Minutes-PC 1969/05/19'~ . ;~1,.. 3~ ~1~~. c:~^~y'C4~."'~nC`f ~7'~.'~~_i, _. ~.rY . • . ,~y~ f, ~i r
::!cw:"i. .~F14, ,.nn+ .y:. . / .+1~ ~ !`+.~Y:i ~ .i~i
~ ~ . . ~,~ ~ .. .. .^
~
CiCy Hall
Anaheim, California
May 19, 1969
A REGULAR MEETING OF Tli~ ANA~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called
to order:by Chairman Allred at 2:00 o'clock P.M., a quorum being
present.
PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Allred.
- COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst (who entered the Council Chamber
at 2:45 P.M.), Rowland, Thom.
ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Camp.
PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Ronald Thompson
Assistant City Attorney: John Dawson
Office Engineer: Jay Titus
Zoning Supervisor: Charles Roberts
Assistant Zoning Supervisor: pat Brown
Assistant Planner: William Young
Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE - Commisaioner Thom led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag,
APPROVAL OF - The Minutes of the meetings of April 2, 28, and May 5, 1969, were
THE MINUTES approved as submitted, on motion by Commissioner Thom, seconded by
Commissioner Rowland, and MOTZ~?N CARRIED.
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. MR. AND MItS, W. L. HOLLOWELL, Route 1, ~
N0, 68-69-86 Box 84A, Ramona, California, Owners; William A. Polkinghorn, ~
777 Silverapur Road, Suite 221, ,.~alos Verdes Penninsula, California, ~
VARIANCE N0. 2077 Agent; property described as: i~,i irregularly shaped parcel of land ~
located on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road uorth of the ~F
intersection of Walnut Canyon Road and Santa Ana Canyon Road and S
having a frontage of approximately 776 feet on Santa Ana Canyon Road. Property presently ~
ciassified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZpNE,
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED VARIANC,:: WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM LOT AREA AND (2) MINIMUM LOT WIDTH,
TO ESTABLISH A 64-LOT SUBDIVISION.
Subject petitions were continued from the meeting of April 21, 1969, in order to allow
the petitionera time to redesign subject proposal so as to eliminate several problem
areas and for the recommendations of the Commission for the establishment of 7200-square
foot• lots.
E',ssistant Zoning Supersisor Pat Brown advised the Commission that a letter had been
received from Che agent for the petitioner requesting termination of subject petitions
since the Federal Houaing Administration adviaed him financing would not be given until
traffic signals were placed at the corner of Walnut Canyon and Santa Ana Canyon Roads.
Commisaioner Rowland offered a motion to terminate all proceedings on Petitions for
Reclassification No. 68-69-86 and Variance No. 2077 as requested by the petitioners.
Commissioner Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
VARIANCE N0. 2079 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, GLADYS T. POYET, 1541 Wilshire Boulevard,
Los Angeles, California, Owner; Boreham Investment Company, 1541
Wilahire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, Agent; requesting
permiasion to ESTABLISH A 142-UNIT APARTTlENT COMPLEX, WITH WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM
DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS, (2) MAXIMUM NUMgER OF BUILDINGS PER SITE, (3) MINIMUM NUMBER
OF COVERED PARKING S'TALLS, (4) MAXIMUM DISTANC~ OF A DWELLING UNIT FROM A STANDARD STREET,
AND (5) MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK on property described as: A rectangularly abaped parCel
of aaproximately 5 acrea of land located on the east side of Magnolia Avenue, approxim~sEei~
325 feet north of the centerline of Broadway, having a frontage of approximately 333 f~et
k503 •
0 ~ ~
MINU'tES, CITY PLANNING COt~fISSION, May 19, 1969 4504
: VARIANCE N0. 2079 -.and a depth of approximately 600 feet. Property presently classified
(Continued) R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE (Resolution of Intent to R-3 pending).
Sub~ect petition was continued from the meeting of May 5, 19f?9, in order to allow the
petitioners time to rQVise plans so as to bring the proposed apartment project into
closer',coaformance wihh the siEe development standards of the R-3 2one.
Asaistant.Zoning ,SuFervisor Pat Brown reviewed the lacation of subject property, the uses
established in close proxim3ty, the proposed zoning on the property, and the waivera
requested, noting that the original plans submitted had less than the minimum building
site area per dwelling unit - howe4er, this had been eliminated by a reduction of the
units from the original 162 to the present r+evised plans of 142; that the unit density
~ factor was 36.1 dwelling units per net acre r,ad the lot coverage was 47.5%; and that
all of the covered parking proposed would mee,t minimum Code requirement of'lOx2Q-foot
dimension - therefore, as a result of the new revisions, the plan presented a more desir-
able development than originally p~oposed, with ample recreation and open area, parking
facilities, and vehicui~r circulation, and in order to give a more open area, patios
would not be enclosed.
Mr, Harry Knisely, atterney representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission
and noted that the waivers requested were technical, and parking would be in excess of
that required, although belce:a the minimum covered parking requirement.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissi•oner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC69-100 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to grant Petition for Variance No. 2079, subject to
condition~. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIO~~iERS: Farano, Gauer, Rowland, Thomy Allred.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Herbst.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. LA SALLE DOWNEY INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES, 9350 Wilshire
N0. 68-69-92 Boulevard, Beverly Hills, California, Owner; ALLAN I. NEMIROFF, 9538
Brighton Way, Beverly Hills, California, Agent; property described
CONDITIONAL USE as; An irregularly shaped parcel containing approximately 40 acres
PERMIT N0. 1112 of land located south and west of the southwest corner of La Palma
Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard, having approximate frontages of 1,314
feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue, 984 feet on the west side
of Kraemer Boulevard, including the frontage along the freeway on-ramp, 650 feet on the
southeast side of North Street (abandoned), 760 feet on the northeast side of White Star
Avenue, and 710 feet on the north side of Canal Street~ Property presently classified
COUNTY 100-M1-20,000, INDUST4IAL, DISTRICT.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. ~
REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A 257-SPACE TRAILER PARK, WITH WAIVER OF REQUIRED ~
SETBACK FROM AN ARTERIAL HIGHWAY.
Assistant Zoning 5upervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of sub ect ~
established in close proximity, noting that the property was stilljunderrtherjurisdiction
of the County, but prezoning requests were before the Commission for reclassification to j
the R-A Zone and permission under the conditional use permit to establish a 257-space i
trailer park.
Mr. Brown then reviewed Orange County Planning Commiasion action on subject property; ~
in June, 1963, under Orange County Uae Variance No, 5182, the owner of subjeck pro ert ('
proposed to establish a 362-space trailer park and the P Y
. petition was denied by the prange t,:
County Planning Commission, with no appeal filed with the Board of Supervisors, thy~
sustaining the Planning Commission's action; that at the time the action was to be con-
sidered by the County, the Anaheim Planning Commission recommended denial of this request,
indicating their concurrence with the Industrial Areas Analysis in which recommendation
No. 8 stated "that no further residential uses, including trailer parks, be permitted in ~
the Northeast Industrial Area"; and that the City Council, in concurring with the Planning ~
Commission's recommendation, stated that at the present time the Council felt the indus- i
trial development in the area indicated a definite pattern for industrial development ~
throughout this area, including the parcel covered under the variance application, and that ;
i .
~t:: ..
~t • 'r' C tl':.
~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 19, 1969 4505
RECLASSIFICATION - to allow ~esidential use even on a temporary basis at that time would
N0. 68-69-92 be detrimental to the industrial development of this area,
CONDITIONAL USE Mr. Brown, in reviewing the proposal, noted that the site was a 40-acre
PERMIT N0. 1112 parcel, but only 32'~ acres was proposed for the mobile home park, and
(Continued) the plans indicated future commercial development on the balance
fronting along La Palma Avenue - however, this commercial zoning
request was not part of the rezoning application at this time; that the plans indicated
no trailer space setback from either Kraemer Boulevard or White Star Avenue, whereas
Code would require a minimum landgcaped setback of 20 feet from both streets; that a
system of curvi-linear, 30-foot wide streets had been indicated with a 100-foot wide,
divided street leading into the park from La Palma Avenue; and that the recreation-
accessory building Was located in the central part of the proposed mobile home park.
Mr. Brown then reviecaed the fact that the Anaheim General Plan indicates industrial uses
as being appropriaCe far .this area - therefore, the primary issue before the Commission
was one of land use, and in several similar mobile home park requests before the City
of Anaheim, wherein the Commission recommended denial or denied the request for location
of mobile home parks in an industrial area, the Commission indicated that the proposed
uses would adversely affect the adjoining land uses and growth and development of the
area; that the granting of any such proposed uses would set an undesirable precedent by
permitting residential uses to encroach into areas set aside for industrial development;
that the majority of these sites did not meet the criteria suggested by the Mobile Home
Industry - namely, residential characteristics, close proximity to community and shopping
services, as well as to schools, so that residents of this facility might enjoy a resi-
dential type of environment for sociological, health, and safety reasons; and that the
school distric[s serving these industtial areas did not project their future needs as to
school facilities on the asaumption that the industrial areas would have to be served
with schools, and children would have to be bussed from the mobile home park to school
facilities; and, furthermore, any industrial developments which had taken place or were
contemplated to take place in industrial areas should be afforded the same protection
from undesirable, incompatible uses that the City granted to residential uses - thus,
residential encroachment into the industrial areas should be discouraged. Furthermore,
that sub~ect property was a prime parcel for industrial development, consisting of
approximately 40 acres, with frontages on two primary highways, La Palma Avenue and
Kraemer Boulevard, and having freeway exposure along the southerly perimeter. Also, land
use policies established in this area in the past years indicated mobile home park uses
in this area would not be appropriate, and that studies conducted by numerous mobile
home park authorities indicated that the demand £or community services generated by
mobile home parks was similar to that created by apartments; that traffic generated by
mobile home parks was equal to traffic generated by multiple-family developments; and
that the site most appropriate would be where residential uses, such as multiple-family
development, were permitted within a city.
Mr. Odra Chandler, attorney representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission
and reviewed the proposal, noting that the mobile home park would be established on
32 acres of the 40-acre site, and then reviewed the street boundaries of subject pzoperty,
noting that there was no freeway exposure since the large parcel to the south belonged to
the State of California.
A colored rendering of the proposed trailer park was then placed on display.
Mr~ Chandler continued that subject property was economically subjected to the u~es
established or proposed for the balance of the property in this area - however, subject {
property, because of its geographic location, would not establish a precedent because {
it was bounded on the north by La Palma Avenue, on the east by Kraemer Boulevard over-
crossing and on-ramp of the Riverside Freeway, and would not hold or deter devel~pment ~
of the balance of the land for industrial purposes because of these physical barriers;
that the Commission in their inspection of properties to be considered at public hear3ng
must have noted there was a considerable slope between subject property and the freeway
overpass; that to his knowledge there was a 15-foot setback on White Star Avenue, and
immediately to the west on La Palma Avenue the La Palma Avenue overcrossing of the
freeway located approximately one-quarter of a mile away was another geographic boundary; '
that the developers had attempted to create an isolated factor from industrial uses to ~
the north by maintaining a 300-foot setback for future commercial or industrial develop- ~
ment; that the petitioner felt that the property should not be equated with the balance
of the industrial property in this area and should be given some special relief as to ~
the types of uses because of this isolated factor, and favorable consideration should ~
be given to subject petitions; that the statement made by the staff that mobile home ~
parks were not a good interim use in an industrial area was debatable, and if the Commis- ?
sion were not already familiar with the mobile home park in the Disneyland area which
was established some years ago, it was sold recently to construct high-rise offices and ~
other compatible uses in the Commercial-Recreation Area; and that the proposed interim ~
, . ~
~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 19~ 1969 4506
RECLASSIFICATION - use would provide an income for the property owner, as well as to
N0. 68-69-92 the City of Anaheim through sales tax, mobile home vehicle tax, and
income tax.
CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT N0. 1112 Mr. Chandler then reviewed the number of acres which the City Council
(Continued) and the PJ.anning Commission had set aside for industrial purposes,
which were extensive, and a research and feasibility study made by
them indicated that there were 3,864 acrea eatablished for industrial
purposes, comprised of 3,219 acres in the City, with an additionax 645 acres which could
eventually be annexed into the City; that at the rate of industrial development over the
past years from 1961 to 1968, with an average of 42.9 acres per year or an absorption
rate of 2'~%, at the present trend this would mean forty years before some of the owners
of properties in the industrial areas could realize a return from the sale or lease of
their properties, and by including the 645 acres which could be annexed eventually,
this would increase it to 54 years at an absorption rate of 1.8%; that the Planning
Commission and City Council, as well as [he Planning Department, had a duty to permit
interim uses of these properties in order that the owners might realize a small return
to pay for taxea until industrial development occurred; that vacant land did not stimulate
building in an area as much as scarcity of land - even a simulated scarcity would create
this stimulus; and that Autonetics was the only large industrial development in this area
therefore, something should be done to utilize this land - otherwise properties would
pass from one owner to another until eventual development or until it was their turn in
the yearly 42-acre absorption rate.
Mr. Chandler further noted that Percy Goodwin Company had made a survey and devised a
plan wherein the streets and accessways could be used in the future for other developments
so that the investment for this improvement could be recovered when a different type of
use was proposed; that he would like to point out that the Planning staff had taken issue
with the fact that the area was not acceptable ~or mobile home parks since it could not
meet the criteria which so-called authorities established - however, he would like to
assure the Commission that the proposed development could meet this criteria; that the
staff was reiterating the Planning Commission and City Council action on other requests -
however, in the industrial areas of Vernon and City of Commerce, their industrial uses
were considerably heavier than those uses which were permitted in the Anaheim industrial
zone - therefare, these statements should not be appZied to the Anaheim industrial areas;
that the proposed park was being designed for adults only, and, therefore, there would
be no burden placed on schools, and other mobile home parks oriented to adults had a
minimal number of children; and that historically, from past development, the Commission
was aware commercial facilities were available within a five-minute drive from anywhere
in the City. Furthermore, he would like to have an opportunity to rebut any opposition
presented since he was unaware of any letters of opposition on file„
Dr. Leo C. Ward, 10884 Santa Monica Boulevard, Los Angeles, appeared before the Commission
in opposition, noting he also had a letter of opposition on file; that he had four acres
immediately to the north on La Palma Avenue and was also representing Mr„ George Page,
who also had 8'~ acres ad]acent to his property; that they were strongly opposed to the
mobile home park proposal since he had recently completed and leased a 40,000-square foot
industrial building and had under construction a similar size building to the north of
sub~ect property; that he was strongly opposed to the proposed use because the highest
and best use of the property in keeping with previous ylanning for industry was not
propoaed; that he had purchased and developed his property in the area with the assurance
that restrictions, architecture, and landscape planting would retain an ideal industrial
climate; that the development of a trailer area would create a problem of traffic, police
and fire protection - in changing the area from industrial to residential, such services
as schools, transportation, commercial, medical, and various utilities were nnt now
available; that a change of zoning would initiate a hodge-podge of unorganized mixture
of residential and industrial spot planning; that most investors in the area had purchased
land with the ultimate goal of industrial development; that there was an ample supply of
good, residentially zoned property in Anaheim so that it was unnecessary to encroach in
the industrial area and it was necessary to maintain the industrial land for future
development; that because of the close proximity to several major freeways, properties
in this general vicinity were desirable for national corporatiqns to locate here; that
the creation of jobs by industry was the most important facet in development of a city;
and that present national corporations had chosen this area with the projeetion of a
desirable industrial location - therefore, he urged that the Commission be fully cognizant
of the importance of a well organized city plan by not creating this mixture, and faith
should be kept wiCh the companies that had developed or were planning to develop in this
area.
Mrs. Jessie Coykendall, 15332 East La Palma Acenue, appeared before the Commission, noting
that they owned the property immediately to the west of White Star Avenue; that she was
not sure whether they were opposed to the trailer park or not - however, there were a
number of things she wished to diycuss, namely, that the developers construct a 6-foot
~<~lT'~"!'"x 4'" ~~ ~"' `'~t~ax~«R' ~u „s~~a h ~ g °y ~ nxP"fl ~', ~, ~ ~ r :'r~,"* r~ `~' 3 a.zf v~ ~ , y.,:.
i., ~ .. ~'~/ _ Fj,l,: i,~.
.-., . ~ . . .. . . ~ ., . - ~ ~:
~ ~ i )
~~_.i
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 19, 1969 45U"q~
RECLASSIFICATION - masonry wall; that the exit on White Star Avenue be deleted since
N0. 68-69-92 this would cause a problem as far as their crops were concerned; that
even though the agent for the petitioner stated ther~r V~~:~ be no
CONDITIONAL USE children, this was a debatable statement; that wit~ ~~~' Zsz:~.#+~r~
PERMIT N0. 1112 proposed, this would bring many people into the a~~Fe~r. r,~;;+l~ ~~~ ~~.~8e
(Continued) grove would be subjected to both children and adu:l,~.z~ ~~ ~~'y- ~t~ing
the fruit but damaging the trees and the propert?~;. i:~t~y, ~s~r ~a~,a~;~chls
and pesticideg used for combating weeds and inseC~.s( ,~•$~;~,•,r. d,t+ ?~~tF~s~~i
to the residents of this mobile home park; that there were also oil wr~~r :;~ ~,,>~,a:'sder on
their property; that the entrance and exit should be established for La Faz~e ~v'.ena.e if
subject petition were approved since this would eliminate some of the dangers to the
residEnts of the proposed park, as well as protect their property; that the windmills
located on their orange grove ran all night during cold weather in order to keep from
losing their crop by a freeze; that the tractors and trucks used in cultivating the grove
and picking up fruit, as well as epraying, could create considerable dust and other
problema and could result in residents of tnis park complaining abont these health hazards
and possibly force them to abandon their groves; that it was her intent to maintain th~
orange grove for a considerable number of years; and that during the rainy season there
would be considerable run-off from subject property which would drain onto the grove,,
anti it was urged proper drainage for the mobile home park be required in order that the
grove would not be further damaged.
Commissioner Herbst entered the Council Chamber at 2:45 P.M.
Mrs. Coykendall further noted that because of improper drainage when a tract was develope.d
in Placentia near Kraemer Boulevard, the court had halted further development until steps
were taken to provide adequate drainage - therefore, the City of Anaheim must see to it
that adequate drainage was provided from subject property, and that if the proposed mobile
home park were developed, she did not want to be placed ~• a position to pay for the
expense of improving White Star Avenue if access were pr.;,.:tted from White Star Avenue.
The Commission Secretary read seven letters cf opposition from Autonetics, Lianel-Pacific,
Inc., Orange Development Co., Inc., Gate Properties, Inc., Leslie G. Landau, Bryan
Induatrial Properties, Inc., and Dr. Leo C. Ward, all developera or owners of industrial
properties, developed or undeveloped, in close proximity to subject property, opposing
the establishment of the mobile home park due to the incompatibility of the use with
industrial uses in this area.
Mr. Chandler, in rebuttal, stated that all those in opposition, both letters and persons,
did not have the same problem as subject property due to the fact that subject property
was isolated from the industrial area, and those properties developing along the north
side of La Palma Avenue had prime property for industrial development; that the proposed
developer of the mobile home park had gone to great lengths to provide a buffer area for
the proposed mobile home park and the industrial properties to the north, and there would
be no increase in the amount of traffic than any other use that would be developed on
subject property would generate; that Autonetics did atate in their letter that the use
would not have any disadvantageous effect on their operation, although they did state
their own operation might create prohlema for the mobile home park; that the woman in
oppoaition relative to protection of her grovea and the possibility of children or adults
invading the groves - this was something all the groves in Orange County had to face,
but historically there were very few problems which had been reported relative to mische-
vous and destructive children; that the noises from the wind machines would be consider-
ably less than noises from the industrial area, as well as competing with the noises from
the Riverside Freeway; that although the piana of development indicated the park abutting
the Riverside Freeway, this was in anticipation of the Sta[e releasing any excess praperty,
and it was their intent to landscape this area to provide a green area between the freeway
and the mobile home park which could act as part of the recreati~nal facility; that 238
of the lots would be in exceas of 50 feet, only twelve would be 45 feet, and seven would
be 36 feet; that the majority of the lots would have double-s3ze mobile homes and would
be the of the expando type, with 1200 to 1600-square foot homes when completely set up;
that an attempt had been made to provide a street pattern and a separation area between
industry on the north and subject property on which mobile homes were proposed; and that
with the La Palma overpass of the freeway, the property was depressed, and the petitioner
was entitled to some relief from being isolated from the balance of the industrial property.
Furthermore, the opposition from those who leased properties was not as valid as thE
petitioner's since they had less financial problems because of their location; that at
the present time the new Autonetics complex on a 2700-acre industrial park would remove
a number of the employees from the Anaheim facility, and there was no assurance that the
ma,jor industrial employer in this area would maintain the number of employees presently
employed; and that although there has not been an indication this would happen, the City
must be realistic in facing this possibility.
Mr. Chandler further noted that the Commission should think about diversification of
properties in this area since it was important to developers of the area to utilize
__ _
~ ~
MINUTES; CIT'~' PI:ANN3NG COMPSISSION,. May 19, 1969
~
4508
RECLASSIFICATION - their properties with more diversified uses, and that the proposed
N0. 68-69-92 use, in,his opinion, would not affect the industrial area because
of its isolated location and the fact that Kraemer Boulevard frontage
CONDITIONAL USE was not availab'le for access to it.
PERMIT N0. 1112
(Continued) T.he Commission inquired what length of time as an interim use would
be.conaidered adequate; to which Mr. Chandler replied a minimum of
twenty years because financing was not obtainable unless twenty
years was considered for the use, and this would not be too excessive since at the rate
of development in the Northeast Industrial Area of 42 acres per year, development of
sub~ect property for industriaL purposes might not take place.even after the twenty year
period.
The Commission further noted that subject property had freeway exposure and could have
freeway frontage; whereupon Mr, Chandler stated that the State had the excess freeway
property, and the City would be the first to be offered this excess property at the time
the State declared it available - therefore, it was always possible that if the City did
not exercise its first claim to the property, the State could sell it to someone else,
and this freeway frontage, then, would be lost.
The Commission further noted that it was their ~pinion subject property was not an isolated
parcel since it had frontage along a major street, which was La Palma Avenue,
Mr. Chandler noted that it was his feeling this was a depressed area since it was somewhat
distant from the industrial area, and taking a sight line from Kraemer Boulevard, the
distance bRtween the freeway and Kraemer Boulevard, there was a feeling of isolation in
coming of~£ the off-ramp on Kraemer Boulevard, and exposure would not be the same as
Autonetics had.
I c:ommissioner Herbst noted that many of the industrial plants in Southern California were
viewed from a freeway lsecause of elevation, and adequate exposure for subject property
was noted from a flat road because subject property would have a 1000-foot frontage on
La Palma Avenue which would not indicate an isolated parcel.
Mr, Allgn Nemiroff, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated
that the owner of subject property had had the property for five years and originally
intended to deveiop it for industrial purposes which he felt was the most appropriate
use at that tfine; t~at the property had been on the market for five years, and they were
unable to sell i.t even though the asking price was reasonable; that another reason for
dif£zculty in'seliing k~he property was because it was a very large parcel which was not
served by Yailroads and p~,ecluded a ma,jor user of this property - therefore, the only
solution would be to davelop 15,000 to 20,000-square foot buildings and lease them to
various small, industrial conCerns which needed no rail service, and if 10,000-square
foot buildings were con.strnc:ked, this would mean approximately 80 buildings and could
mean considerably mare 2saf~ic,
Mr. Nemiroff then stated that the statements made by the staff in quoting the Motor
Coach Association regarding mobile homes were somewhat antiquated since tne statemenCs
were made years ago when there were only small trailers and the only available space
was in the least desirable area, sometimes in an ir~dustrial area which could not be
used for anything else; conseque~tly, this stigma was still attached to anything referred
to as trailers - however, the new mobile home parks were well laid out and had a good
community atmosphere. Therefore, the statement made that it was necessary to take this
type of residential use out of the industriai area could not apply since subject pzoperty
had natural barriers.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst noted that a good ~~mple of what a mobile home park would do to an
industrial area could be noted when was permitted to
`establish on the north side of 0;angethorpe Avenue in~ ndus.tria ~~ all industrial
properties north of this mobile home park had converted to either e~dential or commer-
ciai uses, and no industriaL development had occurred because of this breakdown of the
industriai area. Therefore, this was one reason why the Planning Commission and City
Council had determined that Orangethorpe Avenue would be the delineation line between
any residential and industrial uses, and since that time, the integrity of this area had
been retained by not permitting residential uses south of Orangethorpe Avenue, and there
would be many industrial firms who would appreciate the type of exposure and size~of
subject property for u major development.
Commissioner Gauer noted that when public hearings were held on the 1969 General Plan,
Industrial Element, one person had suggested that some interim use be permitted of Che
industrial property and suggested mobile home parks - howe~er, on~e that type of facility
n
3FM. . ~a.{~'j r ' ~. rr T~ ~ '1'' :~.?i~ xT~ar~r'rC f ~ ~.S "~p~i + M1 .4'~L '~14"Lt"~F2K s ~ S ,yr^ y r
. a'i .; ,.i'FK r4 ~,:;. 4 y~f,^ s.. k~ i~ ~.. .~'`''~. #w i~ ,r 1.~ j~7 ' 7 c;
s~-- .-'-- '=-' -
.~ ~ . . . ~ ~. . . ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 19, 19b9 4509
RECLASSIFICATION - was permitted to encroach into the industrial areas, other services
N0. 68-69-92 would be necessary, such as shopping facilities, medical services,
etc., and this would be very harmful to the potential of an industrial
CONDITIONAL USE area, and that a good mobile home park did offer many people a desir-
PERMIT NO> 1112 able place to reside, but the industrial area was not a place to
(Continued) locate this type of facility. Furthermore, because of the noises,
hours of operation, lights and odors that might emanate from an
industrial area, encroachment of residential uses would cause com-
plaints - therefore, the City must r~aintain the area for industrial purposes, and the
only interim use that could be conaid~:red wou13 be agricultural, and it was his suggestion
that the Commission should recommc:nd to the City Council that the County Tax Assessor
should provide some tas: relief for industrially zoned properties which were presently used
for agricultural purposes - not necessarily placing these properties into an agricultural
preserve, but because the City did not feel other uses would be considered acceptable as
interim uses, these property owners who were holding theix properties for eventual indus-
trial development but were utilizing them for agricultural purposes, should be given tax
relief, and the City should encourage agricultural uses as an interim use on these large
parcels of land.
Commissianer Thom noted he was equally concerned with consideration of intPrim uses for
M-1 property; however, he agreed with all of the Commission that mobile home parks were
not the solution because af their twenty ta forty-year lease requirement; that travel
. trailers or campers might be considered a more compatible use for this type of property
since they did not represent a more permanent use.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that it would be appropriate
to consider the reclassification petition favorably so that some form of zoning would be
on the property in the event the annexation was completed on subject property, and upon
annexation, the City could then initiate the reclassification to establish a resolution
of intent for M-1 uses on the property.
Commis~ioner Thom offered Resolution No. PC69-101 and movc3 for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for
Reclassification No. 68-69-92 be approved, subject to completion of annexation of the
property into the City of Anaheim. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gau~r, }7erbst, Rowland, Thom, Allred.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None„
ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: Camp.
Commissioner Thom off,ered Resolution No, PC69-102 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissio~,ler Farano, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1112
on the basis that the proposed use would adversely affect the adjoining land uses and
the growth and development of the industrial area in which iC was proposed to be located;
that:the granting of the proposed use would set an undesirable precedent by permitting
encroachment of residential uses into areas set aside for industrial development; that
the industrial uses already established in close proximity, due to the amount of traffic
generated on the twenty-four hour work schedule, noises, odors, etc., would create an
atmosphere not conducive to residential living and could result in nuisance complaints
against these established industries, thereby creating unnecessary problems which could
induce these industries to relocate in another area; that any industrial developmenc
which had taken place or was contemplated to take place in industrial areas should be
afforded the same protection from incompatible uses as the City grants to residential
uses; xhat a mohile home park cannot be considered an interim use of property based on
the fact that a minimum of twenty-years leasing was necessary to guarantee a return
for improvements to service this type of use, (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Thom, Allred,
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp.
,~` nry r 1~~~ .s~ f~~+~~'{ j}/_...pl~.~ 5~'Sf~''.t ~~~ r~~ r`~ Y} j`a r 1~,° ~n -r r ~~.
~~ , r ~~: ,< ~~.E ~ ,
,,;;
~ ~ ~
v
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 19, 1969 4510
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. GRAND MARNIER COMPANY, 415 West 4th Street, Tustin,
PERMIT N0. 1113 California,'Owner; BILL STITS, 224 4th Street, Manhattan Beach,
California, Agent; requesting permission to have ON-SALE BEER AND
WINE IN.CONJUNCTION WITH A PROPOSED ENCLOS~D RESTAURANT on property
described as; A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located on the east side of Euclid
Street, approximately 662 feet south of the centerline of Broadway, having a frontage of
approximately 50 feet on Euclid Street and a depth of approximately 181 ~eet, and further
described ae 426 South Euclid Street. Property presently classified C-1, GENERe1L
COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
Assistant 2oning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses
establiahed in clos,e proximity, existing zoning, and the proposal to permit on-sale beer
and wine in conjunction with meals only at an enclosed restaurant serving fish and chips;
that the plana indicated there were no bar facilities; that subjert property was leased
separately from a larger parcel which was being developed as a walk-up, driva-through
restaurant; that according to plans, the two parcels would have a common ingress and
egreas from Euclid Street and Tedmar Avenue - therefore, the Commission might wish to
require the filing and recarding of a mutual parking covenant agreement and a mutual
easement agreement approved by the City Attorney's office so as to eliminate the possi-
bility of future conflicts in these two areas; and that a free-atanding sign had been
indicated for a proposed location on the Euclid Street frontage on the plans, but the
staff was unabie to obtain any information from the petitioner as to the height of the
sign, and the height of the sign would be limited to 25 feet due to the proximity of
the multiple-family complex to the east, and the 100-square foot display area per face
would be the maximum because of the 50-foot frontage of the parcel on Euclid - further-
more, since theae were special considerationa, the siaff advised the petitioner that any
proposals greater than these figures would require the filing of a vari•snce,
Mr. William Stits, agent for the petitioner, appe~sred before the Commission and advised
them they were not attempting to create an English pub facility but a reataurant, and
hours of operation would be 11:30 A.M. to 10:00 P.M.
No one appeared in opposition to sub~ect petition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commiasioner Farano offered Reaolution No. PC69-103 and movad ~or ita paeaage and adoption,
aeconded'by Commisaioner Thom, to grant Petition for Conditional Uee Permit No, 1113,
aub,ject to conditione, with the added condition that the aerving of on-aele beer and wine
be incidentai to the aerving of food, and that no bar would be permitted. (See Resolution
Book)
On xoll call the foregoing reaolutlon was paesed by the following vote;
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbat, Rowland, Thom, Allred
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISfIONERS: Camp,
VARIANCE N0. 2083 - PUBLIC HEARING. GRAND MARNIER COMPANY, 415 West 4th Street, Tustin,
California, Owner; GENE JENKINS, 195 Weat Benedict Road, San
Bernardino, California, Agent; requeating WAIVERS OF (1) NUMSER OF
FREE-STANDING SIGNS PERMITTED, (2) SEPARATION DISTANCE OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS, AND (3)
MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN, TO ESTABLISH THREE FREE-STANDING SIGNS IN
CONJUNCTION WITH A DRIVE-IN R~STAURANT on property deacribed as: A rectangularly ahaped
parcel of land at the northeast corner of Euclid Street and Tedmar Avenue, having approxi-
mate frontagea of 85 feet on Euclid Street and 181 feet on Tedmar Avenue, and further
described as 430 South Euclid Street. Praperty presentiy classified C-1, GENERAL
COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
Aasistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of sub~ect property, the uaea
estabiished in close proximity, and the proposal to erect three free-atanding signa on
aub,ject property: one a 37~-foot.high;.250-aquare foot display area; a 19-foot high, E
45-square foot, free-etanding sign located as part of the microphone order box and to `
be located approximately 40 £eet from the sign proposed to be located at the southweat i,
corner of the property; and a 157-square foot, free-atanding sign propoaed to be attached ~
to the edge of the canopy which eurrounda the main atructure, and, technically, this (
latter aign wae neither a wall sign nor a roof sign and, therefore, was clasaified as a ~
free-standing sign and would be located 53 feet from the microphone box sign and 70 feet !
from the proposed free-atanding sign at the corner, making a total combined area of
approximately 452 square feet.
Mr. Brown further noted that the proposed petition appeared to be an excessive request
since the property had excellent exposure on Euclid Street, and there appeared to be no
1
~~ 4R~ak, S' .; e~ 7~~) i y~' 3~y,~ ,A rt.r ty. r[~i te'744. ~ fi4 ` Y7.:~^{Q'G ,~, ~~. ~"~K' ,^. 1 . i'
\~ 2'~'a ~ a~:d ~ t ~T. '~ S ' ~ "~ ~ t ~a' N ~ a:~ ~ ; b ~ "i ti s 1 11",~. ~ r ~. { ~
~ ~ t~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 19, 1969 4511
VARIANCE N0. 2083 - va13d reason for an additional 12'~ feet of height for the free-etanding
(Continued) sign at the southwest corner of the property; that there appearr..d to
be no valid reason why another free-standing sign should be attnahed
to the microphone box since the circulation pattern for the drive-
Ehrough tzaffic on the property would make.the function of this microphone box immediately
apparent to customers; and that the display area proposed of 452 square feet had no
validity since,the bode limited the total number of free-atandiiig signs on subject property
to one, with the combined=frontages on Euclid Street and Tedmar Avenue limiting the display
area to that of one sign 350 square feet in area - therefnre, the Planning Commission, as
a result of the factors discussed above, wouTd have to determine whether the request was
a valid one, or whether redesign of the proposed signing to be more in conformance with
. Code could be accomplished since many similar such operations located throughout Che City
~ had managed sufficient exposure by the use of one sign, either a roof or free-standing,
conforming with Code requirements.
Mr. Steve Sharp, representing the Federal Sign Company, appeared before the Commission
and questioned the statement made rela[ive to the canopy sign being considered a free-
standing sign since these signs were all flush against the building.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that the signs proposed around the canopy were
permanently affixed, and since they were supported by support structures, it was necessary
to consider them free-standing signs as interpreted by the Code.
Mr. Sharp noted that they had calculated the area of the free-standing sign as being
230 square feet while the Report to the Commission indicated 250 square feet - however,
what could be done on the canopy sign was to have one single-faced sign on the side of
the bui.lding, and any sign not having frontage on any street could be r~moved to bring
this within the 350-square foot limitation.
The Commission inquired whether or not the petitioner was desirous of having a continuance
in order to redesign the signs; that the signs on the canopy were so near to considering
them facia signs, a minor deviation could bring these signs to within Code requirements_
The Commission then reviewed the plans as compared with pictures presented by the agent,
the pictures indicating that the so-called canopy signs should be considered wall signs,
which would then reduce the number of free-standing signs to two.
The Commission then xeviewed the proposed order box sign, after whicH the agent stipulated
to a reduction of::the free-standing sign at the southwest corner of subject property to
`25 feet in height.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Mr. Roberts then inquired of the agent for the petitioner whether or not he had stipulated
to a reduction of the height of the free-standing sign at the southwest corner, and if so,
the~remoral of that portion could not be placed on the top of the building since this
would be considered a roof sign, which would not be permitted„
Mr. Sharp then stated that it was not his desire to have a roof sign.
The Commission then inquired of the agent why the two free-standing signs could not be
combined, removing any signing on the order box, since the free-s[anding eign at the
corner would be a reader board type sign; that a minimum height of 14 feet would be
required for any drive-through overhang sign; and that a large drive-through sign was
not necessary since only one-way traffic was permitted, and the signing would not be
considered directional signing because more than a directional sign was being advertised.
Mr, Sharp noted that the order box was where cars would stop to order and then drive on,
and that all the signs were a stock type for a naC3ona1 organization.
The Commission advised the agent that since the City of Anaheim had a Sign Ordinance, and
aince the petitioner already had a xeader board sign on which the several items which
they proposed to sell would be readily noted, any additional signing on the order box
was unnecessary, and the sign request should be brought into conformance with the Sign
'Ordinance.
Assistant City Attorney John Dawson advised the Commission that the signing on the order
box.was considered a free-standing sign regardless.of directional indication or not.
Mr. Roberts noted that directional si ns could be ~
8 permitted at entrance and exits of "
properties; however, they were a maximum of 3 square feet, and the proposed sign would ''
be far in excese of considering this a directional sign.
THE tTEARING WAS CLOSED. i .
~ _,,, , .:;,, .,..:: + „~ :~
_ ~
~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CONIrIISSION, May 19, 1969 4512
VARIANCE'N0. 2083 - Commiasioner Herbst offesed Resolution No. PC69-104 and moved for its
(Continued) passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to deny Petition
for Variance No, 2083 on the basis that the~petitioner withdrew the
request for waiver of the 37'~-foot sign and would coastruct a 25-foot
high, free-standing,sign; that photographs submitted by the petitioner iadicated thaE Ehe
sign pro~~sed`to be,attached to- the canopy surrounding the main structure was, in fact, a
wall sign and was not erected on poles nor did it project over the top of the-canopy -
therefore, waivers relative to thie sign were not necessary; that the request for the ~
establishment of .two free-standing'signs was denied on the basis that the signing.could
be accomplished within'the Sign.Ordinance xequir.ements and no hardship, had b~en proven
- that signing as proposed.was necessary in.order to enjoy a substantial right enjoyed by
other property in the same vicinity and zone and denied the property in queation.
(See Resolution Book)
On,roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote;
.Q,YES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Thom, Allred.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonea
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp.
VARIANCE N0. 2086 - PUBLIC HEARING. BIG BOY EUCLID, INC., 1001 East Colorado Street,
Glendale, California, Owner; requesting G'_4IVERS OF (1) NUMBER OF
FREE-STANDZNG SIGNS PERMITTED, (2) LOCATION OF A FREE-STANDING
SIGN, AND (3) MINIMUM HEIGHT OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN, TO PERMIT AN EXISTING STATUE AS
A FREE-STANDING SIGN IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING RESTAURANT on property described
as; An "L" shaped parcel of land located south and west of the southwest corner of
Lincoln Avenue and Euclid Street, having approximate frontages of 110 feet on the south
side of Lincoln Avenue and 160 feet on the west side of Euclid Street, and further
described as lll South Euclid Street~ Property presently classified C-i, GENERAL
COMPfERCIAL, ZONE.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor i•ar. Brown reviewed the location of aub,ject proparty, uaes ~
established in close proximicy, and the proposal to legalize the exieting etatue which
is approximately 6 feet high and 4 feet wide, located in the aetback area along the
Euclid Street frontage which would be 38 feet from the exieting free-etanding:aign and
280 feet from the Roy,Rogers sign to the.northwest of aubject property,,and the exieting
statue being at'ground level would be in violation of the Sign,Ordinance which requlrea
all diaplay,surfacea.of free-atanding aigna to be located a minlmum oF 8 Feet Prom the
ground; that the applicant had indicated Ehe atatue sign-had been adopCad ae a'symbol
of their organization'throughout Ehe United Statea and wae found ah each of the 28 Bob'a:
Restaurante located in Southern California - however, ehero appeared to ba no velid
reason why this aign was neceeeary at ite prqposed locaClon to pupplamanC advertieing
of the exiating facility aince tha exieting free-aeanding aign wao approxima~ely 38 Peat
high and 2b0 square feet in diaplay area per auri'aca; ChereFore, the Planning Commiaoion
might wiah to auggeet to Cha petitioner ehat prior to any ennoideraeion of Che validity
of this requeat, thaC the aCatue aign be placed under Che roof of the seruatuze in Eha
main entrance area ao had been dons with Cheir eopabliehmenE laeaeed on Harbor Boulevard
south o£ Chapman Avanua in Che City oF Gardan Grove oinca it would ha technically located
within the structure and would no longer be conaiderad a oign.
Mr. John Barringer, 1001 Eaet Colorado SCreet, Glandale, appeared before tha Commia~ion
~
repreaenting the petitioner and noted Chat Che ataCue wao a aymbol which children ~
appreciated and was located on the property of 32 reetaurante throughouC SouChern 1'
Qalifornia; that a;comic book was aleo printed and deaignad around thie etaCue; that ~'
normally the statue was located below the pylon sign, but bacause the City~e ordlnance
required the pylon sign to be located within ehe middle 20X of ehe proparty, and any major ~;
aign area a minirtium of 8 feet from.the ground, the proposed location wae deairoue even s'
though the atatue was normally placed adjacent to the entrance driveway; However, if `
the atatue were moved over and aet back, it would be too near the planter area. t~
i.
Mr. Barringer further noted,that although the property wae advertieed as a eingle parcel ~
- having three free-standing signa, there were two separate xeaEaurant operatione', and i`
each had leases - therefore there ahould be no connection with the reatau
~ rant having
the Lincoln Avenue frontage; that to locate thia atatue under the roof overhang would ~"
be somewhat difficult since their facility had five aimilar type buildinga, and all i
were set away from the atructure, whereas the one noted on Harbor and Chapman`wAs of
a different type roof overhang to that of the Spaniah type atructure of aub~ect property;
that it would not be architecturally feseible to locate the atatue nearer a window within
the sloping planter area; and that the statue has been at its present location for eome
time, but they were not aware this was in violation of the Sign Ordinance until the j:
Zoning EalEorcement Officer so advised them. i
i
_ _...:- .~,.._ ..
~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY.PLANNING COMMISSION, May 19, 1969 4513
VARIANCE:NO. 2086 - Commissioner Rowland noted that a free-standing sign was one which
was not attached to a building, and since the building setback of
property along Euclid Street was 10 feet, this ststue could be placed
within the building setback since the existing structure was set back farther than the
10 feet permitted.
Mr, Bar;inger then noted that since the Commission had offered several alternatives, such
as placing it below the pylon sign or,in tHe setback area, it was possible to remove a
portion'of the walk under the pylon and place the existing sign there.
Zoning Supervisor Charles-Roberts inquired whether any wording was visible on the statue;
to which Mr. Barringer replied the words "Big Boy" were imprinted on the chest. .
Mr..Roberts, in response to Commission questioning, noted that if the statue were placed
below the existing sign which was 260 square feet, the structural area would be more than
the 350 square feet permitted,
After considerable discussion between the Commission and the staff and the petitioner
relative to the location of the sign and the definition of the sculpture, Assistant City
Attorney John Dawson noted that if the printed matter on the chest of the structure were
removed and the statue relocated behind the building setback line, it would meet the
requirements of the Code by making the sculpture part of the landscaping, and although
it was a form of advertising, the question before the Commission was whether or not it
would be a free-standing sign.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC69-105 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Farano, to deny Petition for Variance No. 2086 on the basis that
<there were no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property; that the existing figure might be construed to be a statuary if the name were
removed from the chest area and said sCatue relocated behind the building setback line;
and that no hardship had been proven that the existing location of the statue was necessary
for proper identification of subject property. (See Resolution Book)
On roll,call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote;
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:,` COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
Farano, Gauer,.Herbst, Rowland, Thom, Allred.
None.
Camp.
TEMPORARY RECESS -Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recess the meeting temporarily
for ten minutes. Commissioner Farano seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED. The meeting recessed at 4:05 P,M.
RECONVENE -Chairman Allred reconvened the meeting at 4:15 P.M., all Commissioners
being present except Commissioner Camp.
VARIANCE N0. 2084 - PUBLIC HEARING. ROYAL POOLS OF GARDEN GROVE, INC., 8702 Garden Grove
Boulevard, Garden Grove, California, Owner; JIM PESCE, 8702 Garden
Grove Boulevard, Garden Grove, California, Agent; requesting WAIVER
OF MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN TO ESTABLISH A 60-FOOT FiIGH SIGN on property
described as; An irregularly shaped parcel of land wiCh a frontage of approximately 112
feet on the west side of Manchester Avenue and having a maximum depth of approximately
214 feet, the northerly boundary of subject property being approximately 1,180 feet south
of the centerline of Orangewood Avenue, and further described as 2305 Manchester Avenue.
Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COIII~tEERCIAL, ZONE.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of aubject property, uses
established in close proximity, existing zoning on subject property, and the waivera
requested, noting that the Commisaion had recently approved a sign 30 feet in height
and 180 square feet; that a trailer park was under construction, and because these were
considered residences, the propoaed aign would be within 330 feet of a mobile home -
therefore a 25-fooC high sign only would be permitted; that the petitioner had indicated
the existing height was not adequate due to the fact that freeway exposure was necessary ~
however, because of the curvature of Manchester Avenue and the blocking effect of the
overhead directional signs on the freeway, the existing height wae not viaible. Further-
more, a 50-foot high sign would be permitted if located 20 feet to the rear of the
Mancheater Avenue right-of-way line, if it were not for the close proximity of the mobile
home park - therefore, the Commission would have to determine whether the proposed height
.would have a deleterious effect on the residents of the mobile home park and whether the
height_was necessary to provide adequate exposure to traffic on the Santa Ana Freeway,
_. ~ °',
.y?s ts t°"c`~° ~ t.~~y~1 :?~" ~"~Cry" ~i,~'~~~~q'.£~'A~ ~ 'j^r. ~. ^~CT ~'° S~ '~, ~ r r 1 .~
'p l~wP :~at J~t 'N . c ..~ ~ l;:S,,,y ~ f~.~i'T 4} '.: cF t y"`'~1~ ` ~ 1..~~ji A r ' C~ 1 .
. . .. .. . . . . ~ . . ',~
.. .. ~ . . . . . . . ~: . ~
~./
MINUTES,:CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 19,.1969 4514
VARIANCE N0. 2084 - Mr. Jim Pesce, agent for the petiCioner, appeared before the Commiasion
(Continued) and noted they were relocating their corporate headquarters to subject
property, and an error was made in the previous request for height
because they were unaware of the off-ramp sign for Chapman Avenue
which effectively blocked view of their sign from the freeway; that they were spending in
exeess,of $200,000 to develop one of the finest displays of pool equipment and pools with
offices; that the area would.be fenced in the front, and an investment of this type of
money could not be expended if they were not given proper exposure to the freeway from
whence much of their business came; that the mobile park sales sign to the south was not
visible because of the curve of Manchester Avenue, plus thei= existing sign; that within
the area there were other.signs 70 feet in height; and that it was felt the evidence
submitted to the Commission was proof that hardship existed if the request were not
granted for the sign height propoaed. Furthermore, because o£ the design of the sign,
being in a soft white and brown, the only trailers which would be affected would be those
that were projected to be closest to Mancheater Avenue and would be only the overnight
type, whereas the permanent, mobile home type were to the rear and were a considerable
distance from subject property and the proposed sign.
The Commission inquired as to the amount of value in advertising did the petitioner
attribute to freeway expoaure; to which Mr. Pesce stated there were a considerable number
of sales derived from traveling public, and because of the extreme competition in this
type of business, he was proud to announce that they had received inquiries from towns as
far as the beach area, and the height of the propoaed sign would bring additional sales,
giving people on the freeway ample time to leave the freeway at the proper off-ramp,
Furthermore, they had been in this type of business for twelve yeara and serviced people
all around Southern California, extending from Santa Barbara to San Bernardino; that
they had built over 1,500 pools in the last year, and when the proposed facility was
completed, this would act as a showplac~': for the national convention of awimming pool
manufacturers and display.
Mr, Pesce, in response to Commiasion questioning, atated that they had taken picturea
of a 50-foot high sign by raising a crane to that height, and it was determined that
a 60-foot height was necessary because the sign could not be seen 100 yarda from the
freeway o£f-ramp.
No one'appeared in oppositien to eubject petition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED,
Commisai.oner Herbat offered Reaolution No., PC69-106 and moved for ite paseage and adoption,
seconded by Commiaeloner Thom, that Variance No. 2084 be granted on the basie thak Chn
petitioner had proven a hardehip exieted because of the directional eign of ths freeway
blocking view of even a 50-foot eign which would be permittnd axcept for the Eack that
it would be within 300 feet of a mobile home, and thar the propo~ad ~ign wa~ completely
oriented away from the mobile homa park, (Sae Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing 'rasolution wae paered by the Eollowin~ vots;
AYES: COIAfISSIONERSs Farano, Gauar, Hnrbst, Rowlend, Thom, Allrad,
NOES; COIAfISSIONERS; None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; Camp,
VARIANCE N0. 2088 - PUBLIC HEARING. MUTUAL BENEFIT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, 9450 W~.lohire
Boulevard, Suite 420, Beverly Hills, California, Owner; R. V.
INDUSTRIES, INC., 2220 Eaet Cerritos Avenue, Anaheim, Californin,
Agent; sequeating WAIVERS OF (1) PERMITTED USES TO BE CONDIICTED
WHOLLY WITHIN A BUILDING AND (2) SOLID 6-FOOT MASONRY WALL ENCLOSING OUTDOOA USES~ TO
PERMIT FABRICATION AND STORAGE OF MOTOR HOMES on proparty deecribed as; An irregularly
shaped parcel of land having approximate frontages of 290 feet on the eouth aide of
Cerritos Avenue and 492 feet on the south aide of the Southern Pacific Railroad, having
a maximum depth of approximately 1,220 feet, the weeterly property line of aubject property
being located approximately 710 feet east of the centerline of State College Boulevard,
and further deacribed as 2220 East Cerritoa Avenue. Property presently claseified M-1~
LIGHT SNDUSTRIAL, ZONE.
Aasistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of aubject property, usee j
eatabliehed in close proximity, existing zoning, and the proposal with waivere, noting ~
that the applicant had indicated their organization wae desirous of conducting arc welding
operationa outeide the main structure in con~unction with the manufacturing of "motor
homea", and the plana aubmiCted indicated a 20x30-foot metal canopy over the propoead
arc welc~ing facilities which would be adjacent to the east wall of the main structure
an3 would make manufacturing operations more efficient and to separate welding from other
activities for safety reasona; that the petitioner had indicated they proposed to store
j
~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COPIIIISSION, May 19, 1969 4515
VARIANCE N0. 2088 - approximately 20 finished motor homes in the parking lot area east
(Continued) of the main structure, but Code would require a 6-foot, solid masonry
wall to surround atry outdoor storage area, and the applicant had
requested waiver of this since it was his feeling the construction of
said wall would incur excess expense to the company; that other manufacturing facilities
in this general area had been permitted to enclose their outdoor storage areas with chain-
link fences rather than masonry walls; and that tbe petitioner had indicated he contempTated
further expansion of this facility easterly, which would necessitate removing any wall
required along the east property line. Furthermore, the parking facilities proposed
indicated 77 parking spaces; with a maximum of la0 employees, and this would still allow
•for more than the required 50 parking spaces, even though 20 of them would be used for
outdoor storage purposes~ Therefore, the Commission would have to determine whether it
would be desirable, or be entirely valid, to require a mason:y wall along the easterly
boundary and the northerly boundary - however, a masonry wal; along the southerly boundary
was not necessary or essential because the property to the south was industrial, but the
Cerritos Avenue frontage which had recently bsen designated as a secondary arterial should
have outdoor uses screened from view since this was more desirable to protect or hide from
view any undesirable appearance of the proposed developmenc.
- Mr. Robert Hill, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted
,r ,~i they were fairly new on the west coast, originating in Georgia; that becauae George Page
_<~~ had given them an attractive proposal, they had decided on locating their facility in
` Anaheim instead of Newport Beach where they had originally planne3 to locate; that it was
~ anticipated to produce three motor homes per day, and in the future increase their output
' to aix motor homes per day - therefore, some storage was neceasary in the parking area of
~~ ~: their finished product, and a chainlink fence was necessary to prr,tect their finished
;:>;;;:~-; product; that their outdoor welding facilities were deairable for complete safety; that
` ~ they were apparently caught in a squeeze play, but the staff had been very cooperative
t,_.',.~_;~; in attempting ta work out their problem in order to speed up the start of production;
~;:',::-,c.~~rj that indoor storage was not desirable becauae of the size of the motor homee; and that
s Y~ the staff's recommendation that dedication be requir.ed for street purposea along Cerritos
~,.r,~ Avenue could not be complied with since they were not the owner and were unable to dedi-
;;~;;:;t$ cate any land, and requested that eome temporary means of permitting lhem to proceed with
~'4~~~;;~~~-;: the opening of their facilit be made
y pending the outcome of the dedication problem aince
c~~ ~~ they did not want to be held up by theae procedures; and that their motor homes would be
~~~ atored one tier high only becauae theae were self-contained unite and the unite were not
~}~A ~'~ unsightly aince they were already built on an automobile chaeaie;.
~~ a>s,,~~~
"~~~i~.~ Commissioner Herbst noted that rather than requiring a 6-foot maeonry wall along Cerritoe
~+~~'r~ ~'~' Avenue
k~;~:;tiMi , if the area were properly acreened and the arc welding area aleo ecrannad from
~';;;,~',~r;;: view from Cerritos Avenue, eince the type of vehicle which would be stoc!ed thare would
~'~v~ be higher than the 6-foot maeonry wall and ite finiehed appearance would be no differant
"+a~,~ than new car atorage permitted along many of the etreete in the downtown Anahaim area,
~`fi'~; it was more important that a chainlink fence be permitted eincs thia would add to ths
1`;~~ protection of the facility,
~~ ~.
No one appeared in oppoeiton to eub~ect paCition„
f y~y
ti~~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED,
2oning Supervisor Charlea Roberts advieed the Commiasion that in addition to waivar of
permitted outdoor usee to permit arc welding, in the Outdoor Usa •action of the M-1 2on•
it statea that the atorage of equipment, materiale, and finished producte or r.afuae
basic to the operation of the permitted uae muet be enclosed with a 6-foot maaonry wall,
and the petitioner indi,cated a chainllnk fence along Cerritoe Avenue,
Commisaioner Gauer noted that other induetriea had been required to conetruct a m~eonry
wall, and no hardship had been proven that the waiver ehould be granted,
Commissioner Herbst noted that many of the industries in thie area had been permitted to
have outdoor storage, enclosing it with only a chainlink fence.
Commiasioner Gauer then noted that the petitioner had indicated he would construct a
wall along the Cerritos Avenue frontage; however, he was desirous of posting a bond until
Cerritos Avenue was improved, and that might no[ be for some time - therefore, in order
to keep vandaliam at a minimum, a chainlink fence would be needed.
Commisaioner Herbst then noted that if subject property were on a frontage atreet such
as State College Boulevard, then the 6-foot masonry wall should be a requirement_ How-
ever, because of its location adjacent to the California Edison easement and spur line
of the Southern Pacific Railroad, this did not make for an attractive street, and the
vehicles that would be completed would be much better in appearance than tank storage
of chemicals on the Neville Chemical property,
""' i f i' ~'C rr - s r "s' ~ +c ,X'nd y R s -s ti?:G . ,a` . % 'rG ,~, s ., t - ::
~ N N L~ w 3 /' ~ 1 +i ' L1~"~ 'Y~ 1~
~~ :s,~~..~~ " ~ s~l.r . '", ,c~ ,~?f`~"~ , .~`/t: ~' t ~ ~~`[k~ t~ ~-s,+ 1„ o~.~~.$~r Y~ ~. ~t J L tt ~ ~ ~~,_ , L
ry {~
. . ' ~' ~ ~ `~..~~~. . . ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ... ~ ~ . ~ . - ! .
LO
MINUTES, CITY.PLANNING -0OMMISSION, May 19, 1969 4516
VARIANCE N0. 2088 - Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC69-107 and moved for its
(C~ntinued) passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant
Petition for Variance No. 2088, providing, however, that the outdoor
arc welding area shall be screened from view from Cerritos Avenue, and
that a chainlink fence was adequate for the type of atorage facility propoaed; and that
the Commission was not in a poaition to require dedication since the petitioner was only
the lessee; and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book)
Prior to a vote on this, Mr. Hill, in reaponse to questioning by the Aseistar.t City
Attorney, stated.that they had a five-year lease with a five-year option for renewal -
therefore, because this was not the length of lease normally recognized by.the City to
~ permit dedication by lessor, dedication would have to be made by the owner of the property.
Office Engineer Jay Titus stated that improvement of the sCreet was a condition of the
variance subject to approval of the precise alignment which was still pending before the
City Council, and since the preciae alignment had not been adopted, improvement should
be required within six months after,approval by the Council.
Mr. Roberts noted that at the time the building was constructed, there was a proposal
before the County for an alternative alignment; however, because this was not a firm
commitment, rather than holding up construction of the building and preventing Mr. Page
from developing his property, dedication was not required since no precise alignment
had been adopted by either the City or the County. However, with the recent General Plan
amendment and precise alig-iment approved by the City Planning Commission, Cerritos Avenue
would be an exception with a 30-foo[ half-width on the north side and a 40-foot half-width
on the south.side.
After further discussion the Commission determined that dedication would have to be
resolved between the lessor and the owner, together with the City department, and ahould
not be waived.
On roll call the foregoing reaolution was ~:assed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
Gauer,. Herbet, Rowland, Thom, Allred.
Farano.
Camp.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. WILLIAM ?~IARMATZ AND WILLIAM SHOEMAKER, 617 Weet
PERMIT N0. 1114 7th Street, Loe Angelee, California, Ownere; HEMISPHERE CONSTRUCTORS,
15729 Be11f1ower Boulevard, Bellflower, California, Agent; requeeting
permieaion to ESTABLISH A 74-SPACE, TRAVEL TRAILEA "MO'8IL$ MOTBL" on
property described as: An irregularly ehaped parcel of land locaCad Gauth and eatt o£
the southeast corner of Ball Road and Wainut Straet, having approximats frantagee o£
478 feet on Ball Road and 495 feet on Walnut Street. ProparCy prerently e1R~~i,tied R-A,
AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
Aseietant Zoning Supervisoz Pat Browc? revi~wed Cha locatlon oR ~ub,~acC prapesey snd Ch•
usee eatabliehed in close proximity~ noting ehet a varianc~ had been approved ia 1960 Co
establleh a 1200-unit hotel w±eh appurtenent u~a~, but ehir proposal wa• never devaloped;
that subject property had final zeading of the C-A ordinanCe on April 29, 1969 and would
be finalized on May 29, 1969; that the petieioner wes propo~ing to dsv~lop tha ~ouehea~t i
portion of subjer.t property as a~~mobile motal" which would ba ueed primarily for ovar~~
night camper and tratler facilYtiee; that accees to this area would be provided by private '
driveways from both Ball Road on the eaet side of the property and from Walnut Street ~
along the south side of the property; that the balance of the property would continue to ~
be used for agricultural uses:, with eventual expaneion of the propoeed facility and
poeaibie commercial uaes along the Ba11 Road frontage - therefore, the primary ieeue
before the Qommission would be that of land use since trailer parks were not permitted
by right in the C-R Zone; that with the many touriet-oriented facilitieB in the Anaheim
area, this area had become a mecca for tourista, and an increaeing number of pereons were
arriving in the area with campere and overnight trailers - however, facilitiee were not
available or extremely 1lmited, and peraone.were directed Yo overnight fecilities sometimee
located thirty.to forty milea 'fram this area - therefore there wae a definite need for the '
type of facility propoaed.
Mr~ Brown further noted that the proposed use would appear to be an interim use of sub~ect ~
property, but there was a distinct poeaibility that i[ could become oermanent in nature, i
particularly if further expanaion of thie proposal were permitted in the future, and since 1
subject property was one of the prime vacant parcels.left in the Msneylend area, the
Commisaion would have.to give careful consideration to the appropriateneas of thia propoeal
to the surrounding area and future ramificationa, and to coneider a time limitation for
the proposed use anbject to review and coneideration of an extenaion of time or termination
~ <
~~ _ ~ {~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,. May 19, 1969 , 4517
CONDITZONAL USE - at the.end of the period granted, Furthermore, another factor to
PERMIT N0. 1114 consider was that since this type of facility would not be in full
(Continued) use throughout the year, particular attention should be given to
landscaping, screening and general esthetics of the facility.
Mr. Robert Hally 15706 Hellflower Boulevard, Bellflower, appeared before the Commission
representing the agent and the petitioner and noted they proposed a use which would tie
in with the overall theme of the Commercial-Recreation Area since this was strictly a
recreational use of the property; that 50 to 100 trailers per day were being turned away
during the summer months, and although the staff felt this would be only a aummer use,
it was intended that the winter months could be considered equally as important - Xhere-
fore this would be in full operation for the entire year; that it was intended to have
recreational facilities and more spaces if the need were apparent; and that the play area
would provide for more attractive amenities for visitors to this area,
The Commission inquired whether or not it would be possible to convert this facility into
a permanent mobile home park..
Mr, Hall indicated that this was not poasible since only 24 to 26-foot trailers would be
ut±lizing this facility, and if any enlargement of the pad were considered, this would
be for landscaping purposes only. Furthermore, long-term use of the facility would be
discouraged by the rental rates.
Mr, Hall, in response to further Commission questioning, stated that the landscaping
would be maintained on a full time basis by the operators of the facility, and that the
type of trailera that wouYd be parked here would be similar to thoae which retired people
had, like the Airstream trailer; that it was intended to retain the Ball Road frontage
for commercial purpoaes - therefore, expansion would be limited; and that they would meet
the Trailer Code requirements regarding sanitary facilities, baths, laundry, etc.
The Commission then inquired whether more detailed plans were now available since the
plans submitted with the petition were somewhat sketchy, and actual pad sizes were as
important as the amount of landscaping proposed;
Discussion was then held by the Commission relative to the compatibility of the proposed
use in the Commercial-Recreation Area with homes along Ball Road and Walnut Street; that >'
although the City did need this type of service, this was not the`area for it unless the '";~
facility was a self-contained operation.
Mr., Hali noted that the use of subject property was an interim use and could not be
considered similar to a mobile home park since the owners of the property were interested
in receiving some return for their investment until such time as a more compatible use
was presented.
Mr, William Harmatz, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and noted he
and Mr. Shoemaker had owned the property for six years and were only growing strawberries ~
on it on a lease basis which did not pay for the taxes; that it was difficult to carry
this land without receiving any money; that they had been approached innumerable times
with offers for development of undesirable and less compatible uses - however, the pro-
posed plan of development would be an ideal means of utilizing the property, providing
a facility that was sorely needed in the City and holding the property until after the ~
ownere were too old for horse racing and could establish a facility the City would be
proud of:
y
,
t
The Commission inquired of the petitioner the time limitation it was anticipated to use
the property for travel trailers. ~
Mro Harmatz, in reply to Commission questioning, stated that in all their discussions ~
with the various developers, the only problem that might occur would be financing, and
it was felt a five-year time limitation would be adequate since this would be somewhat I
of an experiment and might become a use on which franchises could be built. ,
Mr. Barry Miller, 10045 Bellflower Boulevard, Bellflower, appeared before the Commission '
and advised'them the petitioners had approached them and stated they had been unable to i
utilize the property; that after he had checked with many mobile trailer parks in Orange '
County, it was determined there were only 245 spaces available near Disneyland; that it !
was proposed to utilize only a portio~ less than five acres, of subject property for the i
travel trailer park; that it was anticipated this would be a well maintained facility
which woald attract tourists who would stop to visit the area for a few days, i
Mrs. Betty Ronconi, 1241 South Walnut Street, appeared before the Commission and presented
a petition signed by 29 property owners residing along Walnut Street, expressing concern
that Walnut Street at its existing width was inadequate to handle additional traffic that
wouid be coming from the access road of the proposed trailer park and would add to the .
\ 1_
~ . ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May.19, 1969 ~
4518
CONDITIONAL USE - congestion of the existing two-lane street - therefore, they recom-
PERMIT N0. 1114 mended that in order to resolve this traffic problem on Walnut Street,
(Continued) dedication and street widening should be required for the full length
of subject property, extending from s~utherly of Goodhue Avenue to
had only two exits, that being GoodhueeAvenue andtFeatherhStreeteSandfbecausetWalnutrStreet
had a signalized intersection, a majority of the people would exit from Goodhue Avenue,
and during the rush hour it was very difficult to gain access,° making a left-hand turn
into Walnut Street; that the plans as she.reviewed them did not indicate any development
along the Walnut Street frontage except for the access road, and it was hoped that when
ultimate development occurred, something more attractive than a masonry wall with a side-
walk would be required since maintenance of the outside of the masonry wall was never
done - therefore, she would recommen~ in addition to the wall, landscaping which would be
more appealing to the residents fronting along Wainut Street.
Mr. Harmatz noted that in completing the C-R zoning for subject property, they had dedi-
cated a strip of land for street widening purposes along Walnut Street - therefore, Walnut
Street would be a four-lane road, and upon installation of the improvement, this would
increase the chances of residents in the tract to the west to gain access to Walnut Street;
that it was intended to have commercial facilities along the Ball Road frontage with a
Seven-Eleven Market and a few other commercial facilities which would be beneficial to
the residents along both Ball Road and the tract on the west side of Walnut Street.
Office Engineer Jay Titus advised the Cr.mmission that under the reclassification of subject
property dedication for street widening purposes and improvement had been made for both
Ball Road an3 Walnut Street.
Commissioner Herbst no[ed that the: Commission, at previous public hearings, had discussed
possible interim uses for agricultural property; that a need was apparent for travel
trailer facilities in the Commercial-Recreation Area, and since the petitioner had agreed
to a five-year pEriod for the use, if at the end of that time the use appeared Co be
detrimental to the area, it coulcl be terminated - however, he was desirous of having a
more complete plot plan submitted to the Commission in order that landscaping and other
facilities could be indicated,
Mr. Miller then presented to the Commission a colored rendering of the special buildings
proposed for the Walnut Street frontage ,and noted that a minimum of two full-time persons
would be employed, either to live on the premises or to be there on a daily basis.
Mr~ Harmatz then noted Eor the Commission that the reason more precise plans had nat been
presented was because it was his partner and his desire to obtain the opinion of the City
as to whether this would be favorably considered since precise plans were rather expensive
to be presented whe:i an idea would not be considered appropriate; therefore, if subject
petition were approved, development plans would be submitted to the Commission for
consideration.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted for the Commission that the normal setba~k of
trailers in a trailer park was 20 feet; whereas the building proposed was 10 feet -
therefore, consideration would have to be gi~en by the Commission as to a deviation
from the site developments standards, considering the fact that a large acreage was
still undeveloped, and the setback could be accomplished in accordance with Code require-
ments.
Mrs. Ronconi then noted that the intersection of Walnut Street and Ball Road was signalized ~-,:'~
and if the proposed use were approved, it was her suggestion that a traffic signal be !
pravided for Goodhue Avenue and Walnut Street. ~
The Commission then advised the o ~
pposition that when Walnut Street was widened, this
would give considerably more space for people to swing into the lane of traffic - however,
it was doubtful that that intersection would be signalized. ~
Commissioner Farano expressed the opinion that he did not feel the proposed use would ~
increase the traffic any more than other uses permitted in the Commercial-Recreation Area;
that this area was a rather difficult one to resolve, and the traffic problem would not
improve regardless of development of the area.
Mr, Roberts noted that at the interdepartmental Committee meetin some ~
raised relative to whether or not park and recreation fees should be required~noraroomen ~
tax, and upon consulting with the City Attorney's office, it had been determined that '
the park and recreation fee was the appropriate method to use.
1`k~°+~x.~'~'~;.rY~e -r ~~ flR:~ „( ~~:n [ ~ "i.~h~~~~~ ~' 7!' 4?:>~~ .?'~4 h.. .;,~y ",~ ~ :~.
~~~ ..
. ' . ~ ~ . . .~.. ~ ~
MITIUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 19, 1969 • 4519
CONDITIONAL USE - Commissioner Herbat offered Resolution No..PC69-108 and moved fcr its
, PERMIT N0. 1114 passage and adoption, seconded by Commiseioner Thom, to grant Petition
(Continued) for Conditional $se Permit No. 1114 for a period of five years, witfi
option to renew upon approval'of an application to the Planning
Commission; that precise plans of development should be submitted to
the Commis~ion for approval; aad that a 20-foot setback ahould be maintained along Ball
Road and Walnut Street, with decorative masonry wall and landscaping; subject to a park
and recreation fee of $50 per trailer space; and conditions as set forth in the Report
to the Commiasion.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: fiarano, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Thom, Allred,
NOES: COMMZSSIONERS:~ None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp.
VARIANCE N0. 2089 -?UBLIC HEARING. SECURITY TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, 825 North Broadway,
. Sa:~ta Ana, California, Owner; RUSSELL MC CALEB, 3350 North Central
Avenue, Suite 723, Phoenix, Arizona, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF
MINZMUM NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES 1?OR A PROPOSED 10-STORY OFFICE BUILDING AND
ACCESSORY PARKING STRUCTUFtE on property described as: That entire block bounded on the
north by Broadway, on the east by Helena Street, on the soueh by Elm Street, and on the
west by Harbor Boulevard. Property presently classified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAI,',
ZONE. • •
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed Che location of subject property and uses
established in close proximity, noting the proposal was to develop a 10-story office
building and 4-story parking structure on this entire city block; that C-0 zoning was
pending on the property; that a 2-story, including mezzanine; main structure was proposed
to extend northerly Erom the t~wer which would be located near the E•lm Street frontage
which would house the bank facilities; that the proposed parking structure would accommo-
date a maximum of 351 parking spaces, whereas Code would require 540 spaces if the base-
ment were developed; that the proposal would appear to be appropriate to the~area since
past Commission and Council action encour,aged commercial-professional development along
Harbor Boule~ard in this area - however, the primary concern of the Commission was the
: ahortage of parking proposed in an area where an overload of the local street system and
the remaining residential areas would create a parking deficit in the residential areas,
whereas by~ie addition of~an additional story for parking, this wouid resolve any park-
ing deficiency; and that another alternative was the acquisition of additional property
in the immediate vicinity which could be developed as an employee parking lot.
' Mr. Ruasell McCaleb, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted
that the propoaed petition was aelf-explanatory except that the parkiag requirements of
the City were somewhat more than their experience on multiple-etory office structures
indicated was needed; that long-term financed projects aimilsr to the one proposed '
normally required 300 parking apacea as being adequate, a7.though he realized that Anaheim
had a diaproportionate addition of automobiles; that regardless of this fact, the parking
~I ratio for the proposed type of facility from an economic'standpoint was aimost unrealistie
~ when the price of land was considered.
The Commisaion noted that the City's only means of tranaportation was by privately owned
automobiiea, and the City of Los Angelea had to erect parking structures for empioyees
in order to be able to retain their employees. .
Mr. McCaleb noted he wae aware of the fact Anaheim had no public transportation, but the
type of usea which would be leasing the proposed facility would require less parking;
that the majority of the offices would be corporate offices, and parking was based on
330 square feet per one parking space, which would indicate fewer parking spaces needed;
that there would be little need for general public parking, and the prime parking need
woul.d be for employees oE the varioua offices; and that with the~cost of properties in
this area, together with the fact that the City was encou:aging commercial office uses
in this area, he would dislike seeing a development penalized for parking needs which he
felt were not needed.•
The Commission noted that this was a neceasary penalty, and the City did not want to
experience the parking problems Union Square in Santa Ana had, and if aome previous
Commission experience on parking in Anaheim were any criteria, the petitioner might be
glad that the City penalized them when occupancy of the structure showed a need for
meeting Code parking.
Mr. McCaleb noted he had been authorized to amend the plans to provide support fcundations
for five stories for the parking structure in the event additional parking was needed.
~ -
. ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COP4fISSION, May 19, 1969
~
4520
VARIANCE N0. 2089 - The Commission noted that this statement was commendable; however,
(Continued) it must be decided by the Commission when and if the additional floor
for parking should bz constructed since if no additional parking were
needed, the Commission did not want the petitioner to incur additional
expense by sequiring parking in accordance with Code requirements at this time.
Mr. McCaleb noted that when anyone developed this type of facility in this general area,
there,was every attempt made to build good facilities with sdequate parking; however, it
was his opinion, as well as all persons involved in this development, that the City's
parking requirements were somewhat excessive.
The Commiasion noted that the bank facility on the north side of Broadway had been
required to meet Code requirements, and to grant waiver of the parking for subject peti-
tion could set a precedent for a similar waiver for the undeveloped property adjacent to
this bank on the north side of Broadway,
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that a staff inember had checked
with the City o£ Orange regarding parking requfrements, and it was noted they required
six spaces per thousand for bank facilities, general business, and offices, and four
spaces per thousand for buildings up to four stories; that a variance had been approved
in the City of Orange for the construction of a tower - however, an agreement in approving
the complex had the stipulation that parking comply with city standards, and the new
tower was only 50% occupied at this time.
The architect noted that since they also had constructed these towers, he was fully
aware of the fact that 707 of the tower was occupied.
Assisl•ant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that it
might become nec.essary to eliminate on-street parking adjaceat to Helena and Elm Streets
because of the width of the streets which would not provide for two travel lanes and
parking as we:i; that the only other alternative would be the relocation of curbs and
gutters for a wider right-of-way.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Cortunissioner Rowland noted that at the time the C-0 Zone was being drafted, the parking
standards developed were based on the best information available; that in all sincerety
this strict application would give the City the specific answers they needed for high
rise parking requirements; that the Union Square facility had some very unique problems
associated with that property, and this might also occur as far as the City were concerned,
having special unique problems - therefore, if there were some method of approving subject
petition and still insuring that parking would be provided in accordance with Code, if
evidence were submitted that the additional floor was necessary, perhaps approval then
could be made contingent upon this, with the Commission reviewing the parking facilities
one year to eighteen months after compleCion of construction and Che buildings 80%
occupied,
Considerable discussion was then held by the Commission and the staff relative to a
possible means of insuring that adequate parking would be provided within a reasonable
time after construction of the building - the possibility of providing off-street parking
within 750 feet of the structure for employees, and the possibility of requiring a bond
to insure that the additional parking would be provided upon demand by the City.
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to deny Petition for Variance No. 2089, seconded
by Commissioner Farano, on the basis that parking should be in accordance with Code
requirements.
On roll call the foregoing resolution failed with a tie vote, Commissioners Allred,
Herbst, and Thom voting "no"; Commissioners Farano, Gauer, Rowland voting "aye".
Further discussion was.held'by the Commission regarding parking facilities, bonding to
insure the construction of additional parking, the requirement of off-street, off-site
parking for employees, and the time involved in which to determine whether the parking
would or might be needed.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC69-109 and moved for its passage and adoption, !
seconded by Commissioner Thom, to grant Petition for Variance No. 2089, subject to the
Interdepartmental Committee and Development Services Department recommended conditions, ;
together with the requirement that the paricing structure shall be constructed to support ~
a five-story structure; that a bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of ~
Anaheim shall be posted to guarante~ construction of a fifth story if within thirty to
~.
....:_.:. _...__.~.~..,_.___~.r----- --
a ~ ,. r ~ <' 'f F '+ ~" '# , t # ' ' u 3"
~ ~r.k;' a~~~r , ~ ' ,; +~~. ,~„ uj~ t °+'.~~ ,~!y .~a T'' i' ~ k y r
; .
~ ._ ~ . ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 19, 1969 4521
- VARIANCE N0. 2089 - thirty-six months after issuance of a building permit the City, upon
(Continued) review of the parking situation around subject property, determined
that the additional parking in conformance with the parking require-
ments of the Anaheim Municipal Code shall be provided, and further
provided that the employee parking, either on-site or off-street parking within 750 feet
of subject properCy,shall be provided. (See Resolution Book)
On'roll call the foregoing reaolution was passed by the following vote;
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Thom, Allred.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp.
~
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING, GAS & WASH, INC., 165 Ravenna Drive, Long Beach,
N0. 68-69-95 California, Owner; CHARLES R. HILLER, 421 North Brookhurst Street,
Suite 216, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that property
deacribed as; A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located on the
northwest corner of Euclid Street and Glen Avenue, with approximate frontages of 342
feet on Euclid Street and 248 feet on Glen Avenue, and further deacribed as 1135 North
Euclid Street, be reclassified from the C-1, GENERAL COMrfERCIAL, ZONE to the C-3, HEAVY
COIIl~iLERCIAL, ZONE, to establish an suto service center selling and inatalling tires,
batteries, accessories, etc.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown adviaed the Commisaion that a telephone call and
a letter had been received from the agent for the petitioner indicating that due to an
emergency the owner had been called out of town and requested a continuation of subjact
petition.
A showing of hands indicated five peraone present in oppoeition to eubjact paCition.
The Commisaion chairman apologized to the people in oppoeition for having to waie and
suggeated that eubject petition ~e coneidered as the first item on the egenda op the
meeting to which it wae continued.
Commissioner Herbat offered a motion to conCinua coneideration o! Peeihiop fpr Reclasei-
fication No, 68=69-95 to the meeting of June 16, 1969, scheduled se the firat item on
the agenda, Commissioner Thom seconded the motion, MOTION CARRIED,
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING, INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East
N0. 68-69-93 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing that property described
as: Approximately 14 acres of land generally located at the southeast
corner of Orangethorpe and Lakeview Avenues, having a frontage of
approximately 421 feet on the east side of Lakeview Avenue and a maximum depth of approxi-
mately 1,368 feet, and further described as the Lakeview-Orangethorpe Annexation, be
reclassified from the COUNTY M1, LIGHT INDUSTR;IAL, DISTRICT to the R-A, AGRICULTURAL,
ZONE.
' Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed subject petition and location of the '
property, noting the uses established in close proximity, together with the fact that ~
this was establishing zoning on propezty now under annexation to the City of Anaheim ~
known as the Lakeview-Orangethorpe Annexation, and that the zoning on the property was
contingent upon annexstion to the City of Anaheim.
No one appeared in opposition to subject peCition. i
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC69-110 and moved for its pa~sage and adoption, ~
seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi- '`
-fication No. 68-69-93 be approved, subject to annexation to the City of Anaheim. (See ~
Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: i
AYES: COFAfISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Thom, Allred. ~
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp.
~_.. v~.
~ _ . - _....,_. ._..,
_,. _ >
: ~..:.. ~.., : ~ :.,ti . ,
~:~ ~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 19, 1969 4522
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING, INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East
N0. 68-69-94. Lincoln Avenue, Aiiaheim, California; proposing that property described
as; Approximately 14 acres of land.generally located at the southeast
corner, of Orangethorpe and Lakeview Avenues, having a frontage of
approximately 421 feet on the east side of Lakeview Avenue and a maximum depth of approxi-
maEely 1,368 feet, and'further described as the Lakeview-Orangethorpe Annexation be
reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZpNE,
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown noted that the proposed reclasaification would
establish a resolution of intent to the M-1, Light Induatrial, Zone on the property upon
annexation into: the City; whereas the preqious"reclassification petition would establish
permanenE zoning on the property until such time as the property was proposed to be
developed for M-1 uses.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petiCion.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst offered Reaolution No, PC69-111 and moved for its paseage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Thom, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi-
fication No. 68-69-94 be approved, subject to conditions, and the further condition that
this reclassification petition was contingent upon annexation to the City of Anaheim.
(See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Thom, Allred.
NOES: COMMISSTONERS: None.
ABSENT.: COMMISSIONERS: Camp.
; J„
I RECESS FOk DINNER - Commissioner Rowland offered a motion Co recess the meeting for f~F
I dinner. Commissioner Farano seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
~ The meeting recessed at 6;15 P.M.
I RECONVENE - Chairman Allred reconvened the meeting at 7:45 P.M., ail
' Commissioners bein
g present.
i RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. HERMAN L. LENZ, ET AL, 930 South State College
~ N0. 68-69-9L: Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Owners; NATHAN SHAPELL, 8857 West
Olympic Boulevard, Beverly Hills, California, Agent; property
i VARIANCE N0. 2087 described as; An "L" shaped parcel containing approximately 30 acres
~ of land having a frontage of approximately 661 feet on the north side
TENTATIVE MAP OF of Wagner Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 1,280 feet and
TRACT N0. 6809, being located approximately 661 feet east of the centerline of State ~
REVISION N0. 1 College Boulevard. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ~
ZONE. ~
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY, ZONE, r
~
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK, (2) MA}(IMUM LOT ~
+ COVERAGE, AND (3) MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK TO GARAGE ENTRANCE,
TO ESTABLISH 175 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES. ~...
t.
~
~ TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: NATHAN SHAPELL, 8857 West Olumpic Boulevard, j
Beverly Hills, California. ENGINEER: RAAB & BOYER ENGINEER- '
ING COMPANy, 14482 Beach Boulevard, Suite I, Westminster,
California. Proposing the subdivision of a 30-acre parcel ~
into 175 R-2-5000 zoned lots, ,
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of sub ect I
established in close roximit j property, uses ~
P y, previous zoning action, noting that the most recent action E
was denied for R-2-5000 by the City Council on January 7, 1969, at which time GeneraL Plan
Amendment No. 96 was again considered,for low-medium and medium density uses; that the t
petitioner proposed development of single-family residential structures ranging in floor
area from 1611 to 2422 square feet which wouid result in some structures being over the
maximum 40% coverage permitted by Code; that the petitioner proposed construction similar
to their recent development on Euclid Street near Cerritos Avenue wherein the sidewalk ~
Tocation would be adjacent to the'curb, and setback of the main and garage structures would
be from the inside of the proposed sidewalk location rather than the actual public right-
of-way; that the petitioner proposed to develop a street along the easkerly boundary
adjacent to the proposed .Tuarez Park, which would provide an excellent access to the park
:...:::;;,~
~f~` :;,~. ~ ~ s ~ P~ ~ .'~"a'^~~ ~"r ~ n~ "kk ~~~ ~ . ~ ~m ,, o- ~ r ~ ~ r , , ` ~.
~
D +M' ~ 6 S y ~ 4 $ ~ ~~x M.r a. \ : r ~~~ '
L' y - -'~ .:f, ` ~~~~ $ x ,n ri. ;2 ~ ~ .~, t ~
. Y~"
.. . . , . . . . . . ~ ~ ~ . ~.a.
- . . . ~ ~ ~ . . ~ ~ 7
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 19, 1969 4523
RECLASSIFICATION - and schools to the north; and that the Parks and Recreation Department
N0. 68-69-91 had indic~..~d the east boundary street was an excellent proposal -
however, since no parking was proposed to be permitted along the
VARIANCL~ N0. 2087~ proposed street on the east, it was suggested that a 6-foot masonry
wall be constructed on the east property lines of two lota to assure
TENTATIVE MAP OF privacy for these homes. Furthermore, the basic issue before the
TRACT N0. 6809, Commission was the fact that the Commission and City Council had
REVISION N0. 1 reaffirmed their evaluation of land use objectives by maintaining the
(Continued) low density designation and would have to determine whether or not
there were significant changes since the last consideration of a
zone change to warrant favorable consideration of the increased
residential densities at this time, particularly in light of the fact that the Housing
Element o£ the 1969 General Plan was recommended on April 28, 1969, for approval to the
City Council.
Mr. Brown also noted that the variance re uest was to
4 permit approximately 30% of the "~
'
;
lots to have a maximum lot coverage ranging up to 47%, whereas 40% was permitted by Code, ,
`';
Mr. Bernard McCune, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the
Commission and noted the Commission had approved "The Groves" development on Euclid Street '°
,
and the colored slides would be af both The Groves and of homes in the general vicinity of
subject property, denoting both average and excellent developments surrounding subject
property as compared to their proposal; that the proposal before the Commission would be
similar to that on Euclid Street; that he hoped the opposition, after viewing their
presentation, would feel the proposed development would enhance the area rather than ~:;
depreciate the values of their properties; that the suggestion made by one of the home-
owners that density be reduced on subject property from 7200 adjacent to 7200-square foot ~~+
lots, to 6000-square foot lots, and then to 5000-square foot lots was determined to be `-:~4
uneconomical.after he had done a feasibility study; that the staff's proposal to abut ~°
7200-square foot lots with 7200-square foot lots would reduce the subdivision by 13 lots ~;~
,
and from the standpoint of the developer was undesirable; that he was unable to understand
how the Commission could feel their proposal would be detrimental to the area since low
quality type single-family homes on 7200-square foot lots could be developed
which would
,
not be an asset to that area; that with this in mind, he had surveyed properties in the
area since he was interested and was as much concerned with overbuilding the area - thus l
,
he was pinpointing the homes which were now on the market for sale, one being a four-
6edroom, one and three-quarter bath, located approximately 450 feet from the pro
posed '
,
deyelopment, had 2420 square feet on a sizeable lot, and was selling for $32,500; that
a three-bedroom, 1650 ~ quare foot home located on Oakstone Drive, with an original selling i
price after construction was $34,500, and the asking price now was $32,950, and the house ~-
was only two years old; that the homes along State College Boulevard ranged in size down !-
to 1360 square feet, but because of their potential commercial sales, thei~ prices were
around 26 950 - a
$ lthou h the homes we
re t
8 hirte
en ears old•
y , three other homes along
`
State College Boulevard ranged in price from $33,000 to $39,950; that a six year old ;
,
three-bedroom, one-story, 1650-square foot house on Chaucer Street was requesting $29
750; ~
,
that another one on Viking Way was recently sold for $29,950 - however, homes in this ~
area were selling in the range of $33,000 - therefore, he felt the homes he had viewed
were comparable in quality or below the quality they proposed, even though :hey were on
7200-square foot lots with an average price of $32,400, and the smallest home in "The ~
Groves", whtch was one-story, was $35,000 and the two-story homes ranged in price over
$40
000
a
d th '•
,
,
n
ese were the starting costs, and as people purchased their homes, they
f
d '
oun
extras they wanted added, and this sometimes brought the purchase price up to
$50,000; that purchasers of the homes in The Groves were men in'the top echelon of the ;
salary range, and he was confident the development they proposed on subject property :
;
would attract a similar type of purchaser. Furthermore, they had never developed a ~
project in any city where they were not invited back to build more homes, and he wished ~,
to reiterate the fact that if the Commission required 7200-square foot lots around the
perimeter of subject property, they would have ta withdraw from development of subject ~'
property since although they were requesting R-2-5000, the majority of these lots were (
more than 5000 square feet, and there was more than adequate area for a rear yard on i
all but the single-story, three-bedroom homes. ~
The Commission inquired whether or not walls would be placed around the perimeter of ~"
each of the lots; whereupon Mr. McCune stated that the majority of persons purchasing ~`
these homes preferred to put in their own walls. ~
A showing of hands indicated twelve persons present in opposition to subject petitions. ~
Mrs, Ralph Biester, 2240 Olmstead Way, appeared before the Commission and stated she had
a few questions to ask of Mr„ McCune; namely, were they intending to build the same homes
as developed on the property in "The Groves" which had a minimum square footage of 1900
square feet, and to what did he refer when he stated 1600 square feet?
~ ~-.>~.
C lttr>. n~'-f ~~y ~~ti a~~ r.~'~.~~'` * ~5,~ 3~'M'"~`~'~r~qY1~~ i: ~.k"~r'T~~°nY-r's~ ,~, . ~ att.. , . .~.~ .~-r~} i . _ .
x'~ a g.:.;,~ .ti 5... ~ a f' '~h ,'k{~ i ~,1 ~ x~, . i ~ t rt.~J- .`r
.. .: .. ~ ~ ~ i 1
1J
MINUTES, CITY.PLANNING COMMISSION, May 19, 1969 4524
RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. McCune noted they would be constructing homes in the same manner
N0. 68-69-91 as The Groves, with single-story homes ranging in square footage
from 2319 to 2405 square feet, and two-story construction ranging in
VARIANCE N0, 2087 square footage from 1611 to 2123 square feet, and that his reference
to 1600 square feet pertained to single-story homes which could be
TENTATIVE MAP OF constructed - however, this was not their intent.
TRACT N0. 6809,
REVISION NO. 1 Mr. James Wedell, 936 South Peregrine Place; appeared before the
(Continued) Commission in oppoaition and noted that in the event the present
developer did not construct these lots and the reclassification and
variance were granted,'whaC protection was afforded the adjoining
property owners that homes of a lower quality and price would not be constructed, and
which could possibly not be as acceptable as the plana of The Groves?
The Cownission advised Mr. Wedell that recommending approval of reclasaification ot the
property to the R-2-5000 Zone, the developer could meet all the site development standarda
of the zone on the property without exercising. the variance since plane could 'only be
tied into a variance petition. However, the integrity of the builder ahould also be
considered, and it was felt development could occur only as the developer proposed under
existing conditions.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberta adviaed the Commisaion that if the variance we:2 not
exercised, and R-2-5000 zoning were on subject property, said development could be in
accordance with the site development standards of that zone; however, the petitioner wae
proposing to construct homes larger than homes normally approved for R-2-5000 zoning.
Mr. Richard McMillaz, 924 South Peregrine Street, appeared before the Commieeion and
inquired that if the propoeal as preaented to the Commiaeion were coneidered favorably,
particularly approvai of the R-2-5000 Zone, baeed on apecific building plane, would it
be possible for the petitioner to then sell his proparty, exercieing the waivere raqueeted
and develop a lower quality home?
Mr, Roberts noted,that anyone who had obtained the R-2-5000 aoning could davelop wiChin 4:
t~'
the site development etandards of that zona - howevar, oingla-family hpms~ ea~t o! State '`'~'~
College Boulevard would have to be 1525 equare faeC m~.nimum; tharafpYe
~hiA would be `~
,
the minimum size that i:ould be devalapad on khe propptCy unlaro a va=i~pca paelEian wera ?'
approved for tiomee of lesser ^quare Faotaga, ~;~,
Mr. McMillan than inquirad wh~kher the A-2~30p0 ~one alea p~~miEEed mulKiple-family ''
dwellinge; whereupon Che Cpmpilspio~ advised him ~hat pnly eingle-family hpme~ with a ~+
maximum coveraga of k0y. wpuld b@ pe~miteed unleas a varianoe had heen ap~rovad by ehe
Commission and City Council granting waiver of Ehis coverage, ~
Commissioner Farano inquired of Assistant City Attorney John Dawson whether or not specific
plans of development could be tied into granting a reclassification petition in order that
property owners could be assured that development would occur in accordance with plans as
presented at the public hearing.
Mr. Dawson advised the Commission and the general public present that reclassification i :`
~
of property could not be granted according to specific plans of development
nor tied ~
,
r into development plans in accordance with the variance; that once the reclassification ~
I was accomplished on tlie property, the developer had the prerogative of constructing 1
smaller homes if no waivers were requested - however, the developer of subject property '`
had applied for both a reclassification and variance, and the variance would then be tied i~
into plans of development, but if something did happen and the developer under subject '
petition withdrew from actual construction, then the~site development standards of the 3~
R-2-5000 Zone would be in force. ~ a'
Mr, McMillan inquired whether or not approval of R-2-5000 for subject property would have ~
a direct bearing on any vacant land on the south side of Wagner Avenue and to the west ~
of this L-shaped parcel on which ten acres were still vacant? ;
The Commission advised Mr, McMillan that each property owner hau a right to request zoning
hi
h h
w
c
e felt was the highest and best use of his r
.o ert
the
- refore the
p
p
Y
s
~
would have to determine at public hearings whether
or
not
this would be applic ble
and ~
appropriate. ~,
Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that the developer was proposing to provide a street
along the easterly boundary of subject properCy, adjacent to the park site; that the ~
Parks and Recreation Department had indicated they would dedicate a portion of the street
for street purposes -.however, the developer had indicated he would complete the improve- '
ments for the entire street, including that portion on the east of subject property
and ;
,
this, then, would provide easier access from subject property and property to the west
to the park site and schools.
SFe.~.~c`~'.tiel..~JS~(~ `F',~~ ~~~. ~' `'1. w ~4 ~ } Ary ~„~,.1: ~F~ '~'iF•~~~ y~'~~d~ ''ai`'D~l.."Y ~F.7 ~{,r
.d~ ~.~F ~ ... K~ . SX ~ ~ d~+r -a , ~+ ., ni~ ~ rof s r~ • a "x
- ! ~ r t ~ ~~ .;z
~ ' ~ ~ . ~~ . . ~ ~ ~ .
MINUTES, CITY`PLANNING COMMISSION, May 19; 1969 4525
RECLASSIFICATION - Mrs. Catherine McMillan, 924 South Peregrine Street, appeared before
N0. 68-69-91 the Commission and inquired whether there was any way`to protect.the
adjoining.property.ownera in the event subject property was noC
VARIANCE N0.:2087 developed by the proposed builder - would the property be reverted
back to R=A instead of permitting R-2-5000, since it was her under-
TENTATIVE.MAP OF standing:at a previous.hearing that if subject property would not
TRACT N0. 6809, develop as approved, the.property would revert back to its original
REVISION N0: 1 - classification?
(Continued)
Mr. Dawson advised the opposition that upon:reading an ordinance
` reclassifying property to a specific zone,'this zone would'remain
on.the property unless the Commission and City Council,.on.their'own.volition, initieEed
reclassification of the property to-the.R-A Zone; however, the Commiasion and Council
were not empowered to grant zoning subject to development by a specific builder,
Mrs. McMillan then stated that it was her opinion that this should also apply'since it
was apparent that,approval of the reclassification was being made on the basis of:the
developer's project along Euclid Street, and if this were not accomplished by this
developer, then this would influence the means of developing the balance of the vacant
property.
Commissioner Farano then inquired of Mr.. Dawson whether or not the Commiaeion cou13 grant
R-1 zoning with waiver of lot sizes eince this would offer some protection to the R-1
homeownera in this general area?
Mr. Dawson stated that this could be done; however, the most expedient manner of reclassi-
fication would be to R-2-5000, and even though R-1 zoning was approved, the variance
granting smaller lot sizes would still have to be tied into plans,
Commissioner Farano stated that if development did not occur, then the property would be
zoned for R-1 rather than R-2-5000, which was a form of protection for those homeowners
pxesent in opposition.
~ Mr. Jerry Morris, 2532 Ames Avenue, appeared before the Commission and noted he had
recently purchased a home with 2000 square feet, and the 2000-square foot home being
proposed did not,compare to the price he had paid for his home; furthermore,-what dis;
tressed him was the fact:that in Jannary the opposition had appeared before the'-Commission
and.Council;opposed to,the same reclassification of subject.property, and the area;had
_ not changed since:that`time to warrant consideration of larger homes on smaller lots, ;
` and;inquired what-effect'would there`be on the increase in school-children when'an in-
creased density of 43% was being considered; that he had lived in Anaheim in another
area where Year lots were quite small, and the owners a~d renters of these home5 were
quite negPigent in the maintainance of their ho;nes, especially where small portions of
land surrounded the homes.
Mr. D. F. Whiting, 2I26 East Vermont Avenue, appeared before the Commission and noted '
that after having seen the plans of development, he noted the rear yards of two and one-
half homes would be abutting his property, and if no walls were proposed, this would be i
permitting encraachment into his front yard, as well as his back yard; that his proper~y ~
! had the required parkway prior to construction of the sidewalk, and to permit development
j of the lots easterly with sidewalks abutting the curb would present a hodge-podge of
~ development.
Mr. Harold Budge, 2023 Turin Place, appeared before the Commission and noted that builders
of the tracts surrounding subject property had been required to subdivide with 7200-square
foot lots, and all the homeowners in this area had purchased their homes on the assumption
that the balance of the vacant properties would_be developed in a similar manner; xhat
although the City had a very good system of schools, and schools were developed in accord-
ance with the density as projected on the General Plan, an increase o£ 43% density would
mean a similar increase in the number of school children into the area:
Mr. McCune, in rebuttal, stated that he wished to assure the opposition'that his firm had
been in business for.fifteen years and had never resold a property once they had requested
reclassification of the property; that they would not expend over one million dollars for
I raw land,,.present development plans which were acceptable.to the City staff, and then
b present the petition before a public hearing if they had intended to sell`the property
f without developing; that he was sure the property would not be built by any builder with
7200-square foot lots,due to the cost of the property, and in all likelihood the eventual
step would be to request multiple-family development on subject property with prices of
property going up; and that the'homes that were developed at The Groves had now been ~
refined, and it was anticipated that considerable improvements would be made to the ;
existing plans, and, therefore, it was hoped the new owners of the single-family homes !
would-be good neighbors as those at The Groves. '
V ~w . xt8§~v .. `S~ ;:r„: »+~;,'Y~'a`L~9~°Sf1~S"D''~t,n~.~~7y'f ' . ,'5.,,. ~i.1ad..C ~~}{~ P' ~.k: ~. k ~ F "f.~as ~ i +,N,.~ .~
+x,
~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~.
~ ~ ~ . ~
~ ~
~ . . . .
MINUTES; CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 19, 19.69 4526
RECLASSIFICATION. - THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~~j
, ;NO. `68-69-91._
~~
;, ,:, ,
Commissioner Gauer noted that he had visited The Groves and had
VARIANCE N0
2087 ,s;
;~
.
- viewed:"all of their models, and he had never prev3ously seen any
`'
~` : ni
r ho ~~
K
..-
ce
mes developed thioughout the City of Anaheim, even though
` TENTATIVE
MAP OF t
'
~
.
these were developed on!5000-square foot lots.
TRACT
N0
6809,' '
,
,
REVISION N0: 1 Chairman Allred noted that if R-1, 7200-square foot lots were approved
;(ConEinued)•. on
b
e N~
~
su
3
ct property, homes could'be developed of a minimum of 1525 ;~
square!feet,without a variance; however, the chances for develou{ng
'
1 this size home,on,a 7200-square foot lot were problematical, and the
quality;of
_ttie
ho
e
`
o
,
:
m
s
prop
sed was considerably higher than some R-2-SOOO tracts which
tiad been developed within the City•
that th
m
~
,
e Co
mission was also concerned with what
would be developed:in this area, and since the developer had indicated plans as
d
"
presente
in a brochure would be the seme as was proposed to be constructed on subject property
th
i
e
r
o '~'~
,
e
nt
g
ity
f the builder would be at stake, and in order to consider R-1 lots of less
Ehan 7200
a ';;
.squ
re feet, subject petition would have to be readvertised for the additional
waiver_
~ ~ . . . . . . 'J
Commissioner Farano then inquired of Mr. McCune whether or not subject property was in
e
w
`
scro
,
and whether one of the conditions was to obtain the appropriate zoning, and
would this be bindin
h
d
g on t
e
eveloper?
Mr. McCune stated that it would cost his company a substantial amount of money to withdraw '
from the escrow proceedings. -
~
Mi. McCune further noted that a number of homes in The Groves had been sold after the i
prospective owners had selected their site and the model, and that 80% of Che 117 homes
`
"
had
been sold.
,
Commissioner Farano then noted that; he lived in this neighborhood and had watched the
c ;, ~;
onstructiom af The Groves, and statements made by the dev~_loper were true since all
this had b
en d
e -%
e
ev
loped on these lots.
Commissioner Farano further noted that-he`found it a little difficult to believe the
a
e
` ~°
~st
t
ment made,by the
.developer that no one would build homes on 7200 square foot lots
a
h
§ t
e Commission, City Council, and neighbors'dictate since he did not feel zoning and
-the m
e
w ~~
ann
r in
hich a deveToper proposed to develop could be dictaCed by the owners of
E
'
property
based.on prior restrictions.created on the property; that this was determined
by many things, although
he did not
i !~ ~
;
quest
on the integrity and quality of the homes that
the developer proposed; tfiat
one of th
h
s ~`
.
e t
ing
that was not covered by the public hearing
was why these homes as proposed by the develo
er could
t b
d i
'
p
no
e
eveloped on a 7200-square
foot_lot, and'it appeared that what was being attempted was to " have the foot fit the
shoe rather than having the shoe fit the foot"; that no substantial change had taken
place fr
th f
om
e time the Commission and Council had previously considered R-2-5000 for
sub ect
j pro
ert !
i
,
p
y to justify granting the reclassification petition as proposed, even
Chough the homes a
d !. '
s propose
were of high quality; and that he would dislike seeing
single-family homes on 7200-square foot l
t
f 1 I'
o
s o
525 square feet developed. However, it
was his-opinion that any zoning action should not be taken based
th j
on
e quality of the
proposal, and it should be based on land use in the area and its compatibility. j
;`
Commissioner Herbst noted that R-1 zoning could be requested and approved; hawever
this did
b ~
,
no
assure quality development, and an inex ensive
p .$20,000 home could be built
in th
ce
r' ~
~
e
nte
of the higher qualit t
re,
the integrity of the builder and his
s
a
i
t
S
a
t
r ,~,
proposal
would
be an
asse
to the
area
and
to
the
homes'already developed there.
. ~
~ ~ . . . ~ ' . ~ ~ . . . .
i ~:`
.
Chairman A11red noted that at today's market it was hardly likely that anyone would
o :
;
c
nstruct a home on a 7200-square foot lot having only 1525 square feet, and the cost of
a
h
.
ome would be more in the vicinity of $28,000 to $32,000 rather than $20,000.
Mr. Roberts advised the Commission thac approximately 30% of the lote in the proposed
subdi
isi
w
v
on
ould be in excess of the 40% coverage, and this applied primarily to one-
sEory homes. °, ;
,_ ,
~
Commissioner Herbst.offered Resolution No. PC69-112 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded,by Commissioner Thom
to ?
,
recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi-
fication No.'68,69-91 be approved
subject to conditi
,
ons. (See Resolution Book)
On ro11 call the L•oregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ,
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:. Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Allred.
,NOES:. COMMISSIONERS; Farano, Rowland,
ABSENTi COMMISSIONERS: Camp,
;
_ i
~~.~.,
~
~. ~ ~
MZNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 19, 1969 4527
RECLASSIFICATION' - Cortunissioner Farano, iri voting "no", stated thaC no evidence had~been
NO.- 68-69-91 submitted that a land use change had taken place to warrant considera=
tion of low-medium density.for subject property, and that it was his
VARIANCE.N0..2087 opinion zoning ahould not be granted on the quality and development
of homes, but primarily on land use.
TENTATIVE MAP.OF
TRACT N0; 6809, Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No, PC69-113 and moved for its
`REVISION N0. 1 passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Thom, to grant Petition
(ConEinued) for Variance No. 2087, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Allred.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland.
ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: Camp.
Commissioner Farano noted that since the reclassification of subject property had been
recommended for approval, development by the proposed developer was far bet~er than if
someone else had developed.
Commissioner Rowland stated hia vote of "no" was based on the fact that he did not believe
that the development was in keeping with the community values of the General Pian and the
statements made in the adoption by the Planning Commisaion on April 28, 1969, o.f the
Housing Element since the Commisaion had recently re-evaluated moet of the zoneEt, and
this was reflected in the Housing Element as recommended for approval, and if L•he Commie-
sion at that time had felt the site development etandarde of the R-1 Zone for 7200-aquare
foot lots was not in keeping with the thinking of the Cammiaeion in adoptien of the Houeing
Element, the Commission would have recommended changee to the R-1 Zone to permit amallar
lots.
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to approve Tentative Map.of Tract No. 6809, Rsvleion
No. l, seconded by Commiseioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED (Commieaioner Aowland voCed
"no"), subject to the following conditione;
1. That should this subdivision 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. 6809, Revision No. 1, is granted
subject' to the approval of Reclassification No. 68-69-91.
3. That streets shall be recorded as "A" and "B" - Nordica Street; "C" - Clay Street;
"D" - Stone Circle; "E" - Jasper Circle; "F" - Granite Circle; "G" - Annika Street;
"J" - Nyon Avenue; "K" - Vermont Avenue; "L" - Oshkosh Circle; and "M" - Lizbeth
Street~
4. That in accordance with City Council policy a 6-foot masonry i~all shall be constructed
on the south property line separating Lot Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 169 through 175 and
Wagner Avenue. Reasonable landscaping, including irrigation 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 of said landscaping.
5. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities.
6. That the vehicular access rights, except at street and/or alley openings to Wagner
Avenue shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim.
7. That a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed along the east property line of
Lot Nos. 72 and 117, said wall subject to review and approval of the Parks and
Recreation Department.
8. That the owner(s) of subject property shall improve the east side of "^~" Street
with curb and gutter and pavement.
~. ; , - : _. , _ , . . . ; ,.:
~.. ~
MINUTES:,~TY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 19; 1969
- 4528
G~NIERAL PLAN , - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLAiJNING COMMISSION, 204 East
AM~NDMENT N0. 115 Lincoln Avenue;,to consider establishing West Sfreet generally north
of Hampshire Avenue extending southerly toward Cerritos Avenue from
PRECISE ALIGNM~NT- a secondary to a major highway on the Circulation Element - Highway
FOR WEST STREET Rights-of-Way of tne General Plan, and the adoption of a precise
alignment for West Street extending from the exisCing right-of-way
on the west side of the Santa Ana Freeway to WinsCOn Road.
Assistent Planner William Young presented General P1an Amendment No. 115 to the Planning
Commission, noting that the Traffic Division considered the widening of West'Stree[ to
a major highway as being justified on the basis that the average daily traffic count
would reach 20,OOG vehicies per day on West Street by 1975, and the traffic for Harbor
Roulevard, the only access street in this area crossing over the Santa elna Freeway, would
increase to 65,000 vehicles during this same period - therefore, some relief from an over-
( capacity of average i~aily traffic for Harbor Boulevard could be accomplished iE and when
f the State Divisian of Highways approved extendiag West Street over the Santa Ana Freeway.
Mr. Young then reviewed the two alternatives proposr~~_ - the precise a2ignment ci West
Street, indicating Alternate A starting from a point approximately 122 feet north of
Hampshire Avenue in a southwesterly direction across Flore Street and aligning iaith the
existing location of West Street on the south side of Ball Road. Alternate B was then
reviewed, noting il• extended from the existing right-oi-way of West Street 151 feet ~orth
of the centerline a~ Ball Road, extending southerly to Ball Road attd southwesterly across
Ball Road, aligning with the existing West Street, approximately 141 feet north of the
centerline of Winston Road.
A review of the Right-of-Way Division's preliminary cost estimates for each alternate
was presented by Mr. Young, (see Report to the Commission for detailed analpsis) which
indicated Alternate A wculd be $28,500 less than A:.ternate B. Furthermore, there would
6e 2n economic loss ?n ta:c revenue of $10,500 if Alternate B were considered fat~orably,
and that the Engineeri~g and Development Services DepartmenCS recommended adoption of
Alternate A as the mosC ceasible and desirable alignment ta l~e considered for West Street.
Mr, H. H. Gaines, 899 South West Street, appeared before the Commission to express nis
viewpoints on the proposal for Che alignment of West Street, noting ne was opposed Lc
All•ernate A because of tbe development and improvement he nad made on his property on
which he had several apartment units; that Alternate A cdould encompass Cwo-thirds of
nis property; that he had been paying taxes aC an increasing rate each year for the pasr
iourteen years and now, beca~ise of the possible opening up of this area, the proposal of
Alternate A would deprive him of his income property_ Furthermore, ii Alternate A were
_, Co be considered favorably, the map outlin'ing a smaller deviaCion from the alignment
proposed b;~ the engineer (sketch submitted tc the Commission) would stil.l pra•~ide the
alignment needed, but wuuld take only a mincr porCion of his property and would not
affect the single-Eamily homes immediately to the north of his apartment complex.
Mrs. Nettie Perry, 836 Hspen Street, appeared before the Commission and inquired why the
proposed majar boulevard was only projected immediately Co Che north of ner property;
that this street should be indicated either tc centinue nerther.ly or stop at Hampshire
Avenue; and that the prcposal would eliminate any possibility of their being abie to
gain access from their rear yard because ei the prosimity of tne majcr boulevard.
Mr. Y~ung noted that the proposed alignment was Lhe first phase of providing adequste
circulation for the Commercial-Recreatien Area, said street eventually extending acres5
the Santa Ana Freeway to previde Chrough circulation to and from the Center City Area;
hoiaever, because the State Division of Highways had not gi~ren any inforTation regarding
approval af the overcrossing of the freeway, 3_t was necessary co terminaCe the present
phase as projected_ Furthermore, in order tc pretect tne City from later ha~ing to
condemn properties 2lready developed with commercial structures, it was delermined that
the pr.ecise alignment for this area should be ~sCablished at this time.
OL•fice Engineer Jay Titus advised the Commission and interested persons tnat the ~ermina-
: tion of thi~ proposed precise alignment was at the end of the curve and determined the
design speed of the road; furthermore, from that point it was necessary to provide f•or
a minimum reverse curve ~o as not to create a traffic hazard 'uy slowi~g down the design
speed for the streel•.
Mrs. Gordon Savage, 920 South Flore Street, appeared before the Commission, noting her
properl•y was at the nortnwest corner ot Vermont Avenue and I'lore Street; tha[ aocut tnree
years ago there had been a rumor about the West Street alignment, and that Plore Street
would be primarily affected by it - Cherefore, because of the possibility that ner
property would be part of this street alignment, she had not made tne imprevements that
were planned for her properCy, and even though her home wac only fifteen ~ears old, she
had decided to put ofi these improvements, and she urged the City to proceed with the
(' '
. _ .. .. . . ,
0 ~- ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 19, 1969 4529
GENERAL.PLAN
AMENUMENT N0. 115
PRECISE ALIGNMENT
FOR WEST STREET
(Continued)
actual street alignment so that people in this area could start to
relocate, and that because of this fact, no one was maintaining his
property, leaving the properties to deteribrate because of the possi-
bility their homes would be purchased for the proposed alignment,
and that this made a very undesirab~e atmosphere for the balance of
the neighborhood.
Mr. Norman Smedegaard, attorney, 401 West 8th Street, San~a Ana, appeared before the
Commission and atated he represented four property owners of five parceis comprising a
total of 25 acres l.ocated both on the north and south sides of Ball Road in the immediat~e
area of the alignment study; that a lease had been conswnmated on the 4.63-acre parcel
for commercial purposes, and if Alternate B were considered favorably, this would mean
division of the property into two small parcels; that the signal lights now on West
Street would have to be relocated, increasing costs above that noted in the Report to
the ~ommission if Alternate B were adopted; that both the Engineering and Planning
staffs had recommended consideration of Alternate A based on the fact that it was cheaper
and afforded the best manner in providing circulation to and through the commercial area.
Mr. Smedegaard then reviewed the eleven basic reasons which he felt were very important
for the Commission to consider Alternate A favorably, as follows:
1„ Reduce costs in acquiring the property for the proposed alignment.
2. The Development Services Department recommended Alternate A.
3. That it was the best design according to the Traffic Department.
4. That it was the safest design.
5. That it was the recommendation of Che Engineering Department.
6. That it was the best spacing of intersections on Ball Road.
7. That it was the most efficient alignment.
8. That it would produce the most future real property taxes to the City.
9. That it would produce the most sales tax of a commercial development.
10. That it was the best planning of development of future vacant land.
11. That it would produce the least amount of damage to existing commercial development
for this area because approval of Alternate B would eliminate some of the existing
commercial property which paid real property and sales taxes;
and that these eleven basic reasons for considering Alternate A over Alternate B were
bas¢d on the fact that it had the most potential for the extension of West Street,
although he did not wish to leave the impression that Alternate B did not have some
valid potential.
Mr. Richard Stanley, Vice President of Wrather Corporation, operators of the Disneyland
Hotel, appeared before the Commission and stated they had not had time to study the
various merits of the two alternatives; however, from a casual observation, Alternate A
would be preferable, but this was only a small portion of a large problem now existing
in the Commercial-Recreation Area for a complete circulation pattern of this entire area;
that they were new in escrow for the 29-acre parcel to the south of the existing hotel
to continue their overall master plan for this complex, and it was important that complete
information as to the beginning and end of the width of West Street in this area be
furnished them, as well as other property owners in this area having commercial develop-
ments since plans would have to be made for ingress and <:gress to the properties, and
this circulation problem was one which s~retched from the freeway overpass to Katella
Avenue, and that it was important that this entire area be considered as a one-package
problem so that they ~aould be notified of any changes proposed from that which presently
existed in order that they could reflect this on their master plan.
Mr. Gaines asked to be heard again and stated that Uecause of hia age, being 71 years old,
he was not desirous of wa3ting for the adoption and construction cf the realignment of
all of West Street nor to wait until the entire circulation pattern was studied because
in all fairness to the property owners affected, he urged a decision be made as soon as
possible and acquisition of the properties made in order that the afiected property
owners could make more permanent plans, and by establishing only guidelines, this would
further delay these affected property owners from acquiring homes elsewhere before real
estate prices rose any higher.
Chairman Allred noted that the Commission could only make recommendations to the CiCy
Council, and any final decision would be up to the City Council.
Mr. J. W. Hollingsworth, owner of property at the southwest corner of Ball Road and West
Street, appeared before the Commission and stated he concurred with all of the remarks
made by Mr. Smedegaard; furthermore, adoption of Alternate B would be confiscating the
existing values of the properties at West and Ball Road.
Mr. Dave Collins, 1077 West Ball Road, appeared before the Commission and presented a
map and a detailed cost analysis of land acquisition costs, boulevard construction,
area tax increment and tax base increment of properties along a WesC Street alignment
- _. _ _ . . .. , ___ .- , ,,
0, ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMPIISSION, May 19, 1969 4530 '
GENERAL PLAN - between Ball Road and Santa Ana Street, noting that he had become
AMENDMENT N0. 115 interested in the extension of West Street across the Santa Ana
Freeway at the time the Richfield station was approved at West Street
PRECZSE ALIGNMENT and Ball Road; that he owned most of the homes on the east side of
FOR WEST STREET F1ore Street,`,and naturally was in favor of Alternate A, although
(Continued) the alignment as proposed ~aould not basically affect his home or his
office located on the northeast corner of Flore Street and Ba11 Road;
that he was opposed to approval of Alternate A because of the in-
surmountable problems that would face the developed properties in this area, one Ueing
Ehe Jack and Jill Motel on the south side of Ball Road wherein Alternate B would have a
major street within 10 feet of existing motel units.
Mr. Collins noted that his primary purpose of presenting the cost analysis and the map
was to discuss the larger picture of providing circulation between the core or downtown
area and the Commercial-Recreation Area since the proposal before the Commissioz was
only a small segment of the larger picture; that he had been.interested in this overall
plan for some time.and had served on the Capital Improvements Committee as it pertained
to the downtown area of Anaheim.
In summing up. Mr. Collins' comments, the following were noted:
1. Concern on the actual location of a new City Hall; although the Capital Improvements
Committee was divided on its location, the Council now appointed a new committee
who were studying a possible site„
2. The problems of the gradually deteriorating downtown area.
3. Extension of a boulevard in which school property might be involved would be
difficult because of having to obtain approval from the State.
4. The undesirability of proposing a inajor boulevard on which a railr~ad track was
located.
5. Recommendations in the Gruen Report that the Commercial-Recreation Area should be
connected with the downtown area, with [he boulevard overcrossing the Santa Ana
Freeway.
6. Connection of both the downtown area and other parts of the City to make the City
an integrated one, rather than being divided as it presently existed.
7. Real estate values of the homes along the boulevard location he proposed being in
the vicinity of $20,000 per h~use, and the possibility of alternative methods than
Alternates A and B as presented by the staff.
Mr, Collins noted that the City of Santa Ana was spending two million dollars to extend
Broadway across the freeway, and Memory Lane also across the freeway, by the removal of
several rows of homes to improve their access across the freeway, and since Anaheim had
only Harbor Boulevard crossing over the freeway through the Commercial-Recreation Area,
the backup of traffic on Saturdays and Sundays made it imperative that an alternate
route be provided, even though the State was considering extending Anaheim Boulevard to
Haster Street as a two-way overpass.
Mr. Collins further suggested that the cost analysis figures he had presented should be
thoroughly studied by the various slaffs of the City since it was his opinion a definite
pattern and construction of West Street over the freeway ~aas an absolute necessity with
the recent approval and beginning of construction of the Royal Motor Inn at the north-
east corner of West Street and Ball Road, which eventually planned to have 2,000 rooms;
and that he was desirous of having information of the exact plan proposed and did not
want to see the circulation pattern before the Commission tonight lay dormant for five
years since it was the City's obligation to make a decision in order to further develop-
ment of this area.
Chairman Allred inquired of the staff whether there was any idea of when actual construc- !
tion of the realignment of West Street would take place. i
~
Assistant bevelopment Services Director Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that it ~
was intended to study the alignment of West Street on a three phase basis, and the pro- i
posal before the Commission conight was the first phase, with the next phase being the ;
interchange of the freeway; Chat he was in agreement with Mr. Collins' statement there ~
~ iaere several other alternatives - however, before other alternatives to the overcrossing
of the;Santa Ana Freeway could be discussed and presented, it would be necessary for j
the staff to;meet with the State Division of Highways to determine when, how, and if ~
the overerossing of West Street over the Santa Ana Freeway could be accomplished and ~
~=~how financing o£ 'such a project would be accomplished. '
Mr, Robert Hi11, 945 South F1ore Street a ~
, ppeared before the Commission and advised the ~
Commission he had already made plans to sell his home which was located across the street i
:from the Dave Collins property; however, the appraiser had advised him that his property
~ aould not be evaluated until the boulevard problem had been resolved, and the small, i..
individual property owner was not in a position to hire an attorney to represent him,
~'
.. . ~~
~ , - --- ~ _ _
~ ~ , ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 19, 1969 4531
GENERAL ?LAN - and a number of people in this area would be faced with the problem
AMENDMENT N0. 115 of selling their homes and not being.able to determine what the sales
price would be unEil the alignment of West Street was resolved -
PRECZSE ALIGNMENT therefore, he urged the Commission not to delay action on tonight's
FOR WEST STREET proposal for a compiete study of the circulation problem.
(Continued)
Mrs. Hightower, owner of the Jack and Jill Motel on the south side of
Ball Road, appeared before the Commission and inquired as to the
number of feet Alternate B would be from the rear portion of her motel since she was in
favor of Alternate A; that she had resided in and operated this motel for the past eleven
years at this location and had no intention of moving t6 another location, and that if
the'distance were .too close to the motel, the guests could be jeopardized by careless
drivers leaving the roadway and crashing into the motel units; and that since there was
~ considerable competition in the motel business, she was hopeful no additional problems
would be presented to jeopardize the operation of her small, 19-unit motel.
Mr. Thompson advised Mrs, Hightower that the Alternate B precise alignment would be
made available to her, and that it would basically touch the corner of her property,
with the motel being 10 feet from the right-of-way line - however, a parkway would be
located between the actual road and her property line which would act as a deterrent
in possible accidents with her motel.
Mrs. Hightower Chen noted that the existing traffic signals on Ball Road made it difficult
to make a left-hand turn into her property from Ball Road.
Mr, Thompson noted that these were all factors which the City and the Commission would
have to consider when the precise alignment was adopted; that the West Street alignment
had been under consideration for a number of years, and it was proposed that adoption
of one of the two alternatives presented at the public hearing would then reserve land
from these vacant parcels which could develop with expensive structures if an alignment
were not adopted.
Mr. Collins then inquired if Alternate A were adopted, was it possible the lots fronting
on the west side of Flore Street, as well as portions of some lots not used for the
alignment itself, to be converted into a park.
Mr. Young advised the Commission that this was only in the discussion stage, and adoption
of a precise alignment and right-of-way was the only consideration before the Commission;
however, it was his personal opinion that a small neighborhood park would provide an
excellent buffer between the proposed major highway, West Street, and the homes to the
west.
Mr, Roger Knight, 1115 West Hampshire Avenue, appeared before the Commission and inquired
if either alternate were adopted, would Hampshire Avenue deadend at West Street, and would
access be available to the new West Street alignment from Hampshire Avenue?
Mr. Titus stated that this had noc been determined up to the present time - where access
would be provided for Hampshire Avenue - and if Alternate A were adopted, permitting
access to a highly traveled street from a local residential street, it would create a
very difficult intersection.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED,
The Commission complimented Mr. Collins in the presentation he made, which was considered
a very ambitious plan; however, rather than continuing considerati.on of the precise
alignment for West Street for this segment until such time as a complete study had been
made could create considerable hardship and might take several years - therefore, it was
their opinion action should be taken on the proposals as presented at this public heari.ng;
and that with this small start, this might be the impetus to complete the circulation
for the Commercial-Recreation Area.
Commissioner Farano noted that the presentation and exhibit presented by Mr. Gaines was
an excellent idea and inquired of the Office Engineer whether or uot this could be
incorporated into the precise alignment.
Mr. Titus stated that from the sketch he could not tell whether the increase of the
curve would reduce the design speed of 38 miles per hour, which coas the minimum speed,
and might have some affect on speed beyond 40 and 45 miles per hour.
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolu[ion No. PC69-114 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that General Plan
Amendment No. 115, establishing West Street as a major highway from approximately
Hampshire Avenue on the north to Cerritos Avenue on the south. (See Resolution Book)
,~
_ _ _ _..
,;~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 19, 1969 4532
GENERAL`PLAN - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following
rAMENDMENT N0. 115 vote:
PRECISE.ALIGNMENTi AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Allred.
FOR WEST-STREET.: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland, Thom.
(Continued) ABSENT: COIAfISSIONERS: Camp.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC69-115 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council the adoption of a precise
alignment,_'Alternate A,"extending the existing right-of-way of West Street from approxi-
mately 122 feet north'of the centerline of Hampshire Avenue southwesterly across Flore
SEreet to.a line with the existing location of West Street on the south side of Ball
Road,as being the most feasible and desirable of the alignments and being the least
expensive,"as well as`assuring that the tax revenues would not be lost to the City,
(See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Allred.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; Camp.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland, Thom.
CommissioneLS Rowland and Thom stated that their abstention in voting was due to the
fact that insufficient information was presented for a vote, and that the entire circu-
lation should be considered prior to any adoption or recommendation by the Commission.
REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1
RECOM1~fENDATIONS Orange County Use Variance No. 6247 - Request to establish a
temporary stand for retail sale of locally grown fruit and
vegetables in the A1, General Agricultural, District on property
at the northwest corner of Sunkist Street and Ball Road in the
east Anaheim area.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts presented to the Commission Orange County Use Variance
No. 6247, noting the location or the property, the proposed use, annexation proceedings
in process to the City of Anaheim on subject property, an4 the,fact that the establish-
ment of a temporary stand for the sale of agricultural products grown on adjacent fields
was not permitted by Title 7.8, Chapter 18,16, Section 18.16„030(4) of the Anaheim
Municipal Code, which only permits incidental sale of r~~ricultural produce grown on the
premises.
Mr. Roberts further noted that a prezoning petition and annexation proceedings were
being processed, and that annexation could take place prior to the time the petitioner
indicated the use would be terminated; therefore, if subjecC petition were granted,
and the property became a part of the City of Anaheim, said use would be in violation
of the Z~ning Ordinance.
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange
County Planning Commission be urged to deny Orange County Use Variance No. 6247 on the
basis that since subject property was in the process of being annexed into the City,
the use would be in violation of Anaheim's Zoning Ordinance, Commissioner Gauer seconded
the motion, MOTION CARRIED~
ITEM N0. 2
Street name change - Orchard Drive within the jurisdiction
of the City of Anaheim.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that action taken recently by
the Orange County Board,of Supervisors relative to the Commission's recommendation that
the name of Orchard Drive be retained, and the assignment of the name "Kellogg" be made
to a new streeb in the Yorba Linda area to honor a long-time Orange County resident and
his contributions to the betterment of the County had not been sustained, and the Board
of.Supervisors had renamed Orchard Drive north af Imperial Highway and that portion
within the County's jurisdiction north of Orangethorpe Avenue to Kellogg Drive - there-
fore, in order to maintain continuity of one name for a street, the staff recommended
that the Commission consider renaming that portion of Orchard Drive within the juris-
diction of the City of Anaheim to Kellogg Drive,
Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the action taken by the Board of ''~
Supervisors, it being noted that the major portion of Orchard Drive was not within the ~"
.~
;:,s
, ;;s
. ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~ , ;~
_...,,. ,...
, MINUTES,~Ty pLANNING COMMISSION, May 19,-1969 ~
4533
REPORTS.AND
REC01~114ENDATIONS ITEM N0..2 (Continued) ~
City of Anaheim; therefore, to avoid confusion in the signing of street namea, that
the Commission'should aet this for pu6lic hearing at the next most convenient agenda,
Commisaioner Gauer offered a motion to direct the Commission Secretary to set for public
hearing a;street name change for Orchard Drive within the jurisdiction of the City of
Anaheim'for the meeting of June 18y 1969. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED. ,
ITEM N0. 3
Amendment to Title 18, Conditional Use Section -
Permitted Usea,
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that the Conditional Use Section
of the,Anaheim Municipal Code described mobile home parks as trailer parks or trailers,
and since this was a misnomer,•this ahould be amended to read mobile home parks or
travel trailer parks; therefore, he would recommend this be set for public hearing.
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to direct the Commission Secretary to set for public
hearing conaideration of an amendment to Title 18, Conditional Use Permit Section,
Permitted Uses, of the Anaheim Municipal Code, to be heard un June 30, 1969. Commissioner
Farano seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM N0. 4
S~ecial Resolution to City Council regarding request to
Orange County Tax Assessor for tax reduction on properties
in industrial areas being used for agriculturual purposes.
Commissioner Gauer noted that he had previously suggested the City Council be urged to
request a tax relief for properties in industrial areas on which the City has determined
2hat the only acceptable interim uses would be for agricultural purposes. However,
property owners had been requesting incompatible usea for their properties, and in order
that these properties might be retained for eventual industrial development without
being maintained in an agricultural preaerve, some form of tax relief should be given
them which would encourage tfiem to grow crops on the property which would not only pay
for taxes but give them a small return for their property.
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC69-116, and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commiasioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that the Orange County
Tax Assessor be urged to consider some tax relief for properties located within the juris-
diction of the City of Anaheim and projected for industrial purposes, but being utilized
for agricultural purposes until such time as industrial development occurs without being
restricted to holding the land in an agricultural preserve, this recommendation being
made on the basis that the City of Anaheim has maintained a policy of disc~uraging in-
compatible uses, such as apartments and mobile home parks (not considered an interim use)
in areas set aside for industrial purposes. (See Resolutiun Book)
On roll call the foregoing reaolution was passed by the following vote;
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Thom, Allred.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None,
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp.
ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to diacuss, Commissioner Thom
offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Farano
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED,
The meeting adjourned at 10;10 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
a~,~r./ ~,%:~~~~L
, S cretary
Anaheim City Planning Commission i'
)t_,