Minutes-PC 1967/10/23.
, -
, -
.~ .~ .: ' ~ _ ~
_ City Hall
Anaheim, California
October 23, 1967
A REGULAR MEETING OF TI-~ ANAI-IEIM CITY PLANNING ODMMISSION
REGIILAR MEETI NG - A regular ineeting of the Anaheim City Planning Gommission was called
to order by Chairman Camp at 2: 04 o'clock P.M., a quorum being presente
-PRESENT
- CNAIRMAN: Camp. .
- COMMISSIONERS: Allred~ Farano9 Gauer, Herbst~ Rowlande
ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Mungalla
PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Robert Mickelson
Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompson
Planning Supervisor: Ronald Grudzinski
Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts
Office Engineer: Arthur Daw
Assistant Planner: Charles Roberts
Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Herbst led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag,
INVOCATION - Reverend Mac Wright, Pastor of the Knott Avenue Christian Church,
gave the invocation.
APPROVAL OF
' - The Minutes of the meeting of O ctober 9, 1967, were approved as
Tl-IE MINUI
ES submitted on motion by Commissi oner Rowland, seconded by Commi,.sioner
Herbst, and MOTION CARRIED.
VARIANCE.NO. 1920 - PUBLIC HEARING. RUTH BALZER, 2935 Belvedere Road, Anaheim, California, ~ !~
Owner, requesting permission to DIVIDE 1VJO EXZSTING LOTS INTO THREE ~~'w
LOT8, WITH WAIVER OF (1) MINIMUM LOT AREA AND WIDTH, (2) MINIMUM SIDE -~;;~
YARD SETBACK, AND (3) REQUIRED GARAGE on property described as: A rectangularly shaped ''
parcel:Tocated at the northeast co^ner of Philadelphia Street and Alberta Street, having
frontages of approximately 130 feet on Philadelphia Street and approximately 115 feet on
Alberta Street, and 'further described as 303 East Alberta Street and 608 North Philadelphia
Streeto Property presently classifiEd R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONEe
Assistant Planner Charles Roberts reviewed subject pe~iition, the location of the property,
the uses established in close proximity, and the Report to the Commission, emphasizing the
fact that the petitioner was proposing to create a third lot on subject property in order
to sell the home fronting along Alberta Street; that the two existing parcels when originally :
established conformed with the zoning regulations - however, the easterly lot was now a non-
conforming parcel, based on the fact that Code amendments had been made since the parcel was
approved; that if subject petition were approved, this would then create three non-conforminq
parcels; furthermore, the Commission must determine whether or not a hardship existed or was
created, and what effect approval of the petition would have upon the Center City Redeveiop-
ment Program. ,
The petitioner indicated her presence in the Council Chamber to answer questionse
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Tf~ l-~ARING WAS CIASED.
Discussion was held by the Commission relative to'the effect the•psoposed lot split would
have on future redevelopment of the property since the variance would be in effect with ~
the use of the land, and since the property already was zoned R-3, the existing homes i
could be'removed and substandard R-3 could be developed, which would b~ detrimental to ~
the existing and potential development of the adjoining parcelse
The Commission inquired of Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts whether or not the petitioner
could place additional units on the property, whereupon Mr. Roberts stated that this could
be done if they met ihe R-3 standards, with the exception of the waivezs now being requestede
3623
_ _ ~ .- ~_ ~.y:: ._,._,:___._.__~~_.
~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 23, 1967 3624
VARIANCE NOe 1920 - The Commission further noted that if redevelopment occurred, the
(Continued) ' petitioner could request additional waivers, thereby setting a
pattern of undesirable waiver requests for properties in c~ose
proximity since the petitioner was asking for a privilege not now
enjoyed by the surrounding propertye Furthermore, the Commission had been attempting
to encourage_land~assembly of narrow, deep lots in order to provide a more desirable,
'multiple-family xesidential developmente
'Assistant Development~Ser~ices Director Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that he
had viewed subject property prior to the filing of sub~ect petition, and it was his opinion
that:there would~•be~no room for additional structures, but this could be accomplished only
if the petitioner removed one of the existing structurese
The Commission inqt~ired if subject property was outside the Northeast Quadrant9 whereupon
Mra Mickelson replled tHat this property was outside of the Northeast Quadrant, and his-
toricelly it was impossible to try ~to assemble many of these lots•.
Commi.ssioner Herbst offered Resolution Noe PC67-235 and moved for its~passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Allred, to deny Petition for Variance No> 19"?O on the basis that
the proposed reo,uest would create additional non-conforming, substandard lots while at tne
same time the Commission was attempting to encourage lot assembly; that the petitioner had
not proven hardship existed which was not created by her; and that granting subject peti-
tion would be granting a privilege not en~oyed by surrounding properties by the creation
of substandard lots which urould set an undesirable precedent for the areae (See ~lesolution
Book)
On xoll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Campe
NOES: COMMISSIpNERS: Noneo
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Mungallo
VARIANCE NOo 1921 - PUBLIC HEpRING, FRED AND VIOLET NASON AND RALPH AND BARBARA ROLAPP,
221 South Beverly Drive, Beverly Hills, California, Owners; ERNEST
` Ca HEAL, 2500 Miraloma Avenue, pnaheim, California, Agent; requesting
permission to ESTABLISH A ROOF SIGN, WITH WAIVER OF (1) NL4XIMUM SIGN AREA AND (2) MAXIMUM
Ig TGHT OF A ROOF SIGN on oroperty described ase An irregularly shaped.parcel of land
located on the south side of Miraloma Avenue easterly of the Riverside Freeway, having
frontages of approximately 800 feet on the south side of Miraloma Avenue and approximately
568 feet on the north side of the Riverside Freeway, and further descr3bed as 2500 Miraloma
Avenue, Property presently classified M-1, LIGH7 INDUSTRIAL, ZONEe
Assistant Planner Charles Roberts reviewed subject petition, the location of the property,
uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action, and the fact that subject
property, although having both a resolution of intent to M-1 and R-3, the property was
developed and had an ordinance read reclassifying the property to the M-1 Zonee
Mr, Roberts also noted that the petitioners based the necessity for the requested waivers
on the fact that the pr.oposed sign was needed because of the Sunkist Street uvercrossing
and the future overcrossing of the Orange Freeway across the Riverside Freeway, and also
to have the sign freeway-oriented; however, Section 4v08.020 of the Anaheim Municipal Code
specifically prohibited any advertising structures maintained primarily to be viewed from
a main traveled road or freeway.
MroErnest Heal, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that
one of the petitioners was present in the Council Chamber; that they would be happy to
comply. with the Sign Ordinance - however, because of the existing freeway overpasses and
the future Orange Freeway overpass, signing of their property was necessary to provide
identification from a greater distance.
Commissioner Herbst expressed the opinion that he was not opposed to the roof sign per seg
however, he could not understand why a sign more than twice that permitted by the Sign
Ordinance was being proposed since a smaller sign would properly identify the propertye
Mre Heal informed the Commission that the main reason for a larger sign was because of
the inadequate clearance for trucks to make the turn-off for their property, thus creating
a traffic hazardo _
Commiesioner Camp inquired why it was necessary to have a sign seen so far in the distance
before the trucksreached Sunkist Street since they could turn off only at State College
Boulevarde - -
:a/ r :`'F""~..:
.:V : ::,
~ .~ . ~ ... ~ . ~ . '
. . . . ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 23, 1967 3625
VARIANCE NOe 1921 -.Mre Heal stated it was necessary to identify the buildinge
(Continued) . .
. ; Commissioner Camp then noted that signing within the Code, or a wall '
sign,'would be adequate for this identification~ and that he could
see no hardship in the.signing.of the property under present Code requirements without
having a sign twice the height and size permittede
Further discussion was held by the Commission, summarized as follows: 1) a hardship could
not be claimed on the~basi•s of the overcrossing of Sunkist Street and the Orange Freeway
since this had been a long-term project and was public knowledge prior to the purchase of
the property by the petitioners; 2) that development within the M-1 Zone permits limited
advertising~ and when.freeway frontage is desired by the petitionex, the Code specifically
spells out these limitetions - thereforei the petitioner was aware the hardship existed,
but he wanted this freeway-exposure in the M-1 Zone; 3) that the height of the sign pro-
posed was limited by the R-1 homes on the south side of the freeway; 4) that the existfng
building, with its b=ight color, was more than adequate for identification, making a sign
with the height and size permitted by Code sufficient; 5) a hardship would be created for
any other M-1 development in the area since the petitioner was proposing to reach identi-
fication of his property for a distance of more than 1,000 feet for this exposure - thus
this would eliminate all other industrial development advertising within one quarter of a
mile of the proposed sign; 6) that the petitioner's reason for requesting the sign was
because the sign allowed by Code could not be seen from the freeway - however, the Co~je
states thai advertising signs should not be oriented to the arterial or freeway - therefore,
there was no basis for the request; and 7) that adequate identification could be accomplished
by a sign alongside the buildingo
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the height of the structure
was limited by the single-family homes along the south side of the Riverside Freeway, or a
25-foot sign; that the existing building was already 30 feet - therefore, the petitioner
needed a higher sign than the overpa5so
Assistant Development Services Director Robert Mickelson no'_ed for the Commission that in
one of the pictures taken the exact location was approximately where the overcrossir.g of
the Orange Freeway would occur; therefore, this would mean an additional-overpass which
the sign would have to overcomee
Mre Heal assured the Commission they wished to cooperate in every way possible and inquired
of the Commission what size sign their Body would consider adequateo
Commissioner Herbst stated that every sign should be required to be within the limits of
the Sign Ordinance except where a hardship case applied, and if the City permitted signs
of any size, there was no reason to have a Sign Ordinancee
Commissioner Camp nated that the Sign Ordinance permitted a 250-square foot sign, which
was less than half that being proposed.
Mra Fred Nason, one of the owners, appeared before the Commission and stated that when the
pronerty was purchased, they were not familiar with the Sunkist overpass or the Orange
Freeway overpass; that they were more or less in a hole since even Miraloma Avenue hid them
f.rom the north and~the La Jolla overpass of the Orange Freeway, together with the Placentia
overpass, made it almost im~~ossible to view thetr property; that the proposed sign would in
no way face the single-family homes to the south since it was proposed to be erected at
right angle to the freeway, or facing Placentia in a northerly direction; and that when he
was coming from his office along the Riverside Freeway, he saw many signs which were of
the height proposed, those being several service station signs and the Carrouse] Restaurant
sign.
Mr. Thompson advised tha Commission that the Carrousel sign, which was approximately 50 t~~
52 feet in height, was appro~:ed by variance by the City Council and was located southerly
of the freeway.
Mr. Nason further stated that from Mr. Heal's comments,they were desirous of cooperating ~
with the City; however, they were confident that if the Commission were aware of the problem ~
they had as far as signing was concerned, together with the fact that competition (Bekins) i
had a much closer freeway exposure without any obstruction, the proposed sign would be
approvedo
Mr. Harry Strasler~ 1215 Earl Circle, appeared before the Commission in opposition, stating
he resided in the R-1 tract southerly of the freeway and had a petition signed by 13 property '
owners along the freeway, all in opposition; that they were opposed to any deviation from
the Sign Ordinance; that subject property and the structure was as close to the freeway as j-
~~,, ~Y.~p,3~.'~ ~,~ $ f~ y ~ a~1,K ~i°t + ^~~,.- ~~~ Y 2 b"~ ~,. ~" 1;, "~"~e~. r ,~ ~,i
~w~S~f~'•~.~'+° x'. j ~b.. {~ ~~3 . * ?~kdi rya~~,,,~~~4 .~~ .~.., .,, . . , .
~ . .~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ .. . .. . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .
MINUTES, CITY PLRNNING.COMMISSION, October 23, 1967 3626
~ VARIANCE NOe 1921 - possible~ and the height of the structure now blocked their view o.`
(Continued) the scenezy and mountains in the background; that the building had
Zarge floodlights on the top of the building which were on all night
long,;.that a considerable number of boxes were stacked at double height
around the building on the.west and north which constituted ou~tdoor storage~ and according
tc the M-1 Code should~be shielded from view with a 6-foot masonry wall-~otherwise this
would create a hardship on the single-family homes; and that the size of the proposed sign
would create am undue hardship on the residential integrity of the R-1 homes because of
its being visible for some distance, and the unsightly, bright orange light would be
distastefule
Darrel Myer, representing Dean Brothers, owners of the R-3 property to the north and the
56-apartment complex to the east, stated that they had held a conditional•use permit to
erect additional apartments - however, the time limitation had expired~ but it was still
their in~ention to develop the property as R-3; that the existing.structure from all
indications was quite noticeable, and lenders were denying his applications for loans to
construct the apartments because of this undesirable aspect of a large building; and
that he would recommend•that the petitioner provide signing within Code reouirements and
spend the balance of the money in providing a very nicely landscapecl, ind~astrial develop-
ment which would be an aaset to the entire areae
Mro Don Henkel, 1205 Earl Circle~ appeared before the Commission and stated that he was
opposed to the sign because the petitioner did not need a sign to identify himself to local
people and was interested only in outside carriers bringing goods into his place; that the
overpass had been~~coimnon •knowledge for the past four years - therefore~this could not be
used as a reason for•claiming hardship due to improper signing of the property in accordance
with Code; and that pictures presented at the hearing would indicate that if the picture
were taken 100 yards further back, the proposed sign would not be visible either - there-
fore,it would be a waste of signing and would be detrimental to the other properties in
the areae
Mre Heal, in rebuttal, stated that he did not realize there would be opposition from
properties so far away as the residents to the south, and that he did not feel they were
requesting any special considerationo
THE'HEAF;ING WAS CIASED>
Commissioner Gauer wa~s af the opinion that the petitioner should comply with the Sign
Ordinance since no evidence was submitted that a hardship existedo
Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that the petitioner would have a hardship because
of the overpass, and permis~ive signing adjacent to freeways where overpasses created a
hardship should be studied; however, the petitioner should be required to develop the
sign within Code reqvirements as to size, and a partial waiver of the height should be
granted, but the 62 feet proposed was considerably in excess.
Mre Heal then adviaed the Commission that if waiver of the sign size were granted for
300 square feet. this would be comparable to the "Bekin" sign.
Mr. Thompeon noted for the Gommission that a 250-square foot sign area was comparable to
the size of most of the billboards permitted in the City of Anaheim, and that relocation
of the sign to the northwest part of the building would provide better exposure than where
it was presently proposed>
Mr. Nason advised the Commission that they had thought that by placing the sign above the
building the esthetic beauty of the buiiding would not be lost; that the orange color of
the building was associated with the Allied Van Lines which they represented; furthermore,
if the sign were part of the building, this would make the building less attractive, which
was not their intento
Mr, Heal advised the Cnrtunission that if a light problem existed whereby li9hts were shining
into the R-1 homes, they.would attempt to correct this, and that stoxage of the boxes could
be hidden witti landscapingo
Mra Myer again appeared before tne Commission and stated they would also welcome the
Gommission's cooperation and noted they shared the same problem as the petitioner, request-
ing that the R-3 property,be allowed to sign the property in the height being requested,
and possibly approved, and since he did not know the ultimate effect of the proposed sign,
it was his suggestion that an attractive sign could be made a part of the face of the
building.
~'.~"+~'.~':..~ t~p.z :;' n ~t~~y~,~,~4 ~' ~yc~ a~~'~"~y" ~,` ~ 'a'^~ 1''. M1 '~ . ' ~
ry 4' ' ~ ~
--~ _ _ ~.
. . ~ ~ '
~ . .. , . . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4~,
. W/ ~
{~
'
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 23, 1967 :
~~
i ,
,
; 3627 tii
VARIANCE N0. 1921 - Further.discussion.was held by the Commission
(Continued) th
relative to the effect s
~~ e reduced sign height would have, and whether oi not a reduction ~„~
would negate the attempt of the petitioner to
i have proper identifica- "'`'
, , t
on of his sign, _
Commissioner Allred~offered Resolution Noe PC67-236 and moved for its passage and adoption,
~ seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to deny Petition for Variance Noo 1921, on the basis that
~ ~.the:proposed sign~would• be•3ncompatible with the existing industrial uses; that there were
''no'exceptional or•extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property
, involved'or its intendFd use~that did not a 1
vicinity and;zone; that the•Sign Ordinance adeYuate7,rally to the property in the same
property; and that any proposed~lighted sign of this height anddarea~would begdetrimentalutorthe
~ existing residential ltses both to the southwest and northeasto (See Resolution Book)
' On roll cail the forego3ng resolution was paesed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: AZlred, Gauer, Rowland, Campe
~ NOES: QOMMISSIONERS: Herbste
I ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Mungalla
ABSTAIN: CONlMISSIONERS: Faranoe
;~ Commissioner Rowland~offered Resolution Noe PC67-237 and moved for its passage and adoption,
'.?,; seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi-
~; fication No> 63-64~65 be terminated on the basis that the M-i Zone Reclassification Noo
~.! 61-62-69(18) superseded the R-3 zoning under subject reclassificationo (See Resolution
,~ Book)
''. C:{:
'`~n~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
"i:;~!
~;;:~ AYES: ~MMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Campo
'"~'; NOES: CAMMISSIONERS: Noneo
.,,,
''"" ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Mungalle
''~p, Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noe PC67-238 and moved for its passage and adoption,
u , seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to terminate all proceedings on Conditional Use PQrmit Noo
,~.
_~ 519 on the basis that seclassification to the R-3 Zone was necessary; however, subject
~~ property was now developed under the M-1 Zoneo (See Resolution Book)
~~.
-? On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foliow3n~ ..~+o~
~~ :
,A AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Campo
-.; NOES: (bMMISSIONERS: Noneo
r;~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSe Mungallo
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HF~4RING. WAIT DISNEY PRODUCTIONS, 500 South Buena Vista Street,
PERMIT NOo 970 Burbank, Califo*nia, Owner; WRATHER i-DTELS, INCORPORATED, 270 North
Canon Drive, Bevery Hills, California, Agent; requesting permission to
MEETING, AND RELATEDEFACILIT ES, WITH WAIVERS OFO(1)HMAXIMUMEBU~I~LDINGWHE GH~TNq~NpT(2),
PRpJECTION OF SIGN ABOVE ROOFLINE on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel
of land of approximately 36e4 acres located at the southwest corner of Cerritos Avenue and
West Street, with frontages of approximately 1,260 feet on Cerritos Avenue and approximately
1,260 feet on West Street, and further described as 1441 South West Streete Property
presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE,
Assistant Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the findings of the Interdepartmental Committee
meeting at which a number of problems were noted in the proposed plans of development which
would have to be resolved prior to consideration by the Planning Commissione
Mr. Roberts further noted that the petitioner had been contacted relative to these problems,
and a letter was on file from the attorneys representing the petitioner, requesting a two-
weeks' continuancee
Commissioner Farano offered a motion to.continue Petition for Conditional Use Permit Nuo 970
to the meeting of November 6, 1967, as requested by the petitionere Commissioner Gauer
seconded the motione MOTION CARRIED,
'" - ~' 1 :'N (; . - -
~J (~ ~~ ,
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING- OpM(u~ISSION, October 23, 1967 3628
CONDITIONAL USE -:•PI~BLIC HEARINGe REICFiERT 8 SON, 16262 East Whittier Boulevard, Suite 25,
PERMIT NOe 971 ~Whittier~ California, Owner; requesting.permission to ESTABLISH A NABILE
FAME PARK on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of
approximately 24e35 acres, having a frontage of approximately 525 feet
on the west side of Manchester Avenue and extending westerly to Lewis~Street and a frontage
of approximately 841 feet on•Lewis Street, the southerly boundary of subject property being
located approximately~445 feet north of the centerline of Chapman Avenue as measured along
the east right-of-way line of Lewis Streeto Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL,
ZONE,
Assistant Planner Charl~es Roberts reviewed sub3ect petition, the location of the property
and uses established in-close-proximity, as well as previous zoning action and the Report
i to the Commissione .
Mr. Roberts furthe•r noted that revised plans had been submitted which incorporated the wall
and setback which ttre•~s-taff originally had pointed out, and that because a wali. was pro-
posed for the Lewis Street £rontage, ultimate dedication to 45 feet for a secondary highway
would not be reouired at this time until the property was utilized for more intensive use~.
Commissioner Rowland inquired as to the reason why the City had not request~ed an irrevocable
offer of dedication, whereugon Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that Lewis
Street as noted on the Circulation Element o: the General P1an was considered an exception
with the 35-foot half-wldth, and this was acquired by the City on a previous reclassifice-
tion of the property; however, after obtaining this dedication, the Circulation Element of
the General Plan was reviewed by the Design Department and it was determined that Lewis
Street should be designated as a secondary highway with a 45-foot half width, but since
the petitioner was not proposing to utilize Lewis Street for access, the required 45 feet
would not be necessary because oarking would not be required along said street - therefore,
this was the reason for the finding as indicated in the Report to the Commissiono
Mr, Henry EIastings, designer of the project, appeared before the Commission and asked that
consideration be given to a reductinn of the required 20-foot setback and 10 feet of land-
scaping on Manchester.Avenue and considering a 10-foot setback~
Discussion was.held by the Commission relative to the request made for relief from the
required 20=foot setback, it being determined that landscaping of the parkway would require
a tree well with tree every 40 feet, and landscaping in private property could not be
controlled; that it would be more apropos to require a setback along Lewis Street with
landscaping than as was proposed with a 6-foot masonry wall adjacent to the property line
since the wall wouid be facing the single-family homes on the west side of Lewis Street
in the City of Orangeo •
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that it was within the realm of
possibility that if the Commission required landscaping, and si~ce Lewis Street was only
a 35-foot stree±, the wall could be placed behind landscaping similar to that which many
mobile home parks had; furthermore, the height of most of the trailers would be above the
top of the required 6-foot masonry wall, and trees or other landscaping could provide some
of the buffer along the Lewis Street side more than the Manchester Avenue si.de, which acted
as a frontage road for the Santa Ana Freeway,
Mro Thompson also noted that the east Anaheim area had extensive landscaping where a 6-foot
masonry wall was adjacent to the property line; however, by proposing a 20-foot setback,
this would place the landscaping facing the Santa Ana Freeway rather than the single-family
homes fronting on Lewis Street, and trees, alone, would not be adequate, but another tyoe
of landecaping should abut the 6-foot masonry wallo
Office Engineer Arthur Daw, in response to a question relative to the requirement of street
lighting, stated that after investigation by the Electrical Division, it was determined
these lights were necessary and they would be installed at the time curbs and gutters were
placed around the perimeter of subject property, adjacent to the streeto
No one appeared fn opposition to subject petitiono
Tt~ HEARING WAS CLOSEDo
The Commission then discussed the possibility of a reduction of the setback along Manchester
Avenue and requiring a landscaped setback along Lewis Streetn
Mr, Thompson then requested clarification of the Commission`s requirements for setbacks,
whereupon the Commission advised the staff that a i0-faot landscaped setback along Manchester
Avenue and a 5-foot landscaped setback alon9 Lewis Street in front of the required 6-foot
masonry wall, together with permanent irrigation facilities, would i~ necessarya ~
,. __ ,.,; .: .:.. . .
},~
~ ~ ~ ~ ti
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 23, 1967 3629
CONDITIONAL USE - Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No, PG67-239 and moved for its
PERMIT_NOa;•971 passage and,adoptiona.seconded,by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition
(Continued) for Conditional Use Permit No, 971, subj.ect•to conditions and a further
requirement that the setback along Manchester Avenue shall be a fully
landscaped, 10-foot setback and a fully landscaped, 5-foot setback along
Lewi's:Street adjacent to the wall; said landscaped setbacks shall be permanently maintained
with irrigation facilities. (See Resolution Book)
~ On"ioll call the,foregaing resolution was passed by the following vote.:
AYES. COMMISS30NERS: Allred,,Farano, Gauer~ Herbst, Rowland, Gampo ~
NOES; GOMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Mungallo
CONDITIONAL USE - PpBLIC HEpRING. HENRY WAGNER, 975 South State Colle9e Boulevard,
PERMIT N0
7 `"~A~`~
. 9
2 Anaheim, California, and ARMO CORPORATION, 512 East Vermont Avenue ,`'';~~;
,
Anaheim, California, Owners; ANN MADISON, 600 South Harbor Boulevard '
,
Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A
300-ROOM, 105-FOOT HIGH HOTEL iAMPLEX HAVIDIG ;"~
ON~SALE LIQUOR AND A 6-STORY, 150-FOOT HIGH
OFFICE AND COMMERCJAL CAMPLEX HAVING RESTAURANT FACILITIES WITH ON-SALE LIQWR on '~
s
property
described as: A rectangularly 5haped parcel of land located at the southwest corner of ; j
;;*
#
State College Boulevard and Ball Road and having frontages of approximately 630 feet on
State College Boulevard a
d
i ;;
~
.
n
approx
mately 1,295 feet on Ball Road. Pro ert
classified M-1, LIGHT IND'JS1'RIAL, ZONEe P Y Presently ~'•'
"
~{
Assistant Planner Charles Roberts reviewed sub ect ~
j Petigion, the lo..ation of the property,
us~s established in
l ''''"``
~:~:"
c
ose
proximity, and previous zonin action. ,::~,t'
`s
'
Mr. Roberts, in reviewing the Report to the Commission, noted that a similar request had
b >,
,,
<~
~
een proposed in 1963 for the Commercial-Recreation Area at the s~outhwest corner of West
Street and Ball R
d ;'{;i~.
oa
, and after several requests for an extension of time for completion
of conditions
the project nad not be ~;~~:
,
en pursued further; that•in October, 1964 the City
Council approved a request for a similar type development south of K
ll ``;~•
~
ate
a Avenue, west
of St3te College Boulevard,.and following a number of extensions of'time.for completion'
f ~::
o
conditions, the City Council terminated the conditional use permit on'the grounds that °}
no attempt had been made to satisf,y conditions of approval'and•commence development of.
the project - thi
o ,,;y
~~
s
ccurred in February, 1967; that the primary consideration before the.
Planning Commission wa
t
d
i
r
~
s
o
ete
m
ne whether the proposed use would be a
this area since it was ppropriate for
proposed for the Southeast Industrial Area
and it
c rk
-~
'
,
was ne
essary to
determine whe;.her it fitted into the overall development scheme for this area
and should ~ ?
,
the davelopment policies for the Southeast Industrial Area continue to be directed toward
indu
t
i
l ~ -
s
r
a
uses, or if a commercial-recreation use is considered appropriate for this area,
would it deter future industrial develo
ment
i ~ '
p
or cause ex
sting development to declinea
Another factor brought out by Mro Roberte was that plans submitted were concept plans and
not det
il
a
plans, in order that the City could determine whether the proposed development
would be deemed pro
er fo
thi
p
r
s areae
Mrs. Ann Madison, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that
even though subject property was located in the Southeast Industrial Area, it was on the
frin
e of th
i
t
i
g
e
ndus
r
al area and the development would not be detrimental to industrial
uses but a
n asset to the industries since it would provide food and lodging to executives
a
d
n
customers, conference and banquet facilities, and display areas for trade exhibits
d
,
an
would be an asset to the community not only in tax dollars, but would be a boost to the
economyo
Mre Henry Jones, speaking on behalf of the proposed Orient complex, eppeared before the
Commission
d
t
t
an
s
a
ed the theme building as indicated in the plans would provide for an
international txade building and that it
l '
r
wou
d serve as a place for industry and business-
men to discuss export and import of their materials from the East and the United States;
h !-
t
at the proposed use would stimulate the growth of the area; that the Board of Supervisors
of the City'of Costa Mesa
R
r
ti ~
,
ep
esenta
ves Hanna and Utt, and the Depertment`of Commerce
had submitted letters to them indicating a need for this ty
e
f
p
o
project, which indicated
a government interest in the program; and that to show the ability to perform at this
time, the hotel owner of the India Colonial Mortgage Company had given them the go-ahead
with financin
of thi
d
g:
s
evelopment.
It was also noted by Mr~ Jones that the William Simpson Construction Company was interested
in th ~
e proposed development, and that the architect would review in detail the proJecte ~
a -
A _.
,~a 7 ~ f„~~z~~fi "~~` ~.. e~ ~,,.r~'~?~~'~'`~~'~~ 4"+ y'~r;~~r-'~y'`~ p Y a!^'L+a t ,,i L r.; :~..
(
N K 1 '1 '~. ~ r a`FC I f ~ ~ ''
1, ~,,,;Y - . ~~t. ~ ,.~".~" ~.....~'' ~~ ` __. . t
' \
~ ~ ~ ~
~.
'MINUfES, CIZY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 23~ 1967 3630
CONDITIONAL'USE - Mro Henry Mo Look, 600 South Harbor Boul.evard, presented schematic
PERMIT NOe 97'L drawings of the proposed InternationaL.Trade Center and offices of
'(Continued): the.Orient theme buildin93 that the ground floor would be designed
with an open:mall, providing facilities~for banking and for a foreign
''~ , expansion fair, with the first level having 20,000 square feet for
~>.
shops 'for~alL oriental type compariies coming into this country; that the third to fifth
floors would have offices for manufacturers and associates, and the penthouse would have
~':.the restaurant and cocktail lounge; and that adequate parking would be provided for a11
' ; phase's 'of the developmente`
Mr George-.Moran,..District Passenger Agent for the Southexn Pacific Railroad, appeared
before.the Commission in opposition, stating he xepresented.his compar,~ in Orange County
sand~was-opposed to sub~ect petttion on the basis that this would not be compatible with
the industrial uses established in the area~ that the.pxoposed type of development v.~o~sld
< be detrimental to'the existing industries and deter..potential industries coming into ~:he
;`:area; that sub~ect property was surrounded by industrial uses, and when a potential
lndustry was looking for a place for its facilities, the first thing it investigated was
the types of.uses which were pxoposed or developed in close proximity, and the oroposed
~use would be a deterring factor - therefore the City would be losing potential industrial
~development in the Southeast Industrial Area~ that the Southern Pacific Railzoad Company
was primarily respon~ible for the industrial development of the Southeast Industrial Area
bounded by B~11 Roady State College Boulevard, Katella Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard; ~
that indus~ries had located in this area for the past several -years becaZSe of the assur- ~
ance that this would be industrial as indicated en the Anaheim General Plan, and there
would be little iikelihood that other than industrial uses would be permittedi that the
warehouse immedietely to the south and west of subject property had a minimum of 20 cars
being moved in and out of the area daily, which would result in complaints from hotel
occupants because of the noise factor in switching these cars on a spur railroad line;
that Anaheim could provide-and does provide-fine hotels and trade show and banquet faci-
lities in the Convention Center area which would be adequate; that industrialists were
not necessarily interested in maintaining their headquarters within two blocke of the
business they were visiting, and in all likelihood would make this a cambination business
and vacation trip,with their families, preferring to have ho,tel accommodations within:
close'proximity to a'recreational fa"cility; that the proposed development was similar to
that originally proposed at Katella Avenue and State.Col3ege Boulevard, approved by the
City Council;'and,which he had also opposed - fortunately, however, this development had
not taken place end was terminated by the City Council due to their inability to commence
development.;of the pro3ect; and that he strongly urged that the Commission give serious ~
consideration to denial of subject petitiono
~
Commissioner Herbst inauired of Mre Mor3n whether or not the Orient eriginally proposed
at Kate2la apd State College Bouievard had deterred industry from locating in the South~
east Industrial Areaa
A~lre Moran replied that he could not preCisely state the number of industries that were
disr.ouraged beoause of this proposed development; however, the question h~d come up a
numbar of tlmes, and presently he was working with a national firm for the Southeast
Industrial Axea after they had looked at other areas, and their primery question was
whether traffic from the Stadium would create a problem, but he assured them the games
were scheduled primarily at night during the week and, therefore, would not create any
interference, and he w'_shed to assure the Commission that any businessman looking for a
potential industrial site would look very closely at developments of the proposed type
which would increase the flow of traffic ad~acent to new areaso, Furthermore, industrial
property had not moved as fast as they had hoped, but if the City of Anaheim firmly main-
tained its policy of industrial development only for thai: area, this would encourage the
location of new industries in the Southeast Industrial Area, and that the most important
thing to consider was to maintain the industrial integrity where this area has been
paitially developed.
Mrse Madison, in rebuttal, stated that it was her opinion the stadium already had set the
p'recedent fox the area so far as deVelopment for industrial purposes; that the land cost
had increased considerably in the Southeast Industrial Area, and this was ~he reason the
land was not moving as quickly as the Southern Pacific had anticipated - one basic reason
betng'that the Northeast Industrial Area offered the same type of land and facilities for
almost one-half es much as that being asked for in the Southeaet Industrial Area; that
the spur track and warehouse werelocated 345 feet to the west of the hotel building and
300 to 400 feet to the south, and a large parking area would separate the two uses -
therefore noises would not be a consideration; that the building would be trade-oriented
toward manufacturers and their products, while the Df,sneyland recreation area was oriented
toward tourists and theis families, and because of this different concept, the proposed
development would be an asset to the area; and that subject property had been submitted to
the Southern Pacific Railroad for possible sale for industrial purposes aq~proximately two
years ago - however, no offers had been received si~ce then even though the property had
been on the market for a considerable length of timeo
r~ ~. ,~ ~
MINUTES, CI,TY ~PLANNING CON~uIISSION, October 23,.1967 • 3631
CONDITIONAL.USE '-.Commissioner Farano was of the opinion thai the proposed development
PERMIT NOa'97L would attract_other,than.the,;type,'of..industrial-oriented development
(Continued) already established in the.area and would•.be.'attracting only trade
•shows and`merchants and<trade which had no relationship to the industries.
' of the~area and would be.from outside of this areao
Mrse'Madison stated that display rooms would be available for therlocal manufacturers to
• display their wares to'the international trade firme also displaying their wares in the
; facilitye :
Commissioner Farano continued that because:of this fact, thz.proposed facility would not
be:properly oriented = not necessary to the tndustrial area, but'should be in the recrea-
tional area or 1n close proximity, rather than in the center of an industrial areag that
he could see no,points in'common which make the proposed development desirable to the areaf
:~ but he could see certain drawbacks which would detract from the industrial deve~opment
~' already established in the area, and the facility should be in an area more oriented toward
dieplay and lodging and di.ning facS.lities; and that the proposed~facility could mean an
^~' encroachment of commercial uses inio the industrial areao
Mrsa Madison noted that the proposed development could be a good outlet for overseas trade,
and other interests throughout the country wou]d be seeing the local manufacturers' products
while at the same time psoviding lodging and eating facilities; furthermore, the first phase,
or the proposed hotel, office and commercial complex with reataurant facilities, was a
permitted use in the M-1 Zone uoon the filing of a cenditional use permit, and the Commission
should consider the merits of the petition rather than the overall concept which was presented
by the architect, and if the Commission took a closex look at the proposal, they would
realize this was a good potential :or the areae
THE HEARING WAS CLASEDo
Commissioner Herbst stated he :elt the proposed development was'similar to that proposed
for Katella and State College Boulevard; that he was opposed to the previous Orient and
he was also opposed~to the proposed development on the basis that it was strictly incompati-
ble with the.existing induetrial uses; that the property owners ~djacent to the prop~~ed
deyelopment would:suffer and would not be able to sell their properties if the area was not
maintained fox industsial purposee; that he knew from exFerience~•that if a potential indus-
trial development..wanted to locate in'a commercial-recreation area, considerable opposition
would be expressed by the major owners of that area, claiming it was an encroachment of a
use which should not be there; that the industries already located in the Southeast Indus-
trial Area have invested their money in this erea (warehouae adjacent to subject property),
, whose investment is in the miilions of dollars and were entitled to the same protection as th?
Commercial-Recreation Area expected, and if the City did not offer this protection to the
industrial integrity of Anaheiin, the City would lose face~because this is one thing indus-
tries expect - to maintain and protect the industrial integrity of an area which was
designated by~the City and set aside for samejthat if the City did maintain this industriai
integrity, the City would obtain industrial development on a faster basis than any other
community in Southern Californiaf and that the City of Anaheim now ranked around the top
in the United States for industrial growth which could be maintained if this protection was
afforded the industrial are<i,
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution Noe PC67-240 and moved for its passage and adeption9
seconded by Commissioner Farano, to deny Petit.on for Condi~tional Use Permit Noo 972 on the
basis that the proposed use was incompatible with tne existing industrial uses established
in the Southeast Induetrial Area and would have a deleterious effect on the future develoo-
ment of the remaining vacant properties of the area for industrial uses in this area; that
the proposed use would be more apprapriate in the Commercial-Recreation Area since the use
was oriented toward theme-type, hoiel-motel, office and entertainment facilities - however,
the use'would not be in keeping with the established industrial character of the area and
would create,~ hardship on industries in this area by injecting a considerable amount of
commercial traffic; that every effort should be made to afford the same protection to the
industrial areas.of the City of Anaheim as it extended to~the-~o~nercial-Recreation Area in
order that the reputation established by the City of Anaheim~as being the top city in the
nation wi,th industrial growth would not be lost, and further industrial development would
not'be deterredo (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Campo
NOES: ODMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Mungalla
i~ - -
~ ~
~
MINUTES, G,ITY.PLANNING COMMISSION, October 23, 1967 3632
GL'`NDII'IONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARINGo MURIEL LENZ, 2201 Wagner.Avercue; Anaheim, California,
PERMii"N0~ 973,~ . Owner; NORMAN SNiEDEGAARD, 81I North Br:oadway~ Santa Ana, California,
Agent; requesting pesmission to CONSTR~CT AN ADULT ONLY NfOBILE I-~ME
~ . PARK on property described as: An irregu]:arly shaped parcel of land
containing•approximately 30 acres~ having a frontage of approximately 670 feet on the north
side of Wagner Avenue and a maximum depth of approximateTy~1;280 feet, the westerly boundary
nf sub~ect property being located approximately 670 feet east of the centerline of State
College Boulevarde Property ;oresently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONEe
Assistant Planner Charles Roberts~ reviewed sub~ect petition,:•3and uses in close proximity,
the location of subject proper~y~ and previous zoning petiti.onson subject property and
#' properties in=.close proximity~ emphasizing the fact that in~ Jun~~•1967~ a similar use was
proposed - howev2r, the petition was withdrawn after the Commission had recommended denial
of any General Plan pmendment pro~ecting other than low density use for sub~ect property
and ad3oining properties; that the Anahea '~neral Plan projects low density residential
development of approximately 4>4 dwelling un~cs per net residential acre, and the proposed
development proposes a density of :Oo9 trailers pex acre - howeve.r, the prime issue before
the Commission was whether or not the proposed use would be compat~lble with the low density
development ia.the area 3nd as it was depicted on the General Plano
Mra Norman Smedegaard, attorney for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and
stated thst an:artist`s rendering woi~ld be presented to the Commission and pointed out
that the prnposed entrance to the mobile home park, together with the recreational facility
proposed'- which would have a clubhouse, swimming pool, etco ~ would be in the center por-
tion of •the mobile home park; that what the petitioner was requesting was permission to
utilize proQerty which they had owned for 65 years and to have the right to develop in the
prop,osed fashion; that the proposed mobile home park would.be an adult only mobile home
park with trailer.pads of a 50 by 76~foot size; that there would be 30 feet separating
eaFh trailer,.thus.creating an aura of privacy; that the aroposed.development would be
attractive, with a 6-foot masonry wall and eevera.i hundred trees interspersed throughout
the deveiopmeat,.thus assuring the privacy of the adults of the~paoposed development;
that an attempt had been made to educate the people of the~area since the last petition
was presented..in order to reduce the type of ~pposition that was formerl,y pxesented; that
the architecture.of a'mobiie home paik had changed considerably~as was depicted in an
article"in the.:Los Angeles Times by the Bank of America, nating°that tha .mobile home has
changed from a`camper in the 1930's to a luxury mobile home of~agproximately 50 feet in
length for'the~present day type oz development; that the resi~nts of mobile ho:nes were
people whose.Familtes had grown, retired persons' or semi-~rettred persons; that the average
of 4oli residents per dwell~ng unit of single-family homes-wmrld-~mean a maximum of 18a5
per acre ~r more people per acre than mobile homes would have; thnt there would be less
cars because there would be no teenagere in the area and private streets were proposed;
that sinr,e this was an edult development, no children would be~irt3ected into the school
system ox park; that the $25 per trailer unit would pay for parks for the single-family
homes since,the mobile park provided its own recreational facility; that the water well
on subject property would be given gratie to the City and would provide for additional
water at na cost to the City; that he took issue with the staff's-coTmnerrt as to the type
of fecility.pxoposed with regard to the statement more services would be required from
the City •- however, this was not so since maintenance of the streets would be on a private
basis and there would be a reduction of approximately 250 school children if this were not
developed for single-family residential purposes and would also.remove the property from
the agricultural tax rate to a residential rate; that there would:be only 17 persons per
grosE~ acre in comparison to the 18.5 in the R-i development; that the staff had criticized
the proposed secreational area - however, this development was designed on the basis of the
tastes and comments of experts in this field who had looked at the development and had
expressed the opinion there were adequate recreational facilities.proposeds that the pro-
posed trailer spaces were one-third larger than the single-family lots permitted in Newport
Beach; and that:conditions as recommended by the staff would be serving primarily the
single-family subdivision development adjacent to subject propertye
The Commission.noted that the agent for the petitioner had indicated t~e proposed mobile
home park would be for adult's only, and inquired whether or not any resirictions were ~
beSng proposed,which would piohibit children in the event someone moved into the mobile !
home park and had childreno ~
Nlre Smedegaard.noted that part of the rental agreement would require their moving out of
the mobile home park if they did have childrene
The Commission fvrther inquired what protection would be afforded the City if the operators
of the mobile home park determined the desSgnation of "adults enly" would not be feas3.ble
and other than adults only would be permitted in the parko '
~ ._._...
rre;: ~ x>
~
~
l )
..~i
;'' MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMNtISSION, October 23, 1967
3633
CONDITIONAL USE -~The agent for the petitioner then stated tha.t.the City could require
,PERMIT NOo 973 deed restrictions that no one under eighteen would be permitted to
(Continued) reside on the premiseso
Commiss~~ner Gauer noted that the Leisure Wnr1d•development had first
required a•~minimiim-of 52 years of age for xesidents in their..facility; however, they had
now reduce'd this'to 25 years of age; that they originally had psoposed free gol: for the
residents•of the•area but now were charging a fee, and this was~misrepresentation since
prospective"residents of such a development would reside thera on~the assumption that all
of these guararitees would be maintained - however, regulations could be changed if they
;, were found~~hot feasibleo
The agent then sta~ted that Leisure World was developed on the basis of selling fee title
and the build'tng while the mobile home park would be 2easing the premises only with the
right to the.use of the recreational facilities and streets, and private clubs were
operated on such a basie, for ex~mple, Rancho Lapaz which was run similar to a orivate
clubf and that the biggest demand in the mobile home park industry was for faciiities
for adults only9 since this has become a form of living for.retfred persons who still
wanted to ha~e the.privacy of a home with little or no maintenancea
Mro Smedegaard. theo preeented letters from nearby residents in.favor of subject petition
and indicated.that letters were on file from the superintendent of_the Anaheim City School
District and.the Anaheim Union High School District indicating the proposed development
would have ao students whi.ch would tax the existing sch~ol facilities •- however, it wouid
be an appreciable tax revenue whicn the school district always coudd useo
Mr, Richard.Ben,jamin, 2428 Oshkosh Avenue, appeared before the Goaenission in opposition,
statyng he was a resident of Anaheim for the past nine year6;•that•he had been before the
Commission five times because of requests for changes of zoning as depicted on the General
Plan in this general area; that the existing trailer parks in Anaheim were built when the
prooerty was under..the jurisdiction of the County and said property wes then annexed to the
City; that•~he school board;had indicated it could handle childrerr from a high density use -
however, the proposed develppment was not compatible to the area qince trailer courts were
aZways cons~,dered,substandaFd in every city; that most of the~tr~iiler parke in existence
were`in close.proximity to ~reeways and cemeteries ox where~they Had little effect on the
integrity of the area; and that the nrevicus petition tor a crailer park had sfgnatures
of 500 property ownere in the general vicinity of the area, who were ail opposed to any
deviation from the.pro3ections of the General Plano
Mre Maurice Mitchell., 93i Peregrine Place, appeared before the Commission in opposition,
stating that his property waa just south of sub3ect property, and as a homeowner he was
not desi:ous of having a tr~iler psrk in his rear yard; that~he~•was a builder in east
Anaheim from 1955 .to 1966, during which time only single-family homes were buiit, and
about 2~ yea~:s ago the Planning Commission and City Council had denied multiple-family
development.and planned unit development for the p~operty i~ne~3iately to the north of
subject property, and after severai denials, said property was then developed with 56
single~family homes ranging in price from $35,000 to $50,000, and the deveioper of this
property would not have developed it for single-family use if he had been cognizant of
the fact that anyibing other than single-family homes would-be projected and approved
for subject property; that during L957 and 1958 when he was developing homes on the west
side of Sunkist Str.eet, both north and south of La Palma AveFlUe, after a trailer park
was proposed aad approved on the northeast corner of Sunkist'otreet and La Palma Avenue
while subject oroperty was within ihe jurisdiction of the County, it became very difficult
to develop or sell the property where sing~e-family homes had been-proposed and constructed;
therefore, this was evidence that where trailer parks were proposed, approved and developed
adjacent to single-family homes they were a definite detriment and were not compatible with
the residential integrity establishedo
Mrs. Ralph Biester, 2207 Olmstead Way, appeared before the Commission in opposition, noting
that the Genezal..Plan projected low den6ity residential developmer~t which was a logical use
since subject property was adjacent to an elementary school~~a-junior high school, and
across the street £rom a senior high; that the fact that two•streets stubbed into sub,ject
property was indicative subject property should be developed for low density use; that the
low density designation permitted 4* homes per net residential acre, while the petitioner
was proposing l0+ trailers per acre; that the Bank of America recommended 8 trailexb per
acre; that the tax assessor'had a iax base of 2~ for residences while trailers were taxed
2~, and the tax base for •residences remained stable or increased while the ta:c base on
trailers would decrease because of decrease in valuation of the trailers; that petitions
for reclassi~~cation.to medium or iow-medium density had been denied in 1963 and 1964 on
the property,to the north of subject property and since those denials, the property had
developed with 56 single-family homes of high quality; that tha.Ci~y of Anaheim far exceeded
in the number of trailer parks than any communfty in Orange.Gount}r - however, these were
located on arterlal highways and freewa~s and not ad~acent to single-family homeas that
;q ~
~
i.. 5i~
I . . .
;7
<
~ ~ ~, ~ + ~; ~
~ ;:y
I ~. ~ ~
MINUfES, CITY PLANNING CONV~SISSION, October 23, 1967 ~ 3634
CONDITIONAL_USE - trailer parks should be located along freeways adjacent to factories
PERMIT NOe.973 and commercial.uses; that,the_letters from,thg representatives of
(Continued) the Anaheim Union Fiigh School and Elementary 5chool Dis+.ricts, stating
that. they had no opposition, should not be .considered since the General
Plan pro~ected low density for the property:and school needs wexe based
on 3+ children per dwelling unit ~ thus there was no effect..as far as the proposed use
would be in'the school district considerationg•'ttiat the City-Manager in a recent article
had indicated that the City`s average population of 14;556 had an average age 33>9 years,
with an income average of $3,800 per family and retail sales.of $30 million; in 1960,
with a population:of 140,000 and an average age o: 2606 years, with an income of $7~625,
sales had increased to a$160,800,000; and last year's figu~res showed a 154,000 popula-
tion with the average age reduced to 2409 years, an income of• $&y400~ with sales increasing
to $335 million - this indicated a lowering of age and a hig•hes-income type family was beina
attracted to the City of Anaheim due to the type of industrial development the City was
encouraging; that this lowering of age and higher fncome were indicative of the reason why
people were moving into the ci.iy and was also indicative that the city was geared primarily
for the younger paople and not the retired peopleg and, furthermore, subject property was
located near an elementary, junior, and senior high school, and this also encouraged
people to purchase their homes in this generai areao
Mr. Larry Don Smith,,2226 Olmstead Way, appeared before the Commission in opposition and
stated that his property adjoined subject property; that the density population in the
~ single-family area~ together with so many children, created such a noise that the tdea of
,,u;; , ;;, :
};. projecting a trailer park adjacent to an area where many children resided was almost in-
_., ,,,: comorehensible since the elderly people would have to listez to the noises of these children,
` 'e and this would be a disservice to the people moving into the trailer park, and because of
t :~'i~ this, the trailer park then would be a transient parko
Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts, in explaining a question presen•.`.ed by a woman in the
audience relative to deed restrictions limiting the use of subject property for an adult
trailer park only, noted that private deed restrictions were not enforceable by the City
of Anaheim; therefore, limitation to adults only would have to be 9overned by the owners
of the mobile home park~
The Commission Secretary indicated that a petition signed by 503 persons was received;
however, reference was made to the previous conditional use~permit for a trailer park
rather than subject petition, whereupon the agent for the petitioner requested a ruling
by the City Attorney relative to admission of this into evidencee
Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts then stated that not only had evidence been submitted in
person but other ietters as well; ~herefore it was logical to assume that generaily
speakin9 the same type of land use opposed in the previous petition was being pr.oposed
now; however, it was up to the Commission to determine whether or not this document of
~503 names should be considered as part of the evidence - furthermore, the Commission shouid
rule on land use compatibility and was not governed by relying solely on a petition where
persons were not piesent, and then quoted the State Plannina Code 6508 relative to the
submission of evidencee
Mro Smedegaard, in rebuttal, stated that taxes on the land would more than compensate for
str,eet maintenance not utilized and sewers and lights, as well as license fees to operate
the mobile home park; that residents of the mobile home park paid approximately a 3% tax,
and it was operated on the basic idea that a property owner still had the right to develop
to the highest and best use; that the opposition had painted a picture that the City of
Anaheim schools still had plenty of room for expansion - however bond elections would have
to be held in order to provide money to expand these schools, and when a school district
and high school superintendent write and advise that the proposed mobile home park would
be an asset to the area, thie was sufficient proof that the use was compatible; that the
density proposed~meant the number of people placed on a parcel of land; that residents of
trailer parks were not "second rate" citizens, and the density proposed was less than the
adjacent R-1 since many families would consist of only two people, and sometimes less,
whereas the single~-family homes had a number of children; and~furthermore, in response to
the question asked by,the woman in the Council Chamber, they would assure the City of
Anaheim that restrictions would be written into the rental fees, limiting the age to 18
years of age and over, and the conditional use permit could be revoked if evidence were
submitted there were persons younger than 18 years of age residing in this areao
THE HEARING WAS CIASEDo
Commissioner Farano offered a motion to refuse as evidence the petition signed by 503
persons for the previous conditional use permit as being applicable to subject petitlono
Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIEA>
~ ~
~ a
±,i
~ :j
i
I '
4
'~+zy F'~~-~^aa ''
,;<
~ . ~ ~
MINUfES,,~ITY.PLANNING COMMISSION, October 23, 1967 3635
CONDITIONAL USE - Commissioner Farano offered Resolution Noo PC67-24i and moved for its
PERMIT N0. 973 passage and adoption, seconded by Commiasioner Rowland, to deny Petition
(Continued) for Conditional Use Permit Noo 973 on the basis that the use was in-
compatible with the establiahed single»family residential land uses to
the northwest and southeast; that the General Plan in'dicated this general
area should.be developed for low.density residential use of not more than 6 dwellino units
per net residential acre~ whereas the proposed development pro~ected 1009 units per net
acre; that studies made by other cities indicated demand for community services generated
by mobile.trome narks was comparable ~o that created by multiple-family development3 that
the traffic generated by the proposed use would be similar to multiple=family development
as we1F as commercial due to their architectural incompatability to the surrounding area,
which woul~d mean a much heavier traffic volume than would be generated by low density
residen'tial developmentq that although the petitioner stated the proposed mobile home park
would~be for adults only, and that tt~is wouid be insured through private deed restrictions,
such'de~d~restrictions were not enforceable by the City, and there was no positive assurance
that families with children would not eventually occupy the mobi].e home park; and that since
this part nf Anaheim had been dasignated for low density residential u~es, many people had
purchased homes in the area upon the belief that it would remain a singleWfamily area, and
these residents' property rights should be protected with the assurance that the..character
of the area would not be chan9ed by the in~ection of more intense land uses - protection
that is similar to that which is presently enjoyed in the industrial and commercial~
recreation areaso Furthermore, taxes and economics were not considered in the decision
of the Commissiono (See Resolution Book)
On roll cell the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: CAMN?1SSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Campo
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Idoneo
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Mung811o
REPORTS AND - ITEM N0~ 1
RECOMMENDATIONS. Clax~ification of Commission's vote on_ Reclassification
Noo 67-68-14, proposing to establish C-H, COMMERCIAL HILLSIDEy
ZONING on property at the southwest co~ner of Lincoln Avenue
and Villareal Driveo
Assistant Development Services Director Robert Mickelson explained to the Planning Commission
that Rec2assification Noe 67-68-14 was intended to place the propexty in the most appropriate
zone (C-H), in order that the site development standards considered appropriate for the
hill areas might be applied, rather than the less restrictive C-1 standards, and expressed
concern that the staff had not properly explained the intent to the Commissiono Therefore,
further clarification of the Commission"s voting was reouested in order that this might be
forwarded to the City Council at the time the aforementioned reclassification was considered
by that Body at public hearing,
The property owner was present at the public hearing and stated that they were in favor of
the change in zone, Mro Mickelson further noted.
Commissioner Allred was of the opinion that he may have influenced the other Commissioners
by his statements~ However, at the time he reviewed this, he was not aware that the City had
already approved C-1 Zoning for the propertv, and his statements were based on that facto
Since that time he had made a more thorough investigation and was now wholeh=artedly in favor
of app~ying C-H Zoning on the hill and canyon properties, thus he would like to say he would
amend his ~ote on Reclassification Noo 67-68•-14 ±o "aye" nowe
Commissioner Allred also noted that his statement that residents in the surrounding area
were not 100~ in favor of commercial uses in the interior area should still be considered
as a part of his comments~
Depu~y City Attarney Furman Roberts advised the C;,mmission that their Body could adopt a
resolution of ini;erpretation as permitted by Secl.ton 18,040020 and Se~tion 18~76~040 regard-
ing,those who previously voted by a clarification of their intent baFed on the staff's
add3tiona7, expianation and further information, since the Commission was not considering
this petition at another public heaxing, they shouid ind.icate that the vote was 4-3 on the
basis that all facts were not available at that timeo
Chairman Gamp noted this was what the staff had in mind, since the City Council might feel
that the Planning Commission had established the area and were now voting against it (C-H).
Therefore, the staff wanted further clarificationo
Commissioner Allred again stated he would change his vote to "aye" for the C-H Zone,
Gommissioner Rowland noted that if the Commission now voted against a zone which was a~roved
by their Body for the Hill and Canyon Area, it did not mean the Commission could not dis-
agree with their own thinkinge
v'
~ ~ f, -~-
LJ
MINUTES, CI1'Y'PLANNII~ COMMISSION, October 23, 1967 3636
REPORTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS - II'EM NOe 1 {Continued)
Commissioner AZlred again etated that in his own mind he did not realize subject property
had a resolution of intent to C-1, and he wouZd prefer the C-H Zone since it was o:iginally
designed for use in the Hill and Canyon Areao
Commiss3oner Rowland then stated that because this zone is more restrictive did not mean he
would vote for it, since the Commission has made many more liberal interpretations than the
staff, and that the Commission was attempting not to be too restrictive about anything.
Commissioner Allred noted that the people in the Nohl Ranch azea were of the opinion that
there were adequate commercial facilities around the per4meter of the psoperty; therefore,
they were reluctant to have commercial uses in the interior area of the rancho
Commi6sioner Rowland stated his vote was based on the fact that he did not have a clear
enough picturee
Mr. M.ickelson ihen ststed that it was the staff`s opinion that the Gortunission had not been
informed fully, and it was tne staff`s feeling ihat the C-H Zone was more in keeping with
the Hill and Canyon General Plane
Commissioner Rowland noted that the Co;nmission's reaction should te b~sed or. the fact that
the property under consideration, together Hith ali the commercial s}nnbology indicated on
the General Plan, could r.ot be supported for the next 50 years, regardless whether it was
C-H, C-0, or C-1.
At the conclusion of the discussion, esch of the Commissioners agreed that had they fully
understood the proposal, they would have voted "aye" and requested that this information
be forwarded to the City Council„
Commissioners Farano and fierbst left the Council Chamber at 4:25 PoMo
RECL.4SSIFTCATZON -°UFL[r, IaEARTNG~ 1AUZS Ee ~uJHL, 20310 Santa Ana Cartyon Road, Anahefm,
NO,V, 67~68-,,~,9 r CaJ.iforni3, Owner; HOYLE ENGINEERING, 412 South Lyon Streetq Santa Ana,
Californio, Agent; requesting that proeerty described as: An irregularly
~s}raped parcel of land of approximately 15~85 acres;~having a frontage of
app=oximately 1429 feet on the east side of Walnut Canyon Road and~having a maximum depth of
apar.oximately 647 feet, the northerly boundary of subject property being approximately 150
feet south of the centerline of Santa Ana Canyon Road, be reclassified from the CX)UNTY A-1,
GENER4L AGRICUI.TURAL ZONE to the GI~ ~GNERAL ODMMERCIAL, ZONEo
Assist~ynt Planner Charles Robexts reviewed sub,ject petition, the location cf subject property
and requested zonina, noting that t.,e property was still under the~~urisdiction of ~the County,
and that in accordance with the 5tate law, the proQosed reciassification request constituted
a prezoning application to the City of Anaheim pending annexation into ~the City; that the
petitioner had indicated_a desire to establish a neighborhood or community type facility ~-
however, the Hill and Canyon General Plan indicated a neighborhood shopping center at this
intersection of Walnut Canyon Road and Santa Ana Canyon Road, which would permit approxi-
mately two to three acres of land to serve 1~000 families~ while the acreage proposed for
C-1 would be a community shopping center to serve 10,000 to 30,000 families; that because
the proposed shopping center was projected for the Hi12 and Canyon Area which was intended
to be one of the finer areas of Anaheim, the Commission might wish to consider insuring a
compatible architectur3l design with the high quality residential development. that is
anticioated; and that perhaps a precise plan of development of the proposed pro,ject should
be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit,as was indicated in Condition Noo 12
of the recommended conditionse
Colored slides were then presented and reviewed by Mr. Roberts, indicating the various types
of commercial develapment throughout the County and those recommended for consideration in
the Hill and Canyon Area, namely Monarch Bay in Laguna Beach~ Westcliff in Costa Mesa, and
another one in I3ewport Beache
Mro Louis Nohl, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and indicated it was his
attempt to develop his property of about 5,000 acres in a neat and orderly manner~ and to
this end had been working with the City Manager and i:he Development Services Department
and the Engineering Department relative to any proposed development of his ranch; that he
had no intention to deveiop the property at this time for commercial uses•-however, as
residential developmeat ocaurred in the canyon area~ he was desirous•of riot arousing the
animosity of hi~s nEighbars because commercial uses were proposed for subject property; that
it was his hope to~develop the commercial facility in a manner si:miiar to the Town and
Country in Orang~ ox the Pa.los Verdes area; that ultimate developmertt of the Nohl Ranch
could support a large,•regional sh.opping center on subject property, and it was not their
desire to be restricted.to a small r.eighborhood shopping center, but facilities where weli-
known name firms would estabiish their store facilities and would remain thereo ~
%.:4
Mr. Roy Seeman, representing the So~le Engineering Company, appeared before the Commission
and noted that approximatQl/ eight y~ass ago a genQral topographic map was prepsred fo= the
V
L~!
MINUIES, CITY PLANNING COMN-ISSION, October 23, 1967
3637
RECLASSIFIGFKTION - 5,300 acr~s of the Nohl Ranche This provided a fundamental tool for
N0._67_b8-29' present and future study of the xar.ch; that five or six years ago ':<;r
(ContinU~d) studies were made by the City of Anaheim, the-County-of Orange, and
the Cfties of Villa Park and Orange to ascertain the physfcal location
of future arterial roads across and along the~Hill and Canyon Areao •
The conclusions were shown on a County Arterial Streets and Highways Map as adopted by the ~
Boaxd of••Supervisors, and as shown in more detail on the Hill and Canyon ~eneral Plan
adopted by-the City of Anaheimo
' . . ~ .'.~ ;~,?~
Mre Seeman then reviewed the topographic map showing the flow of•stxeets along the Nohl ''
Ranch area and indicated that the north~south roads may require up to 12% grade climbing ~~
and diopping hundreds of feet; that the problem in selecting of routes was compounded by
the fact that there were specific control points with the Santa Ana Canyon Road which
limited ingress to and exit from the Nohl Ranchf that the ridge from the top of the ranch
to Santa.Ana Canyon was an $00 to 900-foot drop, and the same distance, however shorter,
was orL the other side of the ridge~ that the majority of traffic movement could be considered
along the lines ofi least resistance, meaning considering time and convenience, and when this
was appl`.ed in a third dimension study of the Hill and Canyon Area, it was determined that
the flow of traffic was generated in a similar manner as a drainage pattern, which started
with a creek at the high ridges and then flowed :ike a river at the freeway; that the Hill
and Canyon Area would be unique of this topography; and that the elevation differentials
of 800 to 900 feet existed from the Santa Ana Canyon Road to the ridgeso
In observing the logical'location anci acceptable hillside roadway system, Mr, Seeman
continued, it became appdrent there would be a demand for the small shopping areas in the
Hill aad Canyon A*ea which would be strategicaZly located within a few minutes distance
of any residence; that it was anticipated they would 6e planned and architecturally controlied '
so that they would not dist.ract from the rural residentia: atmosphere of the area; and that
if the assi:mptions were reasonable, additional facilities for commercia], and orofessional
uses ^ot necessari?y needed withi~ the residentiel neighborhood would be desirable near the
confluence of the "stream and river are=_", and there were limited areae along the Santa Ana ~
Canyon Road suf:icient in size and strategically located that would accommodate these
facilities,
As the Commission recalled on checking the Santa Ana Canyon Road, the area around the Peralta
Hills lend uses were fully respected and was one of the five living areas extending to
Imperial Highway; that the progosed location would be the "front door" to the heart of tne
Nohl Ranchy: and M*, Nohl had expressed the desire to provide such an area at the only :ront
door entsarice to the hea:t of the x'3~iCh. Needless to say, full architectural contro? would
be a orerequisite wfthin the proposed area; that this service area would serve approximately
2,500 acres, and assuming a maxinum of 2~ dwelling units per gross acre as an average density,
thexe would be approximately 69250 families in this neighborhood, or approximately 21,000 to
22,000 people ultimately living in the service areao
' I ~
Commissioner Rowland inquired as to ultimate pro,jected density quoted by Mre Seeman, where-
upon Mso Seeman noted that no prediction had been made or was knowne
Commissioner Gauer noted that if a shopping area was to be considered for this area, it was
better to have it pro~ected 3nd located at the present time, and the proposed location was
an ideal spotj furthermore, Mr, Nohl would be the one to decide on what would be placed in
that area, and then fnquired of Mre Nohl as to the possible date development would occur~
Mre Nohl, in response to Commission questioning, stated that he had no preconceived idea as
to when the commercial pxoperty would be developed since this was entirely dependent upon
the growth of the Hill and Canyon Area; however, he was sure tliat within a year or two they
would have a more compiets idea as to ultimate development, bu•: he was not desirous of
developing a 2~- to 3 acre commercial center on subject propert~r, but a complementary shopping
area s3milar to Town and Country or the Palos Verdes Estates, ~.Nhich would be an asset to the
area, and it was not his intent to have any cheap or economical type homes in the communityo
Commissioner Allzed inquired of Mro Nohl whether or not he cor.sidered the area at Lincoln
Avenue and Villareal Drive a potential shopping center if the proposed regional center was
@eveloped as he had anticipated,
Mr< Nohl stated that he 4 id not have the answer at this time; however, he fei; that i: a
good shopping center was located at the opening to the ranch, there might not be a necessity
for a large facility unless it w~s near the school, and he was desirous of having commercial
development that the entire city could be proud of.
Mro Carl Ah:ens, 20332 Santa Ana Canyon Road, appeared before the Commiseion and noted his
pr_operty was to the no;~heast of the sub~ect prooerty and inquired as to what e£fect the ~}
proposed devslopment would have on this p.~operty, and whether commercial zoning would be
looked on favorably if he decided his four acres should be cflavert~ede ~~
.,~ , ,
~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CI'CY PLANAiING COMMISSION, October 23, 1967
~~:~ ,~:s
'~~: ;
~
~ '':
3638
RECLASSIFICATION - Chairman Camp aoted that if Mro Ahrens' property was between the Nohl
NOa•67-68-29 Ranch property and the freeway, it was more than likely that commercial
(Continued) uses wouZd be approvedo
Commisaioner Allred stated that if development occurred on the Ahrens'
property wi.th the same integrity as the Nohl Ranch area, then commercial would be compatible
for his propertye
Commissioner Gauer noted that one of the things that was being accomplfshed with thiF
petition was establishing and controlling the amount of commerci~l development for that
are~o
Mre Robin Moore, 20330 Santa Ana Canyon Road, appeared before th.e Commission and stated
~hey had purchased their prooerty approximately four years ago with the idea that the
prooerty had estate zoning, and with that idea they had built a 4,100-square foot home,
and•his property would be located approximately 200 feet from the proposed shopping center;
that he was not opposed to commercial development - however, he was 9ravely concerned that
development would not be prop erly controlled, and he urged that strong restrictions be
placed on subject prooerty in order that the residential integrity of the area might be
maintaine~d; that he had spent a considerable amount of money on his property, and he was
concerned that if sub~ect petition were approvedy his property might decrease in value
or have the privaoy infringed upon with commercial uses, and suggested that no buffer of
small homes or apartments be projected - however, adequate landscaping and fencing would
create the rural atmosphere he desireda
Mro Nohl then appeared before the Commission and stated that he was in agreement with
Mro Moore and stipulated to the aubmission of precise plans to the Commission and City
Couneil prior to any development sii~ce his property would also be affected by any commercial
development in the areao
TI-~ F~ARING WAS CLOSEDD
A le~ter from the County of Orange was read to the Commission relative to subiect petitione
Zoning 5upervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the staff had recommended
a precise plan of development conforming to the C-H site development sta~dards prior to the
is~uan~;e of a building permit in order to ir.sure the architectural compatibility in lieu of
the fact that the City did not have a special zone which would control community••type shopping
centers in the Hill and Canyon Area, and since only one type of facility would be proposed
for this areas there seemed to be no reason for studying a new zoneo
Commissioner Allred of:ered Resolution Noe PC67-242 and moved fo~ its passage and adoption,
secon,ded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi-
fication No> 67-68-29 be approved, sub3P~t to conditions and the submission of precise
deveiopment plans for the oroposed shoo~,ing center prior to the issuance of a building
permi-t, (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Rowland, Campo
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Herbst, Mungallo
REPORIS AND - ITEM NOa 2
RECOMMENAATIONS Orange County Use Variance No, 5967 - Proposing to establish
an awning company office in the attached garage of an existing
residential structure which is used for commercial purposese
Parking for the proposed use to be provided on the front half
of the RP Zoned parcel located on tFe west side of Brookhurst
Street approximately 860 feet north cf Lincoln Avenue (County
territory)
Assistant Planner Charles Roberts presented Orange County Use Variance No. 5967 to the
Commission, noting the location of subject property, the proposed use, number of employees
anticipated, amount of parking and its location, together with previous zoning action on
subject propertye
Mro Roberts emphasized the fact that the petitioner in 1960 was granted a variance to
eliminate requirements of dedication and improvements of Brookhurst Street, and that the
pr2sent right••of-way was a 40-foot hzlf width, while the ultimate right-of-way would be a
60-foot half widtho Furthermore, the staff recommended that 1f sv}rjeet petition were con-
sidered•favorably, that dedication to the ultimatQ width of a 60-foot half width, together
with improvement of Rrookhurst Street, be requireda
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING.COMMZSSION9 October 23, 1967
REPORTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0~ 2 (Continued)
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange County ~'
Planning Commission be urged to requi.re dedication to a 60-foot half width for Brookhurst '"''
Street, and its improvement thereof, if Orange County Use Permit Noo 5967 is approvedo ~`~
Commissioner Gauer eeconded tne motiono MOTION CARRIEDo <;::s
.r.f
r~
:~
ITE~uI NO e 3 ;;.':~;,
Orange County Use Variance Noo 5974 - Proposing a echool and `"}h''
residential facilities for 175 resident and 75 day school, "~
mentally retarded children on property.located on the south ~'
side of La Pa2ma Avenue and west of the future extension of '.'i
Orchard Drive in the northeast industrial area, Property
is presently zoned M-lin the Couniyo
Assistant Planner Charles R~berts Qresenied Orange County Use Variartce Noo 5974 to the
Commission, noting the location of subject property which is on the south side of La Palma
Avenue, approximately 830 feet west of the future extension of 0'rchard Driveo The proposed
use would be for a residence and school facility far r~entally retarded children between the
ages of 4 and 21; that the use would be located adjacent to an area which has been determined
appsopriate for more intense industrial uses such as batch plants; that an indt~strial comalex
(Warner•-Lambert Pharmaceuticai Company) was under construction and in the process of being
annexed to the City of Anahei.m; that the conditional use sect:on of the M-1 Zone of the
Anaheim Municipa? Code permits the proposed use; however, this location ia the middle o£ an
industrial areas ad3acent to a primary arterial, which acts as the.main arterial from the
west city limits to Imperial Highway on the east, made the proposed use incompatible for the
following xeasons:
a. That its location is in the center of the industrial area and not along
the periphery of a designated industrial area,
bo That the school's 800-foot frontage on an ultimately heavily travelled
highway posed problems relative to mentally reta.r.ded inadvertently
wandering onto eaid highwaye
ce That the proposed facility extended into a proposed heavy industrial
area, as proposed in 1966 by motion of the Commission and City'Council,
thus making the two uses incompatible and creating serieus complicationso
da That a new industrial complex was presently under construction within
400 feet of subject property, thereby establishing the type of develop-
ment which should occur on adjacent properties, and making the proposed
use incompatible with industrial uses due to a combination of-residential
and echool facilities conCemplatedo
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to recommend to the City Council.that the Orange County
Pianning Commission be urged to deny Orange County Use Variance No~ 5974, on the basis that
the proposed use of th?•land in the center of an industrial area was poor land use, since a
combined residential and school use was rroposed in which noises from ~he industrial uses
already established and recommended for adjoining properties would..have a deleterious effect
on both industry and the sr'„t~l,~ that the Planning Commission and City Council by motion in
1966 determined that the ~:.:ties generally located between Richfield Road and the Imperi,l
Highway from a line 400 feet ;outh of La Palma Avenue to the Santa Ana River would be an
appropriate area for more intense industrial uses (batch plants), thereby making the proposed
use inappropriate and incompatibles and that the northeast industrial area should be retained
for those types of uses already established and approved, rather than permitting a mixture of
residential-school uses in the center of an industrial aseae Commissioner Allred seconded
the motione MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM NOe 4
City of Placentia Use Permit Noe 67~23 (Crooke and Dunbar)
Proposing to establish a 99-bed acute general hospital with
related facilities on the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue,
approximately 1,500 feet west of Kraemer Boulevard-(Dowling
Avenue)
Assistant Planner Charles Roberts presented to the Commission the City o£ Placentla Use Permit
No. 67~23 request, which proposed to establieh a 9~3-bed acute ge~eral hospital with related
facilities and activities~ including medical suites on property locatsd alonq the perimeter
of the City of Anaheim's northeast industrial azea~ and notQCl furihe= that ~f~ hvsQital was
~
~ . . . ..
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING O~MMISSION, October 23, 1967
REPORTS AND ,
REOOMMENDATIONS - ITEhI N0. 4 (Continued)
,~
-- ----------- --- ,;~
~ ~ a
3640 ~
~
;, ~.
~
-~
proposed to be loaated on the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue, approximately 1~500 feet ~
west of the centerMne of Kraemer Boulevard, with the property tataling approximately 8e74
acres which was zoned P=M, Planned Industrial by the City of Placentieo
Mro Roberts further noted that in contacting the Placentia Planning Depar'unent, the peti-
tioners had indicated to that depaxtment that they proposed development for the westerly
'3e74 acres first;•that the easterly porticr. would be developed in the future wi.th several `*
multi-storied struct~res, including a 12-story hospital building,.and•a 2-story parking ~
structure; that eventually a third lar9e parcel, ad~acent and west of'the 3074 acres would ` ~
be used for further~ea~par~sion of this proposed facility; and that the latter parcel was ~
not presently involved in the subject petitione ~
~ ':t. The Commission noted that a similar request for a hospital facility was proposed several
~
' ~ years ago in the heart of the northeast industrial area~ being denied by the Commission
and City Council; and tha~ the proposed location was along the periphery of the City of
Anaheim'e northeast indus~rial areae
° ~` Mz•e Roberts further emphasized that the Carbon Creek Channel and Orangethorpe Avenue could
serve as a natural boundary between pure industrial and other uses in this area; that
. Orangethorpe Avenue is now designated as a major highway (120 feet), while Jefferson Street
~
tHe location of the hospital request to ,
the City of Anaheim two years ago, was then a
y , secondary highway (90 feet),
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that at the time property located
east of Kraemer Boulevard north of the Carbon Creek Channel and south of Orangethorpe was
approved for multiple-family development, the City Council had indicated that properties
north of Orangethorpe Avenue were not suitable for the continued extension of industrial
land useo Furthermore, the Anaheim General Plan indicated the northwest side of Kraemer
Boulevard south of Orangethorpe Avenue for commercial recreation•purposeso
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion.to recommend to the City Council that the City of
Placentia be urged -to approve Use Permit Noe 67~23, on the basis that Orangethorpe Avenue
acted as a'natural boondary between industrial land uses and other uses. Commissioner
Allred seconded the motione MOTION CARRIEDe
-3TENL. NO o 5
Review of parking overlay zoneo
Assistant Development Services Director Robert Mickelson noted that as a result of action
taken by the Commission on Brookhurst Street and Niobe Place, a parking overlay zone was
studied; however~ after hav.t.ng prepared it, the staff determined it was necessary to bring
it before the Commission and review ii;; that the staff had discussed and done considerable
research into a parking zone that could be applied to a situation such as the medical
facility at Brookhurst and Niobe, and after a number of staff ineetings regarding the oro-
posed overlay zone, they.came to a number of impasses: the staff found that if an overlay
zone was allowed in a residential area, the only place which was logical. since parking was
permitted in comm2rcial uses, problems would occur since the staff felt the site develop-
ment standards,such as setbacks, landscaping, paving, masonry wall, etce, should be required
since the parking area would be serving a commercial facility; and.that by approving this
for a parking zone, this would be committing the property later on for commercial uses, and
it was hardly likely that the parking overlay zone would revert to residential uses at such
time as the interim overlay parking was found undesirable or a more convenient parking place
was found for the commercial facilityy that the staff also looked into the possibility of
setting this up as a commercial parking lot or parking structure with f•ees, gates, etce;
that the existing P-1 Zone as was established in Title 18 was asgood as anything the staff
could recommend, and this led the staff to believe that they were looking at it from a
commercial land use angle rather than residential use - therefore this was the reason for
submitting all the study_data to the Commission for their consideratione
Commissioner Rowiand was of the opinion that a parking overlay zone wouid be a commercial '
use and should be subje~ted to any commercial site development standards since it would never
revert to residential uses,but Nould be converted to commercial in the futuree
Deputy ~ity P.ttozney Furman Rolierts stated the only thing he would mention,about the Brookhurst-
Niobe situation was the~l~and use was in transition already, and it depended upon future events
whether or not it would be developed for regular commercial uses,and a great deal depended
upon the political pressure by the single-family homeowners, most of whom had agreed to the
parking but were not desirous of having any commercial buildin s on th.e
9 pro{~erty or close
,
_ _ _--•.__..._,._:,_..,_~____ .. ,_ _ . _.. ~..,
. .,.~o. ,r -; ~`
~': ,;; '
r~..; .:tk f t ~
l
~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 23, 1967 364i
REPORTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 5 (Continued)
to it, even if they were in accordance with the site development standards of the C-1 Zone;
thst the Commission could consider some kind of limitation on the use of the property or
the overlay zone so that property was not taken without due process of law or the variance
route; that whether or not the property would convert to C-1 depended upon the attitude of
the single-family.hameowners toward this type of change of zone of P-1 to C-1 - that it
did not necessarily mean it would go to C~1, but the tendency was theree
Commissioner Camp inquired whether or not the parking could not be accompl.ished with the
P-1 Zone, whereupon Mro Roberts stated that this could be, but the P-1 Zone also permitted
R-3 developmento.
Mro Mickelson further stated that the staff did discuss limiting the properties to just
parkin9 and no building, but they finally came to the conclusion that in many instances
a building was a far better neighbor than a parking lot, so it did not seem to be the logical
` way to _qo< '
~~ Commissioner Allred said if it was suitable for parking cars, then it was suitable for
' commercial zoning.
E~ ,; Mro Roberts noted that although he agreed, the staff agreed, and the Commission did not
~ ~, necessarily disagree, the feelings of the people might not be the same, and many property
_ owners even complained about the formula for height distance restrictions, and in his
~ ± estimation, the.P~l Zone was acceptable except that there was some discussion at the time
~, ., ' of the Brookhurst-Niob~.,problem by the Commissi.one
N[ t+
` 5~; Commissioner Rowland then stated that one method of resolving this was that if the property
~r~i_%:':r;~ was suitable for parking, it must be contiguous to a commercial use, and ~f a petitioner
Y`~ came in and applied £or a C~i use, although he was using the property for parking only, he
~ ~ would be required to develop in accordance with the C~-1 site development standards, and
~;~, that the overlay zone would be a difficuit zone to administer without the application of a
~~~ varianceo
~~(
Mro Mickelson stated that the staff had arrived at the same conclusion: that there was no
~`~; logical way to approach the situation and had recommended that the Commission receive and
~ ~ file the report„
~ ~ kj
,~f~ Cortnnissioner Gauer offered a motion to table any further consideration of the parking overlay
;`i;;;,tin zoneo Commissioner Rowland seconded the moti~no MOTION CARRIEDe
TEMPORARY AD.iOUHNMENT - Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to adjourn the meeting to
7:00 P>Me, October 30, at which time a work session would be held
to further review the implications of multiple-family aoning as
it pertained to the General Plane Commissioner Allred seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIEDo
The meeting adjourned at 5:50 P,Mo
.~``
l.: c~
WORK SESSION
DATED OCIL?BER 30~1907•- Chairman Camp reconvened the meeting at ~:00 P.M., Commissioners
Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland and Camp being present.
Also present: Deputy City Aitorney Furman Roberts '
Development Services Director Alan Orsborn
Assistant Development Services Director Robert Miokelson
Planning Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson
Assistant Pianners Charles Roberts, Malcolm Slaughter,
Dave Williamson
planning Commission Secretary Ann Krebs f
Planning Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski presented a review of the medium density residential
development as it pertained to the General Plan with consideration of amendmentse
The Commission and staff discussed in great detail the impli:ations as presented (detailed
copy of the Minutes on file with Mro Grudzinski) and at ita conclusion, Commissioner Rowl.and
requested that the staff prepare copies of the map on display with the overlays as presented
to the Commission for future referenceo
The meeting adjourned at 9:15 P,Mo ~espectfulJ.~ suk~mit ed,
.l./.!~~~ _~x~;..~~"~~"~
ANN KR~BS, ~zcretaxy
_ ~S' -
.. 1 , .. n , .. ..
~~~~~ Tx .
- ~' . ,,'i . , 't' . 'r"7S?..°r'' .. ^r+' t^7PR' ::'~
I '
i
i
4 .
1 y 1 ~
F t ~ ~` - y 7 ~ ~. \ ~ t
~. ~ 1~.
'~
,~ `
~ /
~ J
t
1 ; _ t' ~ ~; Y '1
~ i
~ ~ ~:r 1 `t ~ } t 1 _ ` ~..F
~ ~ _
t
~ ` { ~ ' `
I + ' ` ' ~
\ t
. t !
~ t
'~
x ~
~ } t
T
~ {
C
-
z . ,~ ~ r ~.. ~
'.9
r
~ 1 '~ 1 s'
5
',
~
" -\ . ~
'"
J ~: ~ I 1
~ • .:' . • . ~
~
' . .
..~1.
{ ~~ }
~. '
~
~
~' ~
'
~{ ~' ~ f
t 1 _ (
.
w - ~ L
;
,
, „ ~ ,
,
~ , ~ r s ~
;, ~
J r~ , , r ~,
4
S
?
~
' Y'
s
S'
x
' `
"
~ ^
~ '
~ ~, r
S~ t l s
„
',
+
,
S ~
~~ f~
~
,
~
t~ ~ 4
I..
'' ~ ~a
~4 ~
~~
'~ ~ ~ t "~ Tr
Y}
,
! ~~
" a
t
r
n
t r j y ~ ~ ,T~~~ 4 ~.z a~
~
. . .~ .
' 3 1 .~-
.
Y ~
~
` Y
{
~ 7'~J' i .5 1.
l
~ 1 I
~
.{4 ~.~ > i' ~ L ~'. 7 ~ 'E? S
J
F A f
~
..
~ ~... t u A~ ' y' `
T 2 l
~ 1 S r t~
~ ~
~
-
H
-._
y
~
, t Lt c t
~ h L C{ . F
r ~ `~ i~~ i~ ~ 9 z ~_,~ `t 7 1 ;~ ~ r t ~ n ~. ~~ a k;~ti~~ ~ ~~
~ ~5 .j .
~ "'t r F ,
~
-, c' ,~: j .' * ~~.. ~
~, °` , ~'~+
'~ ay""r : v~3^' q ~ _
~~
F
~
,
i
r.. -<' r F nq~ r `~ ,~ J
:
~
~~ ~
,
'` . ~ ~
•.
4
-
r
x x~~
~ ~ '~` r , ~
- -
r . ~
,
,,
.
t 4 H'i ~'' t~ t
`
~ c
- 4 ,
~
;
_
.~
. .-
.~.
~ :.,: . `., ..: { , t 'x :'} ~ .
i,- _
•;
. ::~- .~ ~ ~. , . .
. _. . ..:. . --.
..~ .. . . . . ~. .,. .,..,~. ',.~ '... ~ :' ~.
I
;
. .
+
. . .
, . :-~ , .. . ,.:~
~,
. ~,' . :: r .
~
-
.. . . .. . .
. . . , . . ~..~'
•.~ . . ._ . ... , ~. . .. .,,_ ,_;.' ,' ~ .
~. .. - . ~ • .•~ ~ ..~ . ,
a
~
4 _ _ ' '1
1; _
> n
r .: .' '~ .~ V
"
.:
r ... , .. . .. ,
_
~ S.i - _
p '
~
Y
~ {
~ r
. "E~ i' 4 :~ _ .
. {~ I
`4 '
I
,
~ ~
~
' t , ,
' _
,
. i ,
1
~ ~ ` o,; ;~
, ":
'
~...~
~~ ~ '
i
i ~.
~!1ki
~
~
~
~
. °'~`1..?.~ r..-._i ~ , . ~t~n~tt
.
1''r
- . ^
~
-, . . . .
~ 7. T`,
. . , ..;. . , ..-..._ ,
. . . . . , k . .. ,
. .: r