 235 South Kingsley Street, appeared before the Commission and noted
that he would have no assurance that the property at the triangle in front of his home
would be developed with landscaping, and presently it was a catch-all for debris blowin9
from the street, and he had been subjected to this for the past five years in hopes this
would change; that he had talked with Mr. Henning, who had told him this piece of property
would be maintained by them, and he was given assurance when he purchased his property
five years ago for $34,000, that this area would remain residential; and that if apart-
ments were considered, they should have been built at the northwest corner of State
Coliege Boulevard and Ball Road rather than having homes there.
Mr. Henning advised the Commission that after the last meeting Mr. Brown had told
Mr. Devore that he could have this small triangular piece of property since it would
be of no use to him, and if he were desirous of removing an unsightly condition, all
he had to do was lease or purchase this small triangular portion.
Mr. Farr, in rebuttal to Mr. Sauls' statement, stated that the company had no intention
of running down the neighborhood; that the company built very nice structures and would
not be selling the property; that they were more desirous of having financing for apart-
ments rather than single-family residential development; and that the multiple-family
development would act as a buffer between the shopping center and the residential uses
to the east.
i ,.-
i;~aF"~ ~ :;~ ra~~Jr~e r^rt~~~..~w ~„'~+„~~~'r3~~ti.~3 ~ ~~~~ ~~1' ~f?mr ~~`~~~'"~.~ ~ r~ ~ ~. ,a 4,~ t
~~. :?v„ '~ ~~ . c~~'~ ~ .y ~ }j ~' ~r~d'Gn't P s ~ ~'w u a ~,,, J`
y n,
~:r ~ . ~ . . , ~ _ . ~ ~~ .
: MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CONWIISSION, May 6, 1968 3908
GENERAL PLAN - A;r. C. A. Cozycki, 2944 Greenhedge Avenue, appeared before the
AMENDMENT N0. 97 Commission and stated that as an owner of apartments, he had little
RECLASSIF.ZCATIOjd worthwhile to say about their being adjacent to single-family homes;
N0. 67-68-64 that those he owned in the Disneyland area were managed.by another
VARIANCE N0. 1960 person, and when he explained that the apartment dwellers should
TENTATIVE MAP OF take care of their apartments as though they were their own homes,
TRACT N0. 6607, no one seemed to understand.that, and the developer of subject
REVISION N0. 1 property could erect the apartments:and sell~.them, and that would
(Continued) be.the end of any ownership claim.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. '
~
Considerable discussion was held by the Commission, summarized as follows:
1. The General Plan was adopted in 1963 after five y~ers oF study, and each ?and
owner affected by the symbology was contacted 2ither in private or at the public
hearing regarding his use preference.
2. That the undeveloped land annexed into the City was held in the R-A Zone
pending future development.
3. That land was made valuable because people who owned large parcels had held
their land, and as vacant land became more scarce, these parcels became
more valuable.
4. That.Anaheim had very few areas that could be pointed to as areas where
executives of companies, which had located in the City, could be developing
substantial homes or estates such as were built in Orange and Tustin.
i
i 5. That the General Plan couid always be changed; however, this would only
i~ occur when an area had land use changes that warranted a General Plan
chan9e.
6. That the land use had not changed in this area to warrant the restriction
of building more expensive homes, and the Peralta Hills area seemed to rc
the.only area left; however, the price of the property was more.
7. Tha.t;single-family homeowners in this area had a right to some protection
from encroachment; however, the property owners of large parcels had a
right to petition for different zoning - thus the need for public hearin~s
where all differences could be aired out, and if plans were submitted, they
should be so designed as to consider adjoining property owners' rights also.
8. That any decision on subject General Plan amendment and reclassification
would have a far-reaching effect on the 50 acres of vacant ~and to the north,
and many times this was not considered when a petition was filed.
9. That development of the property should ~r.cur so that the petitioner would
have a reasonable return for his property and still afford some protection
to the high quality, single-family homes to the east in terms of buffering
the shopping center with a tier of two-story apartments and a tier of one-
story, with the balance in homes in the R-2-5000 which had been built in
other areas to sell up to $35,000, or single-family homes on 7200-square
foot lots.
10. That the R-2-5000 Zone was not compatible adjacent to shopping centers
since apartments were rented and people living in them could move if the
environment were undesirable; however, owners of single-family homes were
less likely to move since there is more permanency with a homeowner, and
he should not be subjected to undesirable or untenable situations from
which,there was no escape.
11. That.subject property would be,developed one way or the other at some future
date; however, if the Commission made the right decision, this would be
developed with all persons happier because of the protection given the
existing homeowners and the property owner would elso realize a return for
his.money.
12 That a General Plan amendment was needed if the Commission were to consider
R-2-5000 favorably since the zone stated that this type of development could
be only in areas deemed suitable for low-medium or medium density development.
r
S._ ~ ~ .y . :,.. ~ ^.- _ " ..
~ •
~
~ "' L~ C:~ t~
~
~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 6, 1968 3909
t„.•,
, GENERAL PLAN - Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson rioted for the Commission that
'~"`-' AMENDMENT N0. 97 a General Plan amendment would be necessary if R-2-5000 were
~'.~'::, '
c::y;~ RECLASSIFICATION approved, and this would be either Exhibits "E" or ''F".,.which
.`.~ ,
~~`~` N0. 67-68-64 _ would allow this transition.
z~ VARIANCE N0. 1960
~~~ ~ ,': :
~; TENTATIVE.MAP OF Commissioner Gauer noted that Exhibit "A" was more closely related
~~~~~' TRACT N0. 6607, to his way of thinking; whereupon Mr..Thompson stated that Exhibits
~a!^; ' ~~ ~~ ~~ „
, REVISION N0. 1 A and B were pr°pared for the reclassification, and the
r,:,>r;:;:
~;~.>~. (Continued) Commission must consider action on the General Plan amendment
_Y!7:.~:.,. ;
;;?~'.: before any decision was made on the reclassification.
~~~~'~ Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to a rove General Plan Amendment No. 97 Exhibit
~ r~ PP ~
~ s "E"; however, this motion lost for want of a second.
t
z",;`?~ Conunissioner Allred offered a moi.ion to deny General Plan Amendment No. 97 on the basis
that no.land use change had taken place to warrant consideration of inedium density for
~ this general area. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. The motion lost for want of
tt; ; a majority of the Commission, the voting being as follows: Ayes: Allred, Gauer, and
~,;` Mungall; Noes: Herbst, Camp.
~ ~:
i~
`` Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Commission that a General Plan amendment
y~ ` and reclassification were required to have a majority of the Commissio~ as a whole,
~ and a variance or conditional use permit needed oniy a major.ity of the Commission as
_ present. Therefore, a majority of four was necessary to pass on a motion.
»,;:
Chairman Camp Pxpressed the opinion that the Commission sh~uld come to some decision
rather than hold for a full Commission since all persons primarily concerned had been
~ at the public hearings for the past three hearings; that he was affected by the proposed
~,,,,.,~~ General P?an Amendment as much as anyone else since he also lived nearby; and that some
~:'` '';-~j consideration should be given to a partial medium density for the area axound the
.a periphery of the shopping center site - however, he did not feel a higher density was
~° '_~ warranted for the balance of the property.
Considerable discussion was then held by the Commission as to their viewpoints on the
exhibits presented, the evidence submitted, and the need for some concrete decision.
Assistant Development Services Director Robert Mickelson then sketched on the blackboard
the possibility of having a double tier of R-3 lots surrounding the shopping center site,
with a street extending northerly and westerly - this would mean an alley immediately
adjacent. to. the shopping center, a tiex of two-story apartments, a 64-foot street, and
then a tier of one-story apartments with an alley to the east of them, and.the remainder
of the property to be retained for low density development as an alternative to the
Commission's adoption oi Exhibit "C", since Exhibit "C" permitted apartments to the east
but made no provision for apartments to the north where a buffer zone should be considered,
and that Exhibit "D" would offer this provision.
The staff advised the Commission that Exhibit ''C", if adopted, would mean 4 acres for
medium density, and if Exhibit ''D" were adopt*^d, this would mean 11 acres of inedium
density; however, R-2-5000 would be permitted only where medium density symbology was
approved for the General Plan Amendment.
Commissioner Herbst noted chat perhaps the only solution would be to adopt Exhibit "C"
~ or "D" which would give highendensity aroundthe shopping center and retain the low density
for the balance of the property to the east, as well as projections for the property to
the north.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-128 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Mun9a11, to recommend to the City Council that Exhibit "D" of
General Plan Amendment No. 97 be approved as bea.ng the most appropriate manner in which
to buffer an existing shopping center, with the general area surrounding the shopping
center approximately 324 feet in depth to the north and east for medium density, and
the retention of low density for the balance of the study area. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ailred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Rowland.
.:~
~i'.'
, ` ` ,~ ~
~ r~ . .4 ~ 4 ~~f ai "^ ,~F / l ~ , . . v'%.xk"
I ~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION', May 6, 1968
'_.._._.._'___ ;•,~
; ~::,,...k
~ ~f
~
I "J
3910 I ~ .
GENERAL_PLAN - Chairman Camp advised the opposition that this would mean a double
AMENDMENT N0. 97 tier of R-3 lots around the periphery of the shopping center with
RECLASSIFICATION a street.through the center and all.eys on both sides,.and allowing
N0. 67-68-64 one tier to be developed for two-story ad~acent to the shopping
VARIANCE N0. 1960 center and one-story adjacent to the 1,ow, density area.
TENTATIVE MAP OF
TRACI' N0. 6607, Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PCfj8-129 and moved for
REVISION N0. 1 its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner blungall, to
(Continued) . recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification
No. 67-68-64 be approved in part, granting R-3, Multiple-Family
Residential, Zone for the westerly 324 feet• and the 30 by 232-foot
portion noxth.and east of the shopping center, and that R-1, One-Family Residential,
Zone be approved for the balance of the property, subject to conditions,as being the
most appropriate manner in which to zone the property. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
k*~ ~ .
, AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Camp.
' ; NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
s ~ ABSENT: ~OMMISSIONERS: Farano, Rowland.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resoluti.on No. PC68-130 and moved for its passage and
adoption,_.seconded by Commissicner Gauer, to deny Petition for Variance No. 1960 on
,~ ; the basis ~that there were no exceptional or extraordinar; circumstances to warrant
r;
~,y,;,.;•i,, granting subject petition; that the waiver requested appli~>d to the property to the
A; north if the reclassification were approved; that the Planning Commi~•,sion recommended
R-1 zoning to the east of a 324-foot parcel, with the 324-f,oot .arcel i~eing developed
, in accordance with the site development standards of the R-3 Zone; and that the General
r ~ Plan Amendment, if approved, projected low density northerly oi t~e medium density
~..,,,{, adjacent to the shopping center. (See Resolution Book)
~,1
~ s On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
~ ~;
~~ x~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Camp.
E `i NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
~ ;~~~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Rowland.
~
~t~~ Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to deny Tentative Map of Tract No. 6607, Revision
~~,~ No. l, on the basis that the map does not conform with the recommended zoning for the
~
property. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
!9 ~_ , ~,
ADJOURNMEN? - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner.Herbst
offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Allred
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
~~2ily~/~~~ ~'./e~-"e/
ANN KREBS, Secretary
Anaheim City Planning Commission
• :;~
;i
~-'~
;;;;,
,~, ._
::~
r ~
._. . .. ~ ..~~ .... .,...,
1
i
~
~
"~~r'r~7f9 ar-Z --~~j ~15k. a 2._' .
T 1 i~
~1~~.
%
C
~
I
~
~ - ..'.~
I
,
9 1 f:. Y 1
1.
~y ~~~w ~
.
x~~~` r ~
~r~
t ~J ~~: ,i ~
~
i
y y i y{ S' ~'
.
1
,
3 ~ Li '1] i T 4 A ' y
~ 1"
{ f T .
~
'
x
-~ ~
.
r
, a, ~: a a i~~
i l k -
,
~ 1
4 Y ~'
~
'{ ~
K
1~~
~
~ ~,
~ y
t
"
'_
".~'
~t
! .f~~
(
.Ja
~~
I
r
~
np r
t
t,/ ~Y ` )
~ f
x
~ , a
x r
f r
~
,~ f
>
•..'.
,' .
i
4
~ ~
S
l-.,
T
i
~
' ' ~~~ '~'~ '
r ,
~~
,'
~
~
~
r
~ y L( I
'
i n ~r f ~'' i ' e:~ t~ ,="
I
P ~~~,~ ~ "'~ ~' ~
~: I 1
~'
.
~ r,.~ , ~I:~ .;.~ ~t.
i '
F +
j ~ .
'~
r
F
i
t
i,
~
i
~ i . . ...
~ ~ t
..
~ i1 ~ 't
~ ~ ~ ~ 7
i
~.. ~ ;
. . , ,
~
4
I 1',
(
f
I
~
~
.i l _
~
} (;~
~' ~ ~ _ ~:~+~i
U ~
. .. ".."~~1 , - ~'.. / . . ' ' . . . , .. ~ ' ~~
, '_~ ». ~ ~ . . , . ~ .i !.
. .. . . ~ , . . _;:, - •- ....
~~. , ` . ';. ~ . . . ~ . . . .. L - ~ ,
v.. . ~ . .. . . .. . . . ~ ' _i ~ . .