Minutes-PC 1968/10/07r f `:; ;:~ ~ : ;;`„~
i t : z'~. .~y . i ~ y- ~~v~ .,.,•
C
~ . r
~~+.,y, , ~ ;~
~ ~f
/
y^
~~
.,
>
.
~
~t'
' ~
~
.
i:~
~h,
F ~ - E t '; _;. • . ~ .
:~ . .
..
. ~
A j
_
~ M1e
~ ~ ~ ~ i
' ~ - ' .-,~.s
~
. . . . . .. . . . . : . ~ . ~
-~ r~
`
~ . . . .
, .
" _ '
.,. i . . . ~
. .
~ ~ ~
. . . . „'~
. .
.
; +.~ . . . . .
.
. . . ~ ~ ' ~~
~ ~
5 ~. ~ . . ' . .
. ~ . ' . ' .,
. }
tL~
, - ~~: j
~,
~ . . , .. .. . . . . .. „ , ~~
t
;;` . . ~ . .. ' . . ~ . , .i~
~:1 ~ ~ _ . . . . ~ .. . . ~ . : .. . . ;, ~
i ~ ~ ~ .. . . - . ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;
~"
. . .
. ,
~
c ~~
, . . .
' ~
'
. . '
'U
. .. .. ~ ~ ~ ' . .
. . .
. . . . .
~ ~ . . . . .
. .
.
. ..
. . . ~`>~i)b*i
':~ RY=
. ~'_
t'
~
.
. . . , . . .
. .
. . . . . .
u
. '' I
. . . . . .
' . ~
.
7
,~
. .. S~
. ' . , . . . .
~ j.. ~' ~ . . . ~
~ ,. . ~ ~ ~ . ~. .: I
~ .
~`~i'.
.. . ~ . ~ . . . .
, ~ ~ . . . .
. . ' . . .
~ . . . . : .
.
.
~ . ....'.1
• ~' ~:]
~~.
~~':y
~', ~ . . . . ~ . . .
. . . . ~ . . ' . .
i ~ -' ~ .. . ~' , . .
~ ' , . . . .
i .. ~ . ~ .
~ .
. , . . .
. . . ~ .
.. ~ ~ ..
.
. . . '.`i
~ :~:\
J
: .
.
. ~ „I~5
.. . . , . . . .
. . .. . ~ . .
' ~ ~ . . . .
. . . .
. . . ' .
. . . . . . ~
i.
r .
I
~
. .
.
- ~ ac~~ .
r~K.. '~'.
. ~ . ~ ~ . ~ . . ~ .'~•.
~
. , ~ . 1 ^
. ~ ~ ~ .
\
~ . ~
yyy
0 ^.~.~
Of
ir"~ '
t m:
F+.:ra ;
. ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ N 1-~~
. . . . . . .
_ ~;., .
W ~.
~
~r
~
u ,
~
~I
~:
, p,
, ,~,~
..`~:
~
~ r~ s
~~ . '
.,
.
~
k
i~r~ tY t Y~~~
i f
_
` ; . :
. .:
....,~:.e~~~,~._.. R- - - : .. ., .. : _ ... . , . ~ . . . :
~~. ~~~'
: . ~.,...~ -~~~; .
~
~
~
~:,... v~~ . ~ ~ ~
~ R iw ~ :a„k r t (,,:? .R- ~` ~y5 u 'IS ~4 ~. i 3 . ~ ~ . 'S~ 1 g~.. . (r ~Y' .
r' ~ ._ _..
~ ' , l~ ~~
City Hall
Anaheim, California
October 7, 1968
A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEZM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
~Fy+~
-- -- ~~~
~, y#~
. `,
~
~~
i:~
~.'
;:~
~ a
( ~
REGUL•AR IuIEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called
to order by Chairman Allred at 2:00 oiclock p.M:, a quorum being
present.
PRESENT - CHAIRMANs pllred.
- COMMISSIONERSt Camp~ Farano, Herbst~ Mungall, Rowland.
ABSENI' - COMMISSIONERS~ Gauer.
PRESENT .-/lssistant City /lttorneys John Dawson and Frank Lowry
Office Engineeri prthur Daw
Zoning Supervisort Ronald Thompson
Assistant 2oning Supervisort Pat Brown
Planning Commission Secretaryi Ann Krebs
INVOC.ITION - Reverend Hal Edwards, Pastor, St. Mark`s Methodist Church, gave the
invocation.
PLEDGE OF .
ALLEGIANCE - Connnissioner Rowland led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
APPROVAL OF - Minutes of the meeting of September 23~ 1968 were approved as
THE MINUTES submitted, on motion by Commissioner Mungall, seconded by
Commissioner Camp, and MOTION CARRIED.
TEN?ATIVE blpp OF - DEVELOPERs HIRSCO CORPORATION, 2021 East 4th Street, Suite 108,
TRACT N0. 6717 Santa Ana, California. ENGINEER~ AnacaT Eng~neering Company,
222 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; subject tract, located
~on the north side of old Santa Ana Canyon Road between Maude Lane
and Imperial Highway`and containing approximately 9.8 acres, is proposed for subdivision
into 53 R-2-5000 2oned lots.
Subject tract was continued from the meetings of August 26 and September 11, 1968, to
allow time for City Council action of the zoning approved and for the petitioner to
submit a revised tract map showing a more acceptable circulatione
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown advised the Cortunission that the City Council had
a~Aroved R-1 zoning; however, had directed the staff to initi~ate a variance that would
permit variable lot, sizes and directed the developer to submit development plans.
Therefore, the staf.f recommended that sub~ect tract be continued to the meeting of
November 4, 1968 in order that a precise plan of access and circulation plan for prop-
erties in this general area-can be worked out and for the staff to initiste the variance
petition.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to continue consideration of Tentative Map of Tract
No: 6717 to the meeting of November 4, 1968, in order to allow time for submission of a
revised tract map by the developer and for the staff to prepare a precise plan of access
and circulation plan for properties in this general areaa Conanissioner Mungall seconded
the motion. MOiION,CARRIED.
RECLASSIFICpTION = CONTINUED PUBL'IC'HEARING, FRED KAY, HAROIiD"WILLIAMS~ qND MARTIN
N0. 68-69-26 ROBERTS, 220 Laguna Road~ Fullerton, California, Owners; HAROLD L.
RAAB, 14482 Beach Boulevard, Suite I~ Westminst.er~ California, Agent;
TEN?ATIVE Idpp OF requesting that property described as: approximately 10.5 acres of
iRACT N0. 6733 land having a frontage of approximately 533 feet on the north side of
Orengethorpe Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 785 feet,
the westerly boundary of said parcel being approximately 906 feet
east of the centerline of Highland Avenue, be reclassified from the
COUNTY A1~ AGRICULTURfi DIS?RICT to the R-2-5000, O~)g-FAMILY, ZONE.
41d5
. ,
~'~ ~ r ~ ~ `i }: ,.s~ , ~v f s vnv~ ~`N~. g;,~ i
e`~~r~ ~ ~``~ty ~. Sk .. t i+. ~ 1 z.. ~ ~ ~, i x ~ x f+ 4 .as c ,y,~ ~ rr~A~''~ '~~ ,: ~ ~__.. ~ ~ __ I y.
~-t~,~'+~Mtii ;'~i~+C..._ ~?~ _r~,r"-5' ,.J `;t. ~ .,.~3..:~ ~ ~'~N ~.
~ . . , . . _ .. . . ~
~ . . . . ~. ~ ~ . ~~~ ~ ( ..'~) ~
~~
MINU1$S,.CITY PLANNING COMMISSI~DN, October 7, 1968 4146
RECLASSIFICATION - 1$NI'ATIVE TRhCT REQUESTs DEVELOPERt YI.I..Re-DENELOPERS, INCo, 9942
.NO* 68-69-26-.- •Central Avenue~ Garden Grove,' California.- EAIGINEERs RARB 8 BOYER
` .ENGINEERING COMPANY, 14482 Beach Boulevard, Suite I, Westminster,
TENTATIVE MpP OF California. Subject tract, located on the north side of Orangethoa:,•;~+
TRACT N0. 6733 Avenue, past of the centerline of Highland Avenue, is proposed for
(Continued) subdivision into 97 proposed R-2-5000 zoned lots.
Subject petition was continued from,the meeting of 8eptember 23, 1968~ in order to al:~v,~
time for the petitioner to submit a revised tentative map due to complications arising
from the location of an active oil well north of subject prop~rty.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown noted for the Commission that the petitioner had
~ submitted a request for an additional four weeks' continuance to the meeting of November 4,
1968, to resolve problems involved in the redesign of the tentative tract map.
Commissioner Rowland off~red a motion to continue consideration of Petition for Reclassi-
fication No. 68-0`9-26 and Tentative Map of I'ract No. 6733 to the meeting of November 4,
1968, to allow time for the submission of a revised tentative tract map. Commissioner
Farano seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
TENTATIVE MpP OF - DEIIELOPERs BRYAN INDUSTRIAL PROPERI'IES, 146 East Orangethorpe pvenue,
TRACT NOe 5070 ~Anaheim, California. ENGINEER: Anacal Engineering Company, 222 East
, Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. Subject tract, located northwest
of the intersection of La Palma Avenue and Red Gum Street, consisting
of approximately 13.8 acres and zoned County 100M1-20,000, is pro-
posed for subdivision into 15 City of pnaheim M-l Zoned lots.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed for the Commission the ?:f*:ion of subject
property, the existing County zoning, the fact that the property was pre>ently undergoing
annexation to the City of Anaheim with a second reading of the ordinance for annexation
having been made at the October 1, 1968 City Council meeting, and the permanent rezoning
actions for the property scheduled for the Planning Commission mteting of October 21, f
1968. Furthermore; the proposed tract would be consistent with the existing and pro- '
posed zoning and land use in close proximity because subject property is a part of the ~
Northeast Industrial Area. ~
j
Mr. Brown further noted that the City Engineer had presented the following finding: ~
"That the proposed tract is to be developed for industrial uses; that it has
been the City of Anaheim's policy to waive temporarily the construction of
s,idewalks in an industrial area; and that if the tract is a i
Council may wish to grant a temporary waiver of--sidewa3ks, subject~tohno lty +
permanent landscaping being installed within the sidewalk area".
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 5070, sub3ect
to the following conditions, seconded by Commissioner Camp, and MOTION CARRIED:
1. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each
subdivision theraof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. '
2. That Street !'A" shall be recorded as Blue Star Street.
^ VARIANCE N0. 2019 - pUgLIC HHARING, KATELLA ASSOCIpT'ES, 1661 East Chapman Avenue,
. Fullerton~ California, Owner; HEATH 8 COMPJ~NY, INGORPORAl~D~ '
3225 Lacy Street, Los Angeles~ California, Agent; requesting
WAIVEP, OF MAXIMUM AREp OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN on property described as~ A rectan9ularly
shape~i parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 240 feet on the north side of
KatelLa Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 600 feet, the westerly boundary being
approKimately 720 feet east of the centerline of Lewis Street, and further described as
1105 ~ast Katella Avenue. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL~ ZONE.
Assist,~nt 2oning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property~ the !
proposeti sign request, and the petition which permitted the establishment of a restaurant ~
in an ir~dustrial zone, noting that Condition No. 10 of the Commission's resolution grant- ~
ing Conditional.Use Permit No. 847 required that any signing proposed for subject property ~
should be in conformance with the provisions of the M-1 Zone, and plans submitted at that ~
time also indicated all signing would be in such conformance; however, the Commission ~
would have t~: determine whether subject request was warranted for this use in an area
which is essentaally industrial in character.
;
~- ~ _
,K.,~wf ~ .f-. ..:.
.
~
~
~rv ~ . . . .. ~ ' . ~ . ~ . . ~ . ~ ~ ~
MINUTES~ CITY.PLANNING COMMISSION~ October 7, 1968 4147
...~.:•,.., . .
VARIANCE N0. 2019 - Mr. Maynard Kambak, one of the partners of the petitioner~ appeared
~ . (Continued) before the Commission and stated that the reyuest was for an increase
i of 82 square'feet above and beyond the original sign proposed as
r~ submitted with the plans of the restaurant. However, since that
r time, the sign company;~in designing the sign, had eliminated the lower portion of the
sign, and it was important that proper identification be given for this facility which
~, ; was adjacent, to residential property not complying with the setback requirement of the
'~r~ M-1 Zone,.awd.were the only homes in the entire area; that these properties would ulti-
~+ mately devel4p for a higher and better use, and it was considered necessary that the
y~~'., ,, sign proposE!tl was needed for proper identification of ~t~he facility.
~ ~„
'~
'""' ` No one appea,red in opposition to subject petition.
~~.,
~~' = I'HE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo
F~ .:~
r~•-:,
~ :~3
r ~ Commissioner Herbst noted that although he was aware the petitioner had a restaurant
~ already under construction when:t;hey originally applied for permission to establish this
S .f restaurant.in~the•M-i.Zone, rather than in the C-1 Zone, the petitioner was recognizing
~;; the fact that M-1 property was less expensive than the C-1 property; that although a
~: restaurant was developed to the south and west of subject property with a sign in excess
~• of the M-1 requirements, no specific condition of approval limited the signing of the
- ~;. property because the.City was in the process of drafting the Sign Ordinance, and all
: signing was approved by the City Council at that time; and that if subject petition were
•; approved, this would set an undesirable precedent for the adjoining properties requesting
r `~ a similar sign waiver, claiming subject property had been granted a use they would not be
?;:;:,:;~ privileged to have.
Commissioner Herbst rffered Resolution No. PC68-299 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Rowlans3, to deny Petiti.on for Variance No. 2019 on the basis that
there were no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
Property involved or to the intended use of the property that did not apply aenerally to
the properties in the same vicinity and zone, and the requested variance was not neces-
sary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right for other,prop-
erties and denied to subjECt propexty; that the request for an increase of 82% over the
permitted size sign in the M-1 Zone would establish an undesirable precedent for similar
requests from properties in the industri.al area, especially those areas immediately to
the east and west presently being used ~fbr residential purposes; that the approval of
subject petition would be granting a privilege not enjoyed by other industrial properties;
that the szze and shape of the parcel was adequate to permit development in accordance
with the requirements of the zone; that no hardship had been proven that the petitioner
was being deprived of a privilege generall*~ accorded other property owners in the area;
and that the original plans of approval indicat,ed signing that would identify the use
adequately. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the forego3ng resolution was passe~i by the following votes
AYES: COMMISSIONERS~ Camp, Farano, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Allred.
NOESs COMMISSIGNERS~ None.
ABSENI't COMMISSIONERSe Gauer.
t~;a
~
":T
'i
VARIANCE N0. 2020 - PUgLIC I¢ARING. WILLIAM F. AND NINA M. SIMMONS, c/o Mi1es 8
Associates, Box 2125, Anaheim, California, Owners; R. D. MII,HS, '
800 South Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, California~ pgent; requesting
WAIVERS OF (1) MpXIMUM PERMITTED DISTpNCE OF A LIVIi~G UNIT FROM"'A STANDARD'STRBE-T~'AND'•' °
(2) MEQUATE VEHICULpR ACCESS FOR CITY SERVICE VEHICLESy TO P&RMIT A 70-UNIT AppRTMENT
COMPLEX on property described ass p parcel of approximately 2.O acres of land consist-
ing of two recorded lots and a portion of a third lot, having a combined frontage of
approximately 296 feet on the west side of Webster Avenue and a maximum depth of approxi-
mately 298 feet~ the northerly boundary of said parcel being approximately 500 feet south
of the centerline of Orange Avenue, and further described as 639-659 Webster Avenue.
Property presently cl'assified R-A~ AGRICULTURAL~ ZOIVg.
Assistant Zoning 5upervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, previous (
zoning action on the property~ and the proposed waivers, as we11 as the proposed develop-
ment of the property and the fact that the petitioner had contacted the Development
Services.Department staff requesting a two-week continuance in order to allow time to
redesign the plan to provide for City vehicular access to the property, such as trash
storage areas and fire trucks.
I
~ 1>.
a~#1 ~ ;.~~ t ~tM1 ~/kr ~ ~~~ W ~,, ~~.y~*~~~~.~~~~s ~. . F~ ~~ d~~~~ °R~. c'4~~~~~&y ~ ,s ..~ F ~c
.,ttkw~.~,.e t,., t.~..f::t;..C,s., .,~.L~f., .~.: ~+,'~,, t~r l,~L ~' 4~f
~. ~ ~, . - . . ~ .~ ` ~~ .. .. . . . ~ . ~i ~ e ~ .
S.J
MINUTES; CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Oct~ber.7, 1968 4148
VARIANCE N0. 2020 - NIr. William.Ritchie9 2501 West Keys Lane, appeared before the
(Continued) Commission i,q opposition, representing six persons present in the
Council Chamber, noting'that his:property would be directly affected
by the proposed apartment development, and then read a letter of
opposition.signed by thirty property owners in which it was pointed out that because
many.of the lots along Webster Avenue had similar problems of less than an aCre;• and
were deepy~,narrow lots, if subject petition were approved, this would establish a
precedent for other properties on Webster Avenue to request similar variances, and the
projected number of apartments for this street wouid be so increased that schools would
be affected by the influx`of numerous children, ar,~d Webster Avenue was not designed to
handle an excessive increase in`traffio flow.
Mr. Ritchie, in response to Commission questioning, noted that since the City had already
~ approved apartment development for those properties on Webster Avenue, they were not
opposed to apartments - however, at the time the City Council had approved so-called R-3
zoning for the property, they had stipulated that a maximum of 18 dwe:ling vriits per net
residential acre could be developed on the property - therefere, the proposal was almost
twice that originally permitted under Reclassification No. 63-64-62.
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue consideration of Petition for Variance
No. 2020 to the meeting of October 21, 1968, in order to allow the petitioner time to
submit revised plans. Commissioner Farano seconded the motione MOTION CARRI~De
CONDITIONpL USE - PUBLIC HEpRING. DONALD LEONARD HAMM qND ROBERTA M. HAMM, 1177 West
PERMIT N0. 1062 Elderwood Avenue, Anaheim, California, and LEE R. LANCE AND LORNA
M. LpNCE, 15543 Woodruff Avenue, Bellflower, California, Owners;
KENNETH W. HOLT, 1557 West Mable Street, Anaheim, California, Agent;
requesting permission to EXPAND A PRIVATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, WITH WAIVER OF•PARKING
SPACES IN A GARAGE on property described ass A rectangularly shaped parcel of land
located at the northeast corner of Walnut Street and Elderwood Avenue an~ having approxi-
mate frontages of 100 feet on Walnut Street and 125 feet on Elderwood Avenue, and further
described as 1177 and 1181 West Elderwood Avenue. Property presently classified R-1,
ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property and the
request for expansion of-the exieting private school located on the west side of Walnut
Street,which was established under Conditionel Use P~rmir, No. 393 in 1963 and which had
a subsequent conditional use permit to permit the expanwion of the school denied in
July of 1967, because the site was inadequate to provide both play and school area based
on the enrollment of 100 students proposed, and that the proposed expansion would create
traffic congestion in the area because no drop-off or pick-up area was provided on the
site;`that no pre4ious zoning action:had taken place on subject property on which the
petitioner proposed to convert the two single-family homes and garages into classrooms,
with a total of 80 students and 6 teachers; that the primary purpose of the school would
be for speech and language development; and that the plot plan submitted with the request
indicated the only parking proposed would be in the existing driveway approaches on both
lots.- that on Elderwood Avenue having a 34-foot depth suitable for two-car parking, while
the drive approach from Walnut Street was only 13 feet in depth, which would mean cars
parked in this driveway would extend to the public right-of-way over the sidewalk areaa
Furthermore, that the proposal before the Commission provided little improvement from the
same problems which existed under Conditional Use Permit No. 951 - namely, that a minimum
of six on-site parking spaces should be provided for the teachers proposed, and an addi-
tional one-or two spaces for visitors, together with an on-site drive for dropping•off
and picking up students; that as a result, thereccould be some traffic congestion in
this immediate area during certain periods of the day due to the proposed facility because
of the existing private school across Walnut Street and the Betsy Ross Elementary School
located immediately north of the private school, as well as the industrial uses located
along Santa Ana Street; and that the petitioner was proposing approximately 160 square
feet per student for both play and school area in comparison with the public school
system which requires approximately three and one-half times as much are per student -
tnerefore, the Commission would have to determine the impact the proposal wou]d have on
the local low-density residential homes in the area, proposing a number of students on
selatively sma11 sites, as well as the increase in traffic at an intersection utilized
by the elementary school children crossing the street from the subdivision located east
and south of subject property.
Mr. Kenneth Holt, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission~ noting that
he was the owner of the Kenwood School located on the west side of Walnut 8treet; that the
~ statement made originally to the representatives of the Development Services Department
relative to the number of students was erroneous since it was their irrtent to have no
~ . ,...r~~~'`~> ~'~~cwfd{~7+~`y~i ~h~' "f'~t._y rS~~',.'.~:~fr"s+ w-hi; . ~ ~-~„G3~*s~i'+~'~. rke~~t ~ '~ ~?~( <~~ ~ ~~ i~ Y~.,.t a~~3r,w? ~t~, f
rv..xn.:sK. +A{, . ~ ~~r -.7 "~ }'~ l\ r, c
~
\\
• ~ A~ ~ • •~ . Q a~.:~ ' .~'~~~ . . .. .
MINIITES~ CITY,:PLpNNING COMMISSION~ October 7, 1968 '' 4149
CONDITI~IpL USE - more than 50 to 60 students'- however, there still would be six
` _PERMIT'N0. 1062 teachers which would change the square footage allowable for students
'(Continued), for both.scHool and play area;.that it was theix desire to retain the
residential characteristi'cs of the structures and would be willing to
provide more.parking 3f th'is were feasible; that a number of the homes
in..tkiis subdivision>had }ieen allowed to fall into disrepair, and the,proposed use of one
of these homes as a school would add'considerably to the appearance of the neighborhood<
No one appeared in,opposition to aubject petition.
TI-]E : I-IEARING ; WAS CLOSED. ,
The Commission, in reviewing the plans, inquired as to the on-site parking proposed.
Zoning`Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that 8~~by.23-foot parking areas
were being utilized; however, the City of Anaheim did not permit tandem parking and provid-
ing'an additional curb cut within five feet from the curb for an on-site drive approach
might not zneet the requirements of the Engineering Department, and Office Engineer Arthur
Daw should be the one to answer that question.
Mr. Daw noted that the City did permit a curb cut to start five feet from the corner
radius return - however~ it was his opinion the Traffic Engineer might express considerable
concern with a drive approach that close to an intersection which was one of the exits from
a number of the uses in the area, such as the single-family homes easterly and southerly, '
the ~lementary school to the north where students would be using this intersection for
crossing Walnut Street to go to the school, as well as the industrial traffic coming from
the north.
The Commission expressed concern that the utilization of a residential home for a school
was not necessarily the best means of upgrading an area since a more intensive use was
being proposed, which was a nonconforming use even though a conditional use permit had
been filed; that the proposed use could continue to sprawl within the residential area
idefinitely,.reducing the residential environment of the area, thereby creating additional
problems; that although the petitioner had indicated the enrollment~in the proposed addi-
tion would be 20 students less, this would still be 175% under the size of the number of
square-feet,the public school required; that approyal of subject'petition'would not be
;providing the students with the best environment or add to the value o£ the homes in the
area; and ,that"from the standpoint of land use, the-petitioner had indicated it was his
desire:to maintain the residential character of the homes, and this in itself was admis-
sion oa the pstitioner's;part that he recognized the use should be left residential,
even tn4ugh he was proposing a more intense use in an area which had been, and should
be, retained for residential use, and the encroachment of a more intense use would
establish an undesirable precedent for further encroachment into this reszdential area;
and that the existing private school immediately ad~acent to the elementary school was
less offensive since it was contiguous rather than located across the street from a
school use.
Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC68-300 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded b
Commis
i
y
s
oner Rowland, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1062
on the basis that the petitioner indicat
d h
d
e
e
esired to maintain the residential appear
ance of the property,which in itself was recognizing the fact that the use was not a
n
appropriate land use of residential structures for the expansion of•a school not immedi-
ately adjac
t t
h
i
en
o t
e ex
sting school; that the residentiaT character of the neiyhborhood
should be retained by not permitting the add9
tional encroachm
t
f
o
.
en
o
a m
re intense use of
the land since this could set an undesirable precedent for the continuing expansion of the
schaol
th
t th
o
;
a
e l
cation of the existing school adjacCnt to the public school was less
objectionable - however
th
x
io
n
,
pa
e e
s
n across an arterial street could present a pedes-
tsian-vehicular tra£fic hazard when both schools had the same hours
d au
t
bil `
an
.
omo
es would
be arriving or leaving to drop off and pick up the additionaT 50 to 60 students proposed r~
for the expansion; and that Walnut Street had been experiencing a considerable increase
in traffic
and inc
e
of
-
,
r
ase
pick
up and drop-off 4ehicles could add to an already hazard-
ous traffic prablem for the elementary school children'crossing the stre
t
(S ~
.
e
ee
Resolution Book)
On,roll call the fore9oing resolution was passed by the following votei
AYESe COMMISSIONERSs Camp, Farano, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Allred.
NOES
s COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENTs COMMISSIONERSs Gauera !
;
_~ _ _ ._.__ , ;,
,
.*~es.--~_:
~ , . . , _ :.. . .. . ---
~ ~~ ~
_ MINUTES~;CITY PLpNNING COMMISSION~ October 7, 1968 .4150
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC fiHARING, CLARSNCE`M, NC NEES, 1752 South Haster Street,
P.ERMIT NOe~1063 Anaheim, California,,Owner; requesting permission to ESTpBLISH A
HALL FOR VARIETY SHOWS~ LECTURES;•Iu~gTINGS~;DANCES, ETC«~ WITH ON-
SALE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES:IN AN EXISTING'STRUCTURE on property.
described as: pn irregularly.'shaped parcel of approximately 5:2 acres of land being
bounded on ttie northeast by Manchester Avenue, on the west by Haster Street, and on
the south by the Katella`Avenue freeway overcrossing: Property presently classif'ied
R-A, AGRICULTURAL~ ZONH.
Assistant•Zoning Supervisor~P.at Brown reviewed the location of subject property~ the
existing zoning and`the:proposel to utilize a structure formerly used for a bowling.
alley,to establish a recreation hall for meetings, dances, variety shows, etc.; that
the petitioner was proposing to renovate the presently vacant restaurant and cocktail
lounge in the same structure for a combination restaurant-tavern with on-sale alcoholic
beverages; that the petitioner had been urged to reclassify the property to the C-R
Zone since it was witiiin the Commercial-Recreation Area - however, he indicated that
he did not wish to do so since conditions of the resolution relati•ve to dedication,
street improvements, etc. for the entire parcel could not be met~ nor did he~-wish to
subdivide by parcel map any portion of the existing parcel; that no precise plans of
development were submitted - therefore it was difficult to analyze the'eventual park-
ing requirements accurately if subject petition were approved - however a rough estimate
indicated the total square footage of the proposed development would require approximately
400 parking spaces for the recreation hall alone.
Mr. Brown further noted that the Commission might wish to question the petitioner relative
to the exact nature of the various activities proposed, and whether or not they would be
appropriate in the Commercial-Recreation Zone, and that because of the past nature of this
parcel of land, development had occurred on a rather piecemeal basis, with the result that
little or no improvement to site development standards, such as street dedication or
improvement, landscaping, parking, etc. was made; and that the City Engineer had indicated
that the total parcel would be involved in the revamping program for the Santa Ana Free-
way some time in the future - consequently, it would not be feasible to require extensive
on-site and street improvements at this time which could well be subject to future change -
however, the City was,desirous of acquiring street dedication for Haster Street as indicated
in the department recommendations.
Mr. Clarence McNees, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that he
'had owned subject property for 35 years and used it originally for farming purposes;
that he was the first,to start any program in the area for other than~agiicultural pur-
poses for the property; that although subject property had been developed on a piecemeal
basis, he was still developing it in accordsnce with the money he derived from utiliza-
tion of the property; that the State of California had plans to acquiie a certain portion
of the property in their long-range plan to provide a two-way road across the Santa pna
Freeway, linking Haster Street with pnaheim Boulavard - therefore he was not desirous of
dedicating any property since there was a possibility the entire parcel might be acquired
by the State, and then noted the amount of money he would lose if street dedication were
granted to the City at this time.
Mr. McNees further noted that he had a prospective lessee in the form of the Greyhound
Bus Company, who had indicated interest in the future development of the property, but
because of the uncertainty of the State`s plans for using sub3ect property, it was not
his desire to dedicate any property for street widening purposes amounting to approxi-
mately 900 feet at $3.50 per square foot, this would mean a loss of return for his property
if the State did acquire his property th~ough eminent domain, nor did he wish to submit
precise plans for eny extensive redevelopment p{ana since he was desirous of utilizing the
property on an interim basis until decisions were made_by the State:
' Mr. McNees, in response to Commission questioning, noted that the bowling alley was
already remoyed and only a vacant building existed; that the Moose~Lodge would remain
where it was since it had been established approximately six years ago; that the exist-
ing building where the bowling alley #o~merly wae located would be utilized for the
proposed uses; and that'consideration would have to be given to semoval of the existing
curbs because the frontage road was raised six inches and the entire property would have
~ to have proper drainage.
I
The petitioner also noted that the estimate of the requirement of 400 parking spaces was
somewhat excessive since it was his feeling a maximum of 250 spaces was all that was
needed; and:if:~dditional parking were needed, since his property was immediately adjacent
northerly, through the use of valet parking, additional parking could be provided on his
property, and that only short-term leases would be granted any users of the property in
order that any worthwhile prospective use of the property on a permanent basis could be
handled without long-term litigation.
~ ~. ~
MINtI~'ES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~:October 7; 1968 4151
CONDITIONpL USE - Mr. Manuel Mercado, 856 South Walnut Street; appeared before the
PERMIT N0. 1063 Commission and noted'it was their intent to provide varietyshows
(Continued) similar to that,put on by the Yost family in Santa Ana and.to bring
in Mexican entertainment into the ax+ea since this type of entertain-
ment could not be brought into Los Angeles due to the fact that the
renting.!;,,,l.ls had rents in excess to what could-be paid by the sponsors of this type of
entertainment, and that if this type of'entertainment were successful, there was a
possibility 350 to 375 people would be attending these shows.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst noted that the proposed uses of subject property were just a small
deviation #rom the previous uses on the property and could be considered in the same
category as had been established; that subject property was not surrounded by single-
family homes and, therefore, any deleterious effect or undue noises would not affeat
the privacy of single-family hc~mes; that the request of the petitioner to utilize the
vacant building on an int'erim basis seemed logical, and he could understand the peti-
tioner's reluctance in dedication of property for street widening purposes when there
was a possibility the property would be acquired by the State for roadway purposes,
and he could then realize a portion of the return of his investment.
Chairman Allred inquired as to the progress of the freeway interchange or overpass in
this area; whereupon Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that the State
had advised them that the total parcel could be involved in the revamping program for
the Santa Ana Freeway within the next five to seven years - which would be the portion
with the Manchester Avenue frontage, and no change was proposed for the Haster Street
area. Furthermore, there was a possibility the overpass, now having one-way traffic
from Anaheim Boulevard to the freeway and Haster Street, might be converted into a two-
way overpass, and that the Ci.ty Engineer felt that with the previous uses and the pro-
posed uses of subject pror,~rty, the dedication should be made since grades had been
more firmly established ar•ter the overcrossin9 to Haster Street - however, no improve-
ments should be made at the present time.
~,...
~ 2oning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the plans submitted by %~:~,'
~ the petitioner were:somewhat vague and it was difficult for,the staff .to.analyze;the
~ parkipg requirements for~the proposed uses,'and since no condition tying down the uses ~~~~
to precise plans could be made, there was a good possibility.a shortage of:parking
spaces might:be realized;,therefore, the Commission might wish to make some finding' ,'~;~~
as to'the use of the existing parking 1ot. ,,,,
, ~;
The Commission further discussed not requiring any dedication but utilization of the ~.
property as it presently existed until the State presented a concrete plan of their ~
revamping program. ,;-1
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-301 and moved for its passage and adop- ~ ,
tion, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No.
1063 with the findings that the proposed use approved with a time limitation of one
year will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses; that subject property is ~ part
of the Commercial-Recreation Area and as such, dedication.for street widening purposes
along Haster Stree* would be required - however, waiver of the required dedication is
granted until such'time as redevelopment of, or other disposition is made of the:property
due to the nature of the proposed utilization of an existing structure with apparent
temporary uses, and the future revamping progxam £or the Santa Ana Freeway; and requir- `;
ing trash storage areas, fire hydrants, and air conditioning facilities'properly shieldpd
from view, said condition§ to: be completed prior to final building and zoning inspections;
and that subject petition is. granted for a period of one year,,after which time it shall ;'.
be reviewed by the Development Services'staff to determine what effect the uses of the
property have had on the area - whether parking had'been adet~uate and whether:a further '
public hearing should be scheduled to determine whether the iterim uses should be con- `'
ti wed, and if the petitioner desires,to`continue the use of the property for the pro-
posed uses presently requested, he may raquest an additional one year for the use from ~
the Planning Commission. (See Resolution Book) ~~
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~'
AYE9s COMMISSIONERSs Camp, Hgrbst, Mungall, Allred.
NOESs COMMISSIONERSi Farano.;
ABSENTs COMMZSSIONERS: Gauer.
ABSTAINs C.OMMISSIONERSs Rowland~
~~~ ,,,
:~:~~;i
~ ~ ~';.:; -~~, iJ,
! ,. i_n
~ M ; : ~ .~'„ =r!!.,"x'i ',~i 1~. r 'a. ;"y' '~yK ,~, ~i„'a' t . ~~ ° ! ~- ._..~ i ~ w
~
1
4
tti-~ ~
~ . " . ~ ~ r.~'a`
~ r
"~~ ~s !, M,.NU1~S,` CITY' PLANNING COMMISSION~, Octo~ber 7, .1968 ~ 4152 ~~
j :~C
~ ~ ., ` - .
,RHCLASSIFICATIUN PUBLIC,FiHARING, DR. Go P. BROOKS, 3341'West Bal-1 Road (Lot.No. 1), ~~~'
N0. 68~69 31 ;J• pqt;SEYMOUR, 3347:West Ball Roed (Lot•No:;`2), ANDrA. Dq FiETH; ;~,~~~',
~ "' i•3351 West Ball Road;;(Lot No 3)„rpnaheim,: California, ;Owners; ;~.
VARI/\NCE NOa .2021 , Jo ~., _SEYMUUR, 334TWest Ball Road, Anekieim, California, Agent; ~`~
~? property described as: THree lo~s located at the northeast corner
; ;~of Westvale,Drive ana'Ball'Road, having a combined frontage,~of ' "~
y+, approximately 219 feet on;the north side.of Ball Road:and a maximum'de th::of a '`'~
mately~100 feet (Lot Nos 1 2'and 3 " ` P pProxi- ,?,a
~ a ,,, ),' and further described as 3341, 3347, and 3351 L~d'
West Ball Road Property; presently classified`,R-1, ONE-FAMII,Y'RESIDENTIpL',-ZONE, ;~
;REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIONt C.1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL~ 20NEe: `~-~
y S , y.'~s
RHQUESTED'VARIANCE:. " . : " " ~"~
(LOT.N0..1 ONLY) WpIVER.OF MINIMUM'REQUI~RED~PARKING,
SPACES TO`ESTABLISH A CHIROPRACTOR'S OFFICE IN AN
EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE: , ~
; .: ,: w,
'Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed`the looation of subject pioperty, the ~'
uses established in,`close,proximity, previous zoning requests and'actions which had `"~
;been~denied,=and the present request which proposed C-1 zoning on a11 three lots, util-
,;izing;Lot.No..1 for a chiropractor's office with waivei of the required off-street -
',:parking; Lot Noo 2 for an art and gift shop; and Lot No. 3 for<a dental office.
Mr.'Brown further reviewed the basis for denial by the Commission and City Council of
the'prp•rious'request for C-0 zoning and noted that the present request for C-1 zoning
would~:o~'fer a much wider range of uses than in the previous proposals, while still ry
planning to utilize.the existing structures rather than developing a single, new com- ~
'mercial structure by.means of land assembly; and that the land use character of the '
area had not changed in the past four months - therefore the original findings #or ~~4`
~ denial would.stiil appear to be valido ;~
`' - ,,~;~
Dr. Gr Pe Brooks, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and noted ?,..
sthat~-since the Comm'ission was,familiar with the area; they were awarc of•the commer- ~
cial..uses established southerly and westerly of subject property in the torm of a ~'~'
hospital,•medical offices,.and other commercial uses;:that the existing residential ~~`
~ structures have lost.their identity as homes in the process of commercial:uses being ,`'
~,~ ,•established ~in the. area and because of :tliis esteblished pattern, the request for ~ a~;~
, commercial''zoning was yalid and the propeity owners should not be r~quired``to present ~~
'~'evidence that'.this chang'e:'in charecter of the area had:;-occurred; that the predominant ';~'
~ commeicial,zoning~should teke precedence'over`.the lower zoning; and that the'petitioners ~''~~
';were residents and taxpayers of the City`for some time - therefore'were.not..planning a ~'
~ `speculative use of their'proper.ties,but.planned to the.utilize the properties-them- 'r~'
+:~:
-` . sselves on two' of three parcels. . ,~'~.~
r;ri;
'~Mrs> Emily Nedisma, 3342 West Deerwood Avenue:,'appeared before the Commission in
opposition and presented a.petition signed by 34 persons in opposition and who lived
immediately;'adjacent or would be affected by an influx of commercial traffic on a
residential,street (Westvale Drive) and noted that since she'appeared the last time, `~
Dr. Brooks had remodeled his structure for an office; that the access tothe properties ~:
would'have to,be from Westvale Drive and the adjacent alley to the rear of subject
property, which also abutted her property,• that there was inadequate parking proposed, i
which could have an effect-on the single-family homes,ir. the area, with cars parked - ~
on the street, thereby creating a hazerd to the small children who have been accustomed ~
to crossing the street without visual obstructions; and that'if Gl zoning'were approved, ~.:
the.,petitionei.could sell.the home for other than the u~as proposed,'thereby establish- ` ~;
ing a detrimental effect on the residential inte9rity of the area and reducing the value ,;
' of their properties,: '
,. ,,,
~";
Mr Jotin Hamilton appeared before,the Commission and noted that he was speaking for ';~
Mr• Heth and Mr. Seymour:who was ill and could not attend; that Mr. Heth pioposed to ~~'ri,
. place a-;dental`-office in his structure, and Mr. Seymour planned an art and.gift.shop; ~
that.these three homes were the only residences.facing an arterial.in this'area, and
'since they did`not maet the qualifications of the C-0>Zone; it was.felt the requested ~
iomng.'would be more: appropriate.
Mr Hamilton then no.ted.that Mre ~
Seymour'had advised him that pros~2ctive purchasers, ~
in attempting'to ob'tain an.FHA loan on the property,.',,had',been advised that:no loan ~
foi residential uses of the property would be granted because-the:character of the area ~. ~'
' had changed to commercial on three.sides, and „ thereforC,he would lose approximately I
',$30,000`by not being able to use this property for commercial'purposes. `Furthermore, I
the alley to the rear wouTd serve as a,good buffer between the residential and the
, ;'
proposed commercial use. , _.;
. . . . . ~ . ~ . . .. . . . ' . . . . ..1-,+
~ . ~ . . . .. . , .. ~ . . ~. ~ . . ~ ~
. . . . . . . '. 1~.
~ J.
~ ~- . . ~ . . . . ~. . . . . . ~ .. .
. . . .~ ~. . ~ ~ .. . ~ ~:
MINUTES, CITY:PLANNING COMMISSION, October 79 1968
r~ . R! 6 .4 ~ y++' ` ;M'~Y,~
~~~ _~.~-
\ '.
~
4153 ~
RECLASSIFICATION - Zoning Supervisor RonaTd Thompsoui inquired of Mr. Hamilton whether
N0. 68-69-31 or not the Fl~IA representative had made an appraisal of the property;
whereupon Mr. Hamilton re~lied that they were told no loan would be
VARIANCE NOe 2021 granted for residential purposes.
(Continued)
Mr. Thompson then noted for the Commission that the staff had contacted
the FHA regarding their policy on loans for residences where some
commercial uses had been established~ because raany of the petitioners had made the state-
ment that loans could not be obtained, and they had informed the staff that they did not
finance homes.until appraisals had been made of any proparties - then the statement made
would seem to.be in error.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDa
The Commission noted.that the method of financing had no bearing on the Commission's
decision as to whether or not the request was a proper land use; that the Commission
had spent many hours on the problem of homes fronting on arterial streets; that there
were 176 homes in this study which met the criteria which the Commission deemed necessary,
and said study was then adopted by both the Commission and City Counci; and that subject
property had been considered in this study but was determined not to meet the criteria -
therefore, any request for commercial zoning is deemed unnecessary. Furthermore, the
request'for C-1 zoning would be 9ranting the full range of commercial ~ses and might set
an undesirable precent for other homes also not included in the study, and that no land
use change had taken place in the immediate area in the past four months to warrant
favorable consideration for a more intense commercial use.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-302 and moved fo.r its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for
Reclassification No. 68-69-31 be disapproved on the basis that the general commercial
zoning of the•property would establish a pattern of development which would have a dele-
terious effect on the residential integrity of the properties in close proximity to
subject property; that no land use change had taken place since the Commission last
considered commercial zoning for subject property, atwhich time a less intense commercial
use was proposed, to warrant consideration of a heavier commercial use; that sub3ect
• property was not considered as a potential commercial conversion site in the recently-
adapted arterial front-on study since it did not meet the criteria established for such
conversion; and that there.were approximately 176 homes geographically dispersed through-
out the City which would be more appropriate for conversion 'of residential to commercial
uses than subject property. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the #ore9oing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYEBs COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Allred.
NOES: COMMISSIONERSi None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer>
Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. PC68-303 and moved for its passage and adoption, !
seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to deny Petition for Variance Noe 2021 based on the fact
that the petitioner had.not presented evidence that a hardship existed, and other findings.
(See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes
AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Allred.
NOES~ COMMISSIONSRSs None.
ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS~ Gauer.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEpRINGo 1331 EUCLID ANpHEIM COMPANY, 465 La Brea Avenue,
N0. 68-69-30 • Los Angeles, California, Owner; JOSEPH H. DOYLE, 174i West Katella
• Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that property described
- as~ A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at the southwest
corner of Euclid Street and Chalet Avenue, having frontages of approximately 137 feet on
Chalet Avenue and approximately l00 feet on Euclid Street,'and-further•described as
1331 South Euclid Street~ be reclassified from the G1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE (DEED
RESTRICTED TO BUSINESS AND PAOFESSIONAL OFFICES ONLY) to the'FUI:L RANGE OF IT~E ~-1,
GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE, in order to establish a beauty salon and boutique on subject
property.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, previous
zoning action which established deed restrictions on the property, the uses in close
proximity, and the proposed use planned for sub3ect property, noting that a similar request "
for removal of deed restrictions on properties northerly along the west side of guclid
;
~
~Y'~`~"~ f..'~ ~ ;:: .p"'? ' "7 nv..:V. x • z :l ' a K 1w. ~L S ; u~ ~" Y t„ . ,~ ~,. ' ~..,;;
~ .h 'e4'. M.-. C_ . ,a ~. ~ ~ . a s ~ ^lk
~ ~ ~ . . . . . . . ~ . .. ~ ~ . . ~ .
MIN~S~ CITY.PLANNING COMMISSIOf1, October 7, 1968 4154
RECI,pggIFICpT20N :- Street had been disapproved by both the Commission and City Council
~ 68-69-30 on the basis that the full range of C-1 commercial'uses would be
(Continued) detrimental to the. residential integrity of the single-family sub-
divisiorr immediately to the'west, the high school to the south, and
the professional office buildings already established in the area;
and that the Commission would have to determine whether the proposed requesty with almost
the same set of circumstances previously mentioned, would be appropriate £or this area.
~'~'• Joseph Doyle, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated
that it:was not,their intent to requrst the f~~ll range of C-1 uses; that when this was
discussed with the: zonin9 representative at the time he had proposed filing a conditional
use permit, he had been advised that he should request a reclassification to delete the
4 ~hed'restrictions or G1 restricted to C-1 restricted; that plans had been submitted, but
Y were requested to submit revised plans with better parking layout, which they had
~~~e, and.they had increased the landscaping in the-parking area;~that he had contacted
some of the neighbors to determine whether they would be opposed to the use of the property
for an exclusive beauty salon and boutique similar to Elizabeth Arden in New York, which
W~uld be the finest on the West Coast, and it was planned to invest in excess of $200,000 -
howeVer, the neighbors expressed concern that the use would open up the area for more
~ lntense ~ommercial uses being requested; and that in his opinien, the proposed use of the
~ property would be most unique ~and an asset to the City of Anaheim since only the best
People in.the County would be patronizing this facility, coming from Laguna Beach through
Sunny Hills. furthermore, no changes to the exterior of the building were proposed except
removal of the radio tower and additional:parking provided; that no garish signs would be
erected which would detract from the beauty of the area; and that the designer for the
interior was present to present colored renderings of the proposed interior of the structure.
n'~'• John Petrolli, 327 East 58th Street, Los Angeles, representing the manufacturer of the
Salon equipment, appeared before the Commission and presented a revised floor plan and
colored renderings fox the interior of the existing structure, noting.'that the proposed
~hanges would create one of the most unique salons in California which would cost $50,000,
a~d other improvements would amount to an additional $25,000.
~'• Doyle again•,sppeared before the Commission and noted that the colored renderings
presented indicated what was proposed, and the request before the Commission was for
amep~ent to':the deed restrictions,rather than deletion of thesr,deed restrictions,'in
°rder i.a;permit the esteblishment of a salon and boutique.
The Commission.inquired whether or not the petitioner would find it necessary to request
a sign:variance even though the statement was made that no garish signs were proposed.
~'~'• Doyle noted that he would.guarantee no sign variance would be requested, and signing
W~Uld be in conformance with the Sign Ordinance.
M~'S• Virgil Nix, 1300 South Falcon Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition,
presenting a petition signed by 25 persons in opposition, and stated that the request
for ~he full range of C-1 uses would lower the barrier for•commercial uses for•the remain~
der of the properties in this area and would have an adverse effect on the value and
residential integrity of the R-1 homes and the professional offices now located on the
weSt side of Euclid Street northerly of sub~ect property, as well as the high s~hool
lmmediately.to the south of subject property, and that the removal of these deeo`•restric-
tions would be granting'the petitioner a privilege while denying the xights of the single-
family homeowners to maintain•a quiet•residential area in homes ranging in price.consider-
buiy above:the average. Furthermore, in this area there were a number of vacant oommercial
ldings which had no deed restrictions, and encroachment should not be permitted v~ith
more intense commercial uses; that although the petitionar had indicated there wouZd be
adequate parking, if this:were.a.success; the number.of park3ng spaces.would'be inadequate,
especially when the;plans indica~e as many as 20"persons wi11 be employed in this facility
alone~
i M~'S. Nix, in resRonse to Commisaion questioning relative to whrther or not she was opposed
t~ the beauty salon, stated she could only speak for herself, but she was opposed:to the
proposed use of the property since adequate commercial facilities were avei~lable within a
bl~~k of sub3ect property, and if the salon were to be as exclL~ive and successful as
~laimed, this would bring a considerable number of automobiles into the area with patrons
not only purchasing the products~..but other services proposed.
~• Vernon.J. I:aw, representing the Anaheim Union High School District,'appeared before
e Commission and noted because bf the close proximity of the high school, they were
°PPosed to any'change in zone which would create additional traffic and traffic hazards,
as well as uses which might not be a good influence on the young people. •
ti
v'
;,
F~
'r
,
i
i
rr
n
,~
y.
~'.
~,
~~'~
'1'
~ ~_... _ ___ _ .• - -___..._ . :._~ ~ti `.
r.ya s~ -~ Y{~ ..i. , ~"'~~,~, '~,
' ) _~I" ..-'~'.v..~4
~~~~\`
, ~ - ~ ~, ~ ~ ~. ~ \
~
MINIITES~ CITY PL•ANNING COMMISSION, October 7,.1968 • 4155
. .. .
RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Sam-Freedman, 1714 Chalet:Avenue, appeared before the Commission
' NOi 68=69-30 'in opposition and noted this particular area had been one of the most
(Continued famous battleground sites as.to zoning~requests for':a number of years;
that for; the past five yeais there had:been comparative peace and
` serenity because no.land use charige other than-that •~proved for
professional office buildings; had been requested; that a fire station had been erected on
the.east`side of,guclid Street,,and a branch library, would be built if-the bond proposal
we2iepassed in November.- therefore, since no land use~change had taken place, the request
for deletion of'deed:restrictions was unwarranted; that the first step',to sale-of property
was to.ob'tain'a higher:zonirig for ttie property,`and he:did not-feel the~area had cHenged
and removal of the deed restrictions was;unjustified; and-that although he was in favor
~ of free_enterprise, tlie public interest must.be the #irst to>be consideied - therrfore, it
was.~gratifying'to the residents of this area to know that the Planning Commission had
adhered to the rights of the residents of the area by upholding the principles of zoning.
Commissioner Rowland left the Council Chamber at 3s45 P.M.
Mr. Freedman further noted that the residential area to the west of subject property was
one of the finest in the west, and it was the desiie of all the residents to retain this
residential character. Furthermore, in talking with one of the men regarding the proposal~
he told him a sauna bath was proposed, and both male and female attendants would be employed
on subject`property, which, in his opinion, was not conducive to~a refined neighborhood or
an example for high school students.
Mr. Doyle, in rebuttal, stated that no sauna bath was proposed on the premises; that a
six-foot masonry wall was propased on the southerly boundary of subject property which
should discourage the teenage boys from entering subject property; that because of the
very exclusive nature of the operation, clients would be handled by appointment only,
and the proposed development would be an asset and add to the prestige of the City; and
that no problem sfiould be experienced as to traffic or parking. •
The Commission inquired whether or not the drawings presented to the'Commission were to
be mede a part of the file, and if so, they should be submitted as colored photographs
so that if subject request for amendment to deed restrictions were approved, it would
be onl on the b . ;_
Y asis of the colored renderings.
Mr. Doyle'.xeplied that;colored renderings would be made a part of the file, and that the
de g Fresent
si n..as' ed wouYd be what was°proposed for sub3ect property.
Mr. Doyle,further'noted that he had,talked with Mr, Freedman regaxding,the proposal, at
which time he had indicated he wes not apposed to the salon but would`be oppo§ed to full
C-1 uses,'and at that time, he had advised Mr. Freedman he was not interested in full
G1 uses -~only the amendment of the deed re§trictions to allow the proposed use.
Mr. Freedman then,advised the Commission that Mr. Doyle had informed him there would be
a sauna bath. Fvrthermore, from his understanding of zoning, he felt the proposed use
would be permitted within the confines of the deed restrictions.
Chairman Allred advised the opposition that the plans submitted did not indicate a sauna
bath, and if the request were approved, ttiey would have to develop in accordance with
the plens submitted.
Tf~ I-IEpRING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Camp requested an opinion from the Assistant City•Attorney as to whether or
not deed restrictions could be amended'to include the pToposed use.
Assistant City pttorney Frank Lowry advised the Commission that~there were several
alternatives: i) to amend the'deed restrictions, 2) to deny sub3ect petition, and
3),deletion of the deed restrictions - how~ver, approval for C-0 zoning would not permit.
tHe proposed use.
The Commission then noted that'the proposed use of the property with the chan es
g presented
to the Commission would:add an attractive use to the area which would not be detrimental
tothe 'residential environment;-however, they could understand:why the residents i~n the area
were concerned about the removal of the deed restrictions which would peTmit more intense
commercial.uses, but the agent for the petitioner had indicated this was not his intent.
Commissioncr Camp offered Resolution No. PC68-304'and moved for its pessage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner:Mungall, to recommend to the Qity Council that the request for
removal`of deed'restrictions in Reclassification No.'68-69-30, which were established on
subject pro~perty in Resolution No. 62R-506 be denied on the basis that the full range of
~,:
__ ;~--. -- - -- ,
':~~
. ~~~
":~
i~;;~
''4~
'~
~ : ,v~
~i#
i
,~
.__, .:::~
;~
~~
! :~
~ ~i,G~~~(r~.~'1'~t45''t+~.r'~~ ~~~-l~~f'~ f~ F ~ . ~ ~ .- a.. :.
' + ~'~. ...1; t $4°`~'.+ .~~.aF:~-1 . .- .... ~ Ktl,~. ,.~.'.. /'f~ 75~~y
1
"
T
:
~ L. .
. rY _
,.
'?.^. L
~^: ~ ` .. .
+
~ .
.
~~ ..
Q ~ - - ~ ~.
~
~,', .
•
MINU1~S~;.CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,
October`7
1968 '
~ .
,
-_ ;
4156 ~,
~~„a RECLASSIFICAI'ION Gl uses'was.not;appropiiate for this area; kiowever, it was further
NOo
68-69=30:
c
' '"~
~~ .
re
ommended
that the:deed restrictions be~amended,to include a
(Continued) ~ beauty
salo
d
b
u ~~
T
~ .
n an
•
outiq
e.which was:similar in use to the prevailing
office uses of th
'
~
,,
,
~ e
property, subject to plans and colored senderings'
-.
presented;,to the Commission; subject to conditi s,
'
~
t.~,
~ ,
ons and the finding
that the-prjtitioner~had stipulated to.signing in accordance with the Sign Ordinance, and
th
t
~
a
§ r
~+ a
no
g
ri
h sign would be proposed. (See Resolution Book)
.
::.
~,M
~a
~ , ,
Discussion Kas then held by the Commission to determi•ne~~whether or not the resolution
wae suff'ici ~
i°~`
F~
~ ent to prevent re-use of:the property for arr ordinary beauty shop which could
be a detriment to the aT j
'`
: ea. ;~~~
'Zoning Supervisor.Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that subject property was approved
with deed-restrictions
i
r t
th r~~
Y ,pr
o
o
e,adoption of the C-O Zone - therefore this was the
reason,for deed restrictions, and if any change we
pro
d
: ~,
~,
,~. re
pose
, it
would have to be very
mirior in nature; otherwise the plans would,be presented to the.Commission for det
mi
-
i
" '~,
nry~
, er
na
t
on
as to the validity of their being substantially in accordance with the original
plans approved. r_3
;+fi~
,,
"s~
`,
Commissioner Farano then noted for the opposition and the petitioner that it would be
'
~;;r
v
~
~' necessary to
adherestrictly to the plans presented to the Commission, since approval was
predicated on the'plans presented, and any chan
th
th
i
c ge o
er
an m
nor would have to be re-
viewed by the Commission or City Council.
''
°
On roll call the foregoirig resolution was passed by the following votes Y
4 „
~..
~ AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Herbst, Mungall, Allred. z,
' NOESs COMMISSIONERSi None.
ABSENTt COMMISSIONERSe Gauer, Rowland. y:`Y
; ~,~
RECESS . - Commissioner Farano offered a motion to recess the meeting for J~F
<
ten minutes. Commissioner Camp seconded the motion.• MOTION
CA
I
' "
}
RR
ED. 1
he meeting recessed at 4:10 P.M, f
RECONVENE • -.Chairman Allred reconvened the meeting at ,4:20 P.M., Commissioners
' ' fti
~
~
Gauer and;Rowland being absent'. ~`'
~
:
;
r
RECLASSIFICATION - PUHLIC HEpRING. PAUL D. MAC MAHON, 1701 Galatea Terrace, Corona del
N0.'68-69-~2 Mar
'Califo
i
,
rn
a; Owner; FRpNK PREISSLER,,12681 Blackthorn Street,
Garden Grove, California, Agent;
roperty d
~ ?r
p
escribed ast An irregularly
TENTATIVE Mpp OF shaped parcel of approximately 15 acres of land locat
d o
th
t
-
e
n
eas
e
TRACT N0. 4693 side of Orchard Drive and southwesterly of the Yorba Linda Freeway i
`' ,
having a frontage of approximately 170 feet on the eaet side of Orchard
~ Drive and a maximum depth of approximately 2,100 feet, said parcel
having e maximum width from the Yorba Linda Freewa
of a
i
at
y
pprox
m
ely 450 feet. ~Propexty
presently elassified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION~ R-2-5000~ ONE-FAMILY~ 20NE.
TENTATI11g TRACT REQUEST~ DEVELOPER~ FRAN-MpR DEVELOPMENT COMPpNY, 12681 Blackthorn ~
Street, Garden Grove, California._ ENGINEERt SOUI'EIWEST `'
: ENGINEfiRING COMPANY, 2923 Asbury Place;._Anaheim,. California~
proposing subdivision of sub3ect property into 84 R-2-5000
Zoned lots.
' :
'
;:
,
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat'Brown'reviewed the location of subject property and the
uses;established in close prozimit
noti
th
y,
ng
at the Anaheim GenCral Plan indicated low-
medium densit for
~= y 'the area, and since'the R-2-5000 Zone was int
nd
d t
~ wa
'
e
e
o pro
de for and
encourage the_orderly developmept of single-family homes on 5000-square fo~~t l~~ts in areas
deemed appropri'at
fo
low
m ~~
I
e
r
-
edium and medium density, the'Commission wouTd .have to determine
' whetherthis area was appropriate for th
r "1-
e p
oposed xeclassification. '<
Mr. Paul MacMahon; the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that he,had
owned the property for sev
a
e ~ `
en ye
rs, op
rating it as an avocado grove but nevrr realized
a profit from the operation; that a gravel pit was located on one
id
of
i
s
e
the property,
a school to the west, and a proposed high school to;the south, with the Yorbal Linda
Freewa
to~th
n
th ~
k
y
e
or
east and a barren canyon to the east.
~
~~
~
_ y~
.14~ ~,, :~i.
a ~
. °~, ~~~ "~E 1`':;~~ ;r . ~'{ '~ . 4r 3 h n
~ ~' ~ '1 7.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~f ~ i~ c ~~xN f' 4 7 ~'i7r ~ v ~ p:'~'~t a 'r.~ ~ l~ 1! i <'
; ~ s';;~ x t
1
~ ~ (~ {J .
MINllI'ES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 7, 1968 • 4157
RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Tom Conklin, the developer of.the proposed tract, appeared before
N0. 68-69-32 the Commission and noted they concurred with the recommended conditions
of the Report to the Commission.
TENTATIVE.MpP OF
TRACT N0, 4693 Mr. Roy Knauft, 5682 Orchard Drive, appeared before the Comnission,
(Continued) noting that his address was in the Cour.ty; that the property located
- just north of.the freeway was zoned E4-15,000, and he would like to
have subject property developed on lots of a minimum of 7200 square
feet; that a considerable amount of the property to the west had been developed with
R-2-5000 homes, and the spread of this type of home was gradually creeping toward their
property; that subject property had some difficulty in having ingress and egress - there-
fose an increase in density would create a traffic circulation problem; that an elementary
school was developed on the west side of Orchard Drive which wa.~ now aimost at capacity,
even though the school district had projected the school enrollment for 7200-square foot
lots, and introduction of additional 5000-square foot lot developmant would mean further
saturation of the school; that the petitioner was proposing, as the only ingress and
egress to the development, to have a street exiting to Orchard Drive, and wi-th the possi-
bility of a minimum of 84 vehicles entering this thoroughfare about the time children
were going to school could create a very difficult traffic hazard; that the higher density
homes bred problems as to fire and police protection which were some distance away, and as
a compromise to the lots developed in the County of 15,000 square feet, he would recommend
favorahle consideration of 7200-square foot lots for subjact property.
Dr. James Hemis, 5342 Tango Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition and
stated that the tract he lived in was just south of the present Esperanza High School
site; that during annexation proceedings, the property owners in that area had been
advised the area would remain R-1 - therefore annexation to the City of Anaheim was
approved, and they assumed the City would honor this statement and recommended that
the Commission approve~R-1 for the property with 7200 square foot lots.
Mr. Clifford Riddlebarger, Superintendent of the Placentia Unified School District,
appeared before the Commission and noted the school district was faced.with'a number
of problems; that when subject~and other properties in the area were under the juris-
diction of the County, the zoning was somewhat different, and the City of Anaheim zoning
permitted 5000-square foot lots and the County had zoned this property for 7200-square
foot lots - therefore the school district's master pTanning for schools with this type
of density was predicated on 7200-square foot lots #or this l~rge acreage. However,
since,the master plan had been adopted, many homes had been approved in the area west
of Orchard Drive; north'of Orangethorpe Avenue, for 5000-square foot lots which increased
the number of homes and the number'of'school children in the area considerably - there-
fore he recommended that the Anaheim Planning Commission give careful consideration to
further development of this area with 5000-square foot lots because of the impact it
would have on the school projections; that the increase in the number of students had
been absorbed, but any further increase because of the change in policy for lot size
should be studied carefully as it pertained to the General Plan in order that the school
district could advise the budgeting for school facilities.
Mr. Riddlebarger further noted that a serious drainage problem existed on subject property
which could affect the high school site immediately to the south, and this should be
recognized by the City of Anaheim. He also noted that the school district had been work-
ing very well with the Planning and Parks and Recreation Departments of the City of
Anaheim regarding the new high school site, and it was hoped to have a good park facili:y
adjacent to the school upon the completion of these discussions - therefore he would
recommend that the City of Anaheim weigh all the implications that a reduction in lot :3
size to 5000•square feet would have sincr this would increase the number of homes and,
consequently, the number of children their school district would have to serve.
Mr. MacMahon, in rebuttal, stated that the property was originally owned by Forest Smith,
who had developed the country club and the estate homes around it; that he had purchased
it after it was placed on the market when Mr. Smith deemed the property not suitable for
ezpensive homes as were developed around the country club - therefore it was his opinion
the property was still not suitable for development with expensive homes. ~
ii
Mrs. Irene Rainville, 6092 Orchard Drive, appeared before the`Co~mn'sssion in~opposition
and noted that her property adjoined sub3ect property on two sides; that she had not had
a neighbor for some time and would like nei9hbors, but if subject property were subdivided ;
with 7200-square foot lots, this would reduce the number of lots and also reduce the
number of automobiles which would be utilizing the exit to Orchard Drive, and the smaller
lots would add considerably to the increase in traffic and traffic hazards in this general
area.
, ,
,
,
\ _ ,
~ ~,:.c`q` ^
,-, ,.. ., ,. ...
~ . ~ ~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~'October 7, 1968 4158
RECLASSIFICATION - The Commission inquired as to the amount of vacant acreage still
N0. 68-69-32 .remaining southeast of subject property.
TENTATIVE Mpp,OF Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that 27
TRACT N0..4693 acres to the.:southeast was under the ownership o'f the State Division
(Continued) of Highways, and this was the reason for a stub street; that the ••
Yorba and Boisseranc families owned the'remaining property adjacent
to Sonata Lane, a stub street, and that the street would have to be
carried back to Orangethorpe Avenue for proper circulation for this area. .Furthermore,
when the Butler Harbour Company developed in the City of Anaheim northerly of Orange-
thorpe"Avenue with smaller lots, these were similar to the zoning that had existed while
under the jurisdiction of'the County, which was PD.-6,000~4,000, and the Rinker and Solomon
S properties were subsequently also reclassified to R-2-5000 in accordance with the General
~ Plan amendment which was approved by both the Planning Gommission and City Council -
however this General Plan amendment did not include those properties eadT'of Orchard Drive.
Mr. Thompson, in response to Commission questioning, noted that the school site covered
47 acres.
j I'he representative of the school district again appaared and notrd that they had been
working with the City staff xegarding a private access road along the southerly boundary
of the school extending from Orchard Drive easterly, rather than having Concerto Drive
carry through the school property.
Mr. Knauft noted for the~Commission that the country club would again extend to the south
of the freeway since the State of California was selling this property back again.
Mr. MacMahon noted that the State had offered the adjoining property to the southeast to
him for $13,500~per acre; however, this proparty~was landlocked and would have to be
purchascd by the adjacent property owners.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Mr. Thompson, in response to Commission questioning, noted that the percentage of increase
in coverage per acre when the property was developed with R-2-5000 lots was 45~ more than
if developed;with R-1, 7200-square foot lots - or since four plus lots were obtainable
under R-1 and f~~t lots under R-2-5000.
~,
Discussion was then held by the Commiseion relative to the possibility of creatin9 problems
both for'the school'and access problems as'it pertained to the tract map submitted by the
petitioner, and further consideration should be given to these problems even though recog-
nizing that subject property was a problem parcel for development with adequate home sites;
that the implications as to the smaller lots should be further studied by the staff since
a considerable acreage was involved and could extend both easterly and southerly of subject
property, encompassing properties immediately adjacent to the R-1 lots located north of
Orangethorpe Avenue and south of the Esperanza High School site; that favorable considera-
tion of subject petition prior to any further evidence submitted relative to the implica-
tions presented by the school district might create a"monster" to the circulation element
of this area and insurmountable traffic problems for the school to the west and the pro-
pCSed high school site to the south.
Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that a regulation size street could
handle the increase of 840 trips per day calculated to come from the proposed property,
and the regulation size street could handle 6,000 cars per day.
Mr. Thompson advised the Commission that information from the planning staff indicated
there were'approximately 85 acres east,of the Johnson property, south of 'the Yorba Linda
Country Club, not including the reservoir; that the Hi11 and Canyon General Plan indicated
this for both;in'low and medium density; that the staff wanted to tie in the north-south
collector streets for circulation, rather than having individual proprrties come in with
their own individual circulation plan.
Mr. Thompson also noted that when the Butler Harbour property came into the City, due to
the rather unusual type of zoning it had in the County, and because of.the flood control
channel bisecting the property, multiple-family development was considered,and approved -
howeve'r, it was later developed-with the 5000-square foot lots due to additional probl~ms
relative to the flood control channel and development within the R-3 zoning.
The Commission inquired as to the effect the smaller lots had on the City of Anaheim since
the City had granted quite a number, and what could be the effect if further continuation
of these 5000-square foot lots were permitted.
P
.
~`'~y~'° ~~'x . 'iF''" , &~. ~,..~x '~.. r s. ,~'^',%'.t':~'y;;,, Y~..t ~i;trt.Y.'~s~,7a:x .~ .a ;, f~'3"~.kr ~t~' .a,: ^ ~ ~ :. x7'~„ ..:7 ~ y ..a.~ .
~ . . . ' . ~ ~ . .
. . . ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ . . .~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ . . . . .. . ~ : ~ - .
MINI7TES~ CITY PLANNI~IG COMMISSION~'October 7; 1968 4159
RECLASSIFICATION' - Mr. Thompson noted that this would be difficult to evaluate; ~
N0.°68-69=32 fioweveT'; his personal opinion was that the school'district would be
; the one primariiy.affected,,as well as the possibility of park
TENTATIVE MAP'OF problems. '
TRACT-NO.-'4693
~(Continued). After further discussion by the Commission,.it was the unanimous
opinion'of ttie Commission that subject petition be continued for
further data by the.staff and for a field trip into the area to '
determine what the effect.might be if'R-2-5000 were projected for the area rather than
R-1; since this would mean an increase of approximately 45~ in coverage of this acreage.
Mr. Thompson further noted that the R-2-5000 had no minimum frontage for lots on a cul-
de-sac.- this was only a requirement of the R-1 Zone, and the setback within the R-1 was
considerably more rigid than in the R-2-5000 Zone. -
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for
Reclassification No. 68-69-32 and Tentative Map of Tract No. 4693 to the meeting of
November 4, 1968, sch.aduling it as the first item on the agenda, in order to allow time
for further study by che e~aff as to the impact the increase in density with 5000-square
foot lots would have on the schools~ parks, etc., in order that the Commission might
properly evaluate thear ~3ecision. Commissioner Farano seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
Commissioner Farano indicated..he would•like furthrr information as to a comparison of
the characteristics of subject property and the property recently denied for R-2-5000
north of the Santa Ana Canyon Road.
Mr. Thompson noted that the Commission had recomrt:ended denial of R-2-5000 for both the
parcels east of the Impe~ial Freeway and west of the Imperial Freeway; that the City
Council had denied R-2-5000 for the 25-acre sit.e east of Imperial Freeway,and the property
consisting of l0 acres west of the freeway had been approved fpr,R-1 - however, the City
Council had directed the staff to initiate a variance to create a variable lot size which
might 9ive a comparable density to R-2-5000 subdivision.
Commissioner`Herbst also directed the staff to present more detailed circulation for-this
general area, as well as to the southwest.
REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1
`RECOMA~NDATIONS -CONDITICNAL USE PERMIT N0. 959 (iamasha Club) - Establish a
private club and recreation facility with on-sale liquor and
waiver of wall height in front setback area - Property located
at 1025 South Anaheim Boulevard - Request for an extension of
time. (Huntington Savings g Loan Association, Owner) •
~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown presented to the Commission a request from the
E Huntington Savings 8 Loan Association, owners of the Tamasha Club, for an extension
~. of,time for'completion of conditions in Resolution No. PC67-188, granting Conditional
~ Use Permit No. 959; that one previous time extension had been granted by the Planning
' Commission which expired August 28, 1968; and that the;s~bsequent:.request would expire
' March 1, 1969.
Assistant City Attorney Frank Lowry.advised the Commission that since the City Attorney's
office had been attempting to establish the owner of•sub~ect aroperty in order to process
a criminal violation of the Code,"any`extension of time would 'cre.ate some difficulty for
the City Attorney's office in arriving at a successful prosecution of this complait~t.
The Commission discussed the appearance of the property, noting that the structures were
falling into disrepair, which made an untidy appearance of the entire area, and since the
petitioner had made no attempt to improve or meet any of the conditions of the`conditional
use permit, the request'should be denied.
~;' Commissioner Camp offered a motion to deny the request for a:six:months'..extension of
time to comply with the conditions of Conditional Use Permit No. 959. Commissioner
!?erbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
_....______.. _ . _
. ,t,
~ - ..:-.. . _.:~ .
~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLpIVNING COMMISSION, October 7; 1968 4160
REPORTS APiD - ITEM N0..2
RECOA~NDAT30NS : CONDITIONAL USE.PERMIT N0. 802 AND VARIANCE N0: 1757 -
(Cal-Penn Land Compeny) - Request for an extension of
time:to comply with conditions - Property located
approximately 360 feet west of Harbor Boulevard, south ~
of Orangewood:pvenue, soned R-3~ proposing a"Never on
Friday" apartment complex on subject property. .
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the request of the petitioner, noting a
previous extension of,time had been granted, which had expix~ed September 16, 1967, and
that the petitioner was requesting subject'petitions be reactivated and an additional
one-year'extension of time be granted in order to obtain long-term financing on this
project.
Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that at the morning review session,
when the plans were presented to the Commission, one of the conditions of approval had
been the requirement of street light and street tree fees paid prior to any further
extensions of time. However, since that time, research had bee~ made and it had been
determined that when Tract No. 5688 had only the front portion, commercially zoned
property, devcloped, the rear portion comprised of subject property had been resold
and the easement for street purposes had never been recorded - therefore, the easement
was returned to the property owner, and the plans as proposed to be developed reflect
30 feet taken out for additional.roadway, but because the property had been reverted
to acreage and no map filed to reflect this, any provision for a street would be im-
possible because it would not be a public street, and the Engineering staff was now
in the process of filing an action against the company for completion of improvements.
The Commission noted that in light of the co;nments made by the Office Engineer, it
would bC impossible to develop subj~ct property in accordance with the plans as the
petitioner indicated in his request for an extension of time; therefore~ other pro-
visions would have to be made.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson noted that two plot plans were on file with subject
petition, and both plans indicated a Fortion of the pz^perty for three purposes - a
part of it from subj~ct property and part of it from ~djoining property, which would
be impossible because it:had already developed.
The Commission further noted that if an extension of time were granted and'plans were
submitted,for'development, in a11 likelihood they would not be in conformance with the
original plans; therefore, the petitioner would have to request another public hearing,
and any granting of'an extension of time would not complete dedication of street improve-
ments which would be needed if subject property were developed.
Mr. Daw then stated that he would recommend a six months' extension of time be granted,
beginning with October 7, 1968, and that no further extensions of time be granted unless
evidence had been presented that development would occur, end if the negotiations with
the surety company, which guaranteed the improvements of the property were favorable to
the City, there would be sau~e definite indication where the street would be located,
and there was no reason for requesting street light and street tree fees to be paid
until the actual street location was determined.
Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to grant a six-month extension of time, beginning
October 7, 1968, to expire April 7, 1969, for the completion of conditions, provided
that at the end of six months evidence had been submitted that the proposed development
would occur. -Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner
Farano voted "no".
ITEM N0. 3
VARIANCE N0. 1104 - Sign variance at the southwest corner
of Dale'and Lincoln Avenues..
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed for the Commission the location of subject
property on which a,temporary si~n had been erected; that the sign was no longer in exist-
ence, and the variance should be terminated.
Commissioner Mungall offered'Resolution No. PC68-305.and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Camp, to terminate all proceedings on Variance No. 1104 on the
basis that the sign wes no longer on the property and the variance was no longer in force.
(See Resolution Book)
y 7~.dF !' ~, . r ;.'4~ . ~ i ~y y 3 ~_l a + ~ y ~ ,-°'v
+r~' h. ~ ~ ~;~ua'~a r3 ~~i ~ '~ Zt.~:. - r t~'~„ -_ '~~" ~ ~ - .. ~'~
~ : \ ~ ~~ ~`` '
MINUTES, CITY.PLANNING COMMTSSION', October 7, 1968 4161
REPORTS 'AND;'
RECONIIJ~NDATIONS - ITEM N0. 3 (Continued)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes
AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Camp~ Farano, Herbst, Mungall, pllred.
NOESr COMMISSIONERS~, None. `
ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Rowland.
~ ADJOURNMBIVT . - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to acijourn the meeting
FOR bINNER ,,, for dinner, to reconvene'at 7~30 P.M. Commissioner Camp
'~~' seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned
~~~
~';;,:~ at 5t03 P.M.
y ,~ :
RECONVENE - Chairman Allred reconvened the meeting at 7s33 P.M~,
,~;~ Commissioners Gauer and Mungall being absent.
'';~ • .
4 CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. FRANK HORNY, 353 South.La Brea Avenue,
~ PERMIT N0, 1050 Los Angeles, California, Owner; HpRRY KNISELY, 1741 South Euclid
` Street, Suite "B", Anaheim, California, pg~nt; requesting permission
%' to establish a 333-UNIT, THREE-STORY PLANNED"RESiDENI'I-p'L• DgyE~OPI~N~'
WITH WpIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT, (2) MINIMUM BUILDING SITE"~pREIC-pER-DNIELtING'
,'~ UNIT, (3) MINIMUM FLOOR AREp PER DWELLING UNIT~ (4) MINIMUM BUPLDING SETBACK; (5)•MINIMUM
~:
f NUMBER OF REQUIREA COVERED PARKING SPACES~ AND (6) REQUIRED MASONRY WALL on property
,.,:}_~i described as: pn irregularly shaped parcel of approximately 5.9 acres of land having a
<'L;':k;{a frontage of approximately 396 feet on the north side of North Street and a maximum depth
;,.;~` of approximately 839 feet, the easterly boundary of said parcel being Lido Lane, and the
westerly boundary being approximately 280 feet east of the centerline of Loara Street.
.Property presently classified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE.
`:;:~;`~''~ Subject petition was continued from the meetings of July 29 and August 26, 1968, to
;~;;~? allow time for the staff to contact the Parks and Recreation Department regarding the
~~ recommendation of the Citizens Capital Improvement Committee relative to the westward
~'~"' expansion of,Sage Park, which would involVe the northerly portion of subject property.
(~@
t ~'rf~ ~
~4~~"'` Assistant Zoning Supervisor~Pat Brown reviewed the location of sub'ect
~~~,~ existing zonin on the J property, the
9 property, and zoning and uses established in close proximity,
,k~i~ together with proposed request for the establishment of a 315-unit, planned residential
y~:;. development with waivers of the maximum building height;- two-story permitted, three-
~r~~ story proposed; maximum building height within 150 feet of a sin le-family z~ne - one-
~`~y~, story permittefl, three stories proposed wit hin 94 feet of sin legfamil zon
~+, minimum floor area 9 Y ed property;
,~ ~ per dwelling unit; minimum building site area per dwelling unit;
,4'; minimum building setback; off-street parking; and the required six-foot masonry wall.
,~ {' ~i
~,'~ Mr. Brown noted that the revised plans submitted reduced the number of units from their
~'~~ original request for 333 to 315 - however, parking was similarly reduced to 406 spaces
~ since it was-indicated some of the parking spaces were allocated for parking purposes
at Sage`Park which was located to the east, and all of the waivers requested were still
applicable to the new revised plans.
Mr. Brown further noted that in discussing subject petition with•the Parks and Recreation
;„~ Director, he had advised him the parking allocated on the new plans was no longer neces-
sary since vehicular and pedestrian accessways from the park through subject property and
through the YMCA property located adjacent to Loara Street were no longer necessary
because of arrangements made with the Orange Cpunty F1oocL Cnntrol District for such
accessways, and that although the Cultvral and ReCrea~ion Commitbee of.,itshe Citizens
Capital Improvement Committee had recommended expansion of three acres of Sage Park,
the City had decided against such acquisition due to the extremely high cost of the land
involved.
Mr. Harry Knisely, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted
that the first item he•wished to point out was the fact that subject property was zoned
p, R-3, and the' waivers would be the only items under consideration; that the property
~„'{~ could be developed without any further action by the Planning Commission if a11 Code
~~~~~ reg~irements were met - thercby permitting 230 units on the property; that the maximum
~,«';~ building height proposed was 37 feet against 35 feet permitted~ and one-story within
~~y~ 150 feet of R-1, but a precedent had been established with two-story construction on
r~~, the R-3 property on the east side of Lido Lane - therefore the requirement of one story
y 9 ,
was no lon er valid• that 20% of the project was proposed for bachelor-type apartments
7yr i~n ~
'.~5a~'~, , , . .
.:;.';1''_;~t . . . . ~ ~ . , ~ .. , .
~~~4
>~.:J r..l~a, r„~~; .r._ '.
~ f
~ ~ . . ~ . . - .. . . . . ' ..
. .. . . . ~ , . . ~ . ~ . . V ~
MINU1$S,, CITY.PLANNING COMMISSION, October 7, 1968 ~ 4162
CONDITIONAL:USE - and 20% of the other units were in excess of the minimum require-`
PERMIT NOo 1050 ments'- therefore the major issues before the Commission were
(Continued) density and the height limitation; that~although the parking spaces
- had been reduced, these were projected to be used by the Parks and
Recreation Department, and the petitioner was now willing to stipulate
to providing parking in accordance with Code requirements. Furthermore, in°discussion
with the Perks and Recreation Director, he had been advised that a wall was not desired,
and.if this had changed, they.would be willing to co,nstruct the masonry wall in accordance
with Code,;.and since the majority of the waivers were being either met or a precedent had
been.established, the devCloper was still desirous of•the Commission considering-.the two
a£orementioned'primary.issues as he proposed to build a luxury apartment development which
would cost $16 per:square foot; that it would be the finest in Orange County and Anaheim
'~ except for the beach area; that outstanding recreational facilities were bein
that g proposed;
professional management and maintenance would be on the property; that subterranean
parking was proposed, with elevators taking the r~sidents from the subterranean parking
to their apartment levels; and tr:at consideration should be given to the fact that they
were proposing quality apartmenis against density as proposed.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission a communication had been received
from the Parks and Recreation Department requesting that if subject petition were approved,
a five-foot wall should be constructed along theeast property to match the existing wall.
j Mr. Ralph Callen, attorney, 1143 West Park Avenue, appeared before the Commission in
opposition and noted that at the original hearing of subject petition on July 29, 1968,
a petition with 250 signatures in opposition had been submitted, and it was hoped this
would still be a part of the file; that all of the property owners in opposition were
still mainly concerned with the impact the proposed development would have on the traffic
on North and Loara Streets, the elementary school, and the YMCA at the intersection of
North and Loara Streets; that the opposition was also opposed to the many waivers asked
for over and above the R-3 requirements, and the proposed bachelor apartments would be
no ],arger than the size of his garage; that three-story construction was proposed lrss
than 100 feet from single-family homes; and if the petition were approved, development
of the vacant R-0 lots along North Street, which abutted very expensive homes southerly,
would be primarily affected and development as the zone permitted would not occur; that
the injection of a minimum of over 400 cars or approximatel/ 3,300 trips per day would
double the,traffic on North Street and create insurmountable traffic hazards for the
children in this`area who would'be walking or riding their bicycles to school; and that
the hign density.proposed would also affect the YMCA property and children using that
facility upon its completion - therefore he urged the Planning Commission to deny subject
petition.because of its harmful effects on the entire area.
Mr. Forres Lamoreaux, 1308 Lido Place, appeared before the Commission, noting that he was
the owner of the Lido Apartments and one of his main objections was the excessive increase
in traffic which would not only affect Lido Place and Lido Lane, which provided access to
the R-3 development proposed and that existing, as well as entrance to Sage Park which was
constantly used for little league games, and shortage of parking already existed when
these games were on, affecting access to the garages of the apartments to the east of
subject property, and if subject petition were approved, he would requrst permission to
develop two-story epartments on his property, which were now only one-story. .
Mr. Herbert Lawson, 1318 Ateca Place, appeared before the Commission in opposition, noting
that he owned three buildings directly across Lido Lane from subject property; that he was
not opposed to development of the property but wanted it to be compatible with the adjoin-
ing apartment development since the R-3 easterly had to comply with Code requirements -
therefore, subject getitioner should be required to build in accordance with Code require~
ments. Furthermore, he was rather dubious about the proposal to develop a three-story
apartment complex with subterranean parking and with only a 37-foot height for the
structure.
A showing of hands indicated 40 persons present in the Council Chamber in opposition.
Mr..Joseph Cassanenburg,appeared in opposition, noting he had purchased his property with
the understanding that the area would be developed with similar type homes; that'traffic
on North Street already was dangerous, and recently a policeman had been hit at the corner
of West end North Streets; that when inclement weather with rain was experienced, it was
almost impossible for the parents to drive to the school to pick up their children, and
with the addition of the proposed number of automobiles, the hazards would be monumental;
and;:furthermore, apartments of 475 square feet were not conducive.to the.most.de'sirable
element for this area where young children were prevalent.
~,,~ . . -- . - _.. , ., . _ _.___
~ ~ ~
MINUI$S, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Oct'ober 7, 1968 4163
CONDITIONpL;USE - Mr,. Paul Jackinsen, 1404 West'Laster Avenue, appearesl before t3~e
•PHRMIT~~NO.•~1050 Commission, noting that he was not a resident%of the area but his
(Continued). . son attended Adelaide Price School`in this area and his wife had•
to drive the child:to school and pick him up on a daily basis;:that
: he was also.-a memliei of.the Y Indiarr Guides and planned to use this:
faciTity at the intersection of Loara and North Streets upon its completion; that the
proposed size.of units on,the lot:seemed,to be overcrowding the property; that he.resided
in ttie.area~adjacent to Disneyland where there-were many epartments,,.and.develop~rs had
`claimed these would be very.attractive -.however,:ttiese apartments were now almost a
slum:erea in appearance, ~and the contention that the apartments proposed would be'luxury
apartments'could not be.maintained-if the rent4~ere too high~ they would lower the.price
in rental in order to pay for the construction; and that wlien hi s son was; old enough to
be able.to!go the YMOA on his own, he did not wish ta subject him to'any of the-traffic
hazards •that would occur if a development of this'type were approved.
Mr. Knisely, in rebuttal, stated that the last opposition who spoke bore out the snle
issue.of ttie opposition - that the quality of the merchandise should be considered by
the Commission, and since the Commission had seen the plans before them, they would ~note
the type of construction would not create a slum area.
Mr. Knisely then reviewed the various waivers which could be complied with if the Commis-
sion so desired, and the only onesthe owner-developer wished to have considered would be
the height within 150 feet of R-1 and the density. Furthtrmore, the proposed development,
. if Code were met except for the two items indicated, would reduce the number to 290 units
over the 230 permitted - however, if ~ubterranean paxking were taken out, as well as some
of the green area, this would reduce the'number of units to 260~ and the proposal as
presented to the Commission would be a tremendous asset to the City - thezefore, the
developer was desirous of developing in accordance with the plans.
Mr. Knisely further noted for the Commission, in response to questioning, that the three-
story proposal at the north and east, if developed, would only encompass a,.very small
portion.
Commissionei Rowland noted that he did not feel the Cortvnission was desirous of turning
the public hearing into a work session, and if the petitioner were desirous of a further
continuance.to submit revised plans in accordance with the waivers,proposed to be'deleted,
it would be 'done.
Mr. Knisely stated that he was".desirous'of having the Commission make a decision at this
public hearing.
Commissioner Camp.noted that in the statements of.• eliminating the various waivers, the
agent,for the petitioner had already reduced the coverage to'260 - therefore, if the
developer would acquiesce to just one main waiver, the complex could be developed under
the R-3 Code reguirements.
Mr. Knisely noted that when a deveToper was ready and willing to build something of real
quality_and caliber, then the Commission would be aware of what would be developed on
the property.
Commissioner Herbst noted the petitioner was proposing three stories within 150 feet
_ of a single-family zone, and since he had been a member of the Commission, the Commission
had never deviated from this requirement, and to approve sub3ect petition would open up
the entire City to anyone asking for waiver of the height restriction; that no hardship
~• `had been proven by the,petitioner or his agent, and the size of the parcel was adequate
~ to construct in accordance with the R-3 2one without requesting the waivers.
,, ,
Mr.;Knisely noted that the proposed developers wanted to build in accordance with the
plans because they felt this would be the best for the area, and because of the construc-
tion costs, it`was necessary to have three stories. -
Qommissioner Herbst further noted that the City of Anaheim had certain requirements
which were to be met'in a specific zone, and'waivers were only granted if a hardship
had been proven; however, two-story apartments within 150 feet of.R-A had not been
granted, and if the petitioner complied with that requirement, then development could '
in all likelihood'occur in accordance with the R-3 Zone.
'Commissioner Rowland noted that the Commissian'had two basic issues before them - a
matter of density and height; therefore, any further discussion would be irrelevant.
THE HBARING WAS CLOSED.
~
? 5 5 xt /,~~
~ ".h/ "rr. .'O v VT rci.~.Y^ 4 ~ ~1. 2 1 ~ y,~ .1~~ A .. p~
.~ ~'~
a
~~~ . ~ J :~f. ~f ~r~'. . ' _`~: il ~.i
~ , ~ `
.J
t~
_
, .
.
hY
~~
~
~
~
. ~ ~~ ~ O
MT.NUTES,:CITY PLlWNING COMMISSION;`October 7, 1968 4164
GONDITIONpL USE - Zoning.Superyisor~Ronald Thompson;noted for'the'Commission that as a
PERMI?,NO: 1050 point ~f clarification~ the'R=3 Code permits a.maximum height~of tw
o
,
•(Continued) . storiesiplus;tfie roof structure~w}iich had:`been adopted iri March, 1965
a
,
nd prior to that time, two stories or•:35'.,feet had been;permitted'- •
• - therefo_ce, the`statement~made by the agent for the petitioner xelative
to a difference of two,feet in the:,height>was.not relevant because
this was
not
p
.
:
,a;
art of
..,
the~Anaheim.Municipal:Code,:and th'ree-stoiy construction was what the:petitioner was
re uestin a waiver for 'since only two-story constiuctio
'
q g
it
, w
n was
perm
ted;.rather than
consideration of 35,feet.:
The Commission,noted'that three=story"construction would work,a hardship on streets and
, public-facilities since the'Report to th
Com
is
i
h
e
m
s
on
ad.indicated•.that an'additional
3,300 automobile trips could be.generated:by this proposal, and i`n the opinion of';the
'
Traffic Hnginrer,
the existing street'system would not'.be adequate to handle the:traffic
flow since the surroundin
us
s
i
l
in
g.
,
e
nc
ud
g subject proposal,:would be capable,of generat-
ing over 10,000 trips a day on North Street which was designed to handle on1y,8,000 tiips;
that the traffic problem might-well be further
c ~~~
'.'~
compli
ated by-the fact that the'petitioner
was proposing only two-thirds of the totel parking required by the planned residential
~~
development resolution; and three-fourths:of'the covered
Therefore the y 9 Parking rCquired in the R-3 Zone.
, primar issue confrontin the,Commission was that of land use and wh
th
' ~~
r.~
e
er
an
apartment complex of this density was appropriate for this area in which.public facili-
ties were not capable of handling such a d
it
i ,
''~~
'
~
ens
y w
thout having a deleterious effect on
the environment of the existing neighborhood. -~
:":;~;
Commissioner Farano expressed concern that the Commission had been confronted with this
petition since the latter
part of July
and after th
titi
n
' ';~
~,~
~"#
'
p
~
e.; e
o
er:had asked for several
continuances to revise plans, thest revised plans did not reflect any change from the ~
r,,,-
:~~
waivers originally requested; that if the petitioner could develop the property with the
waivers just proposed to be deleted, then the revised plans should have rrflected thi ,
~
s
rather than asking that the Commission, without being able to review plans which reflected
these changes, grant favoiable'conside
ti
~'~
n
ra
on at this hearing; that the waiver of the one-
story height limitation within 150 feet of R-1 h
d ~
a
no justification presented, nor was a
hardship proven;that the onl hardshi
Y p presented was the desire to'pack.moie on the property
than could be justified b
Cod
d n
thi ~a
rz~
,,
y
e, an
o
ng else to substantiate this density. Further-
more, Gommissioner Herbst had stated very aptly that subject property could be
developed'
ith ~~
~'
.
w
an apartment compleM.that would be as luxurious as;proposed and sti11 be developed
within the Code requirements':because of the size°
of the parcel:
n ~~~
'~
~
.
Commissioner Rowland 'noted that the opportunity to get a first-class development in an
ar
s ,
~~~
~~~
ea on
ubject proporty was far outweighed by the fact that the property already was
zoned R-3, which to his estimation was a mistak
t
ta
t
it
a ~ `~~~w
'~
~i
e
o s
r
w
h; th
t the area was nCver
intended to handle a traffic load of people and publib facilities needed under th
z r
~`~~:
e
one
approved for subject property,'and any increase.in density.under any device was a serious
planning mistake which was on
of the b
sic
m ;
~~~ti":~
e
a
ele
ents °the Commission had to consider;
that a variance was granted only where a hardship could be proven, whereas the size and
h
o ,~`.i~
"tri
s
ape
f the parcel under consideration was adequate to comply with Code requirements as
other R-3 developments in the City; that North St
t ':~j~
~
ree
would never be able to handle the
amount of traffic.development of subject property under the R-3 requirements would project,
and the only R-3 in the area w
m
l
u :':
=;
"''i
ere very s
a
l
nits; and, furthCrmore, any change in density
to allow two-story within 150 feet of the R-O to the south would be working a tremendous
burden on the people who had invest
d co
id
b '";~
'"
~'1
,
e
ns
era
le money in these homes. ?~
'
i, ~,
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No, pC68-306 and moved for its passage and
adoption, seconded by Commission
r Fa
ano
t
e
r
,
o deny Petition:-for Conditional Use Permit
{, No. 1050 cn'the basis that although the property was,~oned for R-3,..multiple-family
i residential l
d
t
' `~~
'!;
an
use,
o
permit development of the property::with the densit
; would create an undue herdshi on Y Proposed
4 p public facilities and on;North St ~~~~
a~;
reet which had not
~ been designed i:o handle the proposed increase in,traffic; that the proposed use would
adversely affect the single-famil
ho
fr
i
' ;~'
~~~~ k
~~~
y
mes
ont
ng
on North:Street and."the adjoining
land uses and the growth~and development of the area in which`it was pro
os
d t
l
b ;ta~
:'~~~
p
e
o
e
ocated,• that-the size and shape of the site proposed..for the:vse was edequate to allow
the full development of the
property within the'confines of;.the densit
r
ui
it
t ~
r=t~'
~
y
eq
s
remen
s and
e development standar~_ of the R-3 Zone; thet the agent for the petitionex. indicated
that they would redesign the
d
t ,,~%;
{;~,1;
-
evelopmen
to comply with a11~R-3 Zone-requirements except
the one-story height limitation.within 150'feet of R-l or R:O:-zoned pro
erty; th
sto
t
h
~ i".
i
'~;
p
ry
wo-
e.
eight limitation and the density -: however, historically the City had not granted
waiver;of the one-story height limitation based on the•:fact :that
th ;
I°~"'
,
ey were,.desirous of
preserving the residential integrity and the privacy of:a low-:density residentiel area~
and if this density requirem
t we
han
i '
I
en
re c
ged, it would upsetsthe balance of the public
facilities and the people living in this area; that the waiver.°of the one-story height
limitation adjacent to si
le ~''f'
ng
-family zoning would set an undesirable precedent for the
~~s,;:
; r.
. . . . . . .
' ~ . . . . . . ~ ~ ~ . . . ' ~ . . .
,
~ '
~
~ .,., F;
~~~rljn
i
L
I
. .
.
.
, , ~ . . ~ ~ ~ ' . . : ~.
1 r~.a4,
~ ~i„
'
'
_.
.~-~ _ -_ _ _ _ 4
r .
.
/ .
~a~r7;,~,