Minutes-PC 1970/11/30y _ .~ ~~.,:n - r~: . ~,. -~.r~~.:
~ /. r~...., , .~.~,.~
. n;~ ~~~~~a~~
~ ~ , . _ . t"l .~-.
.. . . . . . . . • - .. . -- . - .-~.•~ .. 'a~-n~ nvAtUUL"1'UliAL~ ZONE. ~ - ~
Assiatant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter revieved the location of subject property,
usea eatabliahed in close proximity and the propoeal as set forth in the Report to the
Co~niasion. ~
.~
Mr. Slaughter further noted that a letter had been received from Ehe petitioner requesting ;
an additional Ewo montha' time for completion'of negotiations to purchase property from
the State for the expanaion of thelr trailer park, and in that event, the conditional use
permit would have to be'readvertised to'accammodate the expanded travel trailer park `
proposal. Therefore, staff reco~nended that sub ect ~
1971. j petition be continued to January 25,
• ~
Co~uissioner Gauer offered a motion to coatinue consideration of Conditional Uae Permit
No, 1203 to the meeting of January 25, 1971, as requested by Ehe petitioner. Co~niasioner I
Allred-ee.conded the motion. MOTION QARRtED.
VARIAIVCE N0. 2216 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HSARING. EARL HAgDAWAY, 219 Poinaettia, Corona del ~
Mar, California, Owner; .DAVID S, COLLINS,_1077 West Ba11 Road, Anaheim,
California; Agent;,requeeting WAIVER OF.PERMITTED USES IN THE C-R 20NE ~
TO ESTABLISH A CARWAS$, GAS PUMpS, AND MINOR TUNE-Up FACILITIES IN
CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING AUTO RENTAL AGENCY on property deacribed as: A rectangularly
shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately l00 feet on Katella Avenue, having ~
a maximum depth of approximately 130 feet, and being located approximately 565 feet weat of ~
the centerline o£ Harbor Boulevard, and further deacribed as 711 West Katella Avenue. ~
Property presently clasaified C-R, CO1~Il~iERCIAL-RECREATION, 20NE,
5500
r~
'~ _ ~y~ . .
ir~v'r; ni' `T`rrx ,;~r "`f "~T;}a,T~3` s .{- r }'7$-., ~ c *y ` ~" .
~ `y ~~ L .1~ 1
1
~ T. ~
. O ..,~ . . . ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ . ~ .
MINUTES; CITY PLANNING COM@iISSION, November 30, 1970
5501
VARIANCE N0. 2216 - Subject petition was continued from the meeting of November 2, 1970,
(Continued) as requested by the petitioner to allow time for a complete report
to the Commisaion.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the locaEion of subject property,
uaes established in close proximity; previous.zoning action on the property for a similar
use which;the.Commission approved for only a car rental agency and denied the request for
gas..pumps, mechanical work, painting, or car.washing and permitting passenger cars only
to be reated,from,said facility, together with parking.for same end employee parkiag;
thab the petitioner tiad appealed the Co~iseion's action, but the City Council affirmed
the restrictions,placed upon the property by the Planning Co~iesion; that the petitioner
was now aEtempting to have this condition modified; and that in view of the previous
~ deqial bq both the Planning Commisaion and City Council, the Co~ission would have to
determine whether or not any cHanges had occurred in the area which would justify a change
in'the Planning Commission's position.
Mr. David Collins, 1077 West Ball Road, representing the petitioner, appeared before the
Commiasion-and requested that the petitioner be afforded some fairness in permitting the
use Yequested aince there were several othera, namely Hertz and Econo Car Rental on
Katella Avenue near Haster, that were permitted to have the same use as was being requested
by the petitioner; that the carwash facility would consist of oniy a concrete slab with a
drain and was propoaed only to rinse off the rental cars and shining them; that they would
atipulate,to no more than that for their carwash; that no mechanical work would be done on
the cars except for using a screwdriver to adjust the car's motor and tightening nuts and
bolta aince these vehicles would never be more than six montha old, and if any repair work
of consequence were needed, this would be done by:the dealer from whom the vehicle was
purchased; that gas pumps were allowed at other cer rental agencies; that thirteen service
stations were adjacent to motels, and in most instancea the service station was there £irat;
that gas pumped at service stations would be far.in excess of that proposed to be pumped on
this location wherein only the vehicles they would rent would be serviced; that they felt
it was only:fair and equitable that they be as competitive as other car rental agencies in
the Commercial-Recreation Area; that the busineas was already establiahed and needed to be
competitive; ar.d.that he tvas now available to answer questions.
:1
Y
~ =
~
I
i
I
1 .
I ;. ~
I
r
~ ,:;.
I
i ,
Co~issioner Seymour inquired whether or not the petitioner would stipulate that the car-
wash and minor tune-up would be for rental cars; whereupon Mr. Collins stated they would
so stipulate.
The Co~isaion inquired as to another location in the area where the propoaed tune-up would
occur.
- i
~:i
~_°~
f ..~ ,
Mr. Collins replied that the iune-up would occur where the vehicle was parked, and that one
of the car rental dealera was permitted at e service atation, which they felt was in-
conaiatent.
Chairmen Herbst noted that the concern which the Co~aiseion had was the close proximity
of motel rooms which surrounded aubject property - therefore, this location was the least
deairable for the use proposed and could not be compared with other car rental agenciea;
that this location was the only car rental facility that was aurrounded on three sidea
with motel roome, and the additional uses propoaed would have a harmful effect on the so-
called living quartera of gueats to the City; that the primary use requeated, which was
the most harmful, had to do with the servicing of the cara with gasoline which would
generate gas fumes and which had been the concern cf the Commisaion at the last public
hearing when Variance No. 2135 was approved only in ~part, and from hia observation, there
did not appear to be any change in the area to warrant approval of aubject petition.
Mr. Collins noted that the National Car Rentals had acquireyi Hilton Car Rental services.
Chairman Herbst again noted that the petitioner was asking for the eame uae which hed been
denied by both the Planning Cormnission and the City Council and asked if there were any
change in the area to warrant favorable consideration; whereupon Mr. Collins replied there
had been no change.
Mr. Earl Hardaway, the petitioner, appeared before the Commiasion and noted that the
National Car Rent.A1 facility at Disneyland Hotel and another motel in the area would have
their vehicles serviced here; that they were paying for gas at regular prices, and by
having their own pumps, they would be more competitive in that there were 25 vehicles
between theae two officea.
Cormnissioner Farano inquired whether or not any leasing of vehiclea was proposed; where-
upoi3 Mr. Hardaway stated there would be rental on a daily or weekly basis only.
`..:~
' - . - ~ -. -. ;,. "~i' .,~t'?w,
~ . .
. , .. _ I . ' _ ~ .. . ['~~.~ .. .. . .~ .
~ --- - "
~. ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY:PLANNZNG CO1~IIfISSION, November 30, 1970 5502
VARIANCE N0: 2216 =.Mr. Gordon Fisher,-631 West Katella Avenue, apgeared before the
-. ,(Continued). Oo~ission in.opposition attd noted'fhat.he also:represented the motels
adjaceat to sabject property; that the.same:isaue had been debated
~," before the Co~ission and>dity Council on..its merits, at which time
~`the same reguest had:been_denied; that..there was notliing ~new which migb*, warrant recon-
sideration of;the same request; and that oae'of the concerns:.of those who opposed the
'same.use before.the Commission on.November 9, 1969, wns:the fact that the.National Car
-Rental:company:would,be plaaning:a much,larger,operstion than-they had been requesting
since<,they stated_.they~had_sbout 20'availeble.car spaces - therefore, would they seally
, need the.new facilities. Furthermore,`.there were plenty of service stations and carwash
faciliEies cloae by;.thet.they would need more than tiie type`of tune-up fecilities and a
acrewdriver at this facility. if they intended to take'care of:the vehicles on the premiaes
as.well as from the Disneyland ~otel;~that this..locatiom was a very smalY location for a
car~rental since-it.wsa surrounded by motels; that.the other car sental agenciea'were
neer Ehe freeway, even though within the confines of the Commercial-Recreation Area; t)nat
since.National Ca; Rental claimed to be number three 3n tlie United States,,it would appear
their proposed capacitp of 25 vehicles. was very low; and if the representative for the
agent`indicated that they could improve_their image.then their.businesa would increase if
subject``petition were,,approved, the use would be very;disruptive to people in the motel
who,were trying to steep next to this facility;.that his bedroom wouZd be iu~ediately
adjacent to the proposed facility; that there were 54 motel units bordering subject
property, and;thie.use wonid have a very dietracting effect,upon the motel uaes which
had been established a long time''~t this location; that the operator was just the lessee,
whereas.the Weikiki and Musketeer Motele had'been locally owned for ten years; and that
he had submitted a copq of h3:s presentation to the City Counoil on January 6, 1970, which
represented the stand by the<adjoining property ownera, as well as twenty oCher motels
who a,lso expressed their opposition at that time. Furthermore, the situation had not
changed since the last public hearing to warrant favorable consideration mf subjact
petiEion.
Chairman Herbst left the-Cavncil Chamber at 2:20 P.M. Co~ission~er Farano assumed the
chair. r
Mr. James Takke, co-owner of the Alpiae Mote1, appeared before'the Coamiission and stated
he concurred with-the opposition pseaented by Mr. Fisher.and wished to be put on record
to that effect.
Mr. Jose Ariea,'.'23anager of the Disneyland Hotel, appeared before the Comsission and atated
that he juat wished to clariEy a few.statements made and noted that the vehicles of the
Netional Car RentaL were based on their parking lot and operated out of their lobby;
that they formerly had the Hilton Rent-A-Car agency; that the proposed type of service
wee needed for their facilities; that during the touriet aeason they hed a great deal o£
businesa and did not feel there would be many vehicles stored on subject property since
they would go back into service after being washed aad gassed; that having cars regularly
aveilable added to their complex since there would be a fast turnover in order to get
these vehicles back into the mainstream of the rental service.
Mr. Collins noted that Mr,. Hardaway had advised him that when he purchaeed subject property
there was a gas pump on Che property which had been uaed by the former owner in his opera-
tion of a farm; that Mr. Aries covered more than what the opposition presented since moat
rental agencies preferred to have their cars in operation and not parked; that Avis Rent A
Ca= had very limited space and parked at xhe Dianeyland Hotel, and their vehicles were in
use most of the time, and the number of vehiclea parked on subject property would be of
little concern; and that regarding the comment made that subj2ct property was only being
leased, ar.cording to the 1aw and leases, the .essee was directly responsible to a landlord
and any violation was cauae for termination of any lease. '
Mr. Collins then reviewed the locationa of service atations adjacent to motels in the ~
Co~ercial-RecreaCion Area wherein`the majority of the motels were established after the ~
aervice stations had been erected.
The Co~ission then inquired of Mr. Collins whether or not he had daLa as to the distance
of the aervice atations from aleeping unita for the various motels he mentioned, which waa
a concem of the Co~iseion on this parCicular property.
Mr. Collins replied that he did not have this information, but he waLid asaume that these
sleeping units would be similar in dis~ance as subject property - hawever, the proposed
gas pumps could nat be compared with the regular service station sin~E hours of operat3.on
and intensity of the operation were considerably more o~ aervice staCion aites, aad to use
this is an argument appeared to be facetious.
The Co~ission then inquired as to the hours of operation; whereu~on Mr. ~ollins replied ~
it wgs their intent to have this facility open from 8;00 A.M. Co 5:30 P.M., and that they
did not contemplate later houts. ~
~ °'r _ ~~ t~+
~r x ~?~
. , . . . . . ' - ~ ~ .~~`-- ,
~.r;
~'' ,
O _~ ~
MINUTES;.CITY PLANNING COrffiISSION,-Noqember 30, 19i0 5503
VARIANCE N0. 2216 - Co~issioner Seymour.`inquired whether Mr:: Collins.implied that of the
(Continued} three uses requested the minor.tu~e-up was of the least importN•noF.
` Mr. Collins seplied that was correct, and.the othpr two uses were of
majoir importance, particularly vhea one had to consider.having t~ pay 30~ to 4(?~ more
_ tlian'one's.competitors for gas, aad that this was a matter to estab?.ish free ~nterpriae
, adjacent to other similar uses.
~ Commissioner Seymour then inquired of Mr.<Fisher what his_remarks were intended to mean
I~~y =egerding the-need or necessity`of tune-up:facilities`..
~ Mr. Fisher replied that he,evidently had not made hims~lf clear, and it was his intent to
state that:a tune-up,facility.would be necesssr,~only if the petitionEr i:iten3e3 to oparate
a larger facility.than he'had indicated on the plan, and that the 2ist of servir,e atations
adj8cent.to motels;mentioned by.M=. Collins could not:be:t3ken at face value si.nce these
~ motele had been built with full.knowladge of a service stat±on there, and in all likelihoud
had incorporated safety measurea to preclude any effeat upon-the.quiet scsoa, and Che
opponenta' position was entirely different since they had alrsady es~tabliahe.9 their aoCelo
and`there was no way in which they could provide buffers~and means nf pr~iteetin~ *.hesnselves
from these noises. Furthermore, as to being fair to other businesses, he was tn xsvor of
that,~rovided, however, that 3t would not be detrimentai to adjo.tning properties where they
would,~e injurious to well~established busineases where all theirr money was invested in
these ~`acilitiea for the paet ten years end where owners did not take their investmenrs
lightYy, and that.the petitioner knew full well when he acquised subject property thai t'.
would lie a eeneitive parcel to develop and would be limited to those usea. Also, he would
waive'r~ading of the stetements made in a letter submftted in opposition to aubject petit3on.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commiesioner Seymour asked to be given a little time to review data cf the previous
petition aince he was not a Co~isa~oner at the t3me tkis ;~s cocsidered.
Coamiiasioner Gauer was of the opinion that there had not been a ckange in the area to
warrant favorable consideration of subject petitioa; tha.t the usea were service station
usea'in character and would bring gasoline fumes into the sleeping quarters, particularly
in the summertime; that tune-up of cars would also give off fumes; that the proposal was
a service agency and did not represent anything else; that it would be difficulC to assume
that the peEitioner would adhere to the houra of operaCiom whieh he indicated - therefore,
he did not feel he could.char.ge his vote from that prr•riously made since he did not feel a
service agency had anything,to do with recreational needa of :sre. :':=rthermore, pchools
and other agencies obtained bida on gasoline from varioua agg~.icies, which coutd be vone
by the peEitioner or the National Car Rental in ord^~r thF:t they would not have to pay the
going price for gasoline for these vehicles and be more co~apetitive,, a~.'. ::hat~thia eas¢e
method could be employed in the washir.g of theee vehiclea siace there wae a ceraash in
close proximity to this facility.
Co~isaioner Seymour noted his feelinga were the same as Commissio~xr Ga~e:'s pric~~ to the
public hearing, and that he did not know whether the skatemente made b;~ Mr. Coliine were
influential, but at first bluah he felt thia wae a regular carwash operation and service
atation - however, from the atatementa made that there would be no public s+ale of gasolin~
and no mecnanical devices would be inatalled for the carwash, together with the tact that
the minor tune-upa was the least important of the three uses requeated, tt~e Commissx~n
would have to realize that car r~ntsls were an integral part of hotel and motel operations;
that there was a queation of whether or not the property owr_er was being deprived of a use
othere enjoyed; that he would agree with Mr. Fisher that thia was a difficult parcel and
had othe~ probleme which other auto rental agencies did not have because it was surrounded
by motel uni*_s on three sides - therefore, he would offer the following: (1) that the
tune-up proposed would be eliminated, (2) that there be no use of theae facilities by tta,e
general public, (3) that no carwash equipment other than a slab and drain, together wit~L
wiping off with chamois be permitted, (4) that the carwash and pumpa be selocated away
from the weaterly extension of the motel, and if properly located, objectiona could be
overcome, ~nd that he could aee nothing ~~xong with the eise under these conditiona.
Co~issioner Allred expressed concern that if eubject petitio*~ were approved, this could
eatablish an undeeirable prec.:dent for other car rental agencies regardlesa of the aumber
of vehiclea they would be servicing, and that this could crEate a mo~t objectior.able use
for the Co~ercial-Recreatioa Ar~a.
~-
~'
i
; ~ ,:
~
i
i
~ :t
E,
~ ~
i ;:
('
;
~~~ Co~iaeioner Seymour noted that an operation of L•his type would require approval of a
conditional use permit - therefore, the Commiasion could con~rol its locatian; that others
~''`~ may be cc~bfned with service atacions or a combination of uses; tha2 car rental agenc~Les
= were entirely different than previously proposed; ~hat aubject property was on a lease
~ baeis, end when thc leaee expired or the agency moved, it v:ould not be long before a new
`, agency moved in ~ however, if one were to coaeider a parkiag probl~m or tune-up, this was
.:<r „~, . ,
,..
1. .z~ . _ ~ _ r~ Fa:t!*a,..:,
. ~.
.: . . ... . ...
. , :..,.. .: ~. . . ' ' ~ .
- . ..~ . . :,, .. .. ; .e.,. _
: '~ y
_ ' \;
' . ~ . . ~. ' ~ ~ . . . . ' . . ~ .. ' . ' ., ~. ~ . . .~~ -. ' ...
'~~ ;.` ~;:: ,~~: 1':~ _ _i ~:~~~~~.~~e~
•
~
. 2~ke
4;b
,
,
_ .t~x ~ ~ ;
, , •
, ~"~
~~
. ,
• ~ . .', .
- ~
, . . , ~ . ~. ~
.
,
rx:
~
;
_ : ,.: , .. . . . . '
:: :
' '~~..;
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING
CO:QfISSIOi~y kene~alser.
30
1970 ~ ~;~
.
,
. 5504 '
VARIANCE~'NO `2216 enEirely di~f~renx
~L ~ ~~
~
,
(Continued) ; ' ~ ~ ., , ~ ,
ja;,rw
' Co~iasics*,~t ellr~pd wa9•~of the, opinion that.~approving subject petition
'
` ~ ~
{
.
~
' .~ruld bs,dra f..~~.~ the man a blanket approval for his .proposed -og~ration
d ~
K,
r~'y
~.;
,
°, F an
one co~ id nevL~r ~CnoW Lj~.~~ r~uc~s qr
~ ~ .,'
s would;be pumped ~there. . :
~ ,
rs.
,
,; . _ ~~
~
~ , . _
4^a~issioner Allre~ of`ieie~' A;i,~olution No PC70 209 and moved for its passa~e and adoptiea.
o
`
' t;
~
`~'
t
~,
deny Petition ,~or ~
lari~yu ~lNo 2216 on the basis tn.zt>no land uae cfiange.,hti~i taken.place
eince'the
~l
t ti
e
i ~
i
~`,
~
,
;
as
me tn
, PZani
ng Commissionl+r~nsidered h-b'ject propertq~and a:•s3milar
ro
l
^
~ ,~
p
posa
to war~
ant fevorablt~consideration~;at
this herting; thet the,additicael uaea
if ~
,
approved,~ would',be establishin~ an undesirabTe ~ `
6 precenerit '~~r, simil r-equebts; a_r,d that the
~ use would b
d
q=i
ta
'
h ~`;,`.,~'
~
,~
e
e
men
l
to ¢
e guests in :Ehe moteTs surrounding ~ubj%CC pw•r,per^:.~ . 13ea
Resolution BooL
)', ' ' ~
' 3
I'~;' .~
~''
.
~,~
•. ,
; _ ' „ t ,'~~
, : - - -
On`roll cal~ t~ne(foreguin~r resolutioa was pue~sed by the follawing voteo ~ , `t
AYES CCaNIl~SISSZONERS: Allred, Faran,,, ~rau-_•r, Keywood.
RQwland. ~-
,
NOES. COMMISSION~RSs Se;.rmour. ~4~
ALSENT :. COlIl~iISSI01i~'RSs He;nst.
~
;
~ ~
~ ~:
t. ~
~ _ ' . ~ ' . i~. .~ ~ . . ' .. . . ~~ . , ~ .
Chatrman~:.~rost returned to the Council Chawber at 2:46 ~.ZS. and assumed the chair. .~:L
~
CONDITIONAL USE '- CONTINUEDiPUBLIC,HEARING. KARCHER 'AS50CIATES P. O. Box 4349 ~~ k~Y A
~~:~6"4
PERMIT-N0; 1209 Aiiaheim, Ce':FO*nia, Owner; CARL KARQHER,ENTERPRISES, INC.,, P. O. Box ~
~~
~4349~ A ,Phoim, . Californi_a,. Agent; requestix:~.permission'to 'ESTA~LISH
` ,
~~
~
A COMv~.Ns.ilON' SiT-DOWN.'AATD''DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAU'lt::NT WITA, W,AYVER OF
~ ;
~~
MINIMUM NUMST
R'OF REQUIRED T'~.KING SPACES io'tt •pr~~±e'rt; d~.scribed.,ea: A`sectanF,ularly aha' :d
rc
~ ,
pa
el o
:;l~and located.at the northweat corr~r. of LincoYn Avenue anu~,ia:aais:.S'.ceet", havin~
~ approx3mat%e frontag.~s `of 75 ieet on. Lincoln'r ven,ie snd;:147 fePt on Jansa',tr; et, .being
located a
i
iroti
l
r
prox
ce
y 517 feet west of the cesi,:erline of Haroor ,p,~uleverd'
arid further
,
described'r'ae 605:W~7t Lincolr.-Avenue: Propert~ presently class?fied C=2,,GENERAL C01~4iERCIAL
~
,
Z~~N$.
, ~ ,
, ,
,
Sub:i~ct ~petiz.tvncwat cout,. ~pd from the meei:ing of„Navember ~b, I970, to allow time for e -
Y
, r~port on!traffic cunfl3cts on T~incoln Aver:ue from the Traffic Eagineer and ter 'the 4
~ petitioner to"redeaign his.project. ~ ,
f As,aistant:`Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter revi~ewed the loc~Cion of subject property
ee
e
" ~
,
~ h
s
stabliahed in.close
proximity, and the propoea~. and noted that the petitioner had
~ submitted a letEez requesting an additional two s~eeks' conitinuance, to the December 14
'
,
1970, meeting,,
in order ~hat`they might continue to Work on i:',•:~ revised plans
and that
;
~
,
steff would ..eco~end,said continuance. ~
'>
Commisaioner Se~wour offered a motion tn continue conaideration of Conditional Use Par~it
D1o: 1209.to the aieeting of December 14, 1970, to a21ow the pet~tior_ar time to complete i
h.is revised plans. ,Co~isaioner Kaywood aeconded the mcti.~a. 1~f(;'fIO:: CaRRF.~D.
i
VAR7ANC8 'rTO. 2100 - PUBT.:ZC HFA~ING (RE?,DVERTISr.D).- ne~cy01T~H MAHBOOBI-FARDI, c/o Gree:1
Mansian Realtp, G23.North Har~or Boule'vard, Fullerton, California,
Owner; JL'ANITA IiP.GOPIAN, 3209 La Travesia Drive, Fuliwrton, Califa.nis,
Agent; requeating CONSIDERATION OF R~VISED PLANS FOR A PROPOSED THI3EE-
STORY, 122-UNIT APARTMENT 0'.;f~1pI,EX cr. progerty deacribed as: A rer.tangularly shaped parcel
of '!and consisting of approximately 3.7,acres, hevi~g a£rontage of epproximately 100 feet
en tha,~veat aide of Pear1 Str:eet, naving a max3mum depth of approximately 616 feet, and
being located;apFroximately 42~ feet nort5 of the centerline c~f Wilshire Avenue. Property k
presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL; 2.,.NE, i
Aesiatatii::2onin$ Supervisor MalcoFm Slaughter reviewed thx location of subject property,
uee,s es~ablis}~ed 3n close proximity, and the request for approval of deveiopment plans for '
the proper:y..an sthich R-3 zociing had been approved, snd previous Co~ission action on
October 29, 1970, ranerein ei~+ Commiasian reco~ended nenial of the revised plans at a
p~s'blic hear~,ng which had been advertised; that the new ;evised plans now proposed a 115-
unit complex with on~~ two, and th.-ee etories; that the one-atory was immediately adjacent
to the R-0 properties to ChE norcth, ranging in distance from that line from 13 to 19 feet;
that the two-stor~~ apsrtmenta ~ere 150 feet from the R-O, and the three-story were 195
feet; .hat all.parking was nrn,r proposed underground and all circu?atiott was away from the
R-0 p opert~es; that only one waiver wea now needed, and thet was the request to establish
thxe~-3tory, un+ta; that fire access had been substantially improved; ann that since the -----
petitioner was proposing 15 more uni.ts than originally approved, the Commieaian would have
to consider whether or not all the a;nenitiea whieh the Commisa..on felt were needed '
i
~ ~~F~"`i~~?~+ ^ ,~ t.
,1 ; "w' '„'+ F ti + ~.~~
5 r >
~' ~ ~ a ~'. 5~' 'f~ 7 , c a 1 ~ 1 '~ / ~7 p~
1 . -~.!< < ` r . ,Y 4,~' '
~T } j ~ ~ . ~. Y ~_ _Y l J ~i+,~'i :~.
~ ` '° ~ ;,.~ ~ 4 ..ss~''~°t':.`
F ~ ,.. . ~ ~ ~ ,. ~ . , r .
.. . - ..,... , _ 1-..,~... ~ 1,,. .. . . . . . .. ...
: =;=:-:;:~,;..
, __~- ._ _ _. ~ _...
_... . . ._..:
~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY,PLANNING COMMISSION, November 30. 1970 5505
VARIANdE N0, 2100 - previouslq had been met and whefher the increase in units was warranted.
(Continued) ~ .
' Mr. Harry Rnisely,:attorney Yepresenting the pet-itioner,:appeared before
the Commiasion and:noted Ehat,.although.the,Report to tNe Co~nission was
brief, it covered all the`bases`since the resolutioa'of intent:and var'iance were approyed,
and that~the architect, Rudy Bauer,.had reviewed previous minutes and recommendations and
determined that the pr~posed pTan overcame'all ttie objections previously pie&ented.
< 1~o persons indicated their.presence in opposition to subject petition.
Mrs: Doris LeDuc,;1445 Birchmont Drive, appeared before the Commission and noted that she
tiad`reviewed a1l.minutes and reference to suliject peEition, and it appeared to be the-.
intent of the Planning Co~iseion and City Council.to have;qufllified R-3 zoning,on the
land, bue ie was not the.intent of ttie:Planning Commission or~City Coancil to'have a three-
story building on;the land; that the height~variance was'granted:`only b'ecause of a parti-
cular set of plans; and.the property wes to be consEructed,;accordingly because`Ehey gave
the appearance of one,and two-story apaitments; that this•was evident in:'City Council
Resolution 69R-483 wherein the petitiorier was required to'develop_in accordarice with the
plana originally,submitEed; that'this condition was>not made 3ecause tHe project was a
superior one but to avoid any poesible:changes'that:would be detrimental to the R-0
properties; that a review of the original plans indicated only l00 units,:and the opposi-
,tion~asked-that no more than the original l00 units be,permitCed since the density in
itself was-four.timea the density i~.i the area, end.even with the current inflationaiy
conditiona, it still would be possible to realize a fair'profit ori 3.7 acres.with 100 units;
that development of,the land unde_ the original.resolutiun could'be accomplzshed with.one
and two-story units;.that the adjoining seven`.R-O'properEy owners fad a:combir.ed investment
of'$280,OOO,and,all but one were`the, original owners; that the area had.been maintained
for ;the past fifteen years as the finest low-density seaidential area in the City; and
that it was the duty of the City to retain the reaidentia2'integrity of the area and the
ltmd use policy. Furthermore, if there were a problem in dec.Zoping this property, the
adjoining property owners should not bE:made to suffer, and the'burden ahould:be borne
only by sub~ect,property aince once.these.buildings were erected,'there would be no more
coatrol over r.he type af neighbors who would occupy these,apartments - although they might
be forturiate to have nice neighbors, this could not be guaranteed; and that tha only
prctection-the R-O properties would have wouid be adequate site development atandarda.
Mrs. LeDuc, in response to Coc~isaion questioning, stated that the seven R-0 property
owners felt 3t was never uieant`ehat three-story apartments should be constructed on the
property, ar.d all of the iecorda of the minutea of hoth the Planning Co~niasi~;i and Citq
Council innicated Eh3s, a~nd che only`re~son the one and one-half ar,d two and one-half
ato,ri~~e ssere grant4d`was becauae the original plan indScated the buildings would be
~ea2ssed with underground parking, a special mansard which would afford the northerly
~croperty owners-their priyscy and give them a better protection, and that although the
~Slans wer.e better and gave e~me prot~ction, they did not want three-story units alt~ough•it
waa ielt khe developer :uas attempting ;° please the adjnining property owners - they still
were ~niy approximateiy lk #eet from the nr':tt:arly prCperty line.
The Coamii~sion no~~d ti5at only one building w~as appr.oximately 13 feet, and the balance of
the buildinga appea~ed to be 19 feet away.
Zoning Supervisor Charlea Roberta advised the Commissic+n that only one building was 13
feet from the property line ~nd this w&s within t:ne oi.te development standarda of the
R-3 Zone.
1`wo tzttera of opposition were read to ehe Cammission.
Mr. Knisely, in r.ebuttal, stated that the three-stary atructure which the opposition was `~
objecting to was only the r~outherly tier of apartments which would be approximately 195
Feet from ehe northerly property line, and this was also the only waiver now being requested•,•;
thai these units would be a!ijacent to the commercial property and would serve as a buffer
to both the noises €rom the commercial uaes and the freeway on~the south; that all the
parking was subterranean and the drives were'away from the R-O pxopertiea and would not
affPCC t~em; that the twc-atory apartmenta were 150 feet from the northerly property line;
and that in his opin?.on the proposed development was far auperior to that originally ~
aubmitted. Furthermore, in referen~ce to the~type of tenant that would rent these Facili-
ties, the typs of units would determine the type of tenanta; that the letters of opposition
both ~treased thE inc;rease of density and overload of the existing streets - however,
streets were designed to Iiandle t~is increase.
Co~isaioner A11red was af the opinion that the petitioner should have reduced his density ~
rather than inaceased.it so that the proposed traffic circulation would not af£ect these
streets on tahich coneidErable traffic already was generated to the shopping center which ~
could~ be hazardnus tu :ts~ _eaiden;3 :,f the compiex, and that although the plans were good,
he could nae ag~cee Frit~.~ the denaity oroposed. ' ;~
~ ,~, ~ e;t'~,71f b7 - ~
~.7J ~~tK.,. ~' ~ ' .~ tj . ~ tF„F _
-... ,. ,.. .: .
. . . , . _ L , . _.. , ~ ~ ._ ~~ ! . ~ f~ ..
~
~,-~. .-~.
_ ° ~' '~`:~. ~~~.;
7 ~.
., ~"./. '~.
~
+°., t ~ Sr
~ ~ . ~ . . . . 9 ~
W
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 30, 1970 5505
VARIANCE'N0. 2100 - Mr. Knisely noted Chat since subject property had R-3 zoning approved,
(Continued) they could atill get the denaity permitted in the R-3 Zone - however,
this plan proposed sul~terranean garking which should be taken into
consideratiou.
THE.HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commiasioner•Farano noted that if the petitioner removed the third atory fr.om these'build-
ings on the south, the petitioner would not have to be before the Commissioi; for approval
of the plans; tP.at the plans preaented were a subatantial improvement over t'hoae previously
submitted and;gav~e the R-0 property owners'more proEection than they previously had since
there was no physical intrusion even after.reviewi~g the line-of-sight plan from the third
atory;.xhat there would be no effect upon the traffic pattern as it gertained to the R-0
propertiee;i~incezxraffic would have to go to Pearl Street and Wilahire Avenue; that the
Co~isaioa in the ~past had`been oppoaed.to three-story apartment units where there was a
viewl~intruaion;of the adjoining properties; that he would like to aee aome buffering
device placed~between t6e R-0 and R-3, such as landscaping; and that it was his impression
that the;plans before the Commiseion were far superior aiace there vould be no open pazking
adjacent to the R-0 propertiea.
Commiesioner Seymour expreased sympathy for the adjoining proper*yo uwners and agreed that
the R-3,shonld not have been granted tn the first place - however, he could not aee what
more could re done than had been with theae preaent plans, and that a'Lthough he was not
in favor of apartmenta adjacent to R-O,aince the zoning was approved, he would have to go
alomg with it.
Chairman Herbet noted that as a Commiasioner he felt the plana before the Cormaisaion came
more within the requiremente of the Co~isaion than any that had beea presented where
apartmeate ~~ere abutting R-: or R-0 in that the developer not only Fad garden apartments
bttt aleo landscaping which removed the vehicies from the northerly property line, and he
would Yike to compliment the architect in attempting to meet the requirementa ae cloaely
as he had.
Discuasion wae held by the Co~ission regarding the posaibility of reaidenta in the apart-
ment c~nplex parking on Pearl Street and Wilshire Avenue and inquired whether or not there
was eomething that could be done to discourage on-street parking; that perhapa "no parking"
could bt ~,osted on Pearl Street, although thie could affect the long-time residente of the
area and inquired whether or not parking would be on'anasei~ed basis or would it be random
parking.
Mr. Knieely indicated there would be aome apacea that would be designated ae guest parking;
however, with eubterranean parking which would be near ttie units, it would be rather in-
convenient to park on the atreet when underground parking was so readily available.
Commiesioner Farano noted that ~lthough the land owner provided adequate par.'~,ir.g~ many
people preferr~d to park on the street - tt~erefore, he was trying to find out if there
were a way on-street parking could be diacouraged.
Commisaioner Faranu offered Reaolutios~ No. PC70-210 and moved for ite paseage and adoption
to recommend to the City Coun~il that revised plene, Revieion No. 2, Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3,
Sr 6, and %, and Revieion No. 3, Exhibit No. 4, be approved, and that all pr~vious plana
submitted ehall be null and veid by approval of aubject plane. (See Reaolul•ion Book)
Prior to voting, Co~ieeioner Rowland inquired how approval of eubject plana differed
from the plane which the Commfaeion had considerxd at lengthy hearings where R-3 was
propoaed a~jecent to R-1, and that if subject property wEre aubdivided for R-1, the
aetback would be coneiderably more than proposed under this plan - therefore, a greater
eetback ehould have been obeerved to sdd to the protection of the R-0 propPrtiea, an8
thie could have been accompliehed, but he would agree that the plana were fas superior
to any presented beforo and provided more Frotection and envizonmental qualitiea than
any the Comniesion had aeen. Furi:hermore, aince underground parking needed vents to carry
eway the fumee, there hed to be o~ome openinga, and it wae hoged these fumes would not be
objectionable :o the R-0 propertias.
Commissioner Gauer noted that since the developer wae proposing aubterrenean parking,
thie would be an added aeaet since garagea could be adjacent to the R-0 propertiea if
thie property were dtveloped for R-1, and that all the fumee and noisea would be in the
basement and it wae an admirable thing in providing additional protection for the R-0.
On roll call the foregoing resolution wae paseed by the folloming vote:
AYES: COt~+fISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbet, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: CODIIIISSIONERS; Rowland. ~ ~~
ABSENT: COPII~iI5SI0tPERS: None.
a'~.~ C~-YS#~ .~~. ~ -
, _
- - my i ~'-;,.,fi°~-'.
: .- :' ; ~
. ~ .,
~~~
f ~ F ~ 'h~ a~ YCx if ~ ry "'tii, -~F~ ~~ -.a
t~.. i ~~ ~t~ ~f~p' j 3 ~~.t 5r
*. n .. r ~' ,g ~'
r~ . ~'*- ~~ ~. ~~r~~ , Faj i -~-'F ~+ :.'
'r "~ i.,N~ C-,-. ~~- ~
~ 3L.. 1 . ~ br~ 'n" ~s. ~~S' ~~1,i ro ~, { +,n - ..~i'~*..~ ~ ~a v ~~.~r
~1 ~ ~)'F7' < . i h
f a -n .~ ~ -c r d
3~ ; ~ . t ? "~} r .~,r
.~ r ~
~
. '
„
,
'~' ,,~j~ x , r~,,,r ., c ,t~ A' v~_{ ~a-~i ~~~ ~ '~aLr~h ~''y,-.~~y~~~~trti.
4 ~ 7i.~i Y~.~'ti ......rr-- r};:; ~ t ~ ;.. ' st ' ~:~~. „"
+ ~ r ~~.~,`v~... ~ i , Jt"~ '' f . , ~ ^~ .;r~„~.
Y~~c
a;..
~ , . ~..__.`v~~r.
, ~ r ,~ r
_'r
r R"
~ .
t1
_:,
MINI]TES, CITY PLANNING COrAfISSION, November 30, 1970
' ' ` `
,
~
i
a rh
jr ~
` ;_
5507
VARIANCE~ NO 21~00 Commiasi'oner Rowland;'
in votin
"no!'
t ;
,k`
~,
~' Sc,~ ,
g
, s
ated he felt two, waqs abuut .
~ (Continued ' ~ -
) tfie project one, thAt it wes a
~; . , , good set of plaas, but
he was
o
o
ed
to ;?'
„-~,
;'~ ,
.
pp
s
a 15%:increase in :denaity,,over the previoas plans, Pnd the diatance
. ,- between the single atoiy a
art
s ~~
,~ p
ment
'and the R O properties.which could
be increased as the PTanning :Co~ission and ~ity: CounMl felt w r~`
~
z~° as ar.. equitable distance
that waetnecessary to':protect the R=0 ro erties and secoadl
P P.,. ,;
~was important to the e.9 oinin ~e ~rst ;altcough~this project
1 ~~'i<
' ;~:
~
;
Y
~ g Property owners,.it was;eqea2ly as.important.'to the:Commis-
sion in their pro~ectioas of apartments adjacent to
lo`w-densit
u
` ,
`~+~;;
;
~
f
~+
~ .
:. .
y.
ses
taroughout the City.
Co~isafone
Far
, .-
~~
,
~- r
ano, i* refCrence to commetits made bq Co~issiout ~rr.y~land regarding: fumes
from the'.subterranean:parkirig; felt;:thia coul~d be:'re
died
" ~
~7
;
me
b
y proper vettting.- E~
''ommissioner Farano~di'rected the staff to give some considerati
mea S ~is:i
~.
~ on as to the man:ter or_
ns that could be used to'coatrol.parking
and
mainteaance of
a
o
n' g,;,,
_
,
,
:reas
i
nabie:.flow of traffic
number of cars, both on Wilshire;Avenue and'Pearl"Sfreet, end ~that if aiiy re
were d
f'e
m
d
a ;~~;:
~
;~
e
com
rmine
end
tions
;to be adequate, these ah'ould be presented at the time'the •plana were
coneideied bq .he City:Conncil ~
;~ _
- --
`-v
~ VARIANCE NO 2219 CONTINUED PUBLIC HE,9RING, IRWIN.J. KENYON, 9502:Greenwich Stre
t
~
" A
a
•- e
,
-
n
heim, . ,r,alifomia; Owaer; requesting GTAIVER .OF (1): MINIMUM LOT AREA,
F ~2~ MINIMUM LOT WIDTH`
IN TH
R
1
T
' ~i
.
E,
-
, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENT7AL, ZONE, AND
TRACT
NO 6792
>(3) LOTS:SIDING:ON.AN:.ARTERIAL gIGAWAY on pr
V
~
~`
RE
operty described as: An
ISION NO 2
- irregulariy shaped parcel of:;land.oonsisfin of a
g PProximately 3
74
acr
vi i
`
'~
.
es ha
ng a frontagM..of a
pproximately..165 feet on the west aide of
~ ,. Ninth Street; having 'a;:maximum';de th of a ~~'i
bein loceted e p PPFoximetely 529 feet and
8 pproximetely 860.feeE aorth'oi the centerline of
Orangewood Avenue. Property;'preaently classifi
d~R-A
G .
r•
~
~~
e
, A
RICULTUREI,L, 20N~,
.
, i
,
TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST ENGINEER:. Anacal Engineering Companq, 222.East Lincoln Avenue F :s
,
Anaheim, California; proposing`to subdivide aubject property
into 20 R-1 zoned lots:
~
~
Subject petitions were 'c~ntinued from the.meeting of November 1F, 1970, to allow-time to
rea~dvertise subject
varian
to
c .
,
ce
in
xude waiver.of the ~ode requ3re:aent,tkat lots.rear on
arferial'streets. ,` r'~.- ~~~;
Aasiatant;Zoning Sapervisor Malcolm"~Slaugfiter reviewed the location of aubject
prop
uses established in cloe
erty
x
I ~'f'
.
,
,
e ro
imit
sub ect p Y, previous zoning action, and t::e proposel to aubdivide I
j pr~perty:consisEing of '+.74 acres into 2d R-l lote
t
`
wi
l: lots ranging in size from ~
5355 to 7200 squore feet (one';lot on'the imuckle); that`Code requirea ail'lots to rear
arterials"- howev
~
b
on
er,
ecauae of the size and shape.of sub,ject propert~, it would be diffi- '
cult to de;elop sub~ect property"without at le
o
i
ast
ne s
de-on l~t; and that the petitioner ~
in:his request noted that development„of the property in &eeping with thoae properties in
the Nint6 Street erea mad
the
e
variance neceasary and would allow~the property to be ;
developed with:single-familq residential devea
o
ent
H
v
e
,
pm
.
owe
er,
ven though this last
scatement might be true,~~the previous variance'And tract considered`by the Commiasion
indicated:the property could b
de
~
e
veloped in a manner more in keepiag with the intent of
the General Plan and the~requiremente of the
R-1 2one i
et
d
-
,
n
ea
of R
2-5000 type lots ;
which were:in the low-medinm category.on the General Plan. ~
Mr.;Irwin Kenyon, the petitioner a '
Commiasion e letter aubmitted't
~
e
r
t
~
e
t
o
each
C
oamisaioner
which
subatantiated
his reasona
for
afiproval of the variance (copy`on file) and'stated that he did:'
t.
e
"`
~: ~
no
-bi
fore the
feeL the queation
Commission was whether or not the request for.waiver of lot sizes did consti-
tiute having A 2-5000 lots
i
ce
' s
n
he did not request,that zone; that he proposed to develop
tlhe property fcr its highest and best
u
e
hi
h w
u
~ .
a
,w
c
o
ld be single-family and which would be
complimentary to~;the adjoining "aizigle-family subdiyiaions
i
c
o
~ s
n
h
e the price range of the
mes would be up;to $40,000 edch;'that the`pxoposal could i
o
d
n n
or
way depreciate the area I
eviete;,from the General Plsn since it was their intent to develop the properry with ~
~homes that would[enhance
the are
d
( ,
a; an
that a,il he was requesting was p~rmission to
increase;:the nnmber of.-lots by;three and xeduc
th
1
t
e
e
o
width--:five of the hames would
have.a coverage:of 40.7%:,while other'lota would heve a 32% l
t
o
r
~ o
c
ve
age, and in many
it;seances there would be 10-foot side yards which would provide for more open s
ace
~ p
.
The Commisaion,noted~thaC they were opposed to havinF; amailer iot-widths abutting the
single-family homes to.the.west;which.were a minimum of 7200 s
uar
f
b
n
; q
e
ei
eet, with a number
g more tkan 7200 square feat, and by reducing the.number of the lote aloag the westerly
propertq line by one and incl
di
s
u
ng
aid lot width iato tre remainiag four lots, this would
proyide for better amenitiea and atill afford the petitioner aa o
o
ta
addit
i
'
i pp
r
a
ty to have two
ional
~ots.
t Mr.` Kenyon r2plied this was a feasible means of aubdividing the property, but he did not
feel thia would solve enpthin
of
j
Fc g
ma
or consequence since the homea on the lots would
b ~ ~ ..W
. .. .. . .. . . ~- --,.--._. . . - 7~Utf
VARIANCE,NO. 2219 -. still be the'same and all it would accr~plish was to say that four of
the lots were slightly larger on the weat,side.
TENTATIVE MAP OF . '
TRACT:NO. 6792, Co~iasioner"Allred noted that the Co~ission in the past had tried to
REVISION N0; 2 get the developer to buffer the R-1 lota with lots of the same size,
(Continued) namely 7200 square feet, with_lot widths of the same size. •
' Mr.. Kenyon requested that the.Commission exp•ain to kim what this would
accomplish, elthougli he would be willing to do.what the Commissiun suggested.
Commissioner Seymour noted that.by reducing the number of lots, this would also mean a
reduction af the home:t.
Mr. Kenyoa continued to .ask for an explanatior~ r~garding the Commission's thiuking o:~ the
need for larger lots.`
Chaixa~an Herbst noted that if the petiEioner could have been present st the many public
hea;ings where people having.7200-square foot lots abutting smaller lots vehemently
opposed approval of smaller lots, he could anderstand why the Commisaion was so concerned
because proof had been submitted t~at the property values of these 7200-square,foot lots
were decreased as these people had stated in their opposition.
Mr. Jack Peters, 2022 South Flippen Drive, appeared before the Co~isaior. in opposition
and noted that:his home would be abutting one of the amaller lots proposed and since
subject property was surruunded.on three sidea with lots of a minimum of 7200 square feet
with many`lots consider.ably larger, an3 since the property was i~ediate2y adjacent to a
school and park, this made the property a prime reaic~ential area, aad he could see no
reason why the petitioner could not raise the price of his homes to compensate for the
larger aize lots, and that no evidence had been submitted thst would warrant favorable
conaideration of an increase in the number of lota .From 17 ta 20, or even the 19 the
Commissioner had suggeated.
• Mri Sylvester Scrodulski, 2016 South FlippPn Drive, appeared before the Co~ission in ~
` opposition and also stated his property would be affected since theae amaller lots would '
be abutting his property, and he would concur with the statements made by Mr. Peters. '
i -,
Mr. Nori Kitaoka, 2017 South Flippen Drive, appeared before the Commiasion in opposition ~
:and noted that his lot was 11,000 aquare feet and a
, pproval of smaller lot sizes ad~acent I
to his property would depreciate the value of his property and requeated that the Co~ission ~
require a minimum of 7200 square feet for those lots along the weat property line of subject !
properEy in order to aesure that the integrity of the area was meintained.
In rebuttal, Mr. Kenyon`atated that he could underatand the concem of the property owners
regarding the smaller lota; that Mr. Kitaoka's lot and home was one of the more expensive
in the subdivieion - however, it had been ahown prior to the public hearing that the
courta did not concur in the statement that smaller lota depreciated the value of adjoin- ~
ing properties, and that only where actual evidence was submitted, such as through an
asseasor's evaluation, would any atatem~nt that enaller lota depreciate adjoining property
be considered by the courta and hold for the adjoining property owners. However, this
argument was beaide the point since it was proposed to have homes in the price range of
$30,000 and up, and the price range of the homea in the general area was from $30,000 to ~
$55,000 only because property had appreciated during the past years,and thia would also
be true of t'~e homea propoaed on subject property. Furthermore, econcimic conditiona today
did not dictate homea :n thia area in the price range of $50,000 aad more because there
were very few homes in thie area valued at thet price.
A telegram of ooposition was read to the Conouiseion.
THF. HEARING WAS CL03ED,
Discuasion was held by the Cort~issinn regarding the possibiliCy of requiring deletion of
one lot along the westerly property line and said lot width to be added to the remaining
four lots on a atraight line, increasing the aize to approximately 65 feet, which would be
more in keeping with the adjuining lota to the weet and would still afford the petitioner
a measure of relief in the development of this odd-ahaped parcel. ~
Cou~issioner Allred offered Reaolution No. PC70-211 and moved for its passage and adoption
to grant Petition for Variance No. 2219, in part, providing that one Iot along the westerly
side of aub~ect property ahall be deleted from the map and incorporating said lot width
into the rEmaining four lots on a atraight line in order that they might more nearly
conform with the lot widths of the properties to the weat fronting on Flippea Drive and
permitting lots ranging in size from 5355 square feet to 7200 aquare feet, and subject
to conditiona. (See Resolution Book)
,. .. . ~~~~..._~ . . . . ..... .. . . , ~~~~ -_
~' L~ l._~
MINUTES, CITY.:PLANNING COI~SISSION, November 30, 1970 5509
< VARIANCE N0. 2219 - On roll call,the foregoing resolution was passed by the following
vote:
TENTATIVE MAP OF
TRACT.NO: 6792, AYES: COZIISISSIONERSs Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Ks;wood, Rowland, •
REVISION N0: 2 Seyioour.
_' (Continued) NOES:. CO~~ItSISSZONERS: Non@.
ABSENT: ' C0~![fISSI0NER9z ~ tlone.
ABSTAIN: COIAiISSIONERS:, Farano.
Co~tasioner Allred offered a motion to approve'Tentative Map of Tract No. 6792, Revision
NG }'. ae~aonded by Commissione` Seymour, and MOTYON CARRIED, subject to the following
cor.-~iEions: -
1. That a 6-foot maeonry wall sha11 be conatructed along the north property line.
2. That'ahould this subdivision be developed as more than one aubdiviaion, each
subdiviaion thereof shall be submitted Yn Eentative form for approval.
3: That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 6792, Revision No. 2, is granted
sub3ect to the approval of Reclassification No. 68-69-41 and Variance No. 2219.
4. That in accordance with City f;auncil policy, a 6-foot masonry wall shall be
canstructed on the east property line separating Lot No. 1 and Ninth Street,
except.that comer Lot No. 1 ahall Be atepped down to a heigkt of ti~irty inches
, in the front yard setheck, and except that pedestrian openings shall be provided
in said wall's where cul=de-sacs abuC the'planned highways right-of-way 2ine of
an arterial highway. Reasonable landacaping, including irrigation facilitiea,
shall be inetalled in the uncemented portioA of the arterial highway parking the
full distance of eaid wall, plans for said landacaping to be submitted to and
subjecx to the `approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Following
installation and scceptance, the Ct.ty of Anaheim shall assu~e the responsibility
for maintenance o~ said landscaping.
5. That all lota within thia tract ahall be aerved with undergro~und utilities.
6. That the vet-icular access rights, except at street and/or alley openiags to
Ninth Street, ahall be dedicated td the City of Anaheim.
7. That drainage aha'~1 be.discharged in a manner that ia satisfactory to the City
Engineer.
8. That Street "A" shall be recorded as Wakefield Avenue and that Street "B" shall
be xecorded as Waverly Drive.
9. It is normal City policy to require dedi.cation of ultimate street right-of-way
and construction of atreet improvements for "not a part" parcels reaulting from
tract development; however, becauae of exiati.ng trees and improveaents on the
"not a part" parcel remaining from Tract No. 6792, ultimate dedication and
improvemeat is impractical at this time. Therefore, it is recommes~ded that the
following conditione be ~,~aa~d on thia "not a part" parccl:
a. That the owner(s) of'sul~~ect property shall deed to the City of Anaheim a
strip of land 30 feet fn'width from the centerline of the atreet along
Ninth Street for street widening purpoaes.
b. That the owner(s) of subject property shall deed to the City of Anaheim a
strip of land 45 feet in width from the centerline of Ninth Street for street
widening purpoaee. This easemetc deed is to be written so tnat it shall
become effective upon the death of the grantor or upon the sale or rezoning
of the "not a part" parcel, whichever occurs firat.
c. That street pavement be installed weaterly 22 feet from the ceaterline o£
Ninth Street in accordance with standard plans and specificatioas on file
in the office of the City Engineer; and that the estimated cost of the
pavement be included i~s the improvement bond for Tract No. 6792.
d. Reference Paragraph 9-b above. That street lmprovement plans ahall be
prepared and all engineering requirementa of the City of Anaheim along
N,inth Street, such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and
paving, drainage facilities, or other appurtenant work shall be completed
as required by the City Engineer and in accordance wi:i atRndasd plans
and specifications on file with the office of the City Engineer; and
that a bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of 4naheim
ahall be p9sted with the City to guarantee the installation of said
engineering requirements.
' i:V' ~. '.}~:'
. ~i!
i
, ,.,.~;;;
,,
'fr~ ~
~;
rw",
Y
_ ,r ::r; :,.: ,
~ ~ ~
~. ~ ~
```
.
, r ~~ ~
f
. ~~
~~... ... ._.,:, . .:::- , ....:
: _~.. _ .... . ~'
. ; :.
*~u
~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CO2IliISSION, November ,i0, 1970' S510 ~~
' VARIANCE$NO 2219 , e=That'the exist~ng asphalt si`dewalks.'on•Nirith Street:be:relocated ~
"~~
~~ r ~ adjacent to the new,'3treet``right-of way„'and ttiat the,estimates .
i~~
TENTATIpE MAP OF ' o' the asphalt sidevalk be ~included in:the 9,mprovement.bond for
RA
T
'' ' "~
; T
C
NO
;6792, Tract No 6792:
`, , • ~
~
.
REVISION N0. 2 ~ , ; ~
~ t
r(Continued) f That itema a and b, at~ove~mentio~ed,.be complied with piicr to , ~~v
~~~
,
' `final approval :of .Tra~et No. '6792, and that conditions c' and; d,
- ~
above
mentio
ed
b
co
t
d
' _~~''
~
~~
.
:
n
,
e,
mple
e
in conjunction
with,the improve- ~
menta of Tract.,No 6792 ,~
~
r~
~: ~~
- ^
~ ~:, ,
. . ,
RE f° ~~i
~~
CESS
- Coomisaioner Allred moved:for a ten minute recess. The meeting
. "
.
recesaed af 3 47 P:M -
` `. - - ~ Y~
RECONVENE. - Chairman Herbst reconvened the meeting at 4:00 P.M.,;all Co~iasioners
~ ~ , q
'';
being present ! ,k
RECLASSIFICATION .- PUBLIC HFARING. RALPH WHEATON,,610 South:Loara Street, Anaheim
-
,
N0. 70 71
19 '. Califomia,;Ovner; WM, S,.PHELPS, James R. Schuler & Agsocietes,
~
`' 1b95.,Main St~reet,_`Suite:S, Orange,;Califoi~ia, Ageat; property
VARIANCE NOc 2222 described as
A
rec
u i
~
: _
:
tang
larly shaped parcel of land having a,£rontage
of approximately 84.5 feet on the south:aide of,SoutH Street, having a
maximum depth of approximstely;_308 feet and being located approximately
590 f
t
es
f
e ,r,~~
ee
w
t o
;tHe c
nEeiline of Harbor Boulevard. Property presently ~~
clessified:R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE.. ~..,>
REQUESTED,CLASSIFICATION: R=3,
MULTIPLE-FAMILY
RESIDENT7AL
ZONE `
~~
,
,
,
. e
REQUESTED~VARIANCE: ESTABLISH A ONE:'AND.TFIO-STORY, 14-UNIT APARTMENT
COMPLER WITH 1j
,
WAIVER OF ,(1).MAXIMIIM HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS LOCATED WITHIN 150 FEET
., ~~'
- OF:AN R-A ZONE' AND (2): REQtTIIgEMENT THAT ACCESS TO CARPORTS SHl-LL : ;:
HE:FROM:THE ALLEY::ONLY.
Asais,tant 2oning Supervisor Malcolm'Slaughter reviewed the locaticra o£ aubject property `"~~
,
' uaea~.established.~in cloae`;proximity,~,and'the proposal to reclesai 'sub ect
fy j property<to
~he R-3
Zo
e
t
" '~`
,
n
wi
h
'waive
r,of the heighE=of a structure within 150 feet of an R-A:Zone and
Code:~requirement ttiat ac
e
t
ca
t
'
`
) c
ae
o
rp~r
s be
from an
alley only where an ali~y existed,
vhereas the;petitioner
vas
osi
ac
.
prop
ng
~ess from South Street.for a portion of the parking
s
acea
that tb
e
P
p
,
e Gen
ral
lan:indicated the aree south of South Street as being appropri-
ate for medium-density reeidential u
-
b
c
se
su
je
t property.being part of this area; and
that:~he Cocmission would have ta determine whether there was 'juatificati~A for granting
v
~
va3
er of
the requirement:that accesa:to carporte be from an al?;ey given the narrov
dimeneion
of'the lot
n
r `
;
i
;
elationship;to.ita.depth since it mighk be posaible to dietinguish
thib'property from other R-3 property which might ha~7e more frcatage on a
lle
d
h `
n a
y an
t
us
be able to provide'more parking spaces;therefrom:
_
~
Chairman ~erbst noted that before the petitioner's,agent preseated his argumenta, he would
lik
t
t
E '
e,
o s
a
e thst although he:knew this was"a prablem parcel, regardleas of the ataff's
statements, the accesa was xotally inadequate for the reaidenta of the complex Who would ~
be using the alley to gain
c
.ac
esa to their carports; that the accesa propased from South
Street to
the eouth
ro
'
:
p
perty line was
quite lengthy, and there should be a better way to
get to the parking r~Eher than`thrnu
h th
all
`
g
e
ey,
and;posaibly a complete revieion of plans !
was:in order with the idea of"utilizing one side of xh
e : .
~~
e pror
rty fbr accese with garages ;
'belotr the living quarters, but at'the present time this proposal and the paxcel were about
as bad as ~he Commission had ever seen'ae it perEained to access, and he bel~eved there
was onYy one other similar site which the Co~aiasion had conaidered recently.
' ~.
.
Mr. William.P,;;elpa, agent.for'the petitioner, appeared before 1he Co~ission and noted
that-in the desi
n`h
f
lt
f
~,
g
e:
e
:a partial;o
f-street, court driveyay would bE.more appreciated i
by,the residenta of.the complex; that:he h
d;
k
a
apo
en with 2oaing Supervisor Charles Roberts
prior to the public hearing, and Mr. Roberts had conveyed the:Co~ission's .feelings as to ~
`
the poseible redeaign; and that a portion of the cars.proposed to park on this complex
`
wauld:come•
.off South Street in a aingle tier =,however, he would reaerve further coarmeat~on
'. acceas until.after the oppositioa had pr
th
`
esented
eir came. i
Mrs.'Lois King, 715 South Janas Street; eppeared before the Coamission in oppositioa aad ~
stated that thei
st
r
reee,dpadended in front a vacant:'lot which was aubject property -
therefore, traffic`problems
.could reault if this
r
r
.
prope
tq we
e developed with access to
South.Street; thet there were all`single-family homes on Janss Street as well as So
th
u
Street in thia area; Ehat the onlp thing besides the service atation was a small market;
that th
t
t
m
e s
a
ement
ade 3n the previous petition that better tenants would be gotten if
more.exp~naive.apartmenta were`.built was not true since she had seen manq very expensive
'`
- ' . .~ ~ ~ ~ . . i~ ~ ' . . ~ ~ .. , ~ .. ' . J~iFs
~'
~.~'ra,F~r~"`r,rY~i ,~~'~I^ti~3`~"n'~,`~~t ~t ~~`ie+~~~~R~`~ .~°'~SQL'~Yr ~+r!°~ x~'~.~,~ T4r.. r~'~.r~ S"~ 1 :~t`+~ :~. ~ . ~r
~ ,Vt t ~- 4 ~ / 1 2 r +l ;..
~ x :r ~ .4'0 9 ~ ~ ~` a'~`~^,~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~
r'~..r :%"' >~h ~~;w .~ ~~., rF~~ ~'E.~' M1r~ --a~' {i.~ °~5~~ xy, ..: r ~L~x f ~ ~ ~ , `
,~ ~:.~ X~ 37~'LCS.. K :.,~7
~~' _ F-: ~ ~X.-n~~_ ^~ -"[ S .~,,•.
~ I '{f ,, r~ . .. ~,~,,r.
r ~
. ~ , - - . .~ ' .
y , ~ . . . .. . ~ ~ ' - :' . .' ~ ~~. ~ . . . ' . ~ - -:! ;
~+ MIN',1TES, CITY PLANNING COt~fISSION,; November 30, 1970 5511 '~
. .
, .
i,,.,.
`- <RECLASSIFICATION apartments vhich did,~not hape hi h-class ~
NO 70 71-19 '., ~ people residing in the '_~
- ;apertments; tliat South Stre?t wes a.highlq-traveled atreet because ~~
3t 1ed to the on ramp,.of the:Santa Aaa Freeway, and if"apartments '
VARIANCE N0. 2222 were approved,:this-rould.mean at least fourteen more automubiles on ~ l~ ~
(Continued).. the'street;"and;if they were,.two-cat families, this would mean twenty- ~,
eight:;automobiles; :that it would be inconveaient to reach the carporta ,;
~ from the alley.and in~all lilielihood the residear_s of this propoaed
c~mplex;would park,their vehicles on the,street;,that a church was located:just a short way c~
from subject property, and Ehey had provided off-street parking for;their parishioners, and .~~~.~f
;it could.be,possibZe that.residents.of.~the''apartment-complex would.park,t~eir vehicles in '^'~
:.~
the church.paiking:lot,because it would be.readfly„availsble; that she had been informed
that the~Benjamin Franklln School:was overcrowded, and even though this.might:be classified 'J
as.an adult apartment complex,:there was'no assurance that this would remain so if apext- "`~
ments became difficult to rent'to adults onlq; and;that this, then, would bri.ng in childrea
who would,odertax:an ~already overcrowded "school.
Chairman_HerbsE advised Mra, King.that atudies mede by the Planaing Co~iasion ind3cated
that apartments did not generate as many children as single-family homes did.
Mra. King steted she-was more oppoaed to the possible parking problem, and even with the
area developed for si.ngle-family use, there was insufficient on-street parking for the
present res~i~den-tes of this area.
M~ har~es~~ ar~~p9 Sou~h Janss Street, indicated he was also opposed to the waivers
requeated regarding parking and the.proposed apartmeat compZex.
Mr. Phelps stated he tiad no rebuttal ta comments made by the oppoaition. However, he would '~
state,that it was possible to redesign the propoeal if the Commisaion were of the opinion
that subject property was suitable for R-3, and that 14 units on the property was not
excesaive. .
,:::~;
Co~issioaer Gauer adviaed Mr. Phelpa that if he would redesign the project in a respect-
able manner, it might-be possible that the deaigner would have to reduce the number of
units. _
Co~nisaioner Seymour, in response to questions by the desigaer, stated that since this was
a.problem parcel, he would reco~end that the project be redesigned; however, he did not
want to see a sea of'asphalt.
Mr: Phelps noted that they had deaigned a project:in Buena Park in which front parkin$
was propoaed, and upoa construction of this particular design, it had turned out to be a
very.attractive development having 18 unita with approximately the same square footage of
land as subject property.
Commiss3oner Seymour offered a motion to continue Petitions for Reclassification No.
70-71-19 and Variaace No. 2222 to the meeting of December 14, 1970, to allow time for
redeaign of the proposed project incorporating a c~ifferent method for ingreas and egress,
said design to be aubmitted to staff bq December 4, 1970. Commissioner Kaywood seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED,
CONDITIONAL USE "- PUBLIC HEARING. VIGILANT ENTERI'RISES, INC„ lU8 West Katella Avenue,
PEF~fIT N0. 1211 Anaheim, California, Owner; EgpNK A. SMITH, JR., 1I90 West Katella
Avenue, Anaheim, Celifornia, Agent; requesting permission to have
ON-SALE BEER AND WINE IN A PROPOSED RESTAURANT WTTH WAIVER OF MINIMUM
REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES oa propertq described as: A
rectangularly shaped parcel of lend conaiating of approximately one acre, haviag a frontage
of approximately 200 feet on the eouth aide of Katella Avenue, having a maximum depth of
approximately 220 feet, and being located approximately 220 feet west of the centerline of
Casa pista Street, and further described as 1190 West Katella Aveaue. Property presently
clasaified C-1, GENERAL COPAfERCIAL, 20NE.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, !
uses eatablished in cloae proximity, and the pr.opossl to establish on-sale beer and wine
in conjunction with the sale of food in a restaurant in an existing shopping center, said
store-front building being 15 feet wide; that the petitioner had adequate parking for
general retail uaea - however, since there already existed a pizza parlor, the site already
lacked six parking spacea, and if §ubject petitian were ~pproved, thia would increase the
deficiency.to nine parking apaces because restaur~ant parking requirements were higher than
geneial retail; that the petitioner did not propose a bar - therefore, there would be no
problem in screening the bar; tnat in view of the fact that tti~re already existed an on- -----
sale beer and wine operation with the pizza partor, the request would not be presenting
any great problem; and that the Co~ission would have to determine whether there was
juatification for granting a variance from the parking requirement. -
~ ~ ~ ~~~
s~ e /~'~~. :
-- ` ~
. . ~~ ~~i~. .
,. - ._. _ .. , ,,. :: -
: ~. .:r:.._ ~~ ~. a ~.. .,.-
. . 7 < ., I . . ~ . ' ' ~ ~ . . ~ .
`~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING;COI~IlSISSION, November 30, 1970 5512
CO~IDITIONAL USE -,Mr, Frank Smith,,agent for the petitioner, appeared before the
PERMYT N0. 1211 Co~iasion and noted the on-sale beer and wine was only an incidental
(Continued) uae to•the main.use.of ttie saTe of food;.:that the proposed hours of
operation would be'from'1T:OO A.M. Eo 10:00'P.M., whereas the pizza
`` . parlor would be in`operation from 4:00 E.M. to 3:00 A.M.; that there
woald:be only Z1 tables'in their operation and'no additianal help since he and his wife
- would,be the oaly ones working this'.facility; and that he was aure there would be adequate
parking ayailable on the premises.
No.one.;appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Co~iastoner Farano inquired'whether or not the 57 parking spaces included thoae apaces in
the''rear; whereupon Zoning Supervisor Charlea Roberts noted that the rear parking was
' included in the overall count of parking epaces, that the center was constructed prior to
1962, end the pizza restaurant.was also established in 1962, but at that time the parking
requirement for a restaurant was not so stringent - therefore, the deve2opment complied
with Code parking requirements at that time. However, 1965, the.Code was changed, and an
increase,.in parking was required of restaurants - therefore, the existing development was
a nonconforming use as to parking reqpirements. Furthermore, the broasted chicken opera-
:ion was no longer there, but the apace would be occupied by the Mexican restauraat the
geti~tioner proposed to place there.
Mr: Smith, in response to Coamisalon questioning, stated he wae only the tenant, and ihe
owner was not preaent.
Discu~asion was held by the Co~ission on the menner in which to resolve the parking pxoblem,
and upan completion of the diacussion, Cou~issioner Seymour noted that if 90-degree parking
were provided insEead of the present angle parkiag as auggested by Commissioner Rowland,
thic`would'Yncrease the parking by about 4 spaces in the rear parking area. This would
also give the owner an opportunity to remove the bumpess on the.west where 2'additional
parking spacea could also be picked up, and perhaps the beat answer would be to have the
entire:parking'area restriped along the rear.
Chaixman Herbst inquired of the agent whether or not he felt there would be any problem
• in having the parking-area restriped, thereby bringing the parkiag more nearly in conform-
ance with Code requirements; whereupon Mr. Smith replied he would attempt to have the
parking area restriped as suggeated by the Co~isaion.
Comniasioner Seymour noted that the bumper area on the west was there illegally - however, ~
there was no access to other parking. ,
Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that these bamper blocka would have to be removed since
the e~tisting parking~area was not in'conformance with Code requirements.
Commisaioner Seymour offered Reaolution No. PC70-212 and moved for its passage ard adoption ~
to grant Pet3tion for Conditional IIse Permit No. 1211 subject to restriping the rear parking
srea for 90-degree parking; that the illegal parking spacea near the weat property line be
removed to provide aufficient vehicular and emergency acceas; and that the on-sale wine and
beer shall be conducted only as an incidental use to the sale of food wherein no bar would
be permitted. (See Reaolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the follawing vote:
AYES: CODIliISSIONERS:. Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowlaad, Sey~mour
NOES: CO1~AiISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COI~IlSISSIONERS: None.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. THOMAS A. DOBBIE, JR., 1829 Westcltff Drive, Newport
PERMIT N0. 1212 Beach, ~alifomia, Owner; requesting permission to I~VE ON-SAI,E BEER
AND WINE IN AN EXISTING RESTAURANT on property described as: A
sectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximat~ly
130 feet on the east side of Brookhurst Street, having a maximum depth
of approximately 275 feet, and being located approximately 195 feet south of the center-
line of Broadway, and further described as 314 South Brookhurst Street. Property presently '
classified C-1, GENERAL C~AiERCIAL, 20NE.
Assistmmt Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property,
uses establiahed in close proximity, and the Report to the Planning Co~rmission, noting
that subject property was zoned C-1 in 1960; that Conditional Use Permit No. 986 was
r approved in 1967 to establish a valk-up resta:.rant, but this was never developed - Chere- •
fore, this petition should be terminated; that Condifional Use Permit No. 1064 was
`~ ~~ ~ . ~ ~ . . ~ ...._.. . . ._ .__ ~:L f .':
~~3~.•.~2} ~ t~..~'~ 'i rr+sy"~ ~N E,..~,a~rJ-rr- ~'l~~~~ }~ ~ i,9~Rk` ~ 1fL Q§i C ~ + t . ~ L :F . .l'.
ti:`rs, ~' ~, v,3' x.n c h ~ ~.4 ~ r r Y ^ ~' ~ Z ,~, ~~` ~ ~ r
,$:;; . r . , ~. ~:i~ - , 4 3^}
t
~. . _.. .r .~_. 1 C:s ~ r....:'~` .i..{r-:,` ~~ 5`~....~ " t ~ ~' f r _
. . . . ... . . ..... ...~,'
.., ^.,:.~'. -.+.:
~ 1t
-~' ~: ~,.: ~ `~~ ~~ ~~~' ~~ , . . . .
~ ~- '-. -..f . ,. , . . . . •. , . r ..
- - ~~~~. . - .. . ~ . . '1
~-~ .': . ' -~.~. , , . ~.. '~~ :
MINUTES, CITY,PLANITING CO1~ffiISSION, November 30, 1970 .
5513 l '
CONDITIONAL~USE '~-.approved in 1968 to..establieh a aemi-enclosed,restaurant with outdoos ~.
PERMIT N0. 1212 eating area - howevez, this use was~no louger in operation and the f-'`~
;(Continued) Co~ission might wish to;terminate this petition also; and that Che
petitioner'was now proposing to have on,sale beer and:wine in an ~
` exiating encloaed.restaurant, but since,Conditioaal Use Permit No, y~
,1064,had not been teiminaEed, the Coamission might wian to determine whether or not the I '§
petitioner.proposed to.:continue with outdoor on?sale.`beer and wine, and the Commission t}.'~ -i'
~would fiave to: detenaine whether or not the request for on=sa2e beer and wine was appropsi
>:
ate at" ~t~+is location.
f .;~~
Mr Jack Monroe, 1245 Sherbert Street West, Montreal,.Quebec Canada ,a ~
Commission and noted he represented the conaultant to the Kentucky Eried C£ticken Corporae ;~y~
I tion;~that tfiey would be in complete accord if the'Co~ission saw fit fo te~minate the •`"~
! outdoor'service fornierly held~under the'Rentucky Roast Bee£ operation; that the wine and
beer service.woald lie an accessory use to the main use.of the sale of food; that the i
facility would be.a pilot unit for a national chain to convert 104 Kentucicy Roast Beef ',~
facilities.throughout Ehe counfry; and ttaat this would be a wholly-owned subsidiary of .`,,~
the Kentucky Fried Chicken Corporation.
Commiaeioner Farano inquired why the petitioner vas planniug to convert these outdoor
eating areas; whereupon Mr.. Monroe replied it was their intent to convert these in order
to make money.
Coamissioner Farano noted his reason for the question wae because of the fact that the i~~~~'
Co~ission had been deluged with walk-up,.take-out, roast beef sandwichea, etc., and the `~'
Commisaion was concerned that there could be as many of theae around the country ~ho would ~ '
be coming in requesting conversion of their operationa just as service sCations were j."~'`~
requesting secondary uses. r
Mr. Monroe adviaed the Commission that a~ '.~
ur~ng the past five month~a the Kentucky Fried `,f~
Chicken Corporatien had bou ght. b a ~ k S 6~ o~ t he Ken tuc i c y Roast Seef franchises, and it was
their intent to purchase ell the outstanding franchises and to ,operate the entire i~J4
units es.a~ chaia aperation, aot as franchise units; that at least one Planning Commissioner
had been in their restaurant`and had seen this would be a waitress operation with a ataff
of over,twenty people; that_at the preaent time some of the Anaheim ataff were in Louisville,~
Kentuclcy, where Cl~eq were training othera for the`operation of other facilities, and it was
their infent, after having conducted an in-depth merket aurvey across the United States, to I
operate,;these restauzants th~mselves and not leave them in the hands of a franchise and ~
: operating Chem in the.good, old-fashioaed way of a regular restaurant - this would bE only G
with the;Rentucky Roast Beef chain.
No oae appeared in oppoaition to sab,jcat petition.
THE HEARING'WAS CLOSED.
Discusaio~.was held by the Comnission relative to what type of regulations had been estab-
liahed so that if underage children patronized this operation, would.they be served-•-
wine or beer.
M~. Monroe replied that if the Co~nisaion had aeen an operation, they had laws in Canada
that were far more strict thaa the City of Anaheim had, and they planaed to keep the beer
dispenser out of sight of the generai public; that the wine kega on 3isplay were false,
and th3s,was done to discourage_juveaiYea fzom requeBting the serving of beverages; that ~
every waitress wae fully trained before being alloved on the floor so that she would be .~
•gB$e~to recogaize the juveniles, and he would assure the Commission that no juveniles would ~
be served any wine or beer.
Coumissioner Farano offered Reaolution No. PC70-223 and moved for ita pasasge and adoption
to g"rant Petition for Conditional Uae Parmit No. 1212 aubject to conditions; that the
petitioner stipulated to termination of a11 outdoor servi:es; and-.that the on-sale beer
and wine was an accesaory use to the pri~mary use of sale of food. {See Reaolution Book)
Oa ro11 cal2 the foregoing resolution vwa pqssed by the following vote;
AYES: C(71~4fISSI0NER5: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour.
NOES: COlYIl~iZSSIONERS: None.
ABSENTc COA~iISSIONERS: None.
Coamisaioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC70-214 and moved for its passage and adoption
to terminate all proceedings on Conditional Use Permit No. 1064 on the basis that a new
use was already established. (See Reaolution Book) _._._
On ro1L call the foregoiag resolution was pasaed by the following vote; ' ,;
l3~~' 4 lw~.Y f . T~ aNt I i~ t~l ~r ~ S .4 Y~rY~'L /} 4.,'M
.~:/ J il .. Fy ,? „k . +'/' d rY' `1~,.~"~ J•^7 ~.'.'FE ~ry yL
1'x
4Y 1~~`~1'
~YK'~~
~
q,
'-~ '~~~~`~M1
~~ ~ -,.Y ~k./ .M .. ..1 F' :.
M~~ ~ ~~' K ~l} ~~~ v ~ .. . ,
lR ~ I J' 1 ;,.:.
S']
~
i,
f v
Mi
~
,~' !t_e Y~ .MC":,
'~7 _ ~. 1 '~u,.L'.>~ ~ii .rf~~yYi 4T.~'~~. ~ ., ~ ~
1
5 ,~ .:!.'^
~L, M1 ~ ^'
nkfi
-G
:
~ ~
. . ,
' '~
~~' ..
^'
~
~
' 1 v
i
,
. .,
Y ... ..: ..; 1+
/ 1~
,
. . ''.
: ~„ .
:-. :~.
.
:.. -:;
~ ~ _ ' . . ~
y ~ ~ ~ '
"
~
.'.~1
:~~
~
~' :1..
''- MINUTES, CTTY.PLANNING CO1~AtISSION,,.NoSember 30;
'19~a, v,
;
. 5514
CONDITIONAL USE AYES: ' COMLiISSIONERS Allred, Farano,'Gauer, Herbat, Kaywood,
' PERMIT':NO. .'121'2 ' ~'
Rowland,' Seymour.
. (Continued) NOES:, COMMISSIONERS: None. - " I ~
'
:tr
_ -ABSEi~T: . COIIl~fISSIONERS °:None. - :
Co~isaioner Raywood:;offered Resolution,No,,PC70-215 end moved #or its passage and adoption
~Eo tereinate.all pr
oceedings on Oondi ~'~
.
tional Use Permit No. 986 oa the basis that the use
was never.exercised: ~
(See'Resolutioa Book) ~~
'~i
~~
~
On roll call tt'e:foregoing.resolutioa was pPSSed bp the following vote:
I : { °" : .
.
'"
~:~4
AYES ~ CO1~fISSIONERSs Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst Ka ood Rowiand Se
~. 5'w ~ , . J+monr.
NOES. ;°COMMISSIONERS: :N
n
~
"~'~
o
e.
ABSENT: .-: COt~4iISSIONERS: ` Noae. ;:~
~~ ~
CONDITIONAI, USE - PUBLIC F~ARING; LEDGER T. AND GLADYS K. SMITEi, 15! Miramonte Drive,
PERMIT.~NO.-~I213 Fullerton
Calif
a
,
omi
, Owners;;RICHARD A. V~1 VERKA, 7542 North Pacific
Avenue,,Santa;Aaa,,Califomia, Agent
requesti
;
ng permission to ESTABLISH
A 222-SPACE TRAVEL TRAILER PARK IN THE M-1 ZONE WIT~ WAIVER OF MINIMUM
"
1tEQUIRED FRONT SETBACR on.property described as: .An irregularly shaped
percel of land consiatirig of approximatel
9 ac
e
h
y
r
s,
aving a frontage of approximately
358'feet on the.north side of Katella Avenue and approximatel
620 feet
h
u
q
on t
e ao
th side
of Howe7.1 Avenue, and being loceted approximately 150 feet north ar.d approximately 150 feet
weat of"the northw
st
m
r
e
co
e
of Katella Avenue.:and Howell Avenue. Property presently
ctassified M-1,: LIGFiT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. ';!!,'
Aasistant Zoning Supervisor Malcalm Slaughter reviewed the location of suo ect
u
ta
l ~
•
ses es
b
ished in cloae proxfmi.ty, and the proposal to esCablish a trave2 trailerepark
vith wsiper`of th
m
n '~~A
~
e:
i
im~ required front setback area in the industrial zoae ~herein 50
feet were required and 10'feet ~
o -
~~~
ere pr
poaed; that the applicant was propoeing a 222-space
'Eravel'trailer park,~Ehe main entrance:being
from Ratella A ~
,
venue with no entrance from
Hovell Avenue, aad an emergency~ crask ~ate was provided on Howell Avenue for fire vehiclea;
that the applicant vas
i
propos
ng 6-foot masoary.walls and landecaping along the Katella
and xowell.Avenue fronEagee,-and the primary queation bef
e;
h
'
" '
~
or
t
e
Commission was one of
laad
use,:since:,subject prqpErtq vas.in an area designated on the Geueral.Plan for industrial
dev,elopment
and the
o (
,.
prop
sed uae obviously wes not o£ an industzisl nature and v;auld,
t'herefore, appear'inappr.opriate o
thie pr
r ~
n
ope
ty;-that Anaheim's induatrial areas were
being reserved for industriai development in ord
t
r
~
~
er
o p
ovide both an enhanced, tax baee
for the-present and future citizene of the City of Aneheim a
d t
n
o provide places of employ-
ment for theae future-,citizens, and it vae doubtful that a travel trailer park would fulfill
such a function; that a
pro
a
o I
.
p
v
l
f commercial uses in the industrial areas might be an
indicator to potential iudnstrial firma that suffici
t
en
protection was not being provided
to existing industriea, and, conaequently, some of the potential firms might lonate elae-
where;
that th
Sou
e
_
e
th
ast Industrial Area had been undergoing rapid industrial development,
and there was vetq little industrial l
d l
n
an
eft i
that area which was not owned by the
railroad, and development of the rai2road property would be de
endent
h
'
p
upon t
e railroad
s
ability to procure usera, this being the only type of development in which the railroad
was interested; that th
C
e
ity had projected for 1970 one million square feet of industrial
land use - however, during the:firat six months of th
e year, the City had almost one and
one-half million square feet propoaed through building permita primsrily in the Southeast
Induatrial Area; that r
id
i
ea
ent
al zonin~ had been allowed to encroach into the Soatheast
Industrial Area with,the approval of R-3
aoning from Ba21 Road to Winaton Avenue by the
County Board of Sapervieors over the objectiona of b
th •'`,'
o
the Planning Goa~isaion and the
City Council, and in view of all of these factors, it ¢an be shown that the industrial
land i
th
o
n
e S
utheast Industrial Aree was rapidly disappearing, there being few choice
industrial sites left; and
th
t i
co
.
a
t
uld,also be demonatrated that there are large areas
in the citq which are: indicated for commercial-recreatioa la
d
n
uaes which are: not
developed - these areas hed not beea undergoing as rapid development as the Southeast '
Industrial Ar
. Fu
ea
rthermore, the Planning Co~ission and City Council were both aware
of the problema which had been created b
the m
bil
hom
y
o
e
e park approved by the County
Board of Supervisors on Douglae Street
and while the
o
,
pr
posed uae would not have long-
term reaidential occupanciea, it was aimilar to reaidential in th
e aense that people would
be eating and sleeping on.the premiaes adjacent to induatrial development and also adjacent
to the railroad right-of=way
and that
;
given the problems that had been created when in-
compatible land uses have,been allowed near industriaY develo
ment
it
l
h
p
,
wou
t
d appear that
is use was inappropriate, and the parcel was more ideally auited for induatrial develop-
ment. 8owever, if the Planning Co
i
n
~
ssio
should determine that the uae itself was
aPProPriate, they miglit wish to consider the desirabilit
of r
i
i
y
equ
r
ng revised plana so
as to reflect a more adequate distribution of restroom facilities, and since the pro
drivewa
osed
s had i
u
p
y
ne
ff3cient corner cut-offs for emergency vehicles, this also should be
reflected in the revised plans, and that
l
~
a
though the applicants proposed only a 20-foot
setback on Ratella Aveaue and a 10-foot aetback on Howell
Avenue, the M-1 Zone required a
minimum SO-foot setback - theE~fore, the Co~isaion would have to det
i
erm
ne whether there
~ - - ~?:~ ' i'
a'a, .. ~y/ Yu ¢~ r1`~rlY s ¢ }^"' '` "~ kf`.nS'~~ J'/"~ . ,Y- x{f ~r~e).b !£ "7'{?1. ~1'~ # ~' ~ ~r; 7 :'=k ~ L. ?rY ~ r i u _ . ,
~ ; 5 aE i ~. x~C / ~''~ . ~ ~;t
~. ~i S'7 . ~ ~ Y ~~ f~
t. et 'L ~~j~ 'i) ':, i;~ - 1~/
~'~ •Y~~~~~~ .
. . . ' ~ . . . .~ . . . . '~,~~ ..~
~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING,COMMISSION, November 30, 1Q70
- - 5515
CONDITIONAL USE - was any justification for this.waiver, particularly in view of the
PERMIT N0:-1213 fact'thaE`if an industry located on the adjacent property, they would
(Continued) be required to pi~vide a 50-foot setback, thereby creating a hardship
for said industry.,
Mrs Richard Va Verka, agent foi,the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted
they were well aware that subject property_had._M-1 zoning; that th~:s~':was:a permissible uae
in.:the M-1'Zone and would be for a' sliort term of ten yeers; that they had attempted to talk
with as many people in-the area as possible to get the:feeling of the induatries in the
area since they realized they:were at the:bottom'of the M-l Zone, aad the properties on
the south side of Katella Avenue were rapidly turning into a Commercial-Recreation Area;
tliat.,the land use map that he had posted on.Ehe wall was somewhat out of proportion, but
oae could see a;general,feeling'ot'induatry and cou~ercial-recreation uses;'that they had
attempted;to work as.~losely as possible with the staff Eo try to meet the future travel
trailer park.ordinance - however,,their design.went.substantially beyond the reco~enda-
tiona of the propoe.ed ordinance, and'they were attempting to.present to the Commission a
design of the on-site so-that there would,be no reservaEion in the Cos~isaion's mind;+;
that many of the travel trailer ,r.;,rks were too small in size; that the use was not a
reaidential use but tourist ori,.ted with limited stayings and was not in the nature of
a mobile home_park but was more in line with a commercial-recreational facility; that he
would agree with some of the commenta made by staff that the laundry and reatroom facili-
ties should be relocated, and they proposed to have one also added to the other side of
the park; that staff's preliminary requirement`for setback:~ on Katella Avenue was 20 feet,
and the park was so designed, and rather. thsn going to the 50~`feet he would auggest that
because of the railroad righf-of-way adjacent.to aubject property and the slope, a graduated
aetback should be followed to the aatural boundary of the slope to a distance of 30 feet,
and in the approval of the conditional use permit a requirement could be made that this
setback be in conformance in the`sedesign of the plan. Secondly, the access was proposed
adjacent to the service station aite whexe a 60-foot wide accessway was constructed by the
City in.the last few years, and the property for.street widening of Kateila Avenue was
given to the City which would allow accese from Katella Avenue; that in eva2uat~ng this
access problem during the last thirty days and the natural flow of people would be coming
from the east to Katella Avenue from the Riveraide-Newport Freeways and eventually the
Orange-Freeway, it was determined that the crash gate preaently proposed along t~e north-
east portion of the property eaciting to Howell Avenue should be eliminated and another
access be.permitted off bf Howe11 Avenue so that there would be no turning around in order
to gain access from Katella Avenue at the entrance, as originally proposed, and in order
to'eliminate any traffic problem for guests_returning from Disneyland or the stadium
attempting:to make a left turn before Howell Avenue; and then, in response to Co~ission
queationing, stated that the Katella entrance would atill have to be maintained aince
this was,part of the original agreement with the City at the time of dedication of land
for street widening purpoaea, as well as it would be needed for additional entrance into
the park.
Office Engineer Jay Titus, in reaponae to Commission questioning, stated that the lateat
suggestion regarding a second acceas on Howell Avenue would eliminate left turns othPr
than at intersections for east-bound traffic;so'.that a left turn would be made at Howell
Avenue, and thig would be much more desirable than the plan originally submitted.
However, he was not sure that the median strip went beyond this acceasway.
Mr. Ledger Smith, the petitioner, advised the Cormniasion that the median atrip extended
all the way to Howell Avenue, and although a left hand turn could be accomplished, it
would be preferable that it be doae at the interaection; that they were attempting to do
what was right on the property, but the Commission was faced with a request which bordered
the M-1/C-R area, and they were stuck with thia parcel; that they were attempting to
determine whether or not to preserve the property for future development for industrial
purposes or to use the property for ita highest and best use; that he felt this proposal
would encourage the retention of t1~e area for industrial uses; and that there was a need
for travel trailer parks in Anaheim.
Mr. Va Verka noted that there was a letter on file from the representative of the Wally
Byam Airstream Trailer Ciub for retired people who indicated approval of the proposed
travel trailer park aite since this would bring people into~the area; that they were not
talking about a minor improvement on the property which could be written off in ten years
because the tax base would.be there; that establishment of this facility would bring money
into the c,ommunity by these travelers and should be encouraged; that they were desirous of
being good neighbors, and to get off on the right track, they realized they were proposing
something on the outskirts of the M-1 araa, but if they had selected a parcel farther to
the north, it would not have been appropriate; that their proposal would act as a buffer
zone and should be used to encourage future development of the property; that the peti-
tioner had owned th~.s property aince 1937, and, furthermore, the petitioner had contacted
adjoining landawuers and industry to get their feelinga; and that the major landowners in
the area were to the north of subject property, and then read a comment made by Mr. Dunn ~
who was presently developing an industrial park to the northeast of subject property
,~~- ~ ,~
,
`1
~ ''r ~ r .~ y ~ ~ ~ r . ~ y ~ ~ + ~ ~ -.Ct - F i ~~,
~. ` ! ~, . 2 - ~ L
~ . . ~.~~_~_. ~~ . ~
. . ~~ ~- , ~ .. ~. ~ . . . ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CO1~AiISSION, Novemh2r 30, 1970 5516 !
CONDITIONAL U5E - which indicated he was not'opposed to the proposal since industries
PERMIT N0. 1213 in their complex:would be light industrial uses.with no multiple shifts
(Continued) and no exaessive noises.and.odors.
Mr. Merrill Skillings, representing the Industrial Division of the
Chamber of Co~nerce,appeared before the Commiasion and noted that the Chamber of.Co~erce
had always been oppoaed to any undesirsble encroachment into the industrial areas because
they felt the City needed the industrial tax_base°and the joba which these industries
would.create for the residents of the City, and that the industrial co~i~Ce.e of the
Chamber of Commerce hai! reviewed the proposal in a fair amount of detail and were express-
ing their opposition to it.
Mr. Skillings also noted he represented Northrup Corporation ~ho leased 250,000 square
feet of building located on 30 acres of land just north of Howell Avenue east of State
College Boulevard; that the.owner of the 30 acres, which included Century Data and
National Biscuit Company,.the lessees,who hed a five to ten million dollar investment
in this pmperty, and they had asked him to express their opposition to subject petition
since ~.t Was purchased under. the asa~ption the entire area was prime industrial land
whi.ch wpuld remain that way; that in addition to the owner, he had also Ealked with people
erecting the industrial park adjacent to sub~ect property who had adviaed him they would
never t~ave built their park if they had felt there would be any residential or non-
industrisZ encroachmeatt into this industrial area; that the Northrup plant in the North-
cen~afl Ind.us~ii+ia~l:Area onOrangethorpeAvenuewas a'lso across the street from a mobile home
parEc, and since chey wanted to be good neighbors, they were sensitive to the concerns of
i ±hese`resic~ents - t~erefore, when any manufacturing layout project was considered, they
' would schedule it on the opposite side of the plant in order to keep from annoying the
residents of the mobile home park; and that based on that, he did not feel the Commission
ahouTd p~rmlt encroachment of this use into the industrial area.
Mr. Gordon Gutler, Induatrial Repreaentative of the Santa Fe Railroad, appeared before the
Co~issioa in opposition and stated that subject property was one of the very few parcels
rema3ning which had access to the Santa Fe track; that since the Southeast Industrial.Area
,had so few chmice land•sitea on railroad tracks, si~B~ezt9prbpeL~~•"should be retained for
in~iustrfal.purposea; that Howell Avenue was a whisEle crossing; that even though guests of
therpa=k would_be overnighb guests, the train whistle would awaken these people; and that
men,y induetries had to operate at night in order to meet their commitments on orders.
Mr. Va Verka, in rebuttal, stated that the opposition was making statements of generalities
with the specifics, and Ehe opposition was just protecting the underlying ownera - however,
the'lesseea had submitted letEers to the Planning Commiasion reco~ending approval and
indicating tHey did not oppose the proposal; that the assistant to Che preaident of the
industrial planc to the north was present at the hearing for a while but had to leave and
had indicated his willingness to accept this proposal, but Mesers. Howell and Woods ~-in~
had_also been present and had indicated on a sheet of paper to ~him that they were imp'l~e~L_
with the operation after it was explained and that they felt thiie was a good and proper
place for the project.
THE HEARIN6 WAS CLOSED.
Mr. Slaughter advised the Co~isaion that the proposed trailer park ordinance provided for
a 20-foot aetback abutting an arterial - however, this was only provided the property was
other than the M-1 2one where it probabiq:WoLTd exic~ed~the.zone setrback requirement.• ~~
However, the propoaed ordinance did not take into account for the possibility of eatablish-
ing this use in the M-1 Zone wherein a 50-foot building aetback vas required of all
induatries.
Commissioner Seymour stated it was his feeling that the problem appeared to be very clear
whether or not the Co~ission would give way to the introduction of a uae that might be
considered appropriate by adjoining landowners, but the Co~ission would be setting an:_
extremely dangerous precedent if aubject petition were approved which would result in
increasing the land values, thereby no longer making this area economically feasible to
develop the adjoining properties for industrial uses; that approval would be creating a
use which should be established in the Co~ercial-Recreation Zone; that approval of the
proposed setback would be placing the established and future industries in a posi~tion of
requiring them to set back the 50 feet within said zone while permitting the proposed use
to extend out nearer the street - thus granting a privilege which they did not enjoy.
Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC70-216 and moved for its passage and adoption
to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1213 on the basis that approval of said
petition would set an undesirable precedent by introducing an incompatible use into an
area planned and almost completely develope: for industrial purposes; that Katella Avenue
~ r; , ^~:~
- i
~ ,y l a
~' ~ ~~ ~~v ~` F ~ g{+~.'. fi b ~,r~ a5 ".,.'~~~Ar ~y ~ '" -Ct . '~ +. ~i'"" . 2~ y >'w Z; 'w r -
.'' S T . ^ 1~ . 4 ', ~ y ' .
~~ .: ~.
~•.~ rl'~'" L I~~~ Ir/..~ t` . C' ! .' ' T %~"
,. .i ~ . ..
. . .. . ~ .4 . ,.` .
.
~
~. ~--~..~~~ Y.. 4": .. .
. i . .~~~~ ... : '" _ ~ .. :
. .. ~~.:'.'. ~~
.
.. . ..~~ '- ~ ' . ~.. .. .. : . ~., .
~ ~ . . . : . . l~~ ..~ ~ ~ . .. . . . ~.. ,
. ~ ~ ~ : . ~ ~ ~ ' ~ '
- , . . . - . ' ~ .
MINUTES, CITY.PLANNING COrIIiISSION,,November 30, 1970- 5517
CONDITIONAL USE - was the'logical boundary betweea the co~ercial-recreation and M-1
PERMIT N0.'1213 uses; that,the proposed,use had some of`the'attributes of a quasi-
'(Continued) residential ut+e,~anv;-the industrial area should be protected from
the encroachment o£ even quasi-residential uses due to the inherent
- conflicts beEween.these types of'uaes; that approval of the zequirpd
:front setback area"waiver",would be granting a privilege to the
petitioner which was.not enjoyed by~other properties in Ehis general ares; and that the
,proposed use.would,adversely affect the adjoining land.uses and the growth and development
of the industrial area in which.it was propoaed~to be:located. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the fore~qoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
l~i~BS~ COrQiISSIONERS, Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbat, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour.
NOES: . -COI~IISSIONERS: Nosie.
ABSENT: . COI~ASISSIONERS: None.
VARIANCE N0. 2221 = PUBLIC HEARING. WALTER SCE~SIDT, 513 North Hawthorue Street, Anaheim,
California,.Owner; requesting WAIVER OF MAXIMUM REAR YARD COVERAGE ori.
property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having
a frontage of approximate~y 59 feet on the west si~3e of Hawthorne
Stireet, having a maximum depth of approximately 109 feet, and being located approximately
150 feet north of the centerline o£ Sycamo=e:Street, and further described as 513 North
Hawthorne Street. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTiAL, ZONE.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the lacation of aubject property,.
uses eatablished in close proximity, and the proposal to:permit an existing stxucture to
remain.in the required rear yard; that said structure was constructed approximately ten
years ago without benefit of bui'Idiisg•.permits; that the petitioner now proposed to legal-
ize the existing addition by requesting appraval of subjec;: petition; aad that the
Commiesion would have:to'determine whether there was any justification or hardship shown
to warrant approval of a variance of this magnitude.
Mr. John Lundi, 3Y6 East Broadway,.appeared before the Cos~ission and noted he represented
the petitioner who had tHis additioa built~~approximately ten years ago and was designed
and built~by.a contractor f=iend from another-city; that it was not in accordance with
special requirements of the City of'Anaheim, although he was a California contractor; that
the petitioner approached the 4ity on his own volition to obtain approval of this addition
an~ had placed the property up'for sale because Mra. Schmidt.had to move to smaller
quarters~because of her health; and that all of the neighbors adjoining subject property
except-one had signed a petition approving the addition.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
'~HE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Zoning Supervieor Charles Roberts advised the Commiasion that there were five signatures
of adjoining property owners on subject petition, all in favor.
Commissioner Farano inquired of Mr. Lundi whether or not the present owner was responsible '
for this addition and had conatructed it with the assistance of a contractor, and was the
contractor a licensed contractor.
Mr. Lundi replied that the contractor was from La Habra snd was licensed; that there was
no queation that the addition was a v~olation of tho ~onin3 code - however, there still
was 26 feet between this addition and t~e home and was built i~ediately ad~acent to the
garage along the rear property line.
Chairman Herbst noted that iE the petitioaer would have come to the City before he built
his addition and obtained a building permit, which he was sure the contractor was aware ~
was needed, thESe problems would not have occurred. '
Co~issioner Farano inquired whether or not the addition met the Building Code reGuire-
ments; whereupon Mr. Lundi replied that they ha6 conta~ted the Buil~ing Department~ as to
any code violations and knew what had to b~ done for the building to be brought up to
code. However, before the addition was brought up to code, the petitioner wanted to know
whether or not this addition could remain.
Co~issioner Farano then inquired vhether or not the addition hed'been in conformance with
Building Code requirements at the time it was constructed; whereupon Mr. Lundi stated that
the Building Department and he had research~d this it~, and the addition was in violation
at that time. -
,~ ;; _ - .. ,, -~
J F
?' ~ry.. ~v .p~r ± *~. `~` . ~ -~F~ a 3.• ~ $ j rf~ } : ~ r ~ ~ x`A~ ~ j ~~ ~ j -L'~' ~ ,t, "~*' x- 1 E ' ik :
~ ~ , f +.._,..~_r.~ ~ t~s`" ~ v . t
~ ~~ '~~
~
MINUTES, CYTY PLANNING CO1~fISSliitd, November 30, 1970.
_ , 5518
VARIANCE`NO, 2221 - Co~iasionei Farano then stated that he did not.feel inclined to
(Continued) compel Mr. SchmidC to tear down:this building, and he would assume
failure to:approve~any illegal use would mean the proapective pur~haser
would be'unable to obtain financing. '
Mr..~Lundi replied this was~a correct assumption - however, they:did not have a prospect, ~
and Ehis build.ing,was.only a recreation-building where the.Schmidts entertained and ate f~
their meals.in the summertime, and.that it was the'petitioner's intent to bring the. !
building up,'to the•.requi'r•emen~s:of the<Building Code'if eubject petition were approved. t~
Chairman Herbst inquired whettier or not the total Iot coverage was over the maximum j
~ permitted:in the R-1.Zone; whereupon Mr. Roberts sEated it was below the maximum 40%
coverage = however, the violation occurred in the coverage of`the rear yard which was in 1
excess o.f.64~ whereas only 25~ was permitted.` • ,'
Co~issioner Kaywood inquired how;cloae the additioii was:to the rear lot line; whereupon
` Mr. Lundi replied. that it was 1~'feet.from the lot 1ine, and although they had attempted
~ thecontact the adjoining property owner who was primarily affected by this structure,
y apparently,'were not at home.
' Chairman Herbst,noted that the petitioner was entitled to a lot coverage o£ 407 and this
was leas than the 40% allowed.
Co~issioner Rowland noted that there was a possibility this existing structure would be
below the.public utility easement; whereupon Mr. Slaughter replied that many of the tiomea
in this general area had garages in the same location, and that evidently it was permitted
when this was done.
Commissioner.Farano offered Reaolution No. pC70-217 and moved for ita passage and adoption
to grant Petition for Variance No: 2221, subject to the existing building being brought up
to the Building,.Electrical, and,Plumbing Codes.within ninety daps. (See.Resolution Book)
Comaiasioner Farano, in offering the motioa, stated that he was not in favor of.what the
petitioner had done and having violated all of the City's ordinances regarding coverage, ~`
bui4fli~4g permits, and:building code requirements - however, he was interested only in
,seeing to 3E`Ehat the building now on the property,was brought"up,to Code prior to any ~
sale.of the property; that,'there were tno many instances of this nature where geople, ,
violated the regulations, and although~.tt was not necessary for him to express his own
opinion, he did not,want the petitioner to feel that he was not being chretised for
constructing an addition without legal approqal. Furthermore, he.felt that the building
contractor;should lose hia licenae because he was fully aware of the requirements of most
cities, and Anaheim was no,exception.
N•
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbat, Rowland, Seymour.
NOES: COi1tiIS~IONERS; Kayy~ood.
ABSENT: 'COMifISSIONERS: None.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING, HERgERT A, T~,NNER, b53 South Weatern Avenue, Anaheim,
N0. 70-71-21 California, Owner; requeating that property described as: An irregu-
larly shaped paxcel of land located at the northwest corner of Weatern
Avenue and Stonybrook Driv~ and having frontages of approximately 90 ~ ~'
~` feet on Weatern Avenue and approximately 240 feet on Stonybrook Drive
and further deacribed as 653 South Western Avenue be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL
ZONE to the R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE:
Assistant 2oning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property,
uses ~stablished in close proximity, and the proposal to split off the rear of the property '
and:create a second parcel fronting on Stonybrook Drive since the petitiotter had submitted
a house-moving permit to t'~e City ~ouncil and it was:his intent to move a house onto the
newly-created parcel; that due to the minimum one-acre lot size in the R-A Zone, the
applicant was unable to aplit off the property without',receiving approval of a zone having
a lesaer lot size`- therefore, the R-1 Zone would accomplish this, and it would appear to
be appropriate for the area.
Mr. Herbert Tanner, the petitioner, indicated hia preaence to answer questions.
Commisaioner 911red left the Council Chamber at 5:18 P.M.
No one appeared in oppositioa to aubject petition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
~~.:_ r~.~"Y~iv`.~"_n'4 r.~'.`~..,:.~'~"~R~:1~ ~t+1{ .F'.t.t~cS~~T4n~j1F~Y~'>Yfh Y
l" ~'aCp lIJ-~3~1
~.
_.i~~'~ tyX f+„1I
_
.
..~
, ~1
~
_
;~~ ~ . ' .. ``"~' .
,3
~;
,:~
MINUTES, CITY PLANN1IhG:CO1~AIISSION, November 30,,1970 5519
~
RECLl,SSIFICATION - Zoning Supervisor Charles Rob~erts noted that if subjecE petition
were x
:
.
pproved Condifion No
, N0,.~70 71-21 - a , s,'4 and 6 skould be' deleted. _ ~,~r;
.
; , (Continued).~,,
• Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC70-218 and moved for 3ts'
` y
~~xi.
- _.>. ' ;paseage:and adoption to.:reco~end to'the City Council that Petition .
~:t'
- for,Reclessificetion No. 70=71 21 be;approved, sub ect to conditions.
j (See'Reaolution
~ ~.
~`~'°`
- Book) , r .
~
,:~: _ ;,
,,
~:5;•.
~_;.
On roll call the'foregoing:resolution.was passed
by tNe following vote: ~: Y~~
g,K.~
,
AYES COAAfISSIONERS: ,Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood,;;Rowland, Seymour. ~~ .
~
, ;NOES: - . OOIII~iISSIONERS:: _..None. ' " '
;
~ ABSENT: ;;CO1~Il~iISSIONERS: :Allred. _
~~
AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18 .- PUBLIC HEARING 'INITIATED"BY THE CITY Pi,ANNING CO11PfISSION, 204
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL COD&' 'East Lincoln Avenue, Ariaheim,,,California, to consi3er the addition
.of bhapter"18.59,,Scenic„Coriidor Overlay (SO) Zone to Title 18,
Zoning, of;the Anaheim Municipal Code,;coverfng property located
in ttie general,vicinity;of the-Santa Ana Caayon area fn east "
~ •Anafieim. ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~~,
Associate Planner ponald McDeniel reviewed;°'for the Commission,the`proposal to establish a
`
Scenic
Overlay 2one in the:area encompassed;.by~whet was'knowci°`as the.Santa'Ana Canyon ~' ;~;`
which was;recognized`by many as one of the most naturally beautiful areas in northern ,
;r
~` Orange.County and contained a.distinctive'c,haracter thaE was eacemplified by three primary „A
~.
natural•features and their.inEerrelationships; the>rolling terrain,' the winding river "a~
,
and the"eucalyptus tree windbresks;,that,all efforta should be'made to maintain the ''a'
distfnctive~ character•they;emglified by retention"or expansion of'the impact of these :;~
natural:features, that;`the SEate'.of California had given .recognition to its scenic values
and h
d
e
na
e ;J`
a
.d
sig
ted th
=:Riverside Freeway:as,a potential scenir~highway, and th~. necessary
sEepe•to.achieve full:designation were"outlined in the publication; "A Scenir"houEe - A ;
,
Guide,for the Designation of`an Official`Scenic H£ghway",• that.:the City in determining I ~"
this was'an area which:'should:have its'natural beaut 'reteined'had
y expanded.the area from
ha
lo ~%
;
,,.
t
t a
ng the Riverside Freeway,to:encompass the ~area,between.the fwo ridge_lines of.the ,
•=ti'
Ewo aeparate'sections;of the,$anta Ana Mountaina'which formed the canyon and
which were
_
tlie corridor:boundaries based upon tfie range of visibilit}*~`~'om the Riverside Freeway;
and thaE 'in order to encourage the'continuation of the techniques of the Scenic Corridor i
Zone,~the:Planning Commiasioa had sp"ent!a.great deal_of time in`: studies of the corridor
~ ~
in;
the.Santa Ana'.Canyon'Area in terms of what it had to,offer as a acenic highway and ` ~`=
what resErictions should be enacted to ermit develo
p pments which maximize tne enjoyment ~ '~~
,
of:the natural amenities'of the landscape while `still maintaining appropri.ate densities
:
';
and.uaes establiahed in the"General P1an.-,These:included building height limitations to ,
~'
avoid blocking views,"development review procedure to help maintain development continuity,
billboard limitations,:additional on-premise aign control, and increased ouilding setbacks
adjacent to freewEys:and arterials to aid in the reduction of road noiae and help inaure
privacy. _Furthermore;-oEher sections of the Anaheim Municipal Code would have to be amended ,
~' as they pertained to Ehe aubdivfsion ordinance to insure that development would be conducted
!~ with'a minimum of_earth.work,:ail utilities.be;placed underground, and in lieu of nurbe and
.guEters along;Santa Ana Canyon Road, a fee could be'paid for screen landscaping. -
Mr. McDaniel, in concluaion, noted that much of the existing development throughout Orange
County exemplified a typical lack o
f concern for environmenta2 quality, and since the
-:a~
- Santa Ana Canyon Area'was one of the~few remaining.areas in Orange County with pristine,
natural feaLures,to insist upon a sensible and logical plan as development proceeded'east-
ward was the sesponsibility.of the City of Anaheim.
Co~isaioner G,auer remarked that Ehe State of California had set aside the Riverside
Freeway,as a scenic'highway - however,.he would like to co~ent on the fact that in the
conatruction of the.Route 57 .(Orange) Freeway through,Brea Canyon, the State had scarified
this with a roadway that looked like a railroad - the hills or, both sides of the road were
scarified, deatroying>all of the beauty of the canyon and reducing tlie poasibility of
~ ~
developing this canyon as a scenic road to_almost zero. Therefore, i£ the Citry of Anaheim
and the,.County of Orange intended,that the Santa`Ana Canyon Area be retained as a scenic
corridor, every effort poasible should be expended to retain this corridor from the east
as a corridor of beauty;for automobile tourists.
Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson advised the Co~ission that
although a number of the property owners were present in the CounciT Chamber for the
public hearing, many of the property owners had just received copies of the proposed
Overlay Zone. ..,___
a ~-rn~~ x o~u~i ~ A; r -. 1 ..f :.: _; .,...
~,~` w 1 ~. .. ,w, r:" ._--'~~~.~~es
- ~ ~ . ~ ..::_ . ~ ~,. ~> ~ :. ~ . . .
..• . ., ';~.~ . ,. . ,:, . ' . . , '~~ ~ '.._ .:
MINUTES,,CITY PLANNING.CO~IlifISSION, November 30, 1970
~ , , . . . 5520
AMENDMENT ;TO TITLE 18 - Mr ~Jamea Liberio; 1720 West La Pa1ma Avenue,,.appeared before
ANAHEIM'MUNICIPAI. CODE` the,Commission and,noted~that he had'receided-a-:copy of t~he
(Continued) proposed~Overlay 2one only ten':minutes.ago',`cand,from first~
` appearance;'';he,would.nob have Coo much;dieagreement = however,
'. tie:;wo,uld need several.hours to assimilate,the impact of this
proposal';on ttie property owners in ,tfie area:~wli;ch it would encompass'. . Therefore, he
would recommend°Ehat;Ehis b'e~continued'for~about;`thirty days to allow time for sll of
the residents to:review the;,proposal;and.discuss iE.in,'detail. `,
Commissioner Ferano noEed that one.of the problems:which'might reault'in any further"
postponement'was:the;'fact,that the.City,-and this:area in_general, would,lose many of
the trees:.'and windbrealcs before this Overlay Zone became final'.
Mr:;Liberio noted that they'had moved.their windbreaks about two yeara ago, and it cost
them $2;000 just:;.to remove them, and to Erim Ehe'trees was much more.'expensive:
Ca,mmis~sioner Allred.inquired of Mr. Liberio:whetFter,he fe1C the,acenic corridor could be.
reEained.by remoyal~of the trees.:-
MrilLibeiio stated there were.many requirements in.the Overlay Zone that would be very
difficult for these pioperty owners to meet without expending a considerable.amount of
money - therefore, they;would need more time_to study this proposal before the Commisa3on
took any'action. "FurEhermore,,they could not dev~elop their property until action was
ta
ken,by the City;Council.on,the density study wh'.^h was a General Plan amendment.
Chairman.Herbst noted-that the Co~iesion could only recommend'the'adoption of this
Ove=lay Zone.to the City Council.
Assistant.Zoning.Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter noted for interested;persons that the
density proposel,;under;;Ehe General P1an Amendment No. I22 would not affect the Scenic
Corridor;Overlay Zone;_whether it remained in ita gresent form or not since the Overlay
2one would'apply_;to whatever zone:wae approved.
Commissioner"Farano indicated he was hesitant to postpone any serious consideration of
the'adoption of,this Overlay.Zone, and this-should be continued only long enough to give
the,property owners time to.ac_quaint themselves wiEh the proposal.
Mr ,',Liberio noted,that if they'were_unable to develop their property in the canyon, it
wouTd make;no~difference to him what happened or wAa done ia the'corridor. However, if
the property owners in the canyon area.he.represented were permitted to develop, then he
would~be,concerned with the restrictions since, in the past,.they had aot been able to
develop`their;property.
Mr. Thompson noted that he would asaume the Cortm~ission and the property owners would like
to have an anawer before February when,the City Council again con~eidered the density
study, General Plan Amendment No.122 - therefora, he would suggest: a four-week cantinuance.
However, this would schedule the hearing during the middle of the holiday season, and
perhape a six-week:continuance might be more realistic.
Co~issioner Seymour noted he could understand the statements made, but he could not under-
stand why a six-week continuance was necessary when the Co~niasion went through ae~3eIIa1~:•
leng~hy hearings on the density study, and the Commission was accused of procrastinating~-
however, if the property owners and staff needed more than two weeks, then perhaps it
ehould be continued.
Mr. Liberio reiterated the fact that they.could not be building in the c,anyon until the
City Council determined whaE the density would be for the area.
Mr. Slaughter noted that the City Courail several yeara ago had approved a portion of the
Yorba property for commerci'al uaea at the.intersection of Imperial Highway and Santa Ana
Canyoa Road, and a request would be conaidered~for'an extension of time or approval of
plans for this property prior fo the time the City Council took action on the density
study,end the Overlay'Zone would not affect the Yorba request.
Co~issioner Seymour noted that he had no intention of railroading this proposal through
by any means = however, he felt twa weeks was adequate to reEd and atudy the proposal,
and, surely, the Co~ission did not need six weeks.
~ Chairman Herbst noted that the Overlay 2one would affect all the property owners, both ~ ~
large and small, in the canyon - therefore, they should be fully aware of the proposal, ~ ,~
i
and with the holidays, two weeka' continuance was not sufficien't.
Co~issioner Seymour noted that once one of these rows of eucalyntus trees was removed, V~
it would be gone and the acenic corridor would be affected by such a removal. ~
'14-
~p.L+'~AW
~ r
" ~'Y.~~et~,yY7}R 3-~ 1~ ~'t~'z
}~ ~ ~'t'lt ~ .~„~. ~~i-.3~' ~.Ik ~ .}~1
~ {' `b~f A'
4'~ 2' k . ~)~. ~~W
~ r
S ~
~,
'fi
^ F~ ~~,J }'~kiEir n~ +f`~Y'~J-~~ k~P f F'~~ w- -S
4' ~1;.j~' ~' 0.7' ""i ~ »'F..f -.3~ Z F
I. ..
~ / ~ Y~ 7
~
~ 4 ..
~~. ~ r..
5
$
L
,~,,
+
G~
S
p
y.
`k';~`~'~ ; ~' 2 ~. ~w . ;s T/"x 7 ,T~l~'~ v-!L .~.~ f,r~,5a~;.rz +~{
'~ r`" 7 t -^" ~c/`
k'f .~
ai ~ 1 ~ .
s'~q2ii ' ~ t
' L
_rR ,
' / k
' c e .
` rj
~.~ ~;._..
R'~~
r
:~~
~~
`
s'~J
'-~
~
~ ~ ~.~ r
.
r ~
,
~
.
d
a ~
,
~ ~
r
t ti'
>
~~N ~. . . .
~~i . .. ~
' ~ . . . .
~r
~ + ~
~ YjP _ .
. . ~ . ~ ~ . . ~ . .
~~~f MINUTES,.CITY"PLANNING
COPBiISSION,.Novembes 30
1970
, ~`
~
~ _
,
.
5521 (
~
1f,.,~~
~' AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18" Co~issioner Farano inquired.as to what prohibitions or reatric-
ANAHEIM:MUNICIPAL CODE tions
h
e
~
~ ~
1
L'}' t
er
:were on developmer.t~in the canyon since cou~ents were
',(Continued) . made that';th
p
~
o
~ e
y
P p p y
pr
ert ownera could not develo their ro ert in
r,
,
~ any way ~
~~
~
Mr Slaughter noted that there were properties on which no zoning action had taken place
up to
he
s S~`
~~
~,
~ t
pre
ent time; and:this~larid could not be deva2oped, but where zoning action had
taken place, these people coqld develo
itho
h
z
'F^
~` p w
ut t
e ove
lay standards.
` -- ';i , , : , . , if
~
~ Commiasioaer Farano noted.,Ehat a tw~o-week continuance was insufficienE £rom a standpoint
of:allovipg the~;pro
e
`t
n
' y~
p
r
y ow
ers time to
read the proposal.and digest it and talk among
themselye's and
to coordinate;
their co~en
s~ K;f,;,,
,
;
t
in order that an ordesly presentation could
be~made '! Hwever, he 'was~opposed to a~six-week continu2nae:
;s
,~.
Commiseioner Seymoui,..noted that in view of the disaent and talk about saving the ecology
throughout~
the co
t
~
.
un
ry;and r
taining..the netural environment, and siuce this now vas an
opportuni'ty;for;:the,Commisaion and
the City of Anah
im to
,
e
do something very conatructive,
to_continue the Overlay~,Zone for a lengthy period could-reduce'the possibility of savin
h
f
,.
g
muc
o
thi
, s. natural emironment: _
c;;,
Coamissioner Geuer offered a motion'to continue conaideration of Amendment to Title 18,
Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.59
Sc
ni
or ^~
,
e
c C
ridor Overlay 2one, to.the meeting of
January>11, 1971, to be scheduled`as the'firat item on the a
enda
C
mi "
'
g
.
om
ssioner Herbst
seconded`the~moEion. MOTION CARRIED.
~
~
-
_
.. . ~ ~ . .
- , . ~
. ~
~
'
- ~. i:~}~
;~ , ~.. . .~ . . .
. .
~..: ,.. .. .
.
REPORTS AND", _ - ITEM N0. 1 :.x,-.•
RECOri[iENIy~TIONS ~ PROPOSED ORDINANCE FOR MOBILEHOME AND TRAVEL TRAILER PARKS ~';~'
Assiatant 2oning Supervisor.Malcolm Slaughter noEed for the Cou~mission that a draft of
the~pr
se ?
opo
d ordinarice had been submitted to the Planning Commisaion in:their packets
together;with a~digest of explanato
ty
notes r
di
.
.
egar
ng?the proposed ordinance and requested
that said proposed'amendment;to Title 18 be set`for-public hearing. `
, _ ~~~
~
Commisaioner Rowland offered.a motion to set for public,hearing on December 28, 1970,
consideration of
th
pro i
~
;
e
posed ordinance for mobilehome and tradel trailer parks, Chapter
18':61. Co~iasioner Farano seconded the mofion. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM N0,~2 ~
'CONDITIONAL USE'PERMIT N0: 1172 (Richerd J. Barry) - ~
Property located.on the eaet aide of Beach Boulevard, ~
,approximately 1,000 feet south af Lincoln Avenue -
RequeaE for an exteneion of time.
Assiatant<Zoning Supervlsor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed for the Cowniasion the location of
subject property ai~d the
r
a
w
p
opos
l
hich was approved by the Planning Commisaion May YS,
1970, for the expenaion of an existing mobilehome
ark a
d the
p
n
request of the petitioner
that a six-monL•h extension of time be granted due to difficulty in obtainin
a b
d
t
g
on
to
guaran
ee installation of the required improvements.
~
i
Comuiesioner Rowland offered a motion to grant a aix-month extension of time,to expire
May 18
1971
for th
c
_ ,
,
e
ompletion of conditiona in approval of Conditiona2 Use Permit
No..1172 in Reaolution No: PC70-79: Commission
K
~
er
aywood aeconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
ITEM N0. 3 i
CONUITIONAI, USE PERMIT.NO. 1175 (J. Lentz) - Property
located on the south side of L£ncoln Avenue, epproximately
565 fe
t e
o '
e
ast
f the centerline of Dale Avenue - Requeat
f
r a
v
'
o
ppro
al
of precise development plans.
Assistant 2oning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property,
uaes eetablished in cl
s
xi '
o
e pro
mity, previous zoning action on Ehe property, and the
requeet for approval of preciae plans wherei
pe
i
n a
rm
tted 48-apace overnight travel
trailer park had been"reduced to 39 spaces in conjunction with
i
~ an ex
ating motel; that
a,requirement of approval of subject petition was the submiasion of the precise plana;
and thaf
i an analyais of the plans indicated that tk.~se plans met almost all of the
requirements of th
pr
o
e
op
sed trailer park ordinance except for access.
The Commiseion reviewed the preciae plans and discussed ita merits as they pertained
to the amenities of the
project.
_ - - ~ '..:
r~ ~°~- K~%~ ,~ K2`: id"rc~ ~. ~r'.~~`9'dr .F '~i ~ T ~ ",~lh'~ ~ J'. .~ k d t.? ~ L J~ ~ , x "~-~•, , ''.,~.:Y' K ~ ~. : _ .q .s
'ti :i:v < ~a ~+,-~4'j' ~t t `d i " ~ .~.~
~' ,i r r t ~.; _ :~
~ . .~:, .,, . . , . . . .
s
~~~~. ' .. . ~.~ ~ . . ~ .. ~ . . ~t
~ ,
i
MiNUTES, CITY PLANNING COA1[iI8SI0N, November 30, 1970 ~!
5522
R$PO$TS AND` ~ r
- RECOPQSENDATIONS - ITFM N0. 3 (Continued) '
' ",'+';
Co~issioner Allred offered a motion to Eecommend to the.City Council approval of precise
plans for a'39-space travel,trailer par~t,originally_approved by the Citp Council June 23, ^
1970;:for.a 48-space.park,.as being substantially~an improvement over that originaliy ';
proposed wfien the..use was considered`and approved.by.the Ylanning Commiaeion June 2, 1970.
Co~iiasioner. Gauer seconded the motion. MOTTON CARRIED. (Commissioner Farano voted "no"
and Commissioner Allred.was absent) : . ^~
j~
ITEM N0. 4 ':~
~ REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION - KITGHEN FACILITIES IN .
MOTEL UNITS (Unidyne Engineering - Thomas A. Jonea)
Aas,istant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter seviewed the location of subject pxoperty
and noted ttfat it was just easterly of the Melodyland site; that the proposal was to build
a 400-unit "motel" structure; that the property presently was zoned l~-A but had a resolution
of intent_to Ehe`C-R, Commercial-Recreation, Zone, and if exercised would permit a motel
use; that-the petitioner had aubmitted schematic plana.for a 400-unit motel on the property
and'of.these, 62~ of the units were proposed to have kitcinen facilities; that there were
124'units having two and three bedrooms and 127 units having Qne bedroc.~m and large living
rooms; that the staff had reviewed the plana and had determined that the pro,ject, while
labeled a motel, appeared to be a residential unit designed along R-3 srari~ards, and it
, was quite unusual for a motel unit to have three bedroom~, a living room, and two baths;
that staff°was unwilling to issue a permit for this uae until the City Council and the
Planning Co~ission could determine whether kitchen facilities were appropriate in a motel
or whether the number of kitchen facilitiea ahouid not be limited; that if the Planning
Coa~ission determined aome limitation would be appropriatey one possibility would be to
limit the kitchen units to 15% or 20x, and another approach would be to require a condi-
tional use,permit in any case where kitchen facilities were proposed in a proposed motel;
that the Code definition of a hotel provided..,. ;'~here no provision was made for cooking
in any individual room or auite", thereby excluding kitchen facilities. However, a motel
_definition did not have a similar prohibition against cooking facilities in an individual
room, and this might have been due to an over9ight in drafting the ordinance or it might
have been the intent of the Planning Commission and City Council that kitchen facilities
be permitted in.motels, and that an additional problem could be anticipated if this
project were operated as a standard apartment complex aince the parking proposed was
designed to motel standards and there would be entirely insufficient parking spaces based
upon the Gity s experience with standard R-3 projecta - therefore, if the property wece
to be operated as a residential use, the City could anticipate large parking overflovs in
this area.
I i
I~~ ~;
~ ~~
i J
~ ~9
`i
'~
~
i.
i
,
Mr. Slaughter, in conclusion, stated that staff would recommend the Cou~iseion make a
determination as to whether kitchen.unita should be permitted in motels, and if they were
deemed appropriate, the Co~ission might decide what percentage of the units should be
permitted to have kitchen unita and whether a conditional use permit should be required
in the event kitchen facilities were proposed.
Chairman Herbst was of the opinion that anyone who would present a set of plane for ~
Commission consideration,which to all intent and purposes vas an apartment operation, '
insulted the Coamiiasion's intelligence and should never have been brought to the Co~ission. ~
Mr. Thomae A. Jones, 328 Walnut Street, eppeared before the Commission and noted that this '~
would involve a four million dollar project; that the proposal was slanted tosiard tempor- '
ary, short-stay family~•units at conventions and tourist areas; that the amount of money '
which this project would cast would not lend itself to an apartment-type residential use ~
since it would be necessary to ask $400 a month for aingle-bedroom units, and this would q
not be practical or posaible - therefore, he would state this should not be considered an '
apartment complex.
Co~issioner Gauer noted that motels in the City of Anaheim seemed to advertise to attract
people to stay by the month during the wintertime - therefare, it would be possible to do
that with this particuZar project. ,
Commiasioner Farano inquired how the developer intended to acc;~mplish this, by calling it
a motel instead of an apartment.
Mr. Jonea replied that it was their feeling this was not att apartment operation - that
they had several play yards for children, baby-sitting was proposed, barber shops, beauty
shopa, and other small shops were propoaed, and this would not be oriented toward apart-
ment development.
~w T Fi ~~ ~,n-~,~ ~fi~ r,~,,.~ ~ 4 t~t ~'"a.~~v!'~t "'~,(~~ ,~"~"y, I`1"7'~<7,3~~~"~ ti a~~ .~J r ~~S`f~ 1 "t'S' ~a } ~' ~4 r ~ „'
~ •~A y„ ~ ~ 1+ . 4. ~~¢ Mq~. ~ ~ y1„"'j".H1LTy` .7Y~ ~,4x ~~ ~~j-v~ ~• y ~ 1 ~ ~ 4C [ ~ t-, W
~ ~ FMSir1.C ; r/~Citild~cJt '~';~~~~"~.,,_~~.3,..~~-~~} ri%n,~i4~P$e~~ L ~ ?~~a f `+ ~ ~.- ..~~
~ - ~ ~,..;: ~ "
~ c "~I
~.. ~q.K ''.. ;., ~_~ ' .._ - . . .-:- (~ ~. ..
MINUTES,: CITY PLANNING;COMMISSION, November.30, 197(~ 5523
• .. . .
REPORTS AND, .
RECOA4IENDATIONS - '- ITEM'.NO.. 4 : (Continued) -
Chairman Herbst:noted:that many of the large aperEment developments in the City of Anaheim
and surioundirig;towns:have theae same amenities,,end it was'his.apinion that.the developer
was attempting.Eo negate the apartment house,or.R-3 ~rQinance by.submittiag this as a
motel -.,therefore, if_.the.petitioner were propoeipg this as an,apartment, he should requesk
` the psopei zoning.for 'it: ~ ;;
Mr: Jones~stated;that:.the purpoae of p=eaenting the plans was to obtain an interpretation
as.to wheeher or':not the,proposed pe=centage.:o:E unita could have that number of kitchen
facilities
Mr: Slaughter`noted that in the past the C~nisston had limited the number of'motel units
to lOx,;,hoaiever, the City Council in the~paet had approved a number of moEel unite with
lOQX kitchen:,facilities - however,_these were apecial, compact units with two-burners, no
oven, a sma].l~-sink,.and a=very amall refrigerator houaed in one unit, and theae had'been
approyed'~in the:p"ast in the`co~ercial zone:'but never in the Co~ercial-Recreation Area.
Commisaioner Farano was of the opinion that the proposed layout was similar to an apart-
ment complex.
AssistanE City Attorney John Dawson advised the Commisaion that if they intended to conaider
this proposal favorably as an;apartment, since it was not a.permitted use in the Cormnercial-
Recreation 2one,,the petitioner would have to:;aubmit a reclassification petition. On the
•other hand, it had been.the policy of the Co~ission when reviewing motels that the opera-
tion had a,.limitation as to the number of kitchen units, and in most instances it was.
substantially,less than 10% -,however,.the proposal'was.for 62~ of the unite t_o have kitchen
faciliEies. -
Commisaioner Seymour`then inquired whether.or not existing motels could convert 10% of
Eheir,.,facil3ties:aad eatabliah kitchen units if the Planning Co~ission established a
pol3cy.permitting lOZ of the units:to heve kitchen facilities.
A.,:lengthy discussion was held.:by the Co~isaion, summarized as follows:
1. '.Deviation from the`'definition of a notel to permit a maximum of lOx of the units to
be equipped with special kitchEn facilitiea hav3,ng a two-buraer stove, no oven, a
smali sink,:and a sma11'refrigerator ae;a compact'portion of one unit.
2. Require a conditional use permit or yariance to permit deviation and allow no more
tban 10~ of the units with kitchen facilitiea.
3. Existing motels-could not convert lOx of their units for kitchen facilities unless
approved by variance or conditional use permit.
4.` Plaas presented by Mr. Jones did not qualify as a motel because the layout was
',typically like an ap~ttment complex.
S. In order to have Mr. Jonea' plane considered, he would have to file a reclassi-
fication petition to reclassify the property to the R-3 Zone, although in all
likelihood considerable objection would be made by the existing motel operatora.
6• The possibility of staff reviewing tha~:motel definition and drafting an amendment
to define it and to require motels with kitchen facilities in a co~ercial zone
to be approved through a conditional uae permit or a variance.
7. Poseibility of relating the kitchens to the number of parking spaces together
with development standarde as.to aize of rooms in order to have the proper
definition of a motel. _.
8. The concept of e motel is changing in resort areas wherein a suite would hava
full kitchen facilitiea and a bar where one might live for an indefinite period;
however, thia would only apply to resort areas, and there was no way to aet up
housekeeping on a permanent basis.
9. The possibility that it would be.,difficult to enforce and legally administer
the 10~ limitatiori if, by definition, oaiy th~se kitchen units were permitted
unless special approval was granted under a conditional use permit.
10. The City of Anaheii~ was not a resort town but a recreational city.
' 11. Requeat the City Attorney to, draft something w'hich the Comm3ssion could review,
but, in •io event, should more than 10X of the units be permitted to have kitchea
facilities.
Mr. .Tonea noted for the Commission that there.was now a trend occurring wherein more
delwce motels were being built, and thia was what they were attempting to do by request-
ing clarification of the definition of kitchen facilities in motels. '
Chairman Herbst adviaed Mr. Jones that the Commiesion would consider a maximum of 107 of
the units .*.o have kitchen facilities.
,
; . ,. ~;<
r ~ L ~ "
_
,
~ '_~
F
. .
~
`y, ~ . . ..
. .
MINUTES, CITY'!pLANNING CO1~IISSION,~November 30, 1970
-. ,
`
; '
5524 >:i
REPORTS'AND, `, ' s ; ;
•RECOr4lL~NDATIONS - ITEM N0,.4 (Continued)
~ ~:'.
I.: Commiasioner Rowland,,noted that when oae pr.~+~ased kitchen"facilities; then one:would also
have to;consider the•~site develo
ment
sta
~P
d
o ~~,
p
.
n
ar~
e;,
f the R-3 2one which apply where a
petitioner was proposing 20 or more,units;,with kitchens, and thi
c
n
'
jY,•
s
o
sideration of kitchen
units _
should,: on~j:~,~be done. by conditional,use permit-so that`adequete parking wes bein
prov~.ded where
i
~:°i
mor
th
e
g
:,
e,
an on
,room.was,,proposed:as a moteT.unif, or, in other words,, the
~ arkin
P 8+-requiiementa
of the'
R-3 Zo
s .
~ -s
~ t.
.
:
ne
hould<apply when'kitchea facilities were proposed
under a conditional use permit. . f'~~
~`~'
M
R
b ~~
r
o
erts Ynquired.whether or not it wae the intent of the Commission'to require covered r,:;;:~
parkiag. spaces since this was part of,the•x'eql~at~ents of~h
`
e R-3 Zone. FurEhermore, was it
the Commisaion's intent ~to k-ave
,the definition of a m
t
l
e ~''
.~
,
o
e
r
vised to have wording similar
to,the hotel definition. ,
i ,-
.
Qommissioner Farano noted that if it were difficailt for people to understand the Code,
then it should~`be,revised so th
th ,
at
e intent was clearly spelled out and reflected the
true atate of :the law.
Mr. Roberts noted that if lOti of the unita were permitted to have kitchen facilitiea
would the Co~nission want th ~`
,
ese plana to be brought back for review and approval with
that policy; whereupon Co~iasioner Farano stat
d
h
e
t
at was his intent.
Mr: Roberts then s.tated that the Code did not provide for the conditional use permit
vehicle, and unle
s xhe
e w :~
e
us
as specifically spelled out, then the petitioner would have
to file.a variaace whf~h might not be the b
st
et '
;
e
m
hod. ~
Commissioner Farano:stated thet the City Attorney's off~ce would have to adviae the
Commission on th
f
ce
`
at
a
t
as ta iCa legality.
Mr. Roberts.noted that the staff could inveatigate the possibility of amending the
definition of
e
` ~
.a mot
l
and further ursue the
P poasibility of writing t~-e language into
an ordinance:that
wo~ld require an
`
i
t
h
,
y
un
ta
hat
ad kitchen faci23ties to be processed
before-,the Commiasion as a conditionel use permit - this'
vould accomplish what Co~iasioner
Farano had stated. ~
Commiasioner',Farano noEed that he had stated that motels and hotels, by definition, did
not allow kitchen facilities except th
h
o '''
at t
e
perator might be permitted to have aome
units with kitchen facilities
and this could b
,
e stated when approval was given through
a variance or conditionaT use permit, but, by definition
no kit
h
f
m
,
c
en
acilities were
per
itEed in motele:
Mr. Dawaon noted that at the preaent time the Code did not atate anything as it pertained
to kitchen facilities
and by bein
sil
h
,
g
ent, t
e Commisaion could go either way, but he
did feel that whatever the Planning Coumission beli
d
eve
wbuld be the proper definition
ahould be what the City should be operating under, and the definiti
o
ah
on as it nw atood
uld be revised to reflect this thinking.
;
Co~iseioner Rowland offered a motion to deny approval of the concept plans propoaed for
a 400-unit "motel" havin
627
of th
u
g
,
e
nits with kitchen facilities as not being the intent
of the Co~isaion in approving motels in the Commercial-Recre
ti ~
a
on Area, and directed the
petitioner to aubmit a reclaseification of-the property if this a
mount of unita were pro-
posed with kitchen facilities since this, in effect
was a
R
3 d .;°
,
n
-
evelopment. Commisaioner
Farano seconded the motion: MOTION CARRIED.
Co~issioner Rowland offered a motion to establiah a policy-for the Planning Commission
thet a maximum of 107
of mot
T
n ~
~
.
e
u
its might be.developed with kitchen facilitiea as a
meens of providing a service to a particular ty
pe of tourist witH child=en visiting tfie
area• Commissioner Farano seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM N0, g '.'
BEACH BOULEVARD-ROUTE 39 FREEWAY
Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson adviead the Commiasion that the
Route 39 Freeway study done by at
ff h
a
ad been submitted to them for their
at
the City would have to hold a public hearing to d
t
$
e
ermina which route proposed
ahould
be reco~nended to the City Council for adoption by the State
a
d th
o
,
n
c
at because of the
nsiderable intereat expressed by property owners affected by these
ut
t
ro
suggest
es, he would
hat the public hearing be scheduled for other than a Monday and set during the
first part of January
1971
,.
, at a large auditorium.
~
wwi -
~.~. ; 1
uss;:;Commissioner
'
' ~ ' '"ROwland aeco
~ :
n e t e motion MOTION CARRIED
'
~
m
'
~ ,:
~T~ ~',
~
, ~ ' , ~
The meeti
ng aa~ou~ea ;at 6 18 P
M - i
`~~
,
q ~ ,
~
p 7~
V ',
" f
~ '4 u Respectfully aul~^u ~ ed
"`~~;
,
, ,
l~ .' 1 ~ ~
_ I f - ~• ~~ ~
1
~
S
~~
~
~
l~A
/~~ ~'tik
~ ~ r f C~~
1
{~
.~I c ~
I
2
~ ~ ANN,RREHS, Secretnry ;.
,
~~ ~ t' ' Anaheim City Planning Co~iasion~. ` ~
~ s Y
~ s<< ~
`~ ' f~
~~
5
i
~ R r . ~ i
'S ~'
- ~
`
j ~ .l `~r' ~ C 1 :' -
~ ,43 ~
>
S
~
vi ~"t {~S
t:.lt Y~ i F . 1
1
~
`
' -
sf .,
. ~
~..l~t
`.
: > A I .,. 4
~ '~ ;. /ry"y~.."
'
~
U
t~; T
. ? . ~ +~
~
~
C #
r
~ rt
~~
.
J
a ' i
, l+:a
' -. ~r. ~yA
,
~ iJ
. I
F 1~
~ 1
~"~ _. , . - .
. ' , ~
~ t 7 ,
~
-
'
.
. . . .
" . ~ . . . ~
.
~ ~ ~ ' ~~ ~ ... ' :., .
, ~
'_...:_ ..,.:~.' ' .:.'.~ .. ~~,. .
. '-~ .'..- .~, ~-.i. ~~; ~.. :..':: " ~
... , .. ... .
_' _ _ „.. V
,: ._
:
. Y ~ "~
~ r.
'
~.. _
_
~ i.
i~
E_
~,
~-
,
. - ~
_ . :
_
~
.,. . .:. ,_ ~ . . :
S x'
.. ..~~~ . .~......~.~~ . ~.~. , . '~~:, ,~ ..,~~ ... . . .
. . . .... ., . ~
. ., . _. .: _ -.. . .. . ;
. :,.:. " .:~
. _. .. . ~~.... . . ,,. .. .:. ; '.~; ~~
..
~ -
~
t „
{
y.
.
~
~
~
.
_. . .. ... .... . . :, . ..~ .. . . .
. ~'.~.' ~ .
'
_
_
~ _ ..~ _ .. ... . ,. . . ... . . . ~ . ..
.~~
i - ;.
. :
~
i - ~ ~
~
'
~r-
.. t~,.,+,c
~.
. . _
. .Y~
,, {
.
,. ,
i - - r
~
~ ~,,,..
y;
°
~.
S-,
. #w
. ... .. :!k'..: . . . .
., ~f . '
~
~'
~';
"{:
'~ ~~ .-fii:
`-S
;T~
~:~
.ii
^'i
:~
'.a~'' .:~~7
,`~
:;}i
-'~~
....,: ~~'I
~:.~.:..•~i
_';!
Is'
.~,
."'
. ,~
v
;
,''~~~~,`'~t
;4
:i
a; ' I
't' .
i~
Fw
:~;,~~.::-
,~
*:.
~.': .~l::.:.';
j .
r
~ '
~ -
,; ~ '-'; t ~~M
k
~:r.
~
. ~~i
r'~
~ \