Minutes-PC 1969/09/22'~, : 3.:;, f ~ H.
~~~~s~--------~ _- ~ 1 . ' . ~ .
~ ~ ~
cicy xaii
Anaheim, California
September 22, 1969
A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Co~nisaion was called
to order by Chairman Rowland at 2:00 o"clock P.M., a quorum being
preaent.
PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Rowland.
- COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano (who entered Council Chamber
at 3:15 P.M.), Gauer, Herbst, Thom.
ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: None.
PRESENT - Aesistant Develapment Services Director: Ronald Thompson
Deputy City Attorney: Frank Lowry
Office Engineer: Jay Titus
Aasistant Zoning Supervisor: Pat Brown
Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Allred led in the Pledge of Allegiance tc the Flag.
APPROVAL OF - Commiasioner Herbat offered a motion to approve the Minutes of the
THE MINUTES meeting of September 8, 1969, as submitted, seconded by Commissioner
Gauer, and MOTION'CARRIED.
i ~' "~7
~n, Y'-.~,~,~- ~
~
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. RAYMOND SPEHAR, 913 Paloma Place, Fullerton,
N0. 68-69-68 California, Owner; property deacribed as: An irregularly shaped parcel
containing a total of approximately 80 acres of land located generally
CONDITIONAl US~ east of Imperial Highway, aouth of Eaperanza Road and north of the
PERMIT N0. 1090 Santa Ana River and the proposed route of the Riverside Freeway, more
particularly described as: Parcel 1- An irregularly shaped parcel
containing approximately 30 acres of land having approximate frontagea
of 800 feet slong the north side of the Santa Ana River, 1,500 feet along the east side of
Imperial Highway, and 1,100 feet along the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad south of
Eaperanza Road, and Parcel 2- An irregularly shaped parcel containing approximately 50
acre: of land having approximate frontages of 2,000 feet along the north side of the
Santa Ana River and 1,500 feet along the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad south of
Eaperanza Road and being located from approximately 700 feet to approximately 2,700 feet
east of Imperial Highway. Property presently classified COUNTY A1, GENERAL AGRICULTURAL,
DISTRICT.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: PARCEL 1- C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
PARCEL 2- R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.,
REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLIS~ A TRAILER PARK, WITH WAIVER OF
REQUIRED SETBACK ON PARCEL 2 ONLY.
Subject petitions were continued from the meetinga of March 24, April 21, June 2 and 30,
and Auguat 11, 1969, pen3ing a decision of the 1oca1 Agency Formation Commission regard-
ing the boundaries bQtween Anaheim and Yorba Linda north of the Santa Ana River and east
of Imperial Highway and for the submisaion of revised plans and results of annexation
proceedinge. .
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown noted for the Co~ission the location of sub,ject
property, the ariginal proposal, and the recent request of the petitioner ta texminate
all proceedinga on aub~ect,petitiona since they no longer reflected their intended
development of subject parcels, and they were planning to file a new reclassification
action and conditi~nal use permit which will be heard by the Commission on October 6,
1969, reflecting their current plans for aub3ect property.
Commisaioner Allred offered a motion to terminate all praceedinga on Petitions for
Reclasaification No. 68-69-68 and Conditional Uae Permit No. 1090 on the basis that the
petitioner was no longer desirous of developing in accordance with the original plans
and had filed a new reclassification and conditional use permit petition; therefore, the
petitioner was requesting termination of aubject petitiona. Commissioner Gauer seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
4811
, _
~~~~ " _
r.. . . ... r,.. .~' " ':..~ '... .`~,._ . .~.~:.~; ...~,) ~~~..~.~.,_ T~
. .. ' ~. .. . _, . ~, . . . .. .. . . . . . . . -
^I~` ~'u ..w "'3~ y., ~~/' ~ i ~ `+ ed..i;~ / r T ~.:.~ r:• F::~ "a~
µ ~~
~ ~~
~ ~ i ~
V
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 22, 1969 4812 it
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. LEWIS R. AND NDITH E. SCHMID
1401 Smoke- `
~
,
N0. 69-70-5 wood Drive, Santa Ana, California, Ownera; GEORGE L. ARGYROS, ARNEL ;
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 17411 irvine Boulevard, Suite D, Tustin~ California,
Agent; requesting that property described as: An irregularly shaped
parcel of land with a frontage of approximatelq 225 feet on the west aide of State College
Boulevard and an approximate depth of 150 feet, subject property being approximately 350
feet north of the centerline of Ball Road, be reclasaified from the R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY
RESZDENTIAL, ZONE to the C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. <'.1
Sub~ect petition was continued from the meeting of July 28, 1969, to allow time for the "''
petitioner to conau~ate acquiaition of additional property and for the preparation of ~;;
plana, se well as an opinion from the City Attorney relative to approving a reclasaifi- -
cation petition aubject to development in accordance with precise plana.
Aasiatant Zoning Supervieor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property
uses
,
establiahed in cloae proximity, and the reaeon for continuance of aubject petition from
th
l
e Ju
y 28 meeting, noting that the petitionera had submitted a letter requesting an ~
additiona;. 90-day continuance of subject petition to complete cons~ation of purchase ~
f
o
property to ~the south as well as obtaining a major tenant for the commercial property. ~
9
Mr. Bxown $uz•ther noted that the staff had contacted the City Attorney's office regarding ;
clarification and an opinion as to requiring precise plana of development in approving a ;
reclassification petition, at which time that office had indicated that since the City
had the right to rezone property, it also had the right to require development of a
parcel in accordance with :approved preciae plans.
`
;
Commisaioner Gauer offered a motion to continue Petition for Reclassification No
69-70-5 ~
,
to the meeting of December 29, 1969, as requested by the petitioners, to allow time for
consu~ation of purchase of additional property and leasing to a major tenant
Cou¢nis-
.
aioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18, - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; to consider an
amendment to Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter
18.37, Co~ercial-Recreation Zone, by the addition of auto
rental agencies to Section 18.37.020 as a permitted uae,
Assiatant Zoning Supervisor Pnt Brown reviewed the proposal to amend Title 18, Chapter
18.37, Section 18.37,020 of the Anaheim Municipal Code to"permit autamobile-car rentals
as a primarq use rather than requiring the approval of a variance, noting that the data
presented by the staff in a review of the actions in the Coffinerci.al-Recreation Zone
regarding car rental agenciea indicated.five car rental agenciea were granted by condi-
tional use permit or variance; that there were 23 suto rental agenciea throughout the
City, and 14 of these were located in the Commercial-Recreation Zone-similar *o Hertz
and Avis-Rent-a-Car; that Chapter 18.37 pe~itted car rentals only as an accessory use
with those clearly incidental to and integrated within a primary uae complex, and if
car rental agenciea were not in conjunction with a motel or hotel, a variance to permit
these facilities wae required at some other location.
Mr. Brown further noted that car rental agencies were primarily to aerve the tourists and
businesamen visiting the Commercial-Recreation Area; that while it was more deairable
to have auto rental agenciea as an accesaory function to motels and hotels, this could
not always be accompliahed due to the large number of atand-by vehiclea needed, and
matels-hotels often had minimum parking which was at a premium dnring the busy aeason;
and that it would appear, therefore, this would not always be deairable nor functional
as an accesaory uee. Therefore, the staff recoa~ended amendments to Chapter 18.37,
Co~ercial-Recreation, Zone to include sutomobile rental agencies as a primary use
except that they may not be permitted to exist in combination with service atations
becauae of the amall aervice atation site having a maximum of 150 feet by 150 feet, and
to grant this to service stationa in the Co~ercial-Recreation Zone would be granting a
privilege not granted aervice atationa in other zones throughout the City.
Conaiderable diacussion was held between the Co~ission and staff su~arized.as follows:
1. To permit by righE car rental agencies for motela where marginal parking presently
exiated could reduce the parking ratio, creating a ahartage of parking for motel tenants,
and this might be remedied when the buaineas license was issued, wherein the staff,
having to approve a businesa licenae, would check parking of a given facility to determine
whether the car rental agency would create a shortage of parking epaces required, and not
approve a businesa license if this were so.
2. Moat motels only keep a repreaentative of a rental agency on the premises, and cara
are delivered to customers when called for from another aite.
_ .
, . , ~,
,. , ,
~"~~'
~. ~ . ,
`.r.., _ . . . ..
{i ^ f ~G. 'S'~~rY,~. `y ~~ '~{~ ~ Y `J ,~5 .'1 ~t '~ i , t; w {Y i.. x„ , i F ~. ~ ~.e ~
•f
~t
;~v n~a
~ O ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 22, 1969 4813
AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18, - 3. Parking of trailera and/or automobiles i.n the Commercial-
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE Recreation Zone at service stations - appearance of automobiles
(Continued) lesa ob~ectionable than, trailera.
4. Limitation of parking of sutomobiles outside of the
boundary of the Commercial-Recreation Zoae and permitting
trailera to be parked instead wouid set an undesirable precedent and grant a privilege
to one and not to the other.
5, Car rentals and trailer rentals should be controlled on serv3ce station aites by
variance or conditional uae permit. '
6. A poasible poli~ing problem if both traiier and car rentals were permitted on service
station aites if a half and half ratio were considered since only ten vehicles were ~
permitted to be stored, and it would be imposaible to determine if the automobile on the I
aervice station site were a rental automobile or a cuatomer's car awaiting service. ~
7. Possibility of service station eites being turned into rental facilities since there
was an excesa in the City, and thia could set a precedent for many requeats, eapecially '
where service stations have been closed, i
8. Service station site development standarda permit up to ten trailers for rental
purposea parked againat a 6-foot wall by right in zones permitting sarvice stationa. '
9. Service station aite development standards were adopted prior to establishing the i
Commercial-Recreation Zone, and all aervice atations in the Cou~ercial-Recreation Area i
were required to file a conditional use permit. ~
10. Need•for further study as this could affect aervice station sites throughaut the ,
City if no controls were set up. j
~
Co~issioner Gauer offered a motion to continue consideration of Amendment to Title 18, ~
Chapter 18.37, Commercial-Recreation Zone, regarding auto rental agencies as a permitted ~
use, to the meeting of November 3, 1969. Co~iasioner Herbst seconded the motion. ~
MOTION CARRIED, i
Asaistant Development Servicea Director Ronald Thompson adviaed the Commission that after
additional study was made on the proposal and ita implications as to the site development
standards of the service stationa, a report would be presentec~ to the Co~ission under
Reports and Reco~endations, and perhapa amendments to the service station site develop-
mant atandarda could be advertiaed to be heard in conjunction with subjec~ amendment.
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. LOYD P. NICHOLS, 420 North Jansa Straet,
N0, 69-70-6 Anaheim, California, Owner; MORRIS HODGES~ 160 Hillcrest Dxive,
Fullerton, California, Agent; property described as; Parcel 1- An
VARIANCE N0. 2111 irregularly shaped parcel of land containing approximately 13 acres
aituated north and west of the northwest corner of Creacent Avenue and
Chippewa Avenue, said parcel having frontagea of approximately 425
feet on Chippewa Avenue and 1,498 feet on the Santa Ana Freeway; and Parcel 2- A
rectangularly shaped parcel of land aituated at the northweat corner of Crescent and
Chippewa Avenues, said parcel having approximate frontagea of 150 feet on Crescenc Avenue
and 195 feet on Chippewa Avenue. Property presently classified R-AD AGRTCULTURAL: ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: PARCEL 1- R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
PARCEL 2- C-1, GENERAL CObQiERCIAL~ ZONE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS, (2) MAXIMUM
DISTANCE BETWEEN UNITS AND A STANDARD STREET, (3) MAXIMUM NUMBER
OF MAIN BIIILDINGS ON A SITE, AND (4) MINIMUM ACCESSORY BUILDING
SETBACK IN THE FFONT 75! OF THE LOT, TO ESTABLISH A 339-UNIT
APARTMENT COMPLEX.
Subject petitions were continued from the meeting of Auguat 11, 1969, in order to allow
time for the petitionera to submit revised plana to fall more in line wich established
co~unity goals by providing an adequate system of vehicular circulation including both
primary and aecondary accessways,
Asaistant 2oning Supervieor Pat Brown reviewed the location of sub~ect property, uses
eatabliahed in cloae proximity, and the reason £or continuance from the August 11 meeting.
Mr, Brown noted that the staff had met with the developers of this proposal on
September 12, at which time a rough sketch of a new proposal for the development was
preaented which indicated a 60-foot wide cul-de-sac street extending westward from
Chippewa Avenue, approximately in the center of aubject property; that additional
peripheral circulation by means of private drivea was also indicated; that the overall
deaign was a vast improvemer.t over the original concept, ahowing adequate circulation
for fire and trash vehicles and more recreational and open area; however, the developers
indicated that additional problems had to be solved with the lending institution involved,
and it would take more time to prepare detailed plans - therefore, they were requesting
~~~.~ T
. ~_ ~'~ ~F"1- l ":N
- 1"'~'':~. _::~r~
. . . . _ , . . . . . . . ' . , i, _ . . . . . ..
a ; x'~ ~. . 7 .
~ ~ ~~
l
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSTON, September 22, 1969 4814
RECLASSIFICATION - a four-week continuance of sub~ect petitiona.
N0. 69-70-6
Commisaioner Thom offered a motion to continue consideration of
VARIANCE N0. 2111 Petitions for Reclassification No, 69-70-6 and Variance No. 2111
(Continued) to the meeting of October 20, 1969, as requested by the petitioner,
to aubmit revised plana. Commiasioner Allred seconded the motion.
~iA, MOTION CARRIED.
VARIANCE N0. 2113 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. WILLIAM AND NINA SIMMONS, 903 South Agate
Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; ,TAMES HODGES, 903 South Agate
Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting WAIVERS OF (1) ONE-
STORY HEIGHT LIMITATION WITHIN 150 FEET OF AN R-A ZONE, (2) MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK,
(3) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS, (4) LIVING UNITS WITHIN 200 FEET OF A STANDARD
STREET, AND (5) ADEQUATE ACCESS FOR TRASH COLLECTION AND FIRE VEHICLES, TO ERECT A
54-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of
land having a frontage of approximately 297 feet on the west side of Webster Street and
a maximum depth of approximately 299 feet, being located approximately 500 feet aouth
of the centerline of Orange Avenue, and further described as 639 South Webster Street,
Property preaently claseified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE (resolution of intent to R-3
pending).
Subject petition was continued from the meetinga of August 25 and September 8
1969
in
d
,
,
or
er to allow the deaigner time to submit reviaed plans to the staff
providing for
,;
' ,
adequate fire and trash accessibility since the Commisaion did not wish to act upon the
r
. requested waiver for this vehicular accessibility based on the Assistant Fire Chief's
feelings that the
i
or
ginally submitted plans did not provide adequate access, and for
approval of plans
re
a
di
d
,
g
r
ng a
equate circulation, by the Fire Chief.
~;
'' Asaistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of sub ect
.i property, uses
establi
h
d i
ii s
e
n close roximit
P y, previous continuancea and reasons for them, and the
Re
ort to the C
;,
'~ p
ommisaion, emphasizing the fact that the Aasistant Fire Chief had indicated
acceasibility for fir
fi
h
~ e
g
ting equipment was atill inadequate since it wauld be extremely
difficult to
,
..4E route one of the vehiclea to another fire without a turn-around; that the
ataff was working with the Fi
e D
,
1 r
epartment toward developing a more consistent set of
criteria to be uaed in analyzing plana as to their adequac
or i
ade
a
`
i y
n
qu
cy for fire and
trash vehicular accesaibility; that after the Asaiatant Fire Chief had re-analyzed the
; reviaed plana, he had indicated to ataff that while the two areas in question, namely
th
th
a e nor
-south stub drive and the units located along the southerly portion of the
; property, were lesa than deairable from the atandpoint of esey acceasibility for fire
j equipment and personnel and for the safety of any future occupants in this area
fire
; ,
protection for these areas could be provided - therefore, the requested waiver for in-
ade
uate fire a
q
ccesaiSility may be eliminated from this request.
~ Mr. James Hodges, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commisaion, noting he
f
lt h
h
e
e
ad given adequate circulatian for the proposed development
and the staff had
,
reviewed everything, to which he had nothing to add except that he was available to
answer questions,
No one appeared in oppoaition to subject petition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Conaiderable diacusaion was held by the Coa¢nisaion, expreasing their concern regarding
°:
? the co~enta made by the staff as to the Aasistant Fire Chief's statements that although
~ re-analyzation of the plana indicated two areas of queation, the development could be
'; aerved with fire equipment - however, this would be less than desirable from the stand-
'. . ,P~ point of accessibility in the event of a fire and offered lesa protection to the resi-
dents than could be offered to the apartment development which had peripheral drivea on
t the same street; that apartmenta in themselves always repreaented a potential fire hazard
f, or trap, and to give the proapective reaidents of this development lesa protection than
~ ' afforded others living in aingle-family homes or apartment developments where peripheral
~. ,. ' drives were provided would not be in accordance with the requirement of the Anaheim
~ Municipal Code wherein the general welfare of the people was a major concern; that
consideration ahould bA given to the safety of these prospective residenta with the
t moat efficient means of fighting a fire - however, knocking down patio fences would not
~;;
~ .~,.:;;; be one of these efficient meana; and that paragraph 7 of the Background in the Report
to the Commission could be misinterpreted in that the Fire Chief might be suggesting
that the waiver was no longer necessary.
~,;;
' After Co~isaioner Camp concurred with co~ents made by other Co~isaioners
he stated
~; ,
that, nevertheless, the Report to the Co~mnisaion did indicate that the inadequate fire
accesa might be waived.
. «, - _
- - -~ ~.~,,.,
.. ._.. _ .~ ., .. ~ ~, .. _C„
~~ '~~~ ~~!,.~ ~.F+rFVn'riV'!S,.',~ n a-~ 3'?^ t."1~ r~~c;",;~n ~n''3~ ~a ~t N..:,1'" ~r s.^, r s.~[ sx~- ^t , r K,z .~ r y i ~;~ _:-;.~ ...4~ ~
'~; a•. _ ~, '_:.: _
~{~
i
ii ~~sw.asr .
F .,:
h ~~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 22, 1969 4815
VARIANCE N0. 2113 - Commissioners Herbst and Thom stated that thia might be true -
(Continued) however that statement was also prefaced by a atatement made by
Aasistant Fire Chief Heying that the acceasibility was leas than ~
y desirable for fire equipment and personnel, ae well as prospective
,;,,.` tenanta, and that upon discussing this with Chi~f Heying personally, he had stated the ~
accessibility was not adequate.
Commisaioner Herbat inquired whether or not the profesaional ataff of the City could
:~ make a Yoaitive statement as to whether there was adequate access to serve fire fig=iting
vehicles.
Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Co~isaion that the Fire Department could
~°~~~' ~ not make the statement that there was adequate circulation when, in fact, there was none.
Mr. Hodges requeated that the hearing be reopened - however, Chairman Rowland stated that
all the information and teatimony which had been presented by the proponents at several
_ meetinga was sufficient for the Commiasion to make their deciaion.
,.;
~
Commiasioner Thom offered Reaolution No. PC69-190 and moved for its passage and adoption
to deny Petition for Variance No. 2113 on the basis that although the Fire Chief had
indicated subject property could be served with fire fighting equipment, he also indicated
that the circulation proposed was not desirable from the ataridpoint of easy acceasibility
which was most important in order to reach fires quickly; that aince the circulation pro-
poaed would create less than a desirable and efficient accessibility for fire fighting
equipment and trash pick-up, the residents of the proposed development would receive a
lesaer degree of protection than that which would be given to other residential develop-
ments where adequate circulation was being provided; that the requested variance would be
materiaZly detrimental to the public health, welfare, and safety of reaidents and injurioua
to the propert}~ or improvementa in this area; and that the waivera required for location
of accessory buildings and living units located within 200 feet of a standard street were
no longer required since recent amendments to the site development standards of the R-3
Zone permitted theae in development. (See Reaolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was paesed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano.
(See Pages 4825~and 4827 for further comments.)
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING, MARKET BASKET, 6014 South Eastern Avenue, Loa Angelea,
PERMIT N0. 1132 California, Owner; FRANK LAFFEY, 1619 South Shelton Street, Santa Ana,
California, Agent; requeating permieaion to have ON-SALE BEER IN AN
EXISTING STRUCTURE on property described as: An irregularly shaped
parcel of land located at the aouthweat corner of Ball Road and Anaheim Boulevard, having
approximate frontages of 375 feet on the weet aide af Anaheim Boulevard, 200 feet on the
south side of Ball Road, and 360 feet on the east side of Iris Street, and further dea-
cribed ae 1217'~ South Anaheim Boulevard. Property preaently classified C-1, GENERAL
COMMERCIAL, and P-L, PARKING-LANDSCAPING, ZONES. °
Asaiatant Zoning Supervieor Pat Brown reviewed the location cf eubject property, uses
eatabliahed in close proximity, and the proposal to establiah a ho£brau-type facility
in a portion of an existing atructure located in a neighborhood ahopping center; that
no kitchen preparation area was propoaed, and food would be prepared and aerved at the
bar, using work tables and eteam tables; that it appeared from the plane that the pro-
poaed establishment would be primarily designed for the aerving of beer, with food
aervice and preparation being a minimal part of the operation - therefore, the Commisaion
would have to determine whether the propoaed use met the intent of the Commiesion and
Council's policy which required approximately 25% of the gross area to be devoted to food
preparation purpoaes in order for the uae to qualify as a bonafide restaurant; and that
an additional factor to be coneidered would be the close proximity of the eingla-family
tract located wtthin 80 feet of the propoaed operation, acrosa Iris Street.
Mr. Frank Laffey, agent for the petitioner, indicated hia presence and availability to
anawer questiona,
Mr. Peter Warnoff, 1309 South irie Street, appeared before the Coimnisaion, noting he
reaided approximately a block away from aubject property, and it was his opinion the
propoaed uae to be established in a amall ahopping center wae not appropriate due to
the numerous chil~ren who would be'affected by said uae, and that a achool bua pick-up
was now existing immediately behind the proposed facility.
x
,
`~
.~~ ,~.
~~.~i ~~'77' _ ~ y . ~~n ~`.~.
~ 1
'~ §
._ .. .. ., .. ~. . . . i . , . , .. . yt .. ~ .
~3'~,~`~*.'"^Y'9 a,; ; '+ '~rr'7 i
k
~rJ
.T Y ,°,'!~. ~,T 4 T , `-.l ~' .
ti r',
l~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 22, 1969
~~ :
~' ~
""~r>
:'-:~
~~
4816
CONDITIONAL USE - Discuasion was held by the Co~isaion relative to the proposed uae,
PERMIT N0. 1132 it being noted that the prime problem would be the factor of area
(Continued) devoted to the preparation of food being insignificant - therefore,
indicating the use was primarily a beer bar.
Chairman Rowland inquired whether the petitioner had any rebuttal to the cau~ents made
by the Coa~ieaion relative to the atatement regarding a beer bar,
Mr. Laffey atated that the petition was submitted indicating a hofbrau-type facility
being proposed; that the ratio of beer to food would be approximately 75% to 25% -
therefore, the statement made by the Co~ission was partially correct. Hawever, he was
aure that many well lrnown dinner houses sold more liquor than foad if one took into
conaideration the number of cocktails that were served prior to a dinaer.
Mr. Laffey, in respoase to Cos~ission questioning relative to the houra of operation,
stated they would be from 10:00 A.M. to 2;00 A.M, the following morning.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commiasioner Herbst offered Reaolution No. PC69-191 and moved for its passage and adoption
to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1132 on the basia that the propoaed use
was determined to be deleterious to the revitalization of the ahopping center which had
been allowed to deteriorate; that the proposed use would be backing up to a rather large,
single-family residential development and would be deleterious to the public health,
general welfare and safety of the reaidents of this area; that the hours of operation
proposed for the beer bar would create undue noises and disturbances to the residents
of this area; that plans as presented indicated this would be a beer bar with minimal
area devoted to the serving of food, which was contrary to the Planning Co~ission and
City Council policy requiring approximately 25% of the floor area for the preparation
and serving of food. (See Reaolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was pasaed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbat, Thom, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. HUNTINGTON SAVINGS & LOAN, 2650 Zoe Avenue,
PERMIT NO,. 1137 Huntington Park, California, Owner; JERRY HANSEN, CONTINENTAL
CONVALESCENT CENTERS, 8447 Wilahire Boule vard, Beverly Hills,
California~ Agent; requesting permiasion to ESTABLISH A COANALESCENT
HOSPITAL on property described as: A rectangularly ahaped parcadl of land having approxi-
mate frontages of 360 feet on the west side of Anaheim Boulevard and 360 feet on the east
side of Lemon Street, with a maximum depth of approximately 527 feet, being lecated
approximately 500 feet north of Ball Road, and further described as 1025 South Anaheim
Boulevard. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, and P-L, PARKING-
LANDSCAPING, ZONES,
Assistant Zoning Supercisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of aubject property, uaes
establiahed in close proximity, and the proposal, noting that it would be a one-story,
240-bed convalescent hospital with the exception that the circular, adminiatrative build-
ing would be two stories in height and located in the center of the property; that parking
requirements were complied with - however, a 6-foot masonry wall would be required in the
westerly portion of the north and south property lines adjacent to the multiple-family
developments, and screen landscaping with treea provided at 20-foot centers, and a 6-foot
masonry wall would be required to the rear of the 15-foot landscape strip on Lemon Street
aince over two-thirda of the block on the oppoaite side had been developed for single-
family reaidential uses.
Mr. Jerry Hanaen, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Co~ission and submitted
a colored rendering of the proposal, noting that a residential-type feeling was proposed
for the structures, and considerable landacaping was also propoaed, and that he was
available to answer any queations the Co~nission might have.
Mr, Peter Warnoff, 1309 Iris Street, appeared before the Commission and requested clari-
fication as to whether or not the 60-foot building setback along Anaheim Boulevard would
be observed since he owned a building 95 feet from sub~ect property, and he had been
required to set back 60 feet from the right-of-way line.
Zoning Supervisor Charlea Roberts advised the Commission and Mr, Warnoff that the hospital
was basically proposed to be located nearer the Lemon Street frontage; that the landacap-
ing zone had been amended from a 20-foot strip to the present 6 feet by Reclaeaification
No. 60-61-98 - however, the structural setback would still remain at 60 feet. '
-;:• ~ s.s..~.-
, . . , . . . ... ~-
. ,u+.Ra+ ~~ ~ __ ~
1 P...
- ~ ., .
. .. . _ . ._ .. . .. .. .. ' . L .
~
. a ~ ~ ~; ;~
;
F 5~ <a
~
,
~ `~~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 22, 1969 4817
CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. Warnoff then inquired whether or not sidewalka would be required
PERMIT N0. 1137 along th~ Anaheim Boulevard frontage.
(Continued)
Mr. Roberta noted that one of the conditiona of approval was Co
require eidewalks and drives on Anahei+n Boulevard.
ltao letters of opposition requesting conaideration of maintaining the Anaheim Boulevard
frontagea for the typea of busineases which had already been eatablished in this area
which could be detrimental to or conflicting with a convalescent hoepital.
Mr. Jensen, in rebuttal, stated that the parking, loading and aervicing of the building
would be in the core of the building itaelf, with visitor parking along the Lemon Street
frontage - however, the front 200~feet along the Anaheim Boulevard frontage would be
left for future development.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Co~issioner Camp offered Reaolution No. PC69-192 and moved for its passage and adoption
to grant Petition for Conditional Uae Permit No. 1137, aub3ect to conditions. (See
Resolution Book)
On roll call the £oregoing reaolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, t'amp, Gauer, Herbat, Thom, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS; None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. MELROSE ABBEY MEMORIAL PROPERTIES~ INC., 2303 South
PERMIT N0. 1136 Mancheater Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; STEVE SCHACHT, 1700
South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Agent; requeating
permisaion to CONSTRUCT A MORTUARY AS AN ADDITION TO AN EXIS TING
MAUSOLEUM AND CEMETERY on property deacribed as; An irregularly ahaped parcel of land
located at the aouthweat corner of Orangewood and Manchester Avenuea, having approximate
frontages of 1,100 feet on Lewia Street, 363 feet on Orangewood Avenue, and 1,140 feet
on Mancheater Avenue, and further described as Melrose Abbey, 2303 South Manchester
Avenue. Property presently clasaified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
Assietant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of aubject property, uses
eatabliahed in close proximity, and the proposal to construcb a 5800-square foot mortuary
as an addition to an existing mausoleum and funeral chap~l atructure; that plans indicated
a one-bedroom, 700-aquare foot apartment to be used by a resident mortician for the
facility as a part of thie new ~ddition; that since the exiating facility was technically
nonconforming, the basic request had been amplified to include Section 18.16.040(2) as
a part of thia total request; and ttiat the requeated expanaion of the exiating facility
would appear to be appropriate.
Mr. Myron Fielda, 2303 South Mancheater Avenue, repreaenting the petitioner, appeared
before the Co~isaion and noted that earlier in the day he had met with staff inembers
to clarify the findings and the conditions and was deairous of presenting these to the
Co~iesion for their information; that they had no ob~ection to dedication of the
requirement for widening of Lewis Street and Manchester Avenue aince it seemed logical
that the jog on Mancheater Avenue should be removed - however, they had a portion of
subject property, approximately=4'~ acrea, on the northerly boundary ad,jacent to Orange-
wood Avenue in eacrow, to be sold within the next few days, and had no suthority to
dedicate any land ad,jacent to thia acreage, and said dedication could be acquired at
the time development plans for that property were preaented; that the staff had recom-
mended an amended legal description.be submitted, deleting the northerly portion; and
that he would submit said amended legal within the next few days.
Mr, Fields noted that he was generally satiafied, after discusaing the problems with
the staff inembers, aince many of:the conditiona were standard, and he would not be
undergoing any hardship that wouTd not be required of aomeone elae.
Chairman Rowland noted that:the:conditions as set forth in the Report to the Commiasion
were recommendatione and could be-made a part of the Commission's approval of subject
petition.
Mr. Fielda presented a map depicting the area involved which ahould not be included as
part of the Commisaion's deliberationa and requirements for dedication purposea.
Assiatant Develepment Servicea Director Ronald Thompson adviaed that if aubject petition
were coneidered favorably,.said eachibit could be atamped as part of the exhibita on file;
P
~
~;;
x ~:
,._ R r . . .. ,. . u~ _
n
,
,.A:, : ~
~ Q ~
P_INUTES, CITY PI~ANNING COMMISSION, September 22, 1969 4818
CONDITIONAL USE - however, an smended legal deacription should be submitted to be made
PERMIT'N0.-1136 part of the file for future reference.
(Continued) •
Mr. Fields noted the atructure would be of modern Spanish architecture,
and the deeign would be in conformance with the buildings already in
the area; that conaiderable landacaping would be provided - however, because of the Lewis
Street dedication, only a small atrip, approximately 3 feet, would be placed there, and ~
then inquired as to the requirement of payment of street tree feea.
The Chsirman advised the agent that the street tree fee was for the planting of trees in
the parkway along the Lewis Street frontage.
~
No one appeared in oppoaition to aubject petition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Courmiasioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC69-193 and moved for its passage and adoption
to grant Petition for Conditional Use Pe~mit No. 1136, aubject to amending conditions,
deleting thoae portions which would not be covered by the amended legal deacription;
! that the exhibit presented by the petitioner ahould be made a part of the files; that an
amended legal deacription be submitted for inclusioa in the action taken by the Co~niasion;
~~nd aubject to conditions, (See Reaolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was pasaed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS~ None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano.
VARIANCE N0. 2124 - PUBLIC HEARING_ DAvID A. SKELLY, 521 West Hermosa Drive, Fullerton,
California, Owner; PAUL E. ANTONUCCI, 639 Reseda Street, Anaheim,
California, Agent; requeating WAIVERS OF (1) PERMITTED USES IN THE
C-2 ZONE AND (2) REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING STALLS, TO ESTABLISH AN e1UTOMOTIVE RADIATOR
REPAIR AND SERVICE SHOP on;property described ast A rectangularly shaped parcel uf land
situated at the northeast corner.of Anaheim Boulevard and Mille Drive, said parcel having
approximate frontages of 54 feet un Anaheim Boulevard and ]06 feet on Mi11s Drive, and
- further described as 902 Noxth Anaheim Boulevard. Property presently classified C-2,
GENERAL:COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
Asaistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, usea
eatablished in close proximity, and the proposal to establiah an automotive radiator
shop in an existing atructure on subject property; that sutomotive repair was permitted
in the C-3 Z~ne by right - thercfore, the variance was neceasary since the property was
zoned C-2; that the southern half of the atructure in which an exiating reataurant was
operating was the proposed location, and the combined parking requirementa for the
restaurant and the automotive repair shop would be 13 apacea - however, onl~ S parking
apacea existed, and there was no manner in which additional parking could be provided;
and that the propoaed use would be apprupriate aince this area was part of the "automobile
row", and similar existing usea in the C-2 Zone on Anaheim Boulevard were already estab-
lished, either as a nonconforming uae or by variance or conditional use permit.
Mr. Pau1 Antoaucci, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commisaion and noted
that the majorit} of the people brought their radiatora to the radiator ahop and did
not leave their cara; that he was operating a one-man shop after having worked in Anaheim
for over twenty yeare and deciding to go into buaineas for himself.
No one appeared in oppoaition to subject petition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Co~isaion inquired as to the houra of operation and how they might conflict with
the existing reatauraat.
Mr. AntonucM atated that hia hours of operation would be from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.;
that the reataurant did not open until 3:30 P.M. and aerved primarily as a bar, being
open until late hours in the evening - therefore, there would be only an approximate
two-hour overlap of poasible parking.
Co~asioner Farano entered the Council Chamber at 3:15 P.M.
~_ -~. ~„4L`i
: Jr .
~ r ~'.~'~ Tr arr 1,.~u~~5u~+¢' a~'~'.'r^°- ~^'~~? ~`~;.~J~I^ a cy. .~ „ ~~~ ~ `~~,
9'f A / 1
t
~ ~_~
~~ '
, ,.~
;. ~'; ,;; }
~
~~
~'
; , i~
.~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 22, 1969 4819
VARIANCE N0. 2124 - Co~niasioner Thom offered Reaolution No. PC69-194 and mcved for ita
(Continued) passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2124, sub3ect
to conditiona. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing reaolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERSt Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbat, Thom, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSr None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Farano.
VARIANCE N0. 2123 - PUBLIC HEARING. GEORGE E. LOSENESS, 1126 West Katella Avenue,
Anaheim, California, Owner; FEbERAL SIGN & SIGNAL CORPORATION,
3036 South Oak Street, Santa Ana, California, Agent; requesting
WAIVER OF MAXIMUM SIGN HEIGHT WITHIN 300 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL USE on property deacribed
as: A rectangularly ahaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 130 feet on
tha south side of Katella Avenue, having a maximmn depth of approximately 250 Feet,
being located approximately 350 feet west of the centerline of Weat Street, and further
~eacribed as 1126 West Katella Avenue. Property preaently classified C-R, COlAiERCIAL-
RECREATION, ZONE.
Asaiatant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property and uses
eatablished in cloae proximity, noting the motel had been approved by variance in October
,
1957, and in December, 1965, a conditional use permit to permit expansion of the motel
was approved; that subject property ha3 been reclassified to the C-R Zone in May
1969;
,
that plans submitted proposed to replace an existing free-standing sign which conformed
to Code with a new free-standing sign of 38 feet in height and having a diaplay aurface
;a per face of approximately 240 aquare feet; that because of the residential uaes exiating
~;
~ within 300 feet of subject property~ the height of the sign was limited to 25 feet; that
;
' in January, 1968, the Planning Co~isaion had approved a 31-foot high, free-standing sign
'j for the T.ravelodge Motel at the aoutheast corner of Katella Avenue and Casa Vista Avenue,
westerl
f
b
~ y o
au
ject property, and in April, 1969, a requested waiver for a 60-foot high,
f
, ree-standing sign for the Inn of Tomorrow had been denied by the Planning Commiseion -
`~ however, the City Council had approved a 45-foot high sign. Therefore
the Commission
;; ,
would have to determine whether subject request was appropriate and ,juatifiable in light
;~ of the foreg~ing facta.
>=a Mr. George Loseness•, the"petitiuner,,appeared.before the Co~isaion and noted he had
7 visited the•apaitments to the south of~subject property and had been on the second floor -
-
`; however, he had been unable to see the aign on the Inn of Tomorrow, which would be higher
th
an that which he proposed - therefore, he felt the propoaed eign would in no way affect
the apartments.
'~ No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THE HEP.RING WAS CLOSED.
Diecussion was held by the Commiasion relative to whether or not the petitioner had
proven a hardahip existed; that the requeat for waiver of the height limitation in the
Commercial-Recreation Zone was becoming more prevalent all the time, and it was urgent
that eome semblence of adhering to Code requirements should be retained since the
appearance of the tall, free-standing signs would eatablish a precedent whereby any
height would eventually be requested and approved; that although one could consider the
fact that two previoua signs in close proximity to sub~ect property had been granted
height waivers, in order to grant a variance, a hardship must be proven lthat the height
of the adjoining signa was in some way harming the advertising potential of the existing
aign; that colored alidea preaented by the staff indicated that the existing aign was
readily visible from either direction, both east and weat - therefore, thia requeat for
the variance had not been proven to have a hardship, and if a higher sign were permitted,
the effect which the petitioner propoaed to achieve could well be hidden by thoae signs
already in existence.
Co~issioner Allred oifered Resolution No. PC69=195 and moved for its passage and adoption
to deny Petition for Variance No. 2123 on the ba;9is that no hardship had been proven that
exiating signing was not adequate to properly advertise the use of subject property; that
~ colored slides taken of subject property and displayed at the public hearing revealed
that the existing sign at the height required by Code more than adequately provided
aigning for the property, and any increase in height would, in effect, hide the aign
" from view of motorista; that although higher signs had been approved in thia general
~: area, compliance with the aign height requirements should be adhered to in order to
~ maintain the esthetics of the Commercial-Recreation Area so that it would not acquire
the undesirable appearance of recreation areas in other cities. (See Reaolution Book)
: ,; i;'
'1 ~
__._ ~_.
o:i..~~.-.",~ l _ ''~?C~. ~' .. . . . ; --- - - -
~, Yi, .. . .. ~ . . _ . , .., .
,~, .
.~ ,,. ~_~~q~,~'p~ P~ s~:.: ~' r
:~ ''
~.
* . ~
~'.i,',,`~" ~~^~.;'Y v..itp~t ms~ #T ~e (~; / y.e!`r u ""Ai'N ^~ a e.
__' _~~ S .. , .
~
~^)
:^S+ ,i'~.'d
~±
;. ~ ~~ ~
.~
MINUTES, CITY PLP.NNING COMMISSION, September 22, 1969 4820
VARIANCE N0. 2123 - On ro11 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following
(Continued) vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Tham.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERSs Rowland.
VARIANCE N0. 2127 - PUBLIC HEARING. CHAO'S INC,, 1560 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim~
California, Owner; FEDERAL SIGN & SIGNAL CORPORATION, 3036 South Oak
Street, Santa Ana, California, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF MINIMUM
SPECIAL FRONT SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT AN ENTRANCE CANOPY on property described as: A
rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 124 feet on the
north aide of Katella Avenue and having a maxim~ depth of approximately 248 feet, the
southerly boundary of subject property being approximately 450 feet east of the center-
line of Harbor Roulevard, and further described as 435 West Katella Avenue. Praperty
nresently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses
eatablished in cloae proximity, and the Report to the Commission, emphasizing the fact
that the existing motel was eatablished in 1957; that the petitioner was planning to
expand and extend the canopy aoutherly to within one foo[ of the ultimate right-of-way,
and said canopy would be supported by metal poles having a clearance of 12'~ feet,
although 14 feet was necessary; tha[ the pecitioner indicated an easement existed west-
erly for trash truck pick-up; and that special setbacks had been established in the
Commercial-Recreation Area to provide more landscaping, open space, and to enhance the
viatas along major thoroughfares. Furthermore, since the enactment of the special
setback, no variances had been granted by the Commission or the Council.
Mr. Paul Marshall, 450 Hillcrest, Placentia, representing the agent for the petitioner,
appeared befo~e the Coa~ission and noted that the proposed canopy was designed to im-
pzove the esthetica of an old motel rather than attempting to advertise the motel
faciliLy; that when the motal was constructed, it was very poorly designed, and the
petitioner now planned to zemodel the facility by attempting to break up the long, plain
front with a new facade; thst remodeling was necessary in order to compete with the
newer motel facilitiea being constructed in the Co~ercial-Recreation Area, and coneider-
able money had been expended in landscaping to create an Oriental effect; and that the
canopy would be the beginning of a long-range plan for improving the macel, eventually
creating an entire Oriental motif.
The Coa~isaian inquired whether or not conaideration had been given to creating a facade
without the canopy proposed since this canopy could be considered a free-standing sign,
and since the structure was already extending into the building setback required for
Katella Avenue and had been approved prior to the establishment of said building setback,
further encroachment would be granting a privilege not granted other deveiopments in thia
area. It was also noted that Zaby's Motel on the south aide of Katella Avenue had
achieved a very decorative facade within the confines of the Code with decorative walls
and landacaping.
Mr. Marshall noted that there was a feeling among the motel operatora that t~is business
had become ~aded - therefore, it was nec.essary for aubject preperty to be vastly improved :
in order to compete with the newer motels; that other meana had been considered and even
demolition of the frontage of the motel was considered, buti: this would involve requiring
~ a setback of 20 feet, or two feet betsind the existing aetback since more than 25% of the
~• structure would be changed, and compliance with Code would then be reqnired.
,
'~ Mr. Marshall, in respoase to Co~ission uestionin
4 g, noted that in addition to the pro-
~ posed canopy, there already exiated a decorative wa21; that a color change would be
~~~, ~ made; that exiating lighting fixtures now in disrepair would be remeved and new electri-
s cal lighting was propoaed; that additional landacaping was planted around the swiffiing
~s pool and other "dead areas"; that the interior was planned with the Oriental motif; that
~i~ the present plan was for only a canopy and painting~ together with some paneling on the
side; and that the existino sign, "Lucky 7'; would remain, but later long-range plana '
~ were contemplated to uae the "7" with some Oriental theme. Furthermore, if approval of
the canopy by the Commission would be hindered if the aigning were placed on the front,
; the petitioner atated he would stipulate to deleting this from the plans.
1 No one appeared in oppoaition to subject petition.
~, _,;
~~~
~ ~w r ~aW~~C ` , ~~~ Y ~l,
, . ~.~ . ... . ..
93P,w ~x, ~ i
+q0. ~'9; ,.r R r', ~l~ ~^":Fr ~'ut¢ !y,`
F' ?. ~1' , , ~ ;. ~ „'
}
.. /
.~
~
~ f \.J ' ~~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Septamber 22, 1969 4821
VARIANCE N0. 2127 - Discussion was held by the Commiesion regarding the requeated waiver,
(Continued) 3t being determined that the petitioner had not demonetrated a hard-
ship exiated and was only a matter of deaign problem; that approval
of the requested setback encroachment would establiah an undeairable
precedent for similar requests being made from other facilitiea in this area; and that
further study and redeaign ahould be made to improve the facade without further encroach-
ment since the petitioner was already encroaching'-by two feet, thus making the facility a
nonconforming uae.
t C~~~
~I
~.~.:~~•i~
;
~
I
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberta noted for the Commisaion that the Co~ercial-Recreation
standards atate that where m~~re than 25% of the ross area was ~
plans, compliance with the se~back requirementa would be necessaropoaed for redevelopment
facade were redasigned, there would be no problem, x'Y; however, if only a `
~
Co~issioner Herbat offeresd a motion to deny Petition for Variance No, 2127 on the basis
~
that no hardehip had been proven. ~
~
Further discusaion was held by the Co~ission relative to reconaideration of a design ~
whereby some fozm of facade cha:ige could be accomplished within reason, ~
~
The Commisaion then inquired of the petitioner whether or not he would prefer having to
submit revised plans or denial of the requeat; whereupon the petitioner stated they were
open for suggestions from the Co~ission, j
Mr. Roberts advised the Commieaion that if any change in the existing facade were proposed !
and no further encroachment into the front setback was considered, then there would be no
need for action by the Commiseion.
Chairman Rowland noted that the Anaheim Municip~l Code provided for extenuating circum-
atancea as it pertained to canopiea; whereupon Mr. Roberta noted that the General Section '
of the Anaheim Municipal Code permitted open or encloaed balconies, but no roof or canopy,
and no more than 30 inches of an overhang cou13 extend into the required front yard or
setback - this would mean only an additional six inches beyond that which the petitioner
now had.
Commisaioner Herbst withdrew hie motion for denial.
Coumiiasioner Herbst offered Resolution *?c. PC69-196 and moved for ite passage and adoption
to grant Petition for Variance No. 2127, pex~itting a building setback of 13 feet from the
ultimate right-of-way line, reco~ending that a cantilevered canopy be proposed extending
from the exiating building so that any eigning would not be considered a free-standing
sign, and aubject to conditiona. (See Resolution Book)
Asaistant Development Servicea Director Ronald Thompsoa inquired of the Commisaion what
their feeling Was relative to the aigning; whereupon Co~isaioner Herbat atated that so
long as the sign was a part of the building and did not exist on poles, this would be
permitted by right.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was pasaed by the following vote:
AYES: C01~."fISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbat, Thom, Rowland.
NOES; CODIliISSIONERS; None.
ABSENT: COML~fISSIONERS: None.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. SAM MENLO, 241 South Citrus, Los Angeles, California,
PERMIT N0. 1134 Owner; WILLIAM A, TOPLIKAR, 3505 Mungall Drive, Anaheim, California,
Agent; requesting permieaion to UTILIZE 131 BEDS OF A 249-BED CONVA-
LESCINT HOSPITAL FOR THE CARE OF LIGHT MENTAL CONVALESCENTS on property
described ae: An irregularly ehaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately
242 feet on the weat aide of Beach Boulevard and a maximum depth of approximately 348 feet,
the southerly boundary of aub3ect property being approximately 423 feet north of the
centerline of Orange Avenue. Property preaently clasaifi~ed C-1, GENERAL CONIl~SERCIAL, ZONE.
Assistant Zoning Supervieor Pat Brown reviewed the location of aubject property and uaes
establiahed in cloae proxi.mity, noting that the convaleacent hoepital had been approved '
by the Planning Co~iesion in February, 1967 and was presently in ite final atages of
conatruction; that the petitioner propoaed to utilize 131 bede of the existing 250-bed
hoapital for the care of light mental patiente, and these facilitiea would be located in
the rear portion of the structure; that conversatione between the ataff and the applicants
had indicated that light mental as herein referred to was to young, mentally-retarded
minda which were childlike and ranged in mental ages from aix months to four years, and
auch casea were either the reault of natural cauaes or some illnesa or accident, but not
,, .:: _ ~ •
_ - -_ _ . _
_ {y ... ..__ .
-_.
v:._.,_~ ,artw .,t ~. 1 r',~, , k~°x4sF.~c~row , ~ r
,
_, .. ?~ :~.~ t ";
. ~' . . . ... . . ~~ . ~ .... ~..-.~ 'R:
. . , .. ~ . . . . .. ~ .. . . . ' ~ . Y ~~ . ~ ~~ ..
'~ t~cs,~s~ 'rxm uw+r !~ ~+ a-~,^*v~..l qr 'r,'! r"."^e ~., ., r . '~~?" t
• ~
O
~!
~~ ~~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COPIISISSION, September 1.2, 1969
4822
CONDITIONAL USE - for psychotic reaeona - therefore, the requeated additional uae of
PERMIT N0. 1134 the facility would appear to be appropriate considering the aurround
(Continued) ing land uaea of a general hospital to the aouth, vacant commercial
to the west, vacant agricultural to the north and the Orange County
Flood Control channel abutting that, with motela to the east; there-
fore, the Planning Commisaion might wiah to specifically qualify this requested use to
the "light mental" as defined in the report if subject petition were approved, in order
to avoid any posaible future confusion relative to a mental inatitutioa deaigned for the
psychotically ill. ~
It was noted that the petitioner was preaent at the meeting but had to leave becauae of
illness and requested the Commission to conaider subject petition without his presence.
No one appeared in oppoeition to sabject petition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED,
_ ?;
4t
.~~~.~'.i~~
j
;5i;~
~
`. ;`~
-~
- .~
`;'j
1
'.y
.;
' ;1
Co~isaioner Farano inquired whether or not in the future the wording as proposed by etaff.
would have any legal aignificance.
Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Co~aission that as a result of change in the
State Code, the categorization o£ "light mental" was now a legal deaignation.
Mr. Brown advised the Commisaion that after having talked with State officials, they had
stated they recently amended their Code, and they were categorizing as "L" those persona
who were mentally retarded, and in most casea the majority of the patients in convalescent
homes fell within this category, namely, childlike mentality as a reault of senility,
natural causea, etc., and that the State no longer took care of these patienta in a
regular mental inatitution - however, he was not aure whether this new Code change was in
effect at the time the petitioner had eubmitted the petition.
The Co~isaion th~~n inquired wheiher or not any overlapping of services from both the
mental or the convalescent hospital would be conaidered.
Mr, Brown noted that according to the plans submitted, there would be a complete separa-
tion, with aeparate entrances for both facilitiea, and if any change were considered,
this would have to be aubmitted to the Coffiisaion for their conaideration,
Coa~isaioner Gauer offered Reaolution No, PC69-197 and moved for ita passage and adoption
to grant Petition for Conditional Uae Permit No. 1134, with the additional condition that
any beds that were not devoted to category "L" patienta, "light mental", as classified in
the State Code, ahall be classified as convalescent hospital beds. (See Resolution Book)
Oa roll call the foregoing reaolution was paesed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbet, Thom, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENTs COMMISSIONERSs None.
RECESS - Co~niseioner Herbst offered a motion to recesa the meeting for ten
minutea. Co~isaioner Thom aeconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting receased at 3:55 P.M.
RECONVENE - Chairman Rowland reconvened the meeting at 4:05 P.M., all Commissioners
being preaent.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HFARING. J. EARL TALCOTT, 1781 Weat Romneya Drive, Suite F,
N0, 69-70-17 Anaheim, California, Owner; DANIEL H. NINBURG, M.D., 1781 West Romneya
Drive, Suite F, Anaheim, California, Agent; property deacribed as: A
CONDITIONAL USE rectangularly ahaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 9 acres
PERMIT N0, 1135 located at the aoutheast corner of Euclid Street and Romneya Drive,
having approximate frontagea of 494 feet on Euclid Street and 790 feet
on Rommeya Drive, and further deacribed as 1198 North Euclid Street.
Property presently clasaified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A BUILDING HAVING A HEIGHT IN EXCESS OF 75 FEET
(HEIGHT 190 FEET).
~>q. •,
r~ ~ ~ ~aac~ -{~
~ ._ .-i1" v.,'..~ . , ..., . ' '.. - ~ .7.~.~ -~ ~.w .
'
. . :>> ~. ... ... . . . .. , ~ . . . . .
+ ~.~,'~~' ~'t`~~ „n.^~.n-'-~-~!~'-.c ~,~, ,%~,'h.w~ e '~"~'•~,~ '~+, -'-~" •~'~,.~ +'` '.f..~. 4 1 _ ~4'F9
v~ 1 _
V ~~ ~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 22, 1969 4823 ''~
RECLASSIFICATION - Asaistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the locatioa of aub3ect
N0. 69-70-17 property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to
construct two 14-story, 190-foot, high-riae off3ce atructurea on
CONDITIONAL USE aubject property; that initial development plans as indicated by the
PERMIT N0. 1135 architect for this project are that development is to take place in
(Continued) two phases, with the first structure generally located in the south-
west portion of subject property, with construction to begin in
December, 1969, and a completion date of approximately one year later;
that Phase II would be construction of a second structure identical to the first and
northerly in the northwest sector of subject property with no starting date proposed; that
the architect had indicated that when the second tower construction begins, parking as
required by Code would probably be provided by means of a subterranean parking structure
located under the presently proposed surface parking area; and that the architect had
also presented a breakdown of the uses for the first structure, with the first floor being
occupied 50% by a banl; and the balance with professional office uses, eight floors for
medical-dental offices, two floors for corporate offices, and four other floors for pro-
fessional office uses. Furthermore, parking requirements for the first phase were analyzed
by the staff, with 735 spaces being required and 735 were proposed on the plot plan; that
no variances were requested for the proposal since it was indicated development would be
in accordance with the site development standards of the C-1 Zone; that an existing
residential structure located on the northwest corner of subject property, at the inter-
section of Romneya Drive and Euclid Street, was proposed to be retained as a construction
and leasing office for the f.uture building through Phase I only, and then the house would
be removed; and that the Planning Coimnission at a previous public hearing had approved
expansion of an existing hospital facility to the west and south of the Martin Luther
Hospital located directly west of subject property, and the proposed use would complement
and would provide office space for the many doctors, technicians, etc., who would be
involved in this future, very large hospital complex.
Mr. LeRoy Rose, architect for the petitioner and representing the agent for the petitioner,
appeared before the Commission and noted that plans submitted were to be for identical
towers - however, because of statements made in the Report to the Co~nission that Phase I
would be at the southeast corner of subject property and that Phase II would be at the
northeast corner, there was a possibility the bank proposed for the ground floor would
request a corner location, and if this occurred, then that tower at the northeast corner
would be erected first; that it was desirous to retain the 195-foot high waiver ratlier
than specific stories because it had not been determined whether to have 12 or 14 stories;
that pre-formed concrete was proposed, similar to that on the Anaheim Memorial Hospital
and would be a less costly project; that the proposed facility would enhance the area and
would, in all likelihood, be the major medical center of the County; that Euclid Street
was a major thoroughfare, having 50,000 vehicles a day using the sCreet, and when the
street was widened, this could be considerably more; that in all likelihood Euclid Street
could become the high-rise street of the City, with one already in existence, and the
proposed one could start a trend; and that during the second phase of development, the
underground parking structure would provide for sufficient parking in accordance with
Code requirements.
Mr. Rose further noted that the project would have approximately 160,000 square feet of
gross area and 130,000 square feet of rentable area; that the front portion of the property
would be depressed where the parking was proposed, and this would be hidden with land-
scaping; that acc'ess would be gained to the building from catwalks; and that the existing
27 palms would be retained and provide the tree landscaping in the parking areas.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions.
Mr. Rose further advised the Co~tission that they had already obtained a contractor to
build the facility; and only a small portion of the financial arrangements was needed to
be settled - a12 that was needed was Planning Commission and City Council approval; and
that thirty doctors had already indicated their plans to move to this building.
Chairman Rowland, in clarifying Mr. Rose's request for retention of the 190-foot height
rather than the number of stories, noted that the petitioner was not requesting additional
waivers from the Code - therefore, the request would not hinder development of either
phase first in any way.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED,
Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. PC69-198 and moved for its passage and adoption
to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 69-70-17 be
approved, subject to conditions, kith a finding that since no waivers were requested,
development could occur with either Phase I or Phase II. (See Resolution Book)
~~
r~
_,, ~.
_..__.. `-t=s .. . . .
~. , ..
1., n ..
' iT ' , : ' i. - ,~~eqr. ~ - -~•~ ,
. ,. , n a r,'R
~ i'~.
r ~ ~'; rr',
. .,, i. ,... . , ,. . .~.
~"" n?`ya .r ri'~+' r lt ~~ T a~. _ a,~+T,`~n'j°.~, g s -s ~ ~ ~, ~ t~ .., ': _~
,' l .
~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 22, 1969 4824
RECLASSIFICATION - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following
N0. 69-70-17 v~te:
CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT N0
1135 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom,"
. Rowland.
(Continued) NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC69-199 and moved for its passage and adoption
to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1135, subject to conditions. ~See
Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, HerbsC, Thom, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. NELSON & CASSERLY, P. 0. Box 1, Orange, California, ~
N0. 69-70-14 Owner; ANACAL ENGINEERING, P. 0. Box 3668, Anaheim, California, Agent; !
requesting that property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel ~
of land located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, having a frontage
of approximately 160 feet and a maximum depth of approximately 290 feet, said parcel
being approximately 460 feet east of the centerline of Euclid Street, and further des-
cribed as 1659 West Lincoln Avenue, be reclassified from the M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE
to the C-3, HEAVY COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses
established in close proximity, noting that the M-1 Zone was established on the property
in feptember, 1954 and Variance No. 1016, to estabish a concrete manufacturing concern,
was approved in August, 1958 on subject property; that the petitioner proposed to estab-
lish a new and used car and truck sales facility - however, no plans for the proposed
development of the pr.operty were submitted with this application; that because street
frontage on the nortti side of Lincoln Avenue between Euclid ~treet and the Santa Ana
Freeway was a coqglomeration of both industrial and C-3, heavy commercial uses, with
existing zoning being C-2, C-3, and M-1 and most of the uses in this area being directly
related to the servicing of sutomobiles, such as muffler shops, brake shops, ete., the
proposed use might be cpnsidered appropriate; and that auComobile agencies, both new
and used, including all servicing incidental thereto, were permitted by right in the
C-3 2one - therefore, the requested rezoning petition for subject property would appear
to be appropriate.
Mr. WiYliam Miller, 1600 West Lincoln Avenue, ind~cated his presence to answer questions,
The Co~ission inquired as to the type of office structure proposed on subject property;
whereupon Mr. Miller stated that it would be a simple office such as found on most used
car lot facilities and would be primarily used for new and used trucks.
The Commission inquired whether or not a franchise had been made available to them for
the sale of trucks; whereupon Mr. Miller stated that the franchise had been authorized
by the Ford Motor Company and would be an extension of McCoy Motors.
Commissioner Farano expressed concern regarding the unsightly appearance of stuffed
animals located on top of various vehicles on the. property at the northeast corner of
Euclid Street and Lincoln Avenue and expressed hope that subject property would not
become that deteriorated.
Mr. Miller stated that the McCoy Motors stood on their past record - therefore, they felt
this would not be permitted.
Commissioner Thom offered Resolution No. PC69-200 and moved for its passage a~d adoption
to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 69-70-14 be
approved, subject to conditlons, and the finding that similar uses had alrear:y been
established in this general area. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ivone.
~-S y ~ A
- i ; ~ '.
. . ...._.: r'. _.. . ~ . .... . .. ., . .. .. .. . . . ~ . .
:'r-,:l, - .:
~:4:r~.';'. .
`p
~~ 'in' ~~'-'M1~.~,~~"~~~7• lS. . G`~"~G ,,y"t k ~^ ~ ~ ' 7S '~` ' R' ::~~ 1:;, ' ~V"~'
J:
~
\~
`~ ~
~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 22, 1969 4825
VARIANCE N0. 2113 - Chairman Rowland noted that a request had been made Uy the agent for
(Continued) the petitioner under Variance No. 2113 for reconsideration of addi-
tional data which he was not aware of until after the Commission's
action, and rather than rescind the Commission's resolution of denial,
he would suggest that this matter be taken up as further information before determining
whether or not the Commission's action should be rescinded.
Assistant Development Services Director Rbnald Thompson advised the Cownission that the
Assistant Fire Chief, James Heying, was contacted and was on his way to the Council
Chamber to clarify statements made to the staff which appeared in the Report to the
Co~ission and the memo which was sent to the Development Services Department regarding
adequate access for fire fighting equipment for subject property.
Mr. Stanley Bell, 920 South Magnolia Street, appeared before L-he Coum~ission and advised
the Commission that he hoped to be the builder of the proposed apartment complex; that a
memo was in the petition file, signed by the Assistant Fire Chief, in response to a
request from the Commission at the previous public hearing, said memo stated without
any equivocation that the property could be served adequately by the Fire Department,
and said memo did not state any reservations nor qualify this adequscy; that at the last
public hearing the Commission requested said memo from the Fire Department as to the
exact status, and from his interpretation of the memo, said me~ao did not say anything
else - therefore, based on that letter, the petitioner and agent felt that the Commission,
perhaps not having seen this memo, should consider it in their findings.
Co~issioner Allred then reviewed Finding No. 7 of the Report to the Commission which
indicated that although fire fighting service could be provided, this would be less than
desirable from the standpoint of accessibility for fire equipment, and certain areas
should be provided with adequate accessibility.
Mr. Bell then requested that the memo from the Assistant Fire Chief be read aloud -
whereupon Mr. Thompson read ~aid memo. (Copy in the petition file)
~`~s' ,;;;,';J Co~issioner Allred asked iL• any statement was made as to less desirable facilities -
j
~ to which Mr. Thompson replied that there was no equivocation in this particular memo;
however
the e
i
i
,.
~ ,
qu
vocat
on was made by the Assistant Fire Chief as indicated in the
4 ~i
~ Report to the Commission, from verbal conversations, and at the Interdepartmental
}
;
-
';~
"
Co~nnittee meeting.
,
,; a'yi;. -
~1
., .,;~ ~
<:~ Chairman Rowland noted that since the AssistanC Fire Chief was not present as yet
the
,
Reports and Recommendations would be taken up at this time.
'd
'~
REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1
;~ RECOMMEENDATIONS Orange County Use Variance No. 6304 - Contractor's Equipment
'; Storage Yard - Request for two-year extension of time for use -
Property located on the south side of Orangethorpe Avenue and
the AT & SF Railroad tracks approximately 240 feet east of
Richfield Road in the Atwood Cone area.
;! Assistant Zonin~ Supervisor Pat Brown presented to the Commission Orange County Use
y Variance No. 6304, noting the location of the property, the request for a two-year
continuance of the existing use; the fact that since 1963, the Orange County Planning
Commission had been approving two-year extensions for the use which was considered as
u
temporary; the Anaheim Planning Cou~ission's recommendation at the last two-year exten-
i
f
' s
on o
time thar. the existing chainlink fence be repaired, that the structures, equipment
and th
,
,~ ,
e general area be cleaned up, and that some type of screening should be provided
along the perimeter of the facilit
F
th
`~ y.
ur
ermore, a field check of the premises reveals
that none of these suggestions had received any attention.
Mr. Brown then noted that since the use had existed for six yea:,,, and a request had
been made for an additional extension of time, it would appear that the use was, in "
fact, a pe:manent one, and this being the case, the use should be subject to site devel-
opment standsr~s that would make its existence compatible with the surrounding area.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange
County Planning Commission be urged to consider the request for a two-year extension of
time for the use under Orange County Use Variance No. 6304, as a permanent use for a
contractor's equipmenC storage yard, and as such, that a 6-foot masonry wall be con-
structed around the perimeter of the site, and the general area be cleaned up. Commissioner
Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
~
4
~
~-t~ -- ~. ~..
.
_., . <<' ,. . . ,_ ~.. .' . .
~ ~ ..~,j` ~?'Y.M"~SS~fu~,P'iw 7"~ ;K?VSF~'~a~=~°'~ ,r~.,ift, ~~~.y,.J .w~ ~:i ~
t C
` .,^ ~b 4 ,;"'4}, R r „!} i v~.~ ., we,n~ .~~F~~~
T
~ ~, .,
`~
k O r~
~ ~
`~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 22, 1969
4826 '
I REPORTS AND ITEM N0, 2 i
~ RECOMMENDATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 884 - Request for an amendment
::
~' to a condition prohibiting serving of alcoholic beverages ~~'
in conjunction with an existing wedding chapel and wedding ~
' service facilities on property located on the south side .'~
~` af Ball Road, approximately 200 feet west of the centerline '~j
(
° of Nutwood Street. `
C I ~
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown presented to the Co~ission a request from the ~ ~
proposed operators of the wedding chapel and wedding service facilities previously 4 <<E
~ approved by the Coffinission in September, 1966, in Resolution No. PC66-79; however
the ~
~ -
~ ,
City Council at a public hearing, in Resolution No. 66R-662, dated October 11, 1966
h ~
-
?
; ,
ad added a condition that no alcoholic beverages should be served on subject property
(Condition No
4)
that l :1
t i .
;
ater revised plans were submitted and approved by the City
5 Council wherein the dining facilities were deleted; and that the most recent request
~,, -, was to serve champagne or champagne punch provided by the applicant's customers to be
~-. ; served at wedding parties only. Furthermore, at the City Council meeting on October 11
~; ,
1966, the City Attorney's office indicated that if the applicant's customers provided
` their own alcoholic beverages, a license from the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board
~: would not be required.
Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the proposed request, noting that the
'
Commission
s action did not prohibit the serving of alcoholic beverages; however
the
'
,
City Council
s resolution did, and since weddings were considered a quite festive
k ,
~- occasion, if champagne or champagne punch only were permitted to be served, providing ~
the applicant s customers provided the champagne, it would not have a detrimental effect 4
on the uses proposed on subject property.
fi Commissioner Farano offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that consideration '
9 b2 given to amending Condition No. 4 of Resolution No. 66R-662 adopted by the City Council
~ . on October 11, 1966, to permit the serving of champagne or champagne punch only provided
-~ by the applicant s customers since a wedding was considered a festive occasion
and few
~ ,
wedding receptions were celebrated wherein champagne was not served. Commissioner Gauer
=~ seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
i ~
.
x
~ ITEM N0. 3 3
' ; Clarification of permitted uses in a lube bay of an i
existing service station located at 521 South Brookhurst
< Street (the northwest corner of Orange Avenue and
:; Brookhurst Street).
~;} P.ssistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown presented a request for clarification of the ~
r,
~ classification of an automatic car washing unit proposed to be installed in an existing
` service station bay without any modification to the structure, and then reviewed the j
a operation of the proposed car washing unit, noting that it was fully automatic
requir- a
`
` ,
ing only the station attendent to operate it; that it would be activated by moving on ~
e tracks over the vehicle, completing its wash and wax cycle; that no fans or blowers ~
; were proposed since during the rinse cycle purified water would be allowed to drip-dr.y ~
'~ without spotting, and there would be no detailing of the automobiles. Furthermore ~
;~
~ ,
this was not the typical carwash involving an assembly line type of arrangement which
re
uired a
di
i f
" q
con
t
onal use permit in all commercial zones, and the staff
upon consulta- ~
' ,
tion with the Attorney's Office, had beea~ advi~ed that the above described use would
:t
e•
: ,
.
require a conditional use permit and cOuld be approved administratively.
~
,, Considerable discussion was held by the Commission relative to the
proposal - whether or ~
~ not the service station site development standards should be amended; whether or not
~ there would be any undue noises emanating from the proposed use; and whether or not
, utilization of the lube bay might bring requests for an expansion of service stations
which could be harmful since the sites were considerably smaller than average in some
~
~ areas, and the normal site was only 150 feet by 150 feet.
;:
Upon conclusion of the discussion by the Commission, it was determined that the prime
concern of the Commission regarding regular carwashes was the fact that there was
considerable noise from blowers and the numbers of automobiles and employees on the site
of said carwashes; however, if only the service station operator were to perform the ~
same duties as though he were performing a"lube" job on an automobile, without any undue (
noises emanating from the facility, then this could be administratively handled.
Commissioner Camp offered a motion to approve establishing an automatic carwash unit in
a lube bay as proposed under the request for the service station site at the northwest
corner of Brookhurst Street and Orange Avenue, provided, however, that no fans or blowers "
were utilized, and that the operation would be part of the service station services; and ,
~7'~' - y. ~,
, _~ ... .. . . ~_ ~. .~~' .. .. . .
U ~~ ~ ._~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 22, 1969
REPORTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 3 (Continued)
4827 ~ s ,,.
that said sutomatic carwash could be approved administratively by the staff. Commissioner
Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
VARIANCE NQ. 2113 - Chairman Rowland noted that Assistant Fire Chief James Heying was
(Continued) now present in the Council Chamber and reviewed the action taken
by the Planning Commission after several public hearings regarding
subject petition which was denied on the basis that easy fire and
trash vehicle access was not provided in the proposed development by the arrangement of
buildings to provide proper circulation according to the plans; that at a later point
in the pubiic hearing, this date, the petitioner requested an opportunity to present
additional data which was not reviewed by the staff during the pubiic hearing on subject
petition, which was a memo addressed to the Development Services Department from the
Assistant Fire Chief, which did notequivocate that the development did not provide
adequate circulation - however, Ehe Report to the Comniission did state that the Assistant
Fire Chief did make some equivocation that the proposed development did not provide
desirable circulation, and this contrasted sharply with the afor_mentioned memo - there-
fore, the Commission wanted to have this memorandum snd statements in the Report to the
Commission clarified even though the Commission recognized there were some problems
involved.
~` Assistant Fire Chief James Heying appeared before the Commission and a3vised that prior
~ to tl:e Interdepartmental Committee meeting he had sent a memorandum to the Development
..' Services Department regarding the request of the Planning Commission relative to a state-
~_ ment in writing as to the adequacy of circulation in the proposed development under
` ' Variance No. 2113; that there was no yes or no answer as to the impossibility to serve
` ~ this facility since all properties could be served in some manner when no other means
;~ were available - however, he felt a stub drive immediately west of the first tier of
; apartments did not provide a turn-around but stubbed into an area where patio fences
L were located, and in order to reach these apartments, said patio fences would have to
`~€~ be knocked down and the hoses pulled through someone else's apartment sometimes to reach
~; y~j the source of the fire; that when a large fire was being fought, with possible rescue
£ ~i operations of eo le it would be im ossible to
;, p p~ P get out of the stub street unless a cul- -
;~ de-sac or turn-around area was provided, with a turn-around area of 27 feet rather than
' :i having a dead-end accessdrive; that the rear portion of subject property did provide said
<i 27-foot diameter radius turn-around area; that the development also proposed "submerged"
.`,ji parking, which was also an added factor to consider in the Fire Departmen~'s urgency to
~ fight fires, and that his answer was "yes", the Fire Department could serve subject
,,~~ property in the event of a fire, but the amount of time involved with the obstacles
ti aforementioned would present a les's than desirable means of fighting fires when lines '
~' were being considered; that two pieces of equipment always answered a fire, with one
~ piece usually rushing in to ery to put out the fire by emergency meatts, and the second
, ~. piece of equipment would play the lines to complete the procedure for putting out ~the
fire and generally clearing up - thus the biggest problem was trying co get the first
' piece of equipment generally used for immediate fire-fighting to a subsequent fire which
~: might occur during the time spent making sure the fire on subject property was completely i
z, under control - this would be almost impossible since it would mean removing lines laid !
down, backing out both trucks in order to permit the first truck to answer the subsequent ~
~~ fire, and then returning the second truck to the parking area and relaying the lines,
' which was the most time consum+.ng job for emergency vehicles.
Chairman Rowland then noted that the point Mr. Heying was attemp~ing to make was that if
there were another fire in this particular service area, the equipment would be tied up,
and the other fire would suffer because of difficult accessibility to the street once
the two vehicles were pulled into the front stub accessdrive of subject property.
Mr. Heying noted there was another problem, that being the pulling of lines around the
obstacles, such as patio fences or through other apartments, which might be necessary
since there was no other way of reaching the southerly end except by going through to
the back from an apar[ment in the manner proposed on the plans - there~ore, it was always
highly desirable to have adequate circulation or turn-around area so that both pieces of
equipment were not tied up on one fire - therefore, there was no positive yes or no
statement which they could make since the fire on subject property could be served by
fire-fighting equipment, but it was not a very efficient means in fighting fires.
Commissioner Herbst inquired of Chief Heying - in his experience and his capacity as
Assistant Fire Chief wherein the concern of people should be observed - would the manner
in which the proposed development was arranged and as itpertained to fire fighting, would
this present rather marginal living conditions, or would [he fire-fighting service be
as good as provided to other apartment developments in other parts of town. .
."4; :
--~_.
~ t .. "~: 1 .~.':
~r~~~~ _..... ., ~-.. '.. .. ..'~~,~
~~ ..
P~ti
``' ~' ~ O
, t.~
MINUfES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 22, 1969 4g2g
VARIANCE N0. 2113 - Mr, Heying stated there might be some similar apartment developments
(Continued) in other parts of town which had been overlooked or had not been
,~" presented at the Intezdepartmental Committee meeting or had been
`" disapproved at the Interdepartmental Cormnittee meeting regarding the
Fire Department's comments - however, in subject development, access for fire equipment
1 " was not an ideal or efficient manner in which to fight a fire or possibly rescue persons,
;,<.,«i and the only means of getting out of the development would be to back out all the equip-
ment - originally the Fire Department asked for perimeter drives on all developments, but
with the costs and economics of developing property in the rity, or where the parcel was
too small to provide perimeter drives, his department had required a turn-around or cul-
`','-.: _ de-sac down the center, and that subject proposal had a drive to serve the southeasterly
~'~~a~ units, but no cul-de-sac or turn-around area was provided, and this would put the Fire
*-.1:':T~ Department in a spot.
~....._. r
Cosmttissioner Herbst inquired whether or not the people living in these apartments would
also be put on the spot by not having efficient fire-fighting service.
Mr. Heying replied that the first two to three minutes of a fire were the most important,
and delay would be costly in an attempt to serve the fire on the proposed development
because of the type of accessibility proposed and the need to knock down patio fences
and have access through other apartments, especially during the early hours of the morn-
ing, thereby increasing the dela} considerably more than the first three minutes -
however, he would still make the statement that the rire bepartment could serve subject
property, but it would be less than desirable Erom the standpoint of the Fire Department.
Commissioner Thom requested clarification on one point which had been discussed with the
Assistant Fire Chief that morning, and that was the basic reason for his offering a
resolution of denial, this being based on the proposed development not receiving equal
service from the Fire Department as a project with a peripheral drive would receive.
'~~ Mr. Heying stated that subject development wouid not receive e ual or as
q good Eire protec-
4'j
~ tion as those having peripheral drives or adequate access because the fire equipment and
; personnel would have to go up ladders if accessibility through other apartments was not
t.•.
a~.. :,~-:.:;;
. ,..,,
~1 readily available in order to reach the outside or the southerly end of subject property
i
.
1
or knock down patio fences. ,
' .
~~ Commissioner Thom noted it had always been his opinion that ~partments were more of a
_.:~I fire hazard than single-family homes since the average apartment had four or more families
r. . r~,
:5 living there, and a fire in one unit meant a fire in all units.
:.. <v,,,
!';;il~ Mr. Heying replied that this was correct.
Chairman Rowland then inquired if any of the other CoQUnissioners had any further comments.
Co~issioner Herbst stated he would not vote to rescind the Commission's previous action
and reopen the hearing on the basis of the so-called new information; furthermore, '
insurance rates would increase with the proposed type of circulation.
Commissioner Gauer noted that he had not changed his mind with this additional data since
he felt the Fire Department equipment and personnel should not have obstacles which they
would have to knock down or crawl over, and if six patio fences were to be knocked down,
perhaps the Fire Department should also have a bulldozer as part of their equipment.
Furthermore, he was sure the insurance companies would require the best possible fire-
fighting service, and the proposed development did not offer the best means to reach a
fire.
Co~tissio~er Allred stated he had not changed his mind as to rescinding the Commission's
action; that it was his opinion that prospective residents of this facility should be
given equal protection; and that the proposed circulation and accessibility would not
permit this,
Chairman Rowland noted that one of the points which came up at the hearing and at the
Interdepartmental Committee meeting, which was also discusseu with the Commissioners,
was the fact khat if each of the departments reviewing these plans had clear-cut parama-
ters since Mr. Heying said there was no yes or no answer which the Commission requested
without any qualifications, these paramaters should be very specific so that each depart-
ment could refer to them in making their recommendations - however, the present statement
left some "grey area" for the Commission, and the Commission had a difficult enough time
with the other problems involved - of proper land use - without being faced with the
"grey area" which should be submitted in clearly defined statements.
- n. ~t„
~,~ 'c
_ . ~ : . ,
~- ~~~.~, ,4
,
~
, , , , ` ; ,a ~,~
~
"~. .~
,~~
~_~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 22, 1969 4829
VARIANCE N0. 2113 - Mr. Heying noted that after the price of land rose, the Fire Depart-
(Continued) ment agreed to turn-around areas or cul-de-sacs and perimeter drives
rather than a regular street - however, they could go no further, and
a dead-end drive just was not adquate since fire trucks needed larger
areas for turn-around and circulation than sutomobiles, and if this were not provided, it
would mean using ladders to go up and over two-story buildings with hoses and for rescue
purposes, which would have to be taken down before the next fire could be served, tying
up equipment excessively.
Chairman Rowland noted that the Fire llepartment was concer:.ed with each development-even
though discussion of the price of land was of importance, the Planning Commission and
Fire Department were primarily concerned with the health, safety, and general welfare of
the community; that the Ca~ission was only indirectly concerned with land costs when
they considered the size of a parcel and what could be developed on the property, etc.
Mr. Thompson noted for the Co~ission that much of the land in Anaheim where no problems
existed had been developed, and now the City was being faced with many smaller parcels
or irregular, deep parcels which would be more difficult to develop than parcels of five
acres or more which the Co~uission had considered in the past.
Chairman Rowland noted that since the Commission was not to consider the economics of
a parcel, the only concern would be as to what the land could produce.
z;
` Commissioner Herbst noted that he was only concerned with the health and safety of the
;~
<
°' prospective tenants, and he felt the staff had performed its full obligation by present-
ing the Fire Department's statement - however, he felt there should be a criteria set uF
which would be more explicit so that the Commission would not have to make the decisions
the experts or professionals should make on marginal parcels - that the Cormnission was
', very concerned with the safety of the people living there and the safety of the equip-
; ment and personnel of the Fire Department - thus the experts should be advising the
~ Commission as to whether or not a development could be served with fire-fighting service
;-,;j and trash trucks, and if the Anaheim Municipal Code did not provide for this, then the
`1 Coffiission should take steps to initiate a provision in the Code which would give the
~ ,if Fire Department or other departments the means and necessary taols, establishing the
f :7i criteria on which to base their recommendations.
~ ;i Co~nissioner Thom noted that all the Co~iss~ion was presently doing was repeating state-
~'_
' ~ ments which were made at the first public hearing, at which time he had offered a motion
?; to approve the development subject to providing adequate fire access and circulation and
~, ~': denying said waiver - however, at that time the Commission was told that they were shift-
ing the responsibility and decision to the department heads rather than making the
decision as to whether or not the proposed development was being served adequately.
Mr. Hodges advised the Coimaission that he had been:informed by the staff that because
of the memorandum sent by the Assistant Fire Chief to the Development Services Department,
this waiver was being eliminated; that his deaign projects were always to meet the mini-
mum or exceed the R-3 standards; that a perimeter drive was ideal, but the R-3 standards
did not require this development or development to ideal standards in any other area;
that he was also concerned with the health and safety of their residents - however, the
convenience of the Fire Department should not be the criteria of building design since
there were other means, and so long as people were safe, and the Fire Chief indicated
that they could serve them, he felt Chis waiver should be removed from the request before
the Cou~ission.
Commissioner Allred noted that the staff in their report did not state this should be
removed or deleted from the request - they only stated that it might be eliminated;
that Che staff only made recommendations to the Commission, and these recommendations
could be approved or disapproved as the Co~ission saw fit.
Chairman Rowland noted that the statement made in the staff report was not even a
recommendation - it was a report by the staff stating all the facts as they saw them -
and it was up to the Commission to make the decision.
Co~issioner Gauer then noted that if any Fire Department had to reach the fire by knock-
ing down six or seven patio fences, this was not a convenient or efficient way to fight
a fire - as a matter of fact, this was an additional obstacle, and a more direct route
should be provided in design, even to fight a small fire, and a direct route was also
necessary for the fire-fighting personnel to reach persons who were injured from fires
and smoke inhalation.
Mr. Hodges noted there was no rule in the Code against patio fences, and he would like
~'` to challenge the Assistant Fire Chief's statement regarding the fact that fences would
have to be knocked down or other apartments would have to be gone through in order to
serve subject property in the event of a fire.
;~
!,~
t~ c ~~•n
_ 1, y. "'
U ~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION;.::September 22, 1969
4830
VARIANCE N0, 2113 - Chairman Rowland then asked that a vote be taken as co whether or
(Continued) not the:action-previously taken by the Co~ission should be rescinded,
and the additional information be considered as part of the evidence.
On roll call all Comarissioners voted=-:to sustain the action taKen previously, although all
comments made by the Assistant Fire-Chief, tC~e Cotmnission, the staff, and the petitioner's
representatives should be made a pazt of the minutes.
Co~issioner Camp noted that in each:instance where the Commission had a Report to the
Co~ission, difference-phases,were discussed and then the Commission suggested thi§ be
changed; however, each time..the public hearings were held, different statements were
made by the Assistant Fire Chief, and:with the written statement now in the file from
the Assistant Fire Chief, this could.create a hardship on developers in design costs -
therefore, it was urgent that the criteria by which the Fire Department determined
whether or not a development could be:served adequately should be prepared as soon as
possible.
Commissioner Farano, noting that he was not present at the original hearing at which time
the Commission took action, inquired::whether or not the petitioner was faced with a hard-
ship if he were required to redesign-tather than outright denial, and would this be more
fair than the outright denial.
Co~issioner Camp noted that the Commission would have approved the petition several
meetings ago without a stipulation from the Fire Department because a condition of the
approval was that the petitioner had to meet the requirements of the Fire Department;
however, the agent wanted the petition,_approved in its entirety, which the Commission
did not do at that time.
RECESS FOR DINNER - Co~issioner Thom offered a motion to recess the meeting for :~G~
dinner. Coimnissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED tY
~
.
The meeting recessed at 4; 55 P.M. ,:
;,,;;;
,:JpP
RECONVENE - Chaizman Rowland reconvened the meeting at 7:30 P.M., Cormnissioner
,~
~
Gauer being absent.
.~,
~
Chairman Rowland then advised interested-persons present in the Council Chamber that ~
=equests had been received from the petitioners-developers of properties under Items ~"
15, 16 and 17 for a continuance, and then in response to questions from the audience,
e
requ
sted that the staff review said items.
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. GEORGE COLLMAN, 16651 Yorba Linda Boulevard
,
N0, 69-70-8 Yorba Linda, California, Owner; JEFFERY MILLET, 511 South Brookhurst
Road, Fullerton, California, Agent; requesting that property described
as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at the northwest
co
f
rner o
Orangethorpe Avenue and Kellogg Drive, said parcel having approximate frontages
of 340 f
t
O
ee
on
rangethorpe Avenue and 765 feet on Kellogg Drive, be reclassified from
th
CO
e
UNTY A1, AGRICULTURAL, DISTRICT to the CITY OF ANAHEIM C-1, GENER~IL CUMMERCIAL, ZONE.
Said petition was continued from the meeting of August 25, 1969, in order to be considered
as a part of the total package of development for both the east and west sides of Kellogg
Drive
north
f O
,
o
rangethorpe Avenue, and since that public hearing the petitione. had
advised the Co~ission of tLie rezoning:request which would be considered at the September
26
1969
ti
,
mee
ng.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING, GEORGE COLLMAN AND HORACE MORLOCK
16651 Yorba Linda
,
N0. 69-70-10 Boulevard, Yorba Linda, California, Owners; JEFFERY MILLET, 511 South
Brookhurst Road, Eullerton, California, Agent;, property described as:
VARIANCE N0
2121 14
o
an
.
acres
f l
d located on the east side of Kellogg Drive between
Orangethorpe Avenue:and Woodwind Lane, consisting of xhree portions; i'
Portion 1- A rectangularly shaped parcel of land situated at the
northeasC co
f O ,
rner o
rangethorpe Avenue and Kellogg Drive, said parcel having 150 feet of
frontage on b
th
t
s
o ~'
o
s
reet
; P
rtion 2-:An irreguTarly shaped parcel of land siEuaEed north
a
d ea
n
st of Portion 1 and having approximately 620 feet of frontage on Kellogg Drive an1
approximately 429 feet of frontage on Orangethorpe Avenue; and Portion 3- A rectangular-
l
sh
d
y
ape
parcel of land situated at the southeast corner of Woodwind Lane and Kellogg
Drive, said parcel having approximate-frontages o£ 264 feet on Kellogg Drive and 630 feet
on ?~?oodwind Lane. Proper~ty presently classified COUNTY A1, GENERAL AGRICULTURAL, DISTRICT.
.
. . . -~, ~. ~ . .,
- -- ,
,,. ;
, ;.,a'9, .',
. ,,.. .37
~«_. .. ... .... . . ..._.... ~...~ ~ ---
q r ,. ~ i: ~~:~ ,:s
O
~~
\~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 22, 1969 4831
RECLASSIFICATION - REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: PORTION 1- C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE;
N0. 69-70-8 PORTION 2- R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY
RECLASSIFICATION RESIDENTIAL, ZONE; AND
PORTION 3- R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY, ZONE,
N0. 69-70-10
REQUESTED VARIANCE: PORTION 3 ONLY - ESTABLISH A 23-LOT, R-2-5000
VARIANCE N0. 2121 SUBDIVISION WITH TWO LOTS SIDING ON AN ARTERIAL
(Continued) HIGHWAY.
~ommissioner Gauer entered the Council Chamber at 7:35 P.M.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed for the Commission previous action on
Reclassification No. 69-70-8 and the proposal at that time to develop the property for
C-1 commercial zoning.
Mr. Brown also noted that under Reclassification No. 69-70-10 and Variance No. 2121, the
petitioner was proposing a service station site on Portion 1 and an R-3 development on
Portion 2- however, no plans were submitted with Chis request, and 25 R-2-5000 zoned,
single-family lots on Portion 3, and no tentative tract map had been filed in conjunction
with this request since at this time the petitioners were desirous only of knowing whether
the rezoning actions would be approved.
Mr. Brown finally noted that as a result of comments made in the Report to the Commission
and conferences with the staff regarding the numerous problems involved which had been
determined at the InterdepartmentaZ. Committee meeti•:i~, a four-week continuance was
requested. Furthermore, during the discussions the agent for the petitioner had indicated
that there was a possibility they might consider changing the type of zoning for the two
different parcels - however, further study had to be made before this determination could
be made, and there was a possibility of having more commercial on the east side and all
R-3 or R-2-5000 on the west side.
Mr. Brown further advised the Commission that subject properties were now in the process
of being annexed to the City oi Anaheim.
Commissioner Camp offered a motion to continue consideration of Petitions for Reclassi-
fication No. 69-70-8, Reclassification No. 69-70-10, and Variance No. 2121 to the meeting
of October 20 in order to allow time for further study on the propos ed type of zoning,
its implication as to the General Plan, and £or a possible readvertisement in the event
the requested zoning was changed. Com[nissioner Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING, THE MC CARTAY COMPANY, 1094 South Marengo Avenue,
N0. 69-70-15 Pasadena, California, Owner; GEORGE 5ANT, 1094 South Marengo Avenue,
Pasadena, California, Agent; property described as: An irregularly
VARIANCE N0. 2126 shaped parcel of land consisting of 20 acres located on the south side
of Santa Ana Canyon Road, approximately 450 feet west of Che center-
TENTATIVE MAP OF line of Mohler Drive and having approximately 900 feet of frontage on
TRACT N0, 4777 Santa Ana Canyon Road, said parcel also having approximately 850 feet
of frontage on Del Giorgio Road. Property presently classified
COUNTY R-1-8000 and R-1-10,000, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, DISTRICTS.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF MINIMUM LOT WIDTH TO ESTABLISH A 78-LOT,
SINGLE-FAMILY SURDIVISION. ~
TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: Subject tract, consisting of approximately 20 acres of land
located southeast of Santa Ana Canyon Road, west of Mohler
Drive, is proposem for subdivision into 78 R-1, One-Family
Residential, Zone~: 3ots.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown re~oicwed the location of subject property, uses
established in close proximity, and the proposal, noting that the City Manager's office
had indicated that the owner of subject property had attempted annexation to the City
of Anaheim for over a period of one year - however, no present annexation proceedings
were in proceas; that said annexation would take some time since property owners to the
w~st of subject property had indicated no desire at this time to annex to the City, and
in this instance, continuity of City boundaries must exist.Eor any annexation proceed-
ings to be formalized for subject property; tha.t no plot plan for individual lots had
been submitted with the application - however' Tentative Map of Tract No. 4777 indicated
a proposed de~~elopment of a 78-lot subdivision, with the main entrance to the tract from
the intersection of Mohler Drive and Del Giorgio Road some 300 feet south of where
Mohler Drive intersects Santa Ana Car,yon Road; that aG the Interdepartmental Committee
;~
,: :. , ,
, , ..,,.
.,
~
:., _ ,, ,~ ~..
, :
• i, : - _ _ ~ _
-
~ :;: ~
._ .
~
~
~
).
~
~
~
*: t
~
' ;' -
'~ .. ~ , . ..
... . . ... . ..
:..~
~ . .~ _..: ~ . . U
. _ .. . ' . ~
~ ~
V . . ~ , ~, ... . . . ~ . . . . . .. .~F
~y,; ...
~::.~-,~iY:n. . + t~.•~
~''~
I
~` ~~ ~:} ~~rrc-y,~+ s~t-,5~,. j r rm:v'~ r ~ k r *. i- ~ r ,~.~,rN~hiS.~p
i k~~
f ,
~~
a
r ~~
~
_ s~
Q (--~ ~ ?3
\..J ,a
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 22, 1969 {
4832
RECLASSIFICATION - meeting on September 15, 1969, a number of problems had been presented •~;
N0. 69-70-15 together with the problem on annexation wherein subject property would ~
be an isolated parcel, and although the petitioner was desirous of ~.
VARIANCE N0. 2126 annexation, it would be difficult to serve the pr.operty with public ?
facilities since said facilities would have to cross over County ~i
TENTATIVE MAP OF property - therefore, as a result of these various problems, it was I ;
TRACT N0. 4777 recommended that an eight-week continuance be ~on~idered.
(Continued) ;
Several persons from the audience expressed concern that they had ~ ~?
not been notified as to the continuance and requested that Reclassification No. 69-70-15, :';3
Variance No. 2126, and Tentative Map of Tract No. 4777 be scheduled for an evening ~'~.;:~
session. ~
~ - : ,~
Chairman Rowland advised the audience that under normal conditions the Commission did not ~ r''
have an evening meeting; that an evening session was scheduled only when the a enda had '
' s$ too many items which could be processed at a normal afternoon session. g
a' ' Commissioner Farano noted that if discussion were to be held from the audience, that
~` any persons making comments should present themselves at the podium and identify them-
~: selves.
Chairman Rowland further noted that none of the Commission was desirous of having evening
meetings specifically scheduled unless the volume warranted it because this involved a
i
: very lengthy day, with the Commission spending the morning in reviewing the properties
r ,:
{ under conaideration and the afternoon and evening in public hearings, and if a meeting
did
; not warrant scheduling for an evening session, this would reduce the expense to the
Cit
- ho
f
h
y
wever,
or t
ose interested, the Cormnission Secretary would be directed to
^ schedule subject petitions as the first item at 2:00 P.M. on November 17, 1969.
~ Commissioner Camp offered a motion to continue consideration of Petitions for Reclassi-
~~ fication No. 69-70-15, Variance No. 2126, and Tentative Map of Tract No. 4777 to the
3j meeting of November 17, 1969, scheduled as the first item on the agenda
at 2:00 P
M
'-j ,
,
.,
to allow time for the petitioner to resolve the numerous problems involved in annexation
+ N;~ and development. Commissioner Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIL"D.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. CHARLES ROCKWELL, 443 East 22nd Street, Newport
N0. 69-70-16 Seach, California, Owner; MILLER FIVANCIAL CORP., 18111 East vth
Street, Suite E, Tustin, California, Agent; property described as:
VARIANCE N0. 2128 A rectangularly shaped parcel of land situated at the northwest
corner of Miraloma Avenue and Blue Gum Street, said parcel having
approximate frontages of 6G0 feet on Miraloma Avenue and 578 feet
on Blue Gum Street. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN UNITS AND VEHICULAR
ACCESSWAYS, (2) MAXIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN CARPORTS AND UNITS,
(3) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS, AND (4) MAXIMUM
NUMBER OF MAIN BUILDITIGS ON A SITE, TO ESTABLISH A TWO-STORY,
240-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property and uses
established in clos~ proximity, noting a resolution of intent to the M-i Zone was pending
on the property and 'nad been established in April, 1962; that the petitioner proposed
multiple-family residential development with a 240-unit apariment complex having two
access points to 131ue Gum Street, which was designated as a secondary highway; that no
access points had been proposed to Miraloma Avenue; that a perimeter drive surrounds
subject property, with enclosed carports located along the north, west and south property
lines, with all proposed units located within the interior of the property; that at the
Interdepartmental Coimnittee meeting on September 15, the Assistant Fire Chief indicated
thac the proposed development could not be served adequately in the evenC of a fire, and
it would be necessary to provide some mFans of vehicular access to the interior of the
development which might be accomplished by providing a permanent alley or perhaps an
emergency drive for fire equipment only.
~ Mr. Brown, in reviewing the Evaluation, noted the primary issue before [he Planning
Commission was to determine whether residential land uses should be interjected into an
area previously defined as part of Anaheim's Northeast Industrial Area; that subject
, ~ property was located along the western boundary of this major industrial area immediately
~~~ east of the Orange Freeway, which had been established as the line of separation between
~; industrial and residential uses in this vicinity; that if the requested reclassification
were approved, it would undoubtedly have an effect upon the future use of o~her indus-
trial property in this area; that upon numerous occasions industrial interests in this
;r r
' :,,, ~. y~ . f+~~ 11 ~ '
q';~ ~ . ' ~ ~ . - ~
'S.~°^ f~j-s~~''k-'~:+?`?'`.......~.yw~:"'':' t ti~.
~. . ~C ~.. ,. ... ~ .
~. ~~k
/
f f1~ ~ ~~nl~J ~'~ ~'TI '~. '~^ {EAJ~~.~~1,,.. r:" tz"~9 '~V i?:. " i 1 r
,~ I
~/
~
MINUTES, i,?TY pI,ANNING COMMISSION, September 22, 1969
RECI.ASSIFICATION
N0. 69-70-16
VARIANCE N0. 2128
(Continued)
~
E ,~. v ~;::.1
.. te
~ jt ..
~ ~~
_4',
~~
~
4833
- area had expressed their concern to both the Commission and City ''°'
Council relative to retention of the Northeast Industrial Area for ~?
industrial development, and without exception this had been the ~~
policy of both bodies; and that, therefore, the Commission would I
hava to determine whether there had been sufficient changes to !
warrant ~mending this long-established policy for industrial develop- `"~
ment since this policy had again been challenged. ;
Mr. LeRoy Rose, 1711 Westmont Drive, Anaheim, architect and representative of the agent
for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that the Report to the
Cou~ission indicated their proposal; that the Commission was well aware of the problem
of the lack of housiiig within the City, and this lack of housing would continue due to
the fact that large, vacant parcels were not available except for the large industrial
area which the City in the past had set aside for industrial purposes; that there was
a great need for residential development in close proximity to the industrial area;
that the petitioner was proposing to assist in offering some relief to the housing
shortage by the proposal since the area involved would in no way affect the future
development of industrial uses easterly; that a garden-type, residential development
was proposed, with adequate parking; that the density and coverage were within the limits
of the site development standards; and that the waivers requested had been granted numer-
ous times in the past.
Mr. L. D. Wilson, Vice President of Orange Development Company, 4418 Vineland Avenue,
North Hollywood, California, appeared before the Commission and stated that they had
several million dollars of real estate in this general area, and it had been decided to
concentrate all their efforts in the Northeast Industrial Area since it was their feeling
that the area was comparable to the Irvine industrial complex, offering easy freeway
accessibility and ease in developing because of the flat land; that a number of industrial
developments had already been established in this immediate vicinity, and they had just
finished a large industrial building which was already leased, and they were presently
building another one, with a new parcel being proposed for annexation, and plans for
building a large industrial plant were already drawn; that they also had a 20-acre parcel
at La Jolla and Kraemer which they planned to subdivide for an industrial park; that they
realized good houaing was also neceasary near an industrial complex - however, this entire
area should be retained for induatrial purpae ea since the Orange Freeway provided a
natural boundary between residential and industrial purpoaes, and he urged that the
Co~iasion deny subject petition, retaining this area for industrial development.
Letters from Lionel-Pacific, Ine., Bryan Industrial Properties, Inc., and Dr. Leo C. Ward
were read to the Commission, all stating their reasons for opposition, basically the
fact that industrial uses did not require special servicea such as schools, transporta-
tion, commercial, medical, and various utilitiea; that multiple-family uses and indus-
trial uaes would create a traffic, police, and fire problem; that the easy accessibilii•y
to aev~ral major freeways made this area highly desirable to national corporations, snd
that national corporations had chosen this area for projections of industrial develup-
ment bracause of the previous commitments made by the City of Anaheim that this area would
be retained for induatrial purposes; and that the taith should be kept with those companies
now located in this area and those planning to locate in th-a future.
Mr. Art Lincoln, Director of Induatrial Engineering of Autonetics, North American Rockwell,
appeared before the Commiaeion in oppoaition, noting he had a letter of opposition signed
by the Executive Vice President and then read said letter.
Mr. Lincoln also noted that as a repreaentative of the Induatrial Division of the Chamber
of Commerce, he wauld also like to offer further co~nents relative to residential encroach-
ment into the Northeaet Induatrial Area, atating that the board of directors at their last
meeting requeated that the Conanisaion and City Council retain the Northeast Industrial
Area for induatrial purpoaes and prohibit any violation of any other reaidential uses in
this area in order that existing induatrial developments might remain there, and the
pros~,ective and potential industrial developmenta which would be locating in this area
might be asaured that incompatible uaes, primarily reaidential uaes, would not be permitted
to encroach into the Northeast Induatrial Area, Furthermore, now that construction had
begun on the Orange Freeway, the natural barrier which it created was a natural boundary
between the induetrial and residential uaea - therefore, any encroachment east2rly would
be highly undesirable.
Mr, Roae, in rebuttal, stated that the only argument he could present was the fact that
the City of Anaheim needed large parcels of land for development of reaidential usea,
and the petitioner was propoaing to develop multiple-family residential uses in close
proximity to the induatrial development. However, he had no argument as to [he various
industries who had presented letters of oppoeition and peraonally appeared,
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
'i, ~
T r '-~w~~' i~~
~:.
- -.LL - ~~ ~ .,, ~ 3
>'. ' o.~...' :'~...~.~ ;:.. x. ~~
. , _~
tdiil'' ~P s xYf~"T~~~rA.i'rcLr{ a'3~'. ,+~K' 3; T r~1.'IS.'^'~'S~X'r sy ~°,- ,e~, ~. ,.;i -''~
t Y.r.
~ ~ ~A:-wx~_ ~
~ \~ ~
v
„f,.,'.~~~:~~
, MINUTES, CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION, September 22, 1969 4834
RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Herbst noted that the City of Anaheim had gone a long
N0, 69-70-16 way in developing an industrial area; that many millions of dollar.s
had been spent in the Northeast Industrial Area by industries
'^i ' VARIANCE N0. 2128 locating there; that many individuals representing potential indus-
fContinued) tries had asked the question many times - whether or not the area
would remain industrial, and both the Chamber of Co~nerce and the
+ •~ City of Anaheim had assured them that this area would be retained
for industria~ purposes; that the freeway boundaries, with the Orange Freeway on the
, west, Orangethorpe Avenue on the north, and the Riverside Freeway on L•he south, acted
~.,;,,;: as natural boundaries; and that no encroachment of any type~of residential uses should
:; be permitted. Therefore, since these industries had invested their money, the City of
,,; Aaaheim should honor their investments and their faith in previous statements made by
';~~ assuring them this area would be retained for residential purposes.
~„ Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC69-201 and moved for its as a
.:r. `: p s ge and adop-
~~~ ~ tion to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 69-70-16
be disapproved on the basis that no land use change had taken place to warrant favorable
~ ' consideration of encroachment of residential uses easterly of the natural boundary -
the Orange Freeway - in an area br_ing developed and proposed for industrial purposes;
'? that in order to assure prospective industrial developers and established industries
'~' that the integrity of the Northeast Industrial Area will be maintained, all types of
residential uses shauld be prohibited in this area because, historically, residential
and industrial uses are not compatible; and that approval of residential uses at this
~~ location would establish an undesirable precedent for additional requests for residen-
r ~ tial encroachment into ar~as set aside for industrial development. (See Resolution
r~~ Book)
' On roll call the for_going resolution was passed by the following vote:
ti
~ ;~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland.
~.;j NOES: COMMISSIONERSa None.
; ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
rj
, ~i Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC69-202 and moved for its paesage and
_ adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2128 on the basis that no hardship hsd been
! proven that !:he variance was necessary, and that since Reclassification No. 69-70-16
~i had been recou~ended for denial sub'ect
~. ,_,,a~ Resolution Book) ' J petition was no longer applicable. (See
~ :i .
r ;j On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
'•_1 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland.
-`.' NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
, ABSENT: COhAtISSIONERS: None.
ADJ~URNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Herbst
offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Camp
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 8:15 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
ANN KREBS, Secretary
Anaheim City Planning Cormnission
, .
,
..,~'~1'
_ y ~ ~ w h: p ,. t k t~
~, ~_. ~'. s:
, . ~