Minutes-PC 1968/12/30~ PkESE?~?' - Assistant Cit Attorne
, y Y~ John Dawson
~ City Er.gir.eer Re;~,resentative: Jay Titus
~ ~oning Supervisor: Ronald Thompsor.
~ Assistar,t Zoning Supervisor: Pat Brown
~ Planning Commissior. Secretary: Anr, Krebs
~ IhVOCATION - Reverend James \ash, Parish Priest of St. Anthony Claret Church, gave
E the invocation.
~ PI.t~GE OF
E ALLEGIA,~CE - Commissioner Mungall led in the Pledge o.` Ailegiance to the Fiag.
A?PROVAL OF - The ~viinutes of the mee,,in of December 16 1968 were a 1'
Ti-(t ,~IIi2UTES } g ~ pproved as
submitted on motion by Commissioner Herbst, seconded by Commissioner
Hlungall, and h10I'I0~? CARRIED.
IA4IAidCE ~'0. 2032 - Cl~*:TI:r'J~D PU?LIC HeARING. GIACOA70 LUGARO AND AGOSTIAA LUGF~RO~
~ 42~ t~orth `dagnol_a Avenue, Hnaheim, California, Owners; STAt;DARU
~ ' OIL COk+.PAhY, NlESTERi~ OPERATIONS, INC., P. 0. box 719, Orange,
Califorr.ia..'Lessee; requesting 4YAIVERS OF (1) hfPXI4iU".4 ZUVIBER OF FRtE-STANDInC SIG~;S
F~~ll ~2) ~SIhIAtUi~i DISTAt:Cc BETWcEt~ FRc~-STApiDING SIGNS, TO PtR~;IT TWO 30 X 40-INCH FRICc
SIGh1S on propPrty described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at the
southeast curner o£ ;~lagnolia Aver.ue and Crescent Avenue, having approximate frontages
of 150 feet on 1ia9nolia ~venue and 147 feet on Crescent Ave~ue, and further described
a~ 59G i~orth :~agnolia kvenue. Property presertly classified G1, GENERAL COMh'~RCIFL,
~~:~t .
Subject petitior. was continued from tae mee~ing of Uecember 2, 1968 to allow time for
~he staff tu prepare a study regarding prica signs at service stations throughout the
` city.
Assistant Zoniag Supervisor Pat $rown advised the Commission that the petitioner nad
contacted the staff and requested an additional two-week continuance because he wou?d
be unable to aiter.d tne hearing.
"omm~ssioner Rowland offered a mo~ior to continue considpration of Petition for Variar.ce
~do..?032 to the meeting of January 13, 1969, as reauested by the petitioner. Commissioner
Camp seconded the motion. .10TI~ CARRIED.
VAitIAl;CE TdO. 2038 - FU3LIC HEARIt~G. HONARD A~D VICTORIA LOUDON, 1412 Janeen Way,
knaheim, California, Q~,~ners; GEORGE D. BUCCOLA, 450~ ~3irch Street ~
i~ewport ~eadh, California, Agent; requesting WAIVERS OF (I ).WiIA'.Ii:iu:J
IdU11f~R.OF COVEkE;, PAP,KING SPACeS, (2) NINI1ulUN REC.REATIONAL Akt..a, AND (3) h1P.XIAtUh{ COV~RAGf.
TO PER:IIIT DEVELOP~v~ENT OF A 16-UhIT, Ti10-STORY APARTA7tNT BUILDING on property described as:
A rectan~ularly shaped parcel_u{ land having a frontage of 200 feet on .the east side of
Lemon"Street'and a deptn of 14G fee~, ~ocated approximately 128 feet south of the center-
line.of Sycamore Street, and further described as 420 North Lemon Stree~. ~roperty
,presertly classified R-3, ~aULTIPLE-Fph1ILY R£SIDENTIAL, ZONE.
Assistant ~oning Svpervisor.Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject prooerty, the
proposed use,ar,d waivers requested,, as well as previous zoning action on the proper~y.
It was also r.oted that wren the plans were reviewed at the Interdepartmental Committee
meeting, it was determined ~here was inadequate vehicular circulation being provided.
4276
~ '.
: ~;
~'u -u4~c'Yi~1+7i7 •,~w: ia ,.sAs~i ~+ 't?.`°'r~~` r a.. ~4 ? t94-+~~,,,,{t F1'stt a': v 7 ~~ ~y w i a
* . ^ ~
. . .. ~ ~ . . ~ . . . ~ .
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 30, 1968 4277
VARIANCE N0. 2038 - Therefore, the Commission might wish to take this under considera-
(Continued) tion and determine whether a two-week continuance was in order to
allow the petitioner time t~ redesign the project by reducing the
~ total number of units by two at the northerly end and providing
an additional vehic~~lar access drive, thereby making adequate circulation for City
service vehicIes, and by so doing, the number of parking spaces would be adequate, and
the total coverage would be reduced to a figure within Code conformance.
The petitioner indicated his presence to answer questions; however, reques'ed that all
technical questions be referred to the agent for the petit?oner.
Mr. George Buccola, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted
'- the petitioner had been the owner of subject property for some tii~~e, and since it was
a problem parcel had difficulty in developing it; that he seldom built apartment
developments for others, but since the petitioner was a close personal friend of his,
he had attempted to work out some of these problems, and the proposed development was
the best that could k;2 designed, making it esthetically acceptable and economically
desirable; that they had attempted to maintain the development within the R-3 Code
requirements, but they were unable to do so not having to take into ccnsideration the
maximum permitted cov~arage and parking requirements; that the petitioner had previously
dedicated property foi~ the widening of Lemon S:reet - therefore this should be taken
into consideration xn the Commission's action for subject petition; that the staff's
recommendation for the reduction of two units would make the development unec:onomical;
that he could relocate t~e building toward the rear and provide parking in the front,
but this would destroy the esthetics propose~, and the development would be a beautiful,
luxury apartment renting in the vicinity of $300 per month; and that he reconunended
favorable consideration of subject petitior~.
The Commission inquired as to the possibility of orienting the drive to the northerly
boundary of the property; whereupon Mr. Buccola noted there woul~ be no problem in
orienting the drive since the plans could be shifted to the south.
The Commission then noted that if subject petition were approved and the property to
the south of subject property were redeveloped, a better ingress and egress could be
provided to Adele Street; however, with the present location of the property, no access
would be permit~ed to Sycamore Street.
Mrs. Dorothy Ulv,*.ead, 815 West Broadway, appeared before the Commis,ion and noted that
as an interested citizen and owner of property to the north of subject property, she
wished to go on record as approvin~ the proposed development, noting this wouid be a
fine addition to the neighborhood s:.ace the plans were very attractive and recommended
favorable consideration by the Commission.
No one appeared in opposition to sub;;ect petition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that inadvertently the recom-
mended condition of park and recreation fees had been omitted from the recommended
conditions and wish to apprise the developer of this fact.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC68-370 and moved for its passage and
adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Variar.ce No. 2038,
subject to conditions, ~~ending Condition No. 6 to require that t;,e access drive be
reLocated and oriented toward the north of the proposed structure, and that the park
and recreaLion fee shall be included; furthermore, that Condition No. 1 be deleted
from Condition No. 5, and that Condition No. 1 of the recommendEd conditions should
be completed witnin 180 days from date or at the time the building permit was issued,
whichever occurs first, or such time as the Commission or City Council may grant.
(See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIrJNERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
~ ,
r~' } ~ ;; o- ~ e : ? ~~:'Rr a :;:, j +r `; ~w
~~ Fy~ ///
~' ~ ~ ` ~.Y^\ 1 .
~`+ J (:_.)
f MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 30, 1968
4278
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. GLAD:5 T. POYET, 144 South Magnolia Avenue,
SY N~• 68-69-61 Anaheim, California, Owner;. praperty described as: A rectangularly
,f shaped parcel of approximately 4.6 acres of land having a frontage
~~; • CONDII'IONAL USE of ,approximately 333 feet on the east side of Magnolia Avenue and
~~, PERMIT N0. 1076 a maximum depth of approximately 601 feet, the southerly baundary
"~` of said parcel being approximately 338 feet north of the centerline
y;I ~ of Broadway. Property presently classified R-q, pGRICULTURqL, ZONE.
~~`` REQUESrED CLASSIFICAI'ION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
t
= REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: TO ESTABLISH A 108-UNIT, ONE AND TWO-STORY MIJLTI:;E-FAMILY
'~ '" PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, WITH WAIVER OF MAXIMUM
~~~,~~ ~ DISTANC_° OF LIVING UNITS FROM A~TANDARD STREET.
~ ~r~ .
, ,~ Assistant Zonin9 Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, the
uses established in close proximity, and the proposal, noting that a 108-unit, multi.ple-
=;;' family planned residential development with depressed carports was proposed, and the
~ ~ only waiver being requested was the maximum distance from the living units - however,
` ~ with the peripheral drive proposed, iiiere ~,~ould be adequat= circulation to thz rear
i apartments and provision for City vehicles to service those rear apartments; that
~ although the coverage of the property was 29.5%, the density had reached almost the
maximum since 34.9 dwellinc; units per net acre was proposed, and the new concept of
., ~~` iiaving carports located under the structures, together with the cnncept proposed,
N `~~ presented an extremely desirable living environment.
Mr. Victor Vestman, representing the contractor of the proposed development, appeared
before the Commission and inquired as to the method of calculation which determined
that the proposed development was 34.9 units per net residential acre since he had
calculated it as 24; whereupon Zonir~g Supervisor Ronald Thompson a.dvised him that the
calculations were based on net acreage, whereas the developer might have calculated
~ them on gross acreage, and to determine the net acreage would be to subtract all peri-
pheral drives and accessways from the gross acreage.
Mr. Vestman tnen noted that it was their opinion the pr~;osed parking would be ideally
located to the living units; that the development would be a quality development with
a large recreati~onal facility, including a swimming pool; and that it would be an asset
to the neighborhood.
Mr. Thompson advised the Commission that the requirement for park and recreation fees
per dwelling'unit had been omitted from the recommended conditions, and he was desirous
of apprising the representative of the contractor of this additional condition.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions.
THE HEpRING WAS CLOSED.
Gommissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC68-371 and moved for its passage and
adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that
Petition for Realassification No. 68-69-61 be approved, subject to conditions, with
the added condition that the owner of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim
the sum of $150 per dwelling unit to be used for park and recreation purposes, said
amount to be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: CGM~MISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
Com.missioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC68-372 and moved for its passage and
adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permii:
No. 1076, 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.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
c~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSI~J, Lecember 30, 1968 4279
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. OMY A. JACKSON, 170 Brookline, Costa Mesa,
PERMIT N0. 1082 California, Owner; PANC.AKE CAROUSEL, F. R. MHCKES, PRESIDENT,
1239 North East Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting
PERMISSION TO HAVE ON-SAI.E BEER AND WINE IN CONJUNCTION WITH TI-1E
SERVING OF MEALS IN AN EXISTING RESTAllRANT on property described as: An irregularly
shaped parcel of approximately .72 acres of land being located north and west of the
service station located at the northwest corner of East Street and Kenwood. Avenue,
having approx:mate frontages of 125 feet on the west side of East Street ~~~~: 102 feet
on the north side sr Kenwood Avenue~y the westerly boundary of said parcel ~eing the
Orange County Flood Control channel, and further described as 1239 North East Street.
Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE.
~; ~: Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat E:own r.eviewed the location ~f subject property, the
'"`"~~ uses established in close proxir..ity, and the proposed request, noting that the restau-
,~ . P Y ~
~"'°''`'' rant had been i~i o eration for several ears and the sale of beer and wine would be
~ in con~unction with the serving of food, and ihat no bar was proposed since it was
~ proposed to serve these alcoholic beverages at tables.
s~.
,~, Mr. Robert Meckes, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission, noting
:~~ that they had a lease which expired in 1983 for this dinner house, and it was only
-'',~; planned to serve the beer and wine as a convenience to the customers and no bar was
- proposed since it was their desire to maintain the image they had attained since the
;; openin9 of this facility; that the food was now served from 6:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M.;
that he had applied to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board for a license prior to
;';`;~~ realizing a conditionaY. use permit was necessary; and that to his knowledge, none of
*"`-".~~?., the adjoining ~roperty owners were in opposition.
Mrs. Violet Johnson, 1335 Norwood Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition,
noting she had resided at that address for a number of years, along with many other
residents on East Street and Kenwood Avenue; that the present food service offered by
the restaurant was high quality and they had recommended it to many of their frfends,
but with the request for on-sale beer and wine, the atmosphere of the place might chan9e,
and with ready access to the freeway, the serving of these alcoholic beverages might
create a problem with motorists leaving this facility after having indulged in too much
alcoholic beverages and re-enterin9 the freeway traffic; that a hazard might be created
with'these ine~riated drivers lea•ring the restaurant facility and possibly injuring
children utilizing the sidewalks on the east side of the street; and that sne and her
neighbors were opposed to the request for on-sale beer and wine.
A showing of hands indicated four persons present in the Council Chamber in opposition.
In rebuttal, Mr. Meckes stated that it was not their plan to serve 1 iquor or to have
a cocktail bar operation, and that a similar establishment was located approximately
a block from subject property - therefore, it was his opinion they should enjoy the
same use as this other facility.
T}lE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-373 and moved for its passage and
adoptihn, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Conditional Use
Permit No. 1082 for the servin9 of beer and wine in conjun~tion with the serving o:
meals, based on the fact that the proposed request would not be detrimental to the
area and a similar use was established within close proximity - therefore, the petitioner
should be granted a right already enjoyed by adjoining property owners in this area.
(See Resolution Book} ,
On roll call the forAqoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allrad, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: CONie6~"SIONERS: None.
~.
f~ ~ c7
RIINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 30, 1968 4280
VARIANCE N0. 2040 - PUBLIC HEARING. EUGENIA WESI'ON DORZAI~~, ET AL, 415 Flores,
Los Angeles, California, Owners; HP.RLEM AND LAUB, 2140 North
Main Street, Santa Ana, California, Agent; requesting YdAIVERS
OF (1) VEHICllLAR ACCESS T0 CARPORT FROM ALLEY ONLY AND (2) MIN7MllM WIDTH OF PEDESTRIAN
ACL'F„SSWAY on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at
the southeast corner of Winston Road and Iris Street and having fron:ages of 240 feet
on 1Minston Road and 107 feet on Iris Street. Property presently classified C-1,
GENERAL COMMERCIAL~ ZONE.
Assistant 'Loning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property and
uses established in close proximity, notin9 that previous zening action by the Planning
Commission in Septem'ver recommended approval for reclassification to the R-3 Zone, and
at that time a variance was approved in part, granting the waiver for minimum building
setback from a street, but denying the request for waiver of two-story construction
within 150 feet of the single-family zone to the west. Therefore, the plans submitted
with subject petition now propose a 20-unit, one and two-story apartment complex, with
the two-story portion being located to the east; that the petitioner was proposing
pedestrian accessways of less than 8 feet, and four of the 25 carports opened onto
Iris Street rather than the alley to the south, and by reducing the dimensions of the
apartment buildin9 slightly and the widths of the carports facing the alley, both
pedestrian accessways could be increased to the Code-required 8 feet, and in addition,
as recommended by the Traffic Engineer, carports facing 7ris Street could be reduced
in number to three rather than four, permitting a 30-foot access drive approach rather
than an undesirable 40-foot one, and by a minor reduction of the width of the carports
along the alley, additional room would be provided to have one of the four carports
presently proposed to have access to Iris Street to have an alley frontage.
No one appeared to represent the petitioner.
Mrs. Margaret Lenney, 139 West Winston Road, appeared before the Commission in opposi-
tion, stating it had been her opinion that when the reclassification and variance had
been resolved before the Council a little over a month ago, she little suspected the
petitioner would request additional waivers; that her property was the triplex located
across the street and was one story in height and very well landscaped; that the single-
family homeotivner direct3y affected by the proposed utilization of Iris Street was un-
able to attend because of i2.lness - hnwever, he requested that she present his opposition
as well; that the previous prdposal was for twelve units, and since the City Council
had denied the requested waiver of ona-story height limitation, it was assumed the
density would be decreased - however, the new petition indicates 20 units were planned,
and this would be a slum-type development; that property awners of several lots in this
area seemed to be combining their properties in or.der to de~velop one large apartment
comp?ex rather than the triplexes which had been established in the area, and to her
estimation would be rather undesirable since it would affect the single-family homes
on the west side of Iris Street; ths± the Hohenhaus apartment development was very
attractive, and all the triplexes in the area gave the appearance of private homes
rather than apartments; that the proposed development would 'oe similar to the undesir-
able two-story apartment developments along Ball Road; t.*,at the single-family homeowrier
to the we€t, Mr. Gunther, was opoosed to having acce,s to four carports directly acress
from his property since this woulc~ add to the trafiic confusion along Iris Street
because motorists were using Winstor. Rcaa %~s an auxiliary street to avoid the traffic
31ong Bali Road; and that the proposed c~~inna2opment would be having traffic backing
into Iris Street.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advisec.; `!:e opposition that the petitioner was propos-
ing to have four garaqes having access ta Iiis Street, while the balance would be oriented
toward the alley; that the staff had reco~nmeraded that through minor redesign of the plans,
one of the carports would be xelocated ~r,i•th2 alley - therefore, only three carports
would be having access to Iris Street-.
Mr:. Lenney then noted that children in this area ;vauld be subjected to automobiles
back'ng out onto the sidewalks, and since many children~used the sidewalk going to and
from s:hools located southerly, a traffic hazard could be created with the possibility
of children beia~9 injured while walking az~ riding their bicycles.
The Commission noted they we•~•a fully aware of the #act that both Winston Road and Iris
S'treet would be subjected to additional traffic which might be dangerous; however, the
.petitioner had a riq.ht to request permission to develop his property in the best manner
possible,
Mrs. Lenney then noted that if the Commission were to consider subject petit~on favorably,
she and her neighbors would appeal the request and ask that the City Council set fcr
public hearing at an evening session subject petition in order that the adjoining single-
family homeowners could be present to voice their opposition; that since the petitioner
_ ~...._.....~.;.., _ .
~~
- ~ ~~c ~k
~ ~ t; Ew
. ~ .. .=~ ..
,.a,.". ~er . ~,?~r~
«_~,
r~r y••
~,J {~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING GOMMISSION, Decemb_"er 30, 1968
4281
VARIANCE N0. 2040 - was proposing to develop these lots with six units, while the
(Continued) properties to the north were developed with only three units,
this would increase the parking problem already considered
subject property, thereby necessitating the apartment dwellerseparkinghtheir autoe
mobiles adjacent to the single-family homes.
The Commission advised the opposition that the petitioner had a right to request
v~aivers ~rom Code, and it was the Commission's duty to evaluate the req~~est to determine
what effect it would have on adjoining property, as well as consider opposition from
the property owners. .
THE HEpRING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner GauPr noted that the pet:.tioner was not represented at the public hearing,
and perhaps the Commission might be dr:si-rour of considering postponement of subject
petition until later in the meeting in ord2r that questions might be answered; further-
mor?, the petitioner was proposing an increr~se in the number of dwelling units over
that previously approved.
Mr. Thompson, in response to Commission questioning, noted that the previous proposal
indicated fourplexes two-story in height on three lots, whie;~ made twelve units; that
these plans now under consideration complied with the R-3 requirements as to setback,
and the only request before the Commission would be permitting access to a street
rather than requiring access to an alley; that the City Engineer was of the opinion
that the maximum curb break to Iris Street should be 30 feet, which was a standard
curb break; and that by minor redesign of the carports and relocation of one of the
four carports proposed to have access to I~is Street, the pedestrian accessway would
conform with Code .requirements.
Commissioner Rowland then noted that since the changes requested and all documentation
had been pres,ented, as well as opposition, before the Commission, there was no reason
for continuance; that if subject petition were approved, to require these changes as
part of the approval.
Mr. Thompson then noted for the opppsition that the action ~f the Planning Commission
would,be final unless an appeal was made to the City Clerk, requesting that it be set
for public hearing, but this would necessitate the payment of a$50 appeal fee.
Mr. Thompson also advised the Commission that the requirement for park and recreation
fees had also been omi~.tted from sub~ect petition, said fees being 5150 per dwelling
unit, said amount to be paid prior to the serving of utilities or final building and
zoning inspections.
Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. PC68-374 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to grant Petition for Variance No. 2040 on the basis
that the requested variance for the vehicular access to a local street would allow the
petitioner to utilize his property in a manner that has been enjoyed by owners of other
apartment developments in this area, and that minor redesign of the project as recom-
mended would eliminate the requested waiver of minimum width of pedeFtrian accessway,
subject to conditions, and with the added condition that the owner of subject property
shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum of $150 per dwelling unit for park and recrea-
tion purposes, to be paid prior to serving of utilities or final building and zoning
inspections, and that plans marked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 shall be amended to orient
one of the four carports presently pruposed to Iris Street to the alley, and that the
access drive approach from Iris Stre~t to the remaining three carports shall be a
maximum of 30 feet in width. (See Resolution Book'J
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONEP.S: Allred, Camp, Farano, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer.
ABSENT: COMMISS20NERS: None.
~~ ~~G;~~~,v:+~X ~eR~+ ~~~., ~~ry.'~C,~~..~s" ~,'~`ay"GC~ti, w,jfac'^ F'T'r~,r r~M ~.,,,~;r' Ht" ~ :1 ~_x'' r ~ , :.-~ .. ~E"
~~, ~= SS l ~ •
~~~ ~~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 30, 1966
4282
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. GERALDINE M. SUDA, ET AL, 3352 West Lincoln
N0. 68-69-57 Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; DALE L. INGRAM, P. 0, Box
- 229,E1 Monte, California, Agent; property described as: Two
CONDITIONAI, USE rectangularly shaped parcels of land with a combined frontage of
PERMIT N0. 1081 198 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and a depth of
approximately 606 feet, locatect approximately 810 feet east of
. the centerline of Knott Street, and further described as 3352
West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified R-A,
AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
' REQUEST£D CLASSIFICATION: G1, GENERAL COMMHRCIAL, ZONE.
~=:~
~t,,r ~ REQUBSTED CONDITIONAL USE: TO ESTABLISH A 245-UNIT MOTEL.
~,
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, the
request for C-1 zoning an~-permission to establish a 245-unit motel and noted that the
~portion to the north as well as Parcel 3 had been approved for C-1 zoning under Reclas-
sification No. 68-69-10 - however, there was proposed to be developed a builder's supply
establishment on the northerly portion; that the Planning Commission had approved the
variance for Parcel 2 in July to permit the manufacture of fermented water - however,
the time limitation of six months expires in January, 1969; that the 35-foot building
setback for Lincoln Avenue was being observed; that 244 of the proposed units were to
be equipped with kitchen efficiency units which would be in conformance with previously
established Planning Commission and City Council requirements regarding this type of
unit, but the manager's unit wouk] have a fully equipped kitchen; and that the developer
of the motel had three similar projects approved at various locations along Lincoln
Avenue in this general area.
Mr. Dale Ingram, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted
the proposed de~elopment would be similar in plans as had been projected on previous
motels in this general area - however, the property of which Parcel 3 was a portion
had been approved for a motel, and the northerly portion was now proposed to be devel-
oped with a commercial development, and instead of having a smaller parcel to develop,
subject property would now permit development of a three-story, 245-unit motel; that
commercial development was occurring all along both sides of Lincoln Avenue and multiple-
family development occurred to the south; that although they were requesting permission
to establish a 245-unit motel, when final design plans were completed, in all probability
there would be less units since thfs was their experience in the past on two previous
motels. Furthermore, some types of units would be double occupancy and others would
be the family type units, and he wisheti to discuss the recommended condition o£ approval
on the reclassificatio~ of Condition No. 1- namely the requirement of dedication for
a 41-foot radius modiried cul-de-sac at the northerly terminus of Bella Vista Street since
prior to designing the proposed development, they had discussed with members of the
staff and the Traffic Engineer the access to ~ella Vista, at which time they stated
they wanted the development designed not to be served by having access to Bella Vista;
that a six-foot masonry wall was proposed along the easterly boundary, but if dedication
were required, this wouid create a"blister" in order to provide the additional 8~ feet
to finish off this modifi~ed cul-de-sac, and by doing so, this would destroy the esthetics
of the wall. It was.also noted that an additional requirement was to dedicate all
access rights to Bella Vista Street; therefore, any dedication would not serve the
developer~owner of the property, and since they were proposing to have efficiency living
units, perhaps the Commission might wish to consider requiring a similar type of facility
as had been approved on previous petitions.
The Commission inquired the reasoning behind the staff's recommending a dedication of
8 feet when access righ~s to th~ street'were being required to be dedicated, and the
petitioner was proposing a wall along the east property line.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson noted that the Engineering Department had made this
recommendation to provide an adequate turn-around for fire and trash trucks.
Office Engineer Jay Titus advised the Commission, in response to Commission questioning,
that the one-foot strip along the easterly property line extended only to the cul-de-
sac and did not extend to the flat area. _.
Mr. Thompson noted for the Commission that when Bella Vista Street was originally
developed, it had been determined that the area south of 300-foot depth along Lincoln
Avenue would be developed for an apartment complex; therefore, Bella Vista Street
would serve subject property as well as properties already developed to the east for
multiple-family residential uses. However, now the petitioner was asking for G 1
zoning for the entire parcel, and from a traffic standpoint, it was not desirable to
have a mixture of commercial and residential uses on a local street.
~,
n;v ;~,~~.?' . r~"rx` L'! c s~' ~. S"y;r ~ fi .r~ .vti ~, wt+P'~ 5. ;" f .N.';' i ~ r C'F"" N r s~
, : .,e :tr_ ~.. .. . ..' o...., , '~'c--c .:.rv,+. »7, :-,,-~ r
. `/ _ .. . ~ . . Q ~,_ ~ . ~ ~ . .. _
MINUTES, CITY PLpNNING COMMISSION, December 30, 1968
4283
RECLASSIFICATION - Further discussion was held between the Comr,iission and the staff
N0. 68-69-57 relative to the proposed_dedication and finishing off of the cul-
- de=sac, and at its conclusion, the Commission inquired as to
CONDITIONAL bSE whether or not a modified cul-de-sac could be required of the
PERiu1IT N0. 1~8~ . petitioner, to be developed within the existing right-of-way rather
(Continued). tham having an additional dedication.
Mr. Titus advised the Commission that thfs Cotild be accomplished; however, for better
maneuverability and esthetics, a full cul-de-sac was more desirable, and, furthermore,
the prese'nt berm would be replaced with curb and gutter - therefore, there would be no
breakdown in the finished product of this modified cul-de-sac.
~ Mr. Ingram advised the Commission that they would be agreeable to complete the modified
cul-de-sac within the existing right-of-way.
Mr. Titus, in response to Commission questioning, noted that possibly emergency vehicles
might be affected if a full cul-de=sac were not required; however, the existing berm
and cul-de-sac had been in existence for the past eight years~
Mr. Thompson then reviewed the recommended amendment to Condition No. 9 of the conditional
use permit relative to the type of efficiency units that would be permitted.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Discussion was held by the Commission relati~~ to the possibility of eliminating Condition
No. 1 which required dedication of additional footage for a full cul-de-sac; however, if
this were not required, then Condition No. 2 should include the completion of the cul-
de-sac within the existing dedicated portion of the street.
Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC68-375 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Camp, to recommend to the City Council that Pet{tion for Reclas-
sification No. 68-69-57 be approved, deleting Condition No. 1 of the recommended conditions
which required dedication for the completion of the modified cul-de-sac; amendment to
Condition No.'2, requiring that the improvements of the modified cul-de-sac be accomplished
within the existing dedicated portion;'and other conditions. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMn!ISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungali, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. PC68-376 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1081,
subject to conditions, with the addition or Condition No. 5 to read as follows:
provided, however, that kitchen efficiency units with a maximum of six cubic foot'~ ••
refrigerators; two-burner stoves excluding oven and baking faciliti.es; and single-
compartment sinks may be provided; with the exception that managers' units will be
allowed to have full kitchen facilities." (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. COVINGT~1 BROS. CONSTRUCTION COMPqNy pNp SpN MqRCUS,
N0. 68-69-58 2451 East Orangethorpe Avenue, Fullerton, California, and J. L. AND
MARJORIE GARWOOD, 708 South Vai1 Street, Montebello, California,
Owners; requesting that property described as: A rectangularly
shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 475 feet on the north side of
Lincoln Avenue,,a maximum depth of approximately 162 feet and being located approximately
855 feet west of the centerline of Magnolia Avenue, be reclassified fi;om the R-3,
MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the G1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONI_,
Commissioners Camp and Farano left the Council Chamber at 3:15 P.M.
Assistant 2oning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property and the
uses established in close proximity, noting that reclassification to the R-3 Zone had
, ,
-- - -
~ ~
MINUTES, CITX`PLANNiNG ~AM~uIiSSION, December 3by 1968 4284
RECLASSIFiCATION - been app~roved vnder Reclassification No. 67-b8-79, at which time
- N0: 68-69-58' the petitioners pmgosed to develop a 192-unit apartment complex
;(Co~tinued)' on subject property and the property to the nor~h - however, the
property had-am ordinance read to the R-3 Zone prior to the
filing of a parcel map which prnp~sed C-i uses for a portion of the
southerly property.- therefore, subject;petition was necessary to permit development
of a s.estaurant w~th an outdmor eating,area which would be considered as the next
item on the agenda;,fhat the parcel'map which had been recorded indicated the cul-
de-sac street would,extenci na~~herly from Lincoln Avenue through the center of both
piopert,ies prbposed`for ~-1 zoning and would provide street frontage and veh~cular
access for bott9 the C-1 properties and the R-3 property to thE north, but no precise
~ plans of development ha~d been submitted for th~ property under consideration except
for the restaurant; and that the 1968 Preliminary General Plan indicated multiple-
family residential uses appropriate for this area east of the Edison easement, which
would-act as a buffer between the existing commercially zoned properties to the west
along Lincoln Avenue, and the Commission would then have to determine in this casa
whether the land use indicated on the proposed General Plan was valid in this area,
; or whether additional commercial land uses were appropriate.
Mr. Ted Fish, representing the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and indicated
his presence to answer any questions the Commission might have relativ~ to the proposed
reclassification.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
, Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-377 and moved for its passaqe and
adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recommend to the City Council that
Petition for Reclassification No. 68-69-58 be approved, unconditionally, on the basis
that previous dedication and bonds had been posted for the street improvements.
(See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONHRSs None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp,-Farano.
CONDI7IONAi USE - PUBLIC HEARING. J. L. GARWOOD, ET AL, 708 South Vail, Montebe:lo,
PERMIT N0. 1083 Lalifornia, Own~rs; HOBY'S INTERNATIONAL, INC., 4747 North 16th
Street, Phoenix, Arizona, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH
AN OUTDOOR EATING AREA (PATIO) IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PROPOSED
RESTAURANI', WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM HEIGHT TO THE LOWEST PORTION OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN
on property described as~ A rectangularly shaped parcel of approximately .6 acres of
land having a frontage of approximately 138 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue
and a maximum depth of approximately 162 feet, the easterly boundary of said land being
approximately 917 feet west of the centerline of Magnolia Avenue. Property presently
classified'R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, Z~ONE.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown noted that the proposed restaurant with outdoor
eating area would be located on a portion of the property recommended for reclassification ,
to the G 1 Zone in the previous petition; that the petitioner Qroposed to establish a
restaurant with a fully enclosed dining area of approximately 404 square feet and a
semi-enclosed patio-type, outdoor eating area of approximately 1,050 square feet; that ~
service to the outdoor eating area would be by means of doorways rather than window
counters; that the petitioner was proposing to locate a 25-foot high, free-standing
`sign at the southwest corner of the property, with the base of the sign being approxi-
mately 5 feet above grade level, whereas Code requ~red a minimum of 8 feet; that in
addition to the sign bein mounted in a 1~-foot high planter, which would reduce the
j visibility clearance to 3~ feet, at such time as the plants in the planter started
to grow, this would perhaps completely obliterate the view of drivers and pedestrians
at the intersection of the proposed cul-de-sac street and Lincoln Avenue; and that the
Commission might wish to consider the possible sight hazard this would then create.
J. L. Garwood, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that since they
had a franchise operation, the signs were similar in all other establishments wherever
located, and that the operetion would be a neat, clean, family-type eating operation.
Commissioner Farano returned to the Council Chamber at 3:20 P.M.
~. _
--- ° _`_ ~:,.~,....Y~..~~.,,.p.~........a..:.~..~.~+~,.wz~,.i:,.,v~:s:•~~,:.,,,,~__ : y„ "'~~~'
~ ~ .
MINUTES, CITY;PLANNING COMMISSICN~, December 30, 1968 4285
CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. Garwood further noted that upon presentation of a colored
PERMIT N0. 108ti rendering of the proposed sign whioh had not been part of the
(Continued)' exhibits on iile, it would be extremely costly to modify the
standard sign to meet the limitations of the City's sign ordinance.
The Commission noted that any obstruction of line of sight of pedestrians and motorists
entering a thoroughfare such as Lincoln Avenue would be extremely hazardous, particularly
at.the proposed cul-de-sac intersection; that with minor modification of curtailing and
redesigning the "tails" of.the proposed sigrt, it could meet the Code requirements with-
out an apprecia6le increase in the cost of the sign - therefore, the sign could be
modified to comply with the Code reguirements and still maintain the 25-foot maximum
height of a free-standing sign where in close proximity to residential uses.
;aa~:
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. ~~ ~
: r~
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. .'
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-378 and moved for its passage and adop- i,:~>'-~
tion, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit ~~:;;~~
No. 1083 in part, approving the request to establish an outdoor eating area in conjunc- ;:~
tion with the proposed restaurant; however, waiver of.theminimum height of the lowest :3
portion of a free-standing sign be denied on the besis that minor alteratfvn by cutting ,,~,,~
"tails" would place the sign within Code requirements; and subject to conditions. ~
(See Resolution Book) a
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the fol?awing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp.
Commissioner Rowland left the Council Chamber at 3:30 P.M.
RECLASSIFICATICkI - PUBLIC HEARING. RICHARD W. HENNING, 2861 East Lincoln Avenue,
N0. 68-69-59 Anaheim, California, Owner; EZRALOW-SCHWARTZ MANAGEMENT COMPANY,
8920 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, California, and DAN
VARIANCE N0. 2039 ROWLAND 8 ASSOCIATES, 1~00 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, California,
Agents; property described as: An "L" shaped parcel of approximately
4.0 acres of land located north and east of the northeast corner of
Lincoln Avenue and Rio Vista Street, having frontages of approximately 357 feet on the
north side of Lincoln Avenue and approximately 30 feet on the east side of Rio Vista
Street and a maximum depth of approximately 5'~2 feet, the easterly boundary of said
parcel being approximately 792 feet east of the centerline of Rio Vista Street. Property
presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT WITH3N 150 FEET OF
R-A ZONED PROPERTY, (2) MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK, (3)
MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK, (4) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN
BUILDINGS, (5) MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTANCE OF A LIVING UNIT
FROM A STANDARD S7REET, -(6) ADEQUATE VEHICULAR ACCESS FOR
CITY SERVICE VEHICLES, AN~ (7) MAXIMUM DISTANCE PERMI'LTED
BETWEEN A PARKING SPACE AND THE LIVING UNIT IT SERVES, TO
PERMIT A 125-UNIT, ONE PuyD TWO-STORY APARTMENT COMPLEX.
Commissioner Farano left the Council Chamber at 3:35 P.M.
Assistant Zoning Super~isor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, the
uses established in close proximity and the waivers requested, noting that resolutions
of intent to R-2-5000 existed for properties to the north and east; that the proposed
two stories would be ad3acent to the shopping center to the west; that thE requested
minimum front setback of 3 feet was necessitated because of tY,e property jogging, creat-
ing a 17-foot difference in the portion where the two-story sipartment units would be
abutting the property line; that the waivers of the minimum distance between buildings
and the maximum distance of a living unit from a standard street i~ad been granted in
the past for large apartment developments; that the maximum building height would be
from the vacant, pie-shaped property to the south, which fronted along Lincol.n Avenue
and which in all likelihood would be developed for commercial purposes; and that a
small portion of the.apartments along the west side of the property would be affected
by the maximum distance between parking spaces and living units. However, discussions
' ';:;~
: :%.~~:r.i
.,,~ . ,_.. . . ~,. ~. ,,..~. ..R. .~,A..
__ , ~ : . .:.
>. - . . , ._.r.:..
~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANN~NG COMMISSION, December 30, 1968
4286
RECLASSIFICA7ION - held by the petitioner, the architect and the agent with the
N0. 68-69-59 Fire De,partment,to provide additional a:eas for fire equipment
to be brought into the area for those dwelling units along the
VARIANCE N0. 2039 west property line, had been resolved - therefore, waiver of
(Continued) adequate vehicular access for City service vehicles was withdrawn,
and the representative of the p~etitioner had stipulated to re-
locating building entranceways and providing gates in the west
wall to provi,de access to the westerly unifs for firemen and their equipment.
Mr. Fred Kalper, representing the petitioner and developer, appeared before the Commis-
sion and noted the size and shape of the property, together with the requirement of a
setbaok of 150 feet from R-l or R-2-5000 zoned property made it more difficult to
design the project; therefore, the number of waivrers requested, although seemingly
excess, had been granted in the past. on similar proj,ects; and that they would stipulate
to agreeing :to redesign and relocation of building entranceways, together with providing
gates in the west wall,in order that firemen and their equipment might have easier
access to the westerly units - therefore, they reqvested withdrawal of this waiver.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson r.oted for the Commission the areas proposed to have
modifications for fire equipment purposes. Fvrthermore, the xequirement of $150 per
dwelling unit, to be used for park and recreation ourposes, had been omitted from the
recommended conditions of approval on the rpcla~sification, said amount to be paid
prior to serving the properties with utilities or final building a~nd zoning inspection.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-,379 and moved for its passage and adop-
tion, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recommend to the ~ity Council that Petition
for Reclassification No. 68-69-59 be approved, sttbject to conditions, with the added
condition that the park and recreation fee in the amount of $150 per dwe3ling unit, to
be paid prior to serving subject property with utilities or final building and zonin~
inspections,be made an additional condition. ~(See Resnlution Bobkj
0~ roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the follow;ng vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Rowland.
Commissioner Farano returned to the Council Chamber at 3:40 P.M.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-380 and moved for its passage and adop-
tion, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for ~'~riance No. 2039 on the
basis that the majority of the waivers had been technical in scope due to the fact that
previous requests for multiple-family developments had been grantad similar waivers -
however, the waiver for adequate vehicular access for City service vehicles had been
withdrawn on the stipulation that the petitioner would provide for the relocating of
building entranceways and providing gates in the west wall to provide access to the
westerly units for firemen and their equipment; and an amendment to Condition No. P,
to require that adequate access for firemen and thei~ equipment be provided to the
westerly units as stipulated by the petitioner, together with other recommended
conditions. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followir~g vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mun9a11.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Rowland.
ABS7AIN: COMMISSIONERS: Farano.
~.~
a~:~ or 3~ ,`t~" s ~: I4 } ~:,; '~ ~. ~.f .u' s~.,~'hj t'y'''~~r,~4i~u l ~ ~~... 1 .. ~'t {h~ •:"f ~ ~ ~• . .. . ,, r t . { r , .
~ ~
MINllTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 30, 19b8 4287
RECLA;SSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANRING COMMISSIO'rl, 204
N0. 68-69-60 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing that property
described as: Two parcels of land comprising a total of approxi-
mately ll acres located at th2 northeast corner of Sunkist Street
and Ball Road and further described as Parcel 1- An irregularly shaped parcel of
approximately 10.5 acres of land havin9 approximate frontages o4' 468 feet on the east
side of Sunkist Street and 465 feet on the north side of Ball Road, and Parcel 2- A
rectangularly shaped parcel, approximately 150 by 150-feet, located at the northeast
corner of Sunkist Street and Ball Road, and further described as the Ball-Sunkist
Annexatic~n, be reclassified from the COUNTY A1, AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT (PARC~L 1) AND
COUNiY 100-C1-10,000, GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (PARCE.L 2) to the R-A, AGRICULTURAL,
ZONE (PARCEL 1) AND C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE (PARCE,L 2).
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown noted the location of subject prope_ty and reviewed
the previous prezoning request for a porti4n of the property on which the Commission had
denied R-3 but had approved G1 zoning for the southerly portion, and ~that the petition
before the Commission was to place comparable City zoning on the proparty at the time
the property is annexed into the City.
~':,~; Mr. D. S. McGuire, 1161 South Hilda Street, appeared before the Commission and inquired
why notification was given for a public hearing on the 17th and having been mailed and
~ de].ivered on the 16th; that he appreciated the petitioner requesting whatever zoning he
v~ could obtain - howe:veT; the adjace nt property owners were concerned at previous meetings
what properties would be affected by the proposal.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised Mr. McGuire that the C-1 zoning proposed for
a portion of subject property encompassed the corner 150 by 150-foot parcel, which was
already zoned C-1 under the County and had been approved for a service station - however,
the balance of the property would be placed in t:~e R-A Zone, pending future action by
the petitioner; that the previous public hearings held before the Commission and City
Council were prezoning requests to the City of Anaheim pending annexation of the proper-
ties to the City, but both the Planning Commission and City Council had denied R-3
zoning for a majority of the property, and the Commission had recommended approval for
C-1 for the Ball Road frontage for a depth of approximately 150 feet, since a consider-
able portion of the property along Ba11 Road would have no access due to the off-ramp
coming from the proposed Orange Freeway.
Mr. McGuire then inquired what type of zoning could be applied for on the property;
whereupon Mr. Thompson stated that the owner cf the property, Mr. Toussau, cou'id req~est
other zoning than that adopted under General Pla.n Amendment No. 110 - however, since the
Commission and City Council had studied this arew in considerable depth and approved
the General Ylan amendment for commercial along the Ball Road frontage, with R-2-5000
adjacent to the G1 and the balance of the pronerty for R-1, in all likelihood this
wauld be the type of zoning which might be considered favorably, but the proposed
reclassification was only to establish some type of perr~anent zoning on the p.ro~;rxty
when it was annexed into the City so that the property would have no zoning on i•~, and
this might create a problem in the future if development occurred without zoning.
Commissioner Farano noted that the owner of the property had requested R-3 zoning on
the property and had been denied - therefore, if a similar requrst were to be made, the
owner would have to wait six months before another reclassification petition for R-3
zoning would be considered by the Commission or City Council; i~.:.~ver, the Commission
did recommend to the Council that C-1 zoning be approved for the Ball Road frontage,
and with the proposed reclassification for the balance of the property, no construction
could occur without complying with zoning regulations.
Mr. McGuire then noted that he traveled many freeways and noted considerable single-family
zoning was being developed along the freeway frontages - therefore this was indicative
that traffic on freeways was not incompatible with residential uses, and there was no
indication that a loss of value of the property would occur if development of the off-
ramp of the Orange Freeway were for other than commercial purposes.
Mr. McGuire then noted that approximately a year ago he had discussed the proposal of
placing a swimming pool on his property and was asking about the overhead public utility
easement being partially on Mr. Toussau's property and his property; however, Mr. Toussau
had,informed him the easement was completely on his property and inquired why the ease-
ment was on jusi: his property and why a portion could not be on the Toussau property
since any repair of power lines leading to the Toussau property would have to be done ~
on his property, which in his estimation was unusual and unfair. ~
~.
Mr. Thompson then stated that he was not familiar with the statistics of the easement; ±
however, the City was now requiring any development of residential uses to provide ~-
underground utilities, and, therefore, if the Toussau property were to have servicing,
this would be,done from his property and not from the adjoining residential property.
"" f ,: X~~ ~, P.vFn .i1'a. ~ ,,~ a~ x 4 v -v~.': ~., .. ti'l~,r"d4 ~F ~f k-a' a.`~. -.~4 "~t, u"`~, 3 "'^
^,. . ~ ::s s ,.~ .,`.r ., rr'„~'rl„ .r. ~:;:'. , ,..~:.-'+'~k",~~ ~ ~;., s . ~ k~:irS, ~.~, , ^r } + i ;:~.iuC < -~ -7~ ~ ~' .";L; r
~~~ . ... . .. ~ ~ ~ . ~ . . . . . . t ~ ~i
~.. . . ~ ~l . ~ ~. . Q .~ .. . . . . . N
t ~, J
dl~~ -.~ ~ .. .~ '~+' .. . ~ . ~ . . ~ ~ . ~ . . ~ ., '•,
Ss MINUTES; CI?Y PLANNING COMMISSION, December 30, 1968 4258 '~
{~
L~:. . . . . . " . . . . . . .. . . . . . .
„r ; RECLASSIFICF+TION - Mr. McGuire then inquired,how the,City proposed to enforce limiting ~'
1+~, N0. 68-69-60 dwelling'units to adults,only if apartments were permitted•, where-.
(Continued) upon the Commission advised Mr. McGuire that this would not be ~~
`,, ~?, enforceable unless made a specific condition. `~?
}~c`: The Commission then inquired of Assistant City Attorney John Dawson in what manner could
~~.; the requirement of adults only be enforceable; whereupon A~r. Dawson stated that only
where:conditional use permits or~variances had been approved could the Commission make :
;, this a condition of approval, and this was a prevalent condition in a petition for a
,~f-:. trailer park, where the petitioner would be stipulating this would be for adult facili-
..r ' ties only, and revocation of the permit could be enforced in the event it was determined
f~ families with children were being permitted.
~~~;~ THE !-IEARING WAS CLOSED ,';~
~ r
~;' Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-381 and moved for its passage and adop- ~~
i tion, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition ~~,~
~ for Reclassification No. 68-6y-60 be approved unconditionally, with the finding that
x `> the proposed reclassification should not supersede the reclassification of the Ball Road "-•
~4 ti~ frontage to the C-1, General Commercial, Zone as recommended by the Plann3ng Commission
to the City Council in the prezoning request petition Reclassification No. 68-69-56 on ~
~ December 16, 1968, since action under subject petition established only a comparable
~.., . zoning to that of County zoning and finalization of the C-1 reclassification under the ~~
~~ aforementioned prezoning petit;.on would ho ~;,complished upon completion of conditions.
~~, (See Resolution Paok) ;"
~. :F~.
~-~;a
r~
' On roll call ';he foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~~
L t,; .
b' AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall. ~
. ( NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ?;`
4~", ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Rowland. ~~ti
}„
;;~
„ ~~; .: .
~~~ REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1 "~
i;', RECOMMENDATIONS VARIANCH N0. 1192 - Property located on the north side of
q `~~ Crescent Avenue a ~~~
4~t~;; , pproximately 794 feet west of the center- ; T
~ wa,~ line of Euclid Street, zoned R-3 - Request for anproval of ?'+~~i~;
° ~? revised plans. t?a+
4}f .. ~ . . . . . i (:"±
~~'' r~`,~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown presented revised plans for the construction of i~~~?
rr ~ 31 two-story apaztment units on the
~ ,r property located north of Crescent Avenue, border-
W~` ing on Glencrest Avenue, for three undeveloped lots of Tract No. 3398, noting that '° ;`
'~ ' c~ the oriqinal plans submitted with Variance No. 1192 approved by the Planning Commission
z~ti
,~'~ in February, 1560, proposed a 122-foot separation between the two-story structures and
', the I'-1 properties located on the south side of Crescent Avenue; that the revised plans
~ N.~ indicated a 102-foot separation due to the fact that apartments were proposed to be r,~
~ k; constructed over the garages; that the Commission in Apri1, 1966, had approved Variance
~ r No. 1784 for properties further to the west, permitting a 104-foot separation between
4''~ the two-story construciion and the R-1 to the south of Crescent Avenue; and that the
~~'r~y`)~' primary reason the Commission approved the variance in 1966 was the fact th~t lots on
qy either side of subject.property were~permitted to develop with two-story cc~nstruction,
~s'"~~~ and to deny the requested variance would be denying a privilege granted otner proper- '
~,~, k ties in the area. f
~~'+ ~ i
n`~' Mr• Brown then noted that it would be the Commission's prerogative to determine whether ~'
~ ~M
~,~ ~, tl.e proposed reduction of 20 feet in the aeparation of two-story construction from the ~' ~'1
i~~r'~~. R-1 properties located to the south would be adequate, and whether the request would ;•,
°~~7~ be valid based on the fact that a previous variance had been granted a similer setback. w;
r~,~>'~k° Commissioner Gauer was of the opinion that since this was a considerable change from
r+b , , /,
~~ .i that originally approved, that it should be set for.-ublic hearing in order to hear ~
~iw" the comments of the single-family homeowners on the south side of Crescent Avenue.
rti
r~r! ~~ * ~ . ~ ~ ~ . . . . ~ ~~
}~v'~ Zoning Supervisor Ronald 2'hompson noted for the Commission that the staff, in reviewing
`l{~ the plans, felt the resolution was somewha} ambiguous, and since other apar+^sants had "
~~,~~ been develope_ with comparable setbacks, the Co~r~mission might wish to consider this in
- ~}~
~ ~ a like vein.
y~w r,~ ~,~ ,
'J h
~,~~~;; ~, The Commission further discussed the original plans approved and the time which had
~r ,~~ transpired between the original approval and the submission of the revised plans,noting
~'*±~ that there was a possibility that within ei ht
~v,~~ chan ed since the 9 years conditions of approval might have
.~x~4,~ 9 previous public hearing and construction had not occurred during the ':~
h t"~
~~~"'~ .:i{
Q r~,~~
~G~~~~~ ~ . ' . ~ . . . ' +:
Ik~ff ~7 . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . 5
~r
'~~. ~k ~ ". . ~. . ~ . ~ ~: .
~,tyti'~F~ ~. ~~ _ . _. _. ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ' `~
rs ' __-,o..~.~..~, - - -- - '
a . .. _.,._.. _ .. . -- -. _ . _ ... . . _. _ ~ , . . . . e-t;
.~ aXA. .<~.' ~#'~.~N~~~, ~ ~ <K~ kI'.;~ts ~d a`. "ik,~ ~f'~' i 1~~~33~ f ~~ t,,~' ~'~'i~'' ~ ~ ~ y,y~';'~. , ~,'~~ -a L :
~.~`s;s bF.:.., 'T ,~ . Y ...!'J=,r` w :. .,'• .
- ~. _ _~:+_.. ..! ..: ~~. , -~s _ .. --~ ,..'. ;::
~a/~t' ~ ~.'v~.+l~»•'..~, . . _ . .. '. ' . ..~ ..
~. ~ ~1~ r .
`MINllTES,`CITY PLANNING i;,,.ti.;~~S.,ION, Dece,mbei• 30, 1968 4289
REPORTS AND`
-RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 1 (Continu?d)
past eight years - therefore, such a vast deviation from plans originally approved should
be considered at public hearing.
Other.;Commissioners felt that since other two-story r,onstruction had been approved and
'developed in this general area, the request for a similar setback would be a technical
one.
'Commissioner Herbst offered.a motion to approve revised plans, marked Exhibit Nos. 1
'through 5, Revision No. 1, of Variance No. 1192 on the basis that other apartment
developments in this vicinity were granted permission to construct within 104 feet of
the R-1 properties on the south side of Crescent Avenue; therefore, tnere was no reason
for setting thi5 for public hearing. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. On
` roll`call the foregoing motion was approved, with Commissioners Allred, Herbst, and
Mungall, voting aye , Commissioners Farano and Gauer voting "no"; and Commissioners
Camp and Rowland being absent.
ITEM N0. 2
Proposed Inhabited Colchester-Ball Annexation
approximately 1,310 feet between Ball Road and
the northerly boundary of Tract Nos. 2563 and 2342.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of the proposed annexation,
noting that the area was completely inhab3ted, fully developed with paved streets,
vehicular circulation was provided with two arterial streets with Gilbert Street running
north and south and Ball Road, a primary arterial, running east and w~st, and that the
land uses in the area were primarily single-family residential with a service station,
a hospital and medical office buildings at the southwest corner of the annexation area
fronting Ball Road. The General Plan designation fcr the area was also reviewed, as
well as the existing County zoning for the property.
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the proposed
Colchester-Ba11 Annexation.as a logical extension of the City's boundaries. Commissioner
; Camp.seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
~ RECESS - Commissioner Farano offered a motion to recess the meeting
for approximately ten minutes. Commissioner Gauer seconded
~ the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting recessed at 4:03 P.M.
f
,
~ Coffee and cake were served to those present in the Council
i Chamber, which included all department heads and several
~ Councilmen to honor Commissioner Mungall on his retirement
C from the Planning Commission.
Mayor Calvin Pebley presented a memento to Mr. Mungall in
appreciation for his years of service with the City.
RECONVENE - Chairman Allred reconvened the meeting at 4:37 P.M., all
Commi,ssioners being present.
ITEM N0. 3
Street name change - Orchard Drive - Request of the
Orange County Street Naming Committee.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown presented a request from the Orange County Street
Naming Committee relative to changing the name of the new alignment of Orchard Drive
to'Kellogg Drive between Yorba Linda Boulevard and Orangethorpe;Avenue. It was further
,noted.that the o1d Orchard Drive alignment, north-south and east-west portions, should
also be considered for a change in name to Post Lane for the north-south portion and
Woodwind Lane for the east-west portion. Furthermore, the Planning Commission had
previously recommended to the City Council that these'changes in names be made at the
time the property-was under the jurisdiction of the County; however, since that time,
the,Orchard Drive Annexation became effective and included a portion of Orchard Drive
from Imperial Highway to the new alignment northerly of Orangethorpe Avenue, and the
Orange County Planning Commission was now requesting information as to what type of
action the City of Anaheim proposed relative to the street name changes. I'herefore,
the staff recommended that the street name change be set for public hearing for
January 13, 1969, to consider a street name change for those portions of the street
now within the City of Anaheim to the street names aforementioned. •
~
,~'~"*"~w,~•~7~ ~~ ~ b.144;, R yqF:3~-F'Ss'{''• .~7+'" ~+r"' ry' ~or" ~(~l•~~~q~ ..eF;~ s 3 ~ .-. ',1~N t a ;::~ in ~ -:e- ;, ~ ',-p +r~ ;.
_ ~ _
M,.pl:':_S,-CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 30, 1968 4290
REPORTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 3 (Continued)
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to direct the staff to set for public hearing
cunsideration of street name changes for Orchard Drive to Kellogg Drive between
Yorba Linda Boulevard and Orangethorpe Avenue, the north-south portion of o1d Orchard
Drive to Post Lane, and the east-west portion of old Orchard Drive to Woodwind Lane,
within the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM N0. 4'
Special report to the Commission.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown presented a special report to the Commission
relative to the formula to be adopted to establish a policy providing for construction
of additional detached dwellings on the narrow parcels of property in the older areas
of the City, since the properties, although zoned R-3, were required to have a minimum
of 1225 square feet if an additional detached dwelling were proposed for the rear portion
of these narrow, deep lots. The alternatives were then reviewed (copy of report on file
in the Development Services Department), with the staff recommending that alternate "c"
be recommended to the City Council as an addendum to City Council Policy No. 516 for
the future administration of legal nonconforming, single-family and multiple-family
residential lots located in the central part of the City.
Considerable discussion was then held by the Commission relative to the alternatives
presented by the staff and their effect on the future redevelopment of the downtown
area, Commissioner Herbst being of the opinion that further study should be made on
the possibility of a new zone which would permit high-rise other than that presently
permitted in the R-3 Zone, which would encourage land assembly of the core area proper-
ties to make them more economically feasible for development for high-rise without
encouraging a slum problem, and by so doing, upgrading the entire area; that by amend-
ing or adding to the present City Council policy relative to these nonconforming,
single-family and multiple-family residential lots, would deter any foreseeable re-
development because the value of these lots would then be considerably increased, and
assembly of small narrow lots for high-rise purposes would be prohibitive.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson noted that this suggestion was made on the basis
that variances were.always being requested, and to eliminate review of variances for
these lots, the staff felt it would be more expedient to establish a policy; however,
if the Commission were of the opinion that a multiple-family zone which would permit
high-rise in the downtown area should be considered, the staff would give further
study to this request.
After discussion on the possibility of establishing a new zone, Commissioner Herbst
offered a motion to defer any consideration of the recommendations made by the staff
relative to permitting additional detached dwellings on the lots within the core area
of the downtown portion until such time as a new zone was prepared by the staff for
Commission consideration at public hearing. This could be an overlay type of zone
of the existing multiple-family zone, encompassing those properties within the eoiEe
area of the Center City. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNINENT - Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTZON CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 4:55 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
- ~~
ANN KREBS, Se retary
Anaheim City Planning Commission
- 4