Minutes-PC 1969/12/15~ ` , . -,~
~' - _ ~ ~
' City Hall
ILnaheim, Galifornis
Deoera~ar 15, 1969
A REGULAR MELTING OF THE ANAF~2~6 CITlC PL.9IG~`~1G CG~SSION
REGUI+AR MEETING - A reguler meeting of the Aneheia City Pla.-~ning Comciission wes oslled
to~order by Chairmsn Rowland at 2:00 o'alook P.D~_, a quorum being
present.
PRESENT - CHATRmAN: Rowland.
- CO~EQISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Iia.bst, Thom.
ABSENT - - CO~ISSIONERS: None. • •
PRESENT - Assistant Development Serviaes Direator: Ronsld Thoapson
Assistant City Attorney: ' Joha Dawson
OfPioe Engineer: Tay Titus
TraPfio Eiigineer: Edward Cranzow
Zoning Supervisor: Charles Roberts
Assistant 2oning Supervisor: Pat B:ow:i
Planning Commission Seoretary: Ann ~reba
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Herbst led in the Pledge of Alleg'anae to the Flag.
APPROVAL OF - The Minutes of the meeting of November 17, 1969 were approved as
THE MIIVt1TL•S submitted on motion by C!ommissioner Camp, seoonded by Commissioner
Farano. The Minutes of the meeting.o: Deoam~~or 1, 1969 were
approved es submitted on motion by Commi.ssicnsr Herbst, seoonded by j
Commissioner Thom, and both MOTIONS'CARR]'~~. i
RECLASSIFICATION- CONTINUED PUBLIC f~ARING. THE MC CAEi^iHY GO., 1C94 South Marengo ~
N0. 69-70-15 Avenue, Pasadena, Californis, Owner; GEORCE SA?~'T, 1094 3outh Mareng~ i
Avenue, Pasadena, CaliPornia, Agent; propert~ desaribed as: An i
' VARIANCE N0. 2126 irregularly sheped paroel oY land oonsist+_ng of ~0 eores looated on (
the south side oY Santa•Ana Canyon Roe,d, approaimately 450 Peet west ~
TENTATNE MAp OF of the oenterline of Mohler Drive and having agproximetely 900 feat i
TRACT N0. 4777 0~ Prontage on Santa Ana Canyon Road, said ~eroeZ a13o havin a
g pproai- ~
mately 850 feet of frontage on Del Giorgio Road (Frivate). Pronerty
presently olsssiPied County of Orange R-1-8000 ar.d R-1-10,000, S~1TC~
FA~EILY RESIDENCE, DISTRICTS.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-1, ONErFAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZGN~.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WATVER OF MINIMUM LOT WID'!'H TO ES^ASLTSii d I
7E-IAT, SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDI'dISION. I
TENTATIVE TRACT AEQUEST: Sub~eat traot, oonsisting of sppror.i•:aetely 20 earss o~ land
looeted southeest of Santa Ana u'anyon Roed, west of Mohler
Drive, is ~,.-oposed ~or subdivisio>_i into 73 R-1, Znr.ed lots. ;
Sub~eot petitions and traot mep were oontinued from the meetings o~ September 22 and I
NovemLer 17, 1969 to sllow time for the petitioner to resolve the n•,•,mercus probiems
involved in anneaetion s::d development. '"
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown advised the Commissior. that a let~er had been
reaeived from the agent for the petitioner requesting an additionai foi:r weeks of time ~
to resolve the numerous problems involved in both anneaetion esd devalopmer_t of sub,jeot '
property. Furthermore, sinoe said request hsd been reoeived ir_ tine, the staPf had
me,iled a letter to surrounding property owners advising them that sub~eot request had
been reaeived.
Commissioner Allred ofPered a motion to oontinue oonsideration of Reolassifioatlon
No. 69-70-15, Varianoe No. 2126, snd Tentative Map oY Trao~ No. 47i7 to the meeting
oP Janue,ry 12, 1970, to allow the petitiorier time to resol~;e devslapme~t-anneaation
problems. Commissioner Farano seoonded the motion. MOTIOP: CF,RRI~D. ~
i
-~936-
;
~ .
~
' .~ t _n~ ; L ..~ ~:..,1.
/ ~~ ~:'
;;:,
h
~.,.
C~
~~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COM~AISSION, Deaember 15, 1969
VARIANCE N0. 2140 - PUBI,TC HEARING. GEORGE F. DOHERTY', 9774 Ke,tella Avenue, Anaheim,
California, Owner, requesting waiver oP permitted uses in the R-1
Zone to ESTABLISH AN ART STUDIO IN AN ERISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUC -
' TURE 'on property desoribed as: A reotangularly shaped peroel of
land looated at the southwest oorner of Cresoent Avenue and Fairhaven Street, having
approximate frontagea of 97 feet on Cresoent Avenue and 62 Yeet on Fairhaven Street
snd being looated approximately 300 feet west of the oenterline of Euolid 3treet. ~
Property presently zoned R-1, ONE-FAMILY RPSIDENTIAL~ ZOND.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pet Brovrn noted the looation of sub~eot property, uses
established in olose proximity, and the request to utilize an e$isting single family
residenoe as an art studio employing two Pull time and one part-time employees; that
aooess to sub~eot property was from Fairhaven Street, s residentiel street; that Code
would require a 6-foot me,sonry wall or Penoe where a oommeroisl type aooessway was
adjaoent to a residenoe; that the petitioner had indioeted to stsff that he would
eventually request C-1 Zoning, sinoe the C-0 Zone did not permit oommeraial use of a
residenoe; that all but one oY the lots on the east side of Fairhaven Street were
zoned C-0, however, use of the property was limited to parking Yor the C-1 shallow
lot development on Eualid Street. ThereYore, the Commission in revi:ewing the proposal
might wish to give oonsidaration to the efteot the proposed oommeraial use oY the
residenoe would hsve on the residentiel integrity of this erea, even though the lots
on the east side of Fairhaven Street were zoned C-0, they were required to dedioate
vehioular acoess rights to said street to eliminate eaoessive oommeroial traPfio on
a looal residential street. Furthermore, in addition to said dediastion the owners
of the C-0 property were required to ereot a 6-Poot masonry wall, end the planting
of the setbaok area Prom the sidewalk on Fairhaven with dense landsoaping to oom-
pletely isolste the residentiel from the oommeroisl use to the east. ~
Mr. Brown then noted iE the Commission determined that the requested varianoe should
be approved, the petitioner might be advised to retain ell front le,ndsoaping presently
existing, and to maintain it; that the requiz•ed parking e,rea to the rear of the prop-
erty be properly surYeoed, bumper guards provided ad~saent to any fenaes or wells,
tree soreen landsoaping on 20-foot oenters be provided along the west property line;
and that the petitioner be ndvised that the R-1 Zone permits onlq one 1-square foot
sign identiYqing tha oooupsnt of the premises, sinae the petitioner indioated in his
ststement that he proposed a modest and dignified sign identiE~ing the business.
Mr. George Doherty, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that
; the proposed use of sub~eot property would be an improvement to the area, sinoe the
City was well eware of the Paot that renters were less likely to me,intain the appear-
`' snoe oP the
,{ property as owners and residents of the property mould; that he had been
,-~ renting this home for the psst five yeers; that no outsider would lrnow this struoture
was being used for aommaroisl purposes, sinoe he intended to rePurbish the outside of
' the struoture, upgrade the landsoaping and hire a gardener to maintain it; thst he
intended to move his present operetion from 9947 West Katelle Avenue to sub~eot prop-
;, erty, sinoe the owners oP the building he presently rented had doubled the lease aost,
`.~ and that he wss available to answer any questions the Comciission might have.
~.
Disoussion wss held by the Commission regarding the proposal; the C-0 property to the
east; the Puture eatension oP Cresaent Drive over the 3anta Ana Freaway-ahioh sooording
to the OPPioe Engineer Jay Titus wes at five years in the Yuture; oompatibility of the
proposed uae of the property by the petitioner; and the faot thst Cresoent Drive was an
exoeption on the Highway Rights-of-Way tdap between Euolid Street end the Santa Ana
Freeway with 30-foot half width on the south side and 47-foot half width on the north.
Commissioner Herbst then noted that sub~eot property was one of many whioh sided on an
arterial; the,t approvsl of sub~eot petition would be esteblishing s preoedent and a
pettern of similar requeats Prom these many homeowners; that in order to grant e varianoe,
the petitioner must demonstrete a hardship ezisted in whioh the petitioner wss not en~oy-
ing the same privileges as ad~oining propsrties; and if the City ever hoped to improve
the downtown ared, it would be neoessary to disoournge oommeraiel uses of residenoss
suoh as aub,jeot property throughout the City.
The Commisaion then inquired of Mr Titus whether or not the offset oettterline would have
anq effeot on the freaway overpasa, and whether additional dedioation would be needed.
lar. Titus advised the Commission thst a bridge would arossover the freeway e,nd would be
oonsiderably nerrower than the width of the street, however e stsndard 90-foot street
would extend weaterlq oP the Yreemsy; and thet no dedioation would be required from
sub~eot property at the preaent time.
n~ '
~ ti
_~
4 937
(
~ -- - -
- ~ ~
i~ 'Mr:- ~' '
~~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMdIISSION, Deaember 15, 1969
~~
4938
VARIANCE N0..2140 - A letter in favor ot sub~eot petition was read to the Commission.
(oontiaued)
THE HEARING YPAS CLOSED.
Conmissioner Allred oYtered Resolution No. PC69-249, and moved for its passage and
adoption to deny Petition fer Varianoe No. 2140, on the basis that the petitioner had
not presented evidenae thet a hardship eaisted; that there were no eaaeptional or
eatraordinary oiroumstanoes or oonditions to warrent favorable oonsideration; that
approval of the petition would set a preoedent for similar requests from the ma,ny
homes having side on lots ad~aaent to exterisls; and that the proposed use would
be detrimental to the residential environment of the area. F'urthermore, the r•eport
entitled "A Study of the Problems of Residential Homes Fronting or Siding on Arterials"
in whiah speoifio sreas mere designsted ss beir.g appropriate for oommeroiel aonversion
did not inolude the area in whioh subjeot property is looated.(3ee Resolution Book)
On roll oall the foregoing was passed by the following vote:
AYLS: OOMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Faxano, Gauer, Herbst, Rowlend.
NOES: CO~SSIONERS: Thom.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; None.
~? CONDITIONIiL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. ANN P_REIVTICE, 1101 Reseda Street, Aneheim, Celifornia,
~` PER~IT N0. 1146 Ovmer; MOBIL OIL CORPORA'lION, 11001 Valle9 Wall, E1 ~Lonte, Californie,
~' Agent; re uestin
~' VPITHIN 75~FEET OF A RESIDENTIAI, ZONE on '~p''r pertyadesoribed~esCE ASTnATION
y~ irregularly shaped paroel of le,nd looated at the southeest oorner of Linooln Avenue and
; Sunkist 5treet, having approaimate Prontages oY 166 Yeet on Sunkist Street and 168 feet
,. .^K~ on Linaoln Avenue. Property presently olassified R-A, AGRIaIII1PURAI~, ZONE.. :
~~ ~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of sub~eot proparty, noting
~ ~~ that property to the,south and east wss zoned R-3, to the west agricultural uses, and
( to the north aoross Linooln Avenue a servioe station, multiple ftimily and single family
residentiel uses existed• that the R-3 p y P m
~ ~ pro ert had develo ment plans approved, however,
r' ,;~ oonstruotion had not been started; that the pet3tioner was proposing to oonstruot a
servioe station similar in design to that reoently oompleted at the northwest oorner
~ of Linooln Avenue and East Street; thst although the use appeared to be appropriate to
`~ the area, sinae at the time the property was oonsidered for reolassifioetion, it was
~ obvious the C-1 Zoned property would ultimately be developed Yor a service stetion,
° however, the Commission might wish to disnuss the proposed erohiteotural design, sinoe
'Z `' it had been the Cit 's
~~ y polioy Por the past several years to enoourege the use oi "r.anoh
t~ style" designs for stetions partioularly ip in olose proximity o~ ad,jaoent to residentiel
;~ uses in order that the station would be more aesthetiaally oompatible with the homes in
:. the area; that the proposed lessee had developed "ranoh style" stations in the City in
f~ the past, whiah were muah•'more pleasing ar.ohitecturally' than the proposed'design; and
~ a•sample of tlnis ranoh'style was the•~ser.viae station at the northn~est oorner of Ball
:~. Road and State College Boulevard; and that if sub~eot petition were approved, the peti-
$ tiorier should be edvised that where
parking e,reas are proposed ad3eoent to residentiel
;~ properties Code would require tree soreen landsoaping on 20-foot oenters in addition
„ to the required 6-foot maeonry wall, whioh the C-1 Zone site development standards state.
,? (Property has a resolution oP intent to C-1.)
n Mr. Doneld Robbins, real estate agent for Mobil Oil Compeny - the agent, appeared bePore
F J~
3` the Commission and noted his Yirm was desirous oY oonstruoting the servioe stetion with
~I plans as presented to the Commission, sinoe they felt this was the most modern design
~ ~ to date; that Mr. Eldred Noqes was the designer of the proposed faoility, and had studiad
~ ?~ under Frank Lloyd Wright, one of the outstanding arohiteot-designers oP the oentury;aid thst
,, sinae the servioe station opened at Linooln Avenue and East Street, they had reoeived
~ very Yavorable oomments on this station, as was the osse when this tqpe of servioe station
~. ^~ was developed in other oities.
Disaussion was held by the Commission regaxding the possibility of requiring a"ranoh
atyle" servioe station, even though the agent indioated the proposed deaign mas more
modern, beoause the modern design would be inoompatible with the ed,joining residential
properties; whether or not the Commission was aognizant of the faot that the petitioner
proposed to establish e servioe station on the C-1 property in the Yuture; that when the
petition Por reolasslPioation was oonsidered by the Coum~ission the first time, it was
approved sub~eot to a portion being reolassified to the R-2 5000 Zone where ad,jsoant
i
' ,;,
v~
~, . `::,
.,, t{ r yr ~+:,
, .~ ~'.~
,',
~
~ _ ,~ _
I ~
i p}J I~ y 4"hY] ~ K~R~~~'~, M dE{W 'Yni .r}~
k
~ ~ ';~
_ s4N 4: e~~ L'A'"/xt~ h F ~
~. ~,^ ;y.t s ; `+. :J ~
..
~T ~"
l h ~
I
o ~
/~~
\
%
~
~
,. _J
4939
MIN{~TES~ CITY PLANNING COM~ISSION, Deoember 15, 1969
,,..~, CONDITIONAL USE -
PERMIT N0
1
46 to the R-1 homes southercly, and denied it the seoond time after it
~ .
1
(onnt~
nued) was rePerred baok to the Commission beoause the petitioner still pro-
d
. pose
R-3 for the one port3on, and development plans hadn't LMn sub-
, ,! mitted Por the C-1 portion.
~~
!
~~~ L~
~~a
'j~
Mr. Brown advised the Commission thet when the reole,ssiYioation mss originally submitted,
the zoning representative advised the petitioner that a oonditional use permit would be
required sinoe the servioe stetion site would be within 75 Yeet of residential uses, how-
"'~° ever, the zoning representative was advised that the petitioner did not want to file a
~r,,~, ~ oonditional use permit in oon~unotion with the reolessifioetion of the property.
'~S Mr. Robbins advised the Commission thet his oompany hsd been in~erested for sometime in
sub,ject property, and that perhaps the petitioner's real estate broker oould present more
~' evidenoe regerding the history of the zoning aotion.
i~
~
~
MS's• Ann Madison, 600 South Herbor Houlavard, appeared bePore the Commission and noted
that she had bee
th
ti';
;;. n
e resl eatste broker at the time the reolassifination petition was
aonsidered on sub~eot property; that the property had been unde
'
'; r one ownership originally,
however, the petitions had been oontinued innumarable times beoeuse of the possibilit
of
i
y
~
,', y
us
ng e portion oP the property Por s City librery site, but from the very beginning it
had be
:
.
~ en emphe,sized that the oorner would be a servioe station site; that the R-3 devel-
oper was fully aware the
t
~ ,
a servioe stetion would be ereo~ed on sub~eot proparty, in
Paot
he w
.
;:, ,
ss even ettempting to negotiate with several o1I oompanies to ereot a servioe
station on sub~eot
ro
t
~,, p
per
y; and thst, elthough the R-1 homeowners vigorously opposed
the request for R-3 zonin
no
t h
d
;
,;: g,
oommen
a
been msde es to the servioe station site.
Furthermore, this developer had oonteoted the Highwsy De
artme
t t
;~i p
n
o request the~ a
sme,ll portioa of the on-ramp be returned to the petitioner in order tha~ e seoond d
i
,.~
: r
ve-
way apron oould be oonatruoted outaide the freeway on-ramp.
No one appeexed in opposition.
THE I~ARINa IAA3 CL03ED.
Commisaioner Fsrano inquired whether or not the Commission oould require a oertsin type
oY arohiteotura for e servioe atstion site whioh elrendy hed been epproved for C-1 zoning?
Zoning 3upervisor aharlea Robarts noted thet sinoe e servioe stetion was proyos~d within
75 Peet oY property zoned Por residentiel purposea, hiatorioally the Oommission in the
past hari viawed the plans to determine whether thera wo~ild be sny detrim~ntal sff~ots on
the reaidentisl integritq oY the aren. Howevar, where s servioe station was p~rmitt~d
by right, i.e. when not within 75 feet oP a residenoe, then the arohiteoturs was not
es oarafully sorutinized.
Asaiatant Oitq Attorney John Dawson adviead tha Commisaion thst under e oonditional use
permit their Body oould impose anq reseonsble restriotiona, and part oP their planning
funotion wss to determine whether the srohiteoture propoaed war.e:.~obmpstib3~; ~ thab
under these oiroumatanoae, it was his opinion thet arohi.taotural reatriotions w~re proper.
Ohairman Rowland polled the Oommissioners to determiae whether they wish~d to aot on the
plena beYore them either pro or oon - it being noted thst tha ms~oritq did not mish to
eot on the plana bePore tham. Oommiseionera Herbat e,nd Thom indiostid they w~re not in
favor of a aervioe ststion ad~e,oent to eny reaidential usea,r~~rdl~es :~f;:.tli~ ar.~hi~3~otutr,• ~
The Commiasion then iaquired of Offiae IDngineer Jey Titus the Oity's position oP a drive-
msy apron so oloae to the on-remp. Wheraupon Mr. Titus atst~d that the beginning of the
on-remp would be ee,eterly oP the aervioe stetion site, and that there would b• no ob~ao-
tion from Citq beoauae oY thie.
Oommiaeioner Allred ofiered e motion to re-open the hesring anc~ Bontinu~ Petition for
Conditional Usa Permit No. 1146 to the meeting of Tanusr'y 12, 1970 in ord~r to allow
time Por the petitioner-agent to aubmit reviaed plsna inoorporating a"ranoh style°
arohiteoture, and .for the sgent to oonfer with his oompany relative to the oommsnta
made by the Oommiasion Por the amanded type e,rohiteoture requeated. dommiasioner asmp
asoonded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Oommisaioners Herbet and Thom votsd "NO". '
~""' 3.
. ~,., i h.. ~.`'•' ~. . _, . ~
~.~^~y~~•~m ~y ~ ~ ~"'~~~^' '-j..~;'p~o' ~. ~,•.. ~k .~i.5fi~~.i" % ^i"' 'r" { ;; %~' r.. ~0£n I '±~R ~~ ~: ~`i ~, "n s ::;'f~
1
~ ~ . U
4940
DIIND'PES, CITY PLANNING COM~EISSION, Deaember 15, 1969
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. LOUIS B. MINTER, 9808 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly
PERMIT N0. 1147 Hills, California, Owner; JAY KINGRY, Paoifio Outdoor Advertising
Company, 1740 Nexva Street, Los Angeles, Californie, Agent; requeating
permission to ESTABLISH A BILLHpARD WHICH ERCF~ED3 Tf~ MAXIldiTM pER_
MITTED DISPLAY AREA, -YITH qpAIVERS OF (1) MARIAiUM pERMITTED SIGIJ HEIGHT; (2) SI(3N LOCATION;
~ND f3) MINIMUM REQUIRED STRUCTURAL SETBACFC on property desoribed as: A reote~n~ularlg
shaped peroel of land having a frontage oP approaime,tely 69 feet on the east side oP
Brookhurst Street and a msximum depth of approaime,tely 125 Yeet, being looated approsi-
mately 195 fee~ north of the oenterline oP Linooln Avenue. Property presently alassi-
fied C-1, GENERAL CO~dERCIAL~ ZONE: -
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the looation oP sub~eat property, uses
established in olose proximity, and the proposal to ereot a bi73ho~id 39} feet high,
674 square foot di~plsy area, mithim 70 feet of a resi~;eiitisl struoture, and no setbaok
proposed from the ultimate right-of-wey of Brookhurst Street. of 60 feet, whereas t'he
eaisting right-of-way was only 40 Peet.
1dr• Brown further noted thet although the residentiel struoture to the north - 70 Peet
from the proposed billboard was approved Yor use as a nursery sohool, Dode stated that
tto billboard shell be permitted within 75 Yeet oY an oooupied struoture origine,lly
deaigtted or intended for residential use; and that no evidenoe of hards~-ip was submiti;ed,
nor was there a,ny apparent reason for the proposed struoture being 12~ feet higher than
permitted by Code; 125,$ greater in displey area than Code permitted; being looated in
olose proximity of residential struotures; nor not being setbaok the presoribed number
of Peet.from the ultimate right-oP-way of Brookhurst Street.
Mr. Louis B. Minter, the petitioner, appear~d beYore the Coa~iseion, and noted that the
egent, Mr. Kingry was also present, end then stated that Yie had been awsy for several
months, however, he wished to advise the Commission ~here were a number oY oorreotions
whioh had to be made to the billboard, nem,ely the setbaok, reduotion oP the height to
36 feet; that sub~eot property had a number o4 probleas, one being the aonoreta ohannel,
for whioh the County of Orange requested an easement in 1953 when he and Howard Bryan
proposed to develop the property, however, he had assumed the oh~nttel would be a pipe-
line undergrouttd instead of the opett ohannel whioh oould be viewed on the ooiored alidas
showxi the Co~ni.ssion; that this opan ohannel was a health hazerd and oolleoted all types
of debris; that he had disousaed mith several persona in the Right-oP-Way Division on
the pogsibility of enolosing this ohannel in eaohange for street dedioation for Hrookhurst
Street phioh mould ooour during the summer of 1970; thst it was his intent to ereot a
billboard.more in keep3ng with the ordinanoes oY the City; that oontinuanoe of sub,jeot
petition was requested not only Yor revised plans, but to give him a ohanoe to meet
with the City Engineer regarding dedioation; and that he had the oonsettt oP the nursery
sohool operators as to to the ereotion of the billboard.
The Commission advised Mr. Minter that their prime oonsideration at the publia hearing
was the propose3 billboard, and the Commission was not bound by any agraements made as
to the ohannel or street dedioation, sinoe the billboard was part oP the Commisaien's
3urisdiotion as it pertained to land use only.
Mr. Minter then stated that he did not itttend to imply that an agreement had been reached
but he was desirous of resolving thia dedioation problem.
Assistant City Attorney John Dawaon advised the petitioner that it was not the Commission~
oonaern with arrattgements made by him, their only aonoern was planning and land use to
determine whether or not sub~eot petition should be approved.
Commiasioner Allred voiaed ttie opinion that a billboard at the proposed looatiott we not
desirable.
Commissiotter Farano oYfered a motion to aotttinue oonsideration oY Petition for
Conditional Use Permit No. 17A7 to the meeting oP Januarg 12, 1970, at the request
oY the petitioner, in order to allow time to submit revised plans for the billboard
more in oonformanoe with Code requirements. Coumiissioner Camp seoonded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED. Commiasioner Allred voted "NO'~.
- . h'' : ,'.
, .
' ~
~_ .. ,?-, s;..._.. '' -
=
e
~
~~
4941
MIldD'1~S„ CTPY PZ,ANNINC, C01~IISSIONx Deoember 15, 1969
RECLASSIFICATION - pUBI,IC HEARING. SHERRIId, J, ppHi~~ 9162 E1 Aito Drive, Ville
N0. 69-70-26 Park, Californis, Owtter; requesting that property desoribed as:
Two reotangularly shaped paroels oP land having individuel Yrontages
o~ approximstely 135 feet on the north side oY Littooltt Avenue, having
maximum depths o3 approximately 226 feet, and being looated approzime,tely 328 3eet and
531 Peet eest oP the oettterline of Gilbert Street be reolsssiPied Yrom the R-A,
A(3RTCIILTIIRAL ZONE to the C-1, GENERAL COM~RCIAL, ZONE.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Bromn reviewed the looation of sub3eot property, uses
estsblished in olose proaimity, zotting approved on propertg to the north, at whioh time
a 60-foot wide street from Linooln Avenue separating these two peroels oul-de-saaed
northerly oP sub3eot property, e,nd thet sinoe this separation oreated two lt~i:lots of
less than one aore, sub~eot petition was filed to establish commeroial zoning. Further-
more the Anaheim General Plan - 1969 indiaetes that highway related ao~eroial uses
alottg the Linooln Avenue frontage in this general area as being appropriate.
Mr. Sherrill J. Pohlmann, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that
sub~eot property was overlooked at the time the property northerlq was requestod Yor
reolessifioation, and that there were no plans for developing the property at the present
ti.me .
No one eppaered in opposition.
THEu HEARING YPAS CLOSED.
The Co~tission 7,nquired whether at the time the 60-foot street was approv~d by the
Commission, as a aondition was the petitioner reqnined to have treewe3.le and trees
ia the parkw8y?
Zonittg Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission this was a oondition of approval
when the property to the north was reood~mended Por approval for R-3 Zoning.
Commissioner Farano ofYered Resolution No. PC69-250, and moved for ita psssage and
adoption, to reoommand to the City Counoil that Petition Por Reolasaifioation No.
69-70-28 be approved sub3eot to oonditions.(See Resolution Book)
~tt roll osll the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
A'YES: COMMISSIONERS; Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland.
NOES: COMMI3SIONERSt None.
ABSENT: COMEQISSIONERS; None.
RECLASSIFICATION - PtJBI,IO HEyRING. A7,gERT S. TOIISSAII, 6672 Riohfield Road, Anaheim,
N0. 69-70-29 CaliPornis, Omuer; APOLLO DEVELOPMENT CORP., 11•~J4 East 17th 3traet,
Sante Ana, California, Agent. Property desoribed sa: Portion A-
VARIANCE N0. ::143 A reatsagularly shaped paxoel of land oonsisting of approaima,tely
'~.8 aorea, having a Yrontage of approaimstely 34q. Yeet on the south
side of Be,11 Road, having a maximum depth oP approximately 607 Yeet,
and being looated approaimately 660 feet east of the oenterline ot 3tate Colleg~ Slvd.;
aad Portioa B- An irregularly shaped parael oY land oonsisting of approzimstely 4.2 aores,
having approxi.mate frontages oP 186 teet on the south side oP Ball Road nnd 457 feet on
the west side of Belhavett Street, having a maaimum depth of e,pproaime,tely 607 Peet, ead
being looated approaimately 1,0(}4 Peet east oP the aenterline oY Stete Colle~e Blvd.
Property presently olasaified R-A, A(~~RICULTIIRAL ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MIILTIPLE-FAMILY REg2DEA,"fIAI,~ ZONE.
REQIIESTED VARIANCE; PORTIONS A AND B- YPAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUl~ DIgTANOE
~ BETVPEEN BUILD1NaS, AND (2) NUMBER OF MAIN' BUILDIN(}S
PER BIIILDING SITE, TO ESTABLISH A 220-U~7"iTr TpPO-S~ORY
APART~LENT COMPLER.
i
r~-".••?i'. ~.1~~~..
0
~~
,~, ; ~ :-,.~ :
...
.~
~
MIIQDTES,. CITY pLANNa1G COM~ISSION, Deaember 15, 1969
V
4942
REOLASSIFICATION - Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the looation of
N0. 69-70-29 sub~eot property, uses established ia olose proximity, the pro-
posal to develop the property with a'220=unit tmn=story':apaatment
\1ARIANCE N0, 2143 oomplex having a density of 28.~7 units per net aore, and an approsi-
(Continued) mste ooverage of 40,~; that twa paroels were proposed and this was
based on the need for ease in finanoing the pro3eot and developing
it in two stages, eaoh of whioh would be able to stand on its own as to Cpde requirements;
that the petitioner proposed to dedioate an additional ten Yeet required for the 64-foot
wide street lrnown as ::Belhaven Street along the easterly property line;that':the peti.tionar~.~
was proposing oiroulation by means of private drives through subjeot property having
aoaess to Ball Road and 7galhaven Street, homever, Area Development Plan No. 94, Exhibit
"D" adopted by the Citg Counoil in 1968 requires a 50-foot street elong the southerly
property line, said street being the estension of Omega Avenue, and whioh the Counoil
determined would provide adequate oiraulation for the properties both eeat and west as
well as sub3eot property, provide a bufPer separation with a 6-Yoot masonry wall and
landsoaping along said street in order that the multiple family uses and the industrisl
uses might be adequatel;, eaparated, thus proteoting both the industries developing to
the south and having aaoess Prom GPinston Road, and the residential integritq to the
north of this buffer strip, Therefore, iY the Commission determines that the street shall
ba required in order to oonform with the ADP, then sub3eot petitions should be aontinued
in order that the petitioner might have suffioient time to redesign the pro3eot.
Chairman Rowland advised the petitioner and his representative that sinoe the zoning
proposed was in eaoordanoe with General Plan - 1969, and the waivers requested had been
granted in the past and were in the prooess of being oonsidered for amendment to the
site development standards of the R-2 and F.-3 Zones, they should aonfine their remarks
to the oiroulation problem and the ADP, sinoe this was a oritiasl oonsideration.
Mr. Re~lph Jensen, representing the agent and developer, appeared before the Commission
and stated that both the arahiteot and engineer of this prajeot were present to answer
teohnioel questions.
Mr. Senaen then noted that sinoe ell other faotors under oonsideration in the two
petitions as to zoning and waivers had been resolved, he aould oonfine his remarks to
their reason for not inoluding the east-mest street; that bq prior agreement whan the
Fire Station No. 7 was built they would have aooess rights over the improved drive
along the west side of the site; that when they first approaohed the staff regarding
the proposed development, they were very oonsiderate and indioated numerable items
mhioh should be oonsidered, this was one of the reasons the plans had so fev~ waivers;
that the staPY did point out the faat that ADP #94 required a street pattern, however,
it was the developer's opinion that the trafPio oiroulation as they proposed would be
adequate to handle problems; that it was understood the~t the street pattern was used
as a buEYer betmeen the residential and industriel; that the oiroulation problem had
beett tl~oroughly eaplored, attd it was felt th~.t sinoe Omega Avenue oul-de-ssaed at
State College~Boulevard, the street did not offer the oiroulation intended, sinoe eaoess
to Stiate College Boulevard would be neoessary, and sinae sub~eot property had aooess to
Ball Road and ';;Belhaven Street, Omaga Avenue was deemed unneoessary; thet in regard to
the bufYer advantage a street would have, even though a strest was not proposed on the
development plans, the epartment units would ~,5 more the,n 65 feet from the south property
line whiah approaimated the width of the street plus~the wall and landsoaping required;
eaid that they were deairous oi' retaining the development as a private area with private
anoessways primarily although the oost Paotor in developing e, street was also a oonsi-
deration. Furthermore, they hed held conferenoes with the property owners and leas~as
to the Rest, and they oonourred that they would not benefit with the required street as
ittdioated in ADP ~94.
Mr. Jensen Yurther noted that if the street were not required and the development remained
as a self-oontained faoility, it would be the ownerg responsibility to msintain the land-
soaping and street pattern, and that from the developer's standpoint, the oiroulatiott
pattern was good as the ADP indioated, however, the street was neoessery to providing
the oiraulation for the proposed development.
Cheirman Rowland ittquired whether any thought had been given to a plan Por the disposal
of water draining Yrom the propoaed 3eoility.
Mr. John Getten, 1535 West First Street, Santa Ana, pro3eot enginner, advised the
Commission thet drainage had been disauased with the industrial developments to the
south now developed and under oonstruotion, attd while all problems had not been reeolved,
drainage over~their property Yrom sub~eot property was e, right they had, and a meeting
With tHe City s engineers was being held on Deoember 16, as to the means oP this disposal.
~s -
r Y
,, ,,,.__ ,.~' R`r ... , °~,..+ , r ~ '
~ O
1..~/
'. < rr . ~ +, ; 4 t '. 1 ~;~j',i
•.: ~ .
l .
,, MII(UTES ~ CITY PLANNING C031lII5SION, Deaember 15 , 1969
~
4943
~ RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Jensen then advised the Commission that it wae their intention
i N0. 69-70-29 to oomply with the the bufPer requirements in landsoapiug and the
~ ~: wall, ainoe s 10-Yoot planter section was proposed whioh would oon-
~~~ VARIANCE N0. 2143 tain trees, the only thing whioh wsa not proposed was the dedioated
~r ° (Continued) street.
Chairman Rowland noted that from his observation there were two difPerenoes whioh were
~ ~~ being praposed from that required that being e private instead of a publia street, and
~~K~ '~~ no ourb along the northerly portion of the private drive.
~; .,; ,~~
I~~ 3 Mr. Jensen noted there would be a ourb, but it would not meet the standards of a publio
;~ street.
I~s;; ~
t _a Chairmatt Rowland then stated this aurb would not be in the same positiott, and the paved
~ ~' erea woild be -25 feet rather than ~5 Peet - to whioh Mr. Tensen agreed, but added that
;,;,
a 10-foot planter area would elso be there.
~;
Chairman Rowlattd in summing up his observation as to the proposal oompared to that whioh
*' ADP #94 required a 50-foot wide street with drainage to State College Boulevard and no
E° vehioular aooess to sei,d street, while sub~eat development proposed using a 25-foot
'~~ private drlve for baoking up purposes and no drainage faoilities via a publia street.
,; ~~
No one appeaxed in opposition.
` `~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
: i
Commissioner Herbst noted that if the developers of sub3eot property had been present
at the time publio hearings were held on reolassifying the property on the east side
of ;Be.lhaven Street at whioh time a General Plan Amendment mas oonsidered, a better
understanding of the problem Yaaing the Commission would have been had; that it ras
his opinion that nothing had ohanged to warrant a ohange from tne requirements impoaed
on the property to the east, that this pattern was set es a proteotion ~or tha M-1
propertiea more than as a proteotion to the residentisl uses; that a publio atreet
would be e better means oY providing drainage without having the problem o~ requiring
drainage eeaements over the industrial properties to the south; that the dreittage
problem was quite serious Yrom sub,jeat property Ylowittg southerly, and that the City
aad the Commission had the better Irnowledge for this drainage than to lesve it up to
private parties to resolve.
Commissioner ,~ilred noted that other than the problem of disposition of water, the
developer had demonstrated they were providing as good a buffer as was required under
the ADP.
Commiasioner Herbst oonourred with Commissioner Allred's observation, but oontended the
prive,te drive would still be that, and aould not meet the the requirements set Porth
in the ADP wherein a stande,rd street should be aonstruoted to aot as a buffer between
the M-1 and the R-3; that the City would have no oontrol over the private drive; that
sub~eot property wsa no difPerent than the property to the east, and no hardship had
been proven; that when the publio hearings were held all property owners and industries
who would be afPeoted by possible enoroaahment of residential uaes had presented their
viewpoints and had Yinally agreed to the street together with landsaeping a~nd the
6-~oot masonry mall as being aooeptable as a bufYer; and that the proposed development
would be given a privilege not afforded the property to the east, 1Y the private drives
were approved.
Coc~issioner Farano inquired of Offioe Engineer Jay Titus whether Omega Avenue was
important Por trafPio oiroulation. -
Mr. Titus advised the Commisaion that it was important to provide a oolleotor street
whioh would take traYPia ofP State College Boulevard ead Ball Road, and sinoe Omega
Avenue would have eaoesa to Sunkiat~Street this took some of the load from Ball Road,
and if Omega Avenue were not eatended westerly to State College Boulevard, then the
property to the west oY subJeot property would have to use the two thoroughPeres for
ingress attd egress, and that possibly the street need ttot oul-de-sao at State College
Boulevard, but empty to that street.
~
t~
~
~
,:`+~
': s
~~ ' ~':
~ 4 f ~ 1
~
V .
~j
4944
MIlQtTl'ES, CITY PLANNiNG CO~~[ISSION, Deoember 15, 1969
RECLASSIFICATION - Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Co~i.esion that
N0. 69-70-29 when the ADP was being oonsidered it was determitted at that time
there would be msny traffio oonPliots i£ Omega Avenue eaited to
VARIANOE N0. 2143 3tate College Boulevard, thus the oul-de-sao was propoaed and
(Contittued) adopted to deter traffia into Sta'te College Boulaverd; however,
reaently in disoussions with the Traffio Engineer regarding the
oul-de-saa at the terminus of Omega Avenue, he had indioated
there might be as muoh oonoern as was Yormerly eapressed, and that Omege Avenue oould
have ingress and egrees at State College Boulevard without oreating traY3lo oonPliots.
Mr. Titus, in response to Co~.i.ssion•questioning,steted that the TraYfio Engineer had
~~ y no etrong Yeelings as to emptying traffia from Omega Avenue into State College Blvd.,
s~ `;~ he primary oonoorn was the need Yor airoulation, and relieving Ball Roed of any addi-
:., tione,l traffio from developments on the south side of said street.
in;:. `:~
t Mrs. Paul Dominguez, 1523 East Santa Ana Street, asked to be heard by the Gommission,
` '. although the hearing aas alosed, and upon being given permission to speak, stated that
~" ~' she and her husband owned the pm perty to the west oY sub eot
''-'' able lattd had been dedioated for street widening of both Bell Roade6nd~State Colleger
Boulevard, and the additional 50 feet would greatly reduo~ the potentiel use of their
property; that she would prefer that no street be required ,just to buffer the M-1
~ properties and the property northerly, but some type of buYPer should be used.
, . . ''t::
Commissioner Camp ssked whether or not the stafY aould oontaot the Traffio Engineer
to oome to the Counoil Chamber in order to hear his viewpoint regarding the possi-
bility of openittg Omega Avenua to State College Boulevard, sinoe this would have a
oonaiderable bearing on the velidity of requirflng said street.
Oo~i.ssioner Allred noted that if the TraYYio Engineer now feels that Omega Street
should have aaoess ~o State College Boulevard, then the petitioner should be required
to~pro~Sde said street; however, if he still feels it should be oul-de-saoed, then
there would be no reason for a straet.
Co¢~issioner Ceatp noted that the property to the east needed said street for aooeas to
Sunkiat Street, whsreas the sub~eot property had both Ball Road and UBelhaven 3treet,
and the propertyvbe~tl,y already had eooesa to both Ball Road and Stste 0ollege Blvd.
Commissioner Farano requested that all the information ava:.lable should be pres~nted
to the Commission when the property to the east was aonsidered Yor reolasaifioation,
so that the Commissioa oould make the proper determination as to the resaotting behind
the oul-de-sao street.
'~ Chairmnn Romland r.ated that the TrafPio Engineer had been oontaoted and Would be in the
' Counoil Chamber shortly. Furthermore, when the study was made when the property to the
zj east was oonsidered, the greatest oonoern oP the induatrial representatives preaent wae
r to make sure that the multiple ~amily residentisl development terminated approzimat,vly
! half way between Ball Road and Winston Road; that at the time o£ the (3eneral Plan
> Amendment, ao plans of oiroulation - internnlly were seen, only raw land pas visible,
,k however, the Comnisaion did eapreas aonoern as to the need Yor interttal oirou].~,tion
;; if this depth of land eatending Prom State College Boulevard to Sunkist Street were
'~ to be developed with medium dansity uses, thus the stafP prepared the tWO alternatives.
~ Now, homever, ~vi.th t:~3 land being developed e clearer pioture was being prosentod.
.~~ ~
Chairman Rowland noted that the TreYfio Engineer Ed Granzow was present, and reviewed
for him the disaussion of the Commission relative to Omega Avenue.
~'• Q~rrelnzow. advised the Commission that it was his impress3on at the time sub~eat
petitions were reviewed, and the ADP was again analyzed, that Omega Avenue should be
eatettded to State College Boulevard, beoause Hall Road was already suffering with
eaoess traYPia sinoe it had been extended over the Santa Ana River; that when the
Orange Freeway was oompleted this would be an additional problem; that the spsoing
of streets, namely Winston Road, then Omega Avenue and Ball Road, this would not
areate tra~fio oonYliats on State College Boulevard; however, if all the traPtio
from the properties developing for multiple family residential use on the south
side oP Ball Road were to have aooes.s only to Ball Road then a trafYio aonfliot
would result and thia would be greater than any oonfliots whioh would result with
aooess both Sunkist Street and State College Boulevard. Therefore, he would reoommend
that Omega Avenue be eater_ded to State College Boulevard along the southerly boundary
oP sub~eot and the ecl~oining property to the west, and that the eaisting oul-de~sao
oY the ADP be opened up with aooess to the west. •
~
~~
~ (~
~ `
~..:..:
''$i
;:#
,;;>':.r
'';;'~
r~ _~
~
~~NTE~'s ~~ PLAIVNTN(} CObO[ISSION~ Deoember 15; 1969
RECLASSIPICATION - Mr. (}ranzow, in response to Ooffiission questioning ststed thet it wa~
N0. 69-70-29 ;;;mpoirl~pt':to':heue Omega Avenue oontinue to State Oollige Boulevard
so tha'~ additional oiroulstion may be pr•ovided rathar than uaing
VARIANCE NO• 2143 Ba11.F.oad to enter or leave the multiple family development on the
south side by way oP :Belhaven Street and Sunkist Street when it
is eztended to Howell Avenue.
Mr. (ietten,advised the Commission they would like s oontinuenoe in order to present
additional informatiott einoe they were unaware that the traffia engineer reoommended
eatension of Omega Avenue to State College Boulevard.
t';-?:°~ Considerable ~;isouasiott was then held by the Commission regarding the possibility of
~,v~ takittg aotion of subjeot petitions sinae the ADP ~94 would have to be emended at a
'.,,..~ publio hearing regardless oY approval of the plans as presented or eztettding Omega
„ ;~ Avenue having aooess to and 3rom State College Boulevard.
~ Assistant City Attorney John Dawsan advised the Co~ission that regardless oY their
. ti: aotion in deoiding whether or not to eatend Omega Avenue or delete it, or to require
s street interseotion, ADp•No. 94 would have to be advertised to oonsider the amond-
ment.
1~'s. Ann Madison, 600 South Harbor Bouleve,rd, asked iY she oould speak in behalf oY
Mrs. Dominguez, and upon being granted the opportunity to speak stated that i~a the •~~?
~z'apor~by~to the east ofl sub~eot property had been reolassified to the R-3 Zone and
the aul-de-sao street proposed in the area development plan this was done beoause
Mrs. Dominguez' propertq already had a oonditional uae permit approved on it Por a
restaurant and motel and on the basis oP this approval had lessed her property for
60 years, although not developed as yet, the lessees were in the prooass of obtaining
tenents for a restaurant and motel.
The Commission aontinued their disoussion on tho proposed street in the ADP with the
agent Yor the petitioner, as well as taking into aonsideration the faot that the
Dominguez property whioh had a oonditionel use permit approved to permit a motel
and restaurant; baing'ef~eated by said street.
Mr. Jensen advised the Co~ission thet the proposed plans were based on information
they hed reoeived ss to pro~ESSing, finar_aing, eto., and even if the -0ommission did
require said street to interseot with Stats 0611ege Houlevard, the plan was good end
drainage problems had been disoussed previously.
Chairman Rowland ttoted that even if the Co~nission denied sub~eat petitions, and the
City Counoil approved them, it would be neoessary to readvertise the ADP to oonsider
amending it prior to any Yinal aotion being taken, therePore, although he fully aware
that the developer had a timing element, ttothing oould be resolved until oifiaial
aotion was talcen on ths~6DP, whioh was a preoiae plan establishing streets whoreas
the (3eaeral Plan Amendment oonsidered only pro~eot3ng generally the looe,tion oY e
street.
Mr. Dawaon, in responss to Commission questioning stated that as he understood ~ya:
development plans, When one vvas approved showing proper airouletion, ev~n though
thru aooess was not indiaated, dedioation would be required; and that a aonditional
dedioation oould be made pending the outoome of the rehearing of ADP No. 94.
Assistant Development 5ervioes Direotor Ronald Thompson advised the Commi.ssion that
he had ~ust disoussed several problems whioh Would faoe the developer on sub~ect
petition and Mr. Jensen felt that a two-week oontinuanoe was in order for the staYP
to resolve theae problems whiah would give time Por the ADP No. 94 to be readvertiaed,
therefore, he would reao~end a oontinuanoe rather than tnking eatiott whioh might be
oontrary to the outaome oP the rehearing of the ADP No. 94., Furthermore, it would be
better Por the Cocmiissiott to solve this problem whioh would be fairer .to both the
Oity Counoil and the petitioners, as well as put industriea on notioe as to reoonsidera-
tion of the ADP,
Commiasioner Allred offered a motion to oontinue Petition for ReolassiYioation No.
69-70-29 and Varianoe No. 2143 to the meeting oP Deoember 29, 1969, to allow time
Yor the petitioners e,nd agent to meet w;.th the stafY a~ith posaible revised plans,
and for the stafP to readvertise Area Development Plan No. R4 to oonsider alternete
street pe,tterns, as aro~]:..~ds;?tor fTetarG~ine'the msnn~•<~~tn-'~hio~`!'t4~i~isgy?'of~•sub3eot
property me,y be aooomplished. Co~i.saioner Thom seoonded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
~~
4945
~
~
; ;r,
(
~ ?i
i
~
~ .. ~ . . ~ . . U ~ ~
.ti ' -.
a~s
MINU'PL''S r OIT3C PLANNING COMEaTSSION, Deoember 15 , 1969
RECLASSTFICATION -~i~ARING. INTTIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COM6~ISSION,
N0. 69-70=30 2Q4, ast Linooln Avenue, Anaheim; CaliPornis proposing that
proporty deaoribed as: PORTION A- An irregularly shaped peroel
of,land oonsisting oY approximately 13.2 aares, having approximste frontages of 1,036
feet on the south side oY.Miraloma Avenue, 610 feet on the east side oP Blue Gum Street,
and 772 feet on the north side oP Orange Street, and being looated at the southeast
aorner of:~iiraloma Avenue and Blue Gum Street; and PORTION B- An irregulerly shaped
parael o£ land oonsisting of approxima,tely 2.8 aores, having approximate frontages of
252 feet on the north side oP Coronado Street and 132 feet;on the south side of Orange
Street, and being looated approximately 216 feet east of the oenterline of Blue Gum
Street be es~abli'sH'sd°in the most ~epprop"riete.C~,ty:z~te by reolessifying said property
~. from County of Orange M1,ITII}EiT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT to the City of Anaheim R-A,
AGRICULTURAL ZONE.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown noted the looation of sub3eot property, uses
established in alose proximity,existing County zoning; the faat that subjeat property lies
within an aroa of intent for industrial land uses as designated on the Genersl Plan -1969,
therefore, the oomparable and appropriate City zone would be M-1; thet vehioular aaaess
to sub~eot property is provided by way of Blue Gum Street, a seoondary highway; by
Coronsdo Street, a looal street, whiah is now under oonsideration .for raolassiPioation
to a colleotox', hy Miraloma F,~veriue, whiot~~'Nas a seaondery highway, and by Orange Street,
a loosl street, however, the existing widths of these three arterials are below that
designated on the Ciroulation Element of the General ~]6iiumd.street widening would be
neaessary for any £uture development ad,jsaent to these arterial highways; a,nd that in
order to provi3e £or oontrolled development of the area in acaordance with the master
plan for development of the Northeast Industrisl Area, the City of Anaheim R-A Zone
was reaommended, pending ultimate zoning to the City of Anaheim M-1, Light Industrial
Zone.
AQr. Brown also noted that subjeot property was also known as the Miraloma-Coronado
Annexation whioh is pending for annezation to the City of Anaheim.
No one sppeexed in opposition.
THEiHEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Thom offered Resolution No. PC69-251 and moved for its pe,ssage and adoption,
to reoommend to the City Counail that Petition for ReolasslYioation No. 69-70-30 be
approved unoonditionally establishing a holding zone on property presently under anneaa-
tion prooeedings and known as the Miraloma-Coronado Anneaation. (See Resolution Book)
On roll aall the Poregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COI~ISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauar, Herbst, Thom, Row~land.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
,
'
~
ABSENT: C02dMISSIONERS: None. ~
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY TI~ CITY PLANNING COMMT.SSION~ '
N0. 69-70-31 204 East Linooln Avenue, Anaheim," Californie, proposing that property
deaoribed as: PORTION A- An irregularly shaped pe,roel of land oon-
sisting of approzimately 13.2 aores, having approximate Prontages of
1,036 feet on the south side of Miraloma.Avenue, 610 Yeet on the east side of Blue Gum
Street, 772 feet on the north side oY Orange Street, and being looated at the southeast
oorner of Miraloma, Avonue and Blue Gum Street; and PORTION B- An irregularlp shaped
peroel of land aonsisting of approximately 2.8 aores, having approximate Prontages of
252 Yeet on the north side of Coronado Street and 132 feet on the south side of Orange
Street, and being looated approximately 216 feet east of the oenterline of Blue Gu~
Street from the County M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT to the Gity of Anaheim M-1,
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL~ ZONE.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown noted thet sub~eot property was the same as that
under ReolasslYioation No. 69-70-30, however, this petition was neoessary to establish
a resolution of intent to the M-1 Zone to eliminate future reolassifiastion aotion as `
enah paroel was ready for 3evelopment for industriel purposes, but it differed in the,t ~
the R-A Zone was a holding zone whereas this reolassifioation was only aotivated when =
3t was to be developed. :
M~::
3
' :;
. __._ _" _ '____'.. __..._.__"___ •:...t.~;,~
'~ ~ ~~ ~ i ~,. ' ~ :~ - ~ ~ ~ tl'u. ~,. ~
1 :.1:'_Gt.}:. i.~,. , ~ rn o:i . ~, ..c' .. ., !. J:' ~ . r~ .~, . ~ r . ., ~^ . , ..i~~~ _ . ..,... .:b.:~ .~. .... ... .. ~ .- f.,a-:E,:1'..
~ ` 4~7
f '~ ~ ~
~" ~'~4947
MIlQUTES, CITY PLANNTNG CO~LGdI3SI0N, Deoember 15, 1969
AECLASSIFICATION - No one appeared in opposition.
N0. 69-70-31
(Continued) THE HEARTN(} WAS CLOSED.
Coumii.asioner Gauer o£fered Resolution No. PC59-252 and moved for its passage and
adoution to reoommend to the City Counoil that Petition for Reolassifiaation No.
69-70-31 be approved suli~eo't to aonditions. (See Resolution Book)
I ./'_.,. .~1 1 ~
~ ~
~ l
;:~;;~.,:;_•-
On roll osll the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
',:~~;
^~i~" AYES: CODdbiISSIONERS: Allred, Cemp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland.
'~~~1, NOES: CO~dEdTSSIONERS: None.
~ ~ t:,.
~~ ABSENT: COM~AISSIONERSa None. '
;~:=
REPORTS AND - ITESQ N0. 1
~'"~ RECO~NDATIONS Conditional Use Permit No. 1072
(areyhound Bus Depot) -~roper~y looated at the interseotion
',' ~;: of Haster Street and Manahester Avenue - zoned Li-1 - request
~or approval of oontinued use.
~ Asaistant Zoning.Supervisor Pat Brown r.evieved for the Commission the request of the
U ? petitioner to grant a one-year eatension of time retroaotive to November 4, 1969 and
t ~'~ eapiring,November 4, 1970 for the use of sub~eot property as a bus depot, the looation
~"; of the property, and the aondition of approval wherein the Commission'requested that
~ ~? the staff at the eapiration oP one year and upon request of the petitioner for an
,;;, eatension of time determine what ePfeot the uses oP the property had on the area,
~:~ whether parking was adequate, whether dedioation for Haster Street wassnudid, and
~~',, ,.,_;~ if a publia hearing shoul~ be held.
The staf4 had investigated the oriteria established by the Commission in graniRttg•the
one year for the use oY sub~eat property and noted thst the use had no apparent dele-
terious efPeot om the area, that parking appeared to be adequate, and that the
Engineering Division had indioated that dedioation for Haster would not be required
until the ultimate alignment of Haster had been determined by the City and the Stete
Division oY Highwsys; therefore, thera would appear ta be no need for further publia
hearing if the Commission deemed the one year extension requested was appropriate.
Disoussion was held by the Commission it baing determined that the use of the property
was aompatible, however, lighting of the parking area of the faoility was inadequate,
thus iY approval oP an eatension of time wea made it should be oontingent on either
the petitioner or the City providing lighting for that area.
Ass3stant City Attorney John Dawson advised the Commission that requiring lighting on
the bua depot property mas a reasonable request, however, it was unfair to require
the petitioner to ereot temporary street lights until suoh time as d~dioation for
street widening oY Haster Street was made by the City.
Ohairman Rowland was o~ the opinion this should be a aity obligation to light the
street.
Commisaioner All'r.ed. oPYered a motion to grant a one year time eatension of time Yor
the use ~f sub~eat property, however, the City should investigate the possibility of
inatallation of temporary street lighting.
AYter further disaussion regarding temporary street lighting by the Commission, stafY
and Assiatant City Attorney, Commissioner Allred withdrew his motion.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that the;staYf would oontaat
the IItilities Division-Lighting to inquire whether or not temporary lighting oould be
installed, and slso to oontaot the petitioner to determine whether interior lot lighting
oould be ittstalled. Therefore, the Commission should not eat on this until the nezt
meeting.
ITEM N0. 2
Varianoe No. 2095
Request Yor Eatension of Time
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the looation of the property, eaisting
zonittg, and noted that notte of tha oonditions of approval had been met, and that the
eapiration of the 180 days would be Ja,nuary lA, 1970. There£ore, if the Oommission
aottsiders the request favorablg, the new expiration dete would be July 14, 1970.
~^•.~:~g,; y!.`:
p ~' i.
' ~
, .. _ _k,.., . , _._
~ ~~-5. ~ ~ ~ i ~~ T . ~~:._=~ . I . ~ x. ,~ g ~.rt~6' : }c~ ~e ~a` a f~ ~. ~ ~ r"7U"~' ~ r~'a` t,•hiRiFi
1
~ ' '::.
,,
,, :
,
~
;~::=
S .. ..
'~..J
MINU7'ES. G~"' PLANN'.CNG CO~IS3ION, Deoember 15, 1969
REPORTS AND _ ~ No. 2 (oontinued)
RECO.'~NDATIGNS
(oontinued) Commissioner Thom oPfered a motion to grant a 6-month eatension oY
time for the oompletion oY oonditions attaohed in the Co~uisaion's
app^c,~nl of Varianoe No. 2095, said time extension to expire on
July 14, 1970. Commissiotter Farano seoonded the motion. MOTION
QARRIED.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed Yor the Co~ission the raquest of the petition-
ers Por amendment of the oondition requiring reoordation ot perpetiqsl easement agreement
Yor mutual ingress and egress between the vehioular eoaessways of sub~eot property and
those on the property notttiguous to the we~•': on a three-story 210-unit apartment oomplea
looated on the South side oP Ball Road appr•:~_ stely ?~1. feet east oY Loara Street.
Mr. Roberta noted that the petitioners had indioated that the reasor, for requesting an
aatendment wea due to the ditPiaulty in obta3.ning finanoing for the pro3eot, sinoe the
lenders felt olear title to the property would be alouded, and that this aooeasway would
aerve as a point of ingress and egress regardless"oY a reaordation of a mutual easement
agreement; however, it was staff's oontention that any aaoessway whioh would be provided
should r.emain free of any obstruations i.n order that fs~b movement of all vehioles,
partioulsrly fire, trash, and emergenoy equipment wou7d be available in the event of some
type of disaster whiah might ooour on either of these developments.
The Commission Seoratary advised the Chairman that any ohange in oonditions would require
ofPerittg a resolution.
~
ITEM N0. 3
Varianoe No. 2115 - request for amendment to Condiiion No. 2
oP Resolution No. PC69-216 granted by the Commission on November 3,1969.
~J
4948
:i
sl Commissioner Allred offered Re.solution No. PC69-253 and moved for its passage and adoption
'z ~ to amend Condition No. 2 and ~~ondition No. 9 of Reaolutioa No. PC69-216,, on Aovember 3,
,, .. ; ,:;',i`~
, 1969 as follows:
f y
Y ~( "2. That e, means of vehiaular ingress and dgress nape~ble of aoaommodating
~ ~,,f emergenoy vehioles, sha.ll be provided between the existing northerly
= vehioular aooessway oP the apartment development aontiguous to the
",j weat and the vehiaular eooessways proposed in the development of sub-
~ ~eot p2~operty; and that no obstructions oP axiy kind mey be ereoted
aaross said aooessway that would impede the free movement of all types
S~ of vehialas between the two developments."
,~i~
~4 "9. "That ~'i.anc~itionNo. 1, above mentioned, shall be oomplied with prior to the
oommenoement of the aotivity authorized under this resoJ.ution, or prior to
~ ' the timo $hat the buildin
~~ g permit is issued, or within a period of 180 days
` from date hereof, whiohever ooours Yirst, or suoh further time es the Commission
•,,: ~ ~Y Br'ant. n
.~
On roll oaZl the foregoing resolution was passed by the ~ollowing vote:
~
.~ AYES: CO~ISSIONEftS; Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland.
5 ~ NOE3: C0~5520NERSs None.
,:.t;
'' ABSENTt COMMISSIONERS; None.
r j:,
:$
~ ABSTATI~Tt OOM~EISSIONERS: Ca~p.
' ` ITEM N0. 4
~'s ~ ConditionaZ IIse Permit Nos. 786 and 941 - Approval oP Revised
~~~=:;;;;i.:;; Plans property looated on the west side oY Dale Avenue north
~ ~' of Linoo~n Avenue - Churoh sanotuary,oYYioes,language~t~thool,
ah`,n,;~.;;;;.,. and ohuroh related aotivities.
;
r..,.~;~
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pst Brown presented revised plans whiah reloosted the 37-Poot ~
high sanotuary struoture where the existing residentisl struoture was looated, and this
vres: oonaiderable aloser to the single family homes than Pormerly projeoted, however, the
representatives of the ohuroh had disoussed the latest revised plans with ad3oin~ g
property owners, attd obtained a petition from them, whioh in eYfeat stated that the pro-
posed revised plans were not ob~eotional to them. Furthermore, the petitioner hes com-
pleted all the required oonditions, exoept those pertaining to final building inspeotion.
f ~~
~
MINUTES1-CITY PLANNINQ CO~~lISSION, Deoember 15, 1969
~~
4919
REPORTS AND - I'PE~ N0. 4(aontinued)
RECO~iDATIONS
(oontinued) Commiasioner Thom offered a motion to approve revised plans submitted
in oon~unotion.with Conditlonal Use Permit Nos.786 and 941, marked
Reviaion No. lT~-Eommissioner Herbst seaonded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
ITEM N0, 5 '
Orange County Use Varisnoe No. 6357r(M. A. wilson)
Request to establish a mobile home as a residenoe in
addition to an eaisting single family dwelling in the R2D
"Two Family Residenoe" Distriot at 10942 Berry Avenue
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown presented Orange County Use Varianoe No. 6357 to
tha Planning Commission, noting the looation of sub~eot property being ~Cpproxi- -•
mately 100 feet north of Katells Avenue between (id~lbert Street and Magnolia Avenue, and
zoned County R2-D "Two Family Residenoe" Distriot; that the petitioner was requesting
permission to looate a mobile home in the resr yard of sub,jeot property; that eaisting
utilitias would ba oonneoted to said home; and that the requested use was~for a period
of approaimately two years.
Mi~. Brown~then noted that Title 18 of the 5tate of Californis Code speci£ies that mobile
homes shall not be used as living quarters exoept where looated in bonafide mobile home
parks; and ttiat the City's polioy, sinoe no trailer-mobile home park ordinanoe existed,
was to oonour with the State requirements as they pertsined to mobile homes and their
use. ThereYore, the staff was reoommending that the Planning Commission urge the City
Counoil to deny said varianoe on tha basis that 1t would be oontrary to the State's
requirements.
,~ -+~ Co~issioner Camp ofYered a motion to reoommend ta the City Couno3l tnat 0fhe:i0rarige:..,
~ ~ County Plenning Oo~tisaion be urged to deny Urange County Use Varianoe No. 6357, on
~ Y~~ the basis that the State of Californie Code s eolYioall
P y prohibited the use of a mobile
~~i home as living quarters when not looated in a bonaYide mobile home park. Commissioner
~~ ;' Thom seoonded the mation. MOTION CARRIED.
~-.:.. t~
'~ l~
~ ITElS N0. 6
bt ;i Mobile Home Sales at Mobile Home Parks
(CUP No. 1115 - Qilbert Street and Cresoent Avenue)
r~ Request Yor interpretetioa and/or reoommendation of a polioy
„:i
;~, ... Assistant Zoning Suparvisor Pat Hrown reviewed for the Commission a report verbally pre-
sented to them at the Deoember 1, 1969 meeting as to an interpretation regarding the sele
'~~ of mobile homea on a mobile home , q
}~;t park site and that the Commission had re uested a more
;° detsiled study be made and presented at this meeting.
Mr. Brown then noted that a number of oomplaints had been reaeived by the City Counail
and the Zoning Division from the Mobile Hor~a Assooiation relative to the sales of mobile
Y V;~ homes at a new mobile home park approved under Conditional Use Permit No. 1115 looated
y •} at the south~ost oorner of Gilbert Street and Cresaent Avenue, wherein the operators of
,~ that park had pleoed five mobile homes on the property and were utilizing them e,s models
for the sale of mobile homes to future tenants of the park; that the Mobile Home Assoois-
r ~ tion questioned tha legality of this operation sinoe oommerr,ial zoning did not ezist for
~, suah sales; that the sale o~ mobile homes was not permitted by right or by oonditional
~t~~..,..,~,H~ use permiti in any speai~io zone in the City, therefore, the sales of these vehioles,would
;~tis :~ according to the City Attorney's Office, require the approval of a varianoe, with C-3
6'
«~~
Zoning being the most appropriate zone for suah a use; the a further aspeat of this
situation which might be considered was the fact that several of the trailer manufac-
~'s turers in surrounding aities have complained about the "olosed sale" features involved,
~i""u'' ~ in that the were P g
;~#~;~; Y prealuded from partici atin in the sale o£ the mobile homes, unless
•;'u their ~
,~~~- product was involved• and that a somewhat similar sit"~'tion existed at the
`~ Ponderosa Mobile Home Park v~est of ~anahester Avenus and sodth of the Melrose Abbey site;
~r?~~;' however there was a distinoi difference in that the model mobile homes were looated on
w~7P;.,,~
,~;~Tt a small parcel, whioh. had a resolution of intent to C-1 Zoning,north of the park site,
~ and a variance hed been approved for the sale of these mobile•homes wherein a time limita-
Z'~~'~~'~± tion was
;~~:., pleoed for the length of time the varianoe would be in effeat which was based on
~'~ the assumption that when the perk was filled, suoh sales would,cease.
~'~~,~,~;~' ,
~~ ~: ~ ,.
~~~, .
~ i',
~=.t~~',y,~ ,
-w~
;;~~
r;!
''a
~
~~ Y
::~
{~' 1 `C'~~L~+~ LT ) .._ t~Ri~-~~~'S~1`k( ~y ~ylf
. ~ . .. , . .... ~ .~ ~.l~",~ S `'-.~i' AIt ~.i` f _ f
.~ ,. T ~ !
.. .
~
~ . ~ ~
. , .
. - ~~.~.~~~1,`tl
~ . . ~ . . . ~ ~ ~ " : ~ ~ '.. . . . `~ .
4950
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CO~ISSION, Deoember 15, 1969
RPPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 6(continued)
RECO~IQDATIONS Mr. Brotvn, in aonclusion, stated that it was the City Attorney's and
f(oontinued) Development Serviaes Department opinion that the question of whether .:
1' suah sales should be permitted was not a matter of law, but was rather
a matter of polioy, and the Planning Commission and City Counail could
~ ther. determine what was appropriate. Therefore, if it was determined `
these sales were appropriate, the Commission might wish to reoommend
to the City Counoil that a polioy be established whereby the sale of
mobile homes in mobile home parks me,y be permitted as long as such
sales were restricted to future tenents of the pextioular mobile home
park and that such sales must oease onoe ell spaoes within the park
were filled.
Disoussion was held by the Commission regarding these sales, it being noted that this
was similar in oharsater as a subdivision, wherein the developer had model homes, and
when the subdivision was oompletely developed these model homes then were sold and
beoame a part of the tract; however,there was the possibility that residents would
relooete their mobile homes, then the sale of mobile homes could be a oontinuous thing,
whereas this was not the oase with model homes, and then requested that the City Attorney'
representative alarify this aspeot.
Chairme,n Rowland rioteld from a land use standpoint there was no opposition to the method
in whinh the mobile homes were purohased, thus the Commission should not be conoerned
with the mstter, however, '.; the City Council,for economi.c reasons which were not
apparent, oould impose aertein oonditions.
Assistant City Attorney John Dawson advised the Commission that as a general rule the
sale of mobile homes expired at the time the mobile home pnr3c was filled; however, if
the operators of a perk were desirous of maintain3:ng••~.sAeoific features of one menufac-
turer, then so long as a spaoe was open then sale could contir~•xe indefinitely, but from
e parking standpoint it would not seem that models would be retained on the prem=ses for
an indeterminate time; e,nd that from a land use standpoint trailer or mobile homes were
not so13 as commeroial faoilities but must be limited to the mobile home spsaes of the
park.
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC69-Z54 and moved for its passage and adoption
to reoommend to the City Counoil thet a Counoil poliay be cor~sidered for adoption whioh
will permit the ssle of new mobile homes for use in newly established and approved mobile
home parks, whiah sales shall be restriated to mobile homes solely for pleoement in said
newly established and approved mobile home parks; and that the sale of suoh mobile homes
shall oease when all spaoes within said perk ere filled, exoept that replsoement sales ma,y
be made whenever a vaoant spaoe occurs. (See Resolution Hook)
On roll oall the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: . COtu~ISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland.
NOES: COt~ISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT; CObfl~ISSIONERS: None.
ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to disauss, Commissioner Cemp offered a
motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Thom seoonded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
Respeotfully submitted,
ANN KAEBS, Seoretary
Anaheim City Planning Commission
.~ r
„
r.,, ..,H7~.. . ',:~.;~~„`__ , .,, ~ '.,.. .. _, . _ .,