Minutes-PC 1965/11/22MINUTES, GITY PLANNING Ct,,.~aiISSiON, November 22, 1965 ~' 2832
CC~IDITIONAL USE - Commission~. Herbst offered Resolution Ploo 1857, Series i965-6b, and
PERMIT N0. 786 moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissi~ner Camp,
(Continued) to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noa 786, subject to
condition=, and the requirement that a six-foot masonry wall be
constructed along the north, west and south property lines, and
that subject p:operty be lighted - however, any liyhting shall be
directed away from the R-1 properties and shall not excaed the height of the required
masonry wallo (See Resolution Booke)
On roll call the fore9oing resolution was passed by the following vote:
- AYES: C~MMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Munga~lo
_::s.M6~ NOES: COMMISSI'~NERS: None~
n ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
CCt~1DI'IICNAL USE •- PUBLIC HEARING,. RAYMC{JD B, TERRY, 2910 East Blueridge Avenue, Orange,
PERMZi NOo 787 Califernia (~.~rcel No, 1) and AMDEX, INCORPORATED, 631 West Katella
Avenue, Anaheiro, Califnrnia (Parcel No. 2) Owners; RICHARD L_ TOM
1,~65 West Katella Avenuey Anaheim, California, Agent; requestirag
permissicn to EXPAND AN EXISTING MOTEL AI~D TO ESTABLISH A RESTAURANT WITH CN-SALE LIQUOR,
on property described as: An irregularly siiaped parcel of land composed of two p3rcels,
described as follows: Parcel No•, 1~ a rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frcntaqe
of approximataly 100 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue and a maximum depth of approxi-
mately 150 feet, the eastern boundary of said property being approx.imateiy 5ti1 feet west of
the centerline of Harbor Boulev~:•d, and Par~el No. 2, an "L" shaped parcel of land located
north and east of Parcel No. :, with a f*ontage of approximatei•,r 216 feet on the north side
of Katella Avenue and a marimum depth of approximately 2!0 feet, and further described as
631 West Katella Avenue. Property presently classified C-i, GENEP,AL COMMEP.CIAL, ZCt~IE,
Mro Richard To:n, agent for tne petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the
ov~rall master plan of the motel ar~d restaurant complex being proposed, noting that waiver
of the ^equired parking was requested because of the overiapping use of the parking facilities
by the restaurant, cocktail lounge, and motel, and if the petitioner was required to comply
with parking requirements, the proposed development could not be completed; that the requ~st
was aiso made for waiver of the front yard setback adjacent to the restaurant, and the er,-
croachment would be the second story; that a similar use was already developed on the opposite
side of the street in which ihe encroachment was within four feet of the property line,
h1i> Fred Tnierbach, 7i5 West hatella Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition
to wai,er of the required setback since all property owners on the north side of Katelia
Avenue had a setback between 20 and 30 feet; that he was opposed to any structural change
which would block the view oi his property; that his property •.vas re,~uired to sei back the
required width along Katella rlvenue and dedication of the property for street widenin~; was
also in effect; that he was oppnsed to the sale of liquor adjacent to hi~ p:operty since
a zestsuzant was proposed adjacent to motel un:ts; that a number of oroperty owners includ-
ing the Disneyland people were becomin9 quite concarned with the "honky•-tor.k" appearance of
the Disneyland area; that a cocktail lounge was not a necessary addition ~o every small
hoteJ, and there was no need for the ssle of liquor in that area; that he was aiso concer~ed
the petitioner »as requesting waiver of the required park~ng with the addition oi the restau-
rant and cocktail lounne since if adequate parking was not ~rovided, their prospective
customers would be utilizing hi- parking spaces~
Mro Robert Terry, son of one of the owners, stated the opponent`s parking facilities were
fenced off from the restaurant adjacent to them to the west,
Mro Thierbach statFd this was not true - that his motel facilities and the Chalet Restaurant
had a comm~n drive, although their parking facilities were separate; that it was true their
motel was pr2sently blocked by the Terry residence - however, this would not be the same as
though a restaurant with additional motel units encroached into the front seiback~
Mre Tom, ?n rebuttal, stated a landscaped court would separate the restaurant from the
existing motel to the west ~f su~ject property; ;;herefore this should act as an adequate
buffer t~ ar.y possible noises.
THE HEAkiNG WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Rowland was of the opinion the parking requirements of a motel were somewhat
stringent, and the fact that one parking space per unit was required wh.ereas many families
rented more than one unit per family and would also be utilizing the restaur~nt facilities
therefore the requested waiver of the parking reo~ii*ements was reasonablea
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING C~ .ISSICN, November 22, 1965 .' ~ 283g
CCNDITICNAL USE - A i;~r~lier review of the plans b•y the Commission indicated that si~nce
PERMIT NOo 787 subject property was already zoned C-1, and the Site Developr~ent
(Conti.nuedl Standards of the C-1 Zone required a minimum ten-•foot setback, this
should be the amount of setback permitted rather than the four feet
proposed by the petitioner, and that the comparison of subject property
~ with tMat on the opposite side of the street could not be considered because the property
os:ner on the opposite side of the street had the encroachment into the front setback in
the center of his property, whereas subject property was proposing it on the westerly end
which would be enc=oaching on the property owner to the west of subject properi.y,
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution Noo 1858, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passa~a
, . and adoptiora, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit
R~~~ Noo 787, granting the waivei• of the parki~g requirement, but requiring that the petitioner
:;i develop in accordance with the C-1 Site Development Standards req~~iring a ten-foot setbacke
•.~~ ~ (See Resolution Book~)
~' On roll call the fore oin resolution was
:j 9 9 passed by the following vote:
'{ AYES: COMMISSICNER5: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungail..
~~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonea
~ ~ ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS: Nonea
~I '
E~. Commissioner Perry left the Council Chamber at 4:47 P.M,
CCNDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING~ CHARLES G. SCHLEGEL, ET AL, 433 West 8th Street,
PERMIT NOa 789 Santa Ana, California, Owner; reqaesting permission to PERMIT CN-SALE
~ LIQUOR IN RESTAURANT on property described as: Nn irregularly shaped
parcel. of l~nc. ~ocsted at the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and
Wilshire Avenue, witn frontages of approximately 68 feet on Lir.coln Avenue and approximately
168 feet on Wilshire Avenue.~ Property pr?sently c:3ssified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ?ONE.
Mr. Charles Schlegel, one of the owners, appeared before the Corunission and stated he was
requesting permission to serve iiquor in conjunction with the serving of food in ti,e Howard
Johnson Res:aurant now under construction; that this would not be similar to `he one con-
structed in the Commercial•-Recreation Area which had a cocktail lounge, as this wou:d 6e
previding only a service bar used by waitresses to serve the customers; that Mr~ Benjamin
of the Howard Johnson organization was present ii the Commission was desirous of asking
. questions; that the proposed use woUld be only an addition to the overall operation of a
-~ restaurant they were proud of, which they ho~v to oFen before Christmas; and that no cock-
- tail lounge or bar was proposed - the only type of serving of liquor wouid be from a
service ba- o the waitresses,
'i No one appea~ed in opposition tu subject petition>
~ ~ THE HEARING WAS CLO~ED~
I Considerable discussion was held by the Commission relative to the plans which indicated
1 a cocktail bar and request~.d clarification from Mro Benjamin relative to this area.
Mr~ Benjamin then appeared and presented ~olored renderings of the interior layout of the
' ~ proposed restaurant, noting ~!~at the so-called cocktail bar was actuaily a service bar;
~; that customers could not be served in this area, but the area would be used primarily by
t: I the waitresses in obtaining cocktails for serving in the dining area.
Commissioner Gauer expressed the opinion that as the layout existed, the area could easily
be converted into a cocktail bar, and this conversion couid readily be made without benefit
' of a public hearing if the Commission approved the sale of alcoholic beverages in conjunc•-
~, tion with the serving of foodo
~:j ~~ Mre Benjamin stated that the nature of the restaurant business was for family trade,
i although they did have requests for cocktails at times, and less than 5% of the gross
business was in the sale of alcoholic beverages since they catered to families with childrene
- ' After considerable discussion oetween the Commission and representatives of the petitioner,
~ it was determined some form of screening to separate the service bar from the dining area
should be provided which would be architecturaily compatible to the development,
Mr. Schlegel then stated he would stipulate no cocktail bar with stools would be provided
zor the sale of alcoholic beveragE:s oniye
:,~ ;
Commissioner Perry returned to the Council Chamber at 5:05 P,M.,
..j _
:j ~
:~r
.{ ,~
i
i;
'
~ .:,..~ .~,:..,~., .:.
__-,_ .u.._. . _ _~...._.
.._. _ ,. , .. , ,.
. . _~.. _: ..:, ..~
~ h ~
<~ - • . - _
I.
r
1
MINUTcS, CZTY ALANNING C(,...+iISSIQJ, November 22, 1965 2834
COND7TICNAL USE - Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noo 1859, Series 19b5-66, and
PERMIT NOo 789 moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred,
(Continuedj to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 789 subject to
conditions, and the requirement that the cocktail service bar be
property screened at the discretion of the lessee in order to in~ure
alcoholic beverages would not be served from a bar without the benefit of a public h~aringe
(See Resolution Booka)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Herbst, Rowland, Mungall~
~ NOES: CCbIMISSIQJERS: Gauer~
ABSENT: COMMISSIC~]ERS: None~
AtiSTAIN: CONUdISSICNERS: Perry~
~
,
VARIANCE NOo 1746 - PUBLIC HEARING~ WRLTER HEMPHILL, 951 North Gilbert Street, Anah~•im,
California, qvner; requesting WAIVERS OF MINIMUM LOT A.4EA AND MINIMUM
LOT WIDTH on property described as: An irregularly shaped pr~rcel of
land located on the southwest corner of Gilbert Street and Rainbow Avenue, and having
_ frontages of approximately 190 feet on Rainbow P.venue and 178 feet on Gilbert Street, and
further described as 951 North Gilbert Street~ Property presently classified R-A,
AGRICULTURAL, ZCNE.
Mr, Walter Hemphill, the owner, aNpeared before the Commission and reviewed the zoning of
subject and adjacent propezties, noting it was proposed to subdivide property along lot
?ines based on assessor taxing bills; that the existing old water towe: garage on the easi
property ?ine woulc~ be removed and inquired what the City proposed relative to dedication.
Office En9i.neer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that only a 15-foot corner radi.us return
was reouired, and not full dedication for Gilbert Street~
The Commission inquired of the peti~~.ic:;cr whether he had further plans for development of
the adjacent property, to which the petitioner replied it was proposed to move a modern,
ranch-type home on to ~he 6,000 square foot lot, but that no plans were available or con-
templated for the balance of the property:
Commissioner Herbst left the Council Chamber at 5:10 P.Mo
Mrso Burton McClellan, 2403 Greenbrier Avenue, appeared before the Commission and inquired
whether or not the existiny easements through the Nroperty adjacent to hers,which was sub-
ject property, could have the posts relocated - which presently existed immediately adjacent
to her fence; that it was her understanding the petitioner proposed to operate a nursery
school on the larger parcel; that she r,ad lived in the area for a number of years prior to
the residential buildup of the area; and if the petitioner was proposing a nursery school,
she would be opposed to that use of the R-A parcel-
Mra Hemphill stated his petition was to establish only the 6,000 square foot lot in order
that he might place a ranch-style home on it, and no plans were contemplated for the other
parcei,
Commissioner Herbst returned to the Council Chamber at 5:17 P,M,
Mr. Hemphill again stated his only reason for requesting the divi~ion of the property was
n order to place a home on property that had two tax levies on a loto
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissi mer Rowland offered Rpsolution No. 1860, Series 1965-56, and moved for its passage
and adoptio~, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to arant Petition for Variance No. 1746, how-
ever, requiri~:r~ that all setbacks on the 6,000 square foot parcel be in accordance with the
R-i, One-Family Residential, Zone requi:ements. (See Resolution Booko)
On roll call '.:ie foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Perry, Rowland, Mt~^~all,
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMM~SSIGNERS: Herbsto
,~ ,
;~ •
~ .~x
,,... ~, ~~~:.: .~..: : . _,:~.._..___.. .
.: _: ...,,:_ .
..~ ,~ ~ , ,.- ..,_. ..-___ ________ _ ___ ~-~....~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING G AISSICN, f:ovember 22, 1965 .~ '
2835
b'ARIANCE N0. 1747 - PUBLIC HEARING. L. G. S. CORPORATION, Frank W, Sackett, 2509 South
Main Street, Santa Ana, California, Owner; RAY STOBER COh~ANY, p, p,
l~ox 2377, Gardena, California, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF REQUIREMENT
OF 300-FOOT DISTANCE BETWEcN FREE-STANDING SIGdS ON THE SAME PARCEL on property described as:
kn irreg~larly shaped parcel of land located at the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and
Wilshire Avenue, with frontages of approximately 175 feet on Wilshire Avenue and approximately
180 feet on Lincoln Avenue, and having a maximum depth of approximately 256 feet, and further
described as 1245 West Lincnln Avenue. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL,
ZCNE.
.. ~
~
.
Mr, Marvin Stober, agent for the petitioner, aopeared before the Commission and reviewed
the proposed sign request of the Standard Oil Company, noting that the sign was being
erected in the easement adjacent to the Howard Johnson property.
f+ir. Charles Schle9el, one of the long-term lessees of subject property, appeared before
the Commission and stated subject property was part of a subdivisions that subject property
was part of Lot No. 1, although there were separate leases for the service station and th e
restaurant; and that through a technicality as indicated on the Report to the Commission
relative to the Sign Ordinance in which a lease was required to be 25 years, rather than
the 20 years which the service station had, a variance would not be necessarye
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THF HEARING WAS CL05ED.
Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 1861, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adopti:,n, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1747,
subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
VARIANCE N0. 1749 - PUBLIC HEARING. JAMES EMMI, 1808 East Commonwealth, Fullerton,
California, Owner; FREDRICKS DEVELOPMEryT CORPORATION, 524 West
WAIVE MINIMUM YARD SET ACKwANDtCNEFSTORYtHEIGHT1LIMITATICNgWITHINe1505FEET OFrR1ASZCNED~
PROPERTY described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approxi-
mately 270 feet on the east side of Palm Lane and having a maximum depth of approximately
288 feet, the northerly boundary of subject property being approximately 300 feet south of
the centerline of Ball Roade Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE
(R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDEVTIAL, ZONE PENDING).
Mr. Russell Betker, representing the agent for tne petitioner, appeared before the Commission
and stated it was proposed to develop an apartment complex similar to that recently completed
on the south side of Palm Lane on which a side yard waiver was also requested; that multiple-
family development existed to the east and to the west, and in all likelihood the parcel to
the north would be developed for multiple-family residential purposes, and it was proposed
to construct two-story apartments within 77 feet of the R-A parcel to the north; further, it
was desirous to place the additional ~footage normally required for the yard requirement into
the recreational ~~rea.
No one appeared in oppr,sition to subject petition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
; Upon reviewing the plan, the Commission indicated they would desire havir.g carport spaces
i marked "42" and "43" on the plot plan eliminated in order to provide a cnntinuous landscap-
~• ing strip along the west property line.
Commissioner Nllred offered Resolution No. 1862, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to grant Petition for Variance No, i?qg, subject
to conditions,and the elimination of parking spaces 42 and 43 as indicated on Exhibit No. 1,
provided, however, that landscaping be provided for said spaces. (See Resolut'on Booke)
~~~; On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall.
~~ NOES: COMMISS30NERS: None.
Pj `R ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
~,.I ~ ,
1
€
1
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING C~...dISSION;, No~~ember 22, 1965 ~ 2836
,~~.-~~•
~~ ~ ,
;~~~ .
~
I
~~1
~,. {
fl I
,
~i ~
~I ~.Y
DIRECTIVE TA THE DEVELOPMENT - Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to direct the
SERVICES DEPARTrGNT Planning Staff of Development Services to prepare a
st~dy invoiving the setback requiremen:s of the R-3 Zone
determining the number of variances asked for, and granted,
re:ative to setbacks which had occurred since the r~ew R-3
Zonz had been establishe~, Commissioner Camp seconded the
motion, further stating the present code permitted only four
units on a single lot, and where a heavier density was pro-
posed, a variance was necessary for this encroachment;
iurthermore, it was unfair to require the staff to adminis-
tratively judicate any minor waiver of the code.
MOTICN CARRIED,
RECLASSIFICATIQJ - PUBLIC HEARING~ MARIAN RASNiUSSEN, CARRIE Mo R/,SMUSSEN~ AND DORIS
NOo 65-66-5b BRUMMETT, 13372 South Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; J. W.
NC MICHAEL, 469 "A" West Valencia Drive, Fullerton, California, Agent;
VARIANCE N0, 1748 property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located
on the southeast corner of South Street and East Street, with frontages
TENTATIVE MAP OF of approximately 810 feet on South Street and approximately 510 feet on
TRACT N0. 6101 East Stree:, and further described as 800 South East Street. Property
presently classified R-0, CNE-FAMILY SUBURBAN, and R-1, ONE-FAMILY
RESIDEN~IAL, ZONES~
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATI~1: R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF MINIMUM REQUIRED LOT AREA AND FNU[JTAGE.
TENTATIVE TRACT DE`JELOPER: Jo W< M: MICH.4EL, 469 "A" West Valencia Drive, Fullerton,
California; ENGINEER: McDaniel En~ineering, 222 East Lincoln
Avenue, Anaheim, California9 proposing 44 R-:, One-Family
Residential, Zoned lots.
Mro A, Ro M,cDaniel, representing the engineer for the proposed tract, appeared before the
Commission and stated the proposed zoning was similar to that immediately to the north,
south and east of subject property; that concern was heing ex.pressed relative to the Report
to the Commission recommending dedication of 45 feet from tfie centerline for street widen-
ing purposes; and that at the time the tentative map was drawn, East Street was considered an
exception with a 33-foot half width for the street, and requested that the Commission delete
that condition in their approval of the tentative tracto
The Commission inquired whether or not a revised tract could be submitted with the additional
13 feet incorporated by cutting down the lot sizes,
Mr. hicDaniEl sta:ed that because time of importance relative to sub~ect property's being
acquired through >scrow, it would necessitai.e a complete revision of the tract map when no
time was availabl=~
Assistant Zoning `iupervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the variance was filed
in conjunction with the reclassification to cover the entire property in order that more
flexibility mi9ht be granted to the developer if he desired to redesign the lots in order
to provide the additional dedication for street widening of East Street~
Considerable discussion was then held by the Commission relative to the condition requiring
45 feet of dedica7ion for streei widening purposes on East Street, it being determined the
tract to the north and to the south, abutting East Street, provided a 33-foot widtho
Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that curbs could be relocated at 26 feet
without too much difficulty, rather than at 24 feet which was normal for a 33-foot street
dedication.
No nne appeared in opposition to subject petitions.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED,
It was determined by the Commission that Condition No. 6, recommended by the Development
Services ~epartment on the tentative tract should be deleted since tracts to the north and
south were only required to dedicate 33 feet, and to require 45 feet of the petitioner
would be a hardship.
Commissioner Gauer left the Council Chamber at 5~40 P,M.
~
~i.
V~ j i
MINUTES, CITY PLAt~NING C~..dISSIaJ, November 22, 1965 ""' 2837
RECLASSIFICA'IIGN - Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. 1863, Series 1965-66, and
N0. 65-66-5b moved for its passa9e and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to
VARIANCE N0. 1748 recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No.
TENTATIVE MAP uF 65-66-56 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
TRACT N0. 6101
(Continued) On roll call the fore9oing resolution was passed by the following vote:
~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall.
; NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee
ABSENT: C~MMISSIONERS: Gauer.
' Commissioner Camp offer.ed Resolution No. 1864, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
~%~~ and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1748,
~ subject to conditionso (See Resolution Book.)
~~~ On roil call the fore oin resolution was
; g g passed by the following vote:
i
• AYES: COMMISSIOhERS: Allred, Camp, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall~
~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~
;~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gauero
~~ Commissioner Perry offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 6101, subject
,I~ ' to the following conditions:
~~
1 j lo 'Ihat should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each
subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval,
'I 2e That the approval of Tentative Nl~p of Tract No, 6101 is granted subject to the
1~ ~
~ approval of Reclassification NoP 55-66-55 and Variance No. 1748.
~ 3o That in accordance with City Council policy, a six-foot masonry wall shall be
~ constructed on the westerly property line separatin9 Lots Nos, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
I and 14 on East Street, except that Corner Lot No. 14 shail be stepped down to
a height of 24 inches in the front one-half of the front yard setback, and a
<< height of 42 inches in the back one-half of said setbaclc., Corner Lot No. i
~= shall be stepped down to a height of 24 inches in the front one-half of the
,{ `~ front yard setbacke Reasonabie landscaping, including irrigation facilities,
~ sha11 be installed in the uncemented portion of the arterial highway parkway
~.t ~; the full distance of said wall, plans for said landscaping to be submitted to
~ ,M;~; and subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenanceo
_i ~. Following installation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume ~he
1 ~;"~}, responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping,
I
4e That the vehicular access rights to East Street shail be dedicated to the
.~ City of Anaheime
J
~ 5, That Lot H of Tract PJoo 2368 shall be acquiredo
)
~.i 6. That the westerly north-south street shall be named "Dawn Street", the easterly
~ north-south street shall be named "Avocado Street", and the center street shall
~ be named "Diana Avenue".,
I G. c l. c. ,~_.
~ Commissio~er•Parr~r seconded the motion, MOTION CARRIED.
~. .
E I
i RECLASSIFICATII:N - PUBLIC HEARING~ JACK Ca DUTTON, 921 Pioneer Urive, Anaheim, Californ:a,
N0. 65-6b-57 Owner; WILLY'S MOTOR SALES OF SAtJTA ANti, INCORPORATED, H. F. Foust,
~ President, 1110 East Orang~thorpe, Anaheim, California, Agent; property
~ CONDITIONAL USE described as: An irregularly shaped parcel located southerly and
PERMIT N0. 788 westerly from the southwest corner of OTangethorpe Avenue and Raymond
i Avenue and having frontages of approximately 227 feet on 0*angethorpe
Avenue and 475 feet on Raymond Avenue, and further described as
. 1110 East Orar.gethorpe Avenue. Property presently classified M-1,
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATI(~1: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZCt~IE.
:; REQUEST~D C QJDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH AN EXISTING ON-SALE LIQUOR ESTABLISHMENT AND
~ ~ RELATED COMMERCIAL USES IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING
RESTAURANT AS A COIvFORMING USE AND TO BUILD THE FUTURE
~- ADDITIQJ OF A MOTEL AND LUAU BUILDING AND RELATED
* COMMERCIAL SHOPSo
r~ ~x
@
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING C~..dISSION, November 22, 1965 ~
2838
RECLASSIFICATION - Mr, H. Fe Foust, agent for the petitioner, aopeared before the
NOo 65-66-5.7 Comr.iission and stated he was leasing subject property from the
CONDITIONAL USE petitioner; that although a reclassification was filed, it was not
PERMIT N0. 788 their desire to reclassify subject property - all they were interested
(Continued) in was a conditional use permit for the existing and ultimate building
of an additional motel and a luau building on subject property.
It was determined thraugh questioning by the Commission that the luau building would have
only a roof and considerable landscaping and would not be enclosed.
Considerable discussion was held by the Commission relative to the uses proposed as they
pertained ~o the M-1, Light Industrial, Zone and the requested reclassification, It was
° also noted the motel was proposed to be located in the 50-foot setback along Orangethorpe
'"'~`-' ~ Avenue; whereupon Mro Foust advised the Commission it was their intent to establish the
~ motel in line with the existing setbacksa
' No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No„ 1865, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
- and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that
Petition for Reclassification Noo 65-66-57 be disapproved, based on the fact that the
requested zoning would be setting a precedent for possible commercial uses of the remain-
ing M-1 parcels in close proximity to subject property; that the agent for the petitioner,
in fact, stated it was his desire only to permit the expansion of an existing non-conforming
use and to establish the use as conforming~ (See Resolution Book,)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer.
Commissioner Allred offered RAsolution No, 1866, Series 1965-b6, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissionei• Herbst, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit
No. 788, subject to conditions, and the requirement that sUbject property maintain the
50-foot building setback requirer~ent and site development standards of the M-1 Zone.
(See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall~
NOES: COM97ISSFONERS: None~
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer~
Commissioner Nerbst left the Council Chamber at 5:55 P,Mo
RECLASSIFICAT3CN - PUBLIC HEARING~ iNITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOfJ, 204 East
N0. 65-56-58 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposing that property described
as: An irregularly shaped paresl of land located generally between
Orangethorpe Avenue on the south and Orchard Drive on the North, and
east of Highland Avenue, the southwestern corner of said parcel being ¢~pproximately 1,179
feet north of the centerline of Orangethorpe Avenue; the western bound~ry of said parcel
extends narthward approximately 280 feet from this point, along the Anaheim city limits
boundary line; the northern boundary continues eastward approximately 1,581 feet along
the Anaheim city boundary line; and the eastern boundary extends southward approximately
350 feet along the Anaheim city boundary line. Property is further described as the
northernmast portion of Northeast Annexation No. 3, be reclassified from the R-1, ONc-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the R-1 (0), ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE (OIL),
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson reviewed the proposed reclassification, noting
that when subject property was annexed into the City, the City of Anaheim did not have an
Oil Zone; however, subject property was zoned for oil drilling in the County, and now the
City of Anaheim adopted the regulations for the processing and drilling of oil~
No one appeared in opposition to suL•,ject petitione
* ~` THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
_,~
t
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING (, .~A7ISSI0l:, PJOVember'22, 1965 ~
2839
RECLASS.:FICATICN - Commissioner Perry offered a motion ~to recommend to the City Council
N0, 65-66-58 that Petition for Reclassification No, 65-66-58 be a
(Continued) Commissioner Allred seconded the motior,o MOTION CARRIED,~ed.
Although the foregoing reclassification p~tition was passed by tfie
Commission, upon the Commission Secretary's ~reparing the reso?ution, it was determinesi
subject property had been erroneou•sly3dvertised under the interim zoning for subject
property and should have been advertised for R-A, Agricultuzal, Z.one; therefore, the
petition was readvertised and rescheduled for public hearing to be considered by the
Commiss:on December 6, 1965~
C~ -^-•''~~
~,'~
Commissioners Perry and Rowland left the Council Ci~amber at 5:56 P.M.
RECLASSIFICATICN - PUBLIC HcARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING C,"'AISSICN, 204 East
N0. 65-66-61 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposing that property described
as: An "L" shaped parcel of land locate~ at the northeast corner of
Ball Road and Lemon Street, with a frontage of approximately 560 feet
on the north side of Ball Road between Lemon Street and Anaheim Boulevard and a maximum
depth of approximately 60 feet in this area, and a frontage of approximately 190 feet and
a maximum depth of approximately 15 feet along the east side of Lemon Street, be reclassi-
fied from the P-L, PARKING LANDSCAPIPJG, ZONE to the C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
Commissione* Perry returned to the Cour.cil Chamber at 6:01 P.M,
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson reviewed the l~ackground on the proposed
reclassification, noting that all properties immediately adjacent to the north and
south were developed either for commercial or residential purposes, and the existing
P-L Zone was a small portion of land which had remained in that zone for some time, and
since a request had been received f~ development on a portion of the land, it was felt
at this time it was appropriate to reclassify the property,
Mro Dor. Puckett, representir.g the Don-Lee Land Company, Anaheim, appeared before the
Commission and stated his company w=.s the or.e that had initi~ted ttie request for waiver of
the Parking•-Landscaping Zone in order to develop a commercial use in the P-L Zone, and
it was his opinion the proposed classification would be a definite improvement in the area
since there would no longer be a used car lot on the frontage of Ball Road,
Mr. David Collins, 1077 West Bail Road, appeared before the Commission and stated he owned
a portion-of subject property, and that he was in favor of the proposed reclassification.
Mre Thompson further advised the Cort,mission that since ths C-1, General Commercial, Zone
had site development standards, these could effectively control any building setbacks if
commercial development occurred on subject property.
No one appeared in opposition to subject }:~etition,
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No, 1867, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that Petition
for Reclassifica~tion Noo 65-66-61 be approved, subject to conditions, (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Perry, Mungaii~
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
ABSENT: COMMI5SI0'NERS: Gauer, Herbst, Rowland..
Commissioner Rowland returned to the Council Chamber at 6:05 P.M.
REPORTS AND ITEM N0, 1
RECOMMENDATICYVS - ORANGE COUNTY USE VARIANCE N0. 5651 - Establish a real estate office with
the erection of a double-faced,lighted roof sign containing 30 square
feet on each face, in an existing single-family dwelling located on the
east side of Brookhurst Street, approximately 300 feet north of Lincoln
Avenue~
Associate Pianner Jack Christofferson presented Orange County Use Variance Noo 5651 to the
Commission and reviewed the location and use of an existing residence. It was further noted
that the petitioner was proposing a"V-type" double-face, lighted roof sign three feet by
ten feet per face in size,
`1 ' The Commission noted that subject property was zoned R-P, Residential Professional District
''' in the County,. which is comparable to the City`s C-0 Zone; that the C-0 Zone does not permit
F.~ `~ roof signs, although wall and free-standing signs are permitted, provided that the sign does
not exceed 15% of the front of any structure; and that the Nroposed lighted sign might be
,,
4I '~ detrimental to the single-family residential homes to the east and the multiple-family
developroent to the north of subject property~
. ~~' _ , ~; - - - --
F
.y
MINUTES, CITY PLANi~iNG C;IISSION, Novembez• 22, 1965 .~ 2840
REPORTS F.ND
RECOMMENDAIIUNS - ITEM N0~ ). Continued)
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the OTange
County Planning Commission be urged to consider the limitations of the City of Anaheim's
C-u, Commercial Office, Zone, which is comparable to the County°s R-P Zone, in their
apprc•:al of any signing of subject property, based on the fact that the C-0 Zone does
not permit roof or lighted signs; further that subject property was located immediately
to the !vest of a single-family residential development located both in the County and
the City, and that the prohibition of lighted signs should be considered in order to avoid
the detrimental effects of said signs on the residential integrity of that area~ Commissioner
_ , perry seconded the motion„ MOTICN CARRIEDo
,_„_~1ii-~
~ ITEM ~'0, 2
OR^,NGE: COUNTY CONDITIONAL PERMIT N0~ 1218 - Establish a concrete batch
plani with sand and gravel bins, cement silo, conveyor, rotary dryer and
cement mixer, together with the bagging machine for premixed concrete on
property lecated on the west side of Taylor Street approximately 450 feet
south of Orangethorpe Nvenue in the Atwood area,.
kssociate Planner Jack Christofferson presented Orange County Conditional Permit No~ 1218
to the Commission, noting the location of subject prcperty as being in the Northeast Industrial
Area; that a similar use had been reviewed by the Commission at their meeting of September 13,
1965, and the property was located immediately to the west of subject property; and that the
Commission had recommended denial tc the City Council of the proposed use, based on the fact
that the use would be incompatihle to any existing industrial or potential in_•ustrial develop-
ment due to the dust, dirty and noise of the operaticn, It was also noted that Taylor Street
was the main arterial between the Northeast Induscrial Area and Yorba Linda, and that the
proposed operation would detract from the appearance of the area. It was also considered
that because the proposed use wouid reauire that all materials, raw and finished, be trucked
to and from the premisesy an excessive amount of traffic would be generated on Taylor Street.
i Discussion was held by the Commission that the use as proposed would be considerably heavier
•i than permitted in the M-1 Zone, although it could be established in the M-2 Zone by condi-
; tional use permit, and inquired whether the Oran9e County Planning DepartmP~t had determined
';I if the proposed use was similar to that previously recommended for denial,
~
•I Mro Christofferson advised the Commission that the County Pianning Department was of the
-i opinion that the proposed use was considerably heavier than that previously considered,
i and that the County Planning Commission had approved the previous conditional permit which
' the Commission had recommended to the City Council for denial,
Commissioner Perry offered a motion to recom:n~nd to the City Council that the Orange County
Planning Commission be u*ged to req~~ire that any concrete batching operation or the bagging
of premixed concrete be Limited to that area in the Northeast Industrial Area south of
La Palma Avenue extended, which would be in close proximity to other sand and gravel opera-
tions, due to the fact that the proposed use ..as basically an outdoor use in the City of
Anaheim`s M-2, Heavy Industrial, Zone and would be incomp::cible with any light industrial
~ use due to the excessive dust, dirt, and noises generated by the proposed use; that the
I proposed operation would generate excessive traffic on '.'aylor Street; and that the appear-
ance of the use would detract from the area However, if the County deems the use compatible,
~ that street dedication and improvement for Taylor Street be in conf~rmance with the City of
of Anaheim`s standards based on the fact that Taylor Street is the main arteri al between the
industrial area and Yorba Linda; further, that the petitioner he required to develop in
accordance with tMe Site Development Standards of the City of Anaheim`s M-1, Light Industrial,
! Zone~ Commissioner Allred seconded the motiono MOTION CHRRIEDe
ITEM NOo 3
CCNDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 505 - Request for approval of revised plans
for a theate= and office building locat~d on the east side of Euclid
Street, north of Crescent Avenue~
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson reviewed for the Commission the previous report
from the Development Ser~~ices staff relative to the fact that the revised plans submitted
for the office building indicated an increase from 83,855 square feet to 98,000 square feet;
, further, that a reduction of the parking stalls from the approved 470 to 424 parking stalls
was also indicated on the revisea plans, and because of the substantial change in the size
of the structure and the number of parking spaces deleted, it was found necessary the
- Commission take action ~n the condition of approval of subject petition, being development
~ substantially in accordance with plans approved under Conditional Use Permit No~ 5050
~
_. . ~ _ _..
,.__,. ~ - ., ~.
_ ,_, _. , -
MINUZES, CITY PIANtJING COh~.,:SSIGN, November 22, 1965 ~ ` 2841
REPORTS AND
RECOMMENDATI~lS - ITEM N0~ 3 (Continued)
It was also noted that the revised plans had been submitted to the Commission at their
November 6 meeting; however, the Commission requested that the petitioner or his architect
be present at the November 22 me?ting to show cause why the revised plans should not be
, considered a substantial change to that originally submittedo
Upon review of the plans by the Commission, it was determined that because of dual use
of the parking space, namely the theater in the evening and the office building during the
daytime hours, the reduction in the nu:nber of parking stalls was considered reasonable,
` and inquired whether the architect or a representative of the property owner was present
~ in the Council Chambero
' Mr, Jack Chernoff, architect, 5274 West Pico Boulevard, Los Angeles 19, Califernia,
representing the Drew Properties Corporation, indicated his presence to answer any
questions the Commission might haveo
Commissioner (:amp offered a motion to approve Revision Noo 1 of Exhibit Nos, 1, 2, 3, and
as being substantially in accordance with plans, and that the reduction of parking was
_ reasonable, based on the fact that dual use of the parking spaces would be accomplished
through office hours during the daytime and theater hours in the evening~ Commissioner
Allred seconded the motion~ MOTION :ARRIED,
ITEM NO 4
OR4NGE COUNTY TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO.. 4817 - Located east of
Richfisid Road, approximately 1,500 feet south of Bu=na Vista
Avenue in the Yorba Linda area, covering appzoxir;ateiy 7.,98
acres and proposed for subdivision into 54 planned development
lots., The existing zoning is R4-~i99,PD-6000,
Assistant Zonirtg Supervisor Ronald Thompson reviewed the Tentative Map of Tract No~ 4817,
noting he had discussed the far,t that the map Was inadequate for~onsideration - havever,
that which the Commission was viewing indicated private, inte:ior streets with a street
pattern approved by the County; that the Yorba Linda General Plan indicated low-medium
density for subject property; that the proposed development did not meet the City of
Anaheim standards for a planned residential development since no recreational area was
being provid~d.
Commissioner Rowland offered a r~otion to table any action on Orange County Tentative Map
of Tract Noe 4817, based on the fact that insufficient data was available for the Commission
to make any recommendation, Commissioner Camp s~conded the motion~ MOTION CARRIED,.
ITEM PJO, 5
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 734 - Amendment to Condition No,
which required completion of conditions within 180 days~
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Ronaid Thompson reviewed the data relative to the establish-
ment of a motel and the fact that at the time the Report to the Commission was prepared,
evidently a clerical error had occurred in which Condition No~ 7 was contingent upon
completion within 180 days, or such time as the City Council would grant; that the City
Council had taken no action, therefore, the time limitation should read subject to what-
ever the Commission had decided; that the petitioner had submitted building plans to the
Building Department, but had not complied with any of the conditions in the resolutiono
Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts stated the Commission could amend the conditions of
the rzsolution based on the fact that Section 18~04,020 permitted the Commission to indicate
it was the Commission`s intention to required that all conditions be completed prior to
final building inspection, and that the Commission was desirous of amending their resolution
to clarify an oversight,
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution Noa 1868, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Cominissioner Rowland, to amend Condition Noe 7 of Resolution
No. 1'~29, Series 1965-66, granting Conditional Use Permit Noo 734 to read as follows:
"That Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, above mentioned, shall be complied with prior to
final building inspection"a (See Resolution Booke)
~
On roll call the foregoing resoluticn was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMNISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Perry, Rowiand, Mungallo
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None,
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst.
j
MINUIES, CITY PLANNING C(,._.iISSION, November 22, 1965 ~ 2842
REPORTS AND ITEM NOo 6
RECOMMENDATIONS VARIA~CE N0~ 1736 - Richard S~ Brace, 1402 West Romneya Drive,
(Continued) Anaheim, Califcrni2, requesting amendment to Condition Noa 5 by
the deletion of Condition Noo 4 to be complied with within 180
days, or prior to the issuance of a building permit, whichever
occurs firsto
Mr. Herbert Muise, agent for the petitioner and a representative of Guaranteed Homes,
appeared before the Commission and stated Condition No. 4 required a record of survey
be approved and recorded with the Orange Cnunty Recorder prior to the issuance of a
. building permit; that the preliminary survey had been completed - however, it would
~ be another six to eight weeks before it could be recorded with the Orange County Recorder;
j that the builders were now ready to start construction, but were unable to obtain a build-
?f ~ ing permit because of the requirement that all conditions be met prior to issuance of the
•,•~ building permit, and requested release from said requirement~
Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No, 1869, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to amend Condition Noe 5 by the deletion
of inention to Condition Noo 49 and to attach to Condition No~ 4 the requirement "tnat a
parcel map to record the app:oved division of subject property be submitted to the City
of Anaheim for approval and then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder
prior to final building inspection~~, (See Resolution Book~)
On ro:l call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
kYES: COh1MISSIGNERS: Allred, Camp, Perry, Rowland, Mungall
NOES: COMMISSIOtvERS: None,.
ABSENT: COMA4ISSIONERS: Gauer, `lerbsto
ITEM NO.. 7
Public hearing date for the proposed Hill and Canyon General Plano
_ .r~
Planni~g Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski distributed to the Commission copies of the Hill
and Canyon General Plan and noted that meetings were being scheduled with the Anaheim
Board of Realtars - Planning and Zoning Committee, the Chamber of Commerce - Planning and
Zoning Committee, Orange Unified School District, City of Anaheim Interdepartmental
Committee, and others as directed by the Planning Commission to discuss the plan prior
to public hearing befo:e the Planning Commission, and it was s~~ggested the Co~runission
set for public hearing at 7:00 P~M~, December 20, 1965, said Hill and Canyon General
Plana
Discussion was held by the Commission :elative to the date proposed for public hearing,
noting it was during Christmas week, and perhaps a limited number of people would be
present to present their viewpoints on this plan-:
Commissioner Perry offered a motion to direct the Development Services Department to set
for public hearing on January 3, 196fi, at 7:C0 P,M~ the Hill and Canyon General Plano
Commissioner~Camp seconded the motion, MOTION CARRIEDa
ADJOURNMENT - There being no furiher business to discussy Commissioner Camp offered
a motion to adjourn the meeting„ Commissioner Allred seconded the
motiono MOTION CARRIED~
The meeting adjourned at 6:23 P~M~
Respectfully submitted,
c/` `~~~~~'~
ANN KREBS, Secretary
Anaheim City Planning Commission
F~'{~
•
.~x
r,
r
4 ._~ .a~~
i
~
~` ~
~ -
*
~
~~ '
~ I
G,
i1
~ 1 .._ _ _