Minutes-PC 1966/04/11~
~ ~ ~ ~ ;. ,~
ro
r
~
~
c~
0
0
~
H
~
N
H
O
~
Hz
Ci]
~
A ;
~ - ~«
F~ ~
F-'
U
~
O~
N
O
\
~
~
~
City Hall
Anaheim, California
April 11, 1966
,~-~;#
il
~~ ~
~
~.
,~ ~
a
A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Com~ission was called to
order by Chairman Camp at 2:00 o'ciock P.M., a quorum being present.
PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Camp.
- COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry.
ABSENT - COMMISSIONER: Rowland.
PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Robert Mickelson
Zoning Supervisor: Ronand Thompson
Planning Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski
Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts
Office En9ineer: Arthur Daw
Associate Planner: Jack Christofferson
Associate Planner: Marvin Krieger
Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs
' PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Perry led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
APPROVAL OF - The Minutes of the meeting of March 28, 1966, were approved with the
THE MINUTES following corrections: page 2981, paragraph 7, "Go~rrissioner Gauer
stated the reason he was desirous of determiningo.."; page 29$~, last
paragraph, add: "; whereupon the Commission inquired of Mr. Johnson
whether he would be willing to provide a separation for the service
bar from the main dining areae Mro Johnson stated he would be willing
to install the recommended separation".
CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ANDREW M. ZURICK, 519 North Dale Avenue,
PERMIT N0. 809 Anaheim, California, Owner; VERNON T. NORMINTON, 1591 Mells Lane,
Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A HOFBRAU
WITH ON-SALE BEER IN AN EXISTING STRUCTURE WITH WAIVER OF MINiMUM REQUIRED
PARKING SPACES on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a
frontage of aVproximately 120 feet on the south side of Winston Road and having a maximum
depth of approximately 107 feet, the easterly boundary of subject property being approxi-
mately 225 feet west of the cente*lins of Anaheim Aoulevard, and further described as
120-122 Winston Road. Property ~:-•sently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
Subject petition was continued from the meetings of February 16 and March 14, 1966, in
order to aliow the petitioner time to submit revised plans.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that a letter from the agent for
the petitioner requesting termination of Conditionai Use Permit No. 809 had been received~
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to terminate all proceedings of Conditional Use Permit
No. 809 as requested by the agent for the petitior,er. Commissione~ Mungall seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
~ ~
~ ~
fi
t, ; ~ :
f;
'.
~ i .
'~ - --
RECLASSIFICATION - COtJTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. CHARLIE N. BROCK, 3133 West Orange Avenue,
N0. 65-66-98 Anaheim, California, Owner; BEN CHEEK, JR., 4303 West 5th Street,
Santa Ana, California, Agent; requesting that property described as:
An irregularly shaped parcel of land containing approximately 3.15 acres,
with a frontage o; approximately 500 feet on the north side of the Carbon Creek channel and
having a maximum depth of approximately 271 feet, the westerly boundary of subject property
being approximately 750 feet east of the centerline of Western Avenue be reclassified from
the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-1, OP1E-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
Subject petition was continued from the meeting of March i4, 1966, in order to allow time
for the developer to negotiate for the property to the east with the County of Orange.
2993
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1966 2994
: ~,~ f
' ~ ~~
RECLASSIFICA?ION - Zonin, Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that a request
N0. 65-66-98 from the developer had been received, requesting that the Commission
(Continued) grant a further continuance of four weeks to allow time for che developer
to negotiate for the property to the east with the Coun~y of Orange.
Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to continue public hearing of Reclassification No.
65-66-98 to the meeting of May 9, 1966, as requested by the petitioner. Commissicner Perry
se~•onded the motion. AM1~TIUN CARRIEDe
TENTAIIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: R. J. BERRY, 4514 West 3rd Street, Santa Ana, California.
TRACT N0. 6163 ENGINEER: Raab and Boyer Engineering Company, 1731 South Euclid Street,
Suite A, Anaheim, California. Subject tract, located northerly of Grange
Avenue and easterly of Western Avenue, containing approximately 3.1 acres,
is proposed for subdivision into 12 R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONEDlots.
Subject tract was continued from the meetings of February 16 and March 14, 1966, in order to
allow the developer time to negotiate for additional property to the east.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that subject tract was in conjunction
with Reclassification No. 65-66-98, and that the developer had also requested continuance of
subject tract until ne+~otiations were completed for additional property under the jurisdiction
of the County of Orange, located to the east of subject property.
Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to continue Tentative Map of Tract No~ 6163 to the
meeting of May 9, 1966, to be heard in conj~nction with Reclassifica~ior No. 65-66-98, as
requested by the developer. Commissioner Perry seconded the motion, MOTION CARRIED.
TEN'IATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: BAYF'ORT DEVEIAPMENT COMPANY, 1535 East 17th Street, Santa
TRACT N0. 5b23, Ana, California. ENGINEER: Jennings-Halderman-Hood, 1833 East 17th
REVISION N0. 2 Street, Suite 200, Santa Ana, California. Subject tract, located on the
east side of Dowling Avenue, between Crowther and Urangethorpe Avenues,
and containing approximately 9.9 acres, is proposed for subdivision into
31 R-3 zoned lots.
_ Mr. Hugh Halderman, the engineer of Tentative Map of Tract No. 5623, stated the developer
had constructed a similar development alo:~g Chapman Avenue witt~ apparent success~
Mr. Halderman also discussed the site layout with the Commission and noted that the property
in question had a resolution of intent to R-3, Multiple-Family Residential, Zone.
Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No~ 5623, Revision
No. 2, subject to the following conditicns:
1. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each
subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval>
2e That a predetermined price for Lot "A" shall ka calculated and an agreement for
dedication entered into between the developez and the City of Hnaheim prior to
approval of the final tract map. The cost of Lot "A" shall include the land
and a proportionate share of the undergroun.~ utilities and street improvemente
3. That the vehicular access rights, except at street and/or alley openings, to
Crowther and Orangethorpe Avenues, shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim.
4. Th..t the alley cut-offsshall con:orm to standard plan No. 130.
5. That the alley along the westerly and northerly line of Lot Noo 3 sha11 be
realigned to the northerly line of Lot Noo 3,
Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. NbTION ;ARRIED.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. CHIELL L. PHAR~'IS, 18151 Charter Road, Orange, California,
PE;?adIT NU. 826 Uwner; requesting permission to EXCAVATE AND RENIOVE SAND AND GRAVEL TO A
~i`i DEPTH OF 75 FEET on property described as: A rectangularly shap=d parcel
` of land (containing approximately 9.8 acres) with a frontage of approxi-
i, `; mately 693 feet on the east side of Miller Street and having a maximum depth of approximately
~_ 615 feet, the northerly boundary of subject property being approximately 1150 feet soutn of
.~ * the centerline of Orangethorpe Avenue, and further described as 6722 Miller Street. Property
y~ presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
~
MINUYtS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1966
29-95
CONDITIONAL USE - Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Ccmmission that the
rERA~.IT N0, 826 petitioner had submitted a letter requesting a two weeks' continuance
(Continued) of time in order to meet with zeprespnta±ives of the Orange County
Water District.
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to continue consideratior. cf Petition for Conditional
Use Parmi~ Noe 826 to the meeting of Apr:l 25, 1966, as requested by the ~etitionero
Commissioner Nerbst seconded the motione MQTIGN CAHRIED.
CONDITIONAi USE - PUBLIC HEARING. LYl1N E. THOh1SEN AND RONkLD K. RIRIE, 625 South En~clid
PERMIT N0. 830 Street, Anaheim, Calif~rnia, ~wners; CLEMIS D. BENGSTON, 723 North
Hawthorne Streat, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permiss.ion to
ESTABLISH H PRIVATE ELEMENTARY SCi{OOL IN AN EX:STING RE5IDENTIAL STRUCTURE
on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parrel of land with a frontage of approxi-
c~ately 100 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue and having a maximum depth of approxi-
mately 130 feet, the easterly boundary of subject property bein9 apprcximately 1547 feet west
of the centerlir,e of Euclid St:eet, and further described as 1845 West La Palma Awenueo
i'roperty presently classified R-A, AGRICULTUr~AI,, ZONE.
Mr. Cl.emis Dengston, agent fcr `Che petitioner, appeared befo:e the Commission and reviewed
the proposed use of subject property, noting it was intendad to ~atart the private school
with tEn studeats,.ar..d the maxim~m number that would be enrolled in tre school would be
thirty; ~hat adequatie off-street parking was provided; that a play area would be to tha
rear of the structure; further, in resp~nse to Cammission questioning, stated no State
permit was required tQ o~erate a private school - that he had investigated this; and rhat
there were th:ee bathrooms for restroom facilities, which would adequately handle bott.
boys and girls and the teaching staff,
No one appeared '2n opposition to subject petitio~~
THE HEARING WAS CIASEG.
Commissioner Perry pffered Resolut?.on ho. 1994, Series ;965-66, and moved for its passage
and adopt-icn, seconded by Commissioner Nllred, to grant Petic?on for Conditional Use Permit
I~o• 830, subject to sonditions. (See Reso:ution Booic,)
On roll call. the :oregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: CAMMISSIQNERS: Hllred, Gsuer, Herbst, Mungali, Perry, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONER~: None.
ABSENT: GQMMISSIONERS: Rowlai~d.
CONDITIONAL I:SE •• PUBLIC HEARING. EDWARD J. FIORELLA, 1301 Brittany Cross Road, Santa Ana,
PERMIT N0, 8;,1 California, Owner; PHIL PISCIOTTA, 1835 East Pacific Coast Higt~way,
Long Beach, California, Agent; reyuesting pe:mission to ES'fABLISH A
(2) MAXIMUM BUILDINGRHEIGHTRO(3) hSINIMUMAREQUiREDwLANDSCAPING,)ANDN(4)M6FFOOT MASONRYS~
WALL ABUTTING A RESIDENTIAL ZONE on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel
of land situated at the northwesi corner of State College Boulevard and Center Street and
having frontages of approximately 102 feet on State College fioulevard and approximately
88 feet on Center Street. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL CUh1MERCIAL, ZONE.
Chairman Camp ind'u ated the petitioner had made a verbal request of a two week continuance
to submit revised plans.
Mr. Glenn 0'Nea1, 1941 East Center Street, owner of property immediately adjacent to subject
property, appeared before the Commission and stated he was not op~osed to any C-1 development
on the property; however, th~a property owner had divided the property, leaving a small parcel
obviously undevelopable for commPrcial use, and was now requesting waiver of innumerable
sections of the Anaheim Municipal Code, thereby penalizing the adjoining property owners who
had complied with Code requirements; that the property should be incorporated in the hospital
development to the north, thereby eliminating any necessity for a substandard commercial
development.
~~~ i
Mr. 0`Neal then indicated on the plans where the petitioner had divided the property, thus
making the waiver requests necessary.
~ Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the possibility of the revised plans not
• being submitted in sufficient time for consideration by the Interdepartmental Committee,
~ and whether or not subject petition should be continued for four weeks rather than two weekso
~I ;
!
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1966 2996
~~
~s .
1~
i
, '~
,~_,
~
CONDITIONAL USE - Assistant Development Services Director Robert Mickelson advised the
PERMIT Np, g31 Commission the petitioner had indicated that time was of tfie essence,
(Continued) and if the plans were submitted in time, the Commission could hear it
in two weeks. Furthermore, a number of continued items were already
scheduled for the May 9th meeting, thus possibly creating a F~avy agenda.
The Commission was of the opinion that the petitioner should be informed that the number of
waivers requested was far more than the Commission wo~ld consider, and the revised plans
should eliminate a number of these waivers. Furthermore, he should consider the possibility
of combini~g with the property to the north in order to develop the entirN parcel for hospital
purposes.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission the petitioner had been made aware
of the numerous waivers and suqgested in the several meetings the staff had had that the
revised plans indicate elimination of some of these waivers.
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to continue Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 831
to the meeting of April 25, 1966, as requested by the petitioner, for t.~~e submission of
revised plans. Commissioner Perry seconded the motion. MpTION CARRIEU.
CQVDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. BENJAMIN F. KNAPP, 125 South West Street, Anaheim,
PERMIT N0. 832 California, Owner; requesting permission to EXPAND AN EXISTING M~N-
CONFORMING REST HOME FOR AMBULATORY, ELDERLY PEUPLE, WITH WAIVER OF
MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING SPACES on property described as: A rectangularly
shaped parcel of land situated at the northwest corner of West Street and Chestnut Street
and having frontages of approximately 80 feet on West Street and approximately 150 feet on
Chestnut Street, and further described as 125 South West Street. Property presently classi-
fied P-1, AUTOMOBILE PARKING, ZONE.
Mrs. Anna E. Knapp, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the
proposed expansion of a rest home and advised the Commission the rest home had been approved
for 20 people if subject petition was approved.
iUo one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THE riEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commission, in reviewing the plans, noted 11 bedrooms were proposed which meant some
of the rooms were semi-private.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No~ 1995, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoptioa, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit
No. 832, subject to conditions and the finding that the required parking be waived to permit
three parking spaces. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolu:ion was passed by the fcllowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENI: CUMMISSIONERS: Rowland>
CONDITIUNAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. R08ERT L. MILLER, 866 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim,
PERMIT NG. 833 California, Owner; ANN T. MADISON, 2C24 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim,
California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH UFFICE USES IN A
RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE WITH WAIVERS UF (1) MINIMUM SITE SIZE Of 20,000
SQUf,RE FEET AND (2) StCTION 18.40.050(a) WHICH REQUIRES ALL PARKING BE LOCATED AT THE REAR
OF A RESIDENtiAL STRUCTURE on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land
wit.. a frontage of approximately 62 feet on the east side of Harbor Boulevard and having a
maximum depth of approximately 103 feet, the southerly boundary of subject property being
approximately ]50 feet north of the centerline of Hampshire Avenue, and further described
as 866 South Harbor Boulevard. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL,
ZONE (Resolution of Inteni to C-0, CGMMERCIAL OFFICE, ZONE pending).
Mrs. Ann Madison, agent for the petitioner, indicated her presence to answer questions.
The Commission noted the petitioner was proposing a 40-foot curb cut and inquixed of Office
Engineer Arthur Daw what was the maximum curb cut permitted.
Mr. Daw stated a maximum of 30 feet would be permitted.
~
~
MINUTES, CiTY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1966 299~
CONDITIONAL USE - Mrs. Madison then asked for waiver of the recommended screen planting
PERMIT N0. 833 along the east property line because there already was a six-foot
(Continued) masonry wall, and if screen pianting were required, this would reduce
the parking spaces.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono (See late: minutes after Variance
No. 1782 for the oppositiono)
THE HEARING WqS CIASED.
The Commission noted the screen planting was necessary to protect the single-family home-
~ owners to the east in order that their privacy would be assured since there was no alley
to separate the commerciai from the residential use, and the noise, dust, and fumes from
automobiles parking in the parkin9 area would add to the feeling of an invasion of privacy;
furthermore, if the screen landscaping were required and a possible reduction of the parking
area was noted, the Commission might waive the minimum required parking spaces,
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that only a three-foot strip of
landscaping was needed, and there was adequate space to provide this without reducing the
' number of parking spaces.
;
Commissioner Perry offered Resolutior. No. 1996, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Cunditional Use Permit
~ No. 833, sub,}ect to conditions and a finding that screen landscaping was deemed necessary
to insure the privacy of the single-family environment to the east of subject property
because the normally required alley to separate commercial from residential uses was
impossible to provide. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll ca11 the foregoin9 resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COM~A7ISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Camp,
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: No~e,
ABSENT: COMMISSIUNERS: Rowland~
VARIANCE NOo 1779 - PUBLIC HEARINGo LEDGER T. SMITH, 151 h1iramont Drive, Fullertc+~,
California, Owner; T. J. N1~RIARTY, Box 4090, Anaheim, California,
- Agent; requesting permission to WAIVE: (1) NUMBER OF FREE-STANDING
- SIGNS, (2) IACATION OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN, AND (3) MAXIMI~M AREA OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN
, on property described as: An irreyularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approxi-
mately 150 feet on the north side of Kat.ella Avenue and having a m~ximum depth of approxi-
mately 150 feet, the nortlieast boundary of subject property being approxinately 630 feet
southwest of the i~tersection of Howell and Katella Avenues, and further described as
2331 East Katella Avenueo Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDl1STRIAL and P-L,
PARKJNG-LANDSCAPING~ ZONESe
Mr. harry Knisely, attorney for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed
the purpose of the proposed variance, noting that when the underpass on Katella Avenue was
i completed, adequate signing of subject property would not be possible; therefore the request
I for the location of the new sign.
~ 7he Commission inquired of Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thom son the a
the existing free-standing sign and the P pProximate distance between
stated a proposed free-standing sign, whereupon Ulr. Thompson
pproximately 150 feet separated the two signs~
~I No one appeared in opposition to sub'ect
~ .7 petition.
!I THE HEARING WAS Ci~SeD.
~ i Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the proposed sign and its relationship to
~ the number of requests for waiver of the Sign Ordinance, the Commission being of the orinion
~ I that the Sign Ordinance had not been given adequate time in which to operate in order to
~„ determine its practicability; that the Sign Ordinance wou1J permit a free-standing sign of
~ a height of approximately 40 feet, with a 300 square foot area and could be located at one
~ corner of the parcel which would adequately sign subject pzaperty; that the statement made
w that subject property would not be adequately s:.gned upon co-pletion of the underpass of the
;. ;
~ railroad was doubtful since a sion as permitted Sy C'ode would adequately sign subject property.
~~ Commissioner Allred offered itesolution No. 1997, ;,eries 1965-66, and moved for its passage and
adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to deny Petition for ~lariance No. 1779, based on the
~' fact that the Sign Ordinance would adequately provide for the signing of subject property;
~ ~ that no hardship was apparent in the proposed re;~uest; and that there were no extraordinary
7~ or ex~eptional circumstances to warrant granting subject petition. (See Resolution Bcok.j
,~
t
J
MINU;~G. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1966 2998
VARIANCE N0. 1779 - On roll c..ll tt:e foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote~
(Continued)
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Campo
1~JES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee
ABSFNT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland.
VARIANCE N0. 1780 - PUBLIC HEARING. SANTA ANITA INVESTMENTS, INCORPORATED, 225 Via Quito,
TENTATIVE MAP UF Newport Beach, California, Owner; DIAL CONSTRUCTIUN, INOORPORATED,
TRACT N0. 6184 g732 Westminster Avenue, Suite 5, Westminster, California, A9ent;
' ~ requesting permission to DEVELOP A 20-UNIT, SINGLE-FAMILY DEVEIAPMENT ON PROPERTY APPROVED
~ FOR R-3 SUBDIVISION~ WITH WAIVER OF SECTIOII 18.24.030(1) MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK (25-FOOT
~ SETBACK RE~UIRED - 22-FOOT SETBACK PRGPOSED ^N IVJU LOTS); SECTION 18.24,030(4) MINIMUM IAT
~ AREA AND WIDTH (.LOT AREA: 7200 SQUARE FEET RcQUIRED - 6600 SQUARE FEET PROPOSED) (1AT WIDTH:
~ 70 FEET REQUIRED -60 FEE'i PROPOSED)on properly described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of
~ land with a frontage of approximately 280 feet or. the west side of South Haster Street and
having a maximum depth of approximately 630 feet, ~_he northerly b^~~ndary of subject property
being approximately 1090 feet south of the centerline of Crangewood Avenue, and further
described as 2229 South Haster Street> Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONEo
Subject tract, located on the west side of Haster Street between Chapman and Orangewood
Avenues, and containing approximately 4.24 acres, is proposed for subdivision into a 21-unit,
detached, one-family development on property approved for R-3 zone.
Mr. Ronald Martin, engineer of the proposed tract and representing the developer, stated he
was available to answer questions the Commission might have.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
; Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 1998, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1780,
subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoi~~g resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Camp~
NOES: CUMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland.
Commissioner Allred offered a motion ±o approve Tentative Map of Tract No, 6184,
subject to the following conditions, and a finding:
FINDING:
That the proposed 6600-square foot lots offer an alternative method of developing property
approved for medium density, and the proposed siibdivision would provide privacy to property
owners which could not be accomplished if subject property were developed for multiple-
family residential use.
CONDITIONS:
1. That should this subdivisi.on be developed as more than one subdivisior., each subdivision
. thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval.
F 2e That the a
pproval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 6184 is granted subject to the approval
; I of Variance No. 1780.
~ 3. That the vehicular access rights, except at si.reet and/or alley openings, to Haster
Street, shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim.
4. That in accordance with City Council policy, a six-foot masonry wall shall be constructed
• on the east property line separating Lot Nose 1 and 20 and Haster Street, except that
Corner Lot Nos. 1 and 20 shall be stepped down to a height of 30 inches in the front
yard setback, and except that pedestrian openings shall be provided in said walls where
. cul-de-sac streets abut the planned highway rights-of-way line of an arterial highway~
; Reasonable landscaping, including irrigation fac?lities, shall be installed in thP un-
cemented portion of the arterial highway parkway the full distar.ce of said wall, plans
for said landscaping to be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Superinten-
~ '>
~ dent of Parkway Maintenanceo Following installation and acceptance, the City of
~ ~ Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscapingo
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ April 11, 1966 299?
VARIANCE N0. 1780 - 5. That sewer service for this tract shall be provided by the Garden
TENTATIVE MAP OF Grove Sanitary District.
TRACT NOa 6184
(Continued) Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
VARIANCE N0. 1781 - PUBLIC HEARING. ALVIN N. GIBSON, P. 0. Box 196, Wahoo, Nebraska, Owne~r;
CHRIS HEUCKEROTH, 2066 Grayson Street, Anaheim, California, Agent;
requesting permission to ESTA~3LISH A Pf-t~TO STUDIO IN AN EXISTING RESIDEh,^,E
WITH WAIVER OF (1) MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING SPACES FOR R-1 ZONE ANp (2) MAXIMUM PERMITTED
SIGN AREA IN A SINGLE-FAMILY ZONc on property desc.ribed as: a rectangularly shaped parcel
' ' of land with a frontage of approximately 70 feet n;~ the south side of Broadway and having
_s-:''~S_ a maximum depth of approximately 104 feet, the easterly boundary of subject property being
approximately 1162 feet west of the certerline of Euclid Street, and further described as 1788
F West Broadway. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
Mr. Chris Y.euckeroth, the aqent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and
reviewed the use of subject property and the proposed development of the property..
Mro Philip Soma, 252 Brentwood Place, appeared before the Commission in opposition, stating
_, he had a petition signed by 31 property owners opposing the proposed use of subject property
for commercial uses; that the proposed use would be spot zoning, although the petitioner was
not requesting reclassification of the prcperty; that the proposed park site on South Broadway
and the church and Girl Scout headquarters on the north side of Broadway would act as an
adequate buffer for the Euclid Shopping Center now under construction; that it was not desir-
ous to have Broadway have the ultimate appearance of North Brookhurst Street, since if subject
petitiun were granted, it would be setting a precedent for similar requests of other homes
along Broadway; and that there were many suitable places within the City for corrmercial uses
such as being requested, which woul.d provide adeGuate parking for a commercial venture,
Mr. Don Marshall, 237 Brentwood Place, appeared before the Commission and stated he was zn
employee of a realty company, and from his exparience, there were many properties within the
City suitably zoned for commercial uses; that he was opposed to any encroachment of commer-
. cial uses on Broadway with many very attractive homes being maintained between Euclid Street
and Brookhurst an Broadway; and that the property owners were not desirous of havin9 commer-
~ cial encroachment in close proximity to their properties~
_; A showing of hands indicated 10 persons present in the Council Ct.amber opposing subject
_ petition,
The agent for the petitioner stated he did not wish to present any rebuttal.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
~ ~ Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. 1?99, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
~ and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to deny Petition for Variance Noo 1781, based
` on the fact that the proposed commercial use of subject property would set a precedent for
~ similar requests for an area not yet ready for commercial development; that it would destroy
~ . the residential integrity of the area; and that there has been no apparent desire to convert
i th~e properties into a more dense use of the properties because the homes are well maintained.
(See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
~ AYES: COMMI5SIUNERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Camp.
F NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
i ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland.
I
I
i VARIANCE N0. 1782 - PUBLIC HEARING. CHRLSTIAN CENTcR CHURCH, Box 622, Anaheim, California,
; Owner; REVEREND RALPH WILKERSON, 2544 Standish Avenue, Anaheim,
California, Agent; requesting permission to WAIVE MAXIMUM SIGN AREA on
. property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land (approximately 2.1 acres) bour.ded
on the north by the Riverside Freeway and being approximately 280 feet east of Fast Street,
and further described as 1340 North Candlewood Street. Property presently classified R-A,
AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
;~ Reverend Ralph Wilkerson, agent for the
the church had been a Petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated
pproved under a conditional use permit but did not realize a sign permit
was necessary; that the proposed sign would b~ oriented to the freeway and would act as a
~ * directional sign since the church had no direct access to East Street; that the proposed
~~ ~ sign had been given to the church by one of the parishion2rs; and that he felt it would be
an asset to the church faCilities.
~i
P~ j i
~
i~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Ap~il 11~ 1966
3000
VARIANCE N0. 1782 - Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the proposed sign
(Continued) and the fact that the freew~y drivers might not see the sign in time
to take the off-ramp on Eas~ Street; that State College Bou'evard would
be the next off-ramp and would be a mile distant from E~st Street, and
inquired of the agent for the petitioner for a complete description of the sign.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that under the R-A zone, a 20-square
foot sign was permitted, whereas the petitioner was proposing 75 square feet since this would
be a two-face sign.
Reverend Wilkerson advised the Commission the sign would be comprised of a 15-foot cross and
stained gla,s would be the balance with a directional sign for the street =xit; furthermore,
he had a letter from residents in the area who indicated no opposition to the proposed sign~
. No one appeared in opposition to sub;ect petition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commission discussed with Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts the fact that the existing
Sign Ordinance did not take into consideration church signs; that churches were a permitted
use in all zones, subject to the filing of a conditional use permit and was not a permitted
use by right in any zone; that under the R-A zone the 20-square foot sign was the usual sign
approved for a single-family home wishing to display its agricultural products, and that it
was assumed it would be taken care of when a conditional use permit for a church was filed;
however, the existing church had been approved some time prior to the adoption of the Sign
Ordinance - therefore the variance was a necessary vehicle whicn wouid approve or deny the
proposed sign.
Reverend Wilkerson, in response to Commission discussion relative to the location of the
sign, stated it was not adjacent to the freeway but was proposed to be located in the centCr
of a parking area.
Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. 2000, Series 1965-56, and moved for its passaye
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to grant Petition for Variance No~ 1782,
subject to conditionso (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland.
CONDITIONAL USE - Chairman Camp advised the Commission that the opposition for Corditional
PERMIT N0. 83.9 - Use Permit No. 833 had arrived too late tc express their opposition to
RECOMMENDATION TO the conditional use permit - however, they requested the Commission's
THE CITY COUNCIL consideration in presenting their opposition.
Mrs. Wesley Jones, 856 South Helena Street, appeared before the Commission
and stated she was representing 8 persons present in the Council Chamber in opposition to the
proposed use •.: subject property; that the only reason for being late was they had misjudged
Cit SCouncil hadca the agenda would be processed by the Commission; that they were aware the
Y pproved a resolution of intent to reclassify subject property to the C-0
zone - however this was not in effect as yet; that the proposed use would, with the requested
waivers, create a deteriorating and detrimental condition in the neighborhood, as well as to
the ult~mate development of the property under the C-0 zone which was the intent of the City
Courcil; and that i2 parking were permitted in the front setback, this would create a similar
situation as presently existed on Brookhurst Street north of I.incoln Avenue.
In response to Commission questioning relative to those present in opposition, Mrs. Jones
stated that in the 842 to 857 block of South Helena Street, ldrs, C. A~ L.inehan, Mrs. M. Z.
Marcoux, Mrs. F. R. St. John, whose property w~; directly affected by the proposed use,
Mrs. M~ X. Benedick, Mrs. William Fassil, and ;~rs. R. D. Routh were those present in the
Council Chamber.
Chairman Cemp advised Mrs. Jones that the Commis;4on had already taken action on Conditional
Use Permit No. 833, and if she wished to have this as an official document, she would have
to appeal subject petition to the City Council, or the Commission could recommend to the
City Council that this be set for public hearing.
~ Discussion was then held by the Commission as to whether or not they wished to recommend to
* the City Council the consideration of the testimon
~ Conditional Use Permit No, 833. Y Just presented by the opposition on
~,
r
MINUTES, CIIY PLANNING COMMISSIUN, April 11, 1966
3001
CONDITIONAL USE - Commissioner Allred offered a motion to recommend to the City Council
PERMIT N0. 833 that consideration by their Body be given to setting Conditional Use
(Continued) Permit No. 833 for public hearing to consider officially the opposi-
tion presented too late for Commission consideration at their public
hearing due to the late arriva] of the opposition. Commissioner Gauer
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
t
VARIANCE N0. 1783 - FIJBLIC HEARING. ROBERT L. HATIiERLY, 202 Charlene Terrace, Anaheim,
California, Owner; requesting permission to WAIVE THE REQUIRED FRONT
YARD SETBACK on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel
of land situated at the northeast corner of Underhill Avenue and Charlene Terrace, and
having frontages of approximately 102 feet on Underhill Avenue and approximately 60 feet
on Charlene Terrace, and further described as 202 Charlene Terraceo Property presently
classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
Mr. Robert Hatherly, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated his home
was presently oriented to Underhill Avenue but had a Chariene Terrace address; that the
original garage had been converted to a family room eleven years ago; and that the proposed
variance was necessary because of the change in orientation of the front setback areao
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THE HEpRING WAS CLOSED.
, Office En9ineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that from inspect-ion it was determined
there was a possible curb impression where the old drive existed, and if this were still
existing, the Commission should require removal and :eplacement with standard curb and
gutter for that area.
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution Noe 2001, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Variance No~ 1783,
subject to conditions, and an additional condition that the existing curb impression where
the former drive was located be removed and replaced with a standard curb and gutter.
(See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYFS: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Camp,
NOES: COMMISSIUNERS: None.
ABScNT: CUMMISSIONERS: Rowland.
VARIANCE N0, 1784 - PUBLIC HEARING. IMPERIAL BANK, Box 47875, Los Angeles, California,
Owner; JAMES K. SCHULER, 914 East Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California,
Agent; requesting permission to WAIVE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN
150 FEET OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE on property described as: A rectangularly
shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 70 feet on the south side of Glencz•est
Avenue and having a maximum depth of approximately 110 feet, the westerly boun~~:•ry of subject
property being approximately 341 feet east of the cente:line of Chippewa Avenue, and further
described as 1810 Glencrest Avenue. Property presently classified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY
kESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
Mr. James Schuler, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that
subject property wa.; bounded on either side by two-story apartments, and the requested waiver
was a formality because of R-1 development to the south, approximately 100 feet from the pro-
posed development.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. 2002, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1784,
subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIOtJERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Camp.
NOES: CUMMISSIONERS: None.
~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLAN~I9~G COMMISSION, April 11, 1966 3002
RECLASSIFICATIUN - PUBLIC HEARING. CUBk REED, GEORGE K. RE"eD, AND KATHERINE C. BEATTIE,
NOo 65-66-1~0 2058 South Euclid Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; P.LEX L. FISHMAN,
363 SQUth Main Street, Suite 214, Urange, California, Agent; requesting
that property described as: A rectangu:arly shaped parcel of land
situated at the northeast corner oi Euclid Street and Orangewood Avenue and having frontages
of aNproximat~ly "s25 feet on Orangewood Avenue and approximately 350 fe~~t on Euclid Street,
be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZOIJE, to
establish a neigliborhood convenience shopping center on subject propertyo
Mr. Alex Fishmar., agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commissio~~ an~ reviewed the
proposed developme~t, noting that the arrhitecture wo~ld be similar to the Town and Country
development in the City of Orange; that the s~opping center would be a convenience-type
center. at the intersection of two streets which were rapidly changinq in character - there-
fore making it infeasible to develop the property for single-family residential use; that
in his opinion, it would be poor planning to consider having a back-up treatmeni. of single-
family homes to heavily traveled streets; that the proposed use of sUbject property would
be compatible wi*.h the convalescent hospital approved to the north of subject property;
that the proposed development would be more compatible with the residential environment to
the north and east, as well as to the west of su~ject property; that the proposed develop-
ment would be considered a long ierm investment by the propo~ed owners of supject property;
that he had conferred with homeowners and presented the elevations, as well as the colored
rendering, which he then submitted to the Commission; that there presently existed a drainage
problem from the single-family subdivision adjoining subject property - however this would be
resolved if subject property were developed; that he would stipulate to a six-foot masonry
wall along the east property line if this was required by the Commission; that the parapets
on the roof would hide the mechanical equipment which wo•~ld be located on the roof but would
be placed in such a manner that it would eliminate as muc,, noise as possible from the resi-
dences to the east; and that the proposed Spanish style architecture would be complementary
to the residential inte9rity to the east as well as to the City of Anaheim.
Mr. Fishman also noted that if at all possible in order to maintain beautification tt~rough
landscaping, they would attempt to preserve ,.~e 100-year old c3mphor tree to make it o fr,cal
point of the development, and that he was aware there were single-family hoi.ies valued at
approximately $50,000 adjacent, but he felt there must be some compromise from heavy commer-
cial use for the property, and the proposed use would be a credit to the community.
Mr. Richard Rowen, 2057 Lida Lane, appeared before the Commission ir, opposition to subject
petition, stating that commercial use approved for subject property would result in loss in
value of the homes immediately adjacent; that the privacy of these homes would be invaded by
commercial uses; that his bedrooms were located im~r,ediately adjacent to subject property, and
to have an alley to serve these commercial facilities would mean all types of noises, dirt,
fumes and odors withir. 30 feet of the bedrooms of his home; that the loading and unloading of
the supplies for a grocery store would mean disruption of their sleep at all hours of the
night and early morning; that there was no assurance the proposed shopping center would be
constructed as presented by the petitioners; that the Anaheim General Plan indicated subject
property for low density, and no change had taken place to warrant considering heavier uses
for the property, which would be detrimental to the residential integrity of the area; that
adequate shopping facilities were located within one-half mile; that seven gas stations also
existed within a half mile of subject property; and to approve subject petition would estab-
lish a precedent for commercial uses of the remaining vacant parcels south of Oi•angewo~d
Avenue.
Mr. Devon E. Biggs, 1674 Tonia Place, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated
his property adjoined subject property immediately to the north; that when he purchased his
property he had checked to determine what was proposed for the vacant parcels adjoining his
properiy and had noted the General Plan indicated low density - this, then, prompted him to
purchase his home on Tonia Place which was originally intended to be a cul-de-sac - however,
since the City had approved a convalescent hospital northerly of subject property which,
incidentally~had never been developed, the cul-de-sac was eliminated; that there was no
evidence submitted that a shopping center was needed for the area, and many of the residents
of the single-family tract northe:ly and easteriy of subject property would have to walk
se~eral blocks in order to yet to the shopping center which was not a convenience since they
could take their cars and go to a larger shopping center where more selection was available;
and that the single-family homeowners should be given some protection from commercial intru-
sion into their area by denying subject petition.
Letters from the Garden Grove Planning Department and Mr, and Mrs. Fred Foster opposing
subject petition were read to the Commission.
Mr. Fishman, in rebuttal, stated that one point the Planning Staff and the homeowners seemed
* to have missed was the ract that he was
~ not a lar e sho Proposing to establish a specialty shopping center,
g pping center, since there were only 2~ acres involved; that the market would
not be the same size as Albertson's which had previously been submitted to the Com~ission
MINUTFS., CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1960 3003
. .'..~'1
.4 ~ ,
i~
, ~ ,. I
I I
;
~ _
~ ~
~
G?
~~ ~
RECLASSIFICATION - and denied; that there would b~~ a small pharmacy, a small neighborhood
N0. 65-66-100 bank and similar types of facilities; that he was somewhat surprised
(Continued) at the opposition from the City of Garden Grove because he had discussed
this with them, and they had informed him they would like to have a
similar establishment in their city since it would be sn asset to their
city; that the statement relative to a precedent being set was rather nebulous since the
proposed development was designed specificaliy for subject property; that if he felt the
proposed development would not be successful, he would not be investing $500,000 in this
development; furtner, in response to Commission questioning, stated that when he met with
the property owners there were approximately 12 to 15 people there - he had contacted 8
of the property owners immediately adjacent to subject property, and 6 of the owners attended
the meeting.
The Commission asked for a showing of hands of those opposing subject petition, and 7 persons
indicated their opposition.
TI-IE HEARING WAS CLOSCD.
Commissioner Gauer expressed concern that •.nany of the homeowners had invested considerable
amounts of money in their homes on the assumption the vacant land Nould be developed for
what was indicated on the General Pian, and they had no way to oppose any othEr development
except through the Commission and City Council; that he wished to compliment the proposed
developer of the property in the selection of the design presented - however, as an individual
on the Commission, he would have to consider the homeowners' investments first since they had
purchased their homes for residential purposes only, and the City should afford them some
form of protection.
Commissioner Perry expressed concern that approving subject petition might set a precedent
for development of the vacant parcei southerly of subject property, even though the proposed
development was of considerably higher quality than had ever been presented to the Commission;
that he was also in favor of giving some protection to the residents of the single-family
homes to the north and east, who had purchased their homes because the General Pian indicated
low density; ar.d that the proposed development might have a detrimental effect on the residen-
tial integrity of the area.
Commissioner Herbst stated that the proposed development was considerably better than had
been presented to the Commission in the past; that maximum protection was being planned for
the property owners to the east; that the petitioner zealized these people needed protection
from commercial infringement; that the Commission must consider the property owner's right
to develop his property to the highest and best use possible; and that a less palatable type
of development could be constructed on subject property at a later date.
Discussion was then held by the Commission relative to increasing the height of tha wall to
eight feet; however, Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission this would
require a variance since the Building Department could not approve an eight•-foot fence which
would be contrary to Code.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. 2003, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recommend to the City Council that Petition
for Reclassification No. 65-66-100 be approved, subject to conditions, and the requirement
that the development be subsiantial'.y in accordance with plans reviewed by the Commission,
based on the fact that these plans would be more compatible to the residential integrity to
the north and east of subjeci property. (See Resolution Book..)
On ro11 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst, Mungall, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Perry.
ABSENT: C(JMMISSIONERS: Rowland~
Chairman Camp indicated it was hardly likely the parcel would be developed for residential
use, and the proposed development would be more compatible to the residential integrity of
the area.
Commissioners Gauer and Perry were of the opinion the single-family homeowners should be
afforded pro~ection by retaining the residential integrity of the area~
ECE Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recess the meeting for ten
minutes~ Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. Ah~TION CARRIED.
The meeting recessed at 3:55 P.M.
RECANI!ENE - Chairman Camp reconvened the meeting at 4:05 P.M., all Commissioners
with the exception of Rowland being present,
c
f
MINUTES, CITY PLANPIING COMMISSION, April 11, 1966
3004
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARI~G. PAUL H. PLETZ AND WALTER A. GUUDEN, 122 'Nest Lincoln
N0~ 65-56-101~ Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; MC ~ANIEL ENGINEERING COh1PAtiY,
Box 3668, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that property described
as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately
100 feet on the south side oi Lincoln Avenue and having a..;aximum depth of approximately 250
feet, the easterly boundary of subject property being appror.imately 424 feet west of the
centerline of Loara Street, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-3,
HEAVY COMMERCIAL, ZONE, to provide additional parking facilities for an existing automobile
agency and used car sales lot.
A representative of McDaniel Engineering Company indicated his presence to answer questions.
Mr.. E. R~ McCoy, prospective owner of subject property and owner-operator of McCoy Ford
immediately east cf subject property,appeased befor~ the Commission and stated that the
property to the east provided for 39 parking spaces for employees; that if subject petition
were approved, an additional 18 spaces would be provided which was approximately one-half of
the employees and inquired why the City was now asking for parking spaces when C-3 zoning
was granted on the property to the east.
The Cortunission informed Mr. McCoy that the reclassification of the property to the east was
submitted to the Commission without a plot plan; that ali other commercial businesses were
of~uired t3 provide for off-street parking for their employees, and to grant complete waiver
parking requirements would be granting a privilege to the petitioner not enjoyed by other
businesses; and that the C-3 zone required two-thirds of the area for parking purposes,
Mr> McCoy stated they had 150 stalls for customers' cars, 60 stalls were provided for cars
on which they worked, and the reason the company was so successful was because they had a
complete displ~y of ail cars available~
Considerable discussion was then held by the Commission and Mr, McCoy relative to providing
adequate off-street parking for employees and methods of obtaining ade?uate parking. At its
conclusion, the Commission was of the opinion tne McCoy Ford C,mpany should comply with Code
requirements, or the staff or Commission could recommend to the City Council that two-hour
parking be placed on Lincoln tivenue ar,d Loara Street, and the Commission was not requesting
something of the petitioner which was not required of other petitioners who were desirous
of using the property for commercial purposes.
The Commission then inquired if the petitioner would stipulate to providing 75 marked e~r.~r.loyee,
off-street parking spaces, whereupon Mr~ McCoy agreed to this.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THE HEARING WAS CLGSED
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. 2004, Se~ies 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend to the City Council that Petition
for Reclassification No~ 65-66-101 be approved, siibject to providina a minimum of 75 marked
employee, off-street parking spaces on subject ~nd abutting properties. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIUNERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland.
RECLASSIFICAI'ION - PUBLIC HEARING. PAUL VON ESSEN, 5723 West 75th Street, Los Angeles,
N0. 65-66-97 California, and JOPAR, INCORPORATED, 5681 Deborah Street, Long Beach,
C~NDITIONAL USE California~ AWents~for•the recla~ssif8cationaandtconditionaleuseuena Park,
PERMIT N0. 824 ' g ' permit -
property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land situated at
the southwest corner of Crescent Avenue and Dale Avenue and having frontaqes
VARIANCE N0. 1773 of approximately 155 feet on Crescent Avenue and approximately 150 feet on
Dale Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED RECLASSIFICATIOA': C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CANDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A SERVICE STATIUN WITHIN 75 FrET OF A RESIDENTIAL
STRUCTURc IN AN R-A ZONE..
~~ -
~ ~~
F
- 7
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ April 11, 1966
3005
RECLkSSIFICATION - Property for the variance described a~:
~. 65-66-97_ of land with a fronta e of a A rectangularly shaped parcel
9 pproximately 69 ieet on the south side of
CONDITIONAL USE theseasterlynboundaryaofnsubjectlmum depth ~f approximately 150 feet,
PE~MIT N0. 824 west of tne ~enterline of Dale AvenueertPcoeeT9 approximately 195 feet
R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. P Y Presently classified
VARIANCE N0. 1773
(Continued) REQUESTED VARIPNCE: WAIVER OF (1) ~dINIMUM LOT SIZE AND
(2) MINIMUM LOT WIDTHe
Mr. K. E, Johnson, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that t.hr
lot split was necessary because more property was needed to complete a service station site;
that the property could not be rented because of the heavy traffic on both streets; that he
was aware there would be considerable opposition to any type of commercial development for
subject prop~rty - however, a number of the property owners to the south and west were i~
favor of subject petitions; furthermore, a church existed to the east, and the single-family
homes on the north ,ide of Crescent Avenue were backed up to Crescent Avenue with a six-foot
masonry wall, and, ttierefore, were not subjected to the heavy traffico
Mr. Floyd Adair, representing the Snell Oil Company, proposed lessees of the service station
site, appeared before the Commission and stated there were a nu;nber of property owners in
favor of the proposed reclassification, and he was desirous of having their feelings heard
as well as the opposition.
The Commission noted the variance covered a small 75-foot ~arcel westerly of the service
station site and was owned by one of the petitioners of the reclassification; therefore the
variance would be considered in conjunction with the reclassiiication and the conditional
use permit.
Mr. L. J. Myers, 533 North Dale Avenue, appeared before the Commission in favor of subject
petitions~3nd stated his property adjoined subject property; that he had built his home while
the propcrty was still in the County and was a desirable and quiet area - however, like many
of the other streets in the City of Anaheim, traffic and noise had developed and consequently
the residents of the street were also subjected to all these noises from c; that the homes
on the west side of Dale Avenue were constructed on large parcels of appro. ~teiy one-half
acre - however a number of them have been att~?.pting to sell their propertirs because of the
influx of traffic, but were unable to do so t~.ause the only people ~nterested were those
who wished to build additional units, heavy commercial, or real estate offices; that single-
family residential use of the property was considered incompatible bec3use of the traffic
problem - therefore he had come to the conciusion that the service station would provide
for the opening wedge to establish commercial uses along Dale Avenue; furthermore, a church
on the east side was constructed and ne one opposed this several ~ears ago, and it did not
present any problem, and in his opinion, this was considered a commercial facilityg that he
attended church where commercial facil=ties and service stations were in close proximity and
Avenuebhad aneinside street ordbackedto,nttohCrescenttAvenue andnhadeanmasonrydwall whichent
acted as a buffer to the traffic noises.
Mr. J. D. Romanoff, 8424 Planetary Drive, Buena Park, appeared before the Commission in
I ~ opposition to subject petitions and stated this was the fourth time the residents along
~ Dele and Crescent were appearing before the Commission in o
~ ~ for subject propprty; that the area was primarily residentiai~sntcharactermandctol uses
a use for property which was incompatible with the entire area was detrimental to thenresi-
r, dential inteqrity; that the homes in the area were valued between $25,000 and ~40,000 and
F urged that the Commission give consideration to the single-family homeowners whose property
~ valuation was considerably more than that of the petitioner:
I ~
Mr. Arthur Tartaqlia, 8494 Planetary Drive, Buena Park, appeared before the Commission in
~~ j opposition and stated he lived directly across the street from the proposed service statio~
~ site; that the six-foot masonry wall the petitioner had been discussing was actually four
~ : feet in height, and he could see the curb line across the street from his
~ his picture window would be facing a service station site if sub'ect PSOPerty; that
~ that if subject petitions were approved this would set a ~ Petitions were ap,r.roved;
~ Crescent and Dale Avenues, and the proposed service stationewouldtbe~inco patible toethelong
entire area. Furthermore, on the basis of the City's denying a request for a commercial
`• facility a year ago, he had spent $5,000 to remodel his home; that he had been offered the
~, purchase of his property for service stations,but he had refused them because he was more
;~ interested in retaining the residential integrity of the area rather than providing a service
f±` station at the rear yard of the single-family homeowners; that the
j was difficult to rent the home located on sub'ect Petitioner had stated it
. _ the home had not been vacant for seven years and thenPwasYleasedeafterhthat,sandfalfriendlofe
`j ~ his had inquired about leasing the home and had been turned down because they we:e anticipat•-
~~ ing commercial zoning for the property.
~
~
[
MINUTES, CIIY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1966
3006
RECLASSIFICATION - Mr~ V. L. Peterson, 8541 Kendor Drive, Buena Park, appeared before
N0. 65-66-97 the Commission and stated that within a one mile radius of subject
CONDITIONAL USF_ wouldradequatelyeserve anyVServicing~of automobileslinfthe immediatech
PERMIT N0. 824 vicinity; that he had lived in the vicinity for more than ten years
and there was no commercial encroachment into the residential area
VARIANCE..NO. 1773 during that entire time; and that he was unaiterably opposed to a
(Continued) service station in close proximity to his property.
~•~
Mr. Oscar Kemmerer, representing the Anaheim Christian Reform Church,
located at the southeast corner of Dale and Crescent Avenues, appeared before the Commission
. in opposition and st3t~~d the proposed reclassification would jeopardize the present residen-
tial character of the ,3rea; that the proposed reclassification did not arise out of any
necessity for additional commercial establishments since this was adequately provided for
within one-half mile of subject property; that a service station would not serve the best
interests of the church which seeks to be of a rnoral and spiritual influence in the immediate
area and would further add to the traffic congestion which already existed on the street.
Furthermore, a letter signed by the ;-res~dent and the minister of the church was being
i. submitted as documentary evidence of the church's opposition,.
Mr. Johnson, in rebuttal, stated consideration should be given to the owners of subject
property ir. their attempt to utilize the parr.els of land which had proven to be difficult
to rent because of ttie increase in traffic, and since Crescent Avenue was proposed to be a
90-foot street, the residents of Buena Park~-on the north side-would have 3n 3dequate buffer
with the masonry wall and the width of the sti~:t from the proposed service station~
Mr. Albert Trout, 527 North Dale Avenue, stated he was in close proximity along the Dale
Avenue frontage, and he was opposed to the proposed service station site.
petitions,of hands indicated 1J persons present in the Council Chamber opposing subject
Letters from five pi•operty owners and the Buena Park Planning Uirector, setting forth the
stand of the City of Buena Pa*k's Planning Commission and City Council relative to commercial
use of subject property,were read to the Commission,
A petition signed by 98 property ownars was also submitted, opposing subject petitions.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED,
The Commission notec~ i~ had arguments presented to t,hem in the past relative to the increase
in traffic being detrimentai to the residential inizgrity; however, this same ar9ument could
be applied to many streets in the City and would place servir.e stations on i.ntersections
which would obviously indicate spot zoning, Furthermore, all residents of Southern California
were quite aware of the fact that since the automobile en+.ered the scene on the street,
considerably more noise and traffic would have to be e~pccted, and if subject petition were
approved, this would open the door for two additiona] ser~,ice stations on the remaining two
corners, oth::r than the church site:
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 2G05, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that Petition
for Reclassification No. 65•-66-97 be disapproved, based on the fact that no land use change
had taken place in close proximity to subject property since the Commission last considered
a zone change to warrant the Commission's now considering favorably a zone change; that
subject property was surrounded on thzee sides by residential uses and on the fourth side
by a church, and to permit a service station would have a deteriorating effect on the resi-
dential integrity already established. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
P.YES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONER~s Rowland.
~j
~
' ~
•: .=x
~',
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No,~ 2006, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to deny Fetition for Conditional Use Permit
No. 824, based on the fact that the proposed use would have an adverse effect on the adjoin-
ii;g land uses and would be detrimental to ±he peace, health, safety and general welfare of
the residepts of the area. (See Resolution Book~)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIGNERS: hone.
ABSENT: CONUAISSIONERS: Rowland..
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1?66 3007
RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Herbst left the Council Chamber at 4:57 P~M.
N0. 65-66-97
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 2007, Series 1965-66, and
CONDITIONAL USE moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry,
PERMIT N0, 824 to deny Petition for Variance No~ 1773, based on the fact that the
owner had compounded his own problem by proposing a subdivision of
VARIANCE NOa 1773 the property for the service station site; that no hardship had been
(Continued) proven that extraordinary circumstances or conditions were applicable
to the property; and that the variance was not necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed
by other properties in the area, (See Resolution Book,)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: CAMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Munqall, Perry, Camp,.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst, Rowland,
REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1
RECOMMENDATIONS Conditional Use Permit No, 680 - Estabiish 3,..ie and two-story
planned residential development - east side of Webster Street,
described as 912 and 918 South Webster Street - request for an
extension of time.
Associate Planner Jack Christofferson advised the Commission that a request had been
received from a Mr~ Robert R., Praile, requesting a 180-day extension of time for the
completion of cor.ditions of Conditional Use Permit No 680 granied by the Commission
in r~esolution No, 1558, Series 1964-65, dated March 15, 1965; that the Commission had
granted one 180-day time extension on September 27, 1965, this being the second request
for an extension.,
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion tc grant a 18U-day time extension for completion of
conditions in Resolution No„ 1558, Series i964-65, dated March 15, 1965, approving
Conditional Use Permit No: 680, said time to expire September 10, 1965 Commissioner
Allred seconded the motion AK~TION CARRIED:
I TEM N(:) ~2
Conditional Use Permit No~ 302 - First Christian Church,
2216 East South Street - requesting extension of t=me for
temporary use of an existing structure
Associate Planner Jack Christofferson advisced the Commission that the First Christian
Church had previousiy been granted a one yEaa: and a 90-day extension of time for the
use of the property for church facilities, and that they were now requesting an additional
eight months' extension of time for a use which the Co.;unission had originally granted for
two yearso Furthermore, the chairman of the Building Commit.t,ee had indicated construction
on the new church had started on March 7 of this year, and it was expected to occupy the
structure in Augusto
Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to grant an additional eigh± months' extension of
time for the use of r~r. existing structure fo* church purposes Corrmiissioner Allred seGOnded
the motion~ MOTION CARRIED~
ITEM NU. 3
Conditional Use Permit No. 393 •- Establish and operate a private
elementary school at 555 South Walnut Street - Reouest. for approval
of an addition to the existing Nrivate elementary school concept planso
~i~
*
~
Associate Pianner Jack Christofferson presented concept plans of the proposed addition to
an existinq private elementary school located at 555 South Walnut Street, noting that the
school was being increased from a~oll of 46 to 121, the number of te3chers from 4 to 10;
that students would meet at variable time periods, and it was anticipated that not more
than 90 would be attending classes at one time; that the parcel abuts an elementary school
on the north and west, and a single-family residential structure to the south; that from
the plans it was noted this would be a substantial change to that o:iginally approved by
the Cemmission; furthermore, in response to Commission questioning, noted that the original
plans did not indicate any proposal for additional structures,
Mr. Kenneth W. Holt, owner of the existing school, appzai•ed before the Commission and stated
they had many requests for enroliment in their school, and it was anticipated the new class
rooms would provide for a maximum of 120 students; that it was proposed to have clinic-type
r
,
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April ll, 1,966 ''3003
REPJRTS AND
R~CONUAENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 3- Continued~
rooms for speech therapy; and that there was no problem as far as he could see as to off-
street parking - however, if that problem would exist, he would provide off-street parking
for the teachers.
The Commission was of the opinion that the concep± plan should be in more detail; that the
proposed addition was a considerable change te what was originally approved; and that the
owner of the school should submit some evidence in the form of a plct plan to scale of the
proposed type of structuree
Assistant Development Services Director Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that a
complaint had been received several years ago from the property owner to the south; however,
after contact with the principal of the school, the problem had been resolved and no more
complaints had been received,
Aiter considerable discussion by ihe Commission, the staff and the operator of the school,
the Commission recommended to Mr., Holt that a new public hearing wa= r.ecessary because the
property owners in close proximity should be made cognizant of the fact there would be an
increase of approximately 55 students and 6 teachers, and because of this substantial change
a public hearing should be held which should be in the form of a new conditional use permit
filed by the owner of the Frivate school,
Commissioner Allred offered a motion to disapF:rove the concept plans presented 'uy Kenneth
W. Holt, owner-operator of the school located at 555 South Walnut Street, indicating an
addition to an existing private elementary school and recommended that the petitioner file
a new conditional use permit, together with the submission of complete plot plan and elev3-
tions of the proposed addition, said petition to be at the expense of the owner-operator of
the schoole Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MUTION CARRIED, Commissioner Perry
abstained from voting>
ITEM NO,. 4
Orange County Use Variance No. 5716 - Permit the establishm~nt of
a retail convenience grocery market in the R-3 Apartment District
on property located on the east side of Gilbert Street app.rnximately
60 feet south of Ball Road~
Associate Planner Jack ;;hristof:erson presented Orange County Use Variance No. 5716 to the
Commission notiny the location of subject property and the proposed useo A report by the
Zoning Divis~n~ was reviewed as follows:
1. The land uses surrounding subject property are: single•-family home (to be removed)
to the north; vacant property proposed for a hospital site to the east; multiple-
family development to the south; and a service station and car wash to the west.
2. The proposed development does not conform with the Anaheim Municipal Code in the
following respects:
ae Paz•king - 8 spaces proposed; 13 spaces required
be Sign - 35 feet in height proposed; 25 feet permitted, also the sign
is not within the center 40~; of the property frontage
c. Setbacks- Side yard - 2.5 feet proposed; 10 feet required adjacent to
residential zones (north property line)
d. Trash - Access to trash storage areas poorly located, with only
Storaqe a 10-foot access to the areas
~`
~ ~
i "`~
~;~~
;
~:
:,
,~ .. ,
y
~ -- --
3. The l,naheim General Plan indicates subject property for low density development.
4. The remaining sma11 parcel to the north, between subject property and Ball Road,
might have difficulty in developing if the market is approved, since the lot width
r:oulc~ be only 42.5 feet after dedication for street widening of Ball Road.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange County
Planning Commission be urged to deny Orange County Use Variance No. 5716, on the basis that
the site would not be ac'equate for the proposed develo~ment, and, furthermore, a hardship
would be created for t:~e development of the remaining narrow parcel to the north, between
subject property and Ball Road, Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion~ M~TIUN CARRIED.
r
MINUTES; CITY PLpNNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1966
3009
REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 5
RECOMMENDATIONS Orange County Use Variance No, 5718 - Request to permit the
(Continued) continued use of a sign advertising rentals of a 146-unit
apartment located on the east side of Gilbert Street,
approximately 245 feet south of Ball Road.
Associate Planner Jack Christofferson advised the Commission that the existing sign was
e:ected ir. August of 1964; a second request for a continued use wa; issued in September of
1965; and the proposed sign was a uouble-faced unlighted sign~
Commissioner Allred offered a motion to receive and file Oranqe County Use Variance
No. 5718. Cammissioner Herbst seconded the motion., MOTION CARR?ED.
,r ~~.~.
~ r; ITEr6
i" Urange County Tentative Map of Tract No. 5729 - Revision No. 1
~~ Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thom son
i`~: p presented Uran9e County Tentative Map of Tract No. 5729,
Revision No. 1, noting that the tract was a portion of the Locke Ranch previously considered
by the Commission; that the original tract had been approved by the Planning Commission and
City Council; and that the proposed development was a concept type of low density, single-
family subdivision.
~' Commissioner Perry offered a motion to receive and file Orange County Tentative Map of Tract
"• No. 5729, Revision No, 1. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM NO> 7
Hill and Canyon General Plar,, Park Site located adjacent to the
elementary school directly south of Riverdale Avenue (Batavia)
just west of Taylor Street extended.
Planning Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski reviewed a report of the Park and Recreation Department
proposing a park site located in C:ommunity Area "A" of the Hill and Canyon General Plan,
requestin9 that the Commission give consider:a~icr to a miror addition to the Hill and Canyon
General Plan Parks Element, in that the pr„posed park site would serve approximately 5,000
people who would be isolated from the Community krea "A" 16-acre park located on the north
side of Santa Ana Canyon Road west of Pinney Drive, because of the realignment of the
Riverside Freeway
Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the proposal of the Park and Recreation
Director artd whether or not this would set a precedent for destruction of the community park
concept for the Hill and Canyon Area,
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recommend to the Park and Recreation Commission that
the proposed neighborhood park site in the Fashion Hills Subdivision (Tract No, 4427) be
considered a favorable deviation from the policy of community parks as derived on the Hill
and Canyon General Plan~ However, ttiat this not be considered a precedent for disruption of
the Community Park Concept for the Hi.ll and Canyon Area, Commissioner Mungall seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED,
ITEM Np`_g
Commissioner Perry oEfered a motion to direct the Commission Secretary to set for public
hearing on April 25, 1966, consideration of an amendment to the Anaheim Municipal Code,
Section 18.28 to consider the inclusion of single-family homes on a 5,000 square foot sitee
Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. M~TION CARRIEti.
ADJOURNMENT
-----.-_._ - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to adjourn the meetin9 to a
work session to discuss amendments to Section 18~28~ Commissioner
Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 5:30 P.M,
:~ _
E7 w
~:1 ~x
Respectfully submitted,
~~~~ i~~~l [zC/tio~
ANN KREBS. Secretary
Anaheim City Planning Commission
~
"" .~Y
~.
I
~ ~ ~
~
~Y