Minutes-PC 1967/11/20~~ .. . . . . . .. ~ ~ . ~ .
, ~ ~...~ . . . ~ ~ . ~ • . ~ .
City Hall
~~. Anaheim, Californ~a
November 20, 196'+
A REGULAR hIHETING OF`THE ANA(~.IM CITY PLANNING C70MMISSION
`REGULAR MEETING - A regular:meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called
'to,order by Chairmen Camp at 2:00 o'clock P.Mo, a quorum being present.
PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Camp.
~, - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland.
. ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: None.
PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Robert Mickelson
Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompson
Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts
Office Engineer: Arthur Daw
~ Assistant Planner: Charles Roberts
Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs
INVOCATION - Reverend Don Ganstrom, Pastor, Bethel Baptist Church, gave the
invocation.
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Allred ].ed in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
APPROVAL OF - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to approve the Minutes of the
TI-lE MINUI'ES meeting of November 6, 1967, with the following corrections: '
Page 3643, paragraph 1, line 2 should read: "with the Assistant..e.";
Page 3648, paragraph 7, line 2 should read: "Mre Robert S. Jones,
designer..>.". Commissioner Farano seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED.
;
CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED.PUBLIC HEARING.INITIATED BY.THE CI,TY.PLANNING.COMMISSION, 204 East
PERMIT N0. 968 Lincoln Avenue, r+neheim, California; WALT DISNEY PRODUCTIONS, c~o
R. Johnson, 1313 South Herbor Boulevard~ Anahei.m~ California, Owner:
The Commission proposes that property described as: An irregularly shaped
parcel of•land having a frontage of appraximately 400 feet on the east side of West Street, ~
north of Winston Street (abandoned), west of the Santa Ana Freeway off-ramp, and extending ~
northerly to and having a frontage of approximately 390 feet on the south side of Ball Road
be permitted to EXPAND A THEME-TYPE AMUSEMENT PARK TO PERMIT DISPLAYS, EXHIBITS, AMUSEN~NT
RIDES, THEATRES AND EXHIBIT HALLS, ADMINISTRATIVE, S'It~RAGE, MAINTENANCE AND PROCESSING
FACILITIES, AND THE KEEPING OF BIRDS AND ANIMALS USED IN THE OPERA'IION OF THE PARK. Property.
presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed sub~ect petition, the location of the property,
and the uses established in close proximity, noting that this was the first petition cover-
ing prflperties of the Disneyland theme-type park since the first was approved.by the County
of Orange, and that subject petition had been continued from the meeting of November 6,'in
order to allow time for the officials of Disneyland to review the proposed petition, which
was initiated by the Commission.
Mr. Roberts also noted that both items 1 and 2 covered properties of the theme-type park and
parking facilities for Disneyland, and the Commission might wish to consider all evidence at
this time.
Mr. Jack Lindquist, representing Disneyland, appeared before the Commission and noted they
had been working with the Development Services staff regarding subject petitions and were
satis'fied with the recommended conditions for both petitions; however, there was a problem
regarding.the waivers proposed, in additi~n to that of sidewalks, and it was his opinion
the setbackspresently existing were adequate because of the type of landscaping, both for
the park ~nd the peiking lot, and the requirement of one tree per 10,000 square feet of the ,
parking lot would be worked out at some future time, and they hoped that they would be able
to solve the requirement of curb planting and landscaping since the maintenance would be a
tremendous problem to the Disneyland staff at the present time. Furthermore, the Disneyland
steff would like to study this requirement further in order to meet the requirement of
interior landscaping recommended by the Staff. , :
3655
, ~ .~...~~......
W i s~.n~~„ ~~~r'~k}~FB`a~ ~~~r~ 7ti ?t • 1 ~~~ fr ..
FS'"
P~'_~ L'~'~p M1~~ w~ ~v Y~ ~.t.y,~'I~E~`~p r~ ~rr+ 1~•~'~ ~~ d '~7 i
.~ y t6 r, ~~~rk'" r~dC t ' ~t
F~ .~r&~ J~: k~~faj 4~ i~ ` ..
~~ . .T 4 ~':4__, ~_,.~..... ,1 ~~ . .i. . .
~_.
.~-,t,
~"h~; " s-~"~~~, + r~"~
I ~ t ~k~-.u' c.
. . , ~~~t . . . ~
':7y
.' \`
1:
I;
wE~~'9$~~~'!:+~'~~x~.~'.~'~r;: ,~-ci ~r,~;,vr~r~ r-~s, r.' "~^x ' 7' .; *r , ~> ufi:~ :r
,
I
.,.,;,,... -_ . _ -
,~ -
MINUTES, ~~G PLANNING CpbIMISSION, November 20, 1967 ~
3656
CONDITIONAL USE - Mrse Anna Hightower, 1042 West Ball Road, appeared before the Commission,
PERMIT N0. 968 noting she was the owner of the Jack and Jill Motel, and stated that she
(Continued} was in favo: of any expansion of the Disneyland parky but that she did
not want the horse and bird facility to be relocated any further west than
disturbing to the motelrguests,~andiifytheebirdshwereclocatednwesterlya moresnoisesnand
odors would emanate due to the prevailing winds.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson noted that no plans were presently under discussion to
relocate the horses and birds; however, this could be more accurately confirmed by repre-
sentatives of Disneyland.
Mra Lindquist noted tiiere were no plans at the present time to r.elocate the birds and
?~~Y`;;,~~: horses; however, if they did plsn to relocate, they would have to comply with requirements
'';;s;i ~ •; of the C-R Zone.
~ The Commission 3nquired whether or not the present location of the horses and birds was
causing noises and odors since these facilities had been located at the present area since
the start of the parke
1`: ; Mrs. Hightower stated there was some noise and odors; however, the~se could be withstood,
but if they were moved any closer, then the odors would be more pronounced, and not only
her motel, but the other motels on the north side of Ball Road, would be affectede
Mre Lindquist noted that they were also concerned with the tourist trade, and if these
birds and animals were relocated, he could assure the motel owners they would try a loca-
tion which would not affect the motelsa
Mrs. Hightower noted that she was not desirous of having any changes made as they were
spelled out in the C-R Zone, since if the C-R Zone were placed on subject property, they
would have no recourse to complain if any situation became untenableo
The Commission noted that the residential code sections permitted birds and animals not
less than 20 fee~ from the property line9 or 40 feet from a window or door of a residence.
Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts then noted that this was a requirement of the C-R Zone,
while the petition before the Commission was a conditional use permit, and subject property
had a resolution of intent to the C•-R Zone pending; however, if the conditions of the
resolution of•intent were not metD the Commission could require other standards to the
conditional use permit since these uses would be non-conforming, Furthermore, if conditions
were met and an ordinance read on subject property, the property owners would be liable only
to comply with site development standards of the C-R Zone, or request waivers of the zone,
and since there was no petition before the Commission for the relocation of the pony farm
and bird facility which were established Nhile under the jurisdic~ion of the County, any
proposed change would be construed to mean a substantial change from the original facilities
proposed.
Mr. Roberts also noted that the site development standards pertained to distance from rooms
proposed for human habitation and did not govern the number of birds and animals permitted~
Mr. Thompson inquired of Mr, Roberts whether his interpretation meant that if the existing
facilities were relocated, this could result in a substantial change, and,.therefore, the
Commission should review any change prior to approval or a building permita
Mr. Roberts said the entire development could be cont~.nued to be developed iander the original
conaitional use permit; however, one must not construe this to be zoning of the property -
if only a conditional use permit were approved - thus any substantial change would require a
new conditional use permit to be filed.
':.~
I
i
i ~+a
~
;~
~R Assistant Development Services Director Robert Mickelson note~ that it might not be necessary
to have the zone changed on the property to the C-R Zone since there was a resolution of
~ intent to C-R on all property in the Commercial-Recreation Area, and it would require comply- ~
~A ing with a11 conditions of the resolution of intent before an ordinance for the C-R Zone '
could be read. Furthermore, these conditions were the same as those being required on
~, subject petition; therefore, the property owner under subject petition could conceivab~y
have ~-R zoning without additional public hearing.
~ Mr. Roberts noted that the distance mentioned in the site development standards of the C-R
Zone would then be applicablee
Mre Mickelson stated these standards regarding location of birds or animals were derived
*~< from the Orange County Health Department regulations and were standard throughout the County,
~ 3s well as the Anaheim Municipal Code governing zoninge
,~ ;.
~ ~'~,,. _.,.
.~.~,~~°" ~: ~ ~ ~a ~ ~ ,~. ~ : w 1.~, .
•
,
.
x .,
,. . ..s.YT+ _ ' '-?'k
,
i r
y .~~. . ~ ,' ~ • .. .. . . . .
.
.
~~, ~ ~~. . . . . .. ~, . . 'i ~
... , _ . _ ~
~~M,ry.~'~i~~,'~'z. >A'at~rr 54Yyz~~ 7 ry '~ + 1L ~,.~. ~ r,~kAya ~;, "a;w3 '~ :,7,' .
. . : ~ . . . . ..~ . -. ~' . I ~ . ~ .
~~~~ . . . .. .
;~~~,:.
h
'I hl~
~~
... V.. . . . . .. . ~ .. . . ~ .
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 20, 1967 3657
CONDITIONAL USE - Mre James Ross, representing Disneyland, noted for the Commission that
PERMIT N0. 96g Mr. Roberts had just confirmed their understanding of the Code require~
(Continued) ments, and once the C-R ordinance was read on subject property, they
would have the ability to move within the limits of ~he ordinance, and
Furthermore, the locationrofnthesesfacilitiesewas nowhere nearhthe opposition~s property,
being more than 100 feet southerlye
Mrs. Hightower again noted that she was not opposed to the present location, but if these
facilities were moved and so placed that the odors would float along with the prevailing
winds, then she would be greatly affected by the relocation, and she was reiterating this
because during the years there might be changes in the personnel of the Disneyland repre-
sentatives, and what was agreed to at this meeting might not be adhered to with a change
in personnel; however, she intended to continue operation of her motel for many y~ars,
as would others operating motels in the areao
f' Commissioner Farano noted that from a legal standpoint, all the City could require of
'' -;~ Disneyland was compliance with Code requirements, and the City could ask for greater
:1' ' cooperation so that the adjoining property owners were not hurt, but any relocation of
+. these facilities would be through neighbors cooperating and not a requirement of the
~'r: Anaheim Municipal Codeo Furthermore, if it were a public nuisance and a possibl.e health
;~ hazard, a complaint should be fiied with the Health Department who might be better able
~ to enforce any health requirements otner than that required by Code.
;;
Mr. Crossaic, owner of the Dunes Motel, 1326 South West Street, appeared before the Commis-
;~. sion and noted he was more seriousJ~,r affected by the present location than any other motel
'~: since his property was almost immediately adjacent; that he was planning on spending
; $100,000 for expansion of the motel facility; that timers at the Disneyland facility were
~.' left on "make believe animals" all night rather than turning them off after the park closed;
L! that the noises and smells from the animals and birds had a detrimental effect on the busi-
"' ness since man
~~' y people would stay one night and then move, even though they had made
~I:, reservations for several nights, and profits were made only on motel residents who would
~,, stay more than two or three days; and, furthermore, he also wished to register a complaint
: against the helicopters which, for the past five weeks, were not flying the approved flight
~i pattern - that he had contacted representatives of Los Angeles Airways and had
~ petition signed by 60 property owners complaining about the deviation from the flightted a
,II pattern; that the he~icopters almost knocked off the si n of t
contact with the Airways, he was informed to discuss his problemewithethe~mayor ofeAnaheim
~' to strai hten out the ,
9 problem but to this date, nothing had been done about his complaint
~, to the Airways operating the helicopters.
~'
The Commission noted this flight pattern deviation would come under the jurisdiction of the
~, FoAoA.; that there would be many more helicopters flying this pattern when the traffic
~ increased tn•the future and when double lifts were scheduled, and that 100,~ control could
~ not be maintained on all fli ht
~~ g patterns.
Commissioner Farano expressed concern that the F.A.A. representative would advise
Mr. Crossaic to contact the mayor of the City of Anaheim; that from his experience these
people were very efficient, but he felt they were giving them the "run-around" sin~e they
were not following through requiring the helicopters to maintain their flight pattern,
~~ and the City of Anaheim was powerless to enforce thise
~' Mrs. Hightower again stated that if subject petition were approved, Disneyland officials
~- .' could move the animals and birds which could affect all the motels on Ball Road, and that
j even though the prevailing winds now were to the northeast, there still were odors and
r noises from the animals and birds.
M
,~ 7
~s.. I
`'' ' THE HEARING WAS CIASED.
4:..-„_~ .i ~
j~ Mr. Mickelson advised the Commission that they might also wiah to consider the fact that
„~,, the parcel on which the animals and birds were located was 19 acres in size and had been
~ a permitted use since 1956, while the property was still under the Jurisdiction of the County
y~.~, . ~ of Orange.
c; .
~ Considerable discussion then was held by the Commission re ardin the
~ ing the submission of plans if the facilities for the birds and animals~wereirelocated,~and
t at its conclusion, Commissioner Rowland noted that the Commission could not require a moxe
` restrictive use of the property than was required of the residential zone, and if the
~ commercial-recreation zone was not adequate to protect the adjoining property owners, it
should be reconsidered and rewritten, and that in his opinion, all periphery uses were
~ ' adequately protected.
~ ~~..~ - -~...~.~..~
~~~~ ~ .
5
a., . . ..... . . . .., . ._ . . . . ~ ., . . ~ . . . .
a'
z
;
~~ ~ ,.~.
- _ ;~,.,~,.-R-
. . . '~. i.,+
~ ' . ~ ...8 . . . ' ~ . . . . . .. . . . ....
a ~q.~ ~ ~,; r~n ;. i x ~e ~
- ~u .r~..~~.. - _....,_
~. ~~.~
--_. ~
. . ~ ~ ~ ... . ; 1
~
MINUTES, CIIY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 20, 1967 3658
CONDITIONAL USE - Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC67-251 and moved for its
PERMIT N0. 968 passage and adoption, seconded,by_Commissioner Farano, to grant Petition
(Continued) for Conditional Use Permit No. 968, subject to conditionso (See
Resolution Book) .
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee
ABSENT: COMh43SSZONERS: Nonee
CONDITZONAL~USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY F'.^NNING COMMISSION~
PERMIT N0. 969 204 East Lincoln P.venue, Anaheim, California; WAL" ~ISNEY PRODUCTIONS,
c~o R. Johnson, 1313 South Harbor Boulevard, pnahe~m, California, Owner;
proposing the EXPANSION OF AMUSENl~NT PARK PARKING FACILITIES, WITH WAIVERS
OF (1) MINIMUM LANC6CAPING AI~D (2) MIN.T.MUM SETBACK on property described as: An irregularly
shaped parcel of land located on the northeast corner of West Street and Katella Avenue and
having frontages of approximately 1,280 feet on West Street and approximately 1,280 feet on
Katella Avenue, and further described as extending easterly to and having a frontage of
approximately 420 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard. Property presently classified
R-A, AGRICUL7URAL~ ZONE.
Sub~ect petition was continued from the meeting of Novenber 6, 1967, in order to allow
time for Disneyland officials to give additional consideration to possible ramifications
of this proposal. •
Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed sub~ect petition, noting the various waivers
proposed to permit the expansion of the parking facilities of Disneyland.
The Cortunission inquired of Disneyland representative Mr. Jack Lindquist whether or not
certain corners of the parking area could be landscaped where they were ad~acent to access
roads.
Mr. Lindquist noted it was their intent to landscape some areas of the parking lot to a
greater degree than the c:ommercial-r.ecreation zone required - however, the exact date of
this landscaping project was not certain; that they were now studying the feasibility of
landscaping for the entire parking area, and a plan was necessary before this could be
accomplished since mur.h of the parking area was now developed and it was necessary that
automobiles have clea:: access to facilities which would clear the parking area, and,
furthermore, the Disneyland ~taff had been discussing these plans with the DevQlopment
Services staff mc•m};ers to determine if there was an alternative method of landscaping
to the one tree p~r 10,000 square feet required; that the Gity of Anaheim's stadium did
not follow the pattern in landscaping, and they also proposed speed in parking as well as
departure; that they did not have the same problems as the ~convention center has had sinc~
its few months of operation; that Disneyland was much concexned with the esthetics of the
park as the City of Anaheim, and waiver of the requirement for landscaping of the parking
area was necessary in order to allow time for a thorough study of the unique problems.
Commissioner Gauer noted that the comments regarding the City's facilities were apropos
since he felt the City should not require private property to be developed without also
developing the public facilities in accordance with Code requirements; however, he had
been informed that the City would increase the amount of landscaping at the convention
center.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson noted that the City did not have one tree per 10,000
square feet, but that the City was also i::~king a study of the problems, and that the
Commission could approve subject petition with a temporary ~vaiver af the required interior
landscaping.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
~
,,, ;: ~.l
.f;t
Com^nissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC67-252 and moved for its passage and aduption, ;
seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 969 subject ~
to a two-year waiver of the required interlor landscaping, in order to allow time for a study
by Disneyland, and sub3ect to conditions. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the follawing vote:
AYES: COMMI;SIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp,
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
AHSENT: COMMISSIONERSs None.
Commissioner Camp left the Council Chamber at 3:05 P.M.; Chairman pro tem Allred assumed
the chair.
--~~ca~~ • ~ _ _ .~ --
_ _ . . ..
_,._. _
,. ~:,,, r:. ~~.' ^.a,
g ~.L..v _ ~
_ E
~~t'I ' T '~ < ' i • c :
gt 'L 1 y F • r.r. ^r a :~{~. 7~ r ' ~.x' ~
~fi~
4 .~'
• i ~
., ' ..
, . .___"'_.~"`_ .
.
.
.._- •
~p
~ ~1
,
.. ~ .....
j
'
_ .
..
_ ....... .
. . .i .7 . . ~ ^~ ~,~
~ ~ i
1
;
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 20, 1967 3659 ; ;;
'
1
CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. NICHOLAS J. DOVALIS, 920 South Magnolia Avenue, ;
PERMI? N0. 975 Ansheim, California, Owner; requesting permission to HAVE ON-SALE BEER AND
~;., " WINE IN A PROPOSED RESTAURANT on property described as: A rectangularly ~''
~,,_ ; shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 273 feet on the
east side of Magnolia Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 241 feet, the southerly
boundary of said property being approximately 159 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road,
and further described as 918-A and B South Magnolia Avenue. Property presently classified y
C-1~ GENERAL COMMERCIAL~ ZONE. ~
Sub~ect petition was continued from the meeting of November 6, 1967, to allow time :or the ~
~,~^ petitioner to submit revised plans.
A`~
Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed sub~ect petition, the location of the property, ~
w and noted that a similar use was denied in 1964; furthermore, revised plans had been submitted ~
'%~"-
: which would not ualif the y ~
q Y proposed restaurant as such since onl 17 of the floor area was
Z
f,.
~; , devoted to the pre~aration of food, whereas the Code requirement stated 25% was required, ;
`"'
~ and that the restroom facilities location had been resolvede ?
i
Mr. Roberts further no~ed that when the C-1 zoning was approved originally for sub3ect i
~. property, interior and periphery landscaping were not required, an@ the Commission might ;
wish to discuss this with the petitioner. :
Mr. Nicholas Dovalis, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and recapped the history
of subject property and uses that had been attempted in the two stores now under considera-
tion for a restaurant with on-sale beer and wine and reviewed the revised pians, noting the
kitchen facilities were adequate for the proposed use since they were proposing~to pattern
the restaurant after the hofbrau-type facilities prevalent in the city, and the two modules
were separated in such a manner that food could be served in one module and drinks in the
other, with food being passed through a service area to the bar facility since alcoholic
beverages would not be served in the di,nting area; that many dinner houses served beer and
wine with dinners, and no ob3ection seemed to be voiced about thato Furthermore, it was
his opinion that sub~ect property was adequately landscaped since they had a planter area
and individual trees~.adjacent to the various stores.
Commissioner Camp returned.to the Council Chamber at 3:15 P~M.
Mrs. Milton Jennings, 909 South Ira Court, appeared in opposition and stated her property
was immediately ad~acent to subject property; that the slides presented by the staff did
not show how closely the homes were to the shopping center because no public alley separated
the two uses as is now reauired where commercial uses are ad3acent to residential uses~-
thus the noises were much more prevalent. Furthermore, the location of the proposed facility
was within a few ~eet of the sidewalk which children used daily on their way to and from the
elementary,:.junior, and senior high schools, and that other small children were permitted to
go to this small shopping center for their purchases, and the proposed use might be present
hazards to the children.
Mrs. Rachel Magel= 914 South Ira Court, appeared in opposition, noting that since the last
public hearing she had obtained the signatures of 39 property owners in the R-1 development
surrounding subject property, all in opposition; that there were 53 small children in the
R-1 development who would be subjected to an undesirable use due to heavier traffic in the
shopping center; arid that the~sale of.bee~ and.wine should not be permitted in a small shopping
center such as that owned by Mr. Dovaiis because the center was geared to the neighborhood
and not to attract the general public who might be going down the street from anothez area.
Mrs. Pat Pierce, 2551 West Ball Road, appeared in op~osition, stating she allowed her small
~ children to go to the shopping center because of its convenience; that many uses were estab-
lished there which attracted children - these included a music store and a slot car racing
i facility - thus the proposed use would be detrimental to the area with many children utilizing
this center.
f~~.;~~.;.~~. ~'r
Mr. Dovalis, in rebuttal, stated that a cocktail lounge was ap~roved for the new shopping
!~^ ' facility on the south side of Ball Road along Magnolia Avenuu snd Der Wienerschnitzel was
approximately 250 feet from the corner - therefore,children would not be sub3ected to the
` traffic in this shopping center.
~~:. Mrs. Pierce noted that the shopping center the petitioner referred to was on the south side
of Ball Road, and small children were never allowed to cross this heavily traveled thorough-
fare. Furthermore, there wa$ no comparisor ~f ihe small shopping center'under ~~.deration
' and the center on the south ei~ie of Ball Road.
~
''!~. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
i I ~
~ ~ ~
~'Y
-.: _: . . ... ~"r`y;~'. . . . ~ .:: . ~ . . .. .. ... .... . . .
. .l. ~ -~~.~~ _ . . . . .
,.. . . T:,. ,. -:.v.
, . ,. ~ .
~- .. 1 .1.::; .
~ . _ .. ~
2 'n~ 'e V'!n. ~+P ,. f• .`'11~ / . ~
~
/ I
~
.. .. ..~~ . . . . ~ . . .
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING OOMMISSION, November 20~ 1967
~ /
`/ 3660
~~~
CONDITIONAL USE - Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson noted that a piivate drive existed to ~
PERMIZ N0. 975 the east of the shopping center but was not a dedicated alleyo • ~
(Continued) i
Discussion was held by the Commission regarding the location of the rest- '
room facilities, whereupon Mro Dovalis noted that the Health Department ~
was not interested in the patrons going through the kitchen facilities - all they were i
interested in was the fact that employees of the restaurant kept their hands cleane ~
Mr. Dovalis further presented a rough draft of what the proposed lessee of the facility was
planning to do with the two modules, and that he was availabTe to answer questionso
"-.'Y~.~'-~' Cortmdssioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC67-253 and moved for its passage and adoption,
<ti"~''.:~ seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noa 975,
~`~;: sub ect to ~he revised lans submitted, and conditions on the basis that similar facilities
~,'°' were in other shopping centers in the city, and ~hat the petitioner had met the Code require-
~~'' ments for the proposed restaurant facilitye (See Resolution Book)
rt,.
~'. "~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
t
-~~ AYESs OOMMISSIONERS:. Allred, Herbst, Mungall, Rowlanda
NOESs OOMMISSIONERSs Farano, Gauere
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee
ABSTAIN: GOMMISSIONERSs Campo
Mro Farano, in voting "no" on subject petition, stated that although the restaurant and
bar operation were separated, the layout indicated :omplete s~~arationy and if subject
petition were approved, the two facilities could be so separated to operate a restaurant
and a beer bar, rather than the combined uses as one facilitye
,~ CANDITIONAL U5E - PUBLIC HEARING. HAROLD I. MURRAY, 911 North Brookhurst Street, Anaheim,
; PERMZT N0. 979 California~ Owner; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A LANDSCAPING
+ -j SERVICE AND PLANT NURSERY IN AN EXISTING S1-%)PPING CENTER, WITH OUTDOOR
+ '~ DISPLAY OF PLANT MATERIALS on property described as: An irregularly
1
}., ::j shaped parcel of land located at the southwest corner of Brookhurst Street and Sequoia
°r a~ Avenue, and aontaining approximately 6 acres, an~ further described as 911 North Brookhurst
~ ;~ Street: Property presently classified C-Z, GENERi~i. COMA~RCIAL, ZONEo
`'~ Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed subject petition, the location of the property,
!; tkie usee established in close proximity, and previous zoning actiony noting that the shopping
' ,~~ center was established while sub~ect property was under the ~urisdiction of the County of
Orange.
'•~ Mr. Roberts further noted that the petitioner was proposing to display materials in an area
~ enclosed with only a chainlink fence~ and the Anaheim Municipal Code permitted the outdoor
storage of live plant materials only where they were not enclosed with a solid masonry wall.
Furthermore, when reclassification to the C-1 Zone was established on sub~ect property, making
it a conforming use, the masoary wali•was not'required along the west property line where it
abutted single-family residential usese
Mr. James Murray, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stipulated
,, that only live materials would be stored outdoors.
1Ar. Murray further noted that they would be willing to plant'trees in the parkw.uy area, but
because the:Ere~way,.oyerpass did not have ground-covering, a problem would a~iv= xhereby
dust wo~ld damage any planting so close to the overpass; that the stores now nad considerable
difficulty with sand blowing in;o the stores, and if the City could suggest us,in~ some type
of landscaping that would reduce the amount of dust, he would be willing to pu~t in the
sprinkler system. Furthermore, at the time the curbs and gutters were constructed adjacent
to their property, the City had advised him that the embankment would be planted with land-
scaping.; however, this had not been done, and he was later informed that this was under the
jurisdiction of the State Division of Highways, and the City could do nothing about it, and
that he had sent several letters to the State Division of Highways without any response -
although he would be willing to plant this area ~ust to keep the sand from blowing into the
stores.
The Commission expressed sympathy in the fact that this was such a problem and the fact that
the petitioner had not received any response to letters he had sent; however, the Commission
had no.authority in handling problems of this typee Furthermore, the petitioner could
^;e`;,, present his problem to the City Council to make known his feelings to their BodYe
.:~:x ::
i
~
I {
.;.j ~
~~ Ys
,.:. .__.. . , _ .' ' .
. ~ ,. . . ~ ,. .. .„
... . . 'l> . +'~~:. .., \
~ .. ~ . . . . . . . ''. ".i. .'. ,~ '" ~
, , . . _ . . ~ y'~ `~
~ . y~` `','~a~'Ci~' o7n n'~'. a,"'^ r .:; i 6 id~ j fie.
~ r
.. , . . ~. ... . . . .
!
'.,'. f '"'.._.._
~
: .~., ~ ~~
MINUTES, CIIY PLANNING COMMISSION' November 20y 1967
~~
3661
i'~.
CONDITIONAL USE - Mre Murray, in response to Commission questioning~ stated that other {
PERMIT.NO. 979 products used in gardening were now being handled by_one of the stores
(Continued) in their comp2ex, and all storage.was indoors, and that only live materials ~'~
would be stored in the area which was surrounded by a chainlink fence~
Assistant Development Services Director Robert Mickelson noted that the Superintendent of ,'}
Parkway Maintenance Ron ,Woll had a great deal af. knowlEdge rQgardi~g the:typgs of trees,and plants a
which could be used under the trying condition about which Mr. Murray complained, and if ~
Mr. Murray presented his problem to Mr. Woll, he was sure a solution could be foundo ~ ~
Mr>.Murray noted that he had been discussing the trash storage areas with the Public Works
Department of Sanitation, and at the present time it ~ras impossible to construct the type
of trash storage area.suggested; however, the problem had been somewhat resolved by having
private, daily pickup:.servi.ce of trash, and the trash was stored in the.blue bins prevalent
in many of the shopping areas. Mr. Murray also stated they.had plans in the very near
future for a ma3or redevelopment and requested consideration of a temporary waiver of the
trash storage area requirement. ~
Zoning Supervisor.Ronald Thompson noted that Finding No. 7 of the Report to the Commission
indicated the petitioner should be made aware that conditions as indicated in '.'a'.'~tLiough::
'.'f".ishould be complied with in the eve~lt any major development or redevelopment occurred -
these included street lights and street tree fees, installation of trash storage areas and
a masonry wall, as well as interior landscaping of the parking lote
I'-',
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC67-254 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noe 979, subject~
to conditions, and waiver of the requirement of trash storage areas for a period of one year.
(See Resolution Book)
On roll.call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: ~MMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowla~d, Campo
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee •
ABSENT: WMMISSIONERS: None> ' .
TENTATIVE MAP OF~- DEVEIAPERs EMPIRE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONs 6750 Van Nuys Boule~ard,
TRACT..NO. 4230, Van Nuys,~ Californiae ENGINEER: Miller King and Associates, Incorporated,
REVISION NOS.~.7 511 Sout,: Brookhurst Road, Fullerton, Californiao Sub3ect tract, located
AND 8 on the south side of Lincoln Avenue approximately 660 feet west of Beach
Boulevard, containing 9~7? acres, is proposed for subdivision into two
C-1 ioned lots and 60 R-3 lots for Revision Noo,7p Revision Noe 8-
30 R-3 lots and two C-1 zoned lotse •
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that due to the fact that~the design
of the proposed tract was such that it was necessary for the petitioner to make application
for variances for both of the revised tentative maps, these variances would not be considered
until December 4, 1967, and it was recommended that the Commission continue Tentative Map of
Tract.No. 4230, Revision Nos. 7 and 8, to be heard in con~unction 'with these variancese
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to continue consideration of Tentative Map of Tract
No. 4230, Revision Nos. 7 and 8, to the meeting of December 4, 1967, to be heard in con~unc-
tion with the variances applied for. Commissioner Allred sec~nded •the motione MOTION
CARRIED. .
RECLASSIFIGATION - PUBLIC f~ARING. WL',LIAM MESSECAR, 446 South Poplar Street, Brea,
N0. 67-68-32 California, Owner; SAMUEL HUMPHREY, 5124 Deeboyar Street, Lakewood,
California, Agent; pro;~erty described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel
OONDITIONAL USE of land having a frontage of approximately SB feet on the south side of
PERMIT N0. 978 Ball Road and having a maximum depth of approximately 420 feet, the
westerly boundary of sub3ect property being approximately 460 feet east
of the centerline of Broolchurst Street. Property presently classified
R-A~ AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-2, GENERAL CAMMERCIAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ES'':iBLISH A WALK-UP RESTAURANT.
,. . . -_
. ., _.... . ,
*..~
., ..- '.. ~_ . !~
~n ~v;~'*.rx~' .~~'~x. r `.' f ~ ~° I ,,_~ "'3 ~ _ r .,;:
,..... -.. ..:. ... ~ . . .. . ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNZNG CpMMZSSION, November 20, I967
- -... ~ ~
~ ~
3662
RECLASSZFICATION - Associate Planner Chaxles Roberts ~eviewed sub~ect petitionsy the
N0~6?-68-32 ~ocation of the property9 pant zoning actiony 3nd noting that the
City Council in March, 1965, had approved C•-2 zoning for the front
CONDITIONAL USE 220 feet and R-3 zoning for the rear 230 feet of subject property;
PERMIT Npe 978 that the plans presented now encompassed the entire parcel for commercial
(Continued) purposes; and that the reason :or requesting C-2 zoning was to permit by
right the establishment of a restaurant with on~sale liouoro Furthermore,
if sub3ect petitions were approved, this would pPrmit the commercial-retail complex to be
located on the easterly property line adjacent c,o the vacant R-A parcel, with the proposed
walk-up restaurant being Iocated within 5 feet of the property I.ine, rather than as permitted
by the Anaheim Municipal Codeo
Mro Roberts also noted that the parking layout could be better designed to permit the fewest
number of conflict points, and tluee alternative parking plans were available for the peti-
tioner to reviewo
Mr. Dean Brown9 desioner for the petitionery advised the Commission that the new owner,
Mro Sam Humphrey, proposed a:astaurant with a?.5~ minimum area far food preparation. and
that he-was desirous of reviewing the staff's recommendations as to possibie parking iayoutse
These.were then reviewed with the designer,
Commissioner Gauer expressed concern tnat a double standard existed fn restau~ants since
young persons under 21 were not permitted to enter alone whexe 2iouor was served, but if
served in conjunction with a restauranty children would be sub3ected to viewing an unscreened
bar, and this should be screened to shield the children from ~iew of the 7.iquor establish-
ment~ -
Mre Brown, in reply, stated that he did not have adequate time to prepare plans for the
restaurant-bar; howevera ±hey would abide with the requirements of the City, and plans would
be presented for the entire facility, inciuding a 2,OOO~square foot restauranto
The Commission further noted that the staff had indicated a rather difficult driveway
approach and suggested that the petitioner provide an easier access drive pattPrn by
working with the staff to resoive thise
The agent noted that it was proposed to have the bar in conjunction with the restau=ant
and not as a separate facilitye
Assistant Development Services Director Rob=rt Mickelson inquired as to whethex or not other
C-2 uses were proposed than the restaurant with on-sale l~quor, to which the designer repiied
that to his knowledge, there were no other uses propcsedo
Zoning Supervisor Ronald 7hompson noted that a resolution of intent to the C»2 7_one had been
approved on the front portion of the property, and that the ad~oining propert3es had C-1
zoning with a conditional use permit to permit on-sele liquoro
The Commission expressed concern that the petitioner was asking foz a heavier commeroial
use than was necesssry and might establlsh ~.md=5iz~3b:Ley heavier -c~-:~erciai vses in this
sma11 shopping cente.r, and that screening couid not be controlled under the C•-2 zoning whiie
this was possi.ble if they have a C-1 2one and a condit:'.ona1 use permita
The Commission further noted that on several other C-1 conditional use permit uses in restau-
rants, namely the Howard Johnson restaurant at Lincol.n and Wilshire and the Famiiy Tree
restaurant on Euclid Street, screening of the bar was requiredy and theix agents ~n~9icated
this would be done; however, to this date no screening was constructede
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
After further discussion by the Commission regarding the screening reouired by granting
C-2 zoning, Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts noted that the Commission, by finding9
could require screening as a conditional of final building inspectiono
~ The Commission then determined that C~1 zon:~ng was more appropriate, and ff C-Z zoning was
,~ , granted, the Commission could not prevent the petitioner from removing the restaurant and
_ R• permitting heavier commercial uses, and then inquired of the staff what should b~ done to
; permit the restaurant via the conditional use permit~
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that Petition for
Reclassification Noe 67-68-32 be approved, and seconded by Commissioner Allred~
* Further discussion was then held by the Commission, whereupon Mr, Thompson advised the
.a~ Cor•~vission they could act on the reclassification and the conditional use permit could be
reauvertised for consideration at the December 4, 1967 hearing •- to include the restaurant ^
~ with on-sale liquor~ Furthermore, if C-2 zoning was recommended, the Commission should ~~
~~ :.
.`i ~
_~;
- ,~•`•'•"'~~ ~ -. , :,
~,,:~ _ _ __
~ . . ._ , . . . ~ .
~ar~i'3,'r.,."+ .i S,y.. +.rw j ; ..na y: ~ r '~~;.„,~~~ {:,.;~r m= ~ : ~ / r ~, ~ • s ~ r.._ t ~
_ f
. : ... _ .....,..._.. ~u7.. . ~ .. .. ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ~
MINUTES, CITY pLpNNING ~pMMISSION, November 20, 1967.
3663
RECLASSIFICATION - terminate Reciassification No, 64~65-71 and Variance Noo 1678e
N0~ 67-68-32_r
Commissioner Herbst and Cammissioner Allr.ed withdrew their motion and
CONDITIONAL USE second to recommend approvai for C-2 zoning„
PERMIT N~ p~~978Y
(Continued) Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No„ AC67-255 and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred9 to recommend
to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification Noo 67-68~-32
be disapproved for C-2 zoning; however, it was further recommended that C-1 zoning be
approved for subject property as being more a
finding that Conditional Use Permi~ No. 978 bepcontinuedfandtreadvertised intorderutoher
include the establishment of a restaurant with on~sale liquor, and subject to conditions.
(See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foi~egoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
A~S~ CAMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp,
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee
ABSENT: COMMISSIOI~ERS: Noneo
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No~ PC67-256 and moved for its passage and ~doption~
seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recommend to the City Council that Reclassification
Noo 64-65^~71 be terminated on ~:he basis that subsequent reclassification proceedings en-
compassing the entire parcei •or commercial use was approvede (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resoiution was passed by the following vote:
A~S~ COMMISSIONERS: Allred' Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp,.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
ABSENI: COMp~ISSIONERS: Nonea
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No, PC67-257 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recommend to the City Council that Variance Nco 1678
be terminated on the basis that subsequent zoning action nullified the requested variance,
(See Resolution Book) .
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMMSSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Campo
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to reopen the hearing and conti~ue Conditional Use
Permit Noo 978 to the meeting of December 4, 1967, in order to allow time to readvertise
the petition to include on-sale liquor in conjunction with an enclosed restaurant„
Commissioner Allred seconded the motione MOTION CARRIEDe
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC I-~pRING, INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION9 204 East
N0~ 67-68-33 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California
as: All that certain property situated~onsthe southPsideZOf Ba1lrRoad
extending generally from Iris Street westexly to approximately 128 feet
be5reclassifiedtfromRthefRPA, AGRICULiURALhar.dnR-1, ONE-FAMILYtRESIDENTIALimZONES t16 feet9
C~-0, COMMERCIAL OFFICE, ZONEa o the
Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed subject petition and previous zoning action on
some of the homes located on the south side of Ball Road, noting that a General Plan Amend-
ment proposing professional office uses for the property, as well as Area Development Pian
Noo 8, have been approved by the City Counci. as being a reasonable and possible method of
development of the area in question; said Area Development Plan indicated extension of the
existing alley westerly to some point and returning to Ball Road, which would provide
secondary access to all iots fronting on Ball Road.
NL•s. Ann Madison, representing the Hartman family, appeared before the Commission and stated
they had filed a petition to reclassify their property to the C-0 Zone, and the Area Develop-
ment Plan would bisect their property, which might be detrimental, and recommended that
consideration be given to their petition which would be considered at the December 4 meetingp
I
i
__ ~ ~:: -3
? ~' _.. ~~~-r y_ ~
~
{ 5 ~47 ! tr "'i
`~" ,:1
~ t ~
Y~ti t ` 19. - H' F y. T
~
L'~~~ ~
J
.
" ~
~
y P'I
~
~~_- 1
~
~
i ~
~ ~ f ~~ ~'"l~. i -`
. 1 ) L~ ~ ~ , 1 .
.~
. .
~3
` MINUTES9. C T PLAHNING CAN~u[ISSION, November 20
1967 ~J ! t~
~
~ ,
3664
~
~{ ~~ ,
RECLASSIFICATION - furthermore, it was planned to have a 100 by 208-foot parcel developed
N0~ 67-68:33 in th ~
~
' ree stages~ proposing a medical facility.for the property, said
(Continued) dental or medical building costin
in th
i
i
i ;,;
~
h g
e v
c
n
ty of $100a000a `
~`
` Zoning Svpervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that on the basis of the General
Plan and the Area Develo
m
nt Pl 1
~',~ p
e
an, the staff did not want to initiate commercial office
zoning except those lots along Ball Road.
~
~
t
'r
' The Commission was of the opinion that any action taken by their Body would not pre~udice
any future petition and in
ui
d
h '
;i< . q
re
w
ether or not the alley as indicated on Area Development
Plan Noo 8-would be bisecting the Hartman property ~
~ a
~
~,,
~F ~~ Mra Thompson noted that the alley would not be required to bisect the Hartman property
and could be located alon
th
i
~~ + g
e
r easterly property linee
~
~ ,
~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSHD.
:~
,~ :1
~ '~ Assistant Developmer..t Services Director Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that they
might wish to co
id
'
ns
er conta.nuin sub
ect
petition for the Hartman g ~ Petition to be heard in conjunction with the
property.
1 Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for
Reclassification No
67-68-33 t
o
o the meeting of December 4, 1967, to be considered in
con3unction with Reclassification Noe 67-68-39
C
i
i
~ .
omm
ss
oner Allred seconded the motion>
MOI'ION CARRIEDo
i`.
w~ ^ ;,_:.
i; REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1
~
`
~ RECOll9~AENDATIONS Reclassification Noe 55-56-27 - East Anaheim Shopping
Center -
~
~ .
Snutheast corner of Lincoln Avenue and State College Boulevard ~
O
~,,1,ti utdoor selling area (W. T. Grant).
~kF 5~
~ ~ Associate Planner Chazles Roberts presented a. req~est from the owners of the property known
as the East
Anaheim Shopping C-enter
i
, ~;~
~ ~
, propos
ng to utilize a small portion of an area edjacent
to a tenant s new location for the purpose of having outdoor displa
withi
i
; ~ .{ y
n a w
re mesh fence
encloau~e..
~ ~ r~
~ ~~ ;
a~ ~. Mro Roberts further noted that the C-1 Zpnz requires all uses to be conducted wholly within
a bui.lding and suggested that the Commission mi
2
t
i
h
~F ~~ g
~
w
s
to consider this request as meeting
the basi.c purpose and intent of the Cade~ due to the relative insignifican
f t
:~ ce o
he open
area in relationship w9.th the overall development and its unobtrusive locatione
' ~~
i
, Commissioner Rowland offered a motinn to approve the re uest to
q permit the outdoor sales area
in the new facilities of the W
`{,, , T. Grant Company to be located in the new portion of the East
Anaheim Shopping Center, based ~n the fact that th
~`~
` e area is a small, insignificant area in
comparison with the overall developm~nt as depicted on Exhibit "A"
d
t
d
;;
,- ,
a
e
November 20, 1967
of Reclassification Noo 55-56~27. Comm3ssioner Herbst seconded the motionn MOTION CARRIEDo
1_' AA70URNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Herbst offered
:~ a motion t•o ad~ourn the meeting to November 28, 1967, for a,joint work
session with
h
;1
;r t
e City Councilo Commissioner Rowland seconded the motiono
MOTION CARRIED.
,} The meeting ad3ourned at 4:30 P.Me ~
~~•
+' ~'
Respectfully submitted,
~' ' n , L~Q~/J~i~~
~ i: ANN KREBS, Secretary
g. ,; Anaheim City Planning Commission
-'~;• -- - .-~.- -~:, ~r - M ~
~ ,.-~, ~ ; _ ~ `
. ~. .. . .. . ,. . ' ~
EW' [ Hy..
_ I,...
!
~
~
i
~ . . ~ ~ ~ . . . . ~ .. .. .~ .~
, ~ . . . . ~ . ~ . . . .. ~ . . ~