Minutes-PC 1968/05/20~
~ ~ ~
City Hall
: Anaheim, California
_ May`20, 1968
.~. . e~~ ~/~~ 16 ~
_~ .
A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETTNG - 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'being present
PRESENT - CHAIRMANe Camp.
- COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland.
ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: None.
PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Robert Mickelson
Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompson
Assistant City Attorney: John Dawson
Deputy City Attorney: Frank Lowry
Office Engineer: Arthur Daw
Associate Planner: Charles Roberts
Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Allred led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
APPROVAL OF - Minutes for the meeting of May 6, 1968, were approved as submitted
THE MINUTES on motion by Commissioner Herbst, seconded by Commissioner Mungall,
and MOTION CARRIED.
~
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. BETZ CORPORATION, 1010 North Main Street, Santa Ana,
N0. 67-68-84 California, Owner; HARRY KNISELY, 1741 South Euclid Street, Suite B, '
Anaheim, California, Agent; property described ase A rectangularly, ~
shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately,480 feet on
the west side of Euclid Street and a maximum depth of approximately 97 feet; the north-
erly boundary of.said parcel being approximately 270 feet south of the centerline of
Crescent Avenue, and the southerl'y boundary being`the north side of Westmont Drive, to ~', ,j
'be reclassified from the G1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL and C-0, COMMERCIAL-OFFICE, ZONES to I' ;'
the C-3, HEAVY COMMERCIAL, ZONE in order to establish an automobile tire and accessory ~ ~'.
store. ~
Mr. Harry Knisely, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the-Comrnissiorr and requested ,'
that subject petition be terminated. ,
;
Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that Petition for ~
Reclessification No. 67-68-84 be terminated as requested by the agent for the petit.ioner. ?
Commissioner Farano secohded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
VARIANCE N0. 1978 - PUBLI~ HEpRING. ]:NITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING CpMMISSION, 204 East
Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing waivers of (1) MINIMUM ~
TENTATIVE MAP OF LO?`AREA, (2) MINIMUM LO? WIDTH ADJACENI' TO A CUL-DE-SAC, AND (3) ~
TRACT N~. 6603 MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK on property described as: A rectengularly
shaped parcel of land located at the northeast corner of Dale Avenue
and Broadway and having fronta~es of approximately 490 feet on Dale
~ Avenue and approximately 210 feet on Broadway. Property presently classified R-A, ~
l AGRICULTURAL, ZONE (R-1, One-Family Residential, Zone ~ecommended for approval). '
TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: Subject tract, located on the northeast corner of Dale Avenue ' ~
and Broadway, and containing approximately 3 acres, is proposed f
for subdivision into 14 R-1 zoned lots. !'
Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property and the action
`taken by the Commission at the Apri1 26, 1968 meetin9 at which the Commission recommended i
R-l zoning rather than the R-2-5000 zoning,request, and then initiated the petition for ~
approval of,lots less than the minimum requirements of the R-1 Zone. i
3911 +
-----------~.<
C~ ~ C~ ~
MINUTES, CIiY`PLANNING COMMISSION, May 20, 1968 3912
VARIANCE_N0. 1978 -,Mr..:Calvin Queyrel; ~epresenting the engineer,'app.eared before the
Commission and noted thet a revised plan would be submitted in which
TENTATIVE MAP -0F the required 60-foot street with the 30-foot radius was projected,
, TRACT N0. 6603 and that he had talked with several of the adjoining property owners
(Continued) who appeared to have been satisfied with the proposed development.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised Mr. Queyrel that the revised tract map would
have to:be submitted to the Development Services Department on May 21, 1968.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions.
THE'.HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC68-131 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1978, subject to
conditions. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followin9 vote:
P.YES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: CAMMISSIONERS: None.
Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 6603, subject
to the following conditions:
1. That the approval of the Tentative Map of Tract No. 6603 is granted subject
to'the approval of Reclassification No. 6?-68-72 and Variance No. 1978.
2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision,
each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval.
3. That the vehicular access rights,except at street and~or alley openings
to Broadway and Dale Avenue, shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim.
4. That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wall shail be
°°constructed on the southerly and westerly property line separating Lot Nos.
'1, 2, 3, T, 8, and 14 and Broadway and Dale Avenue, except that corner Lot
Nos.' 1, 7, 8, and 14 sha11 be stepped'down to a height of thirty inches in
the front yard setback, and except that pedestrian openings shall be proviaed
in said walls where cul-de-sacs abut the planned highways right-of-way line
of an arterial highway. Reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facili-
ties, shall be installed in the uncemented portion of the arterial highway
parkway the full distance of said wall, plans for said landscaping to be
submitted to and subject io the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway
Maintenance. following installation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim
shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping.
5. That the proposed streets shall be a minimum of 60 feet in width, and the
cul-de-sac shall have a minimum radius of 50 feet.
6. That Streets A and B shall be recorded as Tola Avertue and Trojan Place.
I Commissioner He_•bst seconded the motion, MO'IION CARRIED.
~
~
'~ VARIANCE N0. 1983 - PUBLIC HEARING. TEXACO, INCORPORAI~SD, P, 0. Box 817, Wilmington, ~,
California, Owner; SEARLE USARY, lOJl Norih State College Boulevard,
- Anaheim, California, A9ent; request,ing permission to have OUTDOOR
STORAGE OF RENTAL TRUCKS on property described as: A~~ectangularty shaped parcel of
land located at the northwest corner of La Pelma Avenw~:and State C~2iege Boulevard and
hayi~ig approximate frontages of 150 feet on Stste Colliage Boulevard and 165 feet on
La Pa1ma:Avenue,.and further described as 1001 North State College Boulevard. Property
presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
Associate.Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location o° subject property, the uses ~;
established in close proximity, and the proposed request, ~oting that the service ;
station was established under Conditional Use Permit No. 369.while sti11 zoned R-A; ~
that the-Planning Commission and City Council in February, l?66, approved reclassifica-
tion to the C-1 Zone on subject property in order to place the existing service station o
site in the most appropriate 2one; that the petitioner was conta;ted by the City of
Anaheim Zoning Enforcement Officer February 5, 1968, and informed the service station
operator that he was violating the Anaheim Municipal Code since he was renting trucks
~,,~.~ e~ _ 'ij
~ ~ ~:.,!
MINUI'ES, CITY_PLANNTNG COMMISSION, May 20, 1968 3913
VARIANCE N0. 1983 - on the service station site,,and because he was storing more two-
(Continup~~ wheel trailers than the service station regulations permitted;
that the service station regulations_permitted a maximum of ten
,5~-wheel trailers to be located on the property and did not permit
the stcY~.~e ~z ~±tx`.;;;, trucks, whereas at the time of investigation it was noted there
were 1~+ }'!~a~~~ ~e? },r*?;iass, 7 trucks, and two illegal signs on subject property.
Mr. Rob,~,~x~ ~', ~x„.T 'nated that due to :~,he nature of this request, the Planning Commission
might wis;~.'~;~ y~~w ~,1~e petition as a test'case for the storage of an excessive number of
trailers and the.storage and rental of trucks on service station sites, since if this
petition were approved, there would be a number of additional requests fxom service
~ station operators throughout the City to be granted the same privilege, and +:hat the
Development Services Department had received numerous complaints from businesses adjacent
to service stations storing rental trucks, trailers, etc., in excess of what was permitted
by the City ordinance, and these complaints indicated that due to this type of etorage,
their liusinesses and si~~ing were blocked from view and generally had a deleterious effect
upon the entire area.
It was also noted by Mr: Roberts that the Texaco Company owned the 274-foot frontage ~
along La Palma Avenue; however, only 165 feet had been zoned to the C-1 Zone, and the i
remaining 108+ feet was still in the R-A Zone, a zone which would not permit the storage
and rental of trucks and trailers, and a field investigation indicated that a number of
these trucks and trailers were stored on this vacant R-A parcel.
Mr. Searle Usary, the agent, appeared before the Commission and noted that the variance '
J
petition was necessary becau~~ #his was a part of their service station operation. ~
"'~
The Commission inquired as to the reason for storing so many trailers and trucks ~n the "`''
property when additional trailers could be obtained in Placentia, less than ten minutes ~
away. I ~
I Mr. Usary stated that the number of trucks and trailers stored on the property varied, ~
I
depending upon whoever would drop them off at the service station site, and i~ could
vary from 5 to 12 or 13, especially on weekends. ~ :
The Commission further noted that if subject property and station were the dropping-off ,-.
s'
place for trailers, this could mean storage at this station of up to 40 vehicles, and f ~;;
,the ordinance might be difficult to:enforce because the Zoni'ng Enforcement Officer might ~ .?
. visit the property just at the time a number of people had returned the vehicles. ~ '~'
. i
The agent stated that the U-haul people had tried to'distribute their vehicles at ';
different stations, and that the length of time trailers which were deposited at his ~
station would remain was up to ~wo or three days. ~
;
No one appea.red in opposition to subject petition. ~
THE HEARING WAS CLOS~D. i
~
Considerable discussion was held by the Commission relative to the fact that a lon ran e I
9' 9 I
program had been initiated by the City to clean up service stations so that their appear- ;
ance would not be so objectionable to adjoining properties, and the proposed or existing j
use of the service station was creating an additional problem by being in gross violation
of the seryice station policy of the City; and that additional equipment could be obtained '
readily within ten minutes from the site - therefore, qranting subject petition would I `!
establish a precedent which would encourage similar requests from other service station
o~.erators to permit an excessive number of trailers and trucks on the properties. , , `~
sti
i
The petitioner, in response to Commission questioning, steted that they had as many as ~
~t
s ffi h
k-
p ';
oo
u
a
s.at one time, especielly on weekends,,and these were brought back at regular
intervals; therefore, one trailer could be used up to three times a day.
The Commission noted that other service station sites had trailers and seemed to be able `•~'
to comply with Code requirements;;tti~refore, the ro osed re uest did not
P P 9 prove~a hard- `~~
+.
ship existed to consider subject petition favorably. ~j
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC68-132 and moved for its passage and adoptior.,
seconded by Commissioner-Herbst, to deny Petition for Variance No. 1983 on the basis that i
granting sub3ect petition would establish an undesirable precedent for similar requests j
of other service statio~s for storage of U-haul vehicles in excess of that presently ~
`
permitted; that the
petitioner had not proven a hardship existed; and that to approve
subject petition might encourage innumerable vehicles being stored on the property
thereby creating an unsightly condition which would be detrimental to the adjoining ~~'
property owners. (See Resolution Book)
;;
.. , , .., ' ,~:,,
.., :.,r„~, .~::., :',..~ ..-,r.~ ..:~ .~,. .
, . ..:_ + :i..~ .. 1 . .... .::c" ,'. . ~. ~. ... ,-, _ ,.,.., . ,
. .. :.- ~ . . . . , ~~~ V
MINUI'ES., CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 20, 1968 3914
VARIANCE.NO.:''1983 - On ro11 call the fore9oing resolution was passed by the following
(Continued) vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. '
NOES: .. COMMISSIONERS: Farano.
ABSENT:_ COh1MISSIONERS: None.
Commissioner Farano:in voting "no" staL•ed that he did not believe the operator should
kie given.the ful~ and unlim t d use of his premises, but that he did not feel storage
of. 20 pieces of would be objectionable in appearsnce; however, approval of
20 vehicles on the property should only be made provided strict provisions for retention
of additional equipment might be controlled.
VARIANCE N0. 1982 - PUBLIC HEARING. TEXACO, INCORPORATED, P, 0. Box 817, Wilmington,
California, Owner; W. B. USARY, 100 South Brookhurst Street, Anaheim,
California, Agent; requesting permission to have OUTDOOR STORAGE OF
RENTf,L:TRUCKS on property describQd as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located
at the.southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue a~.id Brookhurst Street and having approximate
frontages of 130 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and 150 feet on the east side
of Brookhurst Street, and further described as 100 South Brookhurst Street. Property
presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
I Associate Planner Charles Roberts noted for the Commission the location of sub;ject
~ property and the uses estabiished in alose proximity, indicating that the proposed
request was for permission to store trucks on subject property, and that the comments
made on Petition for Variance No. 1983 were applicable to subject petition.
Mr. William.Usary, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission, noting that
he had~,always made an attempt to limit the number of tr•ailers stored on his property to
ten; howe.yer, he was more concerned in bein9 given permission to store trucks on the
property,.and that in lieu of just trailers, if he could have a naximum of ten of both
trucks and trailers, this would be satisfactory to h•:m. Mr. Usary also noted that he
usually had requests .for the 16-foot rather than the 12-foot trucks - this being the
van type truck, and he had no intention of storir~g semi-trailer trucks on the service
station`site.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the i.ommission that many complaints had been
received_from ad~oining businerises becarase the storage of these trucks, in some cases,
blocked .their signing and view of their property, and the City was faced with some
areas where as many as 114 trucks, trailers, and bo3ts were on a service station site,
and that if the Commission considered subject petition favorably, consideration should
be given to limiting the number of t.rucks to be stored at the rear of the service
station site and prohibitin9 them from being storeo overhanging the planter area.
The Commission noted that if subject petition ivere approved, this would set a pattern
of similar requests for every service station site in the City, and the Commission would
have to view of the overall effect of this 1.ype of storage, although they were aware of
the fact that the motoring public needed some form of trailer to tow their worldly goods.
The Commission also noted that storage of this type of equipment should be to the rear
of the service station site in order that it would not block the view of persons driving
on the street.
Mrs. Mary Fity, 487 East First Streat, Tustin, appeared before the Commission in opposi-
tion, noting that it was her opinion subject property was a poor exposure, and after
viewing the property from her corner, she had noted five cars were parked at the corner,
that several trucks were parked in the rear, and ten were parked on +.he south side,
together. with other trailers and cars; and the appearance of the site was detrimental to
the entire area;'and tfiat the signing on subject property was such that the line of sight
was impossible both along Lincoln Avenue and Brookhurst Street, and since the lessee of
her property was required to remove nonconform3ng signs, the Commission should also re-
quire subject property.to comply with sign requirements.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
_~
~i„
-~
~„~
~~
- . . `?'.4:>
~~
Discussion again was held by the Commission relative to the maximum number of pieces of !
equipment which should be stored on the property - whether a combination of U-haultrailers
and trucks should be permitted - and if so, then the staff should be directed to make a 1
study of a possible amendment to the Code; that consideration should be given to improving {-
areas w6ich had a slum-like appearance in the City of Anaheim; that the interseci:ion at ~
which subject property was located was one of the busiest in the City, and the storage of
any kind of equipment should be prevented in that area due to its effect on the commercial
:',
~ '4~ ~ V'. s ..},y'_s iF" e ~' j`-' ~
~~~ik",~t~,y ~' 4~ m~ i~~ ~ i`~ ' i ~f ~~y .... ~Y ~~ ~- ~n .e -{~ . .--1`~. ~ i \ ~ '~ 5' ~-~'~'" _ e~ 25 / `~3 ~ `3 p z ~'--~-~ ^"~!~t P- ~.4 ,J ~ V
s ~;., 1~ ~
~~G`r~ ~'\
F'~Yr . - ~ . . ~ ~ ~
~~~ . ~ . ~ . . ~ . . . . ~ . ~ ~ ,S:
F;~ MINUTES,,CI?Y PLANNING COMMISSION, May 20, 1968 •"
w 3915 ;
~~ VARIANCE N0. 1982 - stores and other businesses; and -that•probably the Commission could ~
~, (Continued) discuss at a work session the possibility of permitting trailers and _;
~ trucks at a service station site provided, however, that•the service "':'
~ station site was ad'equate to permit storage of trucks without being '"
~,~ detrimental to the adjoiring commercial uses.
~ ti;#~ ~
~,~`P . . . ~~ ~, . , . . . ~ ~ ~ . .:
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission.~that the service station at ~'
~ `r" ' ~~ ~ ~
La Pa1ma Avenue and Harbor Boulevard, where they had received many complaints, stored '
~~~ up to 110,trailers on the site. .~
r ~~
~^~w Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-133 and moved for its passage and adoption, ~'
"~ seconded by.Commissioner Gauer, to deny Petition for Variance No. 1982 on the basis that ~
~, the petitioner had not shown a hardship e;isted if sub3ect petition were denied; that s''
xr ~ approval of sub~ect petitfon would set an undesirable precedent for'similar requests of ~
~ many service station sites in the City of Anaheim; and that the storage of these vehicles ,~
was creating a deleterious effect on the commercial uses established in close proximity. ll
: (See Resolntion Book)
~ ~'
i ? On roll czall the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
: ~:
~; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, ~arano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
~ ~; NOES: . OOMMISSIONERS: None.
~ ~; ABSENT: CONpulISSIONERS: None.
a T~' Commis~ioner Herbst offerEd a motion to direct the staff to prepare a study to determine
~k whether or not consideration should be iven to r
9~ permitting the storage of trucks as well "`~
~ s.~ as U-haul,trailers on service station property, with stora e to be "
~~ ,-~ station sites that were adequate to permit the storage to the rear Permitted on service
~ ' to the.front where said trucks would overhang the landscaping area, andhtoipresent~this ~
~ e,+ study to the Commission at a later work session prior to setting it for public hearin9.
;" Corcunissio~er Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~
~~ k~`. ~ t
~~~ rnr Aftar discussion by the Commission relative to the resolution for denial and the motion
~, ~ for consideration of a study, and whether the Commission should rescind their action j ,,;
%'~"' ~'~~ pending possible cansideration of an amendment to the ordinance,.,the Commission determined
~~ through discussion with Assistant~City Attorney John Dawson that the resolution could be ~ `~
'~v rescinded on motion by the Commission - however, it would be best to let the motion stand, ; .,
~;
~~~~~ and when and if the ordinance were modified to permit the uses requested, then a new
~~n ui
~F~, , petition would not be necessary. ~
~~ i
; ( ~ ~}
" Commission~r Rowland left the Council Chamber at 2:42 P.M. i
, ~
~ +
Y ~
'"~y"',~~, VARIANCE N0. 198d - PUBLIC HEARIS~IG, NEZGHBORS RANCHES, 633 Pine Way, Anaheim, Califorma,
~~ Ownea; requesting permission to HAVE OUTDOOR STORAGE OF POOL CHEMICALS ~
,~ ~ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OPERATION OF AN EXISTI G ~
~ on p•roperty described as: A rectan ularl sha ed N~L SUPPLY COMPANY ~
~1~ 9 y p parcel of land having a frontage of
approximately 100 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue and a maximum depth of approxi- '
*-';~x~ mately 133 feet, the easterly boundary of said parcel being approximately 247 feet west
,~~ , of the centerline of Euclid Street~ and further described as 1719-1723 West La Palma
s~", Avenue. Property presently classified G1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, 20NE.
~ .
~~ii' Associate.Planner•Charles Roberts reviewed the location of sub ect
~ ~~ j property, the uses ~
r~~
establishe,d in close proximity, and the proposad request, noting that the Planning !i
Commission in March, 1967, approved Vartance No. 1855 which approved the expansion of
~,~ ~`~ the pool su 1 facilit
~~Ns~ PP Y y, granting waivers of the minimum required parking, trash storage 1~
,~ .F~ areas,.and landscaping. ?,
~ ~~ -
~1° Commissioner Gauer left the Council Chamber at 2:45 P.M. 'f'~
,,~,-,, Mr. Roberts further noted that in the variance petition submitted the petitioner indicated
that when:the previoue petition was considered, it was explained that the pool chemicals i
'~~ would be s.tored in the manner now proposed; however the Ple ~I
4{~, resolution of a ~ nning Commission minutes and '
pproval indicated no evidence that this matter was even discussed or ~`'
'" considered. Furthermore,'if the intent of the Gl ordinance were to be observed, both '~~
the truck trailer and other e ui ment now being stored outside should be stored within
~.~~' the building, and it would a q p .'
x ppear that some enclosure could be provided for the truck
~,~': traile~ that would be in complience with the C-1 Zone.
L'€'rltl# . . , ' ~ . .. . . . . ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ . .. . .
~#~,~NaA Mrs. Elizabeth Neighbors, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and '
,6'~., noted tha~ the pool supply facility was in existence prior to the adoption of the site ~ ~
~„ +'*~ development standards of the C-1 Zone; that they would not have placed the sliding door ~
e '~t~ -
r~~~~ _ in the building if they had not intended to have the trailer parked at the rear of the i
t~ ~fr
''~^i~v •property; that it was their understanding at the'last p~3blic hearing that this would be
~ r ~;
~i`~,~, permitted; that the nursery ad~oining her property at the north had constructed a redwood
z~n dx., ~•..
ed r}~,
~ ~ 7~i~ ~
~ ~~~t .. . . ., , . . , . . ~ ~ .
t ~. J .
~5~~ , f:- . ....... , .. ... ...... " _
~i~'M" , . . 1: rI! .~.
y {i` . ,. ;~~._:+~r.. .~ ~ • v~ ~ . ~ .
~°~ MINUI'ES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 20, 1968
_,>r ^: 3916
y~~ .
~; VARIANCE.I10. 1984 - fence, and that a block building hid the stored trailer from the
'~ ' (Continued) view of the apartments.
r L.,.~:. . , '
~'?;, - . . . . ~ . , ~ . .. . .
~~s~~; Mr. John Wyatt, operator of the.pool supply company, appeared
before:the Commissiod and stated that the popcorn machine belonged to the Kiwanis
',~,~~; Club, and.that other equipment stored there was also owned by soineone else; further,
y the old p3pes mentioned in the Report to the Commission were from facilities where a
~~ , pool was installed; and the pipes were hauled to the' dump once a week. Mr. Wyatt also
'P stated-that during "Teen-Time" other items were stored there; but were removed after
'~'~" the event;was.over.
~~~
~ Commissioner Gauer returned to the Council Chamber at 2:50 P.M.
;~ ,
~'~~'~ Mr. Wyatt,furthar noted that the sale of pool chemicals was on a cash and carry basis
,~ since he.was not desirous of delivering chemicals where children could gain access to
~ ~ them, which could injure them.
~ - _.
No one.appeared in opposition to subject petition.
s~
~; THE HEARING WAS CIASED.
; :~
- .;
r Discusr,3.on.was held by the Commission, it being noted that the petitioner had previously
made preparations for a drive-through door; that the storage facility could not be seen
~; from the.street and backed up to an area which hid the truck from view; that the facility
;
~+ was established prior to the adoption of the site development standards of the C-1 Zone;
~ ~~r'~~~ that t Y
t-;•,;;,:,~ hg..petitioner had no other room for expansion and had no other secondar access as
'r'~=?;`;*a a means of gaining entrance to the rear ortion of sub ect
P 3 property - therefore a hard-
,~ ship did exist; and that because of these extenuating aircufistances, appr~val of sub3ect
~f ?"~ petition,should not be considered as setting a precedent for requests for similar outdoor
r';;.;;";;+ storage in the C-1 Zone.
Commis§ioner Mungall offerc, Resolution No. PC66-134 and moved for its passage and
adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1984
on the basis that subject property had no alley to serve the rear portion of the property;
that the drive-through :!'acilities were incorporated in the: structure in order that
supplies,could.be delivered tothe rear of the building; and that the granting of subject
petition to permit outdoor storage in the Gl Zone should not be construed as setting a
precedent,.for similar requests because of the unique'ci~cumstances applicable only to
subject property. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Herbst, Mungall, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT:, CONWIISSIONERS: Rowland.
ABSTAIN:. CAMMISSIONERS: Gauer.
CONDITIONAL.USE - PUBLIC HEARING. KJELL H. QVALE, 1200 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco,
PERMIT:NO.. 1027 California, Owners requesting permission to ESTABLISH A GOLF DRZVING
RANGE AND PITCH AND PUTT GOLF FACILITY on property described as:
An irregularly shaped parcel of approximately 12.9 acres of land
having approximate #rontages of 730 feet on the west side of Anaheim Boulevard and 876
feet on the east side of the Santa Ana Freeway, the northerly boundary of said parcel
being approximately 620 feet south of the centerline of Midway Drive. Property present~y
classified M-1, LIGHT INDllSTRIAL, 20NE.
Commissioner Rowland returned to the Council Chamber at 2:55 P.M.
Associate„Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, the uses
established in close proximity, the proposed request and the plans submitted, and reviewed
the Report to the.Commission, noting that the existing .structure located on"Anaheim
Boulevard was proposed to be used as a restaurant and golf sales area and office, and
that if subject petition were to be considered favorably by the Commission, lighting
and screening should be considered as part of the approval.
Mr. Kje11 Qvale, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that considera-
tion had been given to the trailer court to the north in the design of the proposed
facility by facing the driving range away from the court; that scr.:ening was proposed,
and no balls would be hit into the area since the pitch and putt course surrounded the
golf driving range; that they felt they had circumvented any proFilems whictz might occur
by the design; end that the restaurant as indicated in the Report to the Commission would
be only a sandwich, lunch, and soft drink facility.
.•..L
i
`I
<f
,~;
., .n
;.: ~
- ~ , . . .. . ~ ~ ~ ~_ ~t ., w ~ ~ _.
. ~ . . . .. ~
. .. ,' ~ . . ~ ~ ~'
}r~. , .. . ... . . . . .. f: :
~
~ ~`
~MINUTES,, CIIY.PLANNING COlupu~ISSION, Ma~ 20, 19G8 .
., tL
.
3917
~ '~
CONDITIONAL USE - The Commission inquired as to the hours of operation since the
PERMIT N0. 1027 w
c
n ~
ere con
er
ed that noises would be disruptive to the trailer court .~
(Continded) residents, and the ty
f li
t
" r~
`
pe o
gh
ing
proposed.
•; $
;
Mr. .Qvale stated that tliere wouTd be evening hours, and that the
reason.the drivir.g range was shifted was t
e
r ~~:
~`'
o p
rmit mo
e lights to be faced inwerd.'`
_ ~~
a~
The Commissian further noted that both the Santa Ana Freeway and the trailer court could .
be a.ffected by the lighting; whereupon M
v
a
r. Q
ale st
ted tt~at the more intense lighti'ng
would not,face ihe freeway, and that the lighting`would b
c
i
e ',~;,~
e.
ons
d
rably less than the
automobile agency to the south. ~?,
~
. _ 1R .
~
The Commission also noted that lights from a driving range could be seen a considerable
distance.on the freeway
and th
t th '
~
~
,
a
e fourth, fifth, and sixth holes of the pitch and
putt course were adjacent to the freeway. '
; r;;; ~
Hlr. Qvale responded that the proposed li htin would.
ly existed
in the ,area, and fhat the street li
hts
t
l
t : r
' r"!
:
s
g
were 800
p g00 feet
from
the freeway i
1Nr. Qvale, in response to questioning by Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson, stated that
the highest fence would be immediatel
ad ~~
y
jacent•to the driving range which was not
immedia#ely.ad3acent to the freeway,'and that the fence adjac
t i
~,
en
:o the pitch and putt
course,was very low; however, the fence adjacent to the driving range would.be quite
high in order to keep balls from
iri
i .
go
g
nto the trailer court or onto the freeway. *
The Commission then noted that as a condition of a
pproval, any lighting proposed adjacent
to the freeway should be ~~
`•
~~`
approved by the Highway Department prior to the issuance of a
building permit. ,,
~s~t
r
Mr. Ernest Rodrigues, manager of the foreign car sales office located to the sov;.h of
subject property, appeared before the Commis
i
a ,'
~
1. ~
s
on
nd noted that no accidents had occurred
on the rgad leading to the freeway because of the ~right li
hts f `
''
k .; ~~
g
rom the automobile
agency, atyd the proposed lighting would be less intense than the.automobile agency's
lights; that he would b ~: ,~~
~" '~
e very happy to see the vacant prop~rty deyeloped'with lawn, ~.;
greener~:and trees:since this wuuld be a vast improveme
t to
b ~.~,~~
~~ y
n
the
there
usinesses established'j
;:,and that in discussions held with the r
nt
o '
~
~
P
e rese
ative
f Buzza-Cardozo, he had
indicated.approval of subject petition as being an`i
e
e i~~~~,''~
r
"ryt
'
mprov
m
nt to the area. ,
i
~s ~
Mr. L. V.. Bostwick, owner of the tr iler court a
~ PPeared Qefore the Commission and stated
that he was not in o ~
pposition to the' r ~
~'
' r~r'
P p
o dsed use but re uested that the Commission
I consider his'property rights by requiring lights to be directed ?~`' `t+~
away from the court and
some protection for the residents from flying golf balls. Furthermore, consideration
should be gi
en t
i
~i
v
o requ
rin9 adequate parking facilities for sub~ect property.
I'HE I~EQRING WAS CIASED.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC68-135 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Mungall
to ;
,
grant Peti,tion for Conditional Use Permit No. 1027
as being an excellent use of the existing land
subject t
,
o conditions~ and the additional
condition that all lighting affecting the Santa Ana Fxeeway shall be a
Highwa
D
a
t
p
y
ep
r
ment and that any fencing proposed shall be submitted to
theVDirectoreof
Public Works for approval
(S
e R
o
.
e
es
lution Book)
On ro11 aall the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Zowland, Camp.
NOES: _ COMMISSIONERS: None. ,-
ABStNT= COMMISSIONERS: None.'
CONDITIONAL USE - pllgLIC HEARING. DR. ELDON SKOLIL, 1411 West 7th Street, San Pedro,
PERMIT N0. 1030 California, Owner; JOHN R
T I .
. S
EPHENS,-906 South Cetalina Avenue,
Redondo Beach, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH
AN AUTOMpTIC CARWASH on property described as: A rectangularly shaped
parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 60 feet
th
on
e west side of Dale Avenue
and a maximum depth of approximately 150 feet, the northerly boundary ot said parcel bein
approximately 190 feet south
f
c ~ ~
g
o
the
enterlii~e of Ball Road, and further described as
1211 South Dale Avenue. Property presently classifi
d G
~
e
1, GENERAL COMMHRCIAL, ZONE. ~
Assoc4ate Planner Charles Roberts reviewe~ the location of subject property, the uses
established in close proximity
a
d th ~
,
n
e proposed u~e, noting that tihe Commission would
have to determine whether the proposed facility with its mechanic
l b
a
lowers, lighting,
~~e
~,~.~-- r, i _ . .
,~„l~"
~
U
MINUfES,..CITY.PLANNING COMMISSION, May 20, 1968
c~s fi r~,. t ~ ~ ,qt i ~ ..~ ,, ,q.x~,,,~ { ~,~
_~ ' : . . .• : .~
.,, , , , , ,. .
-~ ..,_ ... ~. . , . .~ ,..:Y
.l:
~ ,. .- . ' . , ~..~6
~~ ~
3918 !
~'ONDITION6L USE - noises, hours of operation, etc., would be appropriate at i.his
PERMIT N0. 1030 particular location, especially in light of the fact that single-
(Continued) family residences backed up to the southerly portion of subject
property; that if subject petition were considered favorably,
some buffering should be required for the mechanical blowers so
as not to create intense noises, limiting the hours of operation so that- an all night
problem would not exist which could be detracting to the single-family residential
environment; however, the prime ccnsideration before the Commission was one of land
use since subject property already was zoned G1.
Mr. John.Stephens, builder of the proposed carwash and representing the owner, appeared
~ before,the•Commission and noted the proposed carwash would be operated as part of the
service station, and then gresented a rendering of the proposed development to the
Commission, stating that they would comply with the metal building requirements of the
City; that an attempt was made to buffer the proposed use with the existing masonry
wall and adding landscaping, together with locating the building as far away as possible
from the residences to the south; that the residences would be approximately 25 feet
away; and thet the blowers would be eliminated if the Com,mission were opposed to them.
Furthermore, there would be no noises or nuisance factors, such as odors.
Mr. Stephens, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the blowers originally
proposed ¢id not perform as anticipated, and they were now planning to use a new
chemical equipment known as "dionizing" proposed to keep spots off the cars - which
would eliminate the blowers completely; that only a rinse cycle then would be needed,
which would mean less noise than if the blowers were used; and that the hours of opera-
tion would be from 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M., the same hours as the service station.
The Commission noted that the petitioner was proposing to utilize the service station
and shoppin9 center for part of his ingress and e9ress; whereupon Mr. Stephens stated
that although they planned to have access through these areas, it was not necessary
since there,was adequate access from Dale Avenue.
The Commission inquired whether or not it was proposed to have access to the south
where it would be adjacent to the R-1 homes, to which Mr. Stephens remarked that an
alley exieted adjacent to the homes, which~extended from Ball Road, and that lighting
for a cu$tomer who washed his car at night and finished drying and polishing it would
be accomplished by lighting in conjunction with the sign on Dale Avenue in which lights
would be directed down and away from the adjoining property. Furthermore, no one would
aotually be cleaning cars, although there would be an attendant to supervise the opera-
tion since this would be a completely automatic operation, and could not, therefore, be
considered a "tunnel" carwash operation.
Mr. Stephens,•responding to Commission questioning, noted that the potential number of
customers who.would utiiize the proposed facility would be 300 per day; however, they
planned on an.average of 200 to 250 and there would be sufficient car storage in the
area so that traffic problems would not exist. Furthe:more, noises that would be emanat-
ing from the proposed operation would be through high pressure water spray, but not the
steam spray for cleaning normally associated with carwashes, and that the operation
would be similar to that on Meats Avenue in Tustin except that no blowers would be in
operati,on.
Further discussion was held by the Commission, the staff, and the petitioner re9arding
noise,levels as they pertained to the proposed development and the methods which could
be used to reduce the noise level.
Mr. Thomas Sanders, 1219 Shelli Drive, appeared before the Commission in opposition,
noting_tt}at.his home was directly behind the shopping center and the noises from the
proposed..development would be detrimental to the residences of this area since all of
the.homes,were within 20 feet of the alley, said alley having been constructed requir-
ing all_access rights to Dale Avenue being dedicated; that if only cars were utilizing
the aYley,,the noise could be withstood - however, many large trucks could use this
access alley, and they created considerable noises; that most carwashes were very noisy
operations, taking into consideration vacuuming and noises from high speed water pres-
sure; and that most of the residences did not have gara9es to act as a buffer between
the.residential property and the ~comr,:Ercial property.
Mr. Blaine Stauffer, 122: Shelli Drive, appeared before the Commission in opposition,
noti.ng•that his property was adjaoent to subject property; that he d'id not have a
garage abutting the property Tine to assist in reducing the noise factor if the carwash
were approved; that when the shopping center was built, one of the requirements was
dedication of access rights to th~ use of the alley for access to Dale Avenue; that he
concurred in the statements made by Mr, Sanders as to intrusion of excessive noises
from high water preseure and othes noises associat,ed with automatic carwashes; and
~~
"~r"'-',~it .~uro ra~ -~ Yt `~ ~ -a~ te ~~"t ,~ r ~~'r~i '~~ p ,r k ~ ~ 4 (` ~ t a , ~` F ~
~ S r
;' , p f
~"~~~ ;
~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ - -
MINUTES, CIT'Y`"PLANNING COMMISSION, May 20, 1968 3919
:~~~
P':3~
:,`.9~
;.:'~
CONDITIONAL USE - that the statement made.by the agent for the petitioner that-they
PERMIT N0, 1030 anticipated processing 100 to 300 cars per day would mean injecting
(Continued) considerable traffic into the araa.
Mr. Stephens, in rebuttal, stated +hat the alley would not extend
to Dale Avenue since the trash storage area and landscaping were to be provided there;
that the.existing station was not particularly desirable in=its use adjacent to the
residential properties to the south, and the proposed use would~assist in creating a
buffer-,to:block out additional noises.
Mr. Sanders again appeared before the Commission and noted that the six-foot masonry
well piesently existing did not act as a buffer to blocking out noises, and even if
access to.the alley were eliminated, the petitioner still would have traffic coming
through the area to his property extending along the area from Ball Road.
THE HEARING WAS CIASED.
The Commission reviewed the plans submitted with the petition and the renderinq
submitted at the public hearing.
The Commission inquired as to the possibility of studies having been made regarding
the noise levels and number of decibels reached by the proposed use and whether or
not the.Anaheim Municipal Code provided for a maximum in noise levels.
Mr. Thompson advised the Commission that both the commercial and industrial zones made
general.reference to noise factors, and that the staff was presently studying and
preparing a sound ordinance which would define it more and limit the sound decibels.
The Coqupission also noted that the rendering submitted at the public hearing and the
plans presented with the petition had some differences in that the screen planting
reached.maximum growth in five years, while the rendering indicated fully grown
landscaping; whereupon the representative of the petitioner replied that this would
be the.normal requirement, and in response to questioning by the Commission relative
to accelerating the screening by planting larger shrubs to reach complete coverage
within,a.year, stated that an effective screening had to grow together, which meant
it would fake,several years to esteblish this growth, otherwise it would outgrow
itself,and not accomplish its purpose.
The,petitioner then advised the Commission that he would provide the type of screening
the Commission sequested so that the noise factor would be buffered within eighteen
months to two years; however, he was not a landscape architect and could not give
professional answers.
Commissioner Rowland noted that when national and state park systems were adjacent to
' freeways, certain growth type materials effectively blocked traffic noises; however,
the question before the Commission was not a matter of sound buffering but compatability
of use,.and the proposed use was one of the heaviest uses which could be piaced adjacent
to residential uses. Furthermore, since subject property already had C-1 zoning, there
were many.more uses which could be more compatible to residences than that proposed,
even without the blowers normally associated with a cerwash operation.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC68-136 and moved for its passage and
adoption, seconded by Commissio~er Farano, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit
No. 1030 on the basis that the use was not compatible to the adjoining residential uses;
that the use proposed was one of the heaviest in the commercial zone and could produce
undesirable living environment effects even though screen landscaping was proposed;
that the G1 Zone, which presently exists on sub~ect property, has many more compatible
uses than was bein9 proposed; and that the ad~oining residential uses should be afforded
some type of protection from surrounding commercial uses. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by •the following vote:
AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano~ Gauer, Herbst~ Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: ODSIMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: CAMMISSIONERS: None.
;
j `,
~
~
. 'i` Y,~
.~ , .~,,~r~ .. ~ ~~~~~ v,.`~' 3'~ef"t~`, r .~..^ ~5 n~~'w 1 r'~.:. ~, nr N• ,s s ~~a~
S ~~ ;~ f ~'r r~ '~ ,~~^, t
i
<~ (~ ~
MINUTES, CZTY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 20, 1968 3920
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIG HEARING. ARNO H. STOVALL, JR. AND DOROTHY WILEMAN,
PERMIT N0. 1026 11945 Cameo Place, Granada Hills, California, Owners; A. E. GIESE,
1833 East 17th Street, Suite 116, Santa Ana, California, Agent;
requesting permission to ESTABLISH AN ApT'OMATIC CARWASH WITH
ACCESSORY GAS PUMPS on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land
having a frontage of approximately 129 feet on the west side of Western Avenue and a
maximum depth of approximetely 150 feet, the northerly boundary of said parcel being
approximately 188 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue. Property presently
classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed for the Commission the location of subject
property, the uses established in close proximity, and the proposed request, noting
that the petitioner proposed to have a 25-foot building setback; however, with signing
as proposed in the front setback, it might be advisable to have a greater building
setback.
Mr. Giles Turner, representing the manufacturer of the proposed carwash, appeared
before the Commission and noted there was no inten2 to have blowers now or at any time
in the future; that a"dionizing" system would be used; that lighting would be of a
quartz lighting for outdoor, having a softening effect; that the facility would be
constructed so that noises would be directed away from the multiple-family development,
and the operation would be approximately 68 feet from these structures; that the equip-
ment for this facility would be stored between the two bays, and the building would be
of concrete block covered with a six-inch glaze tile, which would create a good insula-
tion protecting the other areas from any noise emitting from the equipment; and that
two men would be operating this facility for ei9ht hours a day. Furthermore, in response
to Commission questioning, Mr. Turner stated that the hours of operation for the gasoline
pumps would be from 9:00 H.M. to 7:00 P.M. - however, the carwash was automatic and would
operate 24 hours a day, and that there would be plenty of back-up room and adequate
access to the property.
Zonin9 Supervisor Ronald Thompson noted for the representative that the staff had
questioned the adequacy of the setback from Western Avenue since more turning radius
should~be provided if the sign were approved to be located in the center of the front
setback since this could reduce the minimum required 25-foot turnin9 r~dius.
Mr. Turner noted that the sign would not be located in the flower bed in the front;
whereupon Mr. Thompson noted that no sign would be permitted to encroach into-the side-
walk or public right-of-way, and if the sign were put in the flower bed, it would have
to be offset in the opposite direction. Mr. Turner said they had taken this under
consideration, and the area of the sign would be flag-shaped and facing east and west
rather than the normal signing of north and south. Furthermore, in discussing the sign
with representatives o: the City, he had been advised the sign would not be part of
this petition; however, they were planning to comply with Code requirements, and if
the Commission required the sign to be of flag design and 25 feet were required between
the carwash and the flower bed, if more space were necessary, the building could be
relocated an additional 5 feet to the rear.
The Commission inquired as to what provisions were being made regarding the landlocked
parcel to the west since the City could not approve a parcel map where one parcel would
be landlocked.
Mr. Arno Stovall, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and noted that
when the C-1 zoning was granted, the plans had shown a 25-foot access road running
westerly for 295 feet; however, this was not shown on the parcel map, although the `'~r
area was paved for the full distance, and that the property to the west was owned by ~
him and had been in the family for a number of years.
Mr. Thompson noted that the staff was aware that the property westerly was in the
Stovall family for a number of years; however, the C-1 Zone required all property to '
have frontage on a dedicated street, and just providing access to Western Avenue or ;`';,'
Lincoln Avenue would not constitute a frontage. i;;;
' `.~
Mr. Stovall then reviewed the many improvements made on all the property at the time ~`:
the McDonald walk-up restaurant was established and expressed the opinion that there
was no difference in granting subjact petition since he still had 145 feet with access,
but one of the undesirable features was the fact that there would be no exposure to i
the street, and he had been unable to rent the property and perhaps should not have ' "
built the structure that was existing on the property - however, if additionaT parking i
were needed, he could use it, and at a later date have access to,Lincoln Avenue. j '
~ ''
, ^:,
ti':,
~~ ~,~ ~...~ _ ~ .
' t '1 G' ~ /r' .y 1 J'!~ ~ 7 9 S J-
t t r+ ~.~r y k ;~~'~~' i»~, 1 k~ y 7} i~Y,~+' }~. C~~N; 2~~ ~ f~ :~ .,. ,
.. ~ ~. . . ~ ~ . ~ . ~ ~ . . . .. , ' / ~ .
v
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 20, 1968 3921
_ GONDITIONAL USE - Mr. Thompson noted that ihe petitioner could use the property for
PERMIT N0: 1026 parking, but this would become a landlocked parcel and would not
(Continued) have frontage on a dedicated street - therefore, problems could
result if the property were to be resold.
Mr. S•covall noted there was little likelihood that the property would be sold since it
had been in the family for some time.
Office Engineer Arthur Daw noted that a parcel map would be required; however, it was
doubtful that it would be appioved by the Development Services Department because of
the landlocked piece of land.
Mr. Thompson noted for the Commission that many of the leases were filed with parcel maps;
however, it would be impossible for the staff to approve a parcel map for subject property
since the Anaheim Municipal Code provided for specific site development standards, and
the proposed parcel map could only be approved through waiver of the Code, which would
mean thc filing of a variance. Furthermore, the only other solution would be a lease
agreement to prevent a landlocked parcel, since Code requires every lot must have frontage
on a dedicated street in the C-1 Zone, although no lot width was specified - therefore
this could be a technicality by providing only a one-foot access.
Commissioner Farano offered a motion to continue subject petition to the meeting of
June 3, 1968, in order that the petitioner might have time to resolve the problem of
the landlocked parcel as to fee ownership of the alley along the south property line.
Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (See Page 3922 for continuance
of this item.)
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING~ DON W. AND MAY H. BURDICK, 1130 Nithsdale Road,
N0. 67-68-83 Pasadena, California, Owners; DOUGLAS W. SPENCER, 1130 Nithsdale Road,
Pasadena, California, Agent; requesting that property described as:
A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at the northwest corner
of Falcon Street and Niobe Avenue, having approximate frontages of 100 feet on the west
side of Falcon Street and 89 feet on the north side of Niobe Avenue, be reclassified
from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
Associate Planner Cherles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, the uses
established 3n close proximity, and the Report to the Commission, noting that subject.
property,was part of ar: R=A parcel that apparently was split into two parcels at the
time when the R-A Zone p?.rmitted 6,000-square foot lots; that the southerly lot was
undeveloped and the northerly lot was presently developed with a single-family residence;
and that the proposed reclassification of the property would comply with all requirements
of the R-1 Zone.
Mr. Douglas Spencer, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated
that it was their intent to construct a home on subject property.
No one appeared in opposition to sub3ect petition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC68-138 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for
Reclassification No. 67-68-83 be approved unconditionally. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was pas'sed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
RECESS - Chairman Camp recessed the meeting for ten minutues at 4:00 P.M.
RECONVENE - Chairman Camp reconvened the meeting at 4:10 P.M., all Commissioners
being present.
r:;;
~ ~
~.::; : ~ ~ r ~. Fa
`.~
~; MINUI'ES, CZTY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 20, 196E3
'~ • 3922
'~``a~ CONDII'IONAL USE - Mr. Thompson advised the Commission that a representative of the
~~" , PERMIT N0. 1026 carwash manufacturer requested reconsideration of subject petition
~''".,. ~ .(Continued) for Conditional Use Permit No. 1026 at this hearing since it was
r!~:.:. ,
~{,~;.:;; determined that the fee in ownership of the strip of land on Western
~•r'~`; Avenue was the petitioner.
~;:~,,;;
:~~; Deputy Cit; Attorney Frank Lowry, in response to Commission questionin9, stated that
',~,~` the Commission could rescind their
previous action and reconsider subject petition
~~ ~'''' for additional evidence.
'~7+!
:i.~,':~':'.,,' . .. . .
~'` Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to rescind continuance of Conditional Use Permit
No. 1026 and to open the hearing to consider additional evidence. Commissioner Herbst
,;~•,,~~ se~onded the.motion. MOTION CARRIED.
;.r, ...;',~
Mr. Turner advised the Commission that in checkin9 with the owner, it was determined
that the 20-foot strip of land along Western Avenue was in fee ownership, and the
~ petitioner had asked for action by the Commission on this date, contingent upon veri-
~,.,: " fication of the fee ownership through the County Assessor's office.
~~;; Mr. Daw advised the Commission that the one-foot strip of land referred to by the agent
was a strip held out when Tract No. 5102 had been developed to allow the developer ari
aPPortunity to recover the cost of the alley, and upon receiving that offer of dedi~ca-
tion to the City on April 5, 1966, under Resolution No. 66R-263, dedication of that
~ { property for public alley purposes was finalized; therefore, fee ownership could not
~s~~,~<:c~., be claimed.
r ~,~ ~Wr. Stova~_~gain appeared before the Commission and stated he was still paying taxes
,~..;.;,,,: for this~~"foot strip of land, and in checking with the assessor, the property was
r still recorded in his name. Mr. Stovall further requested that the Commission act on
subject petition this date since he would provide a new parcel map which would delete
"~"''``''s a one-foot portion of the parcel to provide for frontage along a dedicated street for
~,`'':s~ ;;:x'
K:~;;;~,;,~ the landlocked parcel to the rear.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the use proposed or. sub;ect property,
the Commission being of the opinion that the use was one of the heaviest of the commercial
uses, and it would have a detrimental effect on the residential uses established to the
south, even though they were apartments, and persons sesiding in apartments should be
given the same concern as single-femily homeowners; that the use would be incompatible;
that the petitioners were proposing to have an operation open 24 hours a day, which
would have a detrimental effect on the peace, health, safety, and general welfare of
the residents of the area; and that the petitioners were proposing to provide a gasoline
service facility in the center of a block, which normally was not permitted by the
service st~tion standards.
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC68-137 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1026
on the basis that the 24-hour-a-day carwash operation would be incompatible with the
residential uses established to the south due to the excessive amount of noise, dirt,
light, hours of operation, etc. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENTe COMMISSIONERS: None.
Commissioner Rowland requested that additional findings be made to the resolution in
that the petitioner offered to dedicate a one-foet strip of land to provide access to
Western Avenue for the landlocked parcel; however, this would be circumventing the
intent of the requirements of the Code, which recognized tne problems landlocked parcels
would have if frontage were not provided on a dedicated street, and the one-foot strip
of land could not be considered a usable access.
.. ~ ~ ~~ .. . . . . ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 20, 1968
. 'b' +.;s,r.!' s ''r"~E
r ~
V ~
3923 ~
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. G. L. HARBOUR, 4500 Orrington Road, Corona del Mar,
N0. 67-68-85 California, Owner; WILLIAM E. SWANK, 224 Town 8 Country, Orange,
California, Agent; property described as: An irregularly_shaped
CONDITIONAL USE parcel of approximately 1.45 acres of land having a frontage of
PERMIT.NO. 1028 approximately 310 feet on the north side of Burton Street and a
maximum depth'of approximately 306 feet,the easterly boundary of
said parcel being approximately 650 feet west of the centerline of
Acacia Street. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPI.E-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: WAIVER OF MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS FOR A
PROPOSED 15-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX.
Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, the uses
established in close proximity, the proposed use, and the Report to the Commission,
noting that the General Plan depicted subject property for low density residential
development, and the petitioner was proposing a density which would fall within that
permitted under the R-2 Zone, or low-medium density. Furthermore, in reviewing the
proposed development, the Interdepartmental Committee was of the opinion that Blossom
Lane should be extended and cul-de-saced on subject property, and i: this were accom-
plished, the present plan of development would have to be modified by relocation of the
parking facilities, but still to comply with Code requirements. Furthermore, the easterly
20 feet indicated as a secondary accessway on the proposed plan of development, would
not be a part of subject property, and the Commission might wish to explore the status af
this old easement with the petitioner.
Mr. William Swank, agent and architect for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission,
noting that the proposed plans were for a low-medium density development; that the use,
in their opinion, was an appropriate land use for a difficult parcel to be sieveloped
because of the location of the flood control channel and industrial property to the north
in the City of Fullerton; that almost all requirements of the R-3 Zone had been incor-
porated in the plans with the exception of the minimum distance between buildings, and
avery attempt was made to try to preserve the privacy of the single-family homeowners
with an ettractive development; and in response to Commission questioning, noted that
the roadway indicated as an alley had been used by the petitioner when he owned the
property to the north of the flood control channel - however, this roadway was no longer
`needed, end if the Commission required it, this would be dedicated to the City and an
alley provided.
Office Engineer Arthur Daw indicated that standard dedicated all?ys, according to City
Council policy, required that the alley serve adjoining properties, whereas the proposed
alley would serve only subject property - therefore, it was not recommended that this
a11ey be dedicated to the City, but should be used as a private access.
The Commission noted that perhaps because the alley deadended into Blossom Lane, if
this were extended this might offer better circulation rather than having it as a private
driveway, permitting the residents of the planned residential development to use it -
rather than cul-de-sacing it at the other end.
After considerable discussion between the Commission, the Development Services staff,
and Mr. Daw relative to the extension of the alley into Blossom Lane, Mr. Daw concluded
that the Street Superintendent and Traffic Engineer were desirous of having Blossom
Lane cul-de-saced as recommended in the Report to the Commission.
Mr. Wayne Carter, 1428 East Burton Street, appeared before the Commission representing
six persons present in the Council Chamber, also in oppositicn, noting that they had
lived in this area for twelve years, and the petition he was submitting was signed by
46 residents of Burton Street and Blossom Lana requesting denial of subject petition on
the basis that there was no hardship demonstrated that a variance was necessary since
adjoining property owners hed been required to comply with Code requirements; that the
cul-de-sac street on which additional traffic was proposed was frequented by many snall
children, and this additional traffic might result in accidents; that only one access
wes,provided for each street to Acacia Street, and fire and police service would be
hampered if there were additional traffic and fire problems, and if adequate off-strcat
parking were not provided, there would be additional parking problems on the street,
such as could be noted adjacent to any apartment development; and that property values
of the sin9le-family homes would be affected. Furthermore, they had already suffered
a depreciation in the value of their homes tirhen the freeway was constructed, and then
recommended that the Commission deny subject petition.
_. _ .. .
~ ` ~ l:~ 4.J
"MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 20, 1968 3924
RECLASSIFICATION - In rebuttal, Mr. Swank stated that the property was difficult to
NQ.-67r68-85 develop, and they would attempt to relieve some of the circulation
- problem by diverting it from Blossom Lane; that the apartments would
CONDITIONAL USE be acceptable in appearance, and the people who lived in apartments
•PERMII' N0. 1028 were also desirous of havin9 a worthwhile place to live.
(Continued)
It was further noted by the opposition that there was no access
beyond the flood control channel - therefore, no better access
could be afforded subject property.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
~ The-Commission inquired of the staff how many single-family homes could be placed on
subject property, and what would be the increase in the number ef cars using the streets.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that if suk:,ject property were
~:~eveloped for single-family residential use, there would be approxima;ely seven homes
providing two car garages, and if these homes had high school or colleg~~ youngsters,
this would add an additional car, or approximately 17 cars could be considered for the
single-family homes, while a minimum of 19 was required for the apartment development.
The Commission also noted that the property would be a difficult piece of property tu
develop for single-family residential use due to the fact that it was adjacent io the
flood control channel and Fullerton industrial development, and the petitioner was
proposing a low-medium density rather than high density apartment development - there-
fore, this could serve as a good transition bet~seen the industrial use to the north
and single-family use to the south and east. Furth.ermore, it would be extremely diffi-
cult to subdivide subject property into seven single-family zoned lots since they would
be limited to access because of the size and shape.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-139 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that the request for
R-3 zoning be denied; however, a further recommendation of the Planning Commission to
reclassify subject property to the R-2 Zone would be more appropriate as a transition
between the industrial properties and the flood control channel to the north and the
single-family homes to the south and east; that the petitioner had offered to dedicate
an'alley and cul-de-sac Blossom Lane, and further, to revise tt:e plans to provide for
adequate parking where parking was now proposed in the cul-de-sac area; and subject to
conditions. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the.foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farana, Gauer, Herbs•t, Mungall, Camp.
NOES: CAMMISSIONERS: Rowland.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
Commissioner Rowland, in voting "no", stated that if the City Council held the Planning
Commission's action on subject property, that the staff should initiate a General Plan
Amendment propusing land between the Riverside Freeway and the flood control channel
west of Acacia Street to be designated for low-medium density development.
Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC68-140 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition ~for Conditional Use Permit No. 1028
sub,ject to conditions, and amending Condition No. 5 to provide for cul-de-sacing of
Blossom Lane, and revision to the parking area to reflect parking in conformance with
zone requirements. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: _
AYES: CAMMISSIONERS: Allred,Farano,Gauer, HerbsL, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: CAAMitISSIONERS: None.
ABSENTe COMMISSZONERS: None.
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to direct the staff to make a study to determine
the feasibility, of amending the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.32, to permit as a
matter of°right certain setbacks of distances between buildings when this distance is
between primary and secondary buildin9s, so long as the distance equals the required
definition for granting this; however, permission to waive all variances between major
buildings on the site should not be included, and this consideration should be considered
between buildings and carports or garages where the difference is incorporated in the patio
or garden area. Commissioner Farano seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
i
'
I ~~;
I r~~
I <
~
I
r 'n ~e,~ xti iV o~ 'k - '~v1 €~~' E 'M n t AF . N r ,~, .e~ ~" ~ yF . . .: r ...
~ ~ ~„~r ~-i ~^, z ~. ~h i ~
5 ~~ .;nE#4"Y~ a ~13" .nry ~'~~~.~ . ': ~ 3~ ~'ti'~' F 4~-~4'C.P°~ . r~ ~.q- 7 4 u'i ~, ~.F ~ `: w
~: _ ,. . ,. • . .. ~ . ' ':
O ~ . '.~~ ~ ... . ' . ~ . . ~ .
MINUI'ES,_CITY.PLANNING COMMISSION, May 20; 1968 3925
RECLASSIFICATION'- PUBLIC HEARING. EVERETT H: MILLER, c~o Robert H.-Grant, P. 0. Box
N0:`67-68-86 2067, Anaheim, California, Owner; ROBERT H. GRAi~T,.P. 0. Box 2067,
~ Anaheim, California, Agent; property described as: Portion No. 1-
VARIANCE..NO. 1979 A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having.approximate frontages
of 375 feet o'n the east side of Brookhurst Streei; and 220 feet on
TENTATIVE MAP OF the north side of Brookmoore'Avenue, and Portion No. 2- An irregu-
_ TP,ACT:NO. 5162, , larly shaped parcel.of land having a frontage of approximately 470
` REVISION N0. 3_ feet on the north side of Ball Road and a maximum depth of approxi-
mately 1,268`feet,, the westerly boundary of said portion being
approximately'200 feet east of the centerline of Brookhurst Stre~t.
Property presently classified R-A, AGRZCUL7URAL, 20NE (PORTION N0. 1),
and R-A, AGRICULTURAL AND G1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONES.(PORTION N0.2)
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: PORTION N0. 1- G1, GENERAL dJMMERCIAL, ZONE;
PdRTION N0. 2- R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: PORTION N0. 2- Wpi!/ERS OF (1) MINIMUM FLOOR AREA PER
DWELLING UNIT, (2) MqXIMUM NUMBER OF MAIN BUILDINGS PER
BUILDING SITE, (3) MINIMUM NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING
SPACES, AND (4) MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF FENCES IN FROM YARD
SETBACK, TO PERMIT A 224-UNIT APARTMENI' COPAPLEX.
TENTATI?!E TRACT REQUEST: Subject tract, located on the east side of Brookhurst Street,
northerly of Ball Road and containing approximately 12-3~4
acres, is proposed for subdivision into 11 R-3 zoned lots.
Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, uses
established in close proximity, the proposed petitions, and previous zoning action on
sub3ect property, emphasizing the fact that both C-1 and R-3 zoning had been approved
in 1963; however, this project was never pursued, and the zoning never completed on the
property,
~
~1,
.•'Ik
`';a
Mr. Roberts also noted that the Anaheim General Plan designated this area for medium I ~"~
density residential land uses, and the proposed develao;~ent would fall within the medium ' '
density framework - therefore, the only;considerationa.before the Commiseion were the ,;i
requested waivers of maximum number of main buildings on a lot, since coverage would be ~
'well•below.Code requ=rements, and the architect would have ~nore flexibility providing ~`.•
large, green, open areas; and the size of the',units; since 40 of the 224 units were ;~~,
proposed•for 509 square feet, and 700 square feet was required by Code,
i~
Mr. James Huston, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commis- '
sion and noted that the proposed multiple-family residential development would be a more
desirable development from the standpoint of a better living environment, and no adverse
implications on the surrounding property, since the proposed development would be a self-
contained development with the exception that there would be two streets cul-de-saced
into the, end o£ the property; that the coverage factor under th? R-3 Zone would permit
55% - however, they were proposing only 48%; that the proposed development would be a `
transition development between the commercial uses along Brookhurst Street and Ball Road
and the R-1 to the north and east; and that tnere was a need for the single, bachelor
type units as proposed - however, these were larger than most single units proposed in
;hat 509 square feet was planned, and each unit would have a private patio. Also, these
units would be located adjacent to the commercial development and would.have no harmful
effect,on the residential uses to the east.
i;
Mr. Huston also noted that a request for waiver of the height of the masonry wall along '
the Ball Road frontage was needed so that the patios facing Ball Road could be enclosed ~
with a 6-foot masonry wall 10 feet from the property line, and that 5-foot walls were ~~
permitt~d by the R-1 Zone ad~acent to arterials. ,
` Mr. Huston further noted that landscaped islands were proposed in the center of the
streets for added attractiveness, and that the petitioner was willing to file CCBRs
with the City to guarantee perpetual maintensnce of these islands..
I .
' Mr. James Showalter, 2133 Juno Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition and
stated that they were not in oppositiorr to development of this weed field - however, the ~
property owners of the triplexes were concerned with the increase in traffic which could
occur with increased density; that a serious,traffic and parkin9 problem already existed,
especially because of the several churches in the area whose parishioners were parking %;
not only in the driveways but in front of the homes; that the alley adjacent to subject
property now.served as a bypass to traffic signals on Brookhurst Street by using the
a11ey southerly of Minerva Avenue to gain access to Ball goad; that since on-street
parking was removed from Ball Road, the commercial uses along the street had been parking j
~:4 '.};
n ~ a5 fi
i
1' z.r f' . ,~ ~A; a ' '^~ r r r ,' ~ixa" tin.v ~ . - 7~ n ~ ~ t: - :~;
l _ l `~ 5 ' I.~:e
~ C,~ ~
~ ~~
~, ; MINUTES,_CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 20, 1968 3926
,t
`~~ '' RECLASSIFICATION - in the residential area to the north; that in•reviewing the plot
'?~`,' N0. 67-68-86 plan, it was determined that a
~ pproximately 25 parking spaces would
, be having access to the alley which could increase~~the traffic
~~~' VARIANCE_N0. 1979 hazards to both the residential streets to the east in an attem t
~3 . p
,, totgain access to Ball Road, and these hazards could be accelenated
~,,,' TENTATIVE MAP OF because of heavy lawn wa~ering which inundated the center of alley,
?~~;„:.:: TRACT N0. 5162, and cars parked within five feet of the alley would be constantly
REVISION N0. 3 sprayed with water.
"~ ~`/' (Continued)
~:,::<,
=' " Mr. Showalter then submitted a petition signed by ten property
'~'~ owners, all in oppositfon to the increase in traffic and density,
~~:~ and a showing of hands indicated six persons present in opposition.
xr•, '~,~
:i Mr. Calvin Queyrel, representing the engineer of the proposed txact, appeared before
the Commission an~: stated that the proposed development was similar to that approved
thr.e.e_years ago foi subject property, at which time alley utilization was also proposed,
and that he had alrea~y had discussions with the City Engir.eer relative to the water in
the alley.
`~
;.: ~>
Mr. Jack Atkins, 2139 Jyno Avenue, appeared before the Commission and emphasized the fact
that a parking problem existed, and if subject petitions were granted, the single apart-
ments would have all adults with approximately two cars for each apartment, and this
` would require more parking spaces :than required under the R-3 Zone, and most two-bedroom
us units required two-car parking, even though the City required only one and one-quarter
,,;~' parking spaces per unit, and it was his opinicn that the parking requirements for the
;~ City, as it pertained to apartments, should be re-examined in order to require a more
:~a realistic approach to parking problems adjacent to apartments. Also, that the alley
' j would permit the tenants of these apartments to park on Juno Street ar.d walk to their
';,,,;'v apartments, thereby reducing the parking for guests of those triplexes along Juno Place,
'>> < and with the influx of 224 apartments, this would bring a ~onsiderable parking shorta9e
;.%a~li'; since it had been
, proven that more was needed than Code required.
Mr. Huston, in rebuttal, stated that the on-site parking including the street parking
would provide approximately 350 parking spaces; furthermore, the bacheIor type apart-
ments would be occupied by single persons and not by couples, as was proven in a survey
ma,de by him." Therefore, it would average out as to parking requirements.
Mrs. David Eorden, 2152 Minerva Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated that
if a block wall were to deadend at Minerva Avenue, she requested a landscape buffer
be placed at the westerly end of Minerva Avenue; that she was anxious to see this property
develop, but was also concerned with the residents of these new apartments having access
through the alley and parking in the triplex area along Juno Place and Minerva Avenue,
Minerva Avenue being a single-family residential street, and some provision should be
made to take care of this problem.
THE HEARING WAS CIASED.
Cammissioner Rowland noted that the proposed developmer~t should have been considered as
a planned residential development because of the many waivers requested, said waivers
being covered in the planned residential development, and inquired what was wrong with
the planned residential development policy; whereupon Assistant Development Services
Director Robert Mickelson noted that the petitioner was proposing to subdivide subject
property into 11 lots, and•essentially all of the PRD regulations did apply, since there
was little difference between the R-3 and a PRD, only requiring more open space and more
parking - that the initial concept was to put a building on a lot, but because of the
architect's concept of development, the many waivers were requested.
Mr. Huston.noted for the Commission that under a planned residential development only
40~ coverage was permitted, whereas the R-3 permitted 55~, and the parking ratio was
two spaces per_one unit, and the R-3 was one and one-quarter spaces - therefore the
proposed.development fell within the R-3 requirements with waivers, as requested.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that an additional condition
to the variance and the tentative tract should be that covering submission of CCBRs
approved by the City Attorney's office.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC68-141 and moved for its passage and
adoption, seconded by Commissioner Farano, to recommend to the City Council that Peti-
tion for Reclassification No. 67-68-86 be approved, subject to conditions. (See
Resolution Book)
- -~.~ „- w
~Y~
. . . . ~. ,_. ~`u-ff~'.t.t.~r!4l~;~'•+w•-,},u}`.1K
' :i_` i :~~: 4.,~i
~
r~ }f r~`%~ ~ s t fi Ssf~ L~' -! ~ P S (~~I ~` ~ ::. r
4 .,~ e, ~,' i' ~~i r r ' S ' r
J ~J
\-~
`~.~
MINUTES,.CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 20, 1968 3926
RECLASSIFICATION - in the residential area to the north; that in.reviewing the plot
N0. 67-68-86 plan, it was determined that approximately 25 parking spaces would
-~ be having access to the alley which could increase•~the traffic
VARIANCE_N0. 1979 hazards to both the residential streets to the east in an attempt
to~gain access to Ba11 Road, and these hazards could be accelerated
TEN7ATIVE MAP OF because of heavy lawn watering which inundated the center of alley,
TRACT NO.. 5162, and cars parked within five feet of the alley would be constantly
REVISION N0. 3 sprayed with water.
(Continued)
Mr. Showalter then submitted a petition signed by ten property
owners, all in opposition to the increase in traffic and density,
and a showing of hands indicated six persons present in opposition.
Mr. Calvin Queyrel, representing the engineer of the proposed tract, appeared before
the Commission and stated that the proposed development was similar to that approved
thxe.e_years ago for subject property, at which time alley utilization was also proposed,
and that he had already had discussions with the City Engineer relative to the water in
the alley.
~ Mr. Jack Atkins, 2139 Jyno Avenue,appeared before the Commission and emphasized the fact
that a parking problem existed, and if subject petitions were granted, the single apart-
` ments would have all adults with approximately two cars for each apartment, and this
~` would require more parking spaces than required under the R-3 Zone, and most two-bedroom
:'' units required two-car parking, even though the City required only one and one-quarter
;;„7; parking spaces per unit, and it was his opinion that the parkin9 requirements for the
r: City, as it pertained to apartments, should be re-examined in order to require a more
`;`;~ realistic approach to parking problems adjacent to apartments. Also, that the alley
,-`,;r would permit the tenants of these apartments to park on Juno Street and walk to their
°~{~~ apartments, thereby reducing the parking for 9ues~s of those triplexes along Juno Place,
;';;`K~ and with the influx of 224 apartments, this would bring a considerable parking shortage
;;;.'!~ since it had been proven that more was needed than Code required.
Mr. Huston, in rebuttal, stated that the on-site parkinc includin9 the street parking
wavld provide approximately 350 parking spaces; furthermore, the bachelor type apart-
ments'would be occupied by single persons and not by couples, as was proven in a survey
made by him. Therefore,'it would average out as to parking requirements.
Mrs. David Borden, 2152 Minerve Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated that
if a block wall were to deadend at Minerva Avenue, she requested a landscape buffer
be placed at the westerly end of Minerva Avenue; that she was anxious to see this property
develop, but was also concerned with the residents of thefie new apartments having access
through the alley and parking in the triplex area along Juno Place and Minerva Avenue,
Minerva Avenue being a single-family resic:ential street, and some provision should be
made to take care of this problem.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSHD.
Commissioner Rowland noted that the proposed development should have been considered as
a planned residential development because of the many waivers requested, said waivers
being covered in the planned residential development, and inquired what was wrong with
the planned residential development policy; whereupon Assistant Development Services
Director Robert Mickelson noted that the petitioner was proposing to subdivide subject
prooerty into 11 lots, and•essentially all of the PRD regulations did apply, since there
was little difference between the R-3 and a PRD, oniy requiring more open space and more
parkin9 - that the initial concept was to put a building on a lot, but because of the
architect's concept of development, the many waivers were requested.
Mr. Huston.noted for the Commission that under a planned residential development only
40% coverage was permitted, whereas the R-3 permitted 55%, and the parking ratio was
two spaces per_one unit, and the R-3 was one and one-quarter spaces - therefore the
proposed.development fell within the R-3 requirements with waivers, as requested.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that an additional condition
to the variance and the tentative tract should be that covering submission of CC&Rs
approved by the City Attorney's office.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC68-141 and moved for its passage and
adoption, seconded by Commissioner Earano, to recommend to the City Council that Peti-
tion for Reclassification No. 67-68-86 be approved, subject to conditions. (See
Resolution Book)
~
i
~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING-COMMISSION, May 20, 1968 8927
RECLASSIFICATION - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following
N0. 67-68=86 vote:
VARIANCEiNO. 1979 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano,
` Gauer, Herbst, Mungall,
Rowland, Camp.
TENTATiVE MAP OF NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
~ TRACT NO`..5162, ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
REVISION N0. 3'
. (Continued) Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No PC68-142 a d m d f
n ove or
its passa9e and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to
grant Petition for Variance No. 1979 with a findin9 that the
petitioner stipulated to a 3-foot landscape buffer strip along the Minerva Avenue
terminus,,immediately east of subject property, and an additional condition that CCBRs
be filed..to guarantee the perpetual maintenance of the landscaped islands in the two
streets on subject property. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: C9MMISSIONERS: None.
Commissioner Farano offered a motion to approve Tentative Map or Tract.No. 5162,
Revision No. 3, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 5162, Revision No. 3, is
granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 67-68-86 and
Variance No. 1979.
2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision,
each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval.
3. That the owner of subject property shall enter into an agreement with the
City of Anaheim. to perpetually maintain the proposed landscaped-medians;
with the agreement being.a covenent to run with the R-3 zoned property.
4. ' That the islands shail be landscaped, including irrigation facilities, in
a manner which is acceptable to the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance.
5. That the north-south street shall be named Archer Street.
Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
GENERAL PLpN - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CIlY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204
AMENDMENT N0. 99 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing to consider
a land use change for property generally bounded on the west by
Magnolia Avenue, on the east by Gilbert Street, and on the south
by Lincoln Avenue, for medium density residential use.
Assistant Planner David Williamson reviewed General Plan Amendment No. 99 for the
Commission (copy on file in the Development Services Department), emphasizing the fact
that as a result of a recent R-3 zoning request on property within the study area, the
General Plan Amendment was initiated since the use designated on the Plan for this
property was commercial-professional.
The Commission was of the opinion that the reclassification petition and variance should
also be co:~sidered at the same time.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. ERICH AND ALMA WINGER, 161 East Orangethorpe
N0: 67-68-87 Avenue, Placentia, California, Owners.; FREDRICKS DEVEIAPMENT
CORPORATION, 524 West Commonwealth Avenue, Fullerton, California,
VARIANCE~NO. 1981 Agent; property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of
approximately 5.5 acres of land having a frontage of approximately
474 feet on the east side of Magnolia Avenue and a maximum depth of
approximately 500 feet, the southerly boundary of said parcel being apprcximately 190
feet north of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified R-A,
AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RL-SIDEivTIAL~ ZONE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT, (2) IACATION OF
ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, (3) MINIMUM DISTANCE BEIWEEN BUILDINGS,
AND S4) MAXIMUn1 DISTANCE OF A LIVING UNIT FROM A STANDARD
STREtT~ T0 PERMIT A 145-UNIT GARDEN APARTMENT COMPLEX.
+.~.~.~ ~ s
,. ~
:;:~:r
<i
~mc ,.. } r: "j" ic,; . _ c, a 's , i
~_ : '^° .e ;!C '._ a : •~p e 4 ,": F 7 .~~ ~~`'/' ~. i 7
d
N
~' f
{~
s ~
~
'~ ., ~. . I; ~ ~ ~ . . , ~~.
~ ~ ' ~
~', .
_ .. ' " __ .._~_'
-
~,~{~~ ,. .
. .
~ ..
4 .:
f . . ~
~~ ~~ ~1
~' MINUTES. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 20, 1968
3928
. GENERAL PLAN - Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject
-` AMENDMENT.NO. 99 property, the uses established in close proximity, and the Report
;?3;
;'?" RECLASSIFICATION to the Commission, noting that the pPtitioner was proposing a
~
`~~
r' N0. 67-68-87 28-foot wide access drive along both sides of the development, and
" VARIANCE N0. 1981 at the Interde artmental Committee meetin the
P g question arose as to
~ (Continued) the adequacy of the proposed 28-foot wide peripheral drive, since
;~`%r
`
' with 145 units proposed for this development, it could carry up to
-~
"
?-:' 3,480 vehicles per day, which was greater than the traffic count
on man
of the l
l
t
i
y
oca
s
reets
n the standard, single-family subdivision developments;
that the.coverage on the property was approximately 41~96, which was about 14% below that
permitted in the R-3 Zone; and that another point of prime consideration was that the
s}:" ~'l
"' parking spaces provided around all the entrances into the residential development could
~~ prove a hazard and make it difficult to hook up to fire hydrants in the event of fire -
therefore the Commission might wish to consider discussing with the petitioner the possi-
,
~~~ bility of eliminating some of the parking spaces around the entrances in order that the
r•x fire equipment could have easy access to fire hydrants and entry ways into the development. ~;
.~' Mr. Roberts also noted that subject property was bounded on the north by the Anaheim
;~~ Munici al Golf Course and the p p g p g Y ~
P , petitioner was ro osin 22 car orts alon the northerl
~
} ,~~ boundary and had not considered taking advantage of the existing scenic qualities of '
:_ the goli course by elimination of a portion of these carports, and that the Commission ~
~'~' s
`~ might wish to explore this with the developer - relative to the elimination of carports
along the northerly boundary.
~
; .. ~
Mr. Henry Fredricks, representing the agent for the etitioner a ~
P , ppeared before the
~ Commission and noted that a 28-foot drive was along the southerly property line, with ~
,; open parking spaces adjacent to the building; that there were 63 extra parking spaces - ~
'' ?
~ however, these were all open parking spaces, and large areas were left open between
th
~
~
~' e carports along the northerl
y property line to take advantage of the existing scenic ~
~ qualities of the 9olf course; that naturally they would like to eliminate those carports ~
,.~ along there- however, Code required 181 covered parking spaces, and the carports provided
~
,.f..:. _;~ for storage facilities tor the apartments, as well as for parking of the automobiles.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson noted that there would be approximately 21 more
carports than dwelling units, even if the Commission required the elimination of 15
carports.
Mr. Fredricks further noted that the proposed development was a new revision of the
Spanish elevation which had been so successful within the City, and it was anticipated
this would.be one of the finest developments in the City.
Mr. Thompson inquired of Mr. Fredricks whether he would agree to providing more entry
ways along the 28-foot wide drive than was indicated on the plans, since at least one
or two were needed at each end.
Mr. Fredricks agreed to pro:~ide two additional spaces to each area.
i Mr. Fredricks also noted that the circulation provided was• adequate for fire department
circulation, provided that one side was open for perpendicular parking of guests enter-
ing from Magnolia Avenue.
` No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
i
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-143 and moved for its passage and
adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council fhat General
Plan pmendment No. 99, Exhibit "A", be approved. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
Commissioner Gauer.offered Resolution No. PC68-144 and moved for its passage and
adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that
Petition for Reclassification No. 67-68-87 be approved, subject to conditions, and
the requirement as stipulated to by the petitioner that additional accessway would be
provided around the periphery of the 28-foot wide drive~ and that 15 of the carports
would be eliminated along the north property line adjacent to the golf course.
(See Resolution Book)
. .;<.
-----.___._ :
_ ~ ;) ~~ t~ ,;
MINUTES,..C~TY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 20, 1968 r 3929
GENERAL;PLAN . - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following
AMENDMENT-N0. 99 vote:
RECLASSIFICATION
N0. 67-68-87 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungell,
VARIANCE.NO. 1981 Rowland, Ca~ip.
(Continued) NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
_ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
Commissioner A13red offered Resolution No. PC68-145 and moved for its passage and
adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1981,
subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book)
~~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
~'z:
'; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
`'~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
r
RECLASSI.ICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. PALMER AND BLANCHE SANDENO E1' AL ~~-:i'
N0. 67-68-73 9902 East Orange Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners;~FREDRICKS !
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 524 West Commonwealth Avenue, Fullerton, ~"°
VARIANCE N0. 1970 California, Agent; property described as: Approximately 3 acres t`;
of land comprised of three parcels: Parcel No. l- A rectangularly
shaped parcel of approximately 112 feet by 265 feet, the northerly ~,
boundary bein~j approximately 325 feet south of the centerline of Orange Avenue, and the ~%
I easterly boundary being approximately 400 feet west of the centerline 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 approxi-
mately 330 feet, the easterly boundary being approximately 400 feet west of the center- S
line of Brookhurst Street. Property presently classified G1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE I
(PARCEL N0. 1) and COUNIY R-4-6000 AND PD-4000 DISTRICTS (PARCEL NOS. 2 AND 3). I:i~:
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE (PARCEL NOS. 1, ~ j;,
I ~y~~~.,
2AND3)•
. , . . . . . . .. ,
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM REQUIREI~ BUII,DING SETBACKS, „
~~,
1k~
si`; p.
`r '~
'~~;~~
(2) IACATION OF ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, (3) MINIMUM ~
~ ~p
~~
DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS, AND (4) MAXIMUM DISTANCE .
'~ w~
OF A LIVING UNIT FROM A STANDARD STREET, TO PERMIT A ~~~~~:
~
69-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX. ~~
~'~
~
Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property
the uses
d !
'
,
establishe
in close proximity, and noted that subject petitions nad been continued i' °f
from the meetings of April 22 and May 6, in order to allow the petitioner time to
discuss int
l
i `
~
`
erna
c
rculation desi n fire
9, protection implications, and for the sub-
mission of.revised plans
if n
c i
,
e
essary; that the plans before the Commission were
revised, being reduced from the original 73 units to 69 units
nd
i
, a
a per
pheral,
secondary access route would be provided around the entire project
which would faci-
,
litate the movement of both fire fighting equipment and trash collection equipment on
th
i f
e p
operty; that waivers of the side yard setbacks and minimum distance betwee~
buildin
s
ill i
e ;;
gs_w,ere
t
n eff
ct - however, the 5-foot area normally required adjacent
to th
sr
r ;~
e c
po
ts proposed along the westerly property line could become a catch-all
for debris and trash
and it
ld
,
wou
probably be to the advantage of the City to waive
this'requirement-to permit the carports t
abut th
o
e property line as proposed; and
that the waiver of the minimum distance between buildings was proposed to allow for ,;
~! '7:
the area to be used as private patio areas. Furthermore, as a'condition of approvel
io ~
+
,
pr
r to the servicing of the project with sewer connections and electrical connections
the ~~i
,
property under the•jurisdiction of the County would have to'be annexed into the'City. ~ ;?,
Mr. Henry.Fredricks, a9ent for the petitioner, indicated his '
presence to answer.questions. ~~~'
;3
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that one carport along the west ,
,
1 ~
property line would have to be removed in order that the trash storage area could be
' ~'
loca
ted there. ~'
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions. ;'
~
THE HEARING WAS CIASED. j'
i
~'
~•
~_ ~
~
~ ~ , ~` V. ~ ~ ` ~ ~
S 7Y {
~~
.
~
i
'f ' ~~, i
c
. J
s
j
y
~ ~
},
~..._.
__
~..~~
,__. - --
_.-_ } `~~
_ ~ ~ ~ `-~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ .~~. ~ i
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING C:~MJi1t.SSION, May 20, 1968 ~ . 3930 , ~'
~ ~
RECLASSIfICATION - Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC68-146 and moved for ~ r~:
°z
,,
N0. 67-68-.73 its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to
recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification .-~
VARIANCH N0. 1970 No. 67=68-73 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution
(Continued) Book)
On roll call the foregoin resolution was assed b the followin
9 P Y 9 "~'~~~
, vote: ;,~'
,:-~,
':-
~
~
.
~
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
- , ~,
~'=~
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
`=i;
~
' Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC68-147 and moved for its passage and '
ry
adoption, seconded by Commissioner Farano, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1970, `
subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, ~Aungall, Rowland, Camp. ~
NOES: .__COMMISSIONERS: None. 1
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
RECESS FOR DINNER - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recess for dinner.
Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. N~TION CARRIED. ~;
The rtl.eeting recessed at 5:35 P.M.
RECONVENE - Chairman Camp reconvened the meeting at 7:30 P.M., all Cemmissioners ~
being present.
~
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. DAVID H. AND RUTH MC CONNELL, ET AL, 910 South ~
N0. 67-68-81 Knott Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; J. W. MC MICHAEL, ~
469-A West Valencia Drive, Fullerton,.California, Agent; requesting ;
TENTATIVE MAP OF that property described as: A rectangularly snaped parcel of ;
TRACT-N0. 6146, approximately 2.4 acres of land (approximately 264 feet by 400 feet)
kEVISION N0. 1 being a westerly extension o£ Glen Holly Drive, the southerly
boundary of said parcel being approximately 390 feet north of the
centerline of Ball Road and the westerly boundary being approxi-
mately 270 feet east of the centerline of Knott Street, be reclassified from the , ~
R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY, ZONE, to subdivide subject property '"',
into _o R-2-5000 zoned lots.
Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, land uses
in close proximity, previous zoning action, and the proposed petition as outlined in the
Report to the Commission, noting that the Anaheim General Plan designates the majority
of this area for low density residential development with a commercial-professional
symbol north and east of the intersection of Ball Road and Knott Street, and a strip
of low-medium density residential along the north side of Ball Road between Knott Street ;
and Westexn Avenue; however, since the R-2-5000 Zone was intended for use only in areas
designated appropriate for low-medium and medium density development on the General Plan,
the Commission must determine whether subject property was appropriate for densities
greater than that presently designated. ;:
Mr. Calvin Queyrel, engineer for the proposed tract, appeared before the Commission and
noted that the previous tract map had proposed 12 R-1 lots - however, because of the
excess development costs for this property due to a need for considerable fill dirt
caused by drainage problems -'the co"st for preparing them would be in excess of $12,000
to $14,000 - and since subject property had two-story apartment buildings within 30 feet
of the single-family zone, the proposed zonin9 would be more appropriate than single-
family zoning. Furthermore, the property was the result of assembling portions of
property owned by four property owners who would still be residing on their properties
westerly of subject property.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions.
THE HEARIIvG.WAS CLOSED.,
The Commission discussed with the staff the possibility of recommending R-1 zoning
with a variance oeing initiated by the Planning Commission, similar to that recommended
for Dale Avenue and Broadway, in order that deviations from the General Plan could be
avoided without having an amendment because of having increased densities, or whether
~"` r ~+,.'
~
;f~r"~~ ,:•t^'wn, ~. E.':::
~
~d .lr.: , ~f'. ? i ~ i`
~
~: ~ l (-_ ' .~ `lv~
"
s~
..__~-,_ ._".__' :
i
~
;;
,
~-!3
~
~ 1
. ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 20', 1968 3931 j `:~'?s
RECLASSIFICATiON - because subject properties bounded on the south by two-story apart-
N0. 67-68-81 ment, this symbology being rather general, could cover the proposed
- - development as it pertained to the General Plan, and that the staff
TENTATIVE MAP OF should study this situation in order to arrive at a solution for the
TRACT N0. 6146, proper method of processing similar requests where the size and shape
REVISION N~. 1 of a parcel is not sufficient to permit regulation size R-1, but
(Continued) would permit R-2-5000, without initiation of a General Plan Amendment
because of the increase in density for a small parcel.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC68-148 and moved for its passage and adop-
tion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that Petition
for Reclassification No. 67-68-51 be approved, subject to conditions, based on the fact
that the size and shape of the parcel is such that regulation R-1 lots could not be
deyeloped and, further, that subject property is bounded on the south by two-story
apartment development - therefore the proposed development could be considered a good
transition between the R-3 and R-1 to the north and east. (See Resolution Book)
0 n.roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: OOMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
AHSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to approve Tentative•Map of Tract No. 6146,
Revision No. 1, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 6146, Revision No. 1, is
granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 67-68-51.
2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision,
each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval.
Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to direct the staff to study the feasibility of
permitting less than 7200 square feet for lots in areas which are difficult to develop
because of their size and shape without the necessity of having a General Pian Amendment
considered. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTZON CARRIED.
GENERAL PLAN - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East
AMENDMENT N0. 101 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; to consider a proposal to
increase the residential density designation for properties generaliy
south of the Aiverside Freeway between Rio Vista Street on the west
and Glassell Street on the east.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. ARTHUR AND HULDA HEMMERLING, 114 North Coffman
PERMIT N0. 1029 Avenue, Anaheim, California, and ROGER PANNIER AND IARRAINE PRATER,
2056 South Loara Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; ARMOUR BUILDING
COMPANY, P. 0. Box 3236, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting
permission to ESTABLISH A MOBILE HOME PARK on property described as: An irregularly
shaped parcel of approximately 26 acres of land located north of the Santa Ana River
and south'oF the Riverside Freeway and having a frontage of approximately 1,100 feet
running west from a point approximately 1,000 feet west of the centerline of Kraemer
Boulevsrd, said frontage being on the south side of Prontera Street south of the River-
side Freeway. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
Associate Planner Charles Roberts advised the Commission that a letter had been received
from the agent for the petitioner relative to Conditional Use Permit No. 1029, requesting
a four-week extension of time in order to present more precise development plans; there-
fore, the Commission might wish to consider continuance of General Plan Amendment No. 101
as well as Conditional Use Permit No. 1029 to said me.eting.
Mr. Larry Armour, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated
the additional time was necessary for a more precise plan of development since he was
unaware of the fact that development of the property would have to be in accordance
with a precise plan, and there was more engineering detail required on the precise plan
that should be presented.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to continue General Plan Amendment No. 101 and
Conditional Use Permit No. 1029 to the meeting of June 17, 1968, in order to allow time
for the developer to present more precise plans of development. Commissioner Mungall
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
;1
~
: '+;;
:.,_;
;::';'
'>"~
:;;i
,L _
,I
~. .,.. 1 ....,. ~ ..~ . . ~.. . ,., . . . . ... , ... ...~
~ .* +~' ~ ~ S .!.H
V
~ f ~tl ~ ~ '~ ?.~ T ~~ iQ ~ ^r ' 7`~ . 4~
t;
i
^~
_'~'__._....__._._ . "'~. -.t
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 20, 1968
RECLASSIFICATION
N0. 67-68-82
VARIANCE N0. 1977
3932
PUBLIC HEARING. THON~~S H. VETTER, M. D., 1701 South Euclid Street, '-,r
Anaheim, California, Owner; property described as: A rectangularly =:<
shaped parcel of land located at the northeast corner of Euclid Street
and Sumac Lane and having frontages of approximately 72 feet on
Sumac Lane and approximately 120 feet on Euclid Street, and further
described as 1701 South Euclid Street. Property presently class_fied ~~'
R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIA:., ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM REQUIRED LANDSCAPING, .
(2) MINIMUM REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES,
(3) YARD AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, (4) SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS FOR INTERIOR SITE BOUNDARY, AND
(5) SCREEN PLANTING ALONG ZONE BOUNDARY, IN ORDER
TO PERMIT OFFICE USE OF A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE.
Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, the uses
established in close proximity, and the Report to the Commission, noting that the peti-
tioner proposed to remodel an existing residential structure for use as a doctor's
office, and five waivers were necessary to permit the C-1 use of the residential struc-
ture; that in 1964 C-1 zoning was approved for the property at the southeast corner of
this intersection - however, it had never been developed as originally proposed; that
the current land use for this area was low density residential - however, on May 14,
1968, the City Council approved General Plan Amendment No. 98 for the 40 acres northerly
of subject property to be developed for low-medium density, and a developer was proposing
to develop 20 acres immediately to the north for R-2-5000; that the design of the tract
was such that a lot would b= created immediately to the north of subject property, identi-
cai in characteristics as subject propertv, and if a developer felt it was feasible that
a new home sidi.ng on an arterial street could be developed and sold, there was no logic
to converting an existing structure for commercial uses; that the petitioner was propos-
ing a 50-foot half-width for Euclid Street - however, the Ci:culation Elenent required
53 feet, and if dedication were met, this would remove the proposed 3-foot landscaping
strip along the westerly property line, and if the 3-foot landscaping strip were required,
a further deficiency in the number of required parking spaces would be made by reducing
the parking to five spaces; that in the Planning Commission's study oi residential homes
fronting or sidino on arterial highways, subject property was not considered as being
appropriate for conversion to commercial uses; and that it would appear that if the
Commission and City Council desire to have the Front-On Study act as it was intended to,
it should be given a chance to develop, rather than establish additional front-on problems
in the City.
Mr. B. C. Adams, 12765 South Brookhurst Street, Garden Grove, appeared before the
Commission, representing the petitioner, and stating that when the petitioner first
approached him to redevelop the property, he had visited the Planning Division, and
after studying the situation over and finding out all the detailed requirements, he
had attempted to propose a development, as presented to the Commission, which would
serve the needs of the petitioner as well as remain within the requirements of the
City's code; that he knew there were serious problems in meeting the zoning require-
ments, but the petitioner had purchased the property on the assumption that similar
zoning would be granted him since properties along the west side of Euclid Street were
granted similar requests; that the petitioner took a•limited number of appointments,
and the proposed parking would be adequate for his type of clientele; that the proposed
redevelopment of the property would be similar to that of the residential home converted
on the west side of Euclid Street, and he had assumed that all problems had been resolved
with the exception of the side yard setbacks; that the driveway was propoe•ed off Sumac
Lane, and the parking problem could be resolved by permitting parking in the front yard;
that the driveway was required on Euclid Street in oxder to provide ingress to the three
parking spaces along the north side of the property; and that a decorative wall could be
placed alongside the property line, and any landscaping w;~ich would be removed if dedi-
cation were required could be placed at the turning area - however, it was preferable
to have the parking along Sumac Lane instead ~f the building.
Dr. Thomas Vetter, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that he
had purchased the building since it was approximately the size he would desire for his
practice, and his practice was limited to 15 to 20 patients per day, and no more than
two to three cars would be in the parking area; that his present office was in the
Anagrove Medical Center, where parking spaces were required for 35 cars - however,
this facility never was filled to capacity; that the architect was proposing to land-
scape the area in such a manner that it would be an asset to the area, and then presented
piotures of the landscaping as it presently existed and what was proposed; and that he had
~ -- ~
~ ' . . . ~ ' ~ . . .
~
MINUTES, CIlY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 20, 1968
3933
RECLASSIFICATION - purchased the property specifically for his use as an office and
N0. 67-68-82 did not anticipate speculation for additional commercial uses for
the site:
VARIANCE N0. 1977 '
(Continued) Mr. Adams again appeared before the Commission and stated that
the improvement of the intersection should be considered one of
the best'items for approving subject petition since it would improve
the visual appearance of that intersection; that this development would result in more
value to the City, end if additional parking were necessary, the•~e could be four o mstreet
parking areas along Euclid Street.
-_;,,~
-':~
~ •~a
'=~~;
z`~
4
; ~~
`'~
',~
,:~
.. i~
. . ~ ..:'~ ;~,R
Dr. Robert G. Robb, 1711 South Euclid Street, appeared before the Commission and stated ~
he had property identical to subject property on the west side of Euclid Street, having ;,`;~
converted that property approximately five years ago, and the proposal of six parking
spaces would be adeq~=.+= because of the type'of office proposed and depending upon the
practice being from t~~.._ ~ighborhood resi~ents who could walk to the office, and that
it would be of considerable help to have the intersection impioved; therefore, he ~
recommended approval of subject petition.
THE HEARING WAS CLASED.
The Commission inquired as to whether or not the property on the opposite corner had
given any land for street widening purposes since the map presented to the.Commission
did not indicate'-t~his.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson indicated that the time limitation had expired on
that reclassification; therefore, it was not in force or effect and dedication could
not be required.
The Commission noted that the•~ had been faced with a similar situation in which commer-
cial uses were proposed along major arterials; however, the study had indicated subject
property may not be considered a part of the conversion of residential homes fronting
or siding on arterial highways.
Commissi:ner Rowland was of the opinion that the proposed request for Gl zoning should
be denied oh the basis that the commercial zoning for the property to the west was not
a recent action; however, the properties to the north had been approved far single-family
homes, and the extensive Front-On Study made by the Planning Commission and adopted by
the Commission and City Council did not project subject property for commercial uses.
Furthermore, the numerous variances required to permit the proposed use would be setting
an undesirable precede~.t for commercial uses of residential properties throughout the
City.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC68-149 and moved for its passage and
adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Peti-
tion for Reclassification No. 67-68-82 be disapproved on the basis that the proposed
reclassification was not necessary or desirable for the orderly and proper. development
of the community; that a single-family residential subdivision was recently approved
for the 20 acres of vacant land to the north, which was indicative that residential
uses siding on arterial streets are still being developed; that in the recently adopted
arteriai street Front-On Study, subject property was not considered as a potential
conversion site since it did not meet the criteria established for such a conversion,
and that said study did designate approximately 171 homes geographicaily dispersed
throughout the community which would be appropriate for conversion from residential
to commercial uses; that the size and shape of the parcel was not adequate to provide
for proper conversion to meet the criteria o£ the site development standards of the
C-1 Zone; and that if the proposed reclassification were approved, it would establish
an undesirable precedent for similar requests to convert other homes adjacent to
subject property ta commercial development. (See Resolution Book)
On roll ca1T the foregoing resolution was passed '•^y the following vote:
* .;,:,~ ,~i. _. : a . -i~ r i o {,Z ~ ..c ;!sq~,.y
~' t - '1
. ~ ~ ~;~~~ ~.
i
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
., r,M '"5'7~'.~ ~ • } L +~ z+7 + 3~ rn ~ ~'~Mi€ , rf~t ~' ifi '~'t,~e t~ i % '" ~'< r ~ ~ x u s ?.5•
~r' g. 4 ~ ;- Y~ c
~ ~ ~
^t fi, 4 _ f 9 ~ ~, ~' ~~j ~ ~lt
1
S
,
','1~ ytl ~'~ ( .1 .. i 0 G",
h~ ~"
n-. 1 a'~ t i41
. . . .i : ,~ ':
~ ., ~
. . . ..... .. ~ .. . ..
.
,
' ~l
.
.,
~
.
. i .: . .., . . .
. ~ =
/ _._.._.__.. ~' ~
. . . __... .. .._.__'._.._.___.~
~ ~ ~
~ . _. - . . J Y
~,
. ~ . .
. . . . . . ~ . . . .
. ~ - tlZ
. ~ . . . ~ ~ . - ;C~
MINUTES, CITY,PLANNING COMMISSION, May 20, 1968 3934 r.
:~
RECLASSIFICATION •- Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC68-150 and moved ~,
~
~
N0. 67-68-82 for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, ,"`
~
to deny Petition for Variance No. 1977 on the basis that there ~
VARIANCE N0. 1977 were no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions ~
,~:~
(Continued) applicable to the property involved, or to the intended use of ~M
the property, that did not generally apply to the property or ~`F
class of use in the same vicinity and zone; that the requested ~
variznce was not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property ;. ,,~,5
right possessed by.other property in the same vicinity and zone and denied to the ,~~
property in question; and that the requested variance would be materially detrimental J
to the public welfare and injurious to the property cr improvements in such vicinity
and zone in which the property was located. (See Resolution Book)
~
'
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: :'''~
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEAR'NG. HILLMAN, ET AL, 2610 West Ball Road, Anaheim,
. N0. 67-68-88 California, Owners; WESTERN SHOPPING CENTERS, INCORF>ORATED,
811 West 7th Street, Los Angeles, California, Agent; property ~ ;
i VARIANCE N0. 1985 described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of approximately 6 '
, acres of land adjacent to the southwest corner of Ball Road and ('~ ~~
Magnolia Avenue and having frontages of approximately 535 feet };
along Ball Road and approximately 246 feet along Magnolia Avenue. Property presently ~
°~
;:.
classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
~«
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: G1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF ~
AN R-A ZONED PARCEL.
t ;
Associate Planner Charles Roberts advised the Commission that a letter had been i ?,
received #rom the agent for the petitioner, indicating that due to a conflict in ~ ,,;
appointment dates and due to the necessity to amend the development plans, a two-weeks' i '!~.
continuance was requested. j ~
?';
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue Petitionsfor Reclassification No. ~
~ ~:
,
67-68-88 and Variance No. 1985 to the meeting of June 3, 1968, as requested by the '
agent for the petitioner. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1
RECOMM~NDATIONS Orange County Conditional Permit No. 1342 - Proposal to establish
a nursery school in an existing single-family residence at property
located at 18552 Minuet Lane, north of Orangethorpe Avenue, east
of Boisseranc Street.
Associate Planner Charles Roberts presented to the Commission Orange County Conditional
Permit No. 1342, noting the locatio~~ of subject property and the proposed request.
Mr. Roberts also noted that the petitioner proposed to have a maximum of 24 children
and 3 teachers; that off-street parlcing would be provided in the drive behind the
existing garage; that a two-space carport would be constructed which would be used
for the existing residence; that the residence would be used by one of the teachers;
and that a 24-square foot sign oriented toward Orangethorpe Avenue would be along the
rear property line.
Mr. Roberts further noted that the site could be divided into two lots for an additional
single-family residence; that it was doubtful that a school of this nature was a:i
appropriate use in the single-family residential subdivision, particularly since it
was locafed in the center of the block; and that the sign would lend a commercial
flavor or appearance to this area and would have a deleterious effect on the residen-
tial environment of the area - therefore, the staff recommended denial of subject
petition.
Commissioner Farano offered a motion to recommend to the City Gouncil that the Orange
County Planning Commission be urged to deny Orange County Conditional Permit No. 1342,
on the basis that the proposed establishment of a nursery, a commercial venture vrith
commercial signing, would have a deleterious effect on the residential character of .::;'
a well-established, single-family subdivision. Commissioner Rowland seconded the .
motion. MATION CAARIED.
--~- , _ Y :, ~-~t. s`
~F ~,W 4n . Fu't iy~'~Fpy ,~ ~ ~ ~ 2. y 'Y.H~°^?}~ '~r tYAe~ .+ 't" Y T ~ y ~ 5 ~ s .-•f' y a'c . a
'~ '""~, ,y C~y ~,~y~, f .~'~k•f,`„`%( ; '~'Y 7~ ! { 'S ~ r F J*
P ~r .~ x , ~ ? a
'1 ~ ~ ' ~.'' m~ ti7~~:. ^.. ~. :w .~r'~ .~'`3~, i . ('$,+~.~':~ . ~a>rS+, t (r ~~,:4 S y~ ~..~; _
~~
~ ~ ~ _ . ~
fi
~ MINllTES,' CITY~PLANNING.COMMISSION;~May 20,,1968 ° 3935
1 ~ ... . .~ ... ~. . . ~
..,~:. -~ ..,' .. ...,. ..~-. ~. .. .
E,~« . ::. ,.. . . .... . ~
~~E. 'J2EPORTS AND - 'ITEM N0: 2 :
~; `.REO~MMENDATIONS Street,name chenges for Sunkist Street and Miraloma•Avenue.
'~' (Continued) ,
~~ _ Associate Planner Charles Roberts.presented to the Commission a
~~f report by the,staff reletive to naming portions of streets formerly
known as.Sunkist Street and Miraloma Avenue which now were no longer named.because of
~ > the overpass which connected'Sunkist Street'with Miraloma Avenue, end recommended that
`~ the street name changes be set for public hearing.
~s;~ . _
Commissioner Herbet offered a motion to set 'for public hearing consideration of street
name•changes for Sunkist Street ahd~Miialoma Avenue to the'meeting of June 17, 1968.
Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
~ • .
+~ ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Herbst
;~,~ offered a motion to adjourn the meeting.,Commissioner Mungall
;:=~v seconded the motion. NqTION CARRIED.
~~ The`meeting adjourned at 8:20 P.M.
`•,~:-~~ , Respectfully submitted,
, °,:r~
rr
~,.
;,~
;;„ ANN KREBS, SECRE P,Y
~I, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING OOMMISSION