Minutes-PC 1969/04/21
~ - _ __. __ _.
.~ _...
, _
~ Q ~ ~
_ City Hall
Anaheim, Californi,:
. April 21, 1969
A REGULAR~MEETING OF THE ANAI~IM CITY PLANNING COMh'ISSION
REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting o£ the Anahe i.r.. City Planning Commission was called
to order by Chairman Allred at 2:00 o'clock P,M., a quorum being
present.
PRESENT - CNAIRMAN: Allred.
- COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Rowland.
ABSENT - C.OM~fISSIONERS: Camp, Herbst, Thom.
PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Ronald Thompson
Assist.:nt City Attorney: John Dawson
Office Engineer: Jay Titus
Zoning Supex ~i•sor: Charles Roberts
llss:is:Cant 2ening Supervisor: Pat Brown
Yianning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Gauer led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag,
, APPROVAL OF Approval of the Minutes of the meeting of April 7, 1969, were held over
THE MINUTES to the meeting of May 5, 1969, for approval.
CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. JOSEPH D. HUARTE, 1464 East La Palma Avenue,
PERMIT N0. 1098 Anaheim, California, Owner; HENRY REICHERT, 16262 East Whittier Boulevard,
Suite 25, Whittier, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH
A 19.6-SPACE MOBILE HOME PARK, WITH WAIVER OF.MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK
on property described as:' An irregularly shaped parcel of`land contaic[ing approximately
26 acres located generally south of Frontera Street,and east of Rio,Vista Street, the'maximum
ea~t-west dimension of subject propertg being approximately:1,750 feet and.the maximum north-
south dimension being approximately;860 feet, the westerly boundary of subject property being
located approximately.1;330 feet east of Che centerline of Rio Vista Street, and the northerly
boundary of subject property being located approximately 400 feet south of Frontera Street.
Property presently classified R-A(0), AGRICULTURAL (OIL PRODUCTION), ZONE.
Subject petition was continued from the meetings of March l0 and 24, 1969, in order to allow
tine for the developer and staff to work out the problem areas relative to the alignment,
and the extent of dedication and improvements of the north-§outh collector street; to deter-
mine the exact tocation of oil wells on subject property and parcels to the east of subject
property; and to determine the alignment of the east-west collector street as it pertained
to subject property and that property to the east.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown advised the Commission that the petitioner request; 3
an additional two-week continuance, to the meeting of May 5, 1969, in order to complete
redesign of the proposed trailer park, altfiough the staff had recommended a four-week
continuance.
Conunissioner Farano offered a motion to continue consideration of conditional use permit
No. 1098 to the meetin~ of May 5, 1969, as requested by the petitioner. Commissioner Rowland
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CONDITIJNAL'USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC IiEARING. L.itEt~fA';uTH HEUL~R, ET AL, 220 West Cypress Street,
PERMIT N0. 1107 Anaheim, California,•Owners; WM, WEISEL,;100 South June SEreet, Los Angeles,
California', Agent; requesting,permission to ESTABLISH A REST,HOt~, WITH
WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM,HEIGHT OF A STRUCTURE WITHIN 300 FEET"OF A SING: ?-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE AND (2) MINIMUM DRIVEWAY 'WIDTH AND MINIMUM OVERHEAD CLEARANCE on
property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approxi-
mately 180 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue and a maximum deptli of approximately
240 feet and being located approximately 664 feet,east of the centerline of Euclid Street.
Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
Subject petition was continued from the meeting of April 7, 1969, to allow time'for the
petitipner ko submiC sevised plans.
4453
., ,
:
~ - - _.~ „_. . _ . _ _ .., . .._. ~ : . _ .. __
~ ~ -- Q - ~
MTNUTES,.CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Apri1 21, 19G9 4464
CONDITIONAL USE - Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject
PERMIT NO:.<1107 _ property, uses established in close proximity, existing zoning, and the
,(Continued): resolution of intent to C-0 for subject property, noting that revised plans
had been"submitted, and upon being analyzed, the staff had determined that
additional property,had been acquired, and two 20-foot drives were now
proposed along the east and wesf sides of the proposed structure, and that the projecting
balconies originally proposed;inta the driveway areas had been removed - however, the fr~;~
32 feet of the easterly portion where two-story construction formerly was proposed for the
easterly portion of the structure was the only area to be considered under the remaining
waiver before fhe Commission,` and that said 32 feet_would'be a biank wall facing the adjacent
single-family tract to the easE.
~ Mr. Brown also noted that if subject petition were considered favorably, the Commission might
wish to'recommend to the City Council that if that body concurred with the Commission's
decision, termination be made of Variance No. 1890, filed in conjunction with Reclassification
No. 66-67-75`to construct a medical office facility with waivcrs of parking spaces, building
setback, and refuse storage space since the plans submitted with that petition were no longer
applicable.
Mr. Harry Knisely, attorney for the petitioner, appeared before the Cormnission and noted
that revised plans now eliminated two of the three requested waivers, and that the third
waiver was a technicality since the front 32.feet of the structure along the easterly ;~•~~••••~ •
of the building would be two-story in height, and it was intended to have a t~;.~.;;; wall adjac•:nC
to the R-l home; however, if the Commission required this to be removed, this would be done
except that it was desi:atiFe to retain this for arct~3tectural appearance of the proposed
structure.
No one. appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
' Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC69-80 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1107,
subject to conditions, with the finding that the requested waiver of the one-story height
limitation for the southerly 32 feet was granted on tlie basis.that the petifioner stipulated
to,the blank,wall along the easterly boundary of said 32;feet, which would eliminate any
invasion of::privacy`of the R-1 home. (See Resolution'Book)
-0n roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~
AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Farano, Gauer, Rowland.
NOESc COMMISSIONERS: None. •
ABSENT: 'COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Herbst; Thom. ~
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC69-92 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Variance No. 1890 be
termina.te~ on the basis that plans submitted with said petition were no longer applicable
if the Cit~ Co mcil deems the proposed convalesceat home appropriate fo:r the property under
said variance. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Rowland. `;~`
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None, a
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Herbst, Thom. '~~
;`~:~
.. ~ ~ . .. . . ' . ~ ... ~ ~ . ' . . r
~ ~ ~. .. '. . . ~ ~ . . ~ . . ' ~ . . . .. .::;,9.:
' ~ e~".
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. DECON CORPORATIOr, 1833 East 17[h Street, ;;,'r`"5
N0: 68-69-79 Santa Ana, California, Owner; ~~~r.operty described as: An irregularly
shaped parcel of approximately 8 acres of land located immediately west u~Y
VARIANCE N0.'2056 of the intersection of the Riverside and.Newport Freeways, approximately ~ '~,~
1,000 feet east of the centerline of Jefferson Street. Property presently ~ ;~
classified,R-2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE,
~ .~.
REQUESTE',' ~LASSIFICATION: R-3, MUI,TIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE: !~!.+{
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM DISTANCE BE ~ '~y
~,
.
TWEEN BUILDINGS AND PfiNIMUM \~
DISTANCE.BETWEEN PARALLEL WALLS,OF THE SAME BUILDING; (2) LIVING I
UNITS LOCATED WITHIN 200 FEET OF.A STANDARD STREET; (3) NUMBER ( '~
OF REQUIRED COVERED PARKING SPACES; (4) PARKING:SPACES LOCATED ' ``:'~
WITHIN 200 FEET OF DWELLING UNITS; (5) MORE THAN TWO MAIN BUILDINGS I'`~t`~
ON A SITE; (6) STRUCTURAL SETBACK FROM A LOCAL STREET; AND (7)
BUILDING SITE AREA PER DWF.L'LING'UNIT IN THE R-2 'LONE, TO ESTABLISH ' ,~r~
A'122-UNIT, ONE AND TWO-STORY APARTMENT COMPLEX. -:?:~~
,~,. '`}~'~
~_ ~"
~~ ~ 4~ ' k~^~~ ve` nfi `~~"~~ ~~~ ~' a ;
~ .. . ~ . ~n.+a ..a~n~ ~,ni 0 .. ~'„ 1,°„?n' '~~ ~. .*"yV ~ vy9a r~9, ^l~l`~ k~~~+'^'~.
_ .. ~~ ,I . . .. ,' Y . . . . ' . ~' .
MINUTES, CI~ PLAIJNING COMMISSION, April 21 ~ 69
4465 , .
RECLASSIFICATION - Subject petitions were;continued from the meeting of March 24, 1969, at
N0. 68-69-79 the request of the petitioner.and from the meeting.of Apri1.7, 1969,_to
allow time for ieadvertisement to.permit the proposed deyeiopment with
VARIANCE N0. 2066 less Ehan 2400 square feet per.dwelling unit in ;the R-2 Zone". . '
(Continued) `;
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the,.location of subject~
property and uses„established in close proximity; noting:that plans'before `
the Commission were the°same as previously'presented at the April 7.meeting; however; the,
petitionhhad,'beeri Yead~eYCl.sed tio permit the proposed development with'a building site area.
per dwelling,uait less than that permitted under,the R,2 2one; although the r.eclassificaEion ~
petition was sEill advertised for R-,~, this.would give the Cominission:Ehe prerogative of '
approving,.or denying the request for rezoning, as~well as permitting.the Council~to-take a
similar action.
~
Mr. William Richardson,, representing the petitioner, appeared'before.the Commission and noted ,
that the'petitioner's position was`the'same since'no plans'had been changed,,and it was sti11
their intent to develop the proposed 122-unit, one'•amd`E.ao-story apartment complex which he
felt would be an asset to the community.
, ~
Six persous indicated their presence in opposition to subject petitions.
Mr. Calvin Davis, 212 Kennebec Drive, appeared before.the,Commissi~n and inquired,as to the
reason for the legal notice still proposing R-3 zoning since the purpose of the continuance
was to advertise anoCher variance. ~ _ ,
The Commission advised the opposition that all waivers which had been previo:~.iy considered
by the Commission were still applicable - however, because the R-2 Zone required a minimum of
2400 square feet per :-~alling unit site, this was an additional waiver which had to be adver-
tised and then would permit development within the existing.zoning.
Mr. ~avis then inquired as to the exact structural setback waiver requested.
,
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts adyised the opposition that a number of the structurec +-~~re
o€~se~v~s:omi the required 15 feet from~a local street by approximately 4 feet #or six of the
'structures.proposed, and this setback was due to the fact that the proposed new street along'
the easterl !
y property line was curvilinear.
The Co~mnission then reviewed the plans with Mr. Davis, noting the proposals and the various'' ~;
waivers requested.'
Mr. Davis then noted whether or,not the single-family homes.would be affected with the waiver ~
of parking spaces being iocated;more than.200:feet,from the,dwelling units.
The Commission then noted that since a 6-foot masonry wall would be constructed along the
, westerly boundary adjacent to the R-1 tract, there was little likelihood that parking from
the,proposed ~partments would be occurring in the single-family tract.
Mr, Davis then expressed the opinion thab the proposed.development would be depreciating the
value of the,homes in this single-family tract, and he was hopeful that the Commission would
give consideration to the type o.f.person who would reside in ~the proposed develapment.
Chairman Allred noted that if subject property were developed similar to the R-3 tract to the
south, then the distance to the•carports or garages would be considerably less;; however, since [;
the Commission was considering,a'variance from the R-2 Code, this waiver was necessary. .f?:
Mr, Roberts advised the o y ~
i pposition that there,were onl two units located more than 200 feet
from the dwelling units, and the other: 120 were within the requirement of.Code. '+!
' ~:.
Mrs. Raymond Van"der Warker, 206 Merrimac Drive, inquired whetfier or not the variance was ~r
now tied into the plans; to which the Commissicn replied in.the affirmative.
~ ~~,
I Mr. Roberts noted that the petitioner had originally requested R-3 zoning - however,,Che
I ~ ~ ~ F,
Cocmnission was not in favor of,this,and,requested that an additional waiver be-advertised ',,
in order that the Commission.might recommend denial'of the R-3 Zone to the City.Council and f'
; 8rant the requested waivers in order to°:permit`development wiEhin the R-2 Zone,- and since`
the petitioner had ori ~
ginally re.quested,R-3 zoning, the City Council still must-consider ~~
the original;request.
Mr. Richard Fox, 216 Kennebec Drive, appeared before the Commission and inquired as to the r
waiver of the covered parking; whereupon Mr. Roberts noted that the R-2 and R-3 Code required ~;
1'~ parking spaces:,per nnit, whereas the petitioner was proposing l covered parking space per ~::;.
unit and was providing an additional '~ parking-spaces for guests, which was in excess of that ~'
required by,Code,.,and the petitioner felt that providing uncovered parking spaces would en-
courage 3uests to avail themselves of the open, o~f-~treet parking. ~
Iv
i,
~.
fv
-- . ~,
~ ~ ~ ~~_~ ________
~. _ : - . -~ : _ .... „ , ..
_ ~ ~ ~
:MINUTES, CITY.PLANNING COMMISSION, April 21, 1969 4466
RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. John Hakanson, 131 Merrimac Drive, Apartment B, inquired as to the
-N0 68-69-79 reason for'permitting carports and whether they were considered superior
to ~arages.
VARIANCE N0:'2066
(Continued) The Commission noted that after numerous studies made, it was determined
that since garages were seldom closed, not only in the multiple-famil~
developments ~cL• in the single-family developments, carports were more
;appropriate, and each carport was required to have 100 cubic feet of enclosed storage space
as well as special guards to protect the walls, which were required to be of exterior material
and the interior completely finished and would present a better appeasaQCe than open garage
doors. `
~ Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that carports had been a part of the Anaheim Municipal Code
since 1963.
Mr. Hakanson then inquired whether or not the alley was going to be widened.
Mr. Roberts noted that the existing alley was at the width that was required by the Anaheim
Municipal Code, and the petitioner was proposing a fully dedicated street along the east
property,line, with access to the parking areas from said street •xcept for those units
adjacent to the existing alley,
r~'. Hakanson then noted l'hat a hazardous situation could arise with the R-3 residents backing
into the alley easterly and other traffic wanting to gain access to subject property, creating
some type of a traffic conflict. Furthermore, it was his feeling there was insufficient cir-
culation:with only Santa Ana Canyon Road scrving both subject.property and the R-3 property
immediately adjaceat to it.
'Office`Engineer Jay Titus -dvised the Commission that from conversations with the Traffic
Engineer, it was determine;~ thaC the existing circulation and that proposed with the extension
of.a new street would be adequate to handle the increase in trafFic; that the extension of
Santa Ana Canyon Road along the easterly boundary of subject property northerly was proposed
to eventually extend north and then west again to Je~ferson Street, since the Department of
'. Highways had declared those properties Co the no.Cii as being surplus and would, in the near
future, place th2m un the market for sale,
Mr."Titus, in response ta questioning by Mr. Hakanson, stated that if that property considered
surplus:,by the.State werp sold and'proposed to be developed, any approval would be subject to
provision of a:street which would exit to Jefferson Street northerly of subject property and
the single-fainily tract.
Mr. Roberts also noted that the reason for requiring that the street stub end into the property
to' the north was because the staff feLt there was a definite need for additional circulation
northerly and then westerly, and that in his recen•t casrtacts with the State, they had indicated
to him the property to the north was being declared surplus and would be certified for sale
wiEhin the,next six to eight weeks; and that any development of said property would be obli-
gated to provide the street as suggested by Mr. Titus.
Mr. Richardson, in rebuttal; inquired whether or not the alley adjacent to the southerly
portion of subject property was a dedicated alley; whe_eupon Mr. Roberts stated this was a
dedicated alley.
Mr. Richardson then advised the opposition that it was their intent to offset the carports
to'provide additional space adjacent to the alley.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Lommissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC69-81 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by'Cormnissioner Farano, to xecommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi-
fication No. 68-69-79'be disapproved on the basis that the petitioner could deyelop subject
property'within`the confines of Ehe R-2 Zone except for the waivers origin~i2y requested,
and that the petitioner had stipulated the property could be developed under the R-2 ~one
as he proposed. (See'Resci.ution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the'following vote:
AYES:• ',•i;iSSIONERS; Allred, Farano, Gauer, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.'
ABSENTE COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Herbst, Thom.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC69-82 and moved for its passage and adoption,
second'ed by Commissioner Gauer, to`grant Variance No. 2066 on the basis that waivers of the
parking spaces being located more than 200 feet from a dwelling unit or a standard street,
distance,between buildings, and minimum distance between parallel walls, number of required
covered parking spaces had been granted in approval by the Planning Commission and City
Council for R-3 developments in the past, and that the,petitioner was proposing more than
the minimum number of required parking spaces in the R-2 Zone, and subject to conditions.
~~Grtl~jd~'."`,3~r''1~+~+~'.':,. k 7 .e;,..v ~r ~.?~:'G~~~','.~M?t~~"~+Ya! .~,~~~'#.~tX'r i*rP."~.~;."'t.~i~~ ~a~`,^.P"i ~ ~2'-r~i'n,~x xl~} "S '. ~i .: '' r .~rr.'_~' _
, ! .w ~. 1 . , r:.: ,~'1`
.. ~~.. .., . .. . . ~,. . .. . . . ..~ ~ ~ ~ .
C~
MINUT~S, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Aprii 2I, 1969 4467
RECLASSIFICATION = (See Resolution Book)
N0: 68=69-79:.
On roll'call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
VARIANCE N0. 2066
(Continued) AYES: COMMISSIONERS: 'Allred, Farano, Gauer, Rowland.
P~OES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:' Cainp,,Herbst, Thom.
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED.PUBLIC HEARING. RAYMOND SPEHAR, 913 Paloma P1ace, Fullerton,
N0. 68-69-68 Californi~,:Owner; property'described asc An irregularly shaped parcel
~` containing a total of-approximately 80 acres of land located generally
~ CONDITIONAL USE .. east of Imperial Highway, south of Esperanza Road and north of the Santa
PERMIT N0. 1090 Ana River and,the proposed route of the,Riverside Freeway, more particu-
larly described as: Parcel l- An irregularly shaped parcel containing
approximately 30 acres of land having approximate frontages of 800 feet
along the north side of the Santa Ana River, 1;500 feet along the east side of Iu~perial
Highway, and 1,100 feet along the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad south of Esperanza
Road, and Parcel 2- An irregularly shaped parcel containing approximately 50 acres of land
having approximate frontages of 2,000 feet along the north side ~f the Santa Ana River and
1,500 feet,along the Atchison, Topeka & Santa'Fe Railroad south of ~speranza Road and being
located from approximately 700 feet to approximately 2,700 feet east of Imperial Highway.
Property pr>_sently classified County A1, GENERAL AGRICULTURAL, DISTRICT.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: PARCEL 1- C-1, GENERAL COhAtERCIAL, ZONE
PARCEL 2- R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE
REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTAIILISH A TRAILER PARK, WITH WAIVER OF REQUIRED
SETBACK ON PARCEL 2 ONLY.
Subject petitions were continued from the meeting of March 24, 1969, to allow time to work
out circulation problems.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Bro~.m reviewed the location of subject property, uses estab-
lished in close proximity, and the proposed request for a mobile home park on Parcel 2,
noting that the City of Anahe'
g im presently had a,request pending before the Local Agency
Formin Commission;to determine ultimate boundaries between Anaheim and Yorba-Linda norEh
of Ehe Santa Ana River and east of Imperial Highway; that subject property is a portion of
that:area, and a decision on this proposal was expected.from the LAFCO people on May 28,
1969; that when subject petition~ori~i.nally 'appeared on the March 24 agenda, the Coranission
continued it so that the staff could.more thoroughly. investigate the probler,:c involved
relative to the appropriateness of'the proposed land use,` an arterial circulation system
within the area,'potential conflicts with the State Division'of Highway's plans for possible
freeway interchange, and conflicts with the Orange County Flood Control District easements
across subject property.' However, during the succeeding weeks the staff had met with or
contacted officials of the many governmental agencies involved in these problem areas, and
the majority still remained unrasolv~d, and then Mr. Brown reviewed the reasons why these
problems had not been resolved as set forth.in the reporC to the Commission. Mr. Brown then
noted that the staff recommended a continuance of a m:nimum of six weeks, to June 2, 1969,
in order that the decision of LAFi:~ as to the City's boundaries and determination of Anaheim's
responsibility to serve the area could be made.
Mr. Raymond Spehar, the petitioner, indicated his presennc, noting that.he understood the
problems involved and would await the.decision of LAFCO.
Commissioner Gauer offexed a motion to continue Petitiots for Reclassification No. 68-69-68
and Conditional'Use Permit No. IQ9Q to the meeting of June 2, 1969, in order that the decision
of the Loca1 Agency Forming Commission ~.ould be incorporated in the report to the Commission
-sir.ce any action by the City of Anaheim would appear to be-in a somewhat nebulous category
regarding ultimate jurksdi.ctaoa~ ze~pomsibility. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED:'
Aiscussion,was held by'the Cormnission relative to the proposed mobile home park requested
~:ader Conditional Use Permit:No. 1090, and Coimnissioner Farano inquired whether the City had
minimum standaids as to mobile home.parks; whereupon Commissioner.Rowland stated that the
City'of Anaheim had been pre-empted in their jurisdiction by the State relative to this type
of facility.
Both Commissioners Farano and Allred noted that a number of the trailer spaces propos~d
projected 60-foot•trailers in 70-foot spaces, which seemed to be rather overcrowding an area.
, .._.. . . . .:.. ..,., . . ... : .: ... :.
~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PL9NNING COPIlfISSION, Apri1 21, 1969 • 4468
VARIANCE N0. 2073 - PUBLIC HEARING. AL STOVALL, ET AL, 1717 Scuth Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim,
California, Owners; JACK STOVALL, 1717 South Harbor Bi~ulevard, Anaheim,
California, Agent; requeeting WAIVERS OF (1) Mi,!~I*?~~ i SIGN AREA AND (2)
MAXIMUM SIGN HEIGHT TO CONSTRUCT A FREE-STANDING SIGN oa property described as: A rectangular-
ly shaped parcel :~ncated on the southwest corner of Katella A~enue and West Street, having
approximate frontages of 293 feet on Katella Avenue and 600 feet on West Street, and further
described as 1110 West Katella Avenue. Property presently classified C-R, COMMEERCIAL-
RECREATION, ZONE.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Browr. reviewed the location of subject property and uses
established in close proximity, noting that the petitioner was proposing to construct a
60-foot high, 425-square foot, double-faced display area, free-standing sign to be located
approximately in the center of the Katella Avenue frontage; that the petitioner had indicated
a sign of this height and footage was necessary in order to provide proper i,uolic exposure
I; for the new motel under construcCion; that the nearest residential structure.was located
approximately 300 feet southwest of the proposed sign location, and single-family structures
to the south would be approximately 600 feet from the proposed location; thaL the petitioner
had indicated other signs in this vicinity exceeded Che maximum height requirement and
permitted display area - however, in checking past zoning actions along both sides of Katella
Avenue in this immediate area, the staff determined that only one variance had been granted
for waiver of the sign height, and ~i~s waiver was granted for the replacement sign of the
Travelodge which ~rsa§ establiahed prior ka tha adoption of the Sign Ordinance; that another
application at this same location was denied when the pet:tioner proposed a 50-foot high,
440-square foot sign; that although there were signs in the area that did not comply with the
pre~sent height and area requirements, these signs were installed prior to the adoption of the
pre:tent Code; and the location of this rec•~ metel at the intersection of a major and secondary
highway with heavy traffic counts would ~npear to offer more than ample exposure for this
new two-story structure - therefore, the Commission would have to determine whether or not
the request was valid, and whether or not the Best Wescern Motels' insignia of a crown could
not be scaled down, thereby placing the size of the sign more within the sign standards,
and that if subject petition were approved, the proposed restaurant to be consCructed on the
northeast corner of subject property could claim a hardship and request a similar height size
sign.
Mr. A1 Stovall, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted the most impartant ~'
fact for requesting the variance was that subject property and motel would be,the "flag ship"
'
f ~"~+
o
the Best Western 1:~te1s, which had o~~er 1,100 motels throughout the United States; that ;";~,
••the symbol of a crown of the size proposed was.necessary due to the fact L•nnt tbe proposed
o
l ,;;~~~
m
te
would have 200 rooms, and the size of the.sign should be in proportion to the number j;
of units it served; that the formul~ c~ the Best Western Motels was that a motel with 25 t
~'r
uni.ts or less should have the smaller sign, and anything larger should have the crown symbol
•' ~
~•;;;x
,
that the Space Age and Travelodge motels had only 60 rooms, and, therefore, signing was not
~ im I"`,',
a
portant; and~thac he urged the Commission to consider subject petition favorably. ~'
Mr. William Lentini, 2868 West Bridgeport, appeared before the Commission r~presenting the
'
,,
~ ~
sign company and presented ~pe
tit~atts purpo.~ted~p~ signed bp I60 persons (only 122 petitions
were presented with.signatures, all in £avor oS the proposed sign) and noted that this in-
cluded 80% of both the apartments and homes in this area. Mr. Lentini further noted that
he would have to disagree with the statement made by the staff that only ane sign had been
approved that was in excess since the Zaby Motel at the corner of Harbor and Katella had a
62-foot hi
h si
o
d
g
gn appr
ve
, and the only reason for the requested waiver was because they
had discussed signing with the Sa
b
R
m
o
estaurant, and they had indicated it was not their
intent to request a sign in excess of that permitted by Code.
The Commission advised the petitioners that many of the signs :n the Commercial-Recreation '~
urea had been approved prior to the adoption of khe Sign Ordinance in 1965. '
i
Mr. Lentini then stated that if the Commission ~elt a 60-fout sign was too high
they would
,
reduce this to 50 feet.
I
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ; i
Comnissioner Farano then noted that it_was his hope the sign company people aould consider
tryin
to
l ~ 'I
g
comp
y with the Sign Ordinance which had been adopted after numerous studies made
b
the C
i
th ~
y
o~mn
ssion
rough work sessions, and it was the first time he had heard the size~of ;
the sign was predicated b,y the number of raoms it would serve. Furthermore, national motel
chai ~
ns proposing to develop in the City of Anaheim should make a better attempt to comply
' ~ ;,~
with the City
s requirements, rather than sPtting up standards and then expecting the City
of Anaheim to;cignare the Code requirements, and chen ir.quired who determined the policy
rel.ative to the type of sign;. ,
Mr. Lentini advised the Commission that Best Western Motels set the policy - however
they
,
did not invest any money, and all money for any facility within the City of Anaheim was
invest.:~: by residents of the City, ,
Mr. Stovall then noted that since the res,aurant was propp~e3 to be located at the northeast ~
corner, prospective clients traveling w.et on Katella Avenue would have a difficult time in
_ ..._.. '
~ +':
-._ _ _.__. .. ........,. r,-:,.,..
0 ~ : ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING'C01~4fISSION, April 21,:1969 4469
VARIANCE N0. 2073 -,seeing the sign.in sufiicient time to avert going by and then having to
;(Continued), .make a U-turn to return.
Co~nissioner Gauer stated that in passing subject property he did not see how anyone could
miss the motel eyen without a sign. . •
Mr. Stovall then noted:that the Space Age Motel - the restaurant ia¢nediately adjacent - had
placed a::request for a different height sign because they were being.overshadowed by the
adjoining signs.
Zoning..Supervisor Charles Roberts._advised the Commission that any sign within 300 feet of a
residence must be 25 feet in ;~i,;ht - otherwise, within the Commercial-Recreati'on area, they
were permitted to go up to 70 feet in height.
Considerable disciission was held by the Commission with Mr. Stovall as to his specific request
and as it pertained to the Sign Ordinance which had been adopted after considerable work by
the Cmmnission in work sessions, visits to sign companies, public hearings, and the statements
made by the sign companys that the Sign Ordinance could be lived with; however, there were
constant requests for waivers of the Sign Ordinance since the Sign Ordinance had been adopted,
A showing of hands indicated seven persons present in the Council Chamber in opposition to
subject petition.
Mr, Willard Harmon, 1108 Dewey Place, appeared before the Commission and noted that they were
somewhat dismayed with what the City had permitted to be done with this former school property;
that the swimming pool was being dug approximately 5 feet from the rear property line of the
i homes to the south, said homes being valued in the vicinity of ;~35,000 to $40,000; that the
proposed sign would greatly reduce the value of these properties, as would the location of
the swi.mming pool due to the noise factor from late swi~ers at night.
Mr. James Yamasacki, 1117 Dewey Place, appeare~l before the Commission in opposition and noted
Chat he was opposed to the height and size of the sign since it would aEfect the residential
integrity, and also the fact that the swimming pool was located in such close proximity to
the sinf~le-family homes.
Mr. Fred iyre, 1162 D,: `
: y Place, appeared before the Commission :i; ~~position and stated that
the light from this height of sign would light up the'entire area ,.nd requested that the :'•_;;
Commission sequire.the sign to be,within the Code requirement of 25 feet. '
`: ::&
Mrs. Geraldine Harmon, 1108 Dewey Place a "±
petition of o , ppeared be'ore the Commmssion and noted that a ;:
pposition signed by 25 persons had been submitted to the Planning Department, •~'
opposed to the proposed sign; that the petiti~cs circulated by the petitioner in favor were
somewhat misleading in that the plans of the three to four-story motel were presented, and ~
the sign was considerably smaller than that proposed - however, no comment was made as to
the actual size of the sign, and many of the people were unaware of this and had, therc=ore, '
signed a petition in favor.
Mr. Lentini ::nd Mr, Stovall, in rebuttal, stated that the petition clearly stated that the
sign would be between 45 and 60 feet in height, and although the picture might.have had the
sign out of proportion, this was no reason for people no? being aware of what they were
signing.
Mr. Roberts noted the comment made relative to the 2aby Motel sign being in excess of 61
feet - the sisn was more than 300 feet from a residential structure and, therefore, was
not subject to the 25-foot height limitation.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commission discussed the location of a pool immediately adjacent to the R-l subdivision; !
hoc,ever, since this was not an item before the Commission and since the location was within i
the requirements of the zone,,there was nothing that could be done about it - however, as a
pe'rsonal comment,;it would seem developers of the property would take ~ntm consideration the f
feelings of the n~~gk(~rs in the location of the swimming pool, and could have ,,sed better I
judgment in its location.
I Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC69-83 and moved for its passage.and adoption,
~seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to deny Petition for Variance No. 2073 on the basis that
r6~ p~t`i.Cio~ ttad' aoti suDmitt•.edl evi3:d~ue~ ravi~ m
~~ P S~ . 1tax~efixbofip, eexti.s;~s~fi ~ t.~C: xng~cnn~• wi ~h i, ,r.
Code'requirementas.wonld,b'e•-:d~tr3ment~l".to the.proposed.'oper•ation,~,:that••.signing~of: similaz-~
uses: witliin~: 3D0' feet: af- r.eas'd'eitCi+al. use~ wa~ r~equi'red: C¢ mee~~;Cm,de: ~eqp3r.emem4~ ~ aad~ t,~y
.~r~t :Lhe pro osed 60-fo G 4~ ~
P 9 high ~s3,~~ aaul,~ ~@_ graating. a pr.fi.ml.e,~e.: nuo,t: ~ramp~cL o,dh~: d~~rex.- ~
opments; thai: ehe location of the proposed sign at the intersection of a majer and secondary
arterial•would afford considerably more-exposure to the motoring public than similar motels
in'this gerieral'area; and that approval'of}svbject;;petition would set an undesirable prece- ^
dent fora~.'si;mdlar.•,=r.eq~;r gr.~; Ch~'proposed~restaurant to be located at the northeast ,
, '
- - - - -- - ~,:>fi
_ . .. . _ ~' ,.
_ ._ ,_._.. .:_ ..,. ,. . ,., , __,.; . .
~ ~. ~
MINUTES; CITY'PLANNING COMMISSION, April 21, 1969 4470
VARIANCE N0. 2073 - corner of subjecb property when development occurs. (See Resolution Book)
(Continued) •
~ ,Os roll call the £oregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. .
ABSENT: :COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Herbst, Thom.
h~~ ;; VARIANCE N0. 2074 - PUBLIC HEARING. ANAE~ IM HOTEL COMPANY, 7 Freedman Way, Anaheim, California,
~~ Owner; requesting WAIVERS OF (1) LOCATION OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN WITYt
RELATION TO ABUTTING PROPERTY AND (2) MINIMUM DISTANCE OF A FREE-STANDING
~` SIGN FROM A ROOF SIGN, TO ESTABLISH TWO FREE-STANDING SIGNS ON THE GRAND HOTEL SITE on ~
~~ property described as: A rectangularly shaped.parcel consisting of approximately 11 acres
~ of land having an east-west dimension of approximately 974 feet and a north-south dimension
,,f,y~ of approximately 505 feett and being located approximately 660 feet east of the centerline
~~ `^ of Harbor Boulevard and approximately 2~D5 feet north oF the centerline of Freedman Way, and
,t,,,.;,`~ further described as 7 Freedman Way. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
'~, Assistant Zoning Snnervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses estab-
5+:
~. lished in close proximity, and the proposed request to establish two free-standing signs as
:~ identification and internal directional signs within the parking lot of subject property and
;; ,.y~ noted th'at although both signs proposed were intended to be large, directional signs to assist
~ ~ in guiding traffic within the rather large hotel co~plex, directional signs within Code were
ti~ considerably smaller in size; however, since both of these signs were over 200 feet from any
C~;'-~:", public right-of-way, they would appear not to be deleterious to the surrounding area.
,,.+.
~;:r; T~:, ,
~;;;:i~:~ Mr. Don McKinnon, General Manager of the Grand Hotel, appeared before the Commission and
~r-:-•~~ presented colored renderings of the signs proposed g g ~
~~.~x, , reviewin the si ns with the Co~mnission
;.;,;r~, and noting that a new night club was proposed to be open May 24, planning to have off-Broadway
`a;;u" shows,~and because of the size and location of this new facility, it was desirous of having
i,', •T ,: .
t,z~}y directional signs for the motoring public when they entered the hotel parking lot facility;
~-~:' that the existing hotelway entrance was being abandoned, and a new entrance from Freedman
~~'r~~ Way ~•ras ,,renently under consideration by the City Council and would be located approximately
~r : 3G0 feet easterly, giving betCar access to the new parking layout; that he had not brought
~' the.drawing of the parking layout for Commission con§ideration - however the
, , proposed night
~~ club would be to the extreme west of tke existing structure; that the night club.would be
~ Tocated on the ground floor, and the existing tenth-floor night club facilities would be
y~ .~_ converted into guest rooms; and that although tHese signs'might be visible from adjoining
~r~`p streets, they,would be single faced and,be directed toward the internal traffic only.
~~ a: ' No one a . ,
~,{~~~ ppeared in opposition to subject petition. .
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
~5~~
The Commission inquired as to the size of the directional sign permitted by Code; whereupon
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that the only directional signs the
Sign Ordinance provided for were the entrance aiid exit signs, and this was a maximum of 3
square feet at a height 4 feet above ground - however, the Sign Ordinance did not specify
any on-site directional sign as was being requested.
The Commission then inquired of Mr. McKinnon whether or not these could also be considered
off-site advertising signs in addition to being on-site directional signs.
Mr. McKinnon noted that the intent of the signs was primarily for directional signs within ~
the hotel complex; however, it was possible they would be seen from the street, but were
intended for directional signs only and not advertising.
Mr. Roberts inquired of Mr..McKinnon whether the moEel to the west was constructed up to
the southeast property line of subject property; whereupon Mr. McKinnon stated that the
motel did go to the existing fence, then an easement of 4 or 5 feet was separating subject
property from the motel, and that these signs would all be single-faced and would not have
exposure to two sides of any view from other streets.
Assistant City Attorney ,Tohn Dawson,'in discussing the recommended conditions of approval, '
noted that Condition No. 1 relative to adequate clearance of existing electrical lines was
a Building Department requirement and not a zoning requirement, and he would recommend that
this'not be made part of the conditions of approval of the variance to avoid any conflict
of zoning problems.
Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC69-84 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Variance No. 2074 on the basis that
the proposed free-standing signs were considered internal directional signs although the
Sign Ordinance did not provide for such a type of sign, and since the petitioner had ~"
' ~-
. ;
- c.~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CZTY PLANNTNG COMMISSION, April 21, 1969 4471
VARIANCE N0. 2074 - stipulated to signs having a single face only, this would reduce the
(Continued) possible factor.of these free-standing signs being advertising signs,
and subject to conditions, (See Resolution Rook)
On roll call the foregaing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSZONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Rowland,
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None..
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Herbst, Thom.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. MAURICE B. DILLOW, 2942 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, ~r
PERMIT N0, 111:' Ca3iAorni.a, Owner; requesting permission to HAVE RETAIL SALES (TIRE, Yi'~i"°
APPLIANCE, AND FURNITURE) IN AN EXISTING BUILDING IN THE M-i. ZONE on
property described as: A rectan ularl sha ed i' `
8 y p parcel located on the
west side of Fountain Way, approximately 723 feet north of the centerline of la Palma Avenue K
and having a frontage of approximately 100 feet and a depth of approximately 125 feet, and ;';'~;;
further described as 1159 Fountain Way. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL,
ZONE.
Assist~.nt Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, the uses
established in close proximity, and the proposal, noting that subject property was a lot
within a 21-lot industrial subdivision; that the plans indicated the petitioner proposed
to utilize the northerly 2150 square feet of the existing ~.ndustrial building for the pur-
pose of retail sales of tires, appliances and furniture to employees of the surrounding
industrial uses; and that the southern 4000 square feet of the same structure had been used
for several years by an optical fitting and grinding concern whose service is primarily
oriented to industrial establishments. Furthermore, that the combined uses of this building
would require 18 parking spaces, whereas only 14 could be provided on the site; and that the
petitioner had been contacted on numerous occasions by the Development Servic~s staff rela-
tive the retail sales being more than i.ncidental,retail sales, as well as removal of illegal
~igning, and that the petitioner by this petition was now proposing to legalize the existing
use.
Mr, Richard Teigen, 851 North Lincoln Street, Orange, appeared before the Commission, noting
he represented the petitioner, Plus 5, which was basically a business for wholesale' distri-
bution of tires and'sales of appliances r.rid furniture to Autonetics employees; that the
existing use did not contribute to any noise factor, and the parking was more than adequate
for the use; and that he had letters from the principal property owners in close proximity
in favor of the proposed petition. Said letters were then submitted to the Commission as
documentary evidence.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commission inquired of the operator of the existing development whether or not he
required identification similar to that required by Gemco of the employees of the industrial
area and whether o~ not this could become a general retail operation.
Mr. Paul Lennard, 3139 East Almond, Orange, appeared before the Commission and noted that
95% of the customers who came in had their badges on, identifying them as employees of
Autonetics, while others were families of these employees; that even though this was not
considered a basically retail operation, almost anyone who operated a business would sell
to a prospective purchaser, although he in no way advertised for any additional business.
Assistant City Attorney John Dawsnr. noted that insofar as the ordinanr.e was concerned, if
this were ncidental retail sales not generally considered for the general public but
basically serving the industries in the area, then the request before the Commission was
valid.
Commissioner Farano noted that he had visited this establishment since one of his friends
had taken him there; that the petitioner operated the facility in the manner in which he
described; that he had never known of any advertising by the petitioner since it was not
necessary to do this, and there was no outward attempt to solicit general retail trade -
therefore, he considered the use a proper one as requested under the M-1 Zone,
The Cortunission then inquired that since this was a conditional use permit, would the use
be permitted to go with the land; whereupon Mr. Dawson stated that although the ¢oRSdiCictn,nl
use permit went with the use of the land, due to the fact that it was a conditional use
permit to allow a use not generally permitted in the M-1 Zone, it limited the operation,
and if anyone else operated another type of use and advertised with signs and in the news-
paper, this conditional use permit would be considered null and void. '
S'~ "~ '~ . ~' t..M ~ a G.~~,n~'"~r a ,Jtk't~^: ~.''1~1`"'!&tl'~c cS"t° ,~'~~~^~+ ~ c'r'T c~ '~ ~ .~ rF ~~ r ~ j. ,.x~ r "'Y>-
~ .. 1~+y :~ t .. a. t ~ F . J "~ t P f. ~ r i
.r.-.~. a.'~ .c.f. .aK "45t.r ~~ vti..,c.. n.; ~~sti1 ~.y~~.: ~ <~:.. ~ ~ ~;
~~ ' ~ "~ O . - - ~ , . . . 1~' ~ . . ~ ' . . ~ . ~'
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COPIIlISSION, April 21, 1969 4472
~~..f?.n'L'l.):•~I~1~7.,USi:;: '• - The Commission then noted that in order to maintain the character of
P~t2PIIT NG. 1110 the area, it might be wise to add.a candition that no advertising
(Continued) either on the premises or through the newspapers should be permitted,
Mr. Dawson noted that this was a requirement of the Anaheim Municipal
Code, M-1 3ection; however, if the Commission were desirous of being assured Ehere would
be no advert:aing, then a condition should be attached,
Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC69-85 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Co~nissioner Rowland, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. '.].1:~,
subject to conditions and the addiCional condition that no general retail operation may
be begun nor.advertising consistent ;.~.th retail onerations would be permitted as required
under Section 18.52.050(2-a). (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSZONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: C:3mp, Herbst, Thom.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. W, H. JEWETT, 1309 East Orangethorpe Avenue, Fullerton,
PERMIT N0. 1111 California, Owner; MAURICE B. DZLLOW, 2942 East Chapman Avenue, Orange,
California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A MOTEL WITH
WAIVERS OF (1) TIINIMUM REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK, (2) MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF
A FREE-STANDING SIGN, (3) MAXIM[JM AREA OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN,'AND (4) LOCATION OF A FREE-
STANDING SIGN WITH RESPECT TO ABUTTING PROPERTY on property described as: An irregularly
shaped parcel consisting of approximately 2 acres of land located south and east of the
southeast corner of Katella Avenue and State College Boulevard, having approximate frontages
of 105 feet on the south side of Katella Avenue and 25 feet on the east side of State
Coliege Boulevard, with a maximum depth of approximately 480 feet from Katella Avenue,
Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE,
Assist:,nt Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of sub,ject property, tne uses
established in close proximiCy, and the Report to the Commission, noting that previous zoning
action on subject property was reclassification to the M-1 Zone in November of 1957, and
two conditional use permits to establish a swimning pool display and raC~ii~ sales and storage
and.to establish a building material storage concern with sales and display, both of which
were'approved for portions 'of subject property in 1964 - however, both petitionc were later
terminated since these activities were never developed; that the plans submitted by the ~
petitioner indicated the proposal to establish a~50-unit motel with a manager's apartment, ~
with a 105-foot frontage on Katella Avenue and a 25-foot drive to be provided to State College
Boulevard'on the west; that two free-standing signs were proposed, one a 40-foot high, 210- `
square foot sign to be located approximately in the center of the Katella Avenue frontage {
and a 25-foot high, 100-square foot free-standing sign to be located immediately adjacent
to the south side of the drive on the State College Boulevard frontage; Chat although subject
property was presently zoned M-1, the 1969 Preliminary General Plan indicated co~ercial-
recreation uses as being appropriate to this area between Katella Avenue and Orangewood
Avenue; that a motel was permitted by conditional use c~rmit in the M-1 Zone - however, was ~
permitted by right in the C-R Zone - therefore, several factors regarding some the requested
variances would have to be reviewed: the required structural setback in the M-1 Zone was
50 feet, whereas the structural setback on Katella Avenue in the C-R Zone would require only
10 feet, and the applicant's plans indicate 20 feet; and that a free-standing sign located
in the 50-foot front setback in the Pf-1 Zone would be restricted to 100 square feet of display
surface area, but in the C-R Zone, a free-standing sign in the Lront setbac4 srea of subject
property wouTd be permitted a; d5;~p,~,ay surface of 210 square feet; and th:+t the pr~posed free-
standing sign on the State College Boulevard frontage would be restricted to 50 square feet i
rather than the 100 square fe~r requested regardless of whether the zoning was :1-1 or C-R,
since .the 25-foot, Code-restricted height limit for ~ha fxee-stam~dfnrg s+f~ti ~?;p~e,~ ~y ~:
7oaa's~e~d. on the 1~oz~11g ~v~nu4 fron~ags,w.ae the result. oF the, single=$a~n.~.79 residential struc- ?
tur~~ located~south of the service sCation and facing 9tate College Boulevard, Therefore, the
primr~ry issue in this particular instance was that of appropriate land use, and whether there
was 3ustification for the requested sign waivers. ,
The Commission inquired t•ih~l•her or not the existing residential struc~_ure was a nonconforming
use; whereupon Zoning Supervisor Charles Robezts advised the Coimnissi.~n that the residential
structure was on M-u zoned property reclassified a number of years ago, and, th~refore, could
be considered a nonconforming use.
Mr. Maurice Dillow, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that
subject property would e;vemrtn~•a12~ be in the Commercial-Recreation Zone at some time in the
future, and if the adjoining property were developed in the futui•e zone and subject•. properCy
were required to aet back under the existing zone, this would place the proposed development
at a disadvantage and would not afford the exposure necessary for the type of use; that the
~
- ~ •.: .;•,~. . .. _ . _ . . , _ , . I
~
. _.
~ ~' ~~~~s'y, . . ~ ~ .. . . ~ ~ . ~ .
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Apri1 21, 1969. 4473
, CONDITION_~!?, USE - proposed facilities would be oriented toward irdustrial pecple having
PERMIT.NO. 1111 to stay for. approxi~eately a week, not aecesearily o~ernight; that the
(Continued) 25-foot easement would be owned by:the thre.e separate parcels,`two of
those facing KaEe1la.Avenue and the oae facir.g State College Boulevard;
that.because of the:widening of State College Baulevard and the over-
pass of.the freeway, a'S0-square foot sign would be inadequate to apprise persons looking
for'the motel in sufficient xime'to turn off State College Boulevard; that there was a
possibility.if this:developmenk were a.success, it would be enlarged to a 100-uait motel;
that he had,discussed the,proposed sign.with the owner of the home te the north of subject
property, and he had expressed:no opposition to the proposed sign; :~nd that he had a letEer
which he presented to,the.Commission from the owner of the Anaheim Builders Supply Company,
noting there was,a definite need for a motel for the commercial and industrial uses in the
area,since many of these visitors to the industrial uses were not interested in having to
sEay in.a motel that was tourist oriented.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
A letter from the owner of the property approximately 660 feet east of subject property
was read to the Commission, noting his approval of the proposed use of subject property.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commission inquired of the staff which of the variances beside 2(b) in the Report to
the Commission was applicable to the residents on the State College Boulevz~rd frontage.
Mr. Roberts replied that 2(b) was the only variance that would spply to the residents, anc3
the balance was because subject property was in the M-1 Zone.
The Commission then noted that the only hardship shown on the sign for the State College
Boulevard frontage was the fact they were attempting to locate a; s:g~ on ,,;:.;c~ ;;01,~.~,~:.
Boulevard where there was no available frontage; that the true frontage was on Katella
Avenue, and it was the petitior.er~'s desire to have additional exposure through an easement
to State Co11Lge Boulevard.
Mr. Dillow, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the petitioner was the owner
~of 8-1/3 feet of the 25-foot easement to State Col'_cge Boulevard, and access across the
balance of the easement,property was granted to a1T chree'of the owners for access from
their properties'to State College Boulevard.
!Commissioner.Rowland offered Resolution No.. PC69-86 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Co~nissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for ~anditional Use Permit No. 1111 in
pait, approving 2(a), (b), and (c) of the requested waivers and denying 2(d) and (e) on the
L::;'.s Ehat the.proposed signing within a 25-foot access road was simply an exploitation of
said access road and would create undue hardship on the adjoining properties in signing
their properties at the t~me of development, especially since the petitioner stated he held
a'common easement with the two adjoining property owners over this access road to State
College Boulevard, and that the access road proposed from State College Boulevard, together
with the sign proposed, would create hazardous L•raf£ic conflicts, especially during the time
the Stadium was being utilized for some sports events, and subject to conditions, amending,
Condition No. 11 to reflect Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, as they pertained to the :igtti:.ng
of the Katella Avenue frontage were approved, providing, hawever, that all covered vehicular
entryways shall have a minimum vertical clearance of 14 feet, and further provided that
kitchen efficiency units with a maximum of 6-cubic foot refrigerators, two-burner stoves,
excluding oven and baking facilities, and single-compartment sinks may be provided, except
that the manager's unit shall be allowed to have full kitchen facilities. (See Resolution
Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYESs COMMISSIONERS:. Allred, Farano, Gauer, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIOIJ~RS: Camp, Herbst, Thom.
RECESS Chairman Allred declared a ten-minute recess xt 3:50 P.M.
RECONVENE Chairman Allred reconvened the meecing at 4:03 P.M., Co~i;,ioners
Camp, Herbst, and Thom being absent.
. . 1.,;._~
~ s
;n~er~smt~re~&~4%~4~?~E:Sg'~T+~~7~P ~~`t ~~, ,.~~ .~a,. ~r^_~:•, ~'~~r.'3,:.~z:i:'P~;'~:`~~~L"~u'F+r`~a:hr.~ E s ; "`^w~ y ~ y5~t 5;''-~n
e a,... ,
~ ~;£., ~ ~ . . ~ . . , . ~ . .
'~S
s
' MINUTES, CITY:PLANNING COMMISSION,',April 21, 1969• `4474
r . -~~-~ . ~. . . '...~ .. ~.:. . . . . . . . .
~ VARIANCE'~NO. 2073~- Zoning..Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that Mr. Al
4 Stovall; the petitioner of a`si
gn.variance at 1110 West Katella Avenue,
r just heard by'the Commission, wished to advise the Commission that he
' liad discussed,:selocation of the swimming pool with the Building Depart-
; , ment,:and they had.granted`permission to relocate the swimming pool
toward.the-,West Street frontage, thereby eliminating some of th'e problems
as to noise from the swimning pool to the R-1 residents to the south.
Chairman Allred then`directed the Commission Secretary to write a letter
• in his:behalf,~thanking Mr. Stovall for his cooperation in'the relocation
of the swimming pool..
RECLASSZFICATZON - PUBLIC HEARING. ALBERT S, TOUSSAU, 6672 Richfield Road, Anaheim,
N0. 68-69-84 California, Owiier; ANACAL ENGINEERING, P. 0. Box 3668, Anaheim,
California,.Agent; property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel
VARIANCE N0; 2075 of approximately 7.5 acres of land located on the east side of Sunkist
-' - Street approximately 205 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road, having
TENTATIVE MAP OF a frontage of approximately 504 feet on Sunkist Street and a maximum depth
TRACT N0. 6931 of approximately 633 feet. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL
ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZON$,
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM FRONTAGE, (2) MINIMUM LOT AREA, AND
(3) MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK TO ESTABLISH A 35-LOT SUBDIVISION.
TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: SUNRISE HOMES, ADAM GITTELSON, 2544 Gelid Avenue,
Anaheim, California. ENGINEER: Anacal Engineering Company,
222 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Proposing the
subdivision of a 7.5-acre parcel into 35 proposed R-1 zoned lots.
Assistant Zoning Supervi~,~r Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, the uses
established in close proximity, previous zoning action, and the proposal to subdivide a
7.5-~cre site into 35 R=1 zoned lots.
" Mr; Brown.also noted'that the Planning Commission and City Council previously considered a
rezoning request to,R=3.zoning.and'an.area:development plan and General Plan amendment were
also considered, with the Commission recommending that Exhibit "C" of General P1an Fmendment
No: 110, depicting commercial along the Ball Road frontage south of subject property, low-
medium density'to the extension of Hilda Street westerly to Sunkist Street, and low'density
no;th of-the extension of Hi1da Street, and further recommended that in the area recommer:.;ed
for low-medium density uses, R-2-5000 would be appropriaEe; that Area Devalopment P1an No. 45,
Ex2iibi't°: ":~"; was. also recommended for approval to the City Council - howevcr, the City Council
' in their consideration of the reclassification petition, area development plan, and General
Plan amendment denied the reclassification and the area development plan while approving
General P1an,Amendment No. 110 with Exhibit "C", basing this on the fact that it would be
undesirable to have the extension of Hilda 5treet to Sunkist Street since if the low-medium
density to the south of the proposed extension were developed with ~^~»r.*.~.~nts, this could
mean.residents would be using Hilda Street in the area easterly for parking purposes, even
though off-street parking was being provided; and that the petitioner was proposing to develop
a single-family subdivision without extending Hilda Street "~rr: its present terminus to
Sunkist,Street - therefore, the Coimnission would have to determine whether or not it would
, be desirable to extend Hilda Street through the proposed subdivision in order to provide
s~dditional traffic circulation within-the area,
Mr, Ca1 Queyrel, engineer representing the petitioner and the developer, appeared before the
Commission and noted there seemed Eo be a little confusion as to the action taken by the
City Council when the petition to r~r_;..:csify to the R-3 Zone was proposed as it pertained
to.the.exEension of Hilda Street; that prior to drawing the tract map, he had contacted the
Planning Division staff relative to said extension to verify his understanding of the Council's
action;,that the City Council.at their public hearing stated they were not desirous of having
Hi]:da Street extended to Sunkist Street, and, therefore, the R-1 map was submitted in lieu of
R-2-5000`with'Che waivers.being requested; that the`lot sizes were not the minimum:permitted
by'the R-2-5000-Zone, with a nwnber of them being 65 feet wide; that the builder was'proposing
to consEruct a,tract similar to-that which he had`developed north of subject property which
was already completely sold out because of the high quality type of development, and that
he planned to build similar homes:on su6ject property - however, these homes would not fit
in with the.s:qu~azre footage of the R-2-5000 1ots; that Mr. pi~telson, the developer, was
desirous of having Hilda StreeE dead-end at the easterly property line, not necessarily from
the standpoint of losing two lots if said street were extended, but due to tha fact that he
was not.desirous of having these homes subjected to through traffic to Sunkist Street; that
he'was not sure whather the developer would be desirous of constructing the tract as pro-
posed, and.migt~ ~cansider :an;3.ncsease:iiiu,d~si;tyr~or.Rmt~$r5y:6~uX# ~€ giida Street i~ said street
1: _
`~ r ~ '. :~~~~~~, ~~.: ~~~~ ~ --~--~-----~-~ ~ ~ -__...^ - . r ~~ ` _~. .~ ~ . ..~., ..,: ~. .
r~ ^"~, „s;~rs~ t ..-~. '~t" r,:',~ ~'.~W~S.+fg',xi ,~,. ~.c.~-,~ ~ i~,'~f:,~. ;.~i.~ _,.;e, ~ .':.}: ~ ~x z J* ~ ~„ ~ ~ • ~ ~ }T~
;~ . . . .. ~ ~ . . , .. . . .
< MI1~fJT~S, CITY PLANNING CO ~ ~
MMISSION, April 21, 1969 •
? 4475
RECLASSIFICATION - extension were more desirable; that under previous reclassification
N0. 68-69_g4 '. . petitions where commercial and low-medium density were a
developments were required to have R-1 lot~,of 7200 squarerfeet~abutting
DEIRIANCE N0. 2075 the ad:j:icent R-1 - however, most of these lots
the R-1 lots were approximately 7100 square feetr~ande he~setbacks=ing
TENTATIVE MAP OF would be similar to that a
TRACT N0. 6931 pproved on the tract to the north.
(Continued) No one appeared in o
pposition to subject petitions.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. z
~
C~~cmissioner Gauer expressed the oginion that he would rather see R-1 develo ment as ~
since he could see no reason for considering a higher density for the P ~
proposed ~
Cammissioner Farano fnq;~i,red oh ~ property. ,
~8p presented to them, ~ y l;eC~~ssification No. 68-69-z9 was not reflected on the area ~~
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that Ci~L recl:.ssification
area map were those which involved establ.ishing a City of Anaheim zonetonnthenproperty~atthE
~he time it was anaexed, whereas Reclassification No. 68-69-29 was a
prezoning action.
Furthermore, at the public hearing by the City Council, the Council's reason for not extendin
Hilda Street was in the event low-medium density other. than R-2-5000 were developed south of
the proposed extension as reflected on General Plan Amendment No. 110, and if it were extended
this would mean the apartment development would have their residents parking on the R-1 stree
ta the east. ,
t
Office Engineer Jay Titus advised the Commission the reason for the Engineering Department
recommending that Hilda Street be extended through sub,ject property was to afford better ,'
fire protection since the '
. present route a fire vehicle would have to take would be from its ~y
-~~.~ ~~.on the south side of Ball Road, west of Sunkiat Street
to Paladin, and then easterly on Paladin to Hilda before being able to hit the moat 9outherly
portion of the R-1 tract to the east, aad by having the atreet'extendetlY ~~ Sunkist Street
tract, this would reduce the mileage of the fire vehicle by one-half mileough the proposed
Commissioner Gauer offered a motioa to appr~e Petition for Reclasei£ication No, 68-6g-g¢
with no extenaion of Hi1da Street ~;yr.•augh eubject property. Commieeloner Rowland seconded
the motion.
F`urther diacueaion was held by the Comniaeion wiCh tha Office Engineer regarding the exter.eian
~f Hi1da Street through aub~ect'prppezty, at whiCh Cima Mx, TituB skaGad that the Ciey En ir.eer
atru1gly recommended that the street be exten~l~d gar cir4ulation for emergency vehicles; thac
there was no additional cL. c.ri.c anticipated than would no,..a,_,.., g
tnat if the Commission considered this favorably, the street shouldtbe~ag64Hfoot wideestreet,
wtiereas a 60-foot street was proposed, and this would mean the loss of one lot.
Commissioners Gauer and Rowland withdrew their motion and second
, Commissioner Rowland stating i
that if Hilda Street were extended through subject property, this could mean withdrawal of 3
~Re proposal by the developer and could mean an increase in density for the southerl i
of the property, , ~
y portion
The Commission continued discussion on the :equos~ea =xtension of !
Engineering Division, and aC i.ts concluaian it was deterr.iined that since the single-family
~~=~~-a~:ners to thc aaal• of sub ect Hilda Street by the
i.or was the petitioner desiz~ous ofphavingythrough~traffic~in thisasubdivie ~`~eet extended,
af Hilda Street was not desirable.
- . the extension
Co~nissioner Gauer_offered Resolution No. PC69-87 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by ~a~issioner Farano, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi- i
iication No, 68-69 84 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) '
On roll call the fore oin resolution was ~
g g passed by the following vote: `
AFES: COMMISSIONERS: i -
,S: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Rowland. ~
COMMISSIONERS: None.
'°`~SENT~ C~MMISSIONERS: Camp, Herbst, Thom. '
Cemmissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC69-88 and moved for its passage and adoption
Eeconded by ~a~issioner Farano to
that the e:;~~nsion of Hilda Street fromnitsepresentfterminusnthrough the proposed subdivision
was deemed to be unnecessary since the proposed desi n would 2075 with the finding
provide a more private atmosphere
for the proposed new homes, and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book)
Oa roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
~~5~ C~1~41ISSIONEgS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Rawland.
NOES: COMMjSSIONERS: None.
ARSENT; COMMISSIONEgg; Camp, Herbst, Thom.
.. ~ ;
~,,...., ~-r:...,._._ ~..__.., .,...b.....,. ._ , {
_,~,
'`--~ ~---~-~-^-~r,-r..~......_.._._..,__._..._~_ . _. . _.. .~. . . P~A f~-a'r
~Fr~h%~ ha`~~'rt.~ .~, a '~"na'~"'~s+"~tc~ '~,` ~`'`,k: si e u.°,~~r~-~ ~' ~t +~r~ ~.,~>" .~'~ 5*,~;~.~~ 4 , ~ ~;r <»zs s.
,:f~a,.. ~ . ~ ' 0 ~. . . .. ~ ~ : .
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 21, 1969 4476 .
RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Roberts advised the Commissio.n that since Hilda Street would not
N0. 68-69=84 ' be extended,,then Condition No.' 6 of ~the recommendations for approval
of the tract should be deleted, and a new condition inserted that a
VARIANCE N0. 2075' modified cul-de-sac be provided'at the terminus of Hilda Street subject
" to tHe approval of the City Engineer: ~
TENTATIVE MAP OF
TRACT N0. 6931 Commissioner-Gauer offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract
(Continued) No. 6931, seconded by Commissianer Farano, and MOTION CARRIED, subject
to tHe following conditions:
: 1. ThaE should this eubdivision be developed as more than one subdivision,~each
subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval.
,~~ :_ ,
~ 2. That the approval of Tentative Map of.Tract No. 6931 is granted subject to the
~s.~ approval of Reclassification No. 68-69-84 and Variance No. 2075.
3, That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed
on the west property line.separating Lot Nos, 1, 2, 3, 33, 34, 35, and Sunkist Street,
except that corner Lot Nos, 1 and 35 shall be stepped down to a height of thirty inches
in the front yard setback, and e:;cept that pedestrian openings shall be provided in
said walls where cul-de-sacs abut the planned highways right-of-way line uf an arterial
highway. Reasonable landscaping, including irrigakion facilities, shall be installed
in the uncemented portion of the arterial highway parkway the full distance of said
wall, plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and subject to the approval of the
Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Following installation and acceptance, the
City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping.
4, That streets "A", "C" and "D" shall be recorded as Hilda Street, Alki Street and
Hilda Street.
5. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground•utilities.
6, That a modified cul-de-sac shall be provided at the terminus of Hilda Street, subject
to the approval of the City Engineer.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. MR. AND MRS. W. L. HOLLOWELL, Route 1, Box 84-A, Ramona,
!'•. 68=69-86 California, Owners; William A. Polkinghorn, 777 Silverspur Road, S;~L:•z 221
Palos Verdes`Peninsula, California, Agent; property described as: An ~
VARIANCE N0. 2077 irregularly shaped parcel of land located on the north side of Santa Ana
- Canyon Road north of the intersection of Walnut`Canyon Road and Santa Ana
Canyon Road and having a frontage of approximately 776 feet on Santa Ana
Canyon Road. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE,
r REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM LOT AREA AND (2) MINIMUM LOT WIDT~I,
TO ESTABLISH A 64-LOT SUBDIVISION.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property and uses
established in close proximity, noting that the petitioners had submitted a letter to the
staff reque~[ing that the Planning Commission continue subject petitions for two weeks in
order to allow time to redesign subject proposal so as to eliminate several problem areas.
Mr. Louis Nohl, 20310 Santa Ana Canyon Road, appeared ~~eFore the Co~mnission in opposition
and stated that subject property was directly opposite of his ranch; that he had been very
anx.ious tc~ have this entire Santa Ana Canyon area retained for good, residential development,
and he was oppused to any consideration of waivers of the minimum lot area and lot width
that would be less than the 7200 square feet provided for in the R-1 2one; furthermore,
Mr. Rudy Heman's property was now being developed with 7200-square foot lots, and several
of the other properties in this general area were alxeady developed with 7200-square foot
lots - there£ore, he wished to go on record as being opposed to any waiver of the minimum
lot size and lot,width for development within the Santa Ana Canyon area, and this area be
maintained for better quality, single-family residential use.
Mr. Nohl further noted Chat he was expressing his opposition at this time since he would be
out of the country at the time the Commission was to consider the petitions.
Mr. Roland Nesmith, 20252 Santa Ana Canyon Road, appeared before the Commission in opposition
and stated he was directly south of subject property and was opposed to any lot size less
L•han that which had been established in the area, and since 7200-square foot lots were already
developed in the area, no consideration should be given to lot sizes of less than that.
Furthermore, he was also going to be ouc of the city on the date requested by the petitioners
for.continuance - therefore, he wished his opposition to be noted at chis time.
~ -
0 ~ : Q
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CO1~IIiISSION, Apri1 21,:1969 ~~~
RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Gauer noted from his personal viewpoint he would not be in•
N0. '68-69-86 favor of approving lots in the Santa Ana'Canyon area of less than 7200
square feet, and that if the continuance by the peticioners were not
VARIANCE N0. 2077 for the purpose of revi5ing the tract map to reflect che lot area and
(Continued) lot width in accordance with the R-1 Zone, he would be opposed to it -
however, he was uncertain of the attitude of the other Commissioners.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that the continuance was necessary
to providE: for a different circulation pattern; however, the subdivision would be basically
the same as to lot area :iad lot width.
Chairman Allred advised the staff to contact the petitioner/developer and advise them the
Commission was opposed to any consideration of lots in the Santa Ana Canyon area of less
than 7200 square feet, and that if a revised tract map was to be considered for a different
circulation pattern, the lot width and lot area should also be redesigned.
Commissioner-Rowland offered°a motion to continue consideration of Reclassification No.
68-69-86 and Variance No. 2077 to the meeting of May 19, 1969, in order to allow time for
the petitioner and developer to resolve ci.~cu?.ation problems and to incorpora~e loc a:eas
and widths in conformance with the R-1 Zone Eor any properties considered in the San~a Ana
Canyon area. Commissioner Farano seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. VENIE DANIELS KNEIP, 422 South Esa; Street, Anaheim,
N0, 68-69-83 California, Owner; requesting that property described as: A rectangu-
larly shaped parcel of land located at the northeast corner of East
Street and Santa Ana Street, having approximate frontages of 177 feet
on East Street and 110 feet on Santa Ana Street, and further described as 418, 422, and
426 Suuth East Street, be reclassified from the R-2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to
the C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, 20NE.
Assistant Zoning 8u;:c:rvisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses estab-
lished in close proximity, and previous zoning action by the Commission in December, 1968,
in which the Commission recommended denial of a similar request, and denial by the City
Council in~February, 1969; that the petitioner was again proposing to reclassify the property
to the C-1 Zone and had submitted plans for a Seven-Eleven convenience market - however,
t}~e petitioner,had indicated that the Seven=Eleven organization did'not wish~to submit a
plot plan at this time, and, consequently, there was no way of;determining exactly where
the proposed market would be located or what other commercial facilities would be provided
on svbject property in the future;.and that the Commission's basis £or denying the proposed
request in December, 1968, was because no land use change had taken'place to warrant consider:-
tion of commercial uses in this general area that subject property was surrounded by single-
family homes escept for ::~.:.~.iuents located on the west side of ~ast Street and south of
Santa Ana Street, and approval of the proposed reclassification would have a deleterious
eEf.ect on the residential integrity of the area, and that approval of commercial uses for
subject property would establish an undesirable precedent and would encourage all single-
family homeowners along this street to request commercial zoning, thereby creating further
traffic problems.
Mr, Brown then reviewed the action taken by the Citp Council at the first public hearing and
the fact that the petition was continued for four weeks to allow time for the petitioner to
submit Precise plans of development - however, this was not done as of the February 4 meeting,
whereupon the City Council denied the proposal. Therefore, the primary issue before the
Co~mnission again in this request was that of land use for subject property and its relation
to the surrounding area which was essentially residential in character and had ample aeigh-
borhood shopping facilities within a short distance along Lincoln Avenue, and that the
Commission would have.l.~~ determine whether during the past two and one-half,months which
had elapsed since the City Council denied this original peEition, any significant d~anges
had occurred in the area which would warrant reconsideration of this request.
Mr. Brown further noted that prior to filing subject petition, the petitioner was advised
by the staff of the City Council policy of not rehearing a petition within six months where
an identical request had been denied during that period of time - however, the petitioner
insisted upon making the application.
Mr. James Kemis, representing the petitioner, appeared before~the Commission and noted the
reason for submitting subject petition was because the petitioner had a firm buyer of the
property -_however, plans had been,submitted only for the market, and construction of the
balance of the property would be contingent upon obtaining lessees.
Mr. Kemis then noted that Mr. Simoneaux of Walker & Lee and Mr. Eeadie repr.esei:ting the
Southland Corporation were proposing to build the Seven-Eleven market and werP available
to answer questions, and that the property was now in escrow. Furthermore, che.proposed
'buyer~ of the property were agreeable to all of the~ recommended conditions of the Report
to the Commission.'
i! - - -
~ t (~ ~ '
MINUTES; CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Apri1 21, 1969
, 4478
RECLASSZFICATION - Mr, Robert Beadle, representing SouthTand Corporation, 1570 East 17th:
N0
68-69-83
r
.
St
eet, Santa Ana, appeared before the Commission and.noted they were
(Continued) . the ,
~r
t F
~
»cr
ed buyers of subject property;.that they planned to develop
a Seven-Eleven food store, and ,:•nember of them were already in existence
~
in Anaheim - however, the architecture for subject property had been
improved and modernized, and then submitted a col
d
'
ore
rendering which
showed,severa3 typical
5even-Eleven-sEores. •' •
Mr. Beadle then noted that a survey and•$easibility study of the area had been made
and
a
t
,,
f
er.considerable deliberation, it was determined;there was a need for a convenience market
in thi
i
s gener:
area; that the Report to the Commission indicated there was no need - however
he
wished t
,
.
o assure the Commission that if there were no need, there would he no reason~for
~ them
to make th
t
m
t
'
.
e sta
e
ent
here was
a definite need; that there were approximately.;3200
stores in Southern California - therefore
this sh
ld
o
,
ou
be s
me indication that the,:developers
of the Seven-Eleven markets had some knowledge of usin
th
ro
g
e p
perty; that the baTance of
the property to the north would be developed into neighborhood service sho
s
s
h a
beau
'~~
p
,
uc
s
ty
or barber shops, etc.; and that the proposed Seven-Eleven structure would be on the southerly
100 feet
whil
h ~
,
e t
e northerly 77 feet woul~d be developed with the neighborhood service shops.
Furthermore
they had not ~'
,
proaressed sufficiently to plan to acquire any tenants since the
property was not owned by the proposed developer
but th
i
1
~'~~
,
e ent
re
77 feet were now ir. escrow. yr
Mr. Robert Justus, 502 South Dawn Street, appeared before the Commission in o
pposition
re
i .
'."~:
.
,
present
ng several ersons
P present in the Council Chamber also in opposition, and stated
he resided directl
southea
t
f ,..
".~;:~
y
s
o
subject property and had submitted a petition at the last
consideration of reclassification of the
r
p
operty, and was again submitting a-petition of
opposition signed by eight persons which stated ther
e were supermarkets within three blocks
of this.location and a convenience market within two blocks; that there
were two other
convenience markets cr.. State College IIoulevard southerly of Santa Ana Street and auoth
~~
er one
at State College and Morava Street, these being approximately 5/8 mile away; that the debris
produced by these ma~e
rs
.
~
s, such as paper wrappers, pop botties, etc., dropped by children as
they wandered by, c;ould make this a trashy and deterioratin
nei
hb
h
` `
^y
g
g
or
ood;.that a
market
near a residential area was not conducive to upbringing of our childre
i
n s
nce the attraction
of undesirable teenagers utilizing a market of this type as a hangout to
lan a
d
ndu
p
n
co
ct
mischievous activities in the neighborhood was a growing problem; that the changin
of the
b
=?~
g
zone
y the City would be breaking faith with the residents who had purchased their homes
with the understandin
that th ~
g
e area would se~ residential; that Santa Ana Street already
geaerated considerab le.
traffic noise
a
d th i~
.
,
n
e market would create more noise due to .the ~
inciease in traffic, thereby robbing the residents of che'ir necessa '
ry
eac
h ^k
't ~
p
e; t
at the market
would naturally have an access.to East Street, and East Street being a four-lane street with
t
o l
'
~
~~
w
anes.northbounc
nnd two lanes southbound had no provision to insEall left-turn pockets
for safety of vehi
les
m ~
!r~
c
preparing to,
ake a left turn, and if a business strip were developed,
Che:capacity of the street would
be'xeduced relati ~$~~
.
ve to the present zoning,• that the City
expended considerable money to increase the cspacity of the st
e
t
d
~~'
r
e
an
could not now turn
around and destroy this capacity by rezoning to detriment the funds alread
s
e
t
ha ti
'~
y
p
n
; t
t if
zoning were retained as R-2 and apartments were developed, it would generate approximately
i
Q
' ~ ~~?
ps per
}
,,~r
day per unit, whereas a commercial enterprise would generate upwards to 250
trips a day, thereby increasin
the a
id
t ~?'
g
c~
en
potential; that the traffic on East Street had
increased from 10,000 per day in 1967 to 15
000 per da
i
1968
i
h [
~
,
y
n
, w
t
a projection of up to
20,000 vehicles per day in the near future; and that if East Street
'
were extended as pro-
jected to Katella Avenue, the total projection for the street could reach 30
000 vehicles
d ;
,
per
ay. Furthermore, that if a business strip were allowed to develop and parking still
prohibited
E ~
on
ast Street, the residential streets surrounding the area would become
circulation routes for the i;'
cusomters as well as parking lots for the employees of the
various businesses
and that a '
~
,
n example of congestion could be noted durin
s on
Eset Street just south of La Palma Avenue
he
~
p
w
re a
child nursery was located,
and many
attempts to exit southbound or making a left turn into the
property on the east side of
the street created a very hazardous traffic situation. i
A letter of opposition was read to the Commission from two residents residing at 526 .
South East Street. j
Mr. Beadle, in rebuttal, stated the fea~itriLi~7y s~ a~ ~~ 8rea had been very detaiTed,
and frnm~ ihcir detezminati '
f
on, the near~st s~ore was the liquor store almost a half mile
away; that a supermarket was almost a half mile a
way; and to send children to those facili-
ties would be hazardous because of the volume of traffic i
thi a`
n
s general area; that there
were no storea as proposed all along East Street except for the supermarket at Lincoln and
East Str
'
eet - therefore, favorable consideration should be given to the proposal to proride
a neighborhood con
enie
ce s
'
v
n
ture
so that children would lie able'to walk to the store.
Mr. Beadle further noted that at the City Council public hearing they had gained the impres-
sion that the Council•
i
was
n favor of commercial uses for eubject property from the tax
standpoint since the avera&e sale at a Seven-Eleve
n store was 85~, which wou~d be generated
by foot traf.fic and wculd be only local people within the nei
hborho
d
k
g
o
ma
ing purphases,
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED,
; ~.~?"4
..: ...,.: ,.. ..; ,;
a ~ uu- ,v.~.7a.^.r n ~m ~r. aY 'TMi~':ceiFdi!k#1W9LS3~'VT,7?ri'd~".x.:f" ,.4'dit:n7 :ubtf; .+rv > :i, k. `k+N~~ QC ~.. • :r`. F ti • ~. f ,:.?t. ~ ' ~
~, . , .., .. ... . . ... .. ~
~., .: .~... , . ~,.
~ ~ .. .. . . . ~ ~ ..
MINUTES,<CITY PLANNING COMM?GSION, April 21, 1969 4479
RECLASSIFICATION. - Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No, pC:9-89 and moved for it's
~+:;~68=69-83 passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recoimnend to
;(Continued) ' the City CounciF that Petition for'Reclassification No. 68-69-83 be
disaPproved on the basis that•the proposed xeclassification was not in
" conformance with the.General Plan; that ro land use change had tak.en
place a,n the past five'months since'the Commission ~;~commended d3sapproval of art id~ntical
proposed reclassification ta warrant favorable consideration of commercial use of subject
property,,that..subject property was surrounded by xesidential uses, both low density and
medium den§ity,;and the:proposed reclassification would have a deleterious effect on the
rP~:idential integrity of the'area;:that the proposed reclassification of subject property
was`~not necessar.p or desirable for the orderly an3 proper development of the community; and
~~hat the pioposed reclassification of subject property did not proa~•r'y rplate to the zones
and'-their permitted uses established in close proximity. (See Resolution Boor)
On _ol~:icall the.foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano,'Gauex, Rowland.
NOES: < COMMISSIONERS; None.
'9BSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Herbst, Thom. •
RECLASSIFICA'PION - PUBLIC HEARING. JOHN W. AND.MILDRED SEAPY, 1253 Pearl Street, Anaheim, `:,
N0. 68-69-87 California, Owners; ROBERT S. MC MICHAEL, 469-A West Valencia Drive,
Fullerton, California, Agent; property described as: An irregularly
VARIANCE N0. 2078 shaped parcel consisting of approximately 2.6 acres of land having a
frontage oE approximately 230 feet on the north side of Pearl Street ^^""`~
TENTATIVE MAP OF and a maximum depth of approximately 315 feet, and located approximately
TRACT N0. 6819 490 feet west of the centerline uf Carleton Avenue (rec.e::si.Lication
•~e~•!.tion). Prorerty present•ly claae:°ied R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-~, c1UI.T7PLE-FAMILY RESTDENTIAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED VARIANC:~: %'roperty described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land consisting I"
: .~f approximately 3 acres, having a frontage of approximately 360 feet
on the north side of Pearl Street and a maximum depth of approximately
315 feet; and located approximately 490 feet west of the centerline of
Carleton Avenue, and further described as 1253 Pearl Street; WAIVERS OF
(1) P1IN~'~UM LOT WIDTH, (2) MINIMUM LOT AREA, (3) MINIMUM SETBACK FROM
INTERIOR LOT LINES, AND (4) REQUIRED SCREENING OF PARKING FACILITIES
FROM ADJACENT STREET, TO ESTABLISH 10 ONE-STORY DUPLEXES AND PERMIT AN ;
R-A ZONED PARCEL HAVING A MINIMUM LOT ARGA AND MINIMUM LOT WIDTIi LESS !,
THAN 'FiiE ONE ACRE AND 140 FEET REQUIRED. ~
TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPF.R: J. W. MC MICHAEL, 469-A West Valencia Drive,
Fullerton, California. ENGINEER: Anacal Engineering Company,'
222 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing the
- subdivis9.on o,`. a 2.6-acre parcel of land into 10 proposed R-2
zoned lots.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property and uses
established in close proximity, noting ~hat no previous zoning action had been considered on
subject property; that the petitioner was proposing to develop duplexes on ten R-2 zoned
lots which had a minimum lot width of less than the 70 feet required - however, the depth
increased the square footage per lot to over~the minimum requiretl; that a minimum setback i
from the interzor lot line was requested, with all lots having a 5-foot setback; and that ,
two of the du lex ~
p garage units had no screening from the adjacent street. Furthermore, ~
since,an R-A parcel of less than the minimum one acre required was being created on Parcel 2,
waivers of the minimum lot area and minimum lot width were also necessary. This R-A parcel
of 15,000 square feet was being retained by the present owner and was his existing residence.
Furthermore; subject property waa located in an area indicated by the General Plan as transi-
tional in nature between single-family residential to the north and medium density, multiple-
< fam2ly,residential to the south. ;
Mr. Robert MeMichaeT „ agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted
that because of the size of the parcel and with R-0 lots to the north, west and east and ;
R-3 to the soutfi, this was the reason for proposing one-story duplexes; that more than the
sequired green area was proposed in the rear yards; thac in order, to retain the R-1 cuncept,
,garages with doors were proposed - with two-car £arages for the three-bedroom duplexcs zad
one-car garages Eor the two-bedroom du~lexes - however, this~might be changed in the future; j
that.the re.^son for waiver of the side yard was because of the depth of the lot and the desire
to n:.:ir.~_ain Clie architectural amenities in this general area; that tne fronk yard would be !
`separated from Lhe drive with a masonry wall or grapesCake fence and planter; and that because =
'ef these reasons, ne was requesting tavorable consideration of the proposed development.
~
-- ,:~:..,,,y.:
~ __ _
~ ~ .~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,•April 2T, 1969 ~EO
RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. McMichael, in response to Commissio~ questiening regarding che R-A
N0. 6(`•69-87 parcel, stated that the petitioners were desirous of retaining ~heir
- existing-1800-square foot home which was made af slumpstone, and tliat
VARIANCE N0. 207.3 the petitioner had reviewed the propo~ed development to make sure that
the plans would be acceptable to their living environment:
TENTATIVE MAP.OF
TRACT N0. 6819 The Commissian further noted that reclassifying Che R-A parcel to tfie
(Continued) R-2 Zone would not prohibit t;he petitioner from xesiding in this home
as i.C rresently existed unless he intended in the future to reclassify
this to the R-3 Zone or commercial.
Dr.". .'. Wiseman, 1206 Dwyer Drive, appeared before the Commission, noting he represented
~ owners along Dwyer Drive; that they were not opposed to the proposal of duplexes which were
single-story, but were opposed to the waiver of the setback from the interior lot line as
it applied to the north property line; thaC his lot abutted subject property for approxi-
mately 160 feet, and a swimming ;,ooi, was now located within 10 feet of the propercy line;
that it would also be objectionable to permit windows to be proposed where a swimming pool
was located so close to the property li.ne; that ~11 [he residents alon~'D~ryer Drive had
paid a considerable amount of money for their lots and felt they should be given some pro-
tection as to their interests.
Mr. McMichael noted that there were four R-0 lots which backed up to the northerly property
line, and he could see where there would be some concern by these property owners - however,
the cul-de-sac street would be at the northerly portion of subject property, and the manner
in which the pr~posed structures would be built on these lots would be more appealing than
having long, barracks-type buildings; that a portion of the structure was proposed to be a
30-foot garage wherein no windows were proposed - however, there were two windcws in the
bedroom and bathroom, but sinae a 6-foot masonry wall was required to be built and the
windows proposed were to be located toward the upper portion of the room, only 8 inches
would be available to look over the proposed masonry wall,.and in all likelihood, only the
top of the homes to.the north would be seen.
The Commission noted that the plan proposed was a reasonable plan for the area, although
other more compatible ones would be as desirable, and the proposed duplexes would.act as
a good traneition between the R-3 to the south and the R-0 to the north; that the variances
requested for the two northerly lots of the proposed tract were somewhat excessive, and
the concern of the res3.dents to the north was cnderseandable - therefore, waiver of this
requirement along the north property line as it pertained to rooms with windows should meet
Code requtrement - however, the garages proposed permitted to be located within 5 feet of
the property line.
Zor.ing Supervisor Charles Roberts, in response to Commission questioning, stated that two
of the waivers, minimum lot area and minimv~ loc width, pertained to the R-A parcel since
it would be less than one acre and less than 140 feet in width.
Commissioner Gauer expressed concern that many of these large parcels were redeveloping and
a small parcel being retained in the R-A Zone, thereby giving the appcsrance that portions
were being held out for more intense use in the future - therefore, the Parcel 2, proposed
to be le~s than permitted under the R-A Zone, should be reclassified.
Mr. John Seapy, owner of the R-A parcel, appeared before the Commis~ion and noted that if
the Commission were insistent, he would be agreeable to reclassifying his property to the
R-2 Zone, so long as he were able to reside in the existing structure on subject property.
Discussion was then held by the Commission relative to contieuance of aubject petitions in
order ta include the R-A parcel as a portion of the reclassification, and upon its conclusion,
Mr. P•IcI!i.chael stated that thi~ would create some~rh~t of a problem since it was difficult to
convince lenders that a development was acceptable, and continuance sometimes meant loss of
fir.ancing.
Commissioner Rowland inquired ~,%?ether or not reclassification of Parcel 1 would be subject
to approval of reclassificari~n af Parcel 2; whereupon Mr. R.oberts advised the Commission
that this would be rather di,'ficu?t since conditional zoning was not generally acceptable
by the Council.
Assistant City Attorney John Dawson noted that although the R-A parcel was advertised, it
had been advertised only for waivers and not for reclassification - therefore, the cost of
advertising would be an additional fee; Chat this might be considered a technical problem
since those persons interested or wanting to express opposition had already been notified
and probably were presencing their opposition now - however, this was not known to be a
facC, and, therefore, the property passibly would have to be advertised for reclassification.
Mr. Dawson further noted that the reclassification of the R-A parcel could be unly a require-
ment of the variance a;•i not a requirement of the reclassification.
i..
t.
r . . ._. ., .,. :., .
2: =, .
Q ~~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April•21, 1969 4481
RECLASSIFICATION - Mr, McMichael requested consideration be p,iven to the petitions before
N0:'68-69-87 . the`Commission rather than continuance, and he would assure the Commission
` that reclassification of the R-A parcel would be forthcoming within a
VARIANCE N0. 2078 week.
TENTATIVE-MAP OF . Dr. Wiseman again.inquired as to.how.the 6-foot masonry wall would be
TRACT N0. 6819 eatablished and r.•hat drainage facilities were being provided since it
(Continued) . would be necessary to put some fill into subject property, which would
then raise the height of subject property, creating invasion of privacy.
Mr. McMichael noted that although a portion of subject property would require fill adjacent
to the northerly property line; the properties to the north of this line would be lbwer
; than subject properEy, and xhe height of the wall was measured from the highest grade Zevel
of subject.or adjoining property -'therefore, in reality, the height would be more than
6 feet as measured from the properties to the north.
Dr. Wiseman stated they were not in basic opposition to other than the waiver of che side
lot setback adjoining the north property line, and if the req~•ired 11-foot side yard setback
were retained as the R-2 Code stipulated, no opposition would have been presented since the
proposal was an excellent use of ehe property.
Mr; McMichael then asked for direction by the,Commission as to what should be done as far
as those lots were concerned; whereupon the Commission stated that this could be resolved
at the staff level, and the walls of the proposed structures having windows would have to
be set back, although the garage units would not have to be - however, the balance of the
waiver of the interior lot lines was of no concern, and waiver of those .::~a considered
appropriate.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolutioa No. PC69-90 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Farano, to recommend to Che City Council that Petition for Reclassi-
fication No. 68-69-87 be approved, with a finding that the Planning Coimnission determined
that both Parcels 1 and 2 should be included within the request for R-2 zoning, and the
petitioner sti},ulated to said rezoning; furthermore, that the Commission recoimnends that the
City„Clerk include_Parcel 2 in the legal advertisement for eh~_ City Council public hearing
on Reclassification No., 68-E9-87; and that the Planning Commission further recommends that
subject.petition for reclassification for both Parcels 1 and 2 to the R-2 Zone under said
reclassification petition be approved by the City Council, and subject Co conditions.
(See Resolution Book) ,
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYRS: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Rowland. ,
NORS: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Herbst, Thom.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC69-91 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Farano, to grant Petition for Variance No. 2078 in part, denying
the waiver of 1(t.) and (e) referring to the R-A zoned portion on the basis that the peti-
tioner stipulated to reclassification of Parcel 2 to the R-2, Multiple-Family Residential,
Zone, said waivers then would not be necessary, and approving waiver o£ 1(b) in part, to
permit the requested deviation from Code-required setbacks from the interior lot lines
except for the required setbacks along the north boundary of subject property (Lots 4 and
5 of Tract No. 6819) which should be in con~ormance with minimum standards specified in
the R-2 Zone, subject to conditions, and adding to Condition No. 4, "provided that the
strr~etural setbacks along the north boundary c~c' subject property (Lots 4 and 5 of Tract
No, 6819) shaZl be in conformance with minimum standarcis specified in the R-2 Zone".
(See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Faraao, Gauer, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ '
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: f'amp, Herbst, Thom.
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 6819, seconded
by Commissioner Gauer, and MOTION CARRIED, subject to the following conditions:
1. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each
subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval.
t~~~T f~fh ~/~'' } c~' S I f~ . d . h'}M` A3iA2!%"t41YL4F.
y7 i 3 -e t~i,f3 _~:~., ~~ ~ ;' + + ..~: . :
~ !
' ~Yi S I'. , ,~id. 5 '
-
~
~ t~ ~ ,!,~ ~ .
,
~ ~. 2 t . .. ., ' ~ ,
{ y ~ ~
MINUTES; CITY:PLA1VrIING COhQtISSION
April-•21
1969
,
,
4482:.
RE~LASSIFICATION 2~ That the approval~^of Tentative-:Ma
rof`Tract N
-
68
p
o.
19 is grar.ted
NO 68:69 87~t°' suliject to
;the approval":of Reclassificati
n N
-
;
..
,
o
o. 68
69-87 and
'' ?~~ Variance No 2078
•.- ...~ ~ . .. ~.,
'
^ .:VARIANCEzNO. >2078 ,` ,.. : ,_ ~
` ` - 3 ThaE the new street shall be recorded'as Dwyer Place
.
. ;
TENTATZVE MAP
~OF' ; ' ' ' . <
.
,
~~TRACT~NO 6819 4.That all lots within tiiis:tract shall be served by;undergrouad
~
~
-
(Continued) - ~:.ilities,'
"A~JOIJBiv*MENT - There being no'further business'.to discuss, Commissioner Farano
offered`.a motion to adjourn c•Le meeting.:'Commisaioner:Rowlaad
+ seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. `
p ``
The meeting adjourned at 5:15 P.M. 'r
. . . ;`~
Respectfully submitted,
,
'~
~
I ~r .,
~ . ~ ~~ ~.
:~/
, ~ '
^~
,
.
ANN KREBS,~Secretary _,
~
.
~
4':
Anaheim City Planning Commission ,
c;
. . . . - . ;:~,.
~
. . ;h3
. . . . ~ . ~ .y~~T' ~
. . ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ . . ~ ~ . . ~ l
~~,
. ~ ~ ~ . . . w..
' .~ ~ ~ . , . ~ .-. . . . ~ . . ~ . . ~~..
' . . ~~
~
. . . . . . . : . .
~ ~ . . ~
.
..
~ ., ~ ~ ~
~ ,~
~tah
.
.
.
.
. . . . . . . . ,. .
~ .~4
. . , ~ . .. . . . . ~ . ~ ~ . . . . ~.
..
~ i}^;~
. , . . . . , . . . ~ .
. . _ . . . ...
~ . ~ ;~
. .
. . ~ . . ~ . . . ~ . ~
. ~ . . ~ - ~ ~ .. ~ . . ~ . ~ . . ~ . . . ~ ~ ~ . , ;~r.'r
c
~ . . . ~ ~ . ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ . . . . . . . . ~ ~ . . . . , *_ tin
1aS
. . . ~ . . . ~ ~ ;~~~
.
, ~. . . . . . . . . .
. ~ . . ~ . ~ ~ . ~
i
~- ;~
~~~..,.,..
e _