Minutes-PC 1969/04/07-e,~ v.~ ~tiY ~?m~.yr:i,.. ~~~~} tck ~~,-sM~,~~a~ , 'Yr7 tt:r ~ a~ :5 ;' fJ ~u r. ~ r ^~:
T~~.~',12"` iflc ~ 1~ :~i t~ z~ r'y. S' ~r a !. `l^~ 'SK
.. ~ . . . . . ~ . :,~
. . . . ~~ . ^- . . . . ~ ~' . ~ . .
t~
C3.t,p An~ ~
Annheim, CaliforniQ, `
Agri: '7, 1969
A. REGIILAR 'r~,ETINfr OF THE ~iNAHEIH CITY PLANNING C0.'~IISSION
REGDLAR MEETIldG - A regular meeting of,the Anaheim City Planuing Cozomiseton wa$ called
to order by , irm4r ~,~,r~ at 2:00 otclock P.i~I., a quor~ b~.ng
preaeat.
PRFSENT - CHAIRbfAN: Allred.
- C02~fISSIONERS; Camp~ Fareac (xho eatered the Counoi], Chamber at
2=45 P.M.), Gauer, Herbet, Rc~rland, Thom.
ABSENT - COD4IISSIONERS: None.
P~INT - Asaietant Develop~ent Servicee Director: Roneld Thompaon
geaietant City Attorney: John Dawaon
Of£ice Eagineer: Jay Titus
Zoning Supervieor: Charles Roberts
Asaiatant Zoning Supervieor:
Pat Browa
geaietant Planner: William Young
PLEDGE Planning Co~iasion Secretary: Ann Kreba
OF ALLEGIANCE - Commiasioner Rowland led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the E1ag,
APPROVAL OF
TI~ MiNUTES - The Minutea of the meeting of March 2.~., 1969, were appraved with the
following correction on motion b
Coa~i
i
y
sa
oner Tttom: saconded by
Commi.seioner Herbet~ and ":it7'ION CARRIED:
PaBe 4413 - Co~i.asioner Herbet 1$d ia the pledge of A1legiance to the
Flag.
:TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: ALBERT C. JO:Il4SON, 166l,. West Broadx~y,"Ansheim, Celifornia.
TRACT N0. 6916 ENGINEII~.: Rsab and Boyer Eng~nee~•ing ~ompeny~ 1l,lr82 Beach Boulevard,
Westminater, Californie. Sub~ect tract, located on the north eide of
Orangethorpe Avenue~ approxlmately 868 feet weat of Kraemer Boulevard,
containiag approximately 2.5 acree, ia propoaed for aubdiviaion into
10 R-3 zoned lote.
Sub~ect tract xaa co~ceideree] ia con~uaction with Tentative Map of ~act No. 611i3i
Revieion No. 1.
Asaietaat Zoning Shpervj,eor Pat Broxa aoted that the esme co~entary made on the afos~e-
mentioned tract wee a].eo applicable to aubfect tract, and that the developer is also
advieed that, by reeolution, the City Council hea determined that the follo~ring perk and
recreetion feea ahall be applicable and payable at the time a build
a) Iseuaace of a buil ~g Permit is isaued:
Iasusace of e build di~g p~t p~ior to t•fey l, 1969 -$25 per dwelling uni.t, or b)
ing permit aubaequent to Apri1 30, 1969 -~75 p~r dWe~.ling unit,
Coffiaiaeioner Rowland offered a motioa to apparove Tentative Map of RY~sct No. 6916, seconded
by Co~ieeioner Gnuer~ and 2+lOTION CARRIED, subject to the following conditions:
1. That should thia aubdivieion be developed ea more than one subdiviaion, each
aubdiviaion thereo£ ahall be aubmitted in tentative form for appa~oval.
2. That th~ approval of Tentstive t~fap of Tract No. 6916 ia granted aubfect to the
approval and aom,pletion of Recleeaification No. 68-69-45.
' 3. That a predeterminod pa~ice £or I,ot A ahall be calculated and an agreement for
; dedicatioa entered iato betweett the Developer and the City of Anaheim pa~ior to
~ approval of the final traat msp, The coat of Lot A ahall'include land and a
j proportionate ahare of the underground utilitiea sad atreet improvemeata.
', 4• That ell lota within thia tract ahall be aerved by underground utilities.
I 5. That the owaera of sub~ect pa~operty eha11 pay to the City of Aasheim park and
~, recrestion fees for each dwelling.unit, as required by City Council resolution,
~ which ehall be used for park and recreation purpoeea~ said amount to be paid at
i the time the building permit ie iseued.
~4434
~.~.~~ _ _ _._ ~-- - - '
r .:~~ a,~, ~;'
;x
O l~ ~
2•aNUTES, CITY PLANNING C02~4•ffSSI0N9 ~pril 7, 1969 ~5
TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEpELOPER: ALBLRT C. JOHNSOND 1664 :,Ieat Broadwr~~ ,4nage3m~ ~a7,ifornia.
TRACT N0. 611,3~ ENGINEII3: Rsab and Boyer mgiaeering Compax~y, 1/~1~82 Beach Boulevard~
REPISION N0. 1 Suite 2, Westminater~ California. Subfect tract, located oa the north
eide of Qrangethorpe Avenue, approximately S68 feet weat of Kraemer
BouZevard9 containing approximately 4.36 acrea, ia propoeed for
aubdiviaiaa into 13 R-3 zoned Iota. •
Assistant Zoning Supervieor Pat Brown preaented Teatative Ifap of R~ract No, 6143, Reviaioa
No. 1~ to the Co~isaion, noting the locatioa of the p¢~operty, previous zon3ag action by
the Cor~iaeioa end City Council, a~srounding land ueea, and the fact thst the developer
formerly:psbpoeed three R-3 zoned tracte, whereas the present revieion to both RY~ect No.
6143 and No. 661.1,. c:eated another tract map, Furthermore, the developer ia advieed that,
by resolution, the City Council has determined that the following parg and recreation fees
ohall be applicable and pey~able ai the time a buiiding permit ia iaeued: e) Isauance of
a building permit prior to 7•f~p 1, 1969 -~25 per dwell
building permit eubeequent to April 30~ 1969 _ 7g ~~'t~ or b) Iseusace o£ a
by P~ir. Brown that apecific conditiona wece recoamrend d ife he t~sacttweretappro edo noted
Commisaioner Rowland offered a motion to approve Teate,tive 21ap of Tract No. 67./.3, Reviaion
No. 1, seconded by Co~isaioner Gauer~ and ifOTION CARRIED~ sub~ect to the following
conditioae:
1• That ahould thia subdiviaion ba developed as more the.n one aubdiviaion, each
subdiviaion thereof ahall be aubmitted in tentative form for approval.
2. That the approval of Tantative 2fap of Tract No„ 6143~ Revision No. 1, ia grsnted
aubject to the approval and e6mpl,etion of Reclesaificat£on No. 68-69-45.
3. That a predeterminod vrice for Lota A~ B and C~ sha11 be calculated and an agree-
ment £or dedication etttered into betxaen the Developer and the City of Anaheim
prior to approval of the f.inal traot map, The coat of Lota A, B attd C ahpll
include land and e proportionats share of ihe undergrouad utilitiee and atreet
improvemente,
4. Ti~st all lots withi~ thia tract ahall be aerved by underground utilities.
5. That the ownere of aub~ect property ahall pay ta the City of Anaheim perg aad
recreation fees £or each dwelling unit, ea required by the City Council reaolution,
which ahsll be ueed for park and recreation piu~poaea~ said amount to be peid at
the time ihe building perm3.t ie isaued.
TENTATNE 2.4Ap OF - DEVELOPER: ALggi,T C. JOHNSON, 1664 Weat Broadvay, Aneheim, Cali£ornia.
TRACT N0. 68L~,~ FNGINEER; i'taab and Boyer Eagineering Company~ 1l,l,gz Beach Boulevard~
REVISION N0. 1 Suite I, Weatffi.nater, Califcrxii8, Subfect tract, loaated on ths north
eide of Orangaihorpe Avenue, agproximately 868 feet west of Kraemer
Boulevard, containing approximately 3.47 acres, is propoaed for
au:odivision into 10 R-3 ~oned lota,
Subject tract waa coneidered in cott~uact#.on xith Tg7ntative .~1ap of R~act No, 67.L,,3, .evision
No. l.
Assiateat Zoning Supervisar Pat Browa nated that the same coaentary made on the afore-
meationed tract was also applicable ta eub~ect tract, and thst the develo~er is also
advised that~ by reaclution~ the City Council had determiaed that the follo~ting parg arid
recreatioa feea ahall be applicab~e ar~d payable at the time a building permit ia isaued:
a) Iasuance of a building permit pripr to Ifay 1~ 1969 - y25 per dxelling unit, or b)
Iasuance of a building pax•mi,t eubaequent to April 30~ 1969 - v75 per dwelling unit.
Co~isaioner Rowland offered a mation to approve Tentat3.ve 2;ap of Tract No. 6811,., Revis?,oa~
No. l, secondod by Commiasioner C~uer, and i10TI0N CARRIED~ aubject to tne ~'ollouing
coaditiona:
l, That ahould thia aubdivieion be developed ea more thau one aubdiviaion, each
subdiviaion ahail be submitted in teatative form for approval.
2. That the appraval of '~entative ?iap of 45ract No. 68149 Reviaion No. 1, is granted
aub~ect to the approval end completiott of Reclasaification No, 68-69_1~5,
3. That a predetermined grice for Lot 4 shall be calculated and an agreement for
dedication entered into betweea the Developer and the City of Anaheim prior to
appraval of the finai treot map, The cost of Lot A shall include land and a
proportionate ahare of the underground utilities and t~treet improvements.
a: ~ ~
HID~TIIT~S, TY PLANNING COi~II~SSION, gpril 7,41969 . . ~~
4436
TENTgTIVE M9P OF - 4. That all lots within thie tract ehall be served by undergroi:nd
TRACT N0. 66]./,s utilitiea.
REVISION N0. 1
Continued 5. Ttis~ the owaers of aubject p~operty ahall pay to the City of Anaheim
park and recreation fees for each dwelling uait, ae required by
City Couacil reeolutioa, which ahall be used for park and recreation
purpoaes, said amount to be paid at the time the building permit is
isaued.
b° VARI9NCE N0. 2068 - pUgLlp IiEAp,ING. ESTI~R ROSBOROIIGH~ 922 Pioneer IJrive, Anaheim,
Califoraia~ Owaer;. requestiag WAIVER OF Tf~ REQUIRED gEAR SETBACI~,
~x ~:~ TO PEftt,ffT.CONSTRIICTIW ~''A R00li ADDITION on property deacribed ae:
rt~~ *~ g rectanguls,r7,y ehapad paz•¢e1 i~ey3~ a~ontage of 100 feet oa the eouth aide of Pioneer
~x ~ Drive and a maximt~ depth of 105 feet, located approximately 533 feat east of the center-
~;,::.,,,~ line of West Street~ sad f~ther described sa 922 Pi.oneer Drive. Property preaently
• °:qd cleeaified R-0~ ONE-FAt+1II,Y ~UBIII4BAN, ZONE.
~aeieteat Zoning Snpervieor Pat Browa revie~ed the location of su~ject property, the usea
~` establiehed 3a close pa~o~dmity, ead the pa~opoaed request to permit an addition to an exiat-
r., ~> ing reaidential etruct~e withia 20 feet of the required 25-foot rear yard; that aubject
'~ property abuited R-1 zoned propertiee to the aou~, all of Which had garage atructurea
located within 20 feet of their rear property linea; that the R-1 Zone permitted main
struct~es to be built up to 10 feet from the rear p~operty line; and that, therefore,
'' 'the Planning Coa~isaioa would have to determine whether the request warranted favorabla
° ,,~`~- conaideration of
Brantis8 thia varieace.
;:~;r~',
~~; "he netitioner indicated her preaence to anawer queationa.
~
~ No one appeared in opposition to aubject petition.
~k t;~ TIiE
rv''; -;~:;~ HEARING WAS Q,OSED.
~;R s;~!
~* r`s,a Co~isaioner Camp of£ered Reaolution No. PC69-65 and movad for ita peesage and adoption9
~ ~ eecoaded by Co~ai.saioner Rowland1 to grant Petition for Verieace No. 2068~ eubject to
'~ conditiona. (See Resolution Book)
~{ ~~~
}a n On roll cal]. the r:oregoing resolution saas pasaed by the following vote:
4 SAC~. . ~ - ' ' ~
~, ~~~ AYFS: CONA4ISSIONER5: Allred9 Camps Ganer, Herbet, Rowland, Thom.
~t NOFS : CONI~ffSSIONERS ; None.
i;'`i?~'";;;;~~~' ABSENT: C02~ffSSIONERS c Farano.
VARIANCE N0. 2067 - PTJBLIC HEARING. GLIId 4fARTIN, 638 Peregrine Street~ Anaheim, Calix'ornia,
Owaer; G~OI:GE Q,ARKE, WAYNE HOWARD, INCORPORATED~ 1116 North Harbor
Boulevardi Seata Ana, Ca13£ornie~ 9geat; requeeting WAIVERg OF (1)
rIINIMUM REAR yARD AND ~2) MA%~IIM COVERAGE OF REQUIRED REAR YARD, TO ERECT A STORAGE
ADDITI~N TO AN E%ISTIIdG GARAGE on property described as: A rectangularly ehaped parcel
of laad at the northeast corner of South and Peregrine Streete, having froatagea of
appa~oximately 104 feet on South Street and 72 feet on Peregrine Street, and further
deacribed as 638 Peregrine Street. Property preaently claesified R-l~ ONE-FADffLY RFSIDEN-
TI9I,, ZONE.
Asaiataat Zoning Superv3,eor Pat Browa revieWed the loe,tios; of aub~ect pa~operty and uaea
eatabliehed in close p¢~oximity' noting that the proposed request was to conatruct a
380-aquare foot exteneioa to the exiating garage for atorage purpoaes; that the exiating
Berags xae preaently located stithin 5 feet of the rear property line and was connected
to the maia reeidential struct~e tirith ~ breeseiray roof; that two variancea had previously
been approved by the Co~iaeion and Couacil for waiver of the minimum xequired rear yards
ia thia aingle-family tract; aad that the Planning Co~iasion would have to determine
whether there Kas fuatification for the propoaed totP.,. atructural coverage of the required
rear yard - approximately 11~ higher thsa that permitted by Code eince the e~d.ating garage
was e].readY 5 feet from the rear property line~ and other variancea had been granted for
mi.n.im~ required rear yard setbacka ia thia tract.
::r. George Clarke9 agent for the petitioner~ sppeared before the Cammiaeion and noted
that becauee sub~ect property wae a corner lot~ there wae no additione,l space to add
of£-atreet perking and atorage; that the area propoaed to conatruct the addition wsa nrnr
enclosed with a 6-£~ot msaonry wa11 and was the only logical apace to coastruct an addition.
Mr. Clarke~ in responae to Co~tsaion questioning~ noted that the atorage facility would
psovide for the covered area for s boat and other usea which were neceasax~ to be placed
under cover due to the fact that the property was i,a auch cloae ~oximity to a~unior high
achool aitee
"'S^'- ~i''"_ n ~~~• ~ ~' t.o. { t . t `j r ! ~ , L ~ ~r,~.:~
~ _'
al ~
7 :~
. ~~ 4J! t.~ ~n
rmJIITES, CITY PLANNING C01~4LCSSION~ April 7, 1969 4437
VARIANCE N0. 2067 - No one appeared in oppoeition to aubfect petition. 1
Coatinued .
THE HEARING WAS Q,OSF!D.
Co~ieaioner Thom ofYered Reaolution No, Po69-66 and moved for its paesage and adoption, i
eeconded by Commieeioner Gauer, to great Petitioa for Variance No. 206~~ aub~ect to '
conditione. (See Reeolution Book) _
On roll call the £oregoing reaolutioa wae paesed by the £ollowing vote:
AYES: COtR+IISSIONk:tS: Allred' Camp~ Gauer~ Herbats Rowland, Thom.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
dBSIIdT: CO1~tISSIONERS: Faranoe
CONDITIONAL IISE - PUffi,IC HEARIlJG, dLFREp HOLVE & SONS, INCORPORATED~ 1314 North Seqnoia9
P~E3MIT N0. ll05 Liadee~y~ Ca].ifornie~ Ownera; DAZOHY, INCORPORATED~ 1723 Weet Katella
6veaue- Anaheim~ Californis, Agent; requesting permj,eeioa to have
ON-SALE BEER, AND WIl~Ti IN CONJIINCTION WITfi A RESTAIIRANT on property
deacribed aes A rectangu7.arly ehaped parcel having a frontage of app¢~oximately 110 feet
on the north eide af I{atelle Aveane~ having a,nA~m„m depth of approximately 334 feetp
ead '~beiag Iocated approximstely 287 feet weat of the centerline of Etiiclid Street and
f~ther d~acribed as 1723 Weat Katella Avenue. Pro sr y
C@~CIAL~ ~ZONE. p~~88~~Y clasaified C-ly GIN~AT•
~9.ssietant zoa~ng Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the locatioa of sub~ect property' uee~
eatabliehed ia c3oee proximity~ e~dating zoning~ and the proposal to l~eve on-eale beer
and hrine in cos~unction irith the eerving o£' meala in s t•fe~d.can reataurant; that no bar
facilitiea were pa~opoeed; and that although the pa~oposal appeared to be a reasonable one
,coneidering the £act thet ahopping centera were located oa ell four cornere of thia major
3ttterseati.oaA the ~sct that a e3.ngle-feaily reaidential tract e~deted immediately to the
weat nf aub~ect ~operty might be of eome concern to the Co~ieeion.
The ;pe.titioner indics~ed his preaence to anewer queetiona.
N~a oae appear.sd ia oppoeition to subject~petition.
T~ HEARING W9S CLOSED.
Co~iaeioner Herbet offered Reeulution No. PC69-67 and moved for ite peesage and adoption9
eeconded by Co~ieeioner Thom~ to grant Petition for Conditionai IIae Permit No, 1105,
eub~ect to conditionee (See Reeolutioa Book)
On roll call the foregoing reeolution wae paesed by the following vote:
dYES: CONIhffSSIONERS: A11red~ Camp' Gauer, Herbat, Rowland, Thom~
NOFS: CONAffSSIONERS: Noneo
gBSE~1T: COMMISSIONERS: Farano.
CONDITIONAL IISE - PIIffi,Ip HEARING. M. S. BERNARD, ET AL~ 615 West 8th Street~ Santa Ana~
PERMIT NO. L108 California~ O~mera; M. S. BERb1ARD~ 615 West 8th Street, Santa Ana~
Californie, Ageat; requeating permieaion ta FST9BLISH A CONVALFSCF~TT
HOSPITAL on property deecribed ae: An "L° shaped parcel of land
located north and c-aet of the northeast corner of Knott Street and ga11 Road~ having
t~ontagee of approximately 150 feet on Knott Stxeet and 85 £eet on Ball Road, and further
deacribed as 916 South Knott Street and 3435 West Ball Road. Property preaently clesai-
fied R-~~ ~GRICQLT[JRAL~ and C-1~ GIIdERAL COMt.~RC2AL~ ZONES.
Aeaiatant Zoning Supervieor pat Brawn reviewed the location of aub~ect property, usea
establiahe~? ia cloae proximi.ty, and the proposal, noting that previous aoning action by
the Commtesion and Coun.il on the Iinott Street portion approved C-0 zoning aince the
p¢~operty to the eouth of the I{nott Street frontege~ althongh zone,3 C-1, had deed restric-
tiona limiting it,to _profeeeionel officea oa1y; that the petitioner had indicated the
three exie ing eingle-family struct~es would be removed prior to conatruction of the con-
valeacent hoepital; tliat parldng yrae proposed to be located on the eouthern helf of the
esaterly portion which fronted oa Ball Road~ and e~.~. requix.ementa of the C-0 aite atandarde
would be met; thet the Interdepsrtmental Co~3.ttee~ in review3.ng aubfect petition~ noted
that no turn-arotmd had been pa~ovided for traeh vehicles - therefore, it Stea reco~ended
that one of the parking spsces ac'facent to the £roat landscaping are8 on Ball Road be
developed ae a trash atorage srea~ which wou7,d provide eaeier accesa for trash gollection
peraonnel; and thst an additional, garktng space could thea be provided south of the proposed
atructtu~ee
~~ ~~ ;~
~NIITES, CIT3.' PLAN~TING C02~IISSION, gpril 7~ 1969
.4~+38
CONDITIONAL IISE - Mra. Patty Berg9 realtor, Huatington Beach~ appeered before the Co~ieaion
P.ERMiT N0. llp8 aad noted that the architect had renderinga of the propoaed develo~mment~
Continued and the contractor wes aleo availe.ble to anewer queations.
The arcIzitect for the petitioner indicated that the euggestion of a
trash atorage area ae propoaed in the Report to the Coa~iaeion wae acceptable to the
developere
k' ~°ning SuPervieor Charles Roberts, in reeponse to Co~iseion questioning~ eteted thet the
i~,, parcel was 85 Feet in Wiflth a].ong the Ba11 Road frontage - therefore~ there would be
;;~ ~_ ad~quate apace for the parking and 10-foot atrip of landacaping.
' 1~' No one a; eared in o
.~ a '~P ppoeition to aubfect petition.
~~ ~~ THE IiEART..NG WAS CLOSED.
~° ;a
~ '~ ^rn~i ~aioner Gauer o.f£ered Reeolution No. PC69-66 and moved £or its psssage and adoption;
'~~ se~onded by Co~miaeioner Rowland~ to gra~t Petition for Conditional IIae permit No. II089
~ eub~ect to conditionay and the proviaion of etandard trash etorage area adfacent to the
~ Ball Road front lsadaca
ping to provide easier acceaeibility for trash collectioa peraonnel,
~ and relocation of the deleted pexking epace to be adjacent to the pa~opoeed atruct~e,
. (See Reealution Book)
f~
~; Oa roll call the foregoing resolution xea paesed by the following vote:
i ~
~ AYES: C02+A~fISS20NERS: Aiired~ ~p~ ~uer, ge~..bat, Rowland, Thom,
. . . ~,,, NOES : CONAiISSIONERS : None.
';'":;:;.~ ABSIIdT: COhII+IISSIONERS: Farano,
CONDITIONAL IISE -.PDBLIC AEARING. L. KIIVNETH F~,~, ET ~,, ~0 Weat Gqpreea Street~
PERMIT NC. 1107 Anaheim, Ca7.ifornis~ pwnera; W;'. WEISEL, 100 South June Street, Los
Ari~eles, Cali£orn±s~ Ageatf requesting permisaion to ESTABLISH A
REST HO2+fE~ WITH WgZyERS OF (1) 2dA%IMUM HEIG$T OF A STRIICTQI2E WITHIN
300 FEET OF g•SINQ~E-FANlII,Y RESIDENTI9I, ZONE AND (2) MINIMUtd DRIyEI~igy yTIDTH AND MINIMUt•f
QV~i.EEAD CLEARADTCE~oa property deecribed as: A rectangularly el~aped pe~.ce1 of land having
a~ontage of'.approximstel,y 180 feet on the north aide of La Palma Avenue and a mexim~
depth o£ appa~oxi.mately 2l+O feet and being located approximately 664 feet eaet of the
centerline of E~clid Street. Property preeently claeeified R-A~ AGRICpI,TQR,qI,, ZONE.
Asaieteat Zoning S~,ipervisor Pat Brown noted the location of eubject p~operty~ the existing
$o?~3.ag~ and the reaolution of intent to the GO Zone approved in 196~; that the propoeal
to conetruct a I20-bed reat home on a portion of the proposed C-0 property wea now before
the Co~iaeion; thst the petitioner proposed to conatruct a 33,000-equere i.•o.it rest home
which would provide board and care £acilities £or approximately 120 gueatsv h,aving both
firat and eecond i'Loor proviaiones that the plane indicated a peripheral driva arouttd
the proposec3 mai~e +tructtae, with a 21-foot ~ridth on the eaeterly portion of the p~operty9
29 feet on the n,.f_r„herly portion - however~ only 15 feet on the weeterly portion, whereae
Code would require a minim~ of 20 feet; that the balcony pro~ection had been indicated
a7.ci'ig the eaeterly aide of the propoeed etruct~e whi~is xould profect aome 4 feet into
the 21-foot drive and would be only 9 feet above the driveway level; and that thie profec-
tioa~ in eesence~ reduced the effective width of the eaeterly drive to approximately 17
feet' which wea inadeqvate for large typee of vehiclea auch ea traeh trucke and fire
b'anip~ent-aince a minimwn of J,]. to 7.l,.feet vertical clearance ~ae required, Furthsrmore'
that the propoaed uee ~-ovld be permitted in the C-0 Zone upon approval ~f a conditionsl
uee'permit, hnd the petitioner had indicatcid t~ the ataf£ that dependent upon the aucceas
of the propoeed operat3oa~ fut~e expanaion of the vacant property to the weat might be
contemplated~ in xh3,ch caee the ireeterly drive would ~e eipa,nded to Qt least the minimum
20Tfoot width reqnired -,however~ it would appear tYist this 20-foot drive could be accom-
pliehed by aoquiring an a~ditional 5 feet from'tlie property to the west, or reriucing the
eise of the atructure to accommodate the neceesary 20-foot drive. A1eo, it Would appear
that by revereing the plans ae p~eeented, the two-atory aectioa adjacent to the eingle-
family tract to the eaet would be in the weeterly por'tion of eub~ect propert,•,~ and in
light of ,the uees estahliehed in the aurrounding area, together witii app~ova7. of C-0 zoning
for aub~ect pa~operty~ the Commieeion might wish to give serious coneid~Tation to r.he
petitioneris p¢~opoasl to develop drivew~}*a of auch narrow wiflth Whi.ch could reault in
defiaite problems relating to aerviciag the property for fire~ or trash co`llection eervices.
Mr• Hariy Iinieely~ rep¢~eaettting the petitioner~ appeared befora the Co~i.saion and noted
tbst due to t,~e unueusl acheduling at City Aall, he wae unaware of the problems pa~esented
to the Co~iaeion ia the Report to the Commiasiott uatil late Thuredey, and reviaed plans
could not be eut~itted in time to re~edy some o£ theae ~roblema _ however, if there were
aerioue concern relative to inadeqvate clearance ~or the various City vehicles along the
esaterly drive, the balconiee could be eliminated; th~.t the additionel 5 feet could be
, -,
. ;.. . ...; ..~ .,,.,
, K L,.. ~ :.. ~..: , „-. : ..,.. .. -
~~ . . . ~,.;.. . , .,,.. ~.<~., , . . ..:: . . ::. , ~:.,
~ t',~
r r
v
a
t' ' ~~ (~~ ' . ~;~ .
,
MadD'PES~ CITY PLANNING COI~'A~IISSION, April 7,, 1969 4439
OONDITIONAL USE - acquired £or the sresterly drive, but the petitionera were relucteat
PERMIT N0. 110 to do this ainee the westerly portion vas under option, and it was
Continned hoped to expand the propoeed facility later~ providing for the 20-foot
`~ drive se required; that the two-story height vaiver had beea granted
,:; . ia the paet where it wae adjacent to aingle-fa,~ily hcxaes~ and in all
li.kelihood the homea that would be affected would convert ~.n the near future to a more
_ iateaee ueey thst the baeic reaeon for not revereing the floor plan xae becauee the
ldtchen facilitiea were located on the tsesterly portion~ sad it expanaion occurredy ihe
kitchen Pacilities would then aerve the expaueion area - however, iY the Commieaion did
aot deaire txo-atory ad~aceat to R-l~ a t~ro-weeket coatiausace.tirould be necessary to
reaolve theee varioue p¢~obleme.
e
~c~e:~,'t ;`~` Diacuaeion vne held by the Con~i.eaion relative to the vaiver of the height limitation
~~ ad~aceat to the R-1~ and then the Co~i.saion requeated the requirementa of Code relative
to thie height limitation.
Zoning Supervieor Char1 ee Roberta noted that the Code p~oviaion etated that where any
co~ercisl etructure wae within 150 feet of an R-1 Zone~ the ratio wou~.d be twu feet satback
For each one foot of building height - or in t2:~ p¢.eposal, a aetback o£ !.0 feet.
Mre Gordoa Richmond~ 84 Plaza Squere' Orange, Csli£ornia~ appeared befox~e the Go~i.seion9
noting he srae the attorney rep~eeeating 2•farie M. Q~embere~ owaer of the lsnd immediately
to the north of eub~eot property oa vhich the Boea IIniform and Tokel Service was located9
that the property had a private, paved drive on the aoutherly portioa of the property
used by the pereonnel of the pleat to avoid heavy traffic on Euclid Street~ thereby having
ingreee and egreea to the plant from the atub end of Glea Drive; thet they were not
oppoaed to the propoeed use of the property, but they wer6 desiroue of having the peti-
tioner provide a fence of some nature oa the noa~therly portion of their property to
prevent the posaibility of pereona who were patiente of thie facility valki.ng onto this
private driva eince the pi~yaical and mental condition of theae patients could create a
aerious hazard, and thea in raeponae to Co~iaeton questioning, noted that the drice
exteaded £ro~m the dead-end of Glen Drive along the aoutherly boundary of their pr~perty
to the gate into the plaat facility iteelf; and that the northerly portion of eaid private
drive alreac~p had a fence and wall~ ead the gatee of their plant taere locked after vork-
ing hour.s~ vhich xould indica~ie thie was a_privately coatrolled facility ueed by their;
personnel.
The Co~isaioa then noted ~that the plans before them indicatad a masonry wa7.l would be
coastructed aloag the north pmoperty line of aub~ect pa~operty.
THE AEARING WAS CLOSED.
Tha Co~ieeion inqu,ired whether or not a atub etreet which wae to go iato aqy property
had a bnrrier xhich vould prevent nccesa to the ad,',oining property: ."
Aseietant City Attoraey John Dawaon advised the Cm~ieaion that there irsa aome queetion
as to the permiaeibility of a co~erciel drive izaving accese to Glen I?rive, a reaidential
atreet,
The Ca~tsaioa noted there wea no reeaon for requiring the vall ainc-a the property on
which the pa~oposed convaleecent home wae to ba constructed had a reaolution of intent
for C-0 and wouZd be abutting C-1 property; got~-ePex.~ eiace the plaae did indicate said
wa11~ thi~ xou7ll, be a coadition of approval.
Mr. Knieely then noted that aince the Coa~isaion xas reluctaat to great tise wwc~lvera
requeated imder th~ 'oonditianal uae pex~it, it would be neceaeary to requtsc a continuance
of the petition until revieed plana could be:pz~esented.
Coa~isaioner Gauer o££ared a motioa to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for
Conditional IIae Permit No. ll07 to the meeting ¢f Apri1 27,~ 1969, in ordar to allow time
for the petitioner to enbmit revised plans which would indicate widening of the accesa
drive~ ramoval of the tT,+o-atory conetructioa xi.thin 40 Feet of the R-l to the esaty provid_
ing adequate vertical clsarance for traeh and fire vehicles~ and consideratien of revereing
the plea~ placing eing],e-atory conatruction along the easterly portion oY the property,
Co~isaioner'Thom aecondod the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
~ ,
,~r:: a ~ j~µ !~ -t A4 't' i~ r ~ 'r ~7 ~ rari d .' ; S -
~. %•.. ~~:~s,~ . .t.'~.°~~' J~:r. l ..s+~ . ~ i_~. ^ti l:~~v"t t r.Y,C'~ t ,~ ..
~ ~i.~~
f~:~ ~ ~~
~~'~'~iy ~-~9.'Y PL6Iv'NING COMt~ffSSION~ 9pri1 7, 1969 ~
YARI9NCE N0: 20'31 - PIIBLIC HE.ZR,ING, Tf;pMLS A. 9ND ~UDREy y, ggWKIl~Ig~ u26 South Chaucer
Streat; gaaheim~ Cal3forn.ta~ Ownere; reqwiating WA29ER OF t~fA%IMOM
LOT COVERAGE TO CONSTRIICT A ROOM ADDITION on property deacribed ae:
A recteagu7.ar],q ehaped;parcel rrlth a froatage of approximately~ 51 feet on the eeat aide
of Chaucer Street~ having a depti of approximstely 9~ £eet~ being located approximately
]38 feet north.of the centerline of Clifperk Way~ and further dsacribed sa 1126 South
Chaucer Street. Property preaen'tly claeaified R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY, ZONE.
Assiatant Zoning Supervisor Pat Browa reviewed the locatioa of eub ect
eetabliehed in cloae proximt ~ Pa'OPertY~ the uses
aa eziet ~9 ~~e Pj'oposel for ~ 237--eqvare foot room addition to
iug eingle-fami].y residentiel atructvre ia the R 2-5000 Zone, noting the preeent
lot coverage ~tas 37e5~~ and srl.th the propoaed.addition~ thie would be increaeed to L~.2,1~9
wheresa~only /+O~ was permitted for lot coverage, ead aiace the propoeed addition did not
pro~ect any ~urther into eide yarda or the rear yard than portione of the exiating
atruct~e~-anb~ect requeat would appeer not to be perticularly deleterious to the
eurrounding p~opertieeo
The petitioner indicated hie preaence to anewer queatione.
No one appeared in oppoeition to aubject petition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDe
Commiaeioner Camp offered Reeolution No. PC69-69 and moved for its paesage and adoptiony
eeconded by Gomn~tasioner Herbat' to graat Petition for Varisnce No. 2071~ subfect to
conditione. (See Reeolution Book)
Oa roll call the foregoing reaolutiott wae pasaed by the follot.ring vote:
i AYFS: COA4rLCSSIONERS: Allred~ Camp~ Gauer~ Herbst~ Rowland~ Thom.
NOFS: CQI~ffSSIONERS: None.
9BSENT: CO2~ffSSIONERS: Farano,
CONDITIONAL IISE -..PtTBLIC,:IiEARING. PAIIL J.,BIIRNSIDE~ P. 0. Box 608~ Morgsa~ Utah' and
PERMIT NOr 1106 LAATDAG MANUFACTURING COMPANY~:IND.~ ll4 North'Manchester Avenue~'
Aaeheim~ Californis~ Owneraf 'HARRY C. SAEfII,a10II~'336 South Welnut
Street~ Aasheim~ California t r uee
- ~~ 3 e4 ~g permieaion to ESTABLISH
A• TOWING SERVICE WITIi ,OII'i'DOOR TEt~'ORARY STORAGE OF WRECKED AND II~OIINDED VIIiICLE3 on
groperty•dseoribed ae:' An,irreguler1y ehaPed percel of lsnd having a frontag9 of approzi_
mstely 161'feet on the weet side,of West Central park Aveaue'end e mezim~ ddpth of
approximately 135 feet~ being located weat of the itttereaction of Weat Central Park Avenue
and South Central park Avenue~ and further described ae 549 West Central park Avenue,
~ PrcPerty pa~eoeatly claeeified M-1~ LIGHT INDIISTRIAL, ZONE,
F'
r~ Aseietant Zonisig Supervieor Pat Brown reviewed the location of eubject propertyy uaea
~ eetablished in cloee pa~oximity' sad the propoaed requeet to eatablieh a tawing eervice
~ with outdoor temporary storage of wrecked and impounded behiclea, ea M-2 uee permitted
ia the M-1 Zone upon.agproval of a conditional use permit,
0 1"Ix'• Bx'rnm ft~ther noted that ea R-2-9000~ aingle-£amily reaideatiel tract Srea under
; conetruction i~ediately to the eouth of aub~ect p~operty, and the Southera Pacific R,ai7.-
; road •right-ot-We,p and the future ~uaior high achool eite were located to the veetg that
' the pleae sttbmitted t,t3.th the application indicated a proposal to utilise the southera-
~ moat portion of thrae lote ae a etorage area for vrecked and impouaded vehicles, the
~ middle 1ot for light etorage, gea p~pe, end.employee parkin8s an~ the northermost percely
~ which had en existing 5775-equare foot building~ for o£fices and additional atorage$
! that the plana.eleo indicated a 6-foot maeonry wa].l a~ouading the storage area; that
elong the eoutherly perimeter of the property~ the R-2=5000 property osJner had already
inetal7-ed a xa7.1 xhioh wae 6 feet high'on the residsntial side and 8 feet high on the
M-l eide; that tzro lettera from the property'owners in the i~ediate vicinity had been
received Khich indicated no oppositioa~ provided~ however~ that the pa~oposed ueere of
the p~operty not be permitted to eta.ck vehiclea or diemantle tham on subject propertyp
and that if eub~ect`requeat were cotteidered for apgrova].~ the Co~isaion might irieh to
require ae a condition of such app¢~oval the develop~ent of.e tree landecaping border
slong the southern perimeter of thia property~ with treea planted at 20-foot centera to
f~u~ther acreen the propoaed operation from the fut~e reaidente of the R-2-5000 tract,
F Mr•.Brown also noted that the Co~i.saion might wiah to discuss with the petitioner the
' propoeed hotu~s of operation eince there could be a noise factor inh t to the towing
; and mavement of srrecked and impounded vehiclea which cou7,d prove ob~ionable to the
adjaceat reaidenta durin certain ~q~
~ p erioda of th e d a y o r n i g h t~ a tt d t h a t t he propoaed uee
would appear to be no more obfectionable to the sdjacent reaidentiel p¢~opertiea thsa
some of the asee pa~esently ead.ating within thia industrial comple~c, perticulsrly since
i •
~pr~ ti•_i ,. Yh a' A'1"1. . 5 j '.'d
f ~
. ~~w~
..~
~.`"~,y .:.~.,_,:r.':,i
C~ (~ t~
MIlJIITES, CITY PLANNING COP4IISSION, April 7, 1969 ~
CONDITIONAL TfSE - a minim~ 6-footymaeoruy ~talJ.. for the moat pnrt~ effectively acreening
• PER.hIIT N0. 1106 the operation from public vieW would act ae a sound buffer,
Coatinusd) • .
Co~i.eaioner Fsrano entered the Council Chsmber at 2:45 PstQ,
'- Mr. Iiaxzq Seehleaou9 agent for the petitionery appeered before the Coarmiaeion to anewer
s, Coarmiesion question3.ng and stated thet the well constructed by the R-2-5000 developer wa~
8 feet high on the induatriel side~ slthough only 6 feet high on thn reaidentiel side;
that thie portion of the masonzy wa11 Was the area ia which the etaff had auggested that
.`'.' treee be'plented to act ea e f~ther buffer~ and he wae not oppoaed to planting of theae
;;;.,, treee -£urthermorey ae to the noise factor, the Police Department impouttded automobilea
„F. !r~ on1Y until 5:00 PeM.y and only a feu wrecke might be brought into the facility after
~;.,~~ ho~ae' end theae canld be etored at the nartherly end c£ the property ~ti1 daylight
i:'e: ~ hotu~e fthen they conld be relocated in the impounding ares~
Mra Jamee Aampbelly 612 Kisma Street~ appeered before the Commiseion in oppoeition and
noted thst he h ad reaided in the tract immediately to the eouth of thi.s induetriel tract
ever since it wae developedy and ever eince then there had been conaiderable trouble,
with ca~plainte to the police and to the City regarding the noisas aad the language uned
by the employeea there - meny times talking end noiaee occurred until Q:00 A.M,; tihat
these noisea were diaruptive to the rest of the children in the neighborhood' and the
~adustr9.al area was an ~yesore to the entire areaf that although the petitioner had
atated the vehicles would not be atacked~ he bad visited the facility at Mencheater
Avenue and Wa7.nut Street and noted that theae vehialea were atacked; that thexe was e.lwsys
a hasardoue condition with wrecked automobilee creating firea~ and one of the induEtrial
plante in thie complex almoet blew up where gasolitte etorage tanka were locatedp end thet
thirty-one reaideata o~ the tract to the eouth requeated he repreeent them in opposition
to this proposalo
The Co~i.eaion noted ihet the induetriel uaea eatabliahed in this induatriel tract w-ere
of a vexy light claes~.ficatioa and irere all emall plante.
Mre Campbell also noted ihat the eingle-fami].y homeownera had preaented euch nocal opposi-
tion when a warehouse was pa~oposed~ thst the warehouee was not approved in this induatriel
tracty and that the proepective p~cheaera o£ the neW homee now uader conetruction wautd
be draetically sf£~ected by the p~opoaed uae eince they would be aubjected to viewing the
~recked vehicleei ~om.their windowe~ andy furthermore, the emplayeea of thie M-1 tract
t~tere ueing the atreete £or drag etrip racing.
bh'. Brrnm advieed the Co~ieaion tha.t the induatrial sotting had beett ee~abliahed on eub~'ect
pa~operty aince 1951y and the aiagle-family tract had been developed subeequent to that
date.
Mre Campbell noted thet many complainte had been aubmitted to both the Planning and Pol.ice
Departmente relative to the noisee the induatrial ueee were meking tweaty-foiu^ houre a
deyy the fact that traeh wsa permitted to etack several feet high on the vacan,t properiyr9
and thie wae conducine to an tmhea,7.t~y eituation; ftathermore, the proposed uae woul.d only
be adding an additione~7. noiae to the aree and could create a breeding place for rodents
ir3.th the storage of theee vehiclea se propoaen.
2~. Don Fearay 601 Kiama Street~ appeared before the Commieaion ia oppoaition and noted
hie p~operty i~ediately abutted the iaduetrial tract to the north and was approximately
350 feat t`ra~ the property under coaeiderationy that the queation before the Commission
iras permittiug an M-2 use to be establiehed in e,n 1~1 Zone snd how it related to improv-
3~.ag a aoning conditio~ which alreac~y ex3ated; that the mafority of the homeoimera in
this area trere vexy concerned with the typea of uses and houre of operation~ an well ae
hasardoue aonditioas; that theae homeownera were not ogpoeed to induatriel or co~ercial
uaea - howevery they were of the opinion that throngh planning deciaione the City would
continue to permit uatenable uses in this area without giving aqy coneideration to the
aingle-family homeownereq that the gae tattke meationed by the p~evioue oppoaition could
explode' creating a very hasardous fire eituation~ and batteriea in theee automobilee
could be ehort-ci.rcuitedy £urther adding to thia added hasard of wrecked cara; that
geaoline was left in the tanke of these etored cars so that 3t wae posaible to reclaim
theae vehiclee by driving them away from the lot; thet the exploaion ~hich had occurred
in 'the induetrisl tract was i~ediately behind hi.s home' and he could not understand
how the City could permit a pleatice operation to exist so close to aingle-femily home~3
that there was another eimilar use whereia reeina werm used - whi.ch were also of a very
exploeive natnre - in a develop~ent for which a cabinet ehop had been approved, but wrae
being ueed for a atuto boc~y ehop onlyf that ea area in the industrisl center which stored
wrecked and etolen vehiclea ~ras enticing to children~ and evea though a 6-foot wa11
itae conatructed~ thie did not deter young boye from entering this area and pleying ~rcund
the irrecked vehiclea; that not only would there be a danger of gaeoline tanke explcdir~P
there would be leakage from theae wrecked vehiclea of both gas and oil, and ti.r],th gsa pumps
~ead.4 exieting in this erea~ the fire hazard was greatly magnified; that becauee of tha
~:? ~
r
ti
, , ; : :
.~„ia..::lf.r:~ ~ :. ...,n ,~.. ~.. . .. . ~ ~~:. .,~~,
~ ~.~4 l~,.; "~ -~ f ' 'y7',~r~„~~&~ ~ ! ~~f,y~^, f -` ~ ~r'~~Tk~i x+ S ~~~' ~ ."' 'ya.~.. a , ~'P g t~c ,." ~ i~$ 1 "~
t r, ~
4~
~e ~
~ >~
y
~ ' ~.~ ~ ~ ~)
;~:~
1~IINUTFS, CITY PLANNING CoI~t2SSioN, April 7, 1969 ~~
• COPIDITIONAL IISE - ty~pe of drainage that exieted in thie induetriel tract~ thie created
~ PERMIT N0. 06 a moequito problem~ as well ea a road problem which would be harmful
Contiaued to the peace~ health~ ,eafety and general yre~.fax.e of the eingle-fami7.y
• homee to the eouth; and that eerione coneideration ahould be given by
~ the Co~i.saion to apprwing sn ~2 use ~d acent to a
~ '' ~ ing18-femily homese
~
f ~ Dir, Saehleaou~ ia rebuttal~ etated that the geaoline p~pe they propoaed to uae were
elready oa the pa~operty and hed been there For almoet fo~ ye ars; that a],though many of
the people in oppoe9.tioa had indicated this wae a funk yax•d and referred to the otte on
t,f,,,, . Mancheater and Walni,tty they were not operating a funk yard aince vehicles were not allozred
.~ =; to be etored there for more tbea twenty days~ and ueuelly tto more the,n fifteen dayep that
t'~;, hie px~eaent operation had been.in operation £or the peat eighteen yoare and.he never
.,µ~~~' atacked his care~ and no puddlea of oil or geaoline were ever found on hia propertyg thst
'~~ ~' the ma~or portion of the oppoaition vas from the aingle-family homes to the eaet of
,,._,. `, aub~eat property~ while the developer of the aingle-femily homes under conatructian ta
~ the eouth of eubfect property indicated no oppoaitiott~ that it wae their intent to eapha'i.t
~ '~ the atorage area in order to eliminnte weedsq aad that he iavited atty of the opposit~.~n
~,. ~ to viait his preeent operatioa to aee how clean it srae.
~: : .y:
Tf~ HEARING W9S CLOSED.
The Co~ieaion ex~meased regret that an industrisl tract wea i~ediately adfacent to the
eingle-family homes - however~ thie aitnstioa had exieted prior to the develop~ent of the
tract~ and the only means of oP£ering eome relief to these eingle-family homea wae to
require leadacaped ecreening; furthermore, the proposed operation could not be coneidered
a funk yard siace it was oaly a etorage area until the in'euraace compeny adfustora had
aeeeeeed the coat of repair of the wrecked vehiclee and determined the owners of the
abeadoned vehicleaf that vi.th the stipulation of the petitioner that ia addition to the
exiating mneonry va7.1 elong the weat property line and enclosing the atorage area with
s 6-foot maeonry wa11~ laadecaping would be eatabliahed along the eouth property line
and the storage area would'be aephalted, the gropoaed uae would be lese harmful to the
reeideatial psea thaa maaufacttu~ing ueee already exieting.
Coarmiaeioner Gnuer requseted that t'`~:~ City Attorney repreaentative delineate how the
propoaed uea would be permitted on eub~ect property.
Aselatant City Attorney John Dsweon noted £or the Co~tasion and the oppoaition that any
use phi:ch' ~ras FI, 2' ~.n character could be permitted in the I~1 Zone provided a conditional
nse permit ytas approvedj eaid conditional use permit could have any n~ber of condition~
of app¢~oval vhich y~ould act ae a protective measure to any ed~oining properties.
Co~iseioner Gauer noted that if a conditioa of approPel xereto reqvire no atacking of
cara~ and this occ~ed~ what enforcemeat would the City take in thia inetance?
Mr, Dawson etated that aince this would be in violation of the approval of the conditionsl
use permity the conditianal uee permit would be revoked.
Co~teeioaer Farano noted that although there had been M-1 uaes eatablished ad~acent to
aing?e-family zoning~ there tiras no evidence aubmitted to fustif~ intettaifying the uee
vhich could aggravr~te the reeidentiel usea of the pa~operty bg permitting an TS-2 uee
through a conditional uee permit.
~
„' . : ;~i
Co~iaeioner Herbot noted that the City of Anaheim had only one area in whieh M-2 uges
were permitted' and thst had alresc~y been complete],y developed; tt~at it had been proven
M-1 and M-2 uees ~ere more compstible with the requirements of the City snd the Hea7.th
Departmeat ae to noiae~ odore~ etc. - therefore, he felt the pa~oposed uae was lese
obfectionabls t2~ea many of the ueee that would be permitted in the M-1 Zone9 euch as
a machine tool~or,pimch prees oparation which hsd excesaive aoiees.
Co~iaeioner Herbat of£ered Reeolutioa No. PC69-70 and moved for ita paesage and adoptian~
eeconded by Co~tssioner Thom~ to grant Petition for Conditional IIae Permit No. 1106
subfect to the reco~ended conditions~ the requirement of blacktoppittg the entire atorage
area~ acreea landecaping along the aouth p~operty line~ and no etorage of wrecked or
abandoned vehiclea adfacent to the eingle-family hom~e between the hours of 5:00 P„t~i, and
7:00 A,DL (See Resolution Book)
On roll ca7.l the foregoing reaolution tasa paesed by the following vote:
AYFS: CONB4ISSIONERS: Allred~ Camp, Gauer, Herbet, Rowland, Thom.
NOES : CON'A~LCSSIONERS : _~ aranc.
ABSENT: COrII~2ISSI0NERS: None.
Co~tasioner Rrntlsad ia voting ~~ays~~ atated that if thie were a reclassification petition9
he would be oppoaed to it; however, under a conditional uee permit, violatioa of the
regulation could terminate the use~ and that the uee wae lesa intense than many of the
industrial usea permitted in the M-1 Zone.
,,, ;~. : ,;
t T" 4 i' f A ''~`'. .~1 ~:_. r'z~1r .I ' i
y, K i ~ ~ t-"X.
r-r ' ~ ~ -
_
. ..
~Fx'
~
~
i ( ~.
;
_ ~ ~ (~
~ :
i
r
MIIdUTFS, CITY PLANNING COi~4tISSION, April 7~ 1969 ~ ~3 ;
~
CONDITIONAL IISE - Co~o.i.saioaer Farano in voting ~~no~~ atated tl~et he wsa opposed to I
PII~M~T N0. 1106 inteasifying the land use vhere ad~acent to eingle-fAmily h~ee
~~
^ !
Continued~
ainca they were more incompettible than other uses. !
_
CONDITIONAL IISE - Pi1BLIC HEARTNG. FRANK AND LORETTA ISROGMAN~ 233g Wagner gvenue
~naheim
F
R I a
~
-
°
+ ,
y
P
~
MIT N0. 1109 Celifornis~ Qwaers; Judy Corsele, 17061 Lancer Drive, Yorba Linda ,
,
'
9
California, 9geat; requesting permieaion to have ON-S9I.E BEER AND WaTE I
IN CONJIINCTION WITfi A RESTAURADTT on property deecribed ae: An ~~L~~
shaped parcal located aouth and west of the aouthweet corner of La Palms aad Magnolia ?~~
Avenuee~ having approximate frontagee of 105 feet oa La Pa1ms ~venue aud 181 feet on ,
,
~' ~; ~~
~ Magnolia Avenue~ end £tu~ther deeoribed as 1029 North Mngnolie Aveaue. Property preaently
claeeified C-la GENERAL COMNIEN,CI~L~ ZONE. ~ T
r ~saistaat Zoniag Supervieor Pat Brown reviewed the locatioa o£ aub ect
;j establiehed in c].oee proximt ~~e ~ Propex'tYr the uees
ty pa~oposal, noting that in February~ 1962' a condi-
~....:; tional uee permit allowi.ng a cocktail lounge in con~uttetion with a reataurattt ia this
' same ehopping canter ha,d been approved; that the plana aubmitted propoaed sn Italiaa-etyle
reetaurant in s vacant etructure in the ehopping center; that bser and wine would be
1. eerved in confuaction with the aervice of ineale in the propoaed reataurant, and in addi-
tion~ the applicant had indicated there would be an eight to ten-stool bar where beer
; and wine wou7.d aleo be serned; that the bar was aeparated from the main dining erea witn
; e 6-foot partitiony and that the kitehen and food e
pa~ paration area wea propoaed to occupy
appraximately 21$ o,f the tota], area. Therefore, the Planning Co~i.saion would have to
~` ~"i determine whether or not the total area proposed for food preparation conetituted a restan- """
'~ ~ rant eince a ber wse aleo p ; ~
~r~, pa~o oaed however the uee itaelf would not eeem to be deleterioue
i ~`. bsaed oa the fact that a cocktail lounge had previously been approved £or thia ahoppin~
„ .., center. „
Mrao Jud,y Corsalea agent for the petitioner~ appeared before the Coa~ission to anewer
queationa end noted that the bar wovld be eerving besr; that with the compact deaign of
kitchen £acilitieey the 25% requirement for food prep~ration area rather exceeeivep thaz
ehe sleo had operated the coclctail louage aad reetatu~eat ia snother city wherein anl~ wo~
of the total area wea developed for food preperation~ and thie wae more than adequate~
ead t2~at it wsa not intended to eerve the full Italina-type meale aince many peraone wera
unfam3.].iar wlth other than the ueual. Italian-American type £oode aerved in moat resiauranLe,
No one appearad in oppoaition to eubject petition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Co~ieaioner Thom offered Reaolution No. PC69-71 aad moved for ite pessage end adoptiony
eeconded by Co~iasioner Gauer~ to great Petitiott for Conditional IIae Permit No. 17.09t
sub~ect to conditionee (See Reaolution Book)
On roll call the foregoiag reaolution wae paeaed by the following vote:
A.YES: COrII~SSIONbRS: A11red~ Camp~ Farano~ Gauer, Herbet, Rowlend, Thom.
NOFS: CONA~ffSSIONERS: None.
ABSEN'~: CONAiISSIONERS: None.
VARIANCE NOe 2072 - pOBLIC HEARIIJG. FOREST LAWN CEMETERY ASSOCIATION~ 17125 Glendale
Aveauey Glendale~ Californis~ O~mer; reqneeting WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMtIM
AEIGHT OF A SI@i WITHIN OOEFEET OF~RESIDIIdTI9I, STRIIOTQRES,~(3) ROMAXII~IIIM AREA OF A FRE~-
STANDING SI(3~T, AND (4) MA%IldUM F~IGHT OF A ROOF SIGN FROM A ROOF on property describad ae:
An irregalarly ahaped parcel of land located at the eoutheaet coraer of Lincoln Avenue and
State College Boulevard' having approaimate frontagee of 1~500 feet oa Lincoln Avenues
900 feet on State College Bonlevard~ and 750 feet on Peregrine Street, and f~ther deacribad
as the Eaet Anaheim Shopping Center. Property preeently claeaified C-l, Gr~TERAL COt~II~RGTAL.,
C-2~ GIIQER.AL CONAIL~'RCIAI,, 9ND P-1~ AUTO:i0B2LE PARKING, ZONFS.
Aeaietaat Zoning Snpervieor Pat Brawn revieved the locetion of subject property, ueas
eatabliehed in cloee proximity~ previoue sign waivers greated ia the ehopping centerD
and the pa~opoaed waivere to permit two free-standing aigns and a roof eiga on Lineoln
Avenue aad State College Boulevard; that the,free-atanding eigns pa~oposed would be more
than twice the height and eign limitatioa permitted by the Sign Code becauee of thair
locatioa to reeidentiel atruct~ee within 300 £eet; that the propoeed new roof sign~ which
wauld replace the exiat3ng roof aign oa the bank~ wae to be located within the ahcrpping
center and Would al.so be more thaa tt~rice as high as permitted within 300 feet of reeiden-
tial etructurea; and tha.t' therefore~ the Co~ieaioa would have to determine the validity
of the propoeale and their impact upoa the a~rounding area.
~
} amk, ~T' ~.:: ? \h~ ~~i~ "Fi ~ ~ r } ,,:T~` .n,i'!'~
~
~
~
~~ M'
^
MINDTES, CITY PLANNING CoNA7I$SION, Apr31 7, 1969
4~~
V9RIArFCE N0. 20 - Mr, Mason Biahop~ xepreseating the petitioner~ appeared before tha
Continued Co~iaeit~n and etateu that after exteasive planning, the ahopping
center had been completely remode].ed and improved, and now they were
planning to eetablieh iategrated aigning of the ahopping center -
however~ becauae of the height of the bvil.ding for the two~new, main tenanta of the
shopping center~ :'s:t was necessary to have a change ia the height of en existing roof
sign eo that the Bank of America, en original tenaut d~ the`ehopping center, could be
properly identified £ra~ the street; that the eigning ~opoaed with the free-etanding
eign would be more attractive and would achieve ~khe maxim~ benefita for the tenante of
the center - therefore~ ~he waivers requeated were neceeeary t¢• provide the eigning they
propoaed.
Mr. W. T. Pnttereon~ planaing conaultsat Srith Q~tS Corporation~ the compf;qy which did most
of the aigaing of the facilitieg for the petitioner, appeered before the Commisaion and
stated that they had reviewed the etaff~a evaluatioa regarding integrated aigne £or
ehopping ceatere~ and this ahopping center aow propoeed to add a 1500-foot frontage on
Liacoln Adeaue and a 1000-foot froatage on State College Boulevard which wae under oaa
ownerehip'; that if each individuel atore in this center were individually owned~ each
would be allowed a free-atanding eign which would add to the cluttery appearance of the
ahopping center - however, the propoaed integrated aigae~ although higher and larger
thea Code would permit~ would heve leas aquare £ootage then if each ehop were indicidusliy
eigaed; that due to the unique natt~e of thia ~area and ~the l~yout of the center which
was diffareat thea othera becauae aubject property wsa in cloae proximity to residentisi
ueee~ a n~ber of waivera wea neceaeary; and that the p2~operty on the north e3.de of Lincoln
~venue would convert to co~ercial in the future evea though homea were located thsre aow,
Mr. Bishop~ in responae to Commieaion queationing~ noted that the propoaed Bank of Amer3ca
eign as it exiated could not be eeen from thE atreet, and since they were the oldeat
tenant in the center, eome relief ahould be afforded them - averi thoizgh the reader boar~e
were proposed~ the ma~ority of the customere would be drawn to the other ahops from Gresnts,
the Boaton Store~ and the Bank of Amarica.
The Coam~ieaioa noted that there had been several requeeta for eigning on the ahopping
center~ and there wae no saetu~aace that more requeate would not be forthcoming from the
'other major tenante if theae were granted:
Dir. Biehop noted that the aigaing for the Keatucky Colonel walk-up reetaurant and the
Jolly Roqer sestaurant were requested prior to £ina],izing of the aigning for the center, i
1
Mr. W. E. Lans~•repa~esenting the Federal Siga and Signal Corporation~ appeared before the
Coa~i.esioa attd noted the reaeon £or requesting an increaee in the height of 'the roof aign
of the Bank of America - the exiatin,q aign Srsa completely blocked from view of potentitLl.
cuetomera coming from the eaet due to the height of both Grante and the Boston Store~ snd
that evea though iacluding the name of the bank within the integrated~ free-standing eign
wae propoaedy this wae not eu££icient eiace eigaing Stae needed on the building as ~ell.
~ The Co~isaion then noted that the City of Aaeheim had been faced conatantly tirith requeats
for signing tW3.ce that permttted by Code~ xhile ehopping centera in other cities had con-
siderablp leea eigning than that permitted ia the City of Anaheim and aeemed to survive -
therefore9 there xae no logic to requiring the type of aigaing always requeeted for the
varioud shopping faoilitiee within the City of Anaheim eiace this would be deatroy3ng the
beauty and integrity of an area~ and eince thie shopping center had ~uet recently been
completely ramodeled~ aigniag ae p¢~opoaed would add to the cluttering of the centere
Mr. Lanz thea noted that Grants and the Boaton Store were coastructed after the original
atora ia tahich the Bank o£ America wae located~ and tlie fieigfit of the Bank of ~,mericti sign was
coneiderably belox that of the adjoining atructurea, and eiace the banld.ng bueinees was a
vexg competetive bueinees, with mar~y branchee throughout the varioua cities, it xas im-
porte:~t that proper identification be afforded them. •
Mr. Allen Moace~ Manager of the Eaet Anaheim Branch of the Benk of America~ appeared before ,
the Co~i~aion and noted that becauae the bank wae "sandwiched° inbetween the higher
atruct~es on the esat and the Thriftimert on the west, it was almoat impoesible to aee
their facility from State College Boulevard or from Lincola Avenue; that they had had a
n~ber of poteatial customere adviae them they were tu~ble to find their facility, and9
therefore~ the increase in height of the roof aign would reduce in aome meeaure this
inability of people to find ihe bank and afford the exposure that t,tas needed.
Tf~ FIEARING WAS CLOSED.
Conaiderable diacua~ioa was held by the Coa~iesion relative to the nt~erous waivers requeate~
by the petitioner £rom the Sign Ordinances even though the repreaentatives of the eign
companiea were present at both work aesaions and public hearinge aud had agreed that the
(r
_ ;
t . : ? . ,
rr~~sX'-r~.`~u'M~' i"%pk91`T@'~~ ~~C'~^il+e.v '~ ' t~m.,~]fiy rr^-.~ `'a r~ , K~ , ;.~f ..
;{ '
i,:,''r:.: :.. ,_..' ..
f,
~
a~~.. _ ~.
~
~
~~
i
~ i
~ ~
f ;i
f
'_:i
- : ~;i
'~.
,; ~.~
:'; :~~
r~IIITES, CITY PLANDTING C02~IIdISSION~ April 7~ 1969 ~5
VARI9NCE ~30. 2072 - City of Aaeheimte Sign Ordinance wea a srorkable doct~ent~ the many
Continued~~ a~eroue we,ivere now being requested vere contrary to all etatemants
they had made~ and no evidence had beea eubmitted that the n~eroua
waivera ~ere neceesary to enjoy a eubatantisl property right which
adfoining property ownera had; tbat the Sign Ordinnace did encourage integrated~ free-
atanding aigne with reader boarde - however~ the aiga height and aize propoaed was fer
ia exceae to that neceesary for adequate aigning; sad that there was no resaon for grant-
ia8 the waivere reqneeted for the roof eign eince this would be greating a privilege to
one tenant of the shopping center ttot granted other teaente of the ehopping ceater end
would aet sa Zmdeairable precedAnt for eimilar requeata from a11 the other etoree writ•Hi*+
tl~ie shopping cettter.
Commiaeioner Herbet of£ered Reeolution No. PC69-72 and moved £or ite paeeage and adoptionp
secoaded by Ca~i.ssioner Farano~ to deny Petition for ~Jariance No. 2072 on the basis tbat
there were no exceptional or~extraordinuy circumetances•sir conditiona applicable to the
Prcperty involved that did not epply generally to co~tuii"ty e$opping centere throughout
the City; that no evidence wae auY~itted demonetrating hardahip which would justify
~'enting the•waivez of the required diatance of a£ree-etanding aign from a roof aignp
that the height and area waivers requested for the two additional free-standing signa
would have a detrimental effect upon the eiagle-family se we11 ae the multiple-family
reaideacea within 300 feet sturoundittg thie aiga erea~ and that the petitioner wea ~nco~u~-
aged to sign said ehoppi.ng ceater eo that it would more nearly conform with the require-
mente ~f the Sign Ordinance; that although the Siga Ordinance had been encouraging iategrated
signing of ahopping centeray the propoaed height and size of the two additional free-standi.ng
aigas would be eo f ar in excees of that permitted by the Sign Ordinance, that the eign
would be a detractioa rather thsn an aeaet to the exteneive renovation which aubfect property
hed undergone and which had greatly enhanced the shopping ceater; and that the granting of
the propoaed waiver of the height of a roof sign frl.thin 300 feet of a reaidentiel etruct~e
would aet ea ~mdeeirable precedent for eimilar requeats for individuel aigning from other
ahoppiag centerae (See Reaolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolutioa was paseed by the following vote:
AYFS: CONAiISSIONERS: A11red~ Camp~ Farano~ Gauer~ Herbat~ Rowland~ Thom.
N~~ : C02+~IISSIONERS : None.
ABSINT: COt~IISSIONERS: None.
TF~ORARY RECFSS - Co~ieaioner Thom ofFered a motioa to receee the meeting for
ten minuteeo Co~isaioner Fnrano eeconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED. The meeting receseed at 3:50 P.M.
~~- ON4INE - Chairmea Allred reconvened the meeting at 4:03 P.ri.~ all
Co~iesionere except Rowland Were preseat.
VARIANCE N0. 2069 - P[TBLIC HEARING. LEWIS R. AND JIIDITH E. SCf~ffD~ 2940-A Randolph Sireet'
Coata Mesa~ California~ Ownere1 requeeting ;IAIVERS OF (1) SETBACK FROM
A LOCAL STREET, (2) DISTANCE BETWEII~T BIIILDINGS, (3) DISTANCE OF DW~ZL-
ING IINITS FROM A STANDARD S u~;3T~ 9ND (Q) SETBACK FROM INTERIOR PROPERTY LINE, TO FSTABLISH
A 109-IINIT, ONE AND TWO-STORY APARTMENT COMPLE% on property deecribed as: ~ generally
rectangularly ahaped percel having a froatage of approzimntely 310 £eet oa the weat aide of
State College Bonlevard end a maximt~ depth of approxiztately 793 Feet~ being locatad approxi~
matel4 353 .feet north of t2ie centerline of Bn11 Road. Property presently claesified R-33
TIIILTIBLE-FANIILY RFSIDENfiIAL', ,ZONE.
Assiatant Zoning Supervieor Pat Brosm reviaWed the loc4tioa of eub~ect propertyy uees estab-
liahed in close proximity/ and the propoeal= aoting that the property had beea recleasified
to the R-3 Zone in April- 1968~ under Reclatlsificatioa No. 66-67-68; that plane aubmitted
with the application indicated n proposal to construct a 109-unit~ one and two-atory apart-
ment develo~mment on eubfact property with an overal]. denaity of approximetely 25.9 dwelling
units per net acre and a lot coverage of 54.1~; that a 64-£oot wide street j.ras proposad
entering the apprmdmate ceater of the property from State College Boulevard, theace curving
north to the ttortherly boundary of the property where the width was approximately 98 feet-
and terminating into a c~1-de-eac in the weaterly pprtion of the property; that although nc
peripheral drivea or alleye were indicated, there were ahort drivea into the carport areas
which would pa~ovide adeqvate if not neceaserily deairable acceas for City service vehiclss
auch as trash and fire; tbat there were eix main etruct~ses for the total develop~meaty five
located aouth and veat of the pa~opoaed cul-de-sac atreet and one located north of thi~
etreet; that eeaentisl7.y each of these main structures conaieted of two buildinge connect~d
by s coa~on roofliney with ekylighting effecte; that oppoeing wa11s of theae double struc-
turea had windows and main entreaces which would normall~ require a building aeparation of
26 and 30 feet~ wheresa only 22 and 8 feet were'propoaed,- therefore, the consequent waivere
frami Code applied to sll aix of these main etructurea; that the petitioner had filed e
::, ~
;
t r ,r ' a
. i , n . t.. ~. . , re. .,~: ..r ~ i . . . .. s. ~ , .. . .,
~n~-r ~~'^~ s -ar^r-y°C59~`~'?t~r'.:~i""'dsa
~'
~~
;i ~
i 4
_ ~ ' '
~
PffI?IIT~S, CITY PI:ANNING COhAffSSION~ April 7~ 1969
\~
l~,1,.6
VARIANCE N0. 206 - parcel map With the City Ehgineering Departmsnt which indicated a
Coatinuod, division of tha totel pa~operty into fo~ parcels, and as a reeu7.t
~ ' there wovld be no more then two maia strnet~ee per parce].; and
"' that the petitioner was advieed~by resolutioa~that the City Couacil
' had determiaed thst park sad recreatioa feea wera applicable and payable at the time a
building permit irsa iasued -~25 per dKelling unit if the buildinky permit were ieaued
prior to Me4r 1' 1969, and $75 per dwalliag unit if the buildiag peZmit were isaued eub-
aequent to A~ril 30~ 1969. E~thermore~ although the coverage £actor wea fairly highe
the deneity fell in the moderate range for medi.~ deaeity mvltiple-family develop~entp
tha.t open~coaoa recreatioa areea haii been pa~ovided, and all unite had been propoeed to
`~ have eithsr grouad floor or eecoad floor patioe; that the two requested Waivera which
might bs of.•some aoncern to the Planaing Co~ission were the front eetbacka frem the
~~5~ propoesd•loaa~, ~treet and the bnilding eeperation diatance~ ~r1.th a minimt~ value of 8 feetp
~4_ that.even though logically the etreet would bo ueed p~imeri~,y by the future tenanta of
~:, , thie propossd dovelop~ent, there appeared to be no valid reaeon for the many instancee of
k,; only a k to 12-foot setback~ whereae Code xould require 15 feet; and that the 8-foot
z-,_ eeperation betveen the structm~ea of a~y main butlding wouid not be objectionable if theee
;~ ~.. ~
;+. ~ were complstely blank vall corridore ae would be the ceae ia the average multi-etory
! apartment develop~ent. Siowever~ where oppoeing windowe xere only 8 feet spart~ thers
'~~'` 1 would appenr to be a eacrifice of aix and light apace principles co~enetu~ate with good
_ planning grinciplesa
Mr, Lm~ia R, Schmidy one of•the petitionera~ appeared before the Co~iesioa and stated
`~;,~" he xould like to co~ent oa the aetbacks~ noting that the eatrnnce to thie complex was
~ from State College Boulevard whereia a 25-foot eetback would be required; that carports
were now p~opoaed along the State College Bouleverd front eatrance~ and although the
normal 15-toot setback would be requirad~ if the Commieaion eo deaired~ the carporta eculd
be reduced at the northweat end end reveraing them beck-to-back - however, thia did not
preaeat an acceptable viaue]. and fesaible cleeigaf that eince only portions of the atructurea
_,:;; touched on thie required aetback~ it xae felt that in order to retain the deaign proposed,
;~ it wae more feaeible that waivere be requested because of their being minor in net~e -
<~ thersfore~ the aia~or concern facing the Coa~iaeion would be the dis*.•ance b~tween buildinga
,.'; nttd the xindoW locationa of theee wallaf that he xould etipulate to desiga of the windows
~ eo that their loaetions would be at 45 degree snglea from each other, thereby creating
~ ~ the 15-£oot diatence normally required; es~d tLat two_.thi,rde of the develop~ent had windowe
~j+' ,,;~:~ thst t,ieri nora then 21F feet apert. Furthermore, that althongh the R-1 Zone permittdd only
~~'~,',~~~ a 10-£oot '~~p~ration betveea etrneturee~ the propoeed angling dt 45 degresa would set
4{~' ;! ,~naa~re ~t ~;5 t~~t - there£ore~ it xas raqueeted that theea wsivere be granted favorable
~s~ s; coneideratiQn in ordsr that the develo~ent might be ia conformance ~i.th the plane before
K~ .. ~ the Cv~tssiar~o .
~ .
~~ '' No oae ap~i~ar~d la osition to sub ect
:~: oPP ~ petition.
,~
., , • ~ TFIE HEAR.~QG WAS CLOSED,
;:';? ,
' ~~ Zoning Supsrvieor Charlee Robertas ia reaponae.to Co~ieaion qaeationing:regarding the
eecond wai.ver for the required eetbnek = vhere bhe carporta rrere ad~acent to the i•S-I Zone -
' noted thnt t2iie waiver ~ad been granted in the paet and stae e conaideration of revision
~};.r,;,;,r, to the R-3 Code upon ite being aet Eor public hearing.
Co~i.aeioner Canp then aoted that the only variance of conaequence which the Co~i.eaion
would hnv~s to considar vas the 8-foot building eeparation~ and einoe the petitioner had
stipulaL~d ~o.placiag of vindotis on opposite walle st Q9 degree angles, thie would resolve
the problet o£ li~ht and air~ ae vell ae asaure privacy.
Co~ioeion~r Thom oPSered Reeolution No. PC69-73 end moved £or ita paesage and adoption9
aeconded bT Ca~iesioner Farano~ to grant Petition for Veriance No. 2069~ aubject to
conditionA, a~nd the etipulation and reqnirement thst a71 tiindowa proposed betaeett the
building;eeparation vhere a minim~ of 8£eet tase proposed be angled at 45 degrees in order
to ase~ae e it~i*~++*~ of 15 feet xhich would be necessazy to p¢~ovide for air and Iight epace~
ae well.as prizacy. (See Reaolution Book)
On roll ca]]. the £oregoing resolution wae paeeed by the following vote:
AYFS: COZ9~fISSIONERS: A17.red~ Camp~ Farano~ Gauer~ Herbet~ Thom.
NOFS: CO1~ffSSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: CONIl~IISSIONERS: Rowland.
~
ri
~
:
;
~e. _ _..
;..,,~, ,a,.,,
5 r~s'
' a
s,~
':~ ' 7
. ~.y
... ,.~ 4 .. . ~ .,;, ' . ~ . +. ^1 .
~"~::.f'
F.rr._. .:. ~. ~~.~ . ~..:~.:, .',. . ~~.. ... . .... ~.'7. ' ~...~.._...
.. ~ . .. . i. . . . . . . .. -_ . . . .. .
~ ~ y,~.•:"'y~'~e~r~" ~ _ } i~"'~" tN ~'i.~' t •A,'e~ r , tc`'t'~'*' ~r.= Wr^e ~;, j ;. Y7 ~;: r • 't~^ r
C~
':,';: " : ~
~~
;, ;-
,~a';
~`^~
NNUNNIITES, CITY PLANNING Co2~4IISSI0N, April 7, 1969
~
4447
92~~1DMENT TO THE - PiTBLIC HEARING. INITIATID BY THE CITY PL9NNING COt~4IISS20N~ 204 East
ANAFIEIl~i M[JNICIPAL Lincoln Aveaue~ Anaheim, Californie; propoaing to coneider an amend-
CODE ment to Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code - Chapter 18.28,
R-2~ tdu].tiple-Family Resideatiel, Zone and Chapter 18.32~ R-3,
Multiple-F$mily Reaidentisl, Zone - Off-street perking and acceasways
and circulation.
Aasistaat Planaer Willinm Youag reviewed the Report to the Co~ieaion relatl:e to the
atndy of the parking~ requiremeate in the multiple-family reaidential sones ae requested
by the P1HT~ Co~ieeion, noting that there were approximetely 19,635 apartment unita
in the City of Anaheim~ r-ith aa additionel 2~350 unite forecaet £or conatruction withia
the yaery and tmder currettt City ordinences a~inim~ of 1~ covered parking epacee were
required to be provided for each living unit, ecompeeaing both the teneat and gueat
parking; that estimates of the Development Servicee Departmeat of the City of Annheim
snd the Orange County Planning Department place the adult driving population at 1.6 to
1.8 adulta per mnltiple-fami].y reeidentiel living uait; that in addition~ the State
Department of Motor Vehiclea~ Anaheim o££ice, indicated that an average of .75 cars are
registered pcu- suu7,t iaroughout the State of Ca7.iforaie - however, within the Couttty of
Orange thert~ wea a eomewhat higher average of approximately oae car per adult; and that
bsaed on the.ee £iguree o~ 1.6 to 1.8 persotts per living unit at .'75 to one cer per
peraon would x:gpear to i.ndicate the preaeat parking requiremente had reaulted in a perk-
ing deficit of approximately .5 apacee per living uait or approximately 10,000 apaces
in tenant perki.ng alone throughout the co~nunity~ yrlthout coneidering the additional
perking needed for gueets of tenante. A brief survey o£ the parldng requirementa of
citiea within t~he County of Orange and the County of Los Angel.ea, covering ten other
citiee which had comparable multiple-family aoning to that of the City of Anaheim9 xas
thdn reviewed~ and at the conclueion it wea noted that half of the cities aurveqed related
their parkiag requiremeata to the nt~ber of bedrooms in each living unit~ whi7.e 30~
related parking to the apecific aone' end 20~ to ar~y type of multiple-femily reeidential
unity and making a comperieon of a hypotheticel ,1,0_un~;t apax•tment complez of theae ten
citiesy whieh coneiated of 10 bacfialor~ 10 one-bedroom~ 10 two-bedroom, and 10 three-
bedroom uniteafurther illuetrated the diecrepaztcies between citiea regarding the n~ber
and type of perldng apaces required £or thia type of develop~eat~ and the comperieon of
the parking requiraments for this 1~Vpothetical complex revealed that Anaheim would require
10.6 pexkiug apaces lesa than the average n~ber of apaces required. Furthermore~ if the
three citiea requiriag the leaet n~ber of apacea, i.e.~ Anaheim~ Santa Atta, and Los
Aageleey uere excluded from the atudy~ the average total of required apacee would ehow a
Aignificant iacreaee from 60.6 to 70.6~ or requiring appraximately 1.75 pnrki.ng spacee
per living uait - thereFore~ based on this atatiatical data~ the parking etendarda of
the City of Anaheim resulted ia the leeat amount of on-eite parking of avy of the afore-
mentioned citiee and would appear to be inadequate in vieaa of the n~ber and type of
occupente of mu7.tiple-family living uttita.
Pfr, Young fra~ther noted that the n~ber of required parking spaces could, in most inetances~
be related to the nt~ber of habiteble rooms (bedroome) within the living unit; that adequate
aff-atrest parking for multiple-Family residential develop~ents should be provided £or the
poteatiel number of adult teneata per living unit~ ea eatimated by the nt~ber of bedroome
per uait9 end their ~ueata - therefore~ the ataff xas reco~ending an emendment to the
off-~tr~et parking requiremente in the R-2 and R-3 Zones to reflect one covered parking
epace per apartmeat or dwelling unit and en additionel n~ber of parking apacea,either
encloaedD cov~redfl or opea~ for each uait by type of unit; namely~ bachelor unite -
gn additional 05 epaces~ ~~ne and two-bedroom - 1 additional apace~ three and more bedrooma -
1D25 epacsao Furthermore~ fractional requiremente of one-half or more ahould be conatrued
as one £u71 space ia determining the required nt~ber of apacea.
Mr~ Youagy in reviewing the defittition of covered apacea~ noted that the minim~ interior
dimeneions anould ba 10 feet'ia width and 20 feet in length' having a clear access width
of 9 feety and open apacea ehould be 8~ feet by 19 feet long - furthermore~ each covered
parking apace aho+sld be within 200 feet of, and be accesaible to~ the dvelling uait it
servedg that ail carporta be eacloaed on three aides except that when built in combination
of two or moray only the rear of the carports and the two ende need to be encloaed; that
alI iaiex^ior wal].e of carporta ehould be finiahed with exterior material, and general
~toraga cabineta~ 100 cubic feet per car apace minim~ capacity,•should be provided within
eaeh carport or conveniently located thereto~ snd adequete b~per guerda ahould be provided
to protect the intarior wa11 of carports from damage. Furthermore~ parking Laciliiiee
ahauld be ~cr~ened from ad~acent properties and from the living and recreational-leisure
~.reas and f~~n ad~acent etreets. Also in conjunetion ir3.th the .above reco~ended char.gea,
the staff alao reco~ended thet the vehicular accesaways aectioa of the multiple-£anily
zones be amended to incorporate one requiremeat currently liated under off-atreet parking
requirementa which more logica7.].y ahould tie liated ae s vehiculer acceseway requirement;
namely, ~~avery living unit ahall be located within txo-hundred £eet of a atandard atreet~~,
and in order to permit living units to'be located at a greater distance, the ataff recom-
mended that an addition be made to the off-atreet parking requirementa ea follows:
~
...'8
l
~ ~ ~'~~~'.~~ 0
1
.~
+
a
r~
,
.~
,~
~~`.~':'.ft~ ,t,.
,
. _ . ,.. ~, .,. ~ ~;1., . , _ .
~~ ,~., x ~~
t~,
~::_/
c~
44/+g
1~IIIdUTES' CITY PLANNING COI~A2ISSION~ April 7~ 1969
,~~~~3'`
, ~~
~~ f~~
~ .;;'s
~2+~T112~TT TO TxE -(t~) ~ery e,partment ead/or dsrelling unit ahal]. be located zrl.thia
ANAHEIM MDNICIPgI, two-huadred feet of~ and be aerved by9 auch public or private acce~re-
GODE waye that xill provide adequate accees arid circulation for pedestriaa
(Continned and for vehiculer traffic~ including £ire, utility, traeh collection
and other esssatial aervicea~ and (b) All vehicular acceaeways ehal].
permit a minimum turnirig radius of twenty-five feet, aiace beeed on
e atudy o£ wsivers granted d~sing the peat thr,ee yeare~ 22 requeats for waivera from the
reqniremant had beea filedy and of the ~~:20 had beea approved and only 2 denied -
~herefora1 it wae the Co~ieaion:s determiaation that other provieione be msde xi+hin
the CodeYS fremework ia order to alleviat;e the'n~eroue waivera being requested for
loca~ioa of a liviag unit f~om a steadarc~ stieet. F~thermore~ in the definition of
"habitable roame^9 the Co~iaeioa ehould sleo coneider that a living room~ kitchen~
bathroomy ba7.1y lobby~ o].oaet or pentry ehould be coneidered a bedroam £or purpoaes of
interprefiatiaa of the parking requirementa.
7,oning Snpervieor Charlee Roberta~ in reeponae to Co~ieaioa qneetioning relative to epace
for meehanical parking devicee~ atated that the ataf£ had not initiated a atud,y which would
e~compsas mechanical parking devicea~ but s more apecific~ detailed atvdy would be coneider-
ed and would be added to the parking requiremeate as emendmenta~were studied and pro~ected
for the amendmeata ta the R-3 Zone. '
Commisaioner Herbat noted that other cities permitted both tandem parking and mechanical
d~evlcea for parkingp and since the groposal of increaeed parking requirementa for the
CityPa R-3 Zotte was under conaideration and would occugy additionel land for parking
purposaey it might be important to iaclude thia atudy with the off-atreet parking require-
mente in order that adequate parking was provided while still ui;iliaing the property to
its fulleate
Co~i¢~ ssoner Herbst9 in responee to queetioning '~y other Co~issioners~ stated'that a12~
foat high clearance would be needed to permit etacked parking of tWO cara~ and thst the
City of F`al7.~rton preeently permitted teadem parking which xould add coneiderably to the
parking problem aolution if permitted in the City of Anaheim.
hir, Rober~ey in responae to Co~iasion queetioning, etated that the preaent height of the
door elearance for garages or carports wsa 7+~ to 8£ee~.
Co~i.seioaer Camp, in queationing 24r. Young~,.etated that in the definition of a bedroomy
dinfng roaans ehould el~o be conaidered ae a hebitable room~ and wondered if thia had been
overlook~d by th~s etaff,
Mra Yotmg etated that the ata.ff hnd conaidered both dining and recrea~ion rooma - hos~rever~
theea were not part of the definitioa of other citiea; therefore, they ~ere deleted, and
if the Co~ieaian were deairoue of including them~ thia could be done.
Th~e Co~f.aeion f~ther inquir.n:; ae to whether or not additipnal parkisig wattlc~ be picked
up ff opea perking were conaid,ered veraue covered perking.
Mr. Rober+.a advieed ihe Co~isaion that since the reco~endatioae were £or one apece to
be covered and enything addit_onel could be covered or uacovered, in the iastance of a
bachelor wnit9 the requiremeat would be l~ parking apacee previonely, while the recom-
mended ve.s l05 - taereforea an increeae of one-quarter of a perking epace per unit~ and
baeed on projectione of the aquare foot area required for ten carporta at 10 by 20-foot
epaces veraus the open parking of 8~ by 19 feet, an increaee of eight parking epacee
wauld 'ba aohiaved with pez~itting pertiel opea parking oF the propoaed requiremeats.
The Commisaion empheaiaed the Pact that any uacovered parking area be adequately acreened
with landacaping~ euggeeting poeaibly e berm be conaidered which would be planted ~ith
landscapingeand thus providing the ecreeaiag of theee parked vehicles.
Mr, Raberte then noted that refinemente of the requirementa in the aite develop~eat
s~andarde for open parking would be a pert of the overall revieion to the aite develop-
ment etanderda for the R-2 and R-3 Zonee.
Co~i.esioner Camp then noted that he peraonally would not be in favor of taking action
on ~ihe propoeal before the Co~i.asion at the public hearing without doing further reaesrch
and f~thar analyzi~g the proposal; that he felt all aepects of the propoaed amendmant
shovZd be thoroughl.y iaveetigated, obtain~ information from buildera, designera, and
architects relative to thia prior to any adoption - however~ he zras fully cognisant of
the £act that the City of Anaheim~s preaent parking requiremeata were inadequate~ and a
n~ed for ea increaee in the parking requiremente would be advaatageoue to both the City
and the residente of theae develop~ents.
I,ire Robaris~ in reaponse to questioning by Com~ias~oner Farano relative to providing a].1
uacovared parking epaces~ noted that although theae would be resideats of apartmente~ they
collected the aeme itama £or atorage purpoaea that people residing in homes did - thereforey
-~~;"f'~v-+~'.~E'~_'""F!`rT'.m~~ ~ ~~ t ,~ S~'~°~i'w"d ~'~. J " "~ G L~J'~ ~ ,'i. T ~ }~e i e;::, +.;~ .
i i 4 x ~ :p ~ t^ -, r .
.~ y{y y
~~
~ 5 ~ `_/ {{
~) ~
:~'.',•.; ~.......
1ffNIITES, CIY''Y PLANNING COrQQSSION, ~pril 7, 1969 ~9
92~fEtdDMEtJT TO TfiE - there we,s e need for atorage space to be provided, and t;_~e ~her or not
:;,;::;,~: ~1NAHEIM blON2CIPAI, it was within an encloaed etorage cabinet ia a cerport or elr~ewhere
` G0~ in the apartment complex, this should be coneidered in the Co~iasi.on`s
~~,
(Continued) deliberatioa.
~
Contiaued ciacusaion by the Co~i.ssioa revealed the following: existi.rg carports became
~ storage spaces for tenents even though atorage fac3litiea were provided; tnat tandem
~>. ue:~~.'~ng, overhead parking, or mecheaical par]dng should alac be considered; that if i;he
proposal were coneidered favorably~ with aome open perking with mechanical or ttind<im
,u parking, adequate acreening of the open parking ahouid 'oe requirsci; that the pres~ent
_-- develo~rment of eiagle-family homea on R-1 lota indicated three garages or carporte wera
~~,_ :-~ baiag developed; and that if adequate off-atreet parking taere provided, perhapa considera-
,,, r tion ahould be gicen to enforcittg of£-atreet perl;ing sin~e even though there ware garrsge~
~~}~ or carporta~ the residenta of apartments were parking on iho etreet.
r '~'
;;~ nasiatant City Attorney John Dawson adviaed tne Cemmisaion that an ordinenca i~ad been
.~_i drafted,but not adopted ea yet, which would prohibit parking between the hojzra of' 2:~7A A,ii,
g 's. nnd 6:00 A.24, where single-£amily homee and streeta were located wiT:~hin 500 feet of
~ : '; spartment development.
I•~.. William D. Richardaoa, 1833 Eaet 17th Street,, Santa Ana, developerJ apgearsd befure
t~e Co~misaion and noted he wsa the fira~• chairrnan of the Homebuildere ~ssaciation in
Orange County, having 26 diatricta itt 25 citiea; that the City af Newport Eeach keui changed
their zoning code ea well sa their electrical snd ni~o~r.~ codes; that he was not officis.lly
:e~reaenting the Builders Inetitute aince thep had not had time to snslSze the prr,posal fcr
smandment to the parking requirements; that the City of Fullerton permitted tandem paraing;
and that a- a developer, they had attempted su'~terranean parking which provad acmeunst
eatisfactory, but rather than requiring 1~- covered ~paces~ thev wotil.d prefer providing onz
ogsn space rather than permitting tandem parking, Furthermoror xather thr~n xequiring an
suditional perking apace for one or tWO-bedroom units, the formuta of 1-3/4 apacea wa~d
be much more acceptable; that the dlscusaion relative to requ3xing one covered par;~ing
space had been diacueaed in many ~the2~ citiea; that the City of Sacramonto did not require
any covered perking, and the mafority of their apartment development~ ware provided witfl
cpen atalls - however, one of the dieadvantagea wae raquiring one-way drivae to stalls,
~nd thie sometimea caused apertment reeidente to heve to walk 300 feet to the docr of the
apestment building; that the City of Fullerton required garages wifi.h doors} which he falt
wa~ unfair aince theee doors were nevbr cloaed; that the buildere were fully aware of ihe
problem of etorage space for these reeidents~ and the requiremeut of the Ciiy of Anahaim
io ha~e atorage in the cerport erea wga more acc~ptable; that the claesificatinn of the
various typea of roc~me in calculating parking requirementa was of interesi to him since
they claeaified a room, auch as a den in which a cloaet was not provided, as ~uat snother
roem and not a bedroom -1~owever~ there wae no asavrance that tempora~.g closet space co•ald
not be placed in the apartmenta by the reeidents, attd, therefara, a ilett shoutd nat be
coneidered a aleeping room ezcept on a temporary baeis s3.nce most apetrtment ~mers were
very atrict in their requiremexits and made ~tae typee of inspectione naceaaary to a,e~iztQin
theee requirementa; that they made a coneiderable studg of the vrsrious parking requirements
throughoui the United States as a pro~ect tnrough the Stata Col.lege et Fu7lertan. said
stud~ indicated a need to increase the parlctng rsquirements - howevar~ cha ~olution ~ad cure
o~.iggeated £rom the etudy might be reviewed in determining whether o.r not they were aucceas-
ful, Ftu~thermore, he would not like to have citiea without parking ordinances since i;hare
w2s a need to have atreet eweeping,'end t'~e ::ity of Full.erton had noated ~'no psrking :a:::s
in order to sll.ow atreet eweepera to clean the etreets.
?I'r. Richardecn further noted that he wea a resident of Corcna dsl ?fer end was a biock fro~¢
tne Beach State Perk - therefore, he was acutely awara of ths parking problems; ~hat Le
ielt there was a need to have parldng oa atreeta, and, ftu~therm~re, he vould H~ger~t that
if ~.:e perk3.ng reqLire~aen•t•s uere beittg considered to be updated in the R-2 and ''-3 °onas,
thera were other £aceta in the zonea which ehould be coneidered, and theae ohoZ:ld al~o ba
~nended along with the parking requirements aince they went hend-in-hand - such ~e pax~it-
ting a higher denaity if there were an increesa ia parkingy and, therefore~ he recommended
that no deciaioa be ma.de by the Planning Commiasion until the Oz~ange County Ch9.pte•r ~f tlia
Buiiding 2nduetry Aesociation of Celifornia had time to meet and seview the proposs7.3
gresanted by the staff.
The Co~isaion then inquired ea to the emount of tims for con+in-aance to ~11.ow thi~ - to
which bir. :ichercison replied that approximately two weeks would be necessary.
The Co~3.seion also noted that if Hr. Richardaon had experieace aiong the Zinas of on~r_
parking being aubatituted as en alternative in his atnd~a tha eelution as to provid~ng
atarage apace in another etructvre for residettta of these unita where fo~:merl~ tha Cit~
reqvired 100 cubic feet within the cerport area~ these should atso ae presented. Ft:rLhe°-
ruore~ ~i complete open parking were permitted, provision ahould 'oa ~de £or adequats land-
scape screaning of the parking area so that a sea of asphslt wot~I.d not be noted from the
sTx'eet. •
~:
;.;:~
~~ ~.;i; ~ v; M;; :.~r
~ `~ l~
I~i'iNIITES, CTTY PLANNING C~•ffSSION~ gpril 7~ 1969 ~'i0
.2t2IIJDME~TT TO THE - i4re Richardaon~ in responae to Commissioa queatior,iag~ statad that he
9NAHEI2~I MUNCIPAL d.td not l~ve aay direct experience ae to open p~,rking and provisi~n
CODE of atorage in lieu of carport etorage; haweverp thie storage eAOU1d
(Cantinued) be pa~ovided in certain encZosed areae, not only for thoae parking ia
open parking off-etreet~ but aleo thoae.ttho always park ott etreeta~
that he was in complete agreement that edequate ~and~caping bs
provi.ded r9gardlesa of whether the perki.ng was opea or covered9 snd in the recleasification
ha would preaent at the evening aeaeiott, this would be demonetrated - howaveri the auggeb-
tion by the Commiseion that where uncovered parking was to be permitted, screen land~xcaping
wovld be a solution £or open parldngf that tne new develop~ent hia compar~y ~was conatructing
p e
:~ in the City of Fullerton had eo many roo£a he was not aure whether he would rather eee a
~~ sea of aephalt or the projectiona of ao meny roofs into the peripheral vieW of regidents
~ of these areae; that the City oY Sacramento had areas which they deaignated as apertmant
=_^ areaa wi.th su ortin zonin
°~,_- PP ~ g- however, he was glad Aaeheim had the advantage in not h~vi.ng
';t~ ~ ecnceatration of apartmenta in one area; that it wea hia opinion apartmeats shoula ba
;;) intermixed thraughout the City, but Anaheim~e requirement of one atory within 15U feet a£
;a R-1 propertiea was working a bardahip where a eme11 piece of land could be developed far
;.~; an apartmeat~ and it was not economically•feasible to develop one-atory ~partmentar thus
~ atsny of theae amall percela were undeveloped; and that if the Co~i.saion did not telce
', sction on the proposed amendmentesnd conaidered continuance o£ the propoaed amendmants,he
`' ~ronld talk with the board of directors and recommend that dats. Khich they had fram paet
M experieace be preaented to the Co~isaioa ia a report.
~asiatant Develolmment Services Director Ronald Thompaon noted for the Caa~issicn thst if
Dir. Richardaonte Building Induatry Aseor.iation could draft their findings and rscammends-
tiona in time for inclueion in the Report to the Co~i.ssiony then tha Commission ece;id
nave both the atafF's findinge and the developer s' experience available to revieW before
tha next public hearing - therefore~ he would auggest that thia informatian be euo~itted
to the etaff by April 29~ if the Co~iseioa deaired to continue conai3eration of ths
propoaed amendmeats for four weeka.
I•Ir, Larry Armoura 2731 Weat Littcoin gvenue, developer~ appeared b~fore the Co;~aiseion ~r.d
n~ted he would euggeet that the building industry feed back all data which they had to
the Co~ieaion - however~ more than two weeka~ continuance was needed io obtasin the
commente from the developera of thie orgenisation~ and that the four week continuance
suggeeted.,by 2~ir. Thompson would be adequate.
The Coam~ieeion then inquired of TSr. Armour whether or not he had considered th~ mechsnics2
devicea for providing adequate parki.ng.
i~h'.• Armotu' etated that he had reviewed th~? a- however~ there wea a ht~an element invnlved
in the difficulty of getting people to put their cara in carporta or geragea~ that he
sven had dif£iculty in getting both of hia cars in the garage~ and one car always beemed
to be setting in the driveway; that it wes almoat impoasible to hava carporta or garages
located at the entrance of each apartment~ and that eny of the problema other developera
had experienced and their meesie of reaolving them would be helpful to the City ia deter-
ru~.ning whether or not the recommended parking requirement change was acceptable or wculd
work a hardehip.
Commi.asioner Camp offer.ed a motion to continue consideration o£ amendmenteto the Anaheim
Dhwicipel Code~ Chaptera 18.28 and 18.32~ off-street parking aite davelop~eat etandardes
tn the meeting of t~fay 5~ 1969~ in order to aLlow time for the iuilding induatry Association
ic submit their findinge and recommendationa on the prnposed amendmante. Commissioner
Harbat seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
REYORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1
REC01•LiENllATIONS CONDITIONAL IISE PERi-ffT N0. 1088 (Anaheim y,?1. C.A. )- Propsrty
located at the northwest corner of Cheatnut and Citron Street6 -
Proposed for utilization ea a private educatinna:, inetitLtion -
Amendmeat to the legal description.
Assistant Zoning Supervieor Pat Brown adviaed the Commisaion that when Conditional IIse
Permit No. 1088 wae granted by the planning Com~ission in Resolution No. FCo9-11 on
Januazy 27~ 1969, Parcel No, l o£ the three parcel Iegal description wes inadvertentiy
omitted and ehould be included; therefore, ha would reco~end that the Commisaian ~mend
their previoua action to include eaid parcel,
Co~teaioner Herbet offered Reeolution No. PC69-79 and moved for its paseege and adoption,
aeconded by Commisaioner Camp~ to amend Resolution Nos ?C69-11' granting Conditiona3 IIse
Psrmit No. 1088, to i.nclude Parcel No. 1 in the legal description. (See Resolntion Bowk)
6n roll call the foregoing resolution was paaeed by the followi.ng vate:
9YF~: COI~~92SSIONERS: A11red~ Camp~ Farano~ Gauer~ Herbat, Thom.,
NOES: CO.~~SSIONERS: None.
ABSI~IT: COh4•ffSSIONERS: Rowland. i
, r~
~ f
~ . . ~ ~ ' . ' • . . . `~ . .
~
MINIITES, CITY PLANNING COHhlISSION, ~pril 7, 1969 l+1~51
REPORTS 9ND - ITEM"N0. 2
RECOMt~~NDdTIONS VARIANCE N0. 2013 (M. J. Gobert - Qovington Brothere) - Property
Continued located oa the weet aide of i>lagnolia Avenue~ approximately 347
- £eet eouth of the centerline of G4~eaceat Avenue - Requeet for an
extenaiott of time.
Asaiatant Zoning Supervieor Pat Brown reviewed the location of aub~ect property~ noting
that the reclaeaification of the property wae approved by the City Council Nf~p 31, 1967,
under a resolution of intent, and the variance had beea granted by the p7.anning Co~ie-
eion September 119 1968~ waiving the'one-etory height limitation within 150 feet of the
R-A Zone and permitting a 7-foot setback from the pR'!,1p8Tt~ I,~IIB Of .~1@ miniim~m ~qu{red
ysrd eetback; however, none of the conditiona of-approval had been met, both ae to the
recleaeificatioa and the variaace; that the variance conditione were aubfect only to
finel bui.tding end zon3ng inapection requiremeat; and~ therefore~ the ataff recommended
that a air.-month exteaeioa of time, to expire September 19, 1969, be approved.
Co~isaioner Gauer offered a motion to grant a eix-month exteneion of time £or the
completion of conditioae on 9ariance No. 2013, said time limitation to expire September 19,
1969. Co~i.saioner Thom aeconded the motiott. 2~10TION CARRIED.
ITII~f N0. 3
Oraage Connty IIse Veriance No. 6221,, (Bill G. Cooper) - Requeat
£or the eatabliebmeat of a ea•.~na bath and maesage businesa in
ths Reaidentiel.Profesaional Diatrict - Property loceted oa the
eaet aide of Brookhuret Street approximately 435 feet north of
Lincoln Avenue - An existing eingle-fam3ly resideace with
attached garage.
Assiatant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown preseated to the Co~ieaiott Orange County IIse
Variance No. 62?l,y noting the location of the p~operty~ the exieting zoning, the proposed
request to eetabliah a sauna bath aad msssage bueineae in an existing dwelling~ and the
fact that upon con#~;::"ing the Orange County Planning Depertment~ they indicated that the
propoaed use was r:c•• ~,ermitted in the Couatyta RP Diatrict. ~rthermore~ the use was also
P ; ity of Anaheimta GO Zone~ which was comparable to the CountyTs
RP~Di~ beict~~ ~tha etabliahed e~ q~atioa as to whether the proposed uee would be
Pa , pr feeaionel office us3e in the area.
Mr, Brown ftather aoted that the Co~ieaion would have to determine whether the pa~opoaed
use would be c'ompatible w3.t2i exiating profeaeional office uees alreedy established in
this area~ ae well as the eingle=family reaidencee abutting to the eset.
After aome diecusaioa by the Co~ieeion ea to the appropriateness of the propoaed uae
in e aingle-family residence within an already eetabliehed pa~ofeesion~ of£ice area,
Commiasioner Camp offered a motion to reco~end to the City Couacil that the Orange County
Plar~i.ng Co~iesioa be ~ged to dex~ Orange Couaty IIae Variance No. 6221r oa the baeie that
the use propoaed zras not appropriate for an area soned for profeasional office ~.ise and ihe
character of the bueineases that have been eetabliehed in the area which conform to this
zone. However~ if the Orange Couaty Planning Commieaion determi.nea that the nae is
appropriate~ the following conditiona should be coneidered in the granting of the uee:
1. Dedication of a 60-£oot helf-zridth on Brookhurst Street for atreet widening purpos~s.
2. Retention and maintensace of the exiating front landscaping.
3. .All parking facilities to be located to the rear of the property.
4. Structural complianca With the minimnen co~ercisl atandarda o~ appiicable Building„
Electrical and Pl~bing Codea.
Co~isaioner Herbet eeconded the motion. 2,tOTION CARRIED.
RECESS FOR DINAER - Co~ieaioner $erbet offered s motion to receas the meeting for dinner,
Co~issioner i~om aecottded the motion. MOTION CARrIr'~3. The meeting
receased at 5:05 P.I4. _
RECONVENE - c'E+p„~p., A7.~.~ reconveaed the meeting at 7:30 P.I•I.~ a71 Co~iasionera
being pa~esent.
~ ~ ~
r~NUTES, CITY PI~ANDTING CO1~ffSSION, gpril 7, 1969 ~52
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINIIED PIIBLIC HEARING. DECON CORPORATION~ 1833 East 17th Streat~
NO_. 68-69-99 Santa Ana9 Celifornia, Owner; property described ae: An irregularly
ehaped parcel of approsimate].y 8 acrea of land located i~ediately
V9RIANCE N0. 2066 west of the intersection of the Riverside and Newport FSreewaye,
approximately 1,000 feet east of the centerline of Jef£ereon Street.
, Property preaently claseified R-2, MULTIP'.F~-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
REQiJESTED QASSIFICATION: R-3~ DiQLTIPLE-FAMILY RrsS IDENTIAL, ZONE.
REQIIESTED VARIANCE: WAIPF~.S OF (1) :ZNIMIIM DISTAlJCE BETWEEN BDILDIlJGS A19D MINIMfJM
DIST9NCE BETWEETI PARALLEI, W~i,LS OF TE~ S9t~~ BIIILDIlJG, (2)
LIVIldG UNITS LOCATED.WITi~N 200 FEET OF A STANDARD STREET,
~3) PIIINIDER OF REQDIR~D COVF~RED PARKING SPACES~ (4) PERt.32TTID
NIIt•IDER OF 2•IAIN STRIICTQRES ON A SITE, (5) PARKIlQG SPACE
LOCATION~ (6) STRIICTQR.AL SETBACI~ FROi~f A LOCAL STREET, TO
PERt~ffT TI~ ESTABLISffi•~1T OF A 122-IINIT APART!•~NT COA~'Lt,:;,
Sub~ect petitions were contiaued.from the meeting of 2•iarch 2[,., 1969, at the requeat .of
the petitioner in order to e11ow time to aubmit revi.sed plana to more closely conform
with City atandarda.
Assistant Zoniag Supervisor Pat Hrown reviewedthe Iocation oi the property,,uses established
in cloae p~oxtmity~ aoting that the redesign of the pro~ect e19Ttnated the xaiver of th ;-';~
~s
one-atory height limitation within 150 feet of the R-A Zone and adequate vehiculgr accesa-
way for City service vehiclees however~ two new waivera were now required~ thesebeing
~
'~
;
p~rking spacee located withia 2pp feet of a dwell
ing unit and required atructural aetback
from a local atreet. Furthermore~ the new plana indicated a 54_foot wide
dedicated atrset ,~~
:`~
~
slong the eaetern perimeter of the pa~operty rather than the k0-£oot wide, private etreet
originelly p~opoaed along the tireatern perimeter; that a reduction in the total n~ber of ;~
units £rom 1./~0 to 122 wae aow indicated~ and thia reduced the Uensity figure from 25.3
dwelling unita per net acre to 21,..3~ and the total coverage from L~]..2~ to 38.6~3 that the ~
~s
1969 Preliminsry Gensral Plsa indicated medi~ density~ multiple-family uses a~ ai;propri~te
£or this area; that the redeaign of thia
roject refl
t
d
n
:,
p
ec
e
eeae
tielly the saT:e type of
development~ a garden-type apartment complexi and the most aignificant improvement resulted
~
£rom the relocatioa of the atreet from the Westerl y perimeter
y perimeter,to the eaeterl
since more adequate circulation wae now provided for City eervice vehicles and the proposed ,.t
,
£uture.tenaate of the pro~ect; in sddition~ the atreet acted ae a sound diminieher for`the
traf£ic from the freeway'intereaction located i~ediat
l
t
the
s
~~
e
y
o
ea
t;and that the deneity
and ma~d.mt~ coverage figures were comperably lower; whichy in ttu~n9 provided an above- '~;F
~
~.verage apen eir and secreationsl eavironment for the proposed p~o ect.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :`, '
"r~
1•~e Wi713am RichardeonD dedeloper repa~esenting the petitioner~ appeared before the Co~it~-
siott and noted tha.t they had prep~ared and atudied a n~ber of pro~ecta ~.hroughout the ` r>;
IInited States and Southern Californie,and nt~eroua attempts had been made to design an
rscceptable develop~ent for sub~ect property which had a n~ber o£ drawb
k
ac
e; namely~ the
ahape of the parcely location at the intereection of t wo freeways, the 15-foot~ Metro-
i politaa Water District eseement along the eaeterl
i
j
y per
meter of the property, and the
~ proximity to a aingle-family eubdiviaioa which made it dif£icult to develop aubfect property
~ v'ithin ite exieting zoning
and theee same drairback
d
i
~
a ma
e
t impoesible to develop with a
higher deasity than proposed; that whea the propoaed plans were
I family homeozmera th were o preaented to the single-
9 ey ppoe
ed to a atreet al
,
ong the westerly perimeter, and aince
j the atnff 2~ad also exp~eased concern regarding thia proposed private street~ the requeat
for coatiauance wea made to redeeign the develop~ent prior to the pr.evious public hearing;
that the,reviaed plaae now had the street along the es
t
l
i
e :~~
a
er
y per
met
r~ which also connected
( ~rith ellays for secondary acceae for both fire and ~rash trucks~ sa well as the r~aidenta
of the profect~ that the additional waivera needed were neceesary becauae of the unuaual
shape of the parcel - howevery no'driveways were propoaed in this
re
a
a,and no traffic probiem
,i would result; snd that the propoaed develoFmment~with the type of landacaping proposed
~
.
~ vould be an aeaet to the area ae well ae act as a buffer for the R-1 homea from noisea
ems~nating from the £reewqy interchange and would u
de thi
pgra
a entire area,
;
Mr, Richardeon then preeented colored renderinge of the proposed develop~ent~ as well ae
elevationa which were'previouely coneidered but diacard
d i
fa
f
e
n
vor o
thoae now under
coneideration.
Mrs. Joyce Askanaon~ gpartment B~ 131 Merrimac 1lrive~ appeared before the Co~ieeion in
oppoaition and atated that the ozmera of the'fourplexes to the southwest of the proposed
develoFmment wer~ concerned that the proposed develoFmment wou7.d not have the eame spacioueness
the teaaats now en~oyed and would be a detriment to th
e area, and that the number cf unita
propoaed would add to an already congested traf£ic problem of eo ma~y additional vehicla8
having to uae one access from the area to get to Sant
A
C
a
na
anyon Road and Jefferaon Street,
;::~''
j.
~ ~,
~ ___- _ ,._...._., _ _ .. .__
\~. ~ ~
MIlJIITES~ CITY PLANNING COI~4~IISSION~ April 7, 1969 4b.53
'RECLASSIF'ICATION - The Co~ai.esion eaked that opponenta of the propoaed develop~ent review
N0, 08=69-79 the.plana aince the propoaed project wae a better deeigned one and
more acceptable with a deneity not"much greater thea permitted under
YARIANCE N0. 2066 „ the existing $oning eince the R-3 Zone permitted a mextm~ of 36 units
(Continued per net acre, while the petitioner wae propoaing only 21,,.3 per acre -
or sn increeae of slightly over 6 per acre over that pex~.tted by the
R-2 Zone.
rirs. Ricbard Metcalf, 101 Dierrimac Drive, appeared before the Co~isaion and inquired ae
to the reat~l fee the petitioner ~roposed for theee apertmenta aince the fourplexea were
under private ownerehipy and it wae the doaire of theee apertment ownera to maintain the
~ apaciouenese and more aelective residente in this erea.
The Co~3.ssion adviaed Pirs, Metcalf that the prime consideration before the Co~i.esion
was one of lasid uae and not retttal fee of a unit since this would not have aay bearing
ugoa the Co~isaioa~e decieion.
Mr. Ted Hakansoa, Apartment B~ 131 Merrimac Drive, appeared before the Co~ieaion in
oppositioa snd noted thst since the property was originally aoned R-2 while under the
~uriadiction of the County, there muat have been a good reaeoa for requiring thie when
it became a part of the City.
The Co~i.aeion noted that previously when proparties were annexed into the City~ a comper-
able zone to that orid nally eatabliahed on the property by the County wea placed on the
newly annexed property~ and that the R-2 Zone moet cloaely met thia aittce the density was
between the R-2 and the R-9 Zones of the City of Anaheim.
Commisaioner Camp thett noted that in all the yeara he had beett a Co~iasioner, thia was
the firat time that reeidenta of att area enfoying the same zone the petitioner was requeat-
ing were opposed to a change in $one, attd then aeked for a ahowing of handa of the R-3
homeownera present~
Five pereons indicated their preaence ae R-3 homeownera.
Co~i.eaioner Rowland,then noted that if aqy of the oppoaitiott were capable of evalusting
the sketchee preeented and what the petitioner was propoaing~ there would be ao oppoai-
tion einde thie proposed pro~ect~ in hie estimation~ would not downgrade the area but
~rould be a,vaet improvement9 and in the n~ber of years he had been on the Co~iasioas
thia wae one of the better profecte presented to the Co~i.saione However' hie only concern
would be whether or not the develop~ent could be built within the rental range ncrmelly
seked for apertmenteo
Mro Hekanaoa then atated that the two-bedroom apartmenta proposed were coneiderabiy emaller
th~n tha two-bedroom apartmenta in the R-3 develo~nent to the eaet.
24rao Raymond Van der Waz~ker~ 206 t4err3mac IJrive~ appeared before the Co~i.saion and notefl
ihat Mr, Richardaott had met with the single-£amily homeowners and diacueeed the plana with
them; however~ they were not pleaeed with the original plana~ and the reviaed plans were
coneiderably bettery but.they were etill opposed since thie would mean an increase in
gpartment developmi9at around the aingle-family eubdiviaion; that when they had moved into
this subdiviaioa~`there were orange grovee all around them, and all typea of develop~eat
~were now oca~ring; that they were more concerned ae to a change in zoning eince they werb
fully eware of the fact that the R-2 Zone permitted only 18 units per acre, whereas the
R-3 would.sllow up to 36 units per acre~ and there wea no aseurance the develop~ent
presented to the Coa~issioa would be developed as propoeed aince the zoning of the property
was not tied into develo~ettt plana; that 2ir. Richardaon had informed them that he uould be
unable to develop~apartmenta comperable to those adfacent to the south of the aingle-family
tract; and that the property values of theae homes had already decreased and would continue.
to decr~ease if they were completely aurrounded with apartmeat development - thia statemeni
being made by a loan company when sefinancing of aome of theae homea wQa attempted,
ru'• He~u9 Hertman~ 3939 Rogue Drive, appeared before the Commiasion.and noted that no
feasibility etudy had been made on this pro3ect, and he'was concertted with the incresae in
I denaity,of the area; that`he was fully aware of the amount of t3me involved ia preparing
the elevatione propoeed - however, he had`one main coacern.relative to the propoaed devel-
bp~eat and that was ingress and egrees from theae properties which vould add to an already
uatenable traf£ic problem to gai~ both eccesa to Santa Ana Canyon Road and Jeffereott Stree't
becauee of the fo~-way stopa now exiating, and with 122 uttita, this would mean up to 35d
peraona added to the traf.fic pattera~ which would mean considerably more than if reqtured
to develop within the confinsa of the exiating zoning; and that hia calculations of the
increase proposed over that of the R-2 Zone was approximately 33~•
i~fr, Hartmsn further inquired whether or not the ~affic Eagineer had msde a complete study
of ihe traffic probleme of thie area.
~ Q C~ c:~
t+II~NTFS, CITY PLANNING Cot~ffSSION, ggril 7, 1969 l~1~54
RECLASSIFICATION - The Commiasion noted that the R-2 Zone permi.tted a l,A~ land coverage
N0. 68-69-72_ while the petitioner wea propoaing oniy 38+~, and the n~ber of unite
incresaed would be alightly more than that permitted under the R-2 Zone,
VARIANCE N0, z066
Continued) r Mr, Hari;msa then inquired why the petitioner wae requeating R-3 zoning
instead of developing under the R-2 Zone with a variance.
Zoning Supervieor Charles Roberta advised the Co~iasion and the oppoaition that deneity
was now:computed oa net resideatial acre ia which the net acreage wae arrived at by aub-
tracting;private etreeta and acceeaweys in exceea of 120 feet; furthermore, ea a point of
clarification relative to the zoning in this aree, the R-2 zoaing wae the moet comparable
zoning to thet in the County when anaexed into the City~ and~ therefore, the R-2 Zoae wea
eetabliahed oa the property - however~ aubaequent to arinexing the property~ thoae proper-
tiee to the west hsd,petitioaed for R-3 zoning end were now developed ae euchf that thie
R-3 develop~ent was originally app~roved as a 10-lot subdiviaioa,.and later the developer
came ia requeating additionel waivere~ cutting tha lots in helf, end these lota noW had
a deasity of 32 unita per net acre; and that the exiating R-3 Zone had iiigi~eas and egrese
from alleys.
hir, Roberts also noted that in tke redeaign of the pa~oposed develop~ent, the atreet on
the eaeterly perimeter was being etubbed into the property to the north~ end if thia
property~ now under the ~uriediction o.f the State Highway Department, were declared excess9
it couTd~ in a11 likelihoody be rede"velopad ead sd@itional vehiculer acceas would be
~hrough that property to the north aince there wea a atreet preaently developed on the
property - however~ this did ttot mean the atreet could be at aaother location~ attd there
was always e meane of having additionnl circulation becauae of this.
Mre Hartmsa thea noted tbat when the single-family tract was developed, they were told
there would be through circulation - however~ the atreete were atill dead-ended.
Chairman Allred then noted that if the City Eagineer felt there was inadequate circulation9
he would have reco~ended thia to the Commisaion sa well ae to the 3eveloper, and that
ex~y propertiea that were adjacent to freeways were subfected to other than nox•msl noieee -
therefore~, the proposed developm~eat would act as a buffer for the aingle-family aut~division,
Furthermore~,each property owner:had the'.inhereat right to request vhatever sone he felt
was the'highest and beet uee of the land~ and it was up to the Co~isaiott to deteimine
whether or.not the'requeat wea a valid one.
Office Eagineer Jay Titue, in reaponae to Co~isaion queationing relative to the ~af£ic
Eagineerts report on the circulation in this area~-atated that he had not indicated a
p~oblem`exietedy nor did he expreea concern except for internal circulation for public
vehicles.
Tfr. Richard Fozy 206 Kenaebec Drive~ appeared before the Co~ieaion aad noted that there
would be a coaeiderable impact ae to traffic i-i.th'this•increase in density~ and it wea
elmoat impoeaible to get to Jeffereott Street and Autonetice around 7:45 A.:-!.; therefore,
it wae hie opinion there wae a traffic problem~ and this ehould be thoroughly etudied by
the TrafPic Eagineer if the propoaed develop~ent were approved,with a minim~ of 120
vehiclea being added into the traf£ic flow.
Mr, Fox aleo noted that even though they were reaideate of the City of Anaheim, they did
not feel a part of the City ain~e they ~ere not a pert of the Anaheim School Diatrict.
Com~iaeioner Gauer~ at the requeet of Chairman A11red, noted that he had been an educator
and euperinteadent af achoola in Anaheim until his retirement in 1957, attd during thia
entix'e t~9y ~I16~C~~TB boundariea were not co-terminue with the achool diatrict boundariea-
theee boundaries had been eetabliahed for eome yeare through State lax~ and the only xay
that reaideate of 9naheim who xere in achool diatricta outeide of Anaheim could become a
part of thie achool syatem wae by s vote of the reaidenta through a school electioa to be
removed from one echool diatrict and traneferred to the Anaheim School Dietrict.
Co~tsaioner Herbet noted that although the i.ndustrisl area south of Orangethorpe 9venue9
which included gutoaetica, was a pert of the City of Anaheim~ the achool taxea were paid
to the Placentis School District.
Mre Fox thea noted that if a mud alide or eome other,type of accident occ~sred in the hilly
eres along Santa 9tta Canyon Road and cloaing eaid atreet, the residenta of thie entire srea
would be completely isolated - therefore~ creating both a health and safety hazerd to the
area.
Mrao Hakanaon again appeered before the Coffiisaion and inquired whether or ttot a masonry
wall was propoaed acrose the Metropolitan Water Di3t.rict easement; whereupon hir. Richardaon
replied that the development would be completely encloaed except for atreet and alley
openinga with a 6-foot maeonry wa1Z. ' '
;
. t::::~_:'
Y.~. 3
~4 . . ~ ~ . ... .
~{ ~
~,'..:::~;;: -; ,.', .
< MINDTFS~ CITY PLANNING C02+Il~ILSSION~ April 7~ 1969 4455
t
~ RECLASSIFICATION - Mra. Van der Warker then noted that beceuee of the prox3mity of Auto-
-~ N0. 6$-6g_7q netics to the pa~opoaed deve].o~ent a.ad with their houra of operation
" being both day and night, there could be conaiderable noieea from
""~~ VARIANCE N0. 2066 rettu~ni:~g xorkera~ automobiles, and loud talking Khen the adjoir,ing
,`~~ 4 (Continued reeidenta were aeleep~ and that elthough there were a feW people not~
f' working at night~ there elwaya was the poasib:lity thie n~ber could
~-~~•• -? . ' incresae cotteiderably.
'~ } Chairman A17.rec1 then noted thet the
plana indicated one-story constructioa within 150
tt~ feet of the R-1 to the weat; that an eliey seperated the garagea; thst he had reaided
_ adjacent to a 600-uait, R_3 develo~mment Where en a11ey wae located i~ediately adjacent
~,:;} to hia propeztyy and there wae very little~ if auy~ noise dtu~ing the night which dis-
,<;a'~..:%~I turbed hia eleepe
;
~ Mr. Joe F~azier~ 117 Merrimac Drive~ appeared before the Co~iaeion~ noting t?~at he was
,1 s7.so the rnmer of the property'at 125 Merrimac Ilrive and atated that the letter advising
~ y~ the ad~oin~ property owners that the petitioa wae contiaued for two weeka had been
,; received' but the time was not indicated~ and if other people knew the meeting wea to
; be acheduled fur an evening aeeaion~ there would have been many more in attendance to
'r voice oppoaitioa; that he was voicing hia oppoaition because of the increaee in traffic
'~ which would emanste £rom R-3 over that deneity permitted in the R-2 Zonef the.t he
t- appreciated being told his property wsa zoned R-3 - hawever, vhen he'purcha'sed the property~
~r it wae with the underetanding tbat the p¢~operty was zoned R-2; and that if sub~ect property
a ~; were zoned in the County ae R-2~ he wae againet any conaideration of an increase in deneity.
~ ~; The Co~isaion noted that undevelo d
,w pe property now being annexed into the City was reclaesi-
._..,;;~ fied to the R-A' or a holding aone~ until the property developed, rather than having a
~ ~ comparable zone evea though the property was not developed.
2dr. Raymond Whitney~ 3945 Rogue Drive, appeared before the Co~iesion and atated he uas
only concerned with being given the right to live where he choae; that from aome of the
etatements made at the public hearing, the aingle-family homeowners were unvelcomed at
that public hearing - however~ they were pa~eeeat to voice their opinions and defend their
rightap that the eingle-family homeow~Qre were now being aubfected to ittvasion of their
privacy from the apartment,deveiop~ents to the south~ and with the new proposal this
would mesa they would be eub~ected to further invasion from the eaet; thnt the oppoaitioa
fram the aingle-family eubdivieion iras fully aware that the Co~.i.asion could ruTe only oa '
land use~ but all the property ownere were concerned attd were hopeful the Co~isaion
realised the poeitioa of the eiagle-£amily homeouaere;thRt the developer had told them
he Would like to develop the" property in a reasonebla mattner~ but there srae ao guarantee
as to whether or aot develoFmment would occur as the plane presented~ nor t~as there asaur-
ance that thia would be an advlt-only apartment complexf and then preaettted a petition of '
opposition eigaed by 25 peraone oppoaing the reclaesi£ication to the R-3 Zone. ~
Mr. Richardsoa~ in rebuttal~ atated that the main concern of the oppoaitioa eeemed to be
th~ increase in traffic and increaee ia the n~ber of chi].dren - however~ he ~iahed to
ase~se the Co~ieaion ead the oppoeition that thia would be an adult-only project; that
the only resaon the property was now being developed was becauae Jefferaon Street xas
now extended acroae the freewqy; that they had al].otted over ~60~000 for landacaping
s].one for thte pa~opoaed prq~ect~ and he doubted very much that ar~yone would aee another
p~o~ect with 120 unite having the type of landacaping propoaed; thst the developer irsa
a large organizatiotty attd it was not their intent to deatroy the preaent integrity of
the area eiace he did not feel thie propoaed develo~mment Wonld be hermful to any of the
sdfoin~ p~opertieaf and that they were not claiming en economic herdahip 3,n the devel-
o~ent of the p~operty~ but in order to develop sub~ect property eo that it Would be
attractive to the area, the waivers requested were neceseary.
Mr. Ricl~erdaon~ in reaponse to a question from the audiettce~ etated that aub~ect property
could be developed within the e~d.eting zoning - hojrever~ the develo~mment would not be ea
attractive ae they propoaed~ and that'sfter nine to ten feasibility atudiee had been made
£or the property~ the plen proposed was the most acceptable.
Co~iesioner RoWland inquired whether or not the propoaed develop~ent could be conaidered
s planned reaidential develop~ent.
Mr. Roberts adviaed the Co~isaioa that a planned residential develop~ent could be approved
only upon the filing of a conditiona7. use permit~ and the variance petition could not be
approved for a plnnned residential develop~ent; however~ develop~ent platta as presented
wonld be tied into the variance if approved.
gaeiataat City Attorney John Dawaon advised the Commiaeion that the reclesaification affected
only aoning and did not require development in accordance with plens~ aad that develop~eat `
plane could be applied only to the variances requeated.
~ ':~~ "^',0.~'
O ~ ~
NQNIITES, CITY PLANNING COI~ffSSION, April 7~ 1969 . l,1,.56
nFCLASSIFICATION - Co~iasiotter Rowland then inquireci whether or not the plans could be
N0. 68-69-79 approved within the existing aoning with the waivere requeated.
VARIANCE N0. 2066 I~. Roberts noted that an additional waiver from the denaity of the
(Continued) R-2 Zone etandarde would have ta be granted; that if a conditional
uee permit were considered, the plane would also be tied iato the
conditional use permit and not the reclasaification; and that i£ it
were the Commieaionta intent and deeire to retain the R-2 Zone~ the alternative available
would be to readvertiae the variance to permit a waiver of the maxim~ density of the
R-2 Zoaee
r~re Garl Davis~ 212 Kennebec Drive~ inquired whether or not a new purchaeer of the propert~
would be bound by the variance if the R-3 Zone were approved for the pa~operty.
Mr. Roberte advieed Mr. Davia that if R-3 zoning were approved, and develop~ent did ttot
occ~ se plnne were before the Co~iesioa~ the developer would have to comply with the
~its develoFmmeat atanderde of the R-3 Zone, auch as one etory within 150 feet of R-19
eide yard aetbackay secondory circulation, perking, etc., and if the plette did not meet
~the eite develoFmment etandarde~ then another variance would have to be advertiaed and
conaidered by the Commiseioa.
Dfr, Davia then notetl that these changea could occur and the adjoining property osmere would
be completely unaware of thia - therefore, he requeeted that the Co~iasion deny the request
for R-3 soning in order to aes~u~e the aingle-family homeowaere that a dettaity in ezceae of
that now proposed would not occur ae occurred in the apartmeate now developed were permitted
to have changea.
~ The Co~ieaion noted that only ebange in the exiating R-3 apartmente wae the eubdivision of
the lota, and no atructtu~el changee had been requeated.
The Commiasion aleo noted that R-3 zoning had beea approved in the paet with very attractive
plana - hawever~ when develo~mmeat did occur~ it was entirely different thaa the plane which
the Commiaeion had cotteidered. Therefore, aubfect petition ehould be readvertieed in order
to require develop~ent of the property under the existing aoning in accordance with the
plana now under'conaideration~ eince this wou7.d be the only way of esauring the R-l hame-
owaera that a heavier denaity or a different type of development could not take place if
develo~eat did not occur in accordance with the plane before the Coa~isaioa. ~rthermore9
the Con~i.saion felt the proposed develop~ent wovld occ~ as.preaented because of previoue
pro~ecte which the developer 2~ad built, thus aea~sing the E-1: homeowaera of an acceptable
aurrouading.
The Co~aisaion f~ther noted that a detailed atuc~y ahould be made of thia entire area by
the ~af£ic Eagineer in order to determine whether or not relief could be made of all the
traffic congestion in this area~ and that thia might be accampliahed if the ~ele of the
pa~operty owned by the State to the north and develo~mment occurred could be achieved~
thereby extending Se~ata Ana Cenyon Road in a noTtherly direction and eventuP:7.ly connecting
with Jeffereon Streety offering two eeparate areae of accesa to thie triasigi.L.tsx piece
betWeen Jefferaon Street and the t~o freeways.
Mr, Richardeon noted for the Commieaion that vhett he first had broached ~the idea of the
propoaed develop~ent to deve].op within the existing sone with iraivera with the sTightly
heavier denaity9 the ataff had auggeated thet the R-3 a~ning ahould be requested; •that a
planned reeidentiel develo~mment ~ou1d require coneiderabiy more parking than wea proposed;
and that the pleae ttiat Were before tha Coffiisaion ~aera aimilar to a planned reaidentirsl
develolmment now being developed in the City of Fullerton.
Mr. Dawson adviaed the Co~i.saioa and intereated peraona ia the Council Chamber that the
City of Aaahe3.m hed no conditional aoning euch as thst permitted in the City of F~llerton;
therefnre9 if the Commieaion were deairous of requ3sing deve7.op~ent zrithin the confinee
cf the pleae before them~ then the R-2'should be retained and waivara sa requeated~ to-
gether with an'sdditional waiver to be advertiaed for msxim~ area per djtelling unit
ahovld elao be conaidered. '
Ttr. Riclsrdaon then atated tBat it would be a hardship to have another coatinuance since '
`they were hopiag to build the proposed develop~ent r:~.s plsas were before the Co~issionp
that the property had been owaed by them for the psat six yeera, and he was of the opinion
that they were;eatitled to develop the property t~ey owned~ and the requeet being made
was no different thaa thst approved £or the lot aplita of the nonconf orming lots on the
R-3 property to the weet.
The Co~i.saion noted that they might agree with I~. Richardaon if the property were ~sesently
aoned R-3 ~3.thout reetrictions; however, it was now zoned R-2 and the eite develop~ent
standarda were more restrictive~ and eince there were circulation'problems in this oatire
area9 deneity developmeat ahould be em eiderat~ly less than that permitted in the R-3 Zone~
but the vaivera could be granted under the exiating soning.
• ~'
~~
~-~ O ~ ~
h~NIITES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ ~pril 7~ 1969 4457
RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Richardaoa then noted that he wsa,not in opposition to co~ents
N0. 68-69-79 made by the aingle-family homeowaera~ but he wea oppoaed to co~ents
mede by the R-3 homeownera where a denaity of 32 unite per net acre
VARIANCE N0. 2066 l~ad been permitted together.with lot aplits of lota amaller than that
Continued required ia the R-3 Zone.
Co~3.aeioner Herbat o£fered a motion to continue Petitiona for Reclaeaification No. 68-69-79
and Variaace No. 2066 to the meeting of April 21~ 1969~ in order to a11ow time to readver-
tise to permit waiver of the equsre footage reqvired per dwelling uttit in the R-2 Zone.
Commieaioner Camp eeconded the motion. MOTION~ CARRIED.
;~;';~ ' CONDITIONAL IISE - PiTBLIC HEARING. NICK POKRAJAC, ET AL, La1,.27 Joanbridge Street~
`;;,~`~, PF,RMIT N0. 1104 Baldwin Park~ Cslifornia~ Ownera requeeting permiesion to FSTABLISH
`''+~ A FABRIC$TION PLAN (HEAVY :r'TALS~, WITH WAIPER OF PiATIIi.IAL OF T•IALL
ENCLOSING OUTDOOR IISE on property described as: Aa irregularly
ahaped parcel of land having a froatage of approximately 345 feet on the eaet side of
Blue G~ Street and a mexim~ depth of approximately 610 feet and being located approzi-
matelY 330 feet south of the centerline of Corottado Street. Property preaently clasai-
_ fied R-A~ gGRICQLTURAI,~ ZONE.
Asaiatant Zoning Supervieor Pat Browa reviewed the location of subfect property and usee
eetablished in cloae pro~dmtty~ noting that a reaolution of intent to bf-1 wae pending on
eubfect property; that the petitioner wea propoaing to establish a heavy metale fabrication
plant and propoaed to encloae the outdoor usea with aa $-foot metal Wa7.1 rather than the
required 6-foot masonxy wall~ that aub~ect property wea part of the La Palma-Mraloma
Aanexati3n and the reclaeaificatioa of the property wae preaently being processed; that the
plana eubmitted ~rith the petition indicated a groposal for developmaent in £our phaeea,
Phase I to inclnde a 4500-equare foot office etruct~se, a 2Q~000-aquare foot encloeed
plsnt building~ end an 11~200_eqvare foot open area for heavy, 5-toa cranea adjaceat to
thie building9 together with 69 parking apacea for the employeee of the concern. Phasea
II~ III~ and IV would be future expauaione of thie same type of operatioa, attd that plana
indicate conformance ~rith the aite develo~ent standarda of the t•i-1 Zone except for the
usa of the twin-ribbed metal fence to completely encloee the plant and atorage areae
3natead of the required 6-foot msaonry well. Fur},hermore, thie use wsa a permitted use
in the 2~2 Zone by right and upoa approval of a conditional uee permit ia the 2+~1 Zone~
ead it would appear to be appa~opz~iate to the aurrouadittg area,
Mr• Wi17.iam Kiker~ repreeenting the ownere and aleo one of the ownere of the propoaed
developmient~ appeared before the Co~isaioa end et,sted that it wae proposed to have a
ateel £abricatioa plsat which would normally be permitted in the r~l Zone except for the
eize of the cranes; that the eteel wae preformed outeide of the £acility and was only
aseembled; that the plane indicated en 8-foot feace~ but eince only a 6-foot fence was
required, he viehed to request that thie be amended to reflect 6 feet; that the material
£or the £eacing wae part of what they manufact~ed end the basic reasott for requeating
that they be permitted to encloae the facility with this type of materialj and that when
fabrication and aeeembling of the preformed ateel partitione wae completed, they would
be eo large that a building to completely ettcloae them would be of mont~eatal proportiona,
and, therefore~ the outaide cranea were needed for esae in hendling.
Mr, Nick Pol~ajac~ one of the petitionera~ noted that they Stere pa~eaently located in .
Los Angelea but were deeiroue of locating in the Anaheim area because the majority of
their buaineee vas in thia erea; that they had provided the eteel atructural beams for
the II Modenn High School~ E~llerton Junior Co?lege drama center~ ea well sa other achools9
nnd to be in close proximity to the Qrange and Riveraide Countiea businees wea more
deairable~ attd aince they were expending, thia wea one of the reaeons for propoaing to
locate in thia area; that the reaeon for not doing a7.1 the fabrication indoora wea because
of the extreme expenaR veatilating the area when epz~y paintiag wsa done; that the ma~ority
af the ateel febricating planta in Los Angeles were pa~imarily on outdoor cranee due to the
aiae, which range from 70 through ll0-£oot girdera; that the aizea were only in length and
wonld not profect into the sir; that it was planned i:o have a 300-foot~ covered building
with the balaace being uacovered for the other pheaes; and that in reapoase to Co~ieaion
queationing~ the 60-foot setback wae proposed to be ueed for a atorage area, and the cranee
would not be cloae to the property line.
Coneiderable diecuesioa wa.e then held by the Co~isaioa snd the petitioner relative to the
location of the 10 and 20-ton cranea~ and upon itscottcluaion~ it was detarmined thia was a
bvilding code requirement and wae not a zoning requirement.
Office F~gineer Jay Titue adviaed the Co~i.aeion that although a atreet ~as indicated oa
the location mapy thia etreet wae abandoned~ and no roadway was projected for that area,
and that the only acceas would be to Blue G~ Street.
'~ a ic -~ r"'h ~ 1 ..:. "e:? ~ "+, t' ~:.'~r ~'z~4'{~~'`~^ r ~a G}+'4" F Y .N } ~ ~r ? , ~ s r : ~
,.:,'r,; . ~~E- r .. ~r 2 ~ _.
c
. ~ ~ ~. ~ i~ ~J ~
v
~TIITES, CITY PLANNING CA2~'AiCSSION~ gpril 7~ 1969 ~,~8
CONDITIONAL IISE - Co~issioner Herbst noted thet he wae not oppoeed to outdoor crane
PERMiT N0. 0 work~ but he wae concerned that the orane was located within three
(Coatinued feet of the pa~operty line to the north.
Dlr. Polsa~ac etated that they were not attempting to operate any differently than ar~y
. other fabricatioa plant, and that if the'Co~isaion ao deeired~.they Would relocate the
cranes an additionel five feet•fra~ the property line.
Mr. Roberts advieed the Co~ieaion that the h~l Zone did not require a bvilding eetback
adfaceat to an interior lot line when the lot liae abutted M-1 property; however, he was
not familinr with the requirements of the building code eetback.
; •
Commisaioner Rowland then explained the reqnirements of the building code ea they per-
tained to ati actual struct~e.
Mr. Leo Clark~ Salmon River Drine, Placentia, appeared before the Co~iesioa end also
expleined the building code requirementa, noting that aince the steel cranee were not
conaidered a building but were a meeae o£ ha.ndling a piece of equip~ent, no building
permit wonld be needed' end the only regulatione would be through the Building and Safety
Department.
Coa~isaioner Herbet expsesaed concern that these cranee woul.d be located at a height abcne
the £ence liae~ and the heavy fabrication plant might af£ect future developonettt of the
M-1 property to the north, and aince a c4neiderable amount of work would be done in the
outdoor area~ this could be'detrimental to the entire area.
t•tr. Pola~afac then atated thet he was preeent as a repa~esentative of the ~Yyoa Company, and
they were attempti.ng to introduce a new plant to the City; that he furmerly lived in the
City of Anaheimy.but had ~oved to Los Angeles becauee of coa~uting probleme; and that they
were deeiroue of relocat3.ng their plant in Aneheim.
The Co~ieeion f~ther ttoted there wae so much diacuesion and difforence of opinion ea to
the location of the cranea that coneideration might be givea to continuauce to reaolve
this.
Mre Kiker then appeared be£ore the Co~isaion end noted he wsa slso the owaer of property
to,the northf that the crane-way uould'g'o along the;rear of both eubject and the property
to the nnrth and vould be d rear yard to a side yard operation rather than eide yard to
eide-yard.
Mr• Bud Tyreman appeared before the Co~iasion, noting that he wea the owner o£ the property
ecroae the etreet and to the north o£ eubject property~ and after revieving the materiel
propoaed for the fence~ indicated hia oppoeition to thia type of fence since he felt it
would offer no protection in the event of en accideat.with the beame falling from the crane~
and then iaquired whether or not a salvage operation plant could be permitted oa eub~ect
ProPes'tY•
The Co~teaion advieed Mr. Tyreman that use of the property for a eelvage operation would
not be permitted unleas approval of a conditional use permit xas granted.
Mr, Clark agaia appeared and adviaed the Commiaeion that a maeonry wa11 xea more difficult
to repair than the propoaed fence; that the material for each was as strong ea the other~
and the propoeed fence would be approximstely 60 feet at~ey t~am the fabrication area
except for the north bqp - therefore~ no hazard would be experienced. F~rthermore~ the
metal £ence wae more d~sable than a masonxy wa11 and wea e very popular material and would
be more compatible xii;h the adjoining denelop~ent and would be more ruet-reaiata nt thau
norma7. type:Peaces becauee it was double coated and had a backing of enemel. •
T4r. Clark~ iu reaponse to Co~isaion qusstioning~ noted that the £ence wae not p~opoaed to
.have'a capping~ but thia would be done if the Co~i.esion required it end would be placed
with the apot-angling eupporte~ and that he was aware of the requiremeats of the t•ietal
Building Policy of the City of Anaheim.
TI~ HEARING WAS CLOSED. i
Mr, Robertes is reepoaee to queationing by Co~3.saioaer Camp~ noted that the 2~i-1 Zone of
Title 18'did aot require aetbacka where adjacent to M-1-property of the cranes propoaed
by the petitioner, However~ thie wae e requirement of the building code as it pertained
to e struct~e rather thea ea outdoor use as indicated on the plane.
Co~i.asioner Gauer noted that farmer City Attorney Preston nirner in ruling ott the definition
of a struct~e stated it muet have a roof and walls before it could be considered auch. '-
~ :;
\~. _ ~. ~ . , ~ . .. ~ . ~ . . . ~ ~ , . ~ ~ .~ ir:~9
_"t;j~: ~tN r _
.. ..~ . ... . . .. ~ , . ~ t
O ~ ~
, CITY PL9NNING Co1~II~IISSION, ~pril 7, 1969 4459
C~i:DITIONgI, IISE - Co~aisaioner Herbet again reiterated the fact that he was not oppoaed
PERMIT N0. 110 to the outdoor uae but wsa.concerned with the effect theee cranea r
Continued would have on the ultimQte develoFmment o£ the property to the north;
that the petitioaer wae propoeiag to uae an outdoor atorage erea in
e dif£erent menner than the N~l Zone permitted~.end thia being an M-2
uae in the M-1 Zone~ there wae a posaibility it would be eetting a precedent.
Mr. Dawson thea aoted that the I~2 use would be permitted oa approval of a conditional
uee permit; hozrever9 ea £er ae he ]mew~ there were no sidelifie setbacka in the M-l or
M-2 Zonee if it were a skeletoa etructure ae presented~ and if the Co~isaion were
concerned regarding this~ it would not be a$oning requiremeat, but a building problem.
The Co~iaeion further diecuseed the location o£ the p~opoaed outdoor cranee and ite effect
on the p~operty to the north,'if auy~ and at ita conclueion~ it was determined t2~at the
location of the creaee in proximity to the north property line would have the eame effect
regardleee o£ whether it wae aet back 10 feflt as the petitioner had euggeated or the aet-
back of 3 feet ae plaae indicated.
rt~'e Tyre~ea then iaquired of the CoamLtaeion whet.'~er or not they were coneidering rezoning
the property to the M-2 Zone; whereupon the Coam~iaeion adviaed him that the Coa~ission wea
coneidering only a conditional use permit to el].ow an M-2 uee in t1i~ N~1 Zone.
Co~isaioner Farano offered Reaolution No. PC69-74 and moned for its peaeage attd adoptiotty
eeconded by Co~ieaioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Conditional Uae Permit No. 1104y
subfect to conditiona~ and providing that the height of the metal ~ence shall be 6 feet;
th'at the proposed buildinge and walls ehall be developed aubatantially in accordance with
the adopted .City CounciT Metal Building Policy. (See Reaolution Book)
Oa roll call the foregoing reaolutioa wae paeaed by the following vote:
AYES: COI~II~tISSIONERS: Allred~ Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbat, Rowland, Thom.
NOES: COI~tISSION~S: None.
ABSINT: COMMISSIONERS: Noae.
RECLASSIFICATION - PIIBLIC AEARING. TAYLOR-DDNN MANIIFACTQRING COt~ANY~ 2114 Weat Ball P.oad,
N0. 68-69-81 Aasheim~ Ca7,ifornis, C~wnerq property described ae: A rectangularly.
` ahaped percel of 1.end having a£rontage of approximstely /~J+O feet on
VARIgidCE N0. 2070 the:aouth aide of Ball Road~ a maximt~ depth of approzimately l,26 £eet,
and beiag located approzimately 670 feet east of the centerline of
Brookhurat Street, aad f~sther deacribed ae 211Q Weat Ball Road.
Property preaently~ claesified R-A, AGRICiJLTIJR.AL~ and C-1~ GEN~~T,
COMt~~RCI~L~ ZONFS.
REQIIESTED Q,dSSIFICATION: M-l~ LIGHT INDIISTRIAL, ZONE.
REQUESTEb VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) FRONT SETBACK AND (2) LANDSCAPING ADJACENT
TO RIGHT-OF-Wp~ LINE, TO PFRDQT TFIE r.''XPANSION OF 9Id E%ISTIldGy
NONCANFORI~TG INDIISTRIAL DEPELOPI~3dT.
f Aseistant Zoning Shpervieor Pat Bro~m revieWed the location of aubject property~ ueea
f eatabliehed in cloae proximity~ previous zoning action on the property~ and the propoaed
~ requeet of the expenaion of an exieting~ noaconforming industrial uee; that the proposal
wae to have a two-pheae expensioa program With a'L,8,000-aquere foot manufacttu~ing and
itarehoueing atructtu~e propoaed sa the first phase to be attached to the exiating msaonry
building and replaciag the old metal atructure; that Phaee II would be developed ia the
fut~e and xould be an edditional 20;200-eqnere foot struct~e; that approximately 131
p~rking apacea Wovld be required for the ultimate office, meuufact~ing, and warehoueing
areae' ~hereas 194-apacea were propoaed; that the Phaee I atructural addition srould be
located 38~ feet from'the ultimate right-of-Way of Ba11 Road~ whereae the Zi-1 ~Code would
require a minimitm of 90 feet, with a minim~ of l0 feet of the £ront aetback landacaped
- edfacent to the right-of-way, whereas the plana indicated only 3£eet of landecaping
propoaed; that the petitioner indicated that since the exiating maeonry atructure located
to the east taas set back only 38.6 inches from the ultimste right-of-way and only a 3-foot
strip of landacaping had been developed, it was intended to extend thie aetback and land-
ecaping for the new addition; and that it would extend to the property line to the weat
if the petitioa were approved.
Mro Brovn filiea noted that the pr3,mery isaue before the Planning Commiasion was that of
land use aad the determination of whether or not N!-1 aoning ~tea appropriate ia this area9
and/or whether the expanaion of the existing induatrial uee would be consiatent with the
develo~ent trenda in the area or would be compatible with alreac~y eatabliahed ueea;
~.v' .~r' ""..~ l~l~ ~ .t^`C '+r .~C^.s~ R+~"t 'F~,~~z 9 y~,~,? ~ ~S+Z~e~574~R`Ta" r ~a r ~ ~'. ~ q, s.;,p_ri r , x.e ~ : .'. S;a
`!~R'~ 5~.~ ! .~ s ~ r~ ;'-~~ ' s ~~ '~~} ~C
U (~ ~
rmau~s, cz~ P~xx~xG cor~ssiorr, ~Pri1 7, i969 ,y~~
RECLASSIFICATION - the.t the exieting £acility had created no peat problems to the etu~round-
N0. 68-69-81 ing area~ ~nd expaneion as propoeed wsa aot contemplated to change thia
compatibility to the s~rounding area to any appreciable degree since
VARIANGE N0. 20 0 Ball Road wae eeaentially co~erciel in nature in thie area, aud the
, (Continued agricult~el land to the south had beea deeiguated se being appropriate
. for medi~ denaity multiple-family ueea on the General Plan. ~Iowever,
' the Pla*+~ Co~iesion would have to determ.ine that the propoaed
expenaion of the exieting facility wae approp~iste for the area, and the Co~ieaion might
,' wieh to coasider poesible alternative methoda of a7lowing the petitioner to accompliah
:' thia goel; namely, 1) eatablieh the appa~opriate $oning ott the property for the use intended,
~;:;., or 2) a11ox the'preaently nonconforming uee to be expanded in the zonee currently applicable
~~ ~i to the property. ' .
~~ ~~ Mr. Davie Taylor~ one of the ownere of the property~ appeared before the Co~iseion~ noting
'~ ~ they had beea ia bueiaeae at thi.s locatioa for the paet twenty yeara; that sa they hed
5 ; expended they had developed the expaneion buildinga from eheet metal to concrete and brick~
~;,<.;;'_: and thie wae planned for the 40~000-equare foot building; that there Were aeveral facte
,° which made the p2~oposed develop~ent compatible with the Gl usea~ one being primarily the
3,: outeide appearance of the building would be similar to that of ax~y other C-1 etructure;
''' that no additional traffic would be enerated
~ g by the groposed develo~mmeat, and all perldng
v; wae propoaed to rear and eide of the p~operty; that only one door wsa propoaed to be
'~~. erected oa the buildittg - thia for delinery of materials and would be on the eouth aide
~; of the atructuref that the propoaed etructt~e would enhance the ad~oining and eub~ect
~° property; that 83A of the surrounding property ztas atill undeneloped; and that he was
° ~ available to anewer questiona.
r Mr. Teylor~ ia respoase to Co~iasion questioning as to his reaeon for requeating I~i-1 zoning
f~ atated that in order to obtain bank finsncing for the neW atructtu~e, they had been informed ~
r;;~'~:~x that the M-1 Zone would be required eince a variance was conaidered onl a t
y emporary uae;
s';'~~ a.nd that although there were no ott~er rt-1 usea in the area, they had been located at thia
~':';;''-:a
:::,.;;~, locatioa for a long time and had be~en `in eadatence as a businesa prior to annexation into
';:;;~~,, the City.
The Coa~i.eaioa expressed concern that the petitioner might, xithin the next five yeera,
determine-that he would rather iiave hie operation in the M-l ares and then would move out -
therefore~'if N~l aoning Were approved, thia would be detrimental to the ad~oining proper-
tiea which were etill undeveloped.
D4r. Taylor noted.that the propoaed etructure would be completely enclosed and would be
co~erciel in appearance; thst although they were deairous of aelling this propert,~ and
moving into the t~i-1 Zone, thie aeemed to be imposaible since they had placed their property
oa the market for aix months and had received no reaponee during that time - therefore~
tha requeat for expanaioa was preeented to the Co~iaeion.
The Co~iaeioa egain expreesed reluctance to eatablieh apot soaing by granting the 2•i-~
zoning requeeted in thie area; however~ expension of the nonconforming use might be more
appropriate while etill retaiaing the G1 Zone.
1~'h'. ~'ed Dtmn9 the other petitioner~ appeared before the Coa~isaion and noted that he had
diecuesed the financing of the pa~oposed develo~ent with the bank~ and a co~i.tment had
beett made to grsat the financing grovided~ however, that the t•i-1 aoning were graated,
and if the expansion were permitted by the variance method, thia financing would not be
available.
The Co~isaion then noted there wea e poaeibility the reaeon the petitioner was unable to
seY]. his:property was becauee of the type of uees which had been establiahed by the peti-
tioner~ and although the building might have a commerciel appearance~ there Stas still
manufacttu~ing being done inaide which created coneiderably more noise than a co~ercial uee.
Furthermorey the matter of finanoing wa8 not within the j~siadiction of the Commisaioa -
land use iras their Primary conaideration..
Aeaiaitant City Attorney John Dawaon adviaed the Co~ieaion and the petitionera that the
granting of a variance within the C-l Zone ran ~,rith the land unlesa there were a time
limitation placed on the variance permit - therefore, if ~his informatiott vere given to
the bank~ it might have aome bearing oa their granting the loen.
Mr. Taylor then inquired whether thia variance would continue if the land were aold;
whereupon Mr, Daweon etated t2~at the variance weat with the uee of the land~ but az~y uees
that were to be eetablished after the land was sold would have to be aimilar in use to
that which greseatly existed; tl~at with variancea there was more control over ~ome of the
more oaeroue uaes~ and to grant a reclasaificat-ion to a more intenae aone did not permit
this controlled $oning,
~~ . 0 ~..~
r~t~rES, CI?'~ PLANNING CONa4ISSI0N, ~pr37. 7, 1.969 ~ ,r~,6~,
RECL9SSIFICATION - No one appeered in oppoaition to eub~ect petitions.
N0. 66-Gs-81
T9E FIEARING WAS CLOSED.
VARIANCE N0. 2070
Continued Z~fr. Roberte~ in respottae to Conrmiseion queationing ae to the type of
proposal for the C-1 uae to the weat, atated he was wifemiliar srith
the reaolution of intent to C-1 oa this portinn; that the eame
_ conditiona previously applied ta Variance No. 1732 on the petitioners~ property to the
eaet was included ia the reco~endationa for aubject reclaeeification - therefore, if the
Co~aiasioa were desiroue of granting C-1 aoning ae auggeated by Mr. Dawaon in lieu of the
;:.: M-1 Zone~ thea the M-1 uee could be permitted by variance and the waivere requested under
;~ the variaace would no longer be applicable~ and~ therefore~ both petitione would have to
+,.~ be denied for the requeeted aoning and waivers and reco~ending C-1 $oning and waiver of
s;:tg the nonconforming use of a nonconfox~ag building se aet forth in Section 18.04.050(2-b),
;";4j Mr, Dawson adviaed the Co~iaeion that it would not be neceaeary to readvertiee the
::p variance aince the pm~pose of advertising wea ~to appriae adfoining property owners of a
. wa3~ver Prom~the $oning regttlatione~ and acting on both the reclaaeification and the variance
petitioas could be made in the manner euggeated by Mr. Roberta.
Mra ~io~.9ertsy in reaponee to Co~iasion questioning relative to the aetback~ atated that
it appeered al]. the eite deve].oFmment atandarda of the C-1 Zone would be met - however,
the petitioaer indicated that Phsee II of the develop~ent would be approximstely 45 feet
from the lot line' the building would be 18 feet high - for a Cade requirement of a 2:1
ratio~ would be ade~uate.
Coffi-isaioner Rowlsnd offered Resolutioa No. PC69-75 attd moved £or ita psesage and adoptiott,
aeconded by Co~i.saioner Gauer~ to reco~ettd to the City Council that Petition far Recleasi-
fication No. 68-69-81 be denied for the 2~i 1 Zone and C-1 zoning be allowed, together with
the expanaion of sn e~d.sting~•aonconforming ut~e; furthermore~ the requeated waivers from
Coiie would not be required from the aite develop~eat atandarde of the C-1 Zone~ but would
be uader Section 18.04.050(2-b), Nonconforming uee of a nonconforming building, and
18.40.070(6-s)y Six-foot maeonry wall reqv.i.red ~here C-1 p¢~operty abutted an R-A Zonef
that the reca~endation for the C-1 Zone was based on the fact that the exi.sting uee had
been eatabliehed prior to the anue~tioa of aubfect and abutting properties into the City
of Anaheim~ and the natiu~e of the existing uee wea auch that it had not been incampatible
stith other uees in the siu~rounding area~ and no changes were propoaed in the nature of the
meavfacturing activity for the nonconforming use and would not be detr3.mental to the
aurrounding area; and that Waiver of the required maeonry wall along the xeat property
line trae reca~ended oa t~e baeis that although the property was aoned R-A~ the co~ercial
trend along Ba11 Road would probably influence develop~ent of that parcel for aome other
uae than reaidential; and anbfect to conditione, deleting the requirement of a 6-£oot
masonry xn7.1 elong the weet property line ea recoffiended in the find
Book) ~• (See Reaolution
On roll call the foregoing reaolutim sraa passed by the following votc~:
AYES: CONA~ffSSI0NII~3: A11red~ Cemp~ Fareno~ Gauer~ Herbat9 Rowlar~d~ Thom.
NOES: CONA~ffSSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COI~II4ISSIONERS: None.
Co~aiesioner Rowland offered Reaolution No. PC69-76 and moved for ite paesage and adoptiony
eeconded by Co~isaioner Camp~ to den,p the requested waivere £rom the M-1 Zone oa the
bsaie that the G-1 Zone had bepn reco~ended for approval~ and the iaclueion of Sectioa
18.04.050(2 b)y permitting a nonconforming use of a nonconforming bvilding and deletion
of wa11s along the west property line adfaceat to R-A~ aubject to conditione. (See
Reaolution Book)
On roll ca11 the £oregoing reaolution wsa pasaed by the following vote: '
APFS: CONIldISSIONERS: A1]sed, Camp, Farano~ Gauer, Herbet, Rowland, Thom.
NOES: COI~R4ISSIONERS: None,
ABSENT: CANA~IISSIONERS: None.
i ` ~ ,, ~. "
.. Y _. ... .. ... .. ... . ..., .
~ ~ ~
NIINDTES, CITY PL9NNING CoI~lISSION, April 7, 1969
~J
I,1,,62
RECLASSIFICATTON - PIIBLIC FIEARING. WILLIAM L. DORNON, ET AL~ 790 East Vista Way~ Viata~
N0. 68-69-80 Californis, Owners; BARCLAYtS BANK OF CALIFORNIA~ 1025 East Orange-
thorpe Avenue, Aaeheim, Californin; Agent; requeating that property
described'ea: A rectangularly ehsped parcel of lend conaiating of
three lota located at the aouthweat corner of Katella and Mountain View Avenues, having
approx~mate froatagee of 216 feet on Katella Aveaue end 260 £eet on Mountain Vf.eW Aqenue~
and farther described ea 320 Eaet Katelle Avenue~ be reclaseified from the R-A~ AGRICIILTURAL
ZONE to the C-Y~ GFNERAL C02+II~RCIAL, ZONE~.to permit the eatabliahment of a bank on eubject
Pr~P~'tY•
Aasistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of the property, uaee estab-
liahed ia cloee groximity~ previous aoning action on the pa~operty for a retail and whole-
sale auto brake eervice oa the westerumoet percel; thst no develop~eat plana had been
eubmitted for the proposed bank~ but a17. requiremeata of the G1 Zone aite develo~ent
standarde woul@ be complied with; sad that aub~ect properties were locatad in a traneition
zone ae indicated on the General Plea between multiple-family to the eouth and co~ercial-
recreatic:~ to the north~ with one of the properties already beiag ueed for co~erciel
p~u~poaee~ ead those propertiea to the west heve been developed for either commerciel-
profeeaional or commerciel uaea - therefore~ the proposed reclaeaifiaetion would aeem to
be a logical exterision of the commerciel soning treud in this geaeral area~ ae beiug en
expaaeioa of the co~ercial-recreatioa uees eoutheastward along D~aacheater Avenuee
Mr, Rsy S~ith~ representing the agent for the petitioner~ indicated his preaence to answer
qnestions.
No one appeared in opposition to sub~ect petition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Co~3.saioner Camp offered Reeolution No. PC69-77 and moved £or ita paesege and adoption,
aeconded by Co~tisaioner Ferano, to reco~end to the City Council that Petition for
Reclaeaificatioa No. 68-69-80 be appr.:.ad~ sub~ect to conditiotts. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the ~'oregoing reeolution was paseed by the following vote:
gYFS: , COI~SSIONFRS: A17.red, Camp~ Farana, Gauer~ Herbat~ Rowland, Thom.
NOFS: CONAfISSIONIItS: None.
gBSENT: GOI~ffSSYONERS: None.
RECLASSIFICATION - PIIBLIC I~AR.'IIdG. IDIITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING CODIIdISSION~ 204 East ~
N0. 68-69-82 Liacoln Avenue~ Anaheim~ Californiaj proposing that property described
sa: Three percela totaling appro~d.mately 19.3 acres o£ land located
at the aorthweet coraer of Sunkiet Street and Ball Road and having
approximate frontages of 61~0 feet on the west side o£ Sunld.st Street end 1~290 feet on
the north aide of Ball Rond~ t+~ reclaeeified £rom the COi7~?TY A1~ GENERAL AGRICIILTURAL
DISTRICT to the R-A' AGRICIILTQRAL, ZONE.
Aeaistsat Zoning ~upervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property and the ~'
uses eatabliehed in cloae proximity, noting the.t an R-2-5000 tract wea being developed ta
the north of subfect property and multiple-family residential uses already were developed
to the west and approved acroes the atreet to the eouth; that the proposed annexatioa of
this property lmos~m ae the Ball-Suald.et Uniahabited Annexatioa No. 2, and the reclaeai-
fication reco~ended vould eatablieh a sone oa the gropertg at euch time as the annexa-
tion proceedinge were completed and aub~ect properties beca+ae a part of the City of Anaheim.
No oae appeared in oppoaitioa.to aubfect petition.
TFIE AEAR'ING WAS CLOSED.
Commiealoner Farano of£ered Reaolution No. PC69-78 and moved £or ite passege and adoption~
aeconded by Co~isaioner Cemp~ to:reco~end to the City Council that Petition for Recleasi- '~
fication No. 68-69-82 be approved~ unconditionally. (See`Reaolution Book)
Oa roll call the foregoing reaolutioa was pasaed by the following vote: .
AYES: CONI~ffSSIONERS: Allred, Camp~ Farano, Gauer, Herbet, Rowland, Thom.
NOFS: COIL~~SSIONr'~tS: None.
ABSENT: CONA4ISSIONERSe None.
ADJOffl~JN~TT - There being no further bueineas to diecuea~ Co~ieaioaer Thom of£ered
a motion to ad~oura the meeting. Co~iasioner bhrano eeconded the
motion. MOTION CARR.IID. The meeting ad~ourned et 10:20 P.M.
Reapact£ully a tted~
.,/ .: :':~ ~ ~•~f ~ ~
ecre
Anaheim City Planniag Co~asion
~ Y`_. _._.. .. _ _,.:: . _ .._. __ .. ,, _ _ ...._. . _... _ __ _ _ ... - - ." ; ~r~''~
_ - - ~',