Minutes-PC 1968/12/16~ ~a;?G _ ~ . : ..'.A_',~'sS, t~ 2 ~r;'~. li, , i a.. :., i ,y .'f~:1': 'E .T- .~,.c. C ~iR r~,~^"Ai.'.. i~:: ! :."X'i l ~" C'::, h 1 .:1
~-
1
i ~ . ~ .. .~~--~'^y"~
" ' ~..~ ~. ~ .: . . ~ ~~, Q ~~ ~ ~~• '._ . . ' ~ ~
_ City Hall
: Anaheim, California
December 16, 1968
A REGULAR MEETING OF THE.ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called
to order by Chairman ATlred at 2:00 o'clock P.M., a quorum being
present. .
k~ PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Allred.
„
- COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland.
ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: None.
PRESENT - Assistant City Attorney: John Dawson
City Engineer Representative: Jay Titus
Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompson
Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Pat Brown
Plannin9 Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs
PLEDGE OF
ALIEGIANCE - Commissioner Mungall led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
APPROVAL OF - The Minutes of the meeting of November 18, 1968 were approved as
THE MINUTE~ submitted on motion by Commissioner Camp, seconded by Commissioner
Gauer, and MOTION CARRIED.: The Minutes of the meeting of December 2,
1968 were approved as submitted on motion by Commissioner Gauer,
seconded by Commissioner Mungall, and MOTION CARRIED.
VARIANCE N0. 2037 - PUBLIC HEARING. FREDRICKS DEVHLOPMENT CORPORATION, 524 West
Commonwealth Avenue, Fullerton, California, Owner; requesting
WAIVER OF PERMITTED USPS TO ALLOW A RETAIL TIRE. BATTERY AND
ACCESSORY STORE on property described as~ An °L" shaped parcel of approximately 9.0
`acres of land generally located north and east of the service station located at the
northeast corner of State College Boule4ard and La Palma Avenue and having approximate
fronteges of 460 feet on the east side of State College Boulevard and 520 :f eet on the
north side of La Palma Avenue. Property presently classified G 1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL,
ZONE.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, noting ~
that it was propased to be located immediately to the south of the existing structures
in the shopping center; that apartments were located to the south of La Palma Avenue, ~.,
with a vacant 5-acre parcel to the east and single-family homes beyond the 5-acre parcel; !
that the petitioner submitted plans to establish a Goodyear tire, battery and auto acces-
sory store of approximately 7,000 squa.re feet with a design and motif to be compatible j
with the existing Spanish-style shop~ing center and would conform with all site develop- ~
ment standards of the C-1 Zone regarding parking, landscaping, setbacks, etc. Further-
more, the petitioner had indicated all vehicular servicing would be conducted totally `
within the building; that the 1968 Preliminary General Plan indicates this area as being ~
appropriate for commercial shopping center uses; that although the proposed development
is somewhat segregated from a major portion of the shopping center, the Commission would
have to determine whether it was appropriate since an operation of this nature was con-
sidered a heavier commercial use than would be permitted by right only in the G2 and
C-3 Zones; and that in the summer of 1968, the Commission and Council approved a variance
for a similar use for the Firestone Company on the south side of Lincoln Avenue,adjacent ~!
to the Lin-Brook Hardware facility, based on the reasan that the uses in the immediate ;,
area, namely,the Lin-Brook Hardware facility, Standard Brands paint store and an auto
accessory shop, were heavier than normal general commercial uses, and that the tire and
bettery facility would not be detrimental to the area - however, the uses established in
the shopping center were of the very light,commercial type uses permitted.
Mr. Al1en McGinnis of Coldwell Banker Company, representing the petitioner as well as
{ the Goodyear I'ire Company, appeared before the Commission and stated he was desirous '
~ of commenting on several facets of the proposed development, which miaht clarify the
proposed use: namely, that the Qroposed facility ~.was~a'qeighboQtiood`ioriented service
business dealing in new merchandise and conducted under the roof of a structure; that
tires were the main commodity sold, but other retail merchandise, such as televisions,
high-fi's, washers, dryers, kitchen items, etc., were also sold in this structure;
4256
, :..
,.
- .~....._......._..._._...r_.~_._ _._.__._... , , _ _ --.._...._..___~._~_._...._....w..~.~...~,.~.~.,.. - -- ........ ~_....._ ;,,- \~
~ i - - ~ _ _.,_ . ,T't
. ' ,~
. <~ ~ ~ ~ ~:
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 16, 1968 42g7 =
, ; ,.
VARIANCE N0. 2037 - that they had found the C-1 throughout California indi~ated the pro- %
(Continued) posed use would be compatible on the basis that they oriented the
use .to a neighborhood shopping center because customers were drawn ;j ~~:
to this facility from a radius of one-half mile; that they recognized , a
that ordinances of various cities could hot be drawn to permit potential uses which might `::;~
arise; and that the types of uses proposed were not permitted in the City of Anaheim G1 ;;'';:~
Zone. ...
Mr. McGinnis further noted that most general merchandise stores, such as the Broadway,
May Company, and. Sears Roebuck had their own tire, battery and aocessory operations in
the shopping center; that they felt the proposal would allow for the orderly development
and completion of this particular shopping center; that there was ro Goodyear tire
i~'~a facility as proposed in the City of Anaheim, except on Brookhurst Street; and that this
`;:, would be a company-owned and operated store. .
The Commission inquired as to the method of tire display; whereupon Mr. McGinnis stated
that the lessees would comply with Code requireme~nts.
The Commission further inquired whether the tenants of the existing shopping center had
been apprised of the proposal, and whether or not they had expressed any approval or
disapproval of the proposed type of use.
Mr. McGinnis noted this would be a factor to consider und~r any opposition; however, the
proposed use would allow for a broader use of the shopping center.
The Commission expressed concern relative to orientation of a portion of the bays to the
shopping certer and inquired the reasoning behind the proposal and why all six bays
cou7d not be oriented toward the alley easterly of the structure since open doors with
repair work on automobiles was not compatible with the esthetics of the shopping center.
Furthermore, the City h,~d required a number of service stations to orient their service
bays to the rear because this was one of the prime objections to this type of facility
in a very desirable shopping center.
Mr. McGinnis noted that it was a national policy of the Goodyear Company to orient the
service bays to the center in order to apprise potential customers of the type of service
they offeredc
I'he Commission then noted that the average motorist was fully aware of the type of service
the Goodyear Company offered, and the orientation of the service bays to the parking area
of a shopping center would have little effect on the potential customer of their service.
Mr. Don Severa, architect for the proposed project, appeared before the Commission and
noted that originally they had been contacted relative to placing all six bays oriented
toward the parking lot; however, the Fredricks Development Company were not receptive
to this type of operation, and if subject petition were approved, specific conditions
should be made relative to outdoor display, neainess of the service bays, etc., since
they were now proposing three to be facing the alley and three to be facing the shopping
center.
The Commission also noted that the proposed use might be incompatible to this type of
shopping center, and if it were an absolute necessity to orient the bays to the center,
then additional precautions should be taken to maintain the esthetics of this type of
shopping center.
Chairman All•red noted that if the six bays were oriented toward the east, rather than
as proposed, it would still serve the ~rpose of the servicing of the automobiles, and
inquii,d why this type of orientation was proposed.
Mr. McGinnis noted that from his experience in the State of California where the Goodyear
Company were unable to obtain the proper orientation of the bays, since they must be the
one to determine whet their services and r~eeds were, they had not placed their operation
in that shopping center; that one of the criterias was to have the store a success, and
it was felt it was necessary to have a portion of these bays oriented toward the shopping
center in order to assure the success of an operation. Furthermore, this particular unit
would be capable of generating $8,000 to $10,000 a year in tax; however, if the Commis-
sion were to require orientation toward the alley to the east, this would placing an
inhibitor to the operation and might be a crippling factor to the operation from the
start.
I'he Commission then inquired what was proposed for servicing of the automobiles besides
changing tires; whereupon Mr. McGinnis noted that anything related to an automobile in
the servicing business would be performed, and this would be a typical type of tire,
battery and accessory service store, with 50~ of the sales in tires, 25% in appliance
_ _......_..__..~_....._.___. __..
._. .~, .. .,_. .. _~
n va y ~+c ~". _ ~ . ...•-? n , .: ~ti. -~'u~~;,'11 ~*f h T`"P.~~7ny,7'"r1 _-~;~..~F" : ~ ~. r° :~. T~ :':[
ykr. ... .,. s. . , ,. . .. i . . " ~' ...; ; ..'i
..,.. _. . . . n. .. .. .
~.
;. . . " ".~._~._. .. . .:...... .. '~~~~,
... . . . ~.. . ~.. , . . .~..: ~. ; :. , .
.,. . .-~... . .. ~. ~.. .. .....,, . ~.., . '~~~
~ ~) (,~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 16, 1968 4258
VARIANCE N0. 2037 - sales, and the balance then would be up to the individual m~nager
(Continued) of the store as to whether or not he would be interested in the
sales.of accessories or additional tires.
No one appeared in opposition to sub3ect petition'.
TFiE,:HEARING WAS CLOSED. „
i _
Commissioner Farano inquired whether or not the Commission was changiny their philosophy
as to service bays opening up to a street; whereupon CommissionersHerbst and Allred
noted that many of the service stations recently-built and under construction were
orienting their service bays to the rear or to the side, and an example was the ane
~ at Tustin end Lincoln Avenues in the east Anaheim area - however, the orientation of
the bays for the p roposed Goodyear store should not be considered to be oriented toward
La Palma Avenue or to the shopping center.
Commissioner Camp noted that a 4-acre parcel of land located easterly of this shopping
center might develop for residential purposes, and to orient the service bays to any
potential residential use might create a similar problem as to orient them to the
shopping center.
Further discussion was then held by the Commission relative to the orientation of the
service bays, and it was determined that the private alley and a 6-foot masonry wall
already existed to the east of the alley - which served as a form of a buffer to any
residential uses that might be developed on the vacant parcel to the east. Furthermore,
this type of facility would rot be open 24 hours a day, such as many service stations
were.
~ommissioner Camp noted that the Commission in the past had not had requests for this
type of facility in shopping centers, such as the Broadway Shopping Center and the
East Anaheim Shopping Center; therefore, he questioned the reasoning behind the Commis-
sion requiring the orientation of the bays away from the shopping center.
Cv~mmissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-359 and moved for its passage and adop-
tion, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to grant Petit;on for Variance No. 2037, provided,
however, that all service bay areas were oriented to the alley to the east, on the basis
that due to the nature and intensity of the proposed operation and its relationship to
the possible traffic conflicts and hazards to the shopping center since other commercial
faci2tties were enclosed, the orientztion of the bays to the east was necessary to
retaYn the harmonious esthetics of the existing shopping center and minimize the poten-
tial pedestrian and vehicular conflicts at the ingress and egress of the shoppi~ng center,
and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMTSSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
Commissioner Camp left the Council Chamber at 2:25 P.M.
RECLASSIFICATION - PIJBLIC HEARING. RICHARD WILLIAM HENNING, 2861 East Lincoln Avenue,
N0. 68-69-55 Anaheim, California, Owner; DOWNEY SAVINGS g LOAN ASSOCIATION,
13910 Pioneer Boulevard, Norwalk, California, Agent; requesting
TENTATIVE MAP OF that property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of approxi-
TRACT N0. 6820 mately 8.7 acres of land having a frontage of approximately 540 feet
on the north side of Lincoln Avenue and a maximum depth of approxi-
mately 755 feet, the westerly boundary of said parcel being approxi-
mately 800 feet east of the centerline of Rio Vista Street, be reclassified from the
R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY AND R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL,
ZONES. ,
TENTATIVE TRACT REQUESI': DEVELOPER: DOWNEY SAVINGS 8 LOAN ASSOCIATION, 13910 Pioneer
Boulevard, Norwalk, California. ENGINEER: Anacal Engineerinq
Company, 222 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California;
proposing to subdivide an 8.7 acre parcel into 9 R-1 zoned
and 39 R-2-5000 zoned lots.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property and the
uses established in close proximity, noting that in June, 1968, the City Council denied
a sezoning request to R-3 for subject property, and in July, 1968, had approved General ~
Plan Amendment No. 97, Exhibit "A", which indicated medium density residential land uses ~;''
. ~ ~ . ~ . . r.........
. . ~ . . . . . ~. '...
.. . . . . .. _ _.. _. . . __._._. ... . . . .
~ `. . ~ . . .__.y~: ... •
r..+ r'y. .'q' "~~"".': i:^ScY~.~N?'~.~ii Z'L'^A'CT.:iC..y .~., .~•.F ~K.J.• T ~ '~~/''
~
~ . ., ~.~ . ~ . . . ~. . . ~ . .
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 16, 1968
4259
RECLASSIFICATION - extending easterly from the shopping center to low-medium density
N0. 68-69-55 reside'ntial land uses and R-1 single-family homes immediately
ad3acent to the R-1 homes already in existence easterly of subject
TEN?ATIVE Mpp pg property; therefore, the proposal of nine R-1 zoned lots, namely
TRACT N0. 68~0 Lot Nos. 36 through 44,-were in conformance with the General Plan
(Continued) amendment exhibit,'and the proposed street system would connect
with.the street system of tentative tracts already approved for
the property located northerly of subject property.
Mr. Calvin_Queyrel, engineer, appeared before the Commission and noted that the glans
were in conformance with the General Plan amendment, and the representative of the
builder, Mr. Robert Mungran of Downey Savinqs 8 Loan Association was in the audience
in the event the Commission was desirous of asking any questions since ~nis was their
~`. first tract being developed in the City of Anaheim.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC68-360 and moved for its passage and adop-
tion, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for
Reclassification iVo. 68-69-55 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Nerbst, Mungall, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp.
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 6820,
se~onded by Ca.,,missioner Mungall, and MOTION CARRIED, subject to the following conditions:
1. 7hat should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each
subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval.
2. That the approval of Tentative Map of ?ract No. 6820 is granted subject to
the approval of Reclassification No. 68-69-55.
3. That Street "A" shall be named Alice Way and Streets "B" and "C" shall be
named Barbara Way.
4. That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wall be con-
structed on the south ~soperty line separating Lot Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 45
through 48, and Lincoln Avenue. Reasonable landscaping, including irri9ation
facilities, shall be installed in the uncemented portion of the arterial
highway parkway the full distance of said wall, plans for said landscaping
to be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Superintendent of
Parkway Maintenance. Following installation and acceptance, the City of
Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping.
5. That the vehicular access rights,except at street and~or alley openings to
Lincoln Avenue, shall be dedf.cated to the City of Anaheim.
6. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities.
7. That Street "B" shall be improved as a 40-foot roadway within a 60-foot
right-of-v~ay.
8. That Street "C" shall align with "E" S~reet in adjacent Tentative Tract
No. 6647.
9. That drainage shall be discharged in a manner which is satisfactory to
the City Engineer.
_.._._.- -t'' :
_. , . . .__. ~ .... ~ .,.
_ ,. ,. _ ..<. . _ :.
i~~ ~~ ~,, : ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December~l6, 1968 4260
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL,
N0. 68-69-48 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing that property
described as: An "L" shaped parcel of land iocated north and east
of the northeast corner of Euclid Street and Orangewood Avenue,
having a frontage of approximately 167 feet on Orangewood Avenue and a frontage of
approximetely 220 feet on Euclid Street, be reclassified from the C-1, GENERAL COMMER-
CIAL, ZONE to`the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
Subject petition was eontinued from the meeting of December 2, 1968, at the request
of the property owner and developer to allow time for cleaning up of the property, since
the 8-foot'masonry wall was already completed.
Mr. A1 Fishman, 363 South Main Street, Orange, appeared before the Commission and noted
that the requirements of the City Council in order to retain the C-1 zoning had been
completed - namely, the construction of the 8-foot masonry viall with a decorative topping
and complete clean-up of the lot had been made, and, therefore, he would be available to
answer questions if the Commission so desired to question him.
The Commission noted that they had made a field inspection of the property and found all
requirements had been completed.
~ Mr. Fishman noted he had one further item to discuss relative to subject property, that
being the plan to place "no tresspassing" signs and "no dumping" signs on the property
, in the hope that this would discourage further dumping of dirt and debris on the property;
that the Commission must be aware of the fact that they had attempted to establish a
small market, similar to the 7-11 Market, on the property as the key store of this
shopping center - however, because an off-sale liquor license had been turned down
by the A.B.C. Board on the basis that the adjoining homeowners had objected, they
were unable to pursue this facet of development of the shopping center for approxima~tely
a year in order to reapply, and if further opposition were placed before the A.B.C. by
the adjoining property owners, he was not sure when development would take place.
Mr. Dick Rowan, 2057 Lido Lane, appeared before the Commission, noting he was one
of the adjoining property owners and was of the opinion none of the adjoining property
owners had placed any obstacles in the way of developing of this shopping center; that
he had planned to come in and thank the owner of the property for cleaning up and
constructing the wall - however, he was unhappy to hear the adjoining property owners
were being accused of hindering any development on the property, but he wanted to
assure the Commission that his only interest in appearing before the Commfssion was
to note that the owner of the property had indicated they would maintain the property
in a clean and orderly manner, and that he planned to construct the shopping center
as he had indicated in plans approved two and one-half years ago. However, he wished
to assure the property owner no objection would be made to off-sale liquor - that they
were only desirous of having the shopping center developed and completed in accordance
with plans and statements made two and one-half years ago by the petitioner.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald I'hompson noted for the Commission that since the petitioner
had met the conditions required by the City Council, the need for reclassification of
the property to the R-A Zone was no longer necessary; therefore, the Commission might
wish to recommend to the City Counc•ll that subject petition be withdrawn or terminated.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that Petition for
Reclassification No. 68-69-48 b~e withdrawn or terminated on the basis that the property
owner had met the requirements of construction of the 8-foot masonry wall and general
cleaning up of the property as required by the City Council. Commissioner Mungall
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised interested persons that subject petition
might appear on the Council agenda for their review, and if they concurred with the
Commission's recommendation, this would not be set for public hearing.
_....
!
~
-----~ _-__ _ : .. ____ . _... .._ ____..~_.,......,_,.~.c..~_-_____ _ j
,...: _;\ , .. ~„-. - _ _ _ . . ..:. _ _
' - Y . .V'~. '~
k,'~'d~?xi4~'~~4'~'t~.~' a „ arm-~~ ~. a~1~; r~'~.~.;<~.'~ :x~~r~~,~~ .. '~,^.
Y 3• • ~4. .+~~...c1 ..Y.i.'
~_ ~ ~~~.:~, .::~ , `; , ' '.'. :":' . '
¢
~ ~qµ
~1 ~ ~~ t~f' ~,. O ~ . .
A ~.. '~~: ~~... ~ ~ ~ , . ~ . .
~ MINUI'ES, , CITY P1;ANNING COMMISSION, Decembex 16, `1968 _ 42b1 ~
~ ' RECLASSIFICATION _`= CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. INCENTII/E AID FOUNDATION,:c~o Marshall
' N0: 68=69-49 . McDan'iels,'3350-;Wilshire;Boulevard,:;Room'310, Los Angeles, California,
" Ownei; ANN`;MADISON, 60Q SoutH Harbor'Boulevard, Anaheim, California,
a TENTATIVE MAP OF ` Agent; property.described as:'.IYwo parcels of`lend comprising a total
~ TRACT. NOS.;6812 ~- of approximetely 32.8.acres located generally north and'.east of East
~ •AND;;6824,..REVISION Street and-Ball,Road,;end•further.described as Parcel No. 1- An "L" "
, ~: ,.
~ •- N0. 1•.AND~6825 shaped parcel of,approximately-21.4`a'cres, taving a#rontage of
~ ~ ' '' : approximately 490 feet on the east side~of'East:'Stieet and a maximum
~ dept6 of`approximately.1,300::feet, the southerly boundary of said`
~ , paicel being approzima.tely.300`feet north of`the centerline of.Ba11 Road, and Parcel
~ No: 2- An irregula~rly'shaped'parcel of approximately 11.4 acres, heving a frontage of
approximately 569~.feet on the east si'de of'East Street and a maximum depth of approximately
871 feet; th~ southerly boundary'of said parcel being approximately 200 feet north of the
centerline of Ba11 Road. Property~presently classified M-ly LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE.
i! REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY, ZONE (PARCEL N0. 1) AND
~t. R-3,.MULTIPI.E-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE (PARCEL N0. 2)
TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: C. MICHAEL, Ir~C:, 8501 B~~lsa Avenue, Midway City,
California. ENGINEER: R,3ab 8, Boyer Engineering Company,
14482 Beach Boulevard, Suite I, Westmi,nster, California.
Tract No. 6812, Revision No. 1, c am~rised of approximately
21 acres, proposes subdivieion into 109 R-2-5000 zoned lots.
Tract No. 6824, Revision Nci. 1, comprised of approximately
12.3 acres, proposes subdivision into one R-3 zoned lot.
Tract No. 6825, comprised of approximately 6.6 acres,
pioposes subdivision into 10 M-1 zoned lots.
Subject petition and tracts were continued from the meeting of December 2, 1968, in order
to allow time for the engineer to submit revised tracts which would eliminate havin9
single-family"lots abutting the industrial property and placing R-3 zoning ior the property
abutting the M-1.
Commissioner Rowland left the Council Chamber at 2:36 P.M.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the reason for continuance of subject
petition and tracts and noted that the reyised tentative tracts`now indicated R-3 zoning
abuttin9 a11 M-1 property;to the south, and;that, the R-2-5000 tract had been reduced from
115 lots to 109 lots.' Furthermore, the Planning Commission had secommended adoption of
General Plan Amendment No. 91, Exhibit "C", to the City Council, which indicated indus-
trial land uses along the Ball Road frontage, transitioning from medium density as a
buffer zone to low-medium density residential land uses in the northerly portion of
subject property abutting the R-1 to the north of subject property. Furthermore, it
was noted by Mr. Brown that the majority of the proposed lots would have 60-foot widths
and approximately 5400-square foot areas which would compare favorably with the R-1
tract to the north and east, where many lots were 60 feet in width and lot areas varied
from 6000 square feet up.
Mrs. Ann Madison, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commissior. and noted
that subject petition and tracts were thoroughly reviewed at the previous public hearing,
and it was hoped the revised tentative tracts met with the approval, of the Commission.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THE HEARING WA5 CL05ED.
Commissioner Farano offered'Resolution No. PC68-361 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for
Reclassification No. 68-69-49 be approved, subject to conditions. (See F;esolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed.6y the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall.
NOES:. COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT:' COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Rowland.
Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 6~.'12,
Revision No. l, seconded by Commissioner Farano and MOTION CARRIED (Commissione:s Camp
,and Rowland being absent), subject to the following conditions:
1. That should'tHis-subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each
subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval.
` -_.. --.__. _ ...,:._. . _..----_._.__._..
~-~ t~ -•4:':' ~ . ,_
_ _ _ ,,:..
f1: ~ Q ~
MTNUTES, CTTY PLANNING COMMISSIG'A, Decemtier 16, 1968 4262
RECLASSIFICATION - 2. That the approval of Tentative Map of.Tract No. 6812, Revision
N0: 68-69=49 I~.•: .l~ is granted sub3ect'to the approval of Reclassification
n tx., ,.~3=-59-49.
TENl'ATIVE; MpP OF
TRACT NOS: 6812 ~~, ~,a~t ~4 :s~is "A", "B",,"C", "D" and "E" shall be named Clifpark
'AND 6824, ..RHVISION s~,; ,, ~;."a a F:~~
N0: 1.'AND 6825- Fxxk Circle, Dover Circle, Avocado Way and King Circle.
(Continued)' . ~„ i,~;. ~,~,; fa~;~~ance with:City,Council policy, a 6-foot iresonry
~~a ~t~?~;,i be constructed on the west property line` i~epara'ting
Loi Nos: 1, 2, 3, 4, 106, 107, 108 and 109 and- East Stieet.
- Reasona~le landscaping; including 3rrigation faciliti~=s, shall be
installed in the uncemented portion of the arterial highway parkway the full distance
of said'wall: plans for`said landsceping to be submitted to and subject to the
approval.of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Following installation and
acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of
seid landscaping.
5. That the vehicular access rights, except at street and~or alley openings to East
Street from Lot Nos. 4, 106, 107, lO8 and 109 shall be dedicated to the City of
Anaheim.
6. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities.
7. That access t6 McCloud Street shall be acquired prior to approval of Tract No. 6812,
Revision No. 1, by the City Council.
8. That drainage shall be discharged in e~~nner which is satisfactory to the City
Enoi~aer.
Commist~i~~ner Mungall offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 6824,
Revision No. 1, seconded by Commissioner Farano, and MOTION CARRIED (CommissionerE
Camp and Rowland being absent), subject to the following conditions:
1. That should:this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each
subdivision thereof shall' be submitted in tentative form for approval.
2. That :the approval of ?entative Map of Tract No. 6824, Revision No. 1, is granted
subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 68-69-49.
3. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities.
4. That a 6-foot erasonry wall shall be constructed along the northerly and easterly
lines of Lot No. 1.
5. That,drainage shall be discharged in a manner which is satisfa~iory to the City
Engi'neer.
Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 6625,
seconded by Commissioner Farano and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Camp and Rowland being
absent), subject to the following conditions:
1. That should this subdivision be developed as r~ore than one subdivision, each
-subdivision thereof shell be submitted in tentative form for approval.
2. That a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed along the northerly line of
Lot Nos. l through 10.
3. That tempcrary sidewalk waiver be granted along Ball Road, subject to the
conditios~ that no,permanent planting or permanent type improvements be permitted
within the area reserved for the future sidewalk.
4. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities.
~ Commissioner Camp returned to the Council Chamber at 2:38 P.M.
~
i
'
r';
~ . .. . . T.,'
~ . . . . . . ~ . . :.;
~ . . . ~ . ,. . . . . ':
f ~i
~ ~~
,h F.ib+h . ''
-y y ~ 5 5,. r 4 ..;~ j ~~ r ~.,r.,¢ :W~
A:.~ ~7 ~' '~, i~ ' 1. „~ lZ" .L i
'A ~ f
4':
~ ~
~f' "~ ~ ~~ ~ j'C I~+L^S~ ~ ~'Rt4":'
r l I~ 7 v' F - '~ ,yY f z"~ I- r
'1
.
;t
,
:
. . . .,
~ ~ ~ ' -- ~j
.
. .
. - --
. . . . . , . . . .
- . ~. . ~ u>
;-~
/~
~ ~ . . . . ~ ~ r~Y . ~ . ~ ~ `~,~/ ,A .
MINUTES, CTTY PLpNNING COMMISSION, December 16
1968
,
4263
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. PAUL W. KNqEBEL, ET AL, 503 South Shields Drive,
PEZMIT N0.=1079 Anaheim, California, Owners; DAN L. ROWLAND 8 ASSOCIATES ~
``
, 1000 West
La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permtssion
to ESTABLISH AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING MOTEL
~ '
, WITH WAIVERS OF (1)
MINIMUAI FRONT YARD, (2) MqXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT, AND (3) MINIMUM SIDE YqRD on
ro
de
t
ib
p
per
y
scr
ed as: A rectangularly shaped parcel.of land having a frontage of approximately
138 feet on the east side of Beach Boule
a
d
~'°
v
r
and a depth of approximately 238 feet, and
being located approximately 520 feet north of the centerline of Ora
°'
nge Avenue, and
further,described as 420 South Beach Boulevard. Property presently classified R-A,
AGRICULTURAL, ZONH. ,
-°.';;'~
;„
„~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of sub ect
request to permit the expansion
f
n
r
d `~t~
o
a
existing 14=unit motel by the addition
of ll
units
and the waivers from the requirements of the R-A site development standa
d `~'~
r
s, as well as
previous zoning action on the property.
Mr. Brown further noted that although the General Plan indicated highway related commer-
cial uses along this portio
f B
n o
each Boulevard, sub~ect property was still zoned R-A,
and, consequently, would be required to develop in conformance with the site d
l
t
d
s
eve
an
opment
ards; however, if the property were zoned for commercial uses, the waiver of the
setback of the trash enclosure w
ld
ou
not be required, nor would a setback waiver from
the property line to the north be required; and that the plans
t
presen
ed indicated three
access drives to the property, but the Interdepartmental Committee determined one or a
maximum ~f two 30-foot drive
h
l
s s
ou
d be planned for subject property. ''`
Mr. Paul Knaebel, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted the recommended
conditions:~ that they would agree to the nor
l ~N;,<::
~'
ma
street improvements and sidewalks, but
the drainage required for the frontage of the property would be prohibitive
i
s
nce drainage
would be coming from all properties to the north as well as the street and would create a
hardship in developing the propert
that C
d
y;
on
ition No. 2, for street lights, had been
paid as indicated on the receipt No. 285, dated October 10, 1963, at the time the re
ment u
ui
-
d
V
q
re
n
er
ariance No. 1529 for a lot split was considered; that a 6-foot masonry wall
already existed along the east property line
e
t f
,
xcep
or the portion adjacent to the pool
where the wa1L was only 5~ feet; and that all other conditions would be compli
d
•
e
with,
:particulerly the reduction in the number of access drives to subject'propeit 'x'~
y.
rhe Commission inquired whether or not the petitioner was of the opinion that the drainage
problem for his property was a County or City problem. s r„
~~~;
r
,i,
,~
Mr. Knaebel noted that due to the fact he was not around the property most of the time,
throu9h second-hand information f
hi r-'
rom
s wife, who had overheaid the representatives of
the State and the City of Anaheim discussing the drainage
roblem
th '-;1
~
~
p
,
ey had agreed it
would be very difficult to handle the drainage problem at this time for the frontage of
subject property since onl .,t~
:r,
y a portion of the street was pavEd, and the weter drained
from over three blocks past subject property; that a"ho
back"
i ~
~:::,,'.+;
g
ex
sted on the property
to the south, and before any drainage could be ~
provided this obstacle would have to be
removed. Therefore, as a result of thi
l
~~
'„x
s, a
+ernate drainage might be required of him to
provide for drainage of over 1000 feet nortnerly of his
r
t
'~
p
oper
y. ;,;;
The Commission then inquired whether the petitioner would be willing to post a bond to
insure the proper street improvem
t
t ~
en
s a
the time the State determined it was riecessary
to take care of the balance of Beach Boulevard.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that one of:the recommended
conditions was the
osti
f r ~;
,d;
p
ng o
a bond for the street improvements, which included the
drainage facility, and this bond could be posted u
til
uc
~K.
'~'~
n
s
h time as all
participated in the street draina e property owners
g problem or the State and City decided ~o do sometning
about it. Furthermore,'Conditio ;,
:
4~
n No. 9 required approval the number, location, and width
of vehicular access drives subject to'the approval of the City Engi
eer
E
in
t
e .
,~
`'{
n
, s
ce
h
Traffic
ngineer felt no more than two access drives should be permitted'from subject propert
~ . ~. . . ~ ~ j
~
``~~
y.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. ' ~ I G\.
;~;'~;~
'`
TfiE HEARING WAS CLOSED: ~ ;
; ~~
,
+1
; 4,,.
The Commission inquired as to the type of apartment units proposed since one of the units
indicated 3t was an apartment ty
e and w
ld
'
} ; ~~,
'~
p
ou
accommodate
a family. ,,,;
~
Mr. Knaebel noted that one of the units would be for the manager of the apartments and
the other would be rented out a
a
t ',
~~
s
mo
el suite rather than a long-term apartment.
~ ~~`
'
. . . . . . . . .. .. .. . .. . . . . .
~
~
~
~ ;>;
:r,'~
.
~
. . ,
.. ~ . .
.
,. . , , .
.. . ~~ '~
uir~,
. . .. ~ , ~ .. . ~, ~ ~ . , . ~
~.~„ ~ s . m .p . ~ , . ~ . . ~ ~ . .. ~ ~ . ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ 1 ;~rt,~'•
~~,,;i~
F ... ;-. . .. '. . • ~ _.. . .. _ ~~.:-n: -. . ,~.... ~ ... .,.. ..~.. : f`~ .. .... ... .:.: . . : ' . : -
. .. . .. _
~..~...~.-._. . .. . -' .~"~~.'1 ~ :` ..~~r'
.:,.j.'
.' ~ ~ . '. ~ : . . . . ~ ~ '
MINqTES, CITY PLANNINC~ COMMISSION, December 16, 1968 -
l"':
4
4264 :f.~
CONDITIONAL;USE - Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson noted for the Commission that since
PERMIT N0
1079
p ~''~
.
a
artments were required to have a minimum of 700 square feet, the
(Continued) only unit that could be developed a
h w "~'~
~,
s suc
ould be the manager's unit
to be able to consider:them:as regular apartments, and that the City
Co ?
t'`
uncil had indicated any kitchen facilities should provide a two-
burner:stove without:oven, and that.the Commissiorr would ha
t :i~~
`
ve
o determine whether or
not this type of efficiency kitchen unit:should'be permitted. `G
x;
,
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC58-362 and moved:for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Cam
to
t Pe '~
p,
gran
tition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1079,
subject'to the recommended conditions. (See Resolution Book) ~
•:•s
E~" On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~~
::~
~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ;~
,,:,F
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland.
` ~~
``
VARIANCE N0. 036 - PUBLIC HEARING. LAWRENCE R. AND DOROTHY HOGAN, 1355 Hacienda ' ;3
Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting WAIVER OF MINIMUM
REQUIRED REAR YARD, TO PERMIT A ROOM ADDITION TO AN EXISTING
RE ~
SIDENCE on property descrfbed as: A rectangularly shaped lot havin9 a frontage of
approximately 90 feet on the w
t
id
es
s
e of Hacienda Street and a maximum depth of approxi-
mately 105 feet, the northerly boundary of said lot being approximately 370 feet south of
the centerline of Chalet Ave
~?F:'
nue, and further described as 1355 Hacienda Street. Property
presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. '
`r.'`.g'
Commissioner Rowland returned to the Council Chamber at 2:50 P.M. `,`
Assis~ant Zoning Supervisor Aat Brown reviewed the location of subject property and the
uses established in close proximity, noting that the petitioner proposed a 12 b
17 ',~;^
y
-foot
bedroom to the rear of the exis+.ing four-bedroom, single-family structure now consisting
of 2480, square feet in order to provide auffi
i ,;;~
;~
c
ent bedroom space fo:r:a family of;nine;
that the existing structure was set back 20'feet from the re~r p
pro ert li
h ~~i~'
"''
y
ne -
owever,,
with the;propoaed addition, this,.would be reduced to an 8-.foot setback; and that the
petitioner had 3ndicated that due to th
si i!~~~
,~'~~.
e
ze of the lot and the:arrangement of the
existing structure, together with'the swimmin
g pool, he was unable to construct th
`"`
~~
e
proposed addition on any othei location of the lot. _ .;
:
Mr. Larr Ho an the
Y 9~ petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that the pro-
posed addition had been discussed with th
b
d ~4^
'~
~
e
uil
ers as to alternate locations, and after
considerable study,,the,proposed location"was the only one feasibl
n ,
e, a
d that he had
discussed the proposed addition with ad3oinin
g property owners and none had i
di
t
~
n
cated
any objection to this encroachment to the property line. ,~
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. ''c
THE I-IEARING WAS CLOSED. ~
;~
Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC68-363 and moved for its passage and adop-
tion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst t ~~
1
~
o
, grant Petition for Variance No. 2036, subject
to condttions. (See Resolution Eook) - "
;!;;;~
On roll call the '>oregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
.' .: . ~ ~, .. .
. . ' .
. ' i ;;,~
W
.
. .
. . .
AYES: COMMISSIONERSe Allred, Camp, Farano,'Gauer, Herbst, Mungall; Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. y
t~i 511
~`~~1
~
+;
ABSENI': COMMISSIONERSo None. ' :~,
4 , ~,~e
t i'
r
~
RECLASSI=ICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. EVERETT AND GRACE KOONTZ, 414 North Placentia
;NO. 68-69-53 Avenue, Placentia
Califor
i
, O ~
,~ 7i
~~,y
us
,
n
a
wners; PERCY H. GOODWIN COMPANY,
P.-:0. Box 3446, Anaheim, Celifornia, Agent; property described
CONDITIONAL USE
s
' ^
_;;~,:
~`
a
: An irregularly shaped parcel of.'a
PERMIT NO. 1078 fiavin a;fronta e of a PProximately .6 acres of land
9 9 pproximately 201 feet on the south side of
`
~ ~f
~~
:,~'
- Lincoln Avenue
and a maximum depth of approximately 135 feet
the ~'~~
,
easterly.boundary of said percel bein a
of the centerline of Broadview Street. Pro ert 9' PProximately 335 feet west
P Y PTesently classifi
d R
A
ZO "-"~
;,
e
-
NE.
, pGRICULTURAL, '.<<~'
'
~?
,
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, 20NE. :
;: ~,,
;•-,-'"
?`~`?'~
Ar~,
~.;
.rti~r:
`' -
~_ - . ~ . . ~1 ;*iF
i~i.., .. .
~. s#s ~ a~ ,~j ~' ~ 1 F c ~•. t s, ° 1 l ,~ k , ~'ff ~~ , ~4 ~ y~ '-'~!~`~.i~°~ ~"~~~ "~~'".¢~"~f!` `t~"~+,
r [ f ,~ a ( ~ • ~ . ~ 'k ~y .'kj e '' S y.l ~: k r ,y,.
~ Y;:W ~.y _ ~ :'~,~:t~ { F~" hq( a~.z 7~:; t:
},~ -, . , ~ . . . . , .. . . . ~•N;.
,~ ~~ ~ . ~ . ~ . .. .. . ~ . . ~
~ T~ t ~ . . . ~ . . ~ . . ~ . . ~ ~ ~ r'~
~' 4
~k. Q ~~ ~ ~ ^
9 • `~
~,~`~~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 16, 1968 4265
~r~ ~ ., ~
~~,a RECLASSIFICATION - REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A WALK-UP RESTAURANT WITH ~F~
~~~ ,. N0. 68-69-53 WAIVERS OF (1) LOCqTION OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN AND (2) TREF.
~• SCREEN ALONG A ZONE BOUNDARY.
ti CONDITIONAL USE
~ PERMIT-N0. 1078 Assistant Zoning Supervisor~Pat Brown reviewed the location
~t`~ (Continued) sub'ect ro ert the of :`
~- J P P Y~ proposed use and;uses established in close ~
~~. proximity,~and the Report to the Commission, emphasizing the fact `~
~?, ~ that the petitioner.proposed to establish a 2112-square foot, '
~„ walk-up restaurant with parking in accordance with Code; that the petitioner stipulated
~'` ` 4o a 6-foot rtesonry wall along the east, south and west property lines, together with
,'~ tree screen landscaping on 20-foot centers along the east and south Esoperty lines -
,~., however, a waiver of the tree screening requirement had been requested along the west ''
~ ~.
property line since the property had a resolution of intent to G1; that the cul-de-sac
~. portion of sub~ect property located i,n the southeast corner was proposed to be land- '~}
~~: scaped, and a 6-foot masonr wall installed with in offset pedestrian accessway to `~
~' the property, but no vehicu2ar access would be permitted to Echo Place; that the General `{~
'i Plan indicated this general area for low density residential uses - however, with the .t'~
~ ?j pending C-1 zoning on the northerly portion of the parcel to the west, and the general '',;„
> ~ nature of development along Lincoln Avenue some t
~' c; , ype of light commercial use would be `;~
1 appropriate for subject property - therefore the Planning Commission would have to `'i`
~o determine whether the proposed use, a walk-up restaurant, was appropriate or whether ~
y it could prove to be detrimental to the adjacent single-family homes to the eabt and ~
c,'~~ south considering the inherent problems associated with such a development - such as ~
5;;~;:r, noise, odors, lights, hours of operation, etc., since uses of this intensity often have 4~'~
~,~~z proven to be best iocated within a shopping center where other commercial buildings ~'~.~
~r< < could act as a buf.et between such a use and the residential neighborhood; and that as "'`
~~~< a re5ult of the proximity of the single-family tract to subject property, a lighter
~",a~ commercial use, such as commercial-professional offices, might be more appropriate to `s~
~k,tt' the surrounding area. Furthermore, if the Planning Commission considered subject `=;'.~
~'''~' ~ petition favorabl g p
\`'x`~y .,:::;• f
i~F y, consideration might be given to recommendin to the etitioner
that the parking layout in the easterly portion ^,` ~ubject property be redesigned to '-~!~
?~{~'~ conform with that shown for the westerl
y portio.~ • this would provide additional park-
+~~ ing spaces, more landscapi~g, and a more functional circulation and parking.pattern;,and `'~
"""- that there was no valid reason to conaider a
~'";r
pY'roval of'the location of a free-standing a„~,
si n si
; LincodnnAvetuerfrontea front setback plentinc, erea in the central portion of the `~
' ge wherein the sign.could be legally constructed. u1tli
~ ; ~~~~i
Mr. Harry Jobe, representing Percy Goodwin Company and the owners a ~'~~
~,~~~ ~' Commission and noted that sub'ect ~ ppeared before the ;'e~
, i ] property was a very targe, unsubdivided parcel.front- ''~~?
~~r~,. ing'on Lincoln Avenue, a State highway carrying 30,000 vehicles per day; that subject ` ~i„V,k
~~?Y property was opposite of the Muller Street signalized intersection; that subject property ~~-~
~~~~y had nothing tn common with the adjoining residential lots because the property fronted ~'';~
4~;~;~ on Lincoln Avenue rather than on a residential street; that similar property to the west ~~~~;i
~"~,,~: ` was rather large and had been a ~
pproved for commercial zoning for the front portion and r.~~i
in almost in a direct line with the southerly boundary of sub~ect property; and that ''~;i
~i~~ with the commercial developments immediately across the street and along Lincoln Avenue, ,;r4~
i~j,~" the proposed reclassification and use would be more appropriate. Furthermore, the owners ,~,,
~a,:~~ had investigated other walk-up restaurants in the City of Anaheim and had found no j'1
;~~~~ problems in this type of enterprise - therefore, for all these reasons the owners hoped `~fi
i~ the Commission would consider sub'ect ,;~~~~
J petitionsfavorably since the property had remained ~i
;~ undeveloped for a number of years. ,,r~
~.~,~ Mr. Frank Karcher, Vice President of Karcher Enter rises a ;,~,u
~• and presented a miniature model of the new ro osedpt ' ppeared before the Commission ;~
"~~~,~~ property, notin that the p p YPe restaurant planned for subject ,
~~`' 9 y proposed to have a considerable amount of hrick and a large i`'~~~'
amount of landscaping both around:the building end spread throughout,the property; that ;fs`i
there were two ma3or improvements from past buildings ttiey had erected - one being the ~.",`~~
;:u~~'
exterior of the building would be more compatible to most residential areas; that they ~~k(ti~
had built a simiiar one in another city adjacent to single-family homes, and the owners .:;~4~"~
had presented no opposition to it; that the i~~4,,
y planned to have a dining area, seating 65 ,;~
people, and this was ' somewhat like a small coffee shop with booths, chairs, carpeting, r~"~,A~
etc., which would add to the,compatibility of #he use; that the ratio for the new type II~~'
of service hed changed considerably since formerly they were knowq primarily for take-out. ''''~~
service instead of sit-down dining - however, this ratio had now changed to 75% sit-down
and 25% take-out food; that there would be ro problem to relocating the sign toward the ~'``~~
center.rather than'at the property line;,that it had been his assumption that the enclosed i~~~~
building was:only 1648 square feet, whereas the staff report indicated 2112'square feet, '!,,'y~
' and perhaps the,calculation included the aprons on the front °~~
portion of the building; } .~~4;~
~ that the possibility that the proposed use might be detrimental to the adjacent'homes ~.,,j~
to the east and south - it was hoped would not be true since it was expected to receive ~ ,a;~
~ ~~ half of,the business from these residents, and, there'fore, this Kes a,desire to'be ~ ~
~ closer.to residentiel uses, and the pedestrian walkway would also'give residents of "'~~
~ the homes to the south an o '_1~~,
pportunity to walk to the restaurant; that noises from
i',;~~
~ ~ A~
~~s~,
~ ;.~~ ~ 3x. 3'~,~, 1{::. ...f~~1(~~'^f x4F ~. .,. r 4tti-a,~^, F+. a xatt nJ y^q u.r~ :. . .. „f.
., ~ r l~ ~ a .w'~ ~, ~ - I /r . .; ..
~ :f 4'~4 ~ . :. ~~ -t,4~~~v 'Y"1 ~l~e,.~,3~~ l~L~v~~n~"u~ ~.~ ~ ~i 1d~' Ir~ro;~'~+4 ~ !s a;~~+`~ rA~',~~Rr4p~i y~ ~~~'~iFt~~'
r .. . ~ .~ '~:~. .'~~ ~~w~~'~`r~s~'~EF~~'~l~~f,~i~x~~~~^f..Mr ~~~, ~ ` a eY~, x 4 ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ R'~ ..
+:Y~ 4n~ii'~G df9~^ iex: .. ~~ r'~r~.Yi,o.~,~k.a~,~ .ar'~ril:~ia~:y~[Y.t~r~n_,.~~i~.r.._.~iw,.~~ __ ' ,.rna! :.e5`; ~ yT~.;~a ,.~~'~'.~
rm- . r,e~z 4s 345uF Y.>"+~SA vNr':~C^tCWC".e~`~'!2' .~~:g,rrR*~ts} ":.Fk,?.'G6.''y~p `~~?.'y ~~.~L~'a~`~'ii ,~ h~~~~
_ .f~,.+.R...ru~I ~ ..9± J ~i` .a,.•- .
_
• . ... ~ .' 2.~ ~ ''~i+~it ~ I ',~
k.._
,
• MINUTtS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December T6; 1968 4266 ~ '-'
ReCI:ASSIFICATION. -'vehicles have always been prevalent with any.commercial opera,tion;
N0. 68-69-53 that it vas hoped'the o~or
s :emitting from,;the proposed`restaurant
~ would be pTeasant; thex,eby enticing more people to eat at the
CONDITIONA
~
", -'.
I
L ISE
restaurant; that the trash areas would be'completey'_enclosed _
PERMIT N0. 1078 within the:building so that odois w
ld
t 4.,
ou
.no
be.emanating from
(Continued) any trash b'eing'stored, that adequate;lighting was.needed'for a
~ ~,~
`Fi
.
resteurant;operation in'ordei to reduce any
rowdyism of youngsters `{"'
.
- coming to purchase';food for take out,:that the hours,of opera tion.
would be until 11400 or i2 OO o'clock at nig}it, and in.other areas where:"the had i~ ;~
"'
similar facilities, they had never received any`serious complaints relative
to their '
.
operation;,t hat they patrolled their.parking:lot and-the,l'ots were alwayc kept in a`
neat'and orderly manner, and i,n'order'ta d~.scourage any
~'eenage
pTOblems,
t
s ~
~
.
.
s
ep
.are
usuall y teken to require.police to ~q'uell~any,'type,of disturbance; that the reason'
for,not project'ing park`ing along the easterl
o
io _
y p
rt
n of the property and presenting
a different:type of circulation was because it was.anticipeted to-constTUet a fish '
and chip.operation along the,easterly property line, and'if'this project were finalized,
then an, additional petition w
uld b
u
t
o
e s
bmit
ed for that particular use; that it was
felt the westerly drive would 6e in a direct'line-with Mu11er Street a
d
r
i
'
n
p
ov
de
for
access to the property for customers driving westerly. on Lincoln Avenue; that the re-
quirement of yehicular dedication on Echo Place would 'meet with their approvai -
however, the recommended 6-foot down-lighted area
w
ld
o
s
ou
n
t be conducive to maintaining
a properiy patrolled parking area, and in other.operations they have been permitted to
have 10-foot high lights.which were shielded f
m
s
ro
the re
idential uses;.and that he
would be happy to discuss en alternate layout with the staff if the Commis
ion
s
so
desired.
The'Commission expressed concern relative to the proposal of a pedestrian access into
Echo Piace, primarily a residential ar
a
in
e
, s
ce.this might become a nuisance to the
adjoining,single-family homeowners with persons using this'cul-de-sac to park cars
b
e
,
yp
ssing the patrolled parking area of the restaurant and;ge~erally disrupting the
residential character of th
a
e
-
o
e
r
a
theref
re, no pedestrian access'should be permitfed
in.order to isolate the residential ises'from the commercial use:
~ Mr.~Karcher,~~~noted ~that'the pedestria m accessway would allow;',the~children'.,the o~~ '~~
, ~ , ~ ~ pportuni ;.y
to ri'de ~t~ieir bicycies to the'restaurant for:'take-out
d
r ~
~ ,~
or
e
s, rather than havirig~to go
: along; Linco.ln Avenue. ` ' ` ~
;. , ~ ', ~ r;°;
~ i~ ;
~ Commissioner Gauer'noted that this mi ht be a' ` ~~
9 good idea; however, there were too many ?
~ other,problems involved whi
h
ou
c
w
ld offset this quality, and in,order~to minimize any `
undue disturbance,,to the nesidential character of the reighborhood
no acc
N
,
ess s
ould
be permitted regardless of pedestriari:or vehicuid•r,.and.the`wa1l,sHouid`be con'~~ructed
o
e'
~
j
.
acr
ss th
entire Echo Place frontage: - `;
~
Mr. Karcher then noted that if the Commission and the residents of the area were desir-
ous of complete separation of th
m 'ti
e com
2rcial and the residential use, he would not
object to the dedication of both vehicular and pedestrian access rights to Echo Pl
c
a
e
by the constiuction of a masonry wall.
',~
:
~
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson noted for the Commission that:if the Karcher Enter=
i ,}
1,~:
r
ses were proposing in the future to construct a
rise t fish and ch'ip,take-out faciJity on
the easterly property line, he wished to a
h
th ,'~,
;:;;
"~
pp
em
ey would-be required to have
e 2-foot setback #or each'foot of'building height adjecent to tHe single-family home
;
t ;~"
s
o the east; therefore, there might be a parking problem in the event this occurred t~;
Mr. Karcher noted they were well aware of the 2:1 setback of a building and wouid make `
` provisio
i !~
~'
ns eccord
ngly. ,
The Commission then.inquired what size building would
be permitted on the•`easterl r
t;,
4~
,
y
~ portion of subject property and what additional parking would be necessary. ~i'!,
'
~
Mr. 7hompson stated,that Mr. Karcher had indicated their calculations were in error,
and if this were so the
~ parking requirements:for th ~
!
}~~
%4'
',
e proposed structure'would be
reduced by approximately .ten; however, he would have to inquire the
reasoning of'the '
`,*'E
.
zoning repiesentatives as`,to their difference in calculation.
~~ ,~~' ~ ' ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `
~~
Commissioner Farano noted that this was a covered area and perhaps this was why it
was considered - because it was a protection froz
us~om
' fs
,,
~
c
,.
ers.; ,
;i,.
: Mr. Karcher noted that the overhang was'to provide protection for people from the weather i1'~
Mr. ?hompson then inquired'whether outdoor eating was:proposed for this area; whereupon
'Mr. Karcher stated there would be some
~and th
M
. T
~ ,',+~
,
en
r
hompaon stated this was`the
reason for the difference in the square footage calculation, and the,calculations of
~
~,'i'~
;,~,
i:;
i~;
, it"~~'~!
L' ~ '~r r°~~' K' 4 t+ '~~` c ~~~~"~ ~ t~~ ~ r~' ru'r~,~
~'6 «s
~ ~~ ' S~' } ~, '~',"'C~~ "'ts~,;~ ~~ ~`,„~ ~ j s ~s'~zy~. r ~,+~°~ ~
~
fAR. 3
S-F .~! ~~'U~~,.i~ l..iY.'~~ ~ ~~
'
'~, ~
. . ~ -- _
~
k
~i .
. .
~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ . . . .
~ '~ F~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
`
:~
~~
~
MINUTES, CITY-PLANNING COMMISSION, December 16, 1968
- 4267 , '
RECLASSIFICATION - the ~taff were correct as to size oF structure and number of parking
N0. 68-69-53 spa~es re
i
d
qu
re
.
4,
; CONDITIONAL USE Commissioner Rowland then noted that the size of the proposed fish
PERMIT N0. 1078 and chip structure would be cor
sid
bl '~~
'
' .
era
y limited in size; that the
(Continued) spirit of the ordinance was to rovide
king
P
~
p
r
~ •`
'
rather than things, and if this
cieated
a
problem
hen
the
fish
- and chip structure would have to be located elsewhere. 3~
Mr. Karcher then noted that if this became a problem, the building would not be constructed
and.the parking would be developed in accordance with the su
estio
d
~, :
4~
~
gg
ns rtn
e by the staff.
Mr. James Chavos, 1903 Embassy Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposit2on and
noted that his home was directl
behi
d t
h ~~"
y
n
o t
e south of subject property; that the
request made by Karcher Enterprises, to establ~sh a walk-up restaurant in close proximit
to si
l
-f
i ;~
y
ng
e
am
ly homes, was indicative that the proposed operators had not thoroughly
researched circulation problems as th
'
``~
~
ey pertained to sub
ect
that.the development would be oriented to traffi
Y
e
s
f
t `
;
~ c east bound because
of
the
fact that
no
left turns were permitted at Muller Street
that h !
~ ;
e was opposed to any type of develop-
ment which would ,~eopardize his and his neighbors rights, althouqh he was not o
osed
t f
'
~ pp
o the owners realizing a reasonable profit for their property so long as adjoining
property owners were not monetarily affected; that an example of what
d
ht `
~
; rt
g
occur as
to intrusion of lights could be noted on the lot where CHristmas trees were now bei '
~ ng
sold and flood lights were on all night long, and a very elderly lady was being subjected
to these lights shining into her room
that th `'
~
~ ;
e petitioner had owned the parcel on which
subject and the adjoining single-family homes are now constructed - however
they had
ld ~~
~
(
~ ,
so
the property for a profit and retained a portion of the property and had assured
all the property owners in 1957 that the
l ~`'~
~ parce
would be developed with a$50,000 home;
that the representative of the realtor indicated thi '`;';~
s was not a part of the subdivison,
but statements made at the time of the subdivision of the property and to prospective
h ~''
`f~
purc
asers of these single-family homes was indicative that it would be a part of the
subdivision, and the fact that a cul-de-sac bord
d th ,.
'~
ere
e southeast portion of the property
wae further evidence that if subject property were to be developed for commercial :~
~'~
„
purposes,
access to the cul-de-sac should not be permitted since this would basically affect the
residential environment of the home
l ~
~ s a
ong this cul-de-sac street•
property ,to the.west of sub'ect , that at the time the
' - ,7 property had been recommended for rezoning to C-1
the
i
l
f
mi „~
t
~
~ ,
s
ng
e-
a
ly homeowners had compromised on the rezoning by insisting upon having a
, more competible R-1 lot split of the south
ly
r ~„
i~
~ er
po
tion, and the Planning Commission and
City~Council had upheld the request of the homeowners in this area by denying incom
atibl ~;w
;
`
p
e
uses of tnis property; that it was,ironical to be
sub'ect protesting a walk-up restaurant on
~ property when the owner of th
e ~
~
r,
,'~a
~
' e prop
rty to the ~st had threatened the homeowners
who objected to the untidy manner of rteintaining the property to the west; thet there
r
=
~ '`?
r;~;
we
e other compa.tible C
1 uses that could be considered for subject property, thereby
retaining the type of development now ,;y
I occurring along Lincoln Avenue; that there were
a number of restaurants already located within a two to three block area
f :;
~ o
subject
property - therefore, the use would be superfluous; and that he, therefore, recommended
that the Commission maintain the conti
it ;
'"
nu
y of development on Lincoln Avenue,which had
been compatible with the adjoining reside
tial ~~
4
n
uses,by denying subject petition for a
walk-up restaurant. ':+
:;i;
Mr. Chavos, in response to Commission questioning, stated that he was desirous of having
the Commission determine whether or not the 4
'
`
use proposed for subject property would be
compatible, although he was quite aware of the number of incompatible C-l uses th
t "
n~+
a
would be permitted on the property-due to the type of circulation,and the fact that the
frontage was oriented taward eastbound traff y
ic only would limit the types of commercial
uses for subject property. i~~
, „ti
Mrs. Ed Nelson, lll Echo Place, a
ppeared before the Commission in opposition and noted
that her property.ebutted subject pro
ert
d h ' ~
' `
~~
!
p
y an
er driveway.was being used by automobiles,
bicycles and motorcycles as a shortcut,from Lincoln Avenue'and from the tem
r '~
pora
y vses of
the prir,~erty in the past,_with many of.her plants and shrubbery being destroyed because
of carelessness of people:leavin
bj
r I:;~~
g su
ect p
operty; that she was desirous of having sub-
.iect property deVeloped, but a walk-up restaurant
would not b
com
b
~
,
e a
pati
le use in close
proximity to residential,homes; ~that she had resided in Anaheim alI her life and had
n
`
- ,
~~~,
ever
seen a'walk
up restaurant'permttted in such close proximity; that there-were many
snack,shops in cloae:proximity on Lincoln Avenue
Br
kh
rs ,!;
,
oo
u
t and Euclid where people
could stop for take-out food; that the proposed use would be within 4~- feet from her
bedroom, kitchen and bath, and she was unalterabl
op
o
d t
t '"~
~~
y:
p
se
o
he restaurant for this
property due to the fact that restaurants of this type were notorious for teenege hang-
outs;.that she was also opposed to an
use of E
h
P ~
'~
y
c
o
lace from subject property regard-
less of the type of commercial use permitted sinc= her privacy would be invaded a
d
s , s
`"~
n
unde
ixable persons might gain access to a residential street where smell children played,
and where mischievous youngsters could damage tires of automobile
a
k
d o "~J
~i
s p
r
e
n the cul-
de-sac or in'the drivewaye; and that she urged the Commission to require dedication ;'
,v
i
.A.. ~' . . . .. ~ . . . ... ~ ~
r ~'rzlJl~i I~ r~~~~ ~ ~ ~ . . t
~y,,
ar:4
, t`Y't
. i.. . ..i'~ 4 ' .~-3 . h ~ C ~ .. ' ~ ,f ~ f :.
": f'~ ~r. ,"~ _
. L~ ~~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 16, 1968 4268
RECLASSIFICATION - of all access rights to Echo Place.
N0. 68-69-53
Mrs. Florence Tevlin, 106 Echo Place, appeared before the Commission
CONDITIONAL USE in opposition and roted that she was opposed to permitting access to
PERMIT N0. 1078 Echo Place due to the fact that many youngsters lived in this area,
(Continued) and if the access were permitted from subject property, this would
_ encourage mischievous young people as well as other andesirable
people to invade an otherwise quiet, residential area and recommended
that the Commission deny the proposed walk-up restaurant.
Mr. Karcher, in rebuttal, stated he would stipulate to pro~~iding lighting which would be
compatible, arid he would be happy to work with the staff to assure that the floodlights
` would not reflect into the windows of the residences;,that they always tried to have the
lights face away-from the residences and had a similar facility at 605 West Lincoln
Avenue which was adjacent to residential uses; that regardino the statement made that
the petitioners had promised to constructed a$50,000 home - they were planning a
$65,000 building and Karcher Enterprises were only leasing the property; that because
of the size of the lot, they had faced most of the convenient parking toward the build-
~ in9 rather than toward the outer borders of the property; that the proposed structure
would be approximately 55 feet from the rear property line, and only employee parking
~ would be permitted adjacent to the wall along the south property line, thereby eliminat-
ing continually moving vehicles which would be starting and stopping, thereby annoying
the residences to the south; that 91 feet existed from the oroposed structure and the
property line to the east; that everyone agreed the property was potential C-1 property;
that it was his opinion that in their previous operations in the City, they have always
attempted to maintain a clean and orderly premise and t-~d always tried to cooperate
in reducing any problems involved with teenagers; that if the sin9le-family homeowners
were opposed to the access to Echo Place, he would agree to dedication of accPss rights
and construction of the wall along that property line - however, the reason ror proposing
the opening was because they were family-oriented and thought perhaps a number of people
would be walking to this type of facility.
The Commission noted that an enclosed restaurant was a permitted use in the G1 Zone -
therefore, if the proposed lessee of the property and developer were desirous of having
a completely enclosed restaurant, this could be permitt~d.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that in order to assure the II
proposed restaurant would not be a walk-up type, no outside tebles would be permitted.
`The Commission further noted that Mr. Chevos had objected to many commercial uses in
this area, and although the Commission had agreed with the opposition relative to requir-
ing R-1,facing Embassy Street for the property to the west, subject property had many
temporary uses which were also objectionable and then inquired whether the opposition
was also opposed to an enclosed restaurant, provided the access to Echo Place was ~<
eliminated.
Mr. Chavos atated that he Kas opposed to any type of restaurant, whether walk-up or
enclosed, due to the lights, hours of operation, odors and general noises emanating
from this type of an operation; that he was also opposed to the untidiness and run down
appearance of vacant properties and abandoned buildings throughout the City of Anaheim
as.well as this area; and that the City of Anaheim was also the only city not requiring
maintenance of property - therefore, he recommended that the Commission assume the duty
and responsibility of initiating some type of requirement for this maintenance.
;.
Chairmen Allred advised Mr. Chavos that the Commission was not in a
mend the type of policy suggested by him since it was their problem onlyito~determinem
whether properties and requests for their use were proper land uses, and they would ~
turn over any 1ega1 problems regaiding maintenance of vacant properties to the property
depar.tment for their investi9ation. , ,
, i '
The Commission further noted that since subject property was potential G1, an enclosed ~'I
restaurant would be permitted by right on subject property, and there were many C-l uses ~~
permitted by right, and that during recent years the City Council hed discouraged placing !
deed restrictions orr property because of the uses permitted in various commercial zones -
the zoning should then be in accordance with the zone'which would be most appropriate.
Mr. Chavos noted 'thet when the property owners in the area had compromised and agreed
to commercial zoning for those properties fronting on Lincoln Avenue, it was with the
assurance that only compatible uses would be established - therefore, not only the' zoning
should be considered, but the uses proposed adjacent to R-1 which would be'primarily
a'ffected-by commercial uses should also be considered since any incompatible uses might
afford an advar,tage for the commercial property owner', but the,incompatibility would
destroy the integrity of ten to twelve homes in this,immediate area, and it'was hoped
;~~
a c~ ~ C~
' MINUTES, CITY.PLANNING COMMISSION, December 16,~1968 4269
RECI:ASSIFICATION - that this'should,'be taken into;consideration when uses were approved.
N0: 68-69=53 ' Furthermore, he was not;.'opposed to.certain,types of cortmercial uses,
but was opposed to noises, odors, and'hours"of operation of a
CONDITIONAL USE . restaurant: .
PERMIT N0:~.1078
:`(Continued) The Commission;then noted that a use permitted in the C-1 Zona could-
not:,be regulated`by the Coinmission;:whereupon Mr. Chavos stated
- that the`Commission was:i'nterpreting the r.egulations too literally
and, should take into consideration the effect the use might have orr the adjoining property.
Furthermore, that the~types of commercial uses that might be compatible were radio sales,
te,levision sales, offices,.and such light c.ommerciel uses.
~ Mrs:~Nelson a ain a
g ppeared before the Commission and noted the reason for.opposing a
restaurant was.not only the odors but the late hours,:and'since one of the bedrooms of
her home was adjoining subject property, she would be primarily affected by it, and
since her,driveway curved toward her home, no additional buffer could be provided, such
as a garage - therefore, the commercial use proposed for the adjoininq property should be
compatible.
The Commission further noted that if a regulation C-1 Zone structure were permitted, the
building would be approximately 20 feet from the property line, whereas the proposed
structure was to be 40 feet from the property 1ine.
Mrs. Nelson noted that a restaurant with a good reputation would not maintain late hours
such as a walk-up restaurant or a snack shop type restaurant and would be less detrimental
therefore.
Chairman Allred noted that from what he had seen of the Karcher Enterprise developments
throughout the City, they were one of t he cleanest of the commercial ventures.
Mrs. Nelson noted that exit from the property would be extremely difficult, and this was
noted by the various temporary uses being made of t he property, and since the use would
be more or less oriented to eastbound traffic, due to the fact that no left turn were
possible from the we:t~aansl traffic, there was a possibility a traffic problem would exist.
THE'HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Considerable di,scussion was then held by the . Commission rel,ative to the types of uses
tha+, would'~be appropriate for subject property, the proposed type of operation for the
property, and other uses that might be more detrimental; that the property was potential
Gl; and that the property to the west already had a resolution of intent to G1.
Mr. Thompson advised the Commission that the property to the west had e variance for
the southerly portion in order to permit a less than 70-foot wide, R-1 lot.
Commissioner Gauer was of the opinion that regardless of the use proposed for subject
property, access to Echo Place should-be dedicated and a wall placed there - that this
would include any temporary use of the property in the future.
, Commissioner ~owland noted that statemenf made by the opposition relative to the fact
~ that ro U-turn could be made at Muller Street wasfact since no left turn pocket was
provided, and the police were giving on an average of l00 tickets a day for people making
a U-turn at this light because of ti~e traffic coming from,Fed-Mart, having no means of
' getting into the eastUound lanes - therefore, subject property would have some difficulty
~ in bein9 able to obtain customers from westbound traffic.
~ Office Engineer Jay Titus advised the Commission that Muller Street going southerly
~ was permitted to make a left hand turn into Lincoln Avenue; however, traffic going west
on Lincoln Avenue was not`permitted to make a'left turn or a U-turn because no left turn
•; pocket was provided. ' ;
`: Commissioner Rowland not'ed that'he had'discuased the'.traffic problem with the Traffic
Engineer relative to a 12-acre.parcel and had;;been advised that he thought it was highly
improbable;that the State would chan9e:?the s'ignalization°:for Mu11er Street and Lincoln
kvenue,to benefit,one paicel. -
Mr: Cha~os noted, to substantiate Commissioner Rowland's statement, that an officer'was
stationed each night at this traffic signal in order to direct traffic, and;many tickets
~ were,issued?at that time.;: Furthermore, Lin-Brook Hardware,was having'a difficult time
~ ha~ing their customers cross Lincoln Avenue to their parking lot, even though a left
~ turn pocket was designed''for that purpose.
;'
' . . ' .'=.-i-?-.+a~' i - ~
~_~ ' .:~ ~~. ~..! ~:. , ' ~ .~~. '~,• ~,./ . ~ ~ . . . ~ ~ .. i
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Decemb~r 16, 1968 4270 ~
_, . _
`RECLASSIFICATION - The Commission inquired whether or not the C-1 property to the west-
N0. 68-69-53 had deed restrictions-on it at the time reclassification wes approved;
- whereupon Mr. Thompson stated that no deed restrietions were placed
CONDITIONAL USE on the property, and the variance applied.only to the R-l portion.
PERMIT-N0. 1078
(Continued) Commissioner Farano then noted that since recTassification of the
property to the west was granted to G l without limitation, the
- Commission could not recommend limitations of the commercial uses
for subject property.
Commissioner Rowland noted that although the property to the west had a resolution of
intent to C-1, up until this time it had rot been developed, and this was approved in
1965.
Discussion was then held by the Commission relative to the possibility of establishing
certain restrictions on the types of commercial uses for subject property because of
the close proximity of the residential uses to the south and the continuous opposition
from the single-family homeowners since granting of a commercial zone could not be tied
into plans specifically.
Assistant City Attorney John Dawson advised the Commission that the only method of
establishing certain specific commercial uses was to require the filing of deed restric-
tions, and the City Council was averse to having deed restrictions on commercial properties.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-364 and moved for its passage and adop-
tion, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recommend ~o the City Council that Petition
for Reclassification No. 68-69-53 be approved, subject to construction of an 8-foot
masonry wall along tne south and east and southeast adjacent to Echo Place; that all
access rights to Echo Place be dedicated to the City of Anaheim; and that the wall
should be constructed prior to the reading of the ordinance. Furthermore, that the
proposed wall shall be constructed along the property line at Echo Place ratiner than
being set back, and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: ,COMMISSIONERSa Allred, Camp, Farano, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERSe Gauer. ;
ABSENT: ;COMMISSIONERS: None`.
Commissioners Camp, Farano'and Rowland indicated that voting for C-1 was based on the
fact.that there were a number of other C-l uses that would be permitted on subject
property, and since the°property to the west already had G1 zonipg approved, together.
with the fact'that a more restrictive zone, such as the C-O Zone, would ~e inappropriate
due to the fact that office structures on Lincoln Avenue were now having a difficult
time leasing`their suites, the proposed use would be more appropriate. Furthermore, the
8-foot wall should make any proposed-use of subject property more compat~ble since tha
G1 Zone required screen landscaping adjacent to the vall to act as a f;;rtner buffer. "
Commissibner Gauer noted his vote of "no" was based on the fact that the property to
the west, although,having a resolution of intent to C-l, had not developed ~,ince its
approval three and one-half years ago - therefore, any commercial zoning fo.r subject
property should not be predicated on the fact that ;he property to the west was approved
for G1.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC68-365 and moved for its passage and adop-
tion, seconded.by Commissioner Farano, to' deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit
No. 1078<on the basis that the proposed use would adversely affect the adjoining land `
uses and,create en undesirable living environment for the residents to:the east and
suuth; and that walk-up resteurants were more appropriete when located within a shopping
ceriter where adjacent:structures could act as buf,fers between the proposed use and.the '
adjoining residences due to the inherent problems associeted with walk-up restaurants, i',
such as noise, lights, hours of op^ration,;general<.meeting place for teenagers, etc:
(See Resolution ,Book) ~ ;
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mun,gall, Rowland.
NOES: ;CONWfISSIONERSe Allred. ,
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None:
Commissioner Allred in voting "no" stated he felt the use proposed ror the property would I;
be suitable and:would be no more intense than many of the other commercial uses permitted. ~'--^
`' r
i ,~ ~ ~
~
,~:. ,:,;.: ,
~~ ~ ~ ~
_ -.
MINUTES, CITY:PLANNING COMMISSION, December 16, 1958 4271
RECLASSIFICATION -;PUBLIC HHARING. CENTURY PROPERTIES, 2000 Westwood Boulevard,
NOs-68-69-54 '-Los Angeles, Celifornia, Owner; ROBERT ORR, 336 North Central
- Avenue, GTendale, California,"Agent; property described as: `
CONDITIQNAL I1SE A rectangularly shaped parcel of land havinq a frontage of approxi-
PERMIT'NU`. 1080 mately 97 feet on the east side of Stanton Avenue and a maximum
deptCv.of approximately 302 feet and being located approximately
1,230 feet north of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue. Property
presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: G1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CONDITIONAL llSE: PERMIT ON-SALE BEER AND WINE IN A PROPOSED RESTAURANT,
WITH WAIVER OF LOCATION OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property and the
uses establiahed in close proximity, noting that heavy commercial uses were established
in the City of Buena Park to the north, a trailer park on R-3 zoned property to the east,
vacant commercial property immediately to the south, and an art store, furniture store,
and the Akron department store adjacent to the vacant lot, with vacant property to the
west on w hich a mobile home park had been approved; that the petitioners were proposing
to construct an Amigos Restaurant similar to the one recently completed at State College
Boulevard and South Street and were requesting a permit for on-sale beer and wine under
the conditional use permit, said beer and wine to be served at tables with mealc, and
no bar had been proposed in the plot plan; that said plot plan also indicated i:hat park-
ing would exceed Co~e requirements by approximately 60%, and considerable landscaping
was proposed. However, the petitioner was proposing to erect a 30-foot high, free-
standing sign two feet from the south property line on the Beach Boulevard fronta9e,
and that the total display area for the sign would be just within Code limitations.
Mr. Brown further noted that the requested waiver from the sign provisions appazently
seemed unwarranted since there was no reason the sign could not be located near the
center of the Beach Boulevard frontage, and that approval of the waiver of the Sign
Ordinance would ~tablish a precedent for a similar request for the property to the
south; furthermore, the height of the sign was five feet higher than that permitted
due to the fact that it would be located within 300 feet of the mobile home park to
the east.
Mr. Bruno Pozzi, 2000 Westwood Boulevard, Los Angeles, appeared before the Commission,
noting he was an ofticial and one of the owners'of the property; that they had antic:-
pated the conditions of approval relative to engineering requirements and imorovements.
Mr. Robert Orr, the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and roted
that if the'Commission so desired, there would be no objection to constructing this
sign in accordance with the height limitation, although there would be no problem
relative to this setting a precedent for the property to the south since the owner of
subject property was also the owner of the property to the south, and the sign would
be similar to that already constructed on State College Boulevard - however, because ~;
of the proposed size and width of the building, the 30-foot height was deemed more ~
desirable because of the distance from Lincoln Avenue. However, if the Commission
were also desirous of requiring the sign to be located in the center of the property,
this could be done. ;;.
i
The Commission then noted that since the agent had indicated the sign waivers were ~
not precisely necessary, these waivers-could be withdrawn or denied by the Commission. ~
:;;
~ Mr. Orr noted that they were desirous of developin9 in accordance with the plans - 3
however, if the Commission were of the opinion signing should be in accordance with +;.
~ Code, they would comply with that. '
Commissioner Rowlahd'noted that if the si n waivers were ~`
g, permitted, the Commission would ~;
be establishing a hardship for the adjoining properties and could not deny a request for
waiver of the'Sign Ordinance'should it develop.' ;,.
,..;;
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions.
~ , ,.
THE I-IEARING WAS CLOSED.
'Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC68-366 and moved for its passage and
adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp; to recommend-to the City Council that Petition
for Reclassification No.`68-69-54 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resoluti~n
Book ) '
';;;
~~~ ~~ YYIMYpo~oY+llw+us+..~.. .~ , T. . . ~ ~ ~
~'!~l : ~~j
a. .:~ ,..,_. .,..~. ,. . __
_ .
, .;. . . . , .. .. . . . . ~...
..~: . ..~ .. ~-. ...~. ~.i~: . , '
~. .:.:~~. .,.. .. .,-. ''~:: ~~ . . ......_ ...,_ .
~'~k . ' ~ ~ ~~ . ' . ~~ ~ ~ ~~~. .. . _ . ' ..
MINUTES,'CITY•PLANNING COMMISSION, December 16, 1968 42~2
RECLASSIFICATION - On roll call the foregoin9 resolutiorr was passed by the following
N0. 68-69-54 vote:
CONDITIONAL USE AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Hexbst,
PERMIT'N0. 1080 Mungall, Rowland.
(Continued) NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT:. COMMISSIONERS: None.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC68-367 and moved for its passage and
adoption,;seconded by`Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Conditional Use
Permit No. 1080 for on-sale beer and wine only, denying the`request for waivers of the
Sign Ordinance on the basis that signin9 could be accomplished in accordance with Code
requirements as indicated by the petitioner. (See.Resolution.Book)
On roll call the foregoing iesolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: `COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISGION, 204 East
N0. 68-69-56 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing that property des-
cribed as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage `
of approximately 75 feet on the north side of Ball Road and a maximum ~
depth of approximately 150 feet, the westerly boundary of said parcel being approximately
195 feet east of the centerline of Sunkist Street, be ~eclassified from the COUNTY A1,
AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT to the G1, GENERAL COMMEFCIAL, ZONE.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property and the
reason for the Commission's initiation of the reclassification, noting that Commission
action on November 18, 1968, had approved commercial zon3ng for the property as recom- ~'~'•
mended in General Plan Amendment No. 110; however, the legal description of the property
had rot included subject property.
Mr.,Albert Tousseu, owner of the property, appeared before the Commission and indicated .~
he was available to answer questions, and that he was in favor of the proposed reclassi- ''
' fication.' ?G
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. `"
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC68-368 and moved for its passage and adop-
tion, aeconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for
Reclassification No. 68-69-56 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) ~'
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland.
NOESe ,COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. j `;
~ ...,
, ~
AMENDMENT TO THE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLpNNING COMMISSION,
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing an amendment
CODE to Chapter 18.16, Agricultural Zone, Section 18:16.030(4), to limif
the incidental sale of agricultural produce grown on the premises only.
Subject proposed amendment was continued fiom the'meeting of November 4, 1968, in order
to allow time for;the staff to assemble.additional information and to establish site
development'standards for this type of sale in the R-A Zone. ,'
, , -„
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the reason for continuance of subject ,;I
amendment and then reviewed the data compiled by the staff relative.to'similar operations
in other cities throughout Orange County which indicated'that produce grown on the premises ~
could be sold from a small stand as'a matter of right; however, special zoning permits
were required to be applied for and approved when an operator'desired to sell produce 1,
which was not grown on the premises, and the ordinances were so worded and construed so
as not to permit the more permanent,-year-around uae wherein a large percentaqe of the
produce was shipped in.
+`;
~~: a~--~--~ .
- ~ ~ .._.. _... ....:... ~ ~ .~~. ;~• T r "
_ , . .. . . : . .. .... _.,h .,. .. ~..~k ~ : ~::. . _ ' .~
~w . ~~ ~.~. ~ ~ . . . ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ' . .
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 16, 1968 4273
AIu1~NDMENT T0 THE .- A survey of the agricultural produce_stands in the Ci.ty of Anaheim
ANAHEIM MITNICIPAL indicated eleven were in operation some time during the year, and
CODE of the eleven stand:, seven sold onl the
y produce grown on the
(Continued) premises and were;open only for a short period during the year,
while the others seemed ±a be doing a substantial portion of their
business by selling prcduce which was grown outside of the city;
howeyer, one of these four, located at Katella Avenue and State Colle9e Boulevard, was
closed at the present time.
Mr. Brown noted that discussions with the Traffic Engineer indicated no traffic problem
had been created insofar as the I'raffic Department was conaerned; however, where the
~ property had rrt been dedicated to its ultimate w~idth and imoroved within the ultimate
right-of-way, the Police Department felt this may have caused traffic problems in some
instances, and then cited a report from one of the officers relative to a minor traffic
accident at the produce stand at 1535 South Euclid ~'~treet wherein one of the drivers in
the accident indicated a large sign resting against ~ telephone pole had obstructed her
view of oncoming traffic; that he had contacted an uniclentified person in charge of the
stand and advised her of the hazard created by these sig~s and requested that they be
removed, and later he was contacted by the owner-operator of the stand who had indicated
that the signs had been placed in that position for the past fifteen years ar.d the ~ity
Council had not expressed any objection to them, and after considerahle hea~ced discussion,
the officer had requested removal of the si9ns which were creating a h~zard to the driving
public and then submitted a request to the 2oning Enforcement Officer to determine
whether or not these signs were in conformance with that permitted by the City Council
or by Code. It was further noted that after the Zoning Enforcement Officar had contacted
the owner-operator of the produce~ stand at Euclid and Cerritos, the signs not in conform-
ance with that permitted by the City Council had been removed, and periodic checks of the
property indicated these signs were not being placed against the telephone poles.
~ Mr. Brown then noted that the County Health Department investigated the stands which sold
, produce not qrown on the premises to insure that they would be in compliance with the
recently adopted food handling ordinance of the Anaheim Municipal Code, said ordinance
specifically requiring hot and cold running water, sanitation facilities, and many other
conditions, and that based on the discussions with other cities in the County, it would
seem their ordinances were designed to accomplish the same thing as the City o{ Anaheim
ordinance, thet being to,permit a legitimate £armes to sell the produce which he grew
on his property at;a stand which was established as a temporary one.
Mr. Brown then noted that the staff's recommendation was that the present definition of
the Code should be amended to delete any reference to produce not grown on the premises,
and that it should read, "The incidental sale of produce grown on the premises only";
however, if the Commission further desired to consider amending the conditional use permit
section of the Code to p~rmit on-sale of imported produce in the R-A 2one, this would be
subject to approval of a conditional use permit.
Mr. Herman Margulieux, 1525 South Euclid Street, appeared before the Commission and noted '
that Mr. Earl Curraway, operator of the truck farm at 1180 West Ball Road, had indicated
he would be present at the hearing, but because of the fact that he had a short-term
commodity sale of Christmas trees, he was unable to make it.
Mr. Margulieux then noted that he had been granted a variance permitting the signing of
his property, and since the last public hearing, the Zoning Enforcement dfficer had
explained the specific requirements of the variance granted by the Council, and he had
complied with this; that if only produce grown on the property were sold, the owner would ~
be una6le to meet taxes - therefore outside produce was brought in and sold on the premisea,
and then in response to Commission questioning, noted that produce was grown on the ~
premises all year long and presentl 'the were r
small Y Y 9roWing cabbage and squash, but this was a !`
portion of their present sales, and that he would be happy to construct a more
permanent type stand, but since he was only the lessee of the stand and operated it for
the owner, he was unable to speak for ner; and that the sele of produce not grown on the ~;
premises was a necessary thing. ~
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ' '
Commissionei Cemp roted that the intent of the ordinance relative to produce stands was
to permit a farmer to se1L the produce grown on his property; however, where stands were
:selling'produce on a year-around basis, importing them,`this should be considered a
commercial venfure and was not similar to farmers attempting to sell the produce grown
on,their farms, but was placin9 the legitimate merchants at an unfair disadvantage -
therefore the Commission had no choice but to adopt the recommended amendment to the
Anaheim Municipal Code, end if produce stand operators were desirous of operating on
a year-around basis, this could be accomplished through the approval oi a variance or
conditional use permit through which the standard site development standards of the
- -- - k~~- r ;~
-~..~;
;,. . , , _ _.
.. ,.. . ,.,.,
_ ,_ . , . . ::...
--F i
Q ~ ~.t! ~
MINUTES`,;CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 16; 1968
, ~, , . 4274
AMENDb1ENT''TO THE ,= commercial zone, such-as street dedication and impiovements, off-
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL street parking:and.signing,•would:be'conditions of approval.
CODE ;
:(Continued) Commissioner Herbst then inquired of Assistant City Attozney
John Dawson whether or not,operators of these stands..had "grand-
father's`:rights" as:fai a's' tlie ordinence was:concerned:
~ir. Dawson advised~the Commission that there mi9ht be some right if the.use were estab-
lished as a nonconforming use; howeyer, if.~the nonconforming use were permitted after an
amendment to the Code; no other use of the property.would be permitted - this:would mean
if,'retail sales were permitted of fruits and vegetables<not grown on the premises, the
~° agricultural use: would not be permitted since the commercial use would:be the nonconform-
ing use,.,end then read'-the section of the Anaheim Municipal Code relative to nonconforming
uses. At its conclusion, Mr: Dawson stated that the nonconforming use would have the
right to'continue, but any.other use would not be able to be made simultaneously of the
property.
The Commission further inquired if the proposed amendment to the Code were approved and
passed by the City Council, was there a time limitation in which to cease and desist
the nonconformin9 use?
Mr. Dawson advised the Commission that the existing use would be permitted to operate
for a maxirtium of three years.
Commissioner Rowland noted that due to the tax structure, the price of land and other
factors, the time limitation of three years to allow termination of the existing, non-
conforming use would be academic, and he was sure that within that period of time,
~ farming of property within the City of Anaheim would-be obsolete.
Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. PC68-369 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend'to'the City Council that Title 18, Anaheim
Municipal,Code, Section 18.16.030(4) be amendei;, deleting any reference to incidental
sale of agriculturzl produce not grown on the premises as an accessory use, and said
amendment would then have the section read, "The incidental sale of agricultural produce
on the premises". (See Resolution Book)
On°roll ca13 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONFRSo Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. -
AB~€NTe, COMMISSIONERS:' None.
REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1
RECOMMENDATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 958 - Anaheim Memorial Hospital
Association - Northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and West
Street - Request for approval of revised plans to permit
expansion with two additional stories.
Assistant 2oning Supervisor Pat Brown presented revised plans for the Anaheim Memorial
Hospital, noting that the conditional use permit approved a three-story structure for
the property; however, the sevised plans:indicated the addition of two stories, making
the maximum height five stories, and the structure wouid be more than twice the distance
from the single-family residences on the west side of I:ombard Drive; that discussions
were held with the City Attorney relative to the method of approving the proposed revised
plans, and the"Commission would have to taks into consideration the fact that subject
petition was edvertised specifically for a three-story structure and determine whether'
the,proposed plans were approp'riate or inappropriate, end if inappropriate, a new condi-
tional use permit would be required.io be advertised for public hearing.
A representative of the Anaheim Memorial Hospital Board appeared before the Commission
and;advised the Commission thet as a result of a most generous contribution to the
hospital:association, the proposed two-story addition was made possibte,,and it was
hoped the;.Commissior. might consider this to be substantiaTly irr a"ccordance with the
ori'ginal plans approved'so that construction could be continued'onto the existing,
uncompleted three-story:structure.
Commissioner Camp offered a motion to approve revised plans marked Revision No. 1,
Exhibit Nos. l and 2, es being substantially in conformance with the plans originelly
approved for an addition to:the existing Anaheim Memorial Hospital. Commissionex Gauer
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
,~,i' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~ ~ :~ ~
W~4+Ji { ~ t'i
" 1
_
_
I
~ ~ ~ ~ .
`. MINllTES, CITY'PLANNING COMMISSION, December 16', 1968 4275
`. ` , 'REPORTS AND :; - ITEM N0. 2 :'
'. RECOMMENDATIONS ,` . CONDITIONAL;`ISE. PERMIT N0.' 984 =~ Esteblish a' rest, home
~. . .
on-the east:side of Euclid Street, approximately;320 feet
.
south;of the centerline`of Pelm'Lane, nortfierly of
the
.
Na:~6` Fire Statiori~- Reauest-for an extension of time
AssiStant Zon „g Supervisor Pat-:Brown~presented~a request for'a siz-month extension of.
4 t
f
he
l
ime.
or t
comp
etion:of corditions;.of Conditional Use Permit No. 984,"noting.that
;
~
,:
~ all conditions were attaclied ~to'~ a finel;:
. building. and°:ioning inspection,.
and ttiat: the „i
~
.
.
staff:had iecommended
a'.'one-yeai,extension,-of'.time be granted due:to~the fact
that the-
~
i
.
.
.
norma1.180=day time limita;.ian.was-not"a part of the.,approval of.subject petition.~ ''
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to.grant,a one=year extension of time for-the' I
.
completion of aonditions under.Conditional Use Permit No. 984, Resolution'No. PC67-275,
gia
ntedDecember 18, 1967; said time limitation to expire December`17,`1969. Commissioner
Herbst
on
mo
' ~
sec
ded the;
tion. .MOI
ION.CARRIED.
' ITEM N0. 3
CONDITIONAL l6E PERMIT NOc 939 - Ana Park, Inc. -.Request
for an extension of time to complete ccnditions for the
establishment of a,private school and related facilities
located at 1557 West,Mable Street.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown presented a request from the operators of the`
. Fairmont School,for an extension of time for the completion of conditions of Conditionel
U
P
se
ermit No. 939, granted in Resolution'No. PC67-105, dated May 22,
1967, noting that
,
two:previous time extensions had been granted, the last'expir.ng on November,22,
1968.`
:
Furthermore, that the petitioner had indicated plans for development were still active;`
.
-.. however, economias dictated an additional delay of six months to one
year'before the
work could be9in.,
Commissianer`Rowland offered a motion to:grant:a six=month extension of time for the
'
complet
ion of conditions.`of Conditional Use,Permit No. 939 as approved in Resolution
No ,PC67-.105; dated Mayy22,,196Z,- said time,!,extension to:expire May 22,.1969 ':;,~
Commis
io
He
s
e
s
ner.~
rb
t~.secopd
d the motion: MOTION':CARRIED. ~
^i
ITEM`N0. 4
' i
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.,702 - First Chr3stian
Church of
,
Anaheim (Dahl property) - Request for an extension of time
for the completion of conditions.. ?
,: .Y
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown presented a request from the First Christian 'i
Church of Aneheim for a six-month extension of time for the completion of cor.ditions '
granting Conditional Use Permit No. 702 as approved in Resolution No. 1622
Series ~~
,
1964-65, dated May 10, 1965. ,1
Mr: Brown further noted that five extensions of time,have previously been granted by
the Plannin9 Commission to compl~~ with conditions, tHe most recent extension of time "
expiring December 13, 1968, and that the petitioner had stated that an`architect had
r
~~
~?~
been retained and they were now movin9 forward with their building plans; however,
Conditi
N
re ,
%
on
o..l,
quiring a bond:for street improvements, and Condition.Nos. 2 and 3,t
requiring street light and tree pl
ti ~':
~
an
ng fees,,had been met and all.othar condifions
were to be completed prior to final building and zonin
inspectio
- the
f ~~~
g
ns
re
ore,',the
staff xecommended a six-month extension of time to expire June 13,'1969. s;
;~`
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to;grant a six-month exteosion of time for the ~
completion of,conditions under Conditional Use Permit No..702;granted in Resolution
N ~~
o. 1622, :Series I964-65,;dated May 10, 1965,"said time extension to expire June`13 ~:
,
1969. Conunissioner Herbst seconded the motiori. MOTIOD! CARRIED. ~~~
:x
:' . ` t`,
ADJOURNMENT ,' --There•being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Herbst ~
,
offered a inotion to adjourn the'meeting.' Commissioner Camp ' ,`
seconded the:motion.: MOTION CARRIED. ,
~',•~
, , _ '
?he meeting adjourned at 5:00 P.M.
, :
~~H"Xi,
;';
,,:.
Res ctfully su mitted , ;<
'~
ANN KREBS, Secretary ' 't
;,•~
Anaheim City Planning C^mmissi'on , ,;,K;
~£~
~~