Minutes-PC 1969/08/11_ _
~ • ~. ~
City Hall
Anaheim, Cali£amia
Aagus~ lla 1969
A R?G[~R MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGIILP.R MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim Citp Planning Co~ission was called
to order by Chairman Rowland at 2t20 o'clock P,M., a quorum being
present,
PRESENT - CIiAIRMAN: Rowland.
- COI~SISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Ganer. '~
v
ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Cemp' Herbety Thom. ~~'
`+:~ESENT - Asaistant Development Servicea Director: Ronald Thompson
Deputy CiCy AtCorney: Frank Lowry
Offic~ Engineer; Jay Titus
Zoning Supervisort Charlea Roberts
Asaistant ~oning Supe~cvisor; p8t gr~
Planning Co~ission Secretary; Ann Krebs
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE - Co~ieaioner Farano led in tha Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. - ';;i:.
;'.~~'
APPROVAL OF - Con~issioner Farano offered a motion to approve the Minutes of the ''s~
THE MINIITES meeting of July 28, 1969, se anbmitted, aeconded by Commiasioner ,
~~~+
Gauer, and MOTION CARRIED. ~~!'
.,+4
VARIANCE N0. 1972 - CONTINUED PUBLIC AEARING. EMPIRE SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION ~
,
' 6750 Van Nisya Soulevard, Van Nuys: California, Owner; property
TENTATIVE MAP OF describecl.sa: A rectang¢larly shaped parcel of approaimately 9.7
TRACT N0..6509 acres of le;nd haviag,a frontage of approximately 657 feet on the
east side of Aladdin Street and a maximum depth of approximately ~
642 feet, the northerly boundary of eaid parcel being approximately
615 feet south of the cnnterline o£ C
eacent A
u
- `
r
ven
e, and
the weaterly boundarq being
approximately 1,350 feet east of the ceaterlinc of Brookhuret Street. Property
preseatly clasaified R-3~ M[TLTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
REQIIESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF MINIMUM LOT WIDTA TO PERMIT A SUBDIVISION COMPRISED
OF 36 R-3~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONED LOTS.
TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: PERMIT THE SUBDIVISION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY INTO
36 R-3 ZONED LOTS.
Sub~ect petition and tract weze continued from tha meetings of April 22, May 6, June 17,
and Auguat 12, 1968, and February 10
1969
t
ll
h ~
,
,
o a
ap t
e patitionar time to eu'~mit a
revised tract map. ~
Assistant Zoning Sugervisor Pat Brown adviaed the Planning Cemmiseion that the petitioner
had aubmitted a letter reqaeating an additional th ~
~
ree-moath cwntiauance.
Co~isaioner Gauer offered a motion to coatinue consideration of Variance No. 1972 and
Tentative Map of Tract No~ 6509 to tfie meetin
of Nove
b
3
195 i
~
g
m
er
,
9, as requested by the
petitioner, Commiasioner Farano seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED,
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINOED PITBLIC HEARING. RAYMOND SPEr'IAR, 913 Paloma Place,. Fullexton,
N0. 68-69-68 California, Owner
property deecribed as
A ,
,
::
n irregularly ahaped parcel
containing a total of approximately 80 ecrea of land located generally
CONDITIONAL USE eeat of imperial Highway, south of Esperanza Road and north of the
PERMIT N0. 1090 Santa Ana River-and the proposed route of the Ri
verside Freeqayr more
particularly deecribed as; Parcel I- An irregularly ahaped parcel
containing approximately 30 acree of land having approximate frontagea
of 800 feet elong the north side of the Santa Ana River, 1,500 feet along the east aida of
Imperial Highway, and 1,100 feet aloag the Atchisoa, Topeka & Saata Fa Railroad south of
Eeperanza Road, and Parcel 2- An ine
ula
l
h
g
r
y a
aped parcel containing approximataly 50
4756
~ `\ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY FLANNING COMMISSION, August 11~ 1969 4757
RECLP.SSIFICATION - ac=es of land having agproximate frontages oP 2,OG0 feet along tne
N0. 68-64-68 north side of the Santa Ana River and 1,500 feet along the Atchison,
Topeka ~ Santa Fe Railroad south of Eeperanza Road and being located
CONDITIONAL USE from approximately 700 feet [o approximatelp 2,700 feet east of
PERMIT N0. 1090 Imperial Highway. Property preaently clasaified COUNTY A1, GENERAL
(Continued) AGRICIILTURAL, DISTRICT.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: PARCEL 1- C-ls GENERAL COMPfERCIAL~ ZONE~
PARCEL 2-. R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
REQIIESTED CONDITItlNAL USE: ESTABLISH A TRAILER PARK: WZTH WAIVER OF
RE~QUIRED SETBACK ON PARCEL 2 ONLY.
Subject petitions were coetinued from the meetinga of Piarch 24, April 21, June 2 and 30,
1969, pending a decision o£ the Loaal Agency Formation Commission regarding the boundariea
betpeen Anaheim and Yorba Linda north of the Santa Ana River and eeat of Iwperial Highway
and for the aubmission of revised plane and results of annexatien proceedinge.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Bror~m advised the Planning Co~ission that the petitioner
had advised the staff that he wsa contemplating reviaing the original plans which would
encompass a reduction in the propased com~percial and mobile home park areas and propose
multiple-family residential for the balance; and that he had also filed an application
for annexation to the Citp of Anaheim wbich waald be heard by LAFCO August 27, 1969.
Commiasioner Allred offered a motion to continue consideration of Rxclassification No,
68-69-68 and Conditional Use Permit No, 1090 to the meeting of September 22, 1969, to
allow time fcr the petiCioner to revise plans and for action by LAFCO. Commissioner
Gauer seconded the motion, MOTION CARRIED.
VARIANCE N0~ 2109 - PUBLIC HEARING. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, 605 West Olympic
Boulevard, Loa Angelea, Cal3fornia, Lesaee; ATLANTIC ENGINEERING, INC
2275 West Lincoln avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting
WAIVER OF MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SERVICE STATION
on property described as; A rectangularly ahaped parcel of land at the southeast corner
of La Pa1ma Avenue and Rraemer Boulevard, having approximate frontages of 152 feet on
the south aide of La Palma Avenue and 150 feet on the east side of Kraemer Boulevard,
and further deacribed as 3101 East La Pa1ma Avenue. PFOperty preaently clasaified M-1,
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE,
Assistant Zoaing Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of aubject property, uaes
eatablished in cloee proximity, pzevious zoning action on the property, and the proposal,
noting that Che petitioner`s plane indicated conatruction of a 378-square foot addition
to be used as an additional automobile lubrication bay which would encroach into the
required SO-foot setback by 12 feet from the exieting right-of-way of Kraemer Bculevard.
Mr. Brown then reviewed the evaluation ae it pertained to the aervice etation eite devel-
opment atandards and the finding that eubject aervice etation had been developed prior to
the exieting service station minimum eite development etandarde of the City; coneequently,
only limited landacaping exiated, and if eubject petition were approved, it wae recommended
that the landacaping requiremente of the aervice station eite development atandarda be
incorporated into the redevelopment plan. A review of the plana indicated a 3~-foot wide
planter as required could easily be conetructed between the two drive approachea on
Kraemer Boulevard; however, because the gas pumps were located within 12 feet of the
right-of-way line on La Palma Avenae, this required planter could not be conatructed -
therefore, as a aubstitute for thia planter, one of simllar size and dimenaiona could
be constructed aloag the east property line, extending southarly from the drive approach
adjacent to that property line.
I~Sr. Brown also noted Cnat the plane indicated a corner planter at the intersection of
La Palma Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard, conaiatent with the eite development atandards,
and that elevation plans indicated the lesaees were proposing to drese up the facade of
the older standard, metal atructure by the addition of brick sectiona; and that many
other service atakion: within the City had accomplished suc;h upgrading of their proper-
ties on a atrictly voluntary basis - therefores the Commisaion might wiah to require
not only the required landscaping as auggeated by the ataff, but the renovation and
remodeling of the exterior of the atructure also be required.
Mr, Adnan Khatib, representing the agent for the petitioner~ appeared before the Commis-
sion and noted that although the 38 feet was measured from the property line, it was a
conaiderable diatance frcm the right-of-way line; that it was abaoluLely neceasary to
have an additional lubrication bay for thie service ataCion because the preaent one was
obeolete, and moat eervice etaCion operatore had more than one bay ao that all work
s "i~
,'„
~ . ,-;
>, - --
~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COt~IISSION, Angust 11' 1969
~~
4758
VARIANCE NO.~ 2109 - could be done inside the bnilding; that an additicnal requirement by
(Continned) tke State of Califomia by 1971 was to have sta~ions equipped cvith
amog coatrol facilities, etc., with all work to be performed within
the premises; that they had beea attempting t~ improve the facade
of this atation to be misre compatibla witli developmeat in the area; that the recoa~eada~
tion oE the staff as requiring improvement of the facade and the landscaping wuuld not
be difficult to reaolve ~ hawever, he felt the proposed landeaape planter area along
one side of the drive approach on La Palma Avenue might be encroaching into the pnblic
right-of-way.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberta iaquired whc~ther or nat the Sta.te had reconstructad
the cnrbs and gutters when additional zight~of~pap had been taken aloag Kraemer Baulevard
g, for freeway oa~ramP Purposes.
Mr. Khatib replisd in the affirmative; wherev~pon Mr. Roberta stated that in all likeli-
hood either the area map before tae Commisaion or the p1oC plan submitted wae out of
date.
Mr. Rhatib stated that he was of tne opinion the 3-foot landacape etrip could be provided;
however, if anything additional were requiredy this would be imgosaible.
No oae appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THE HFARING WAS CLOSED.
The Co~iasion noted that if the petitioner complied with the recommendations of the
ataff, there would be littie problem in the proposed redevelapment.
Commisaioner Ganer o£fered Rescslutioa No. PC69-171 and moved for i[s passage and adoption,
to grant Petition for Variance No. 2109, aubject to conditions.and the etipulation of
the petitioner that landscaping and improvement of the facade of the service atatien
sCracture would be completed. (See Resolution Book)
Oa roll call the foregoing resolutien was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS; Allred, Gauer, Farano.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland.
ABSENTr COMMISSIONERSt Camp, Herbat, Thom.
VARIANCE N0. 2110 ~ YUBLIC HEARING. JOAN BELISLE, 1218 Weatmont Drive~ Anaheim,
Californie, Owner; JOHN F. SWINT, 707 Weat North Streat, Anaheim,
California, Agent; requesting WAIVERS OF (1) PERMITTED USES IN
THE C-R ZONE AND (2) LOCATION OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN, TO ESTABLISH AN AUTO RENZAL
AGENCY AS A PRIMARY IISE on property described ae: A rectangularly ahaged parcal of
land having a frontage of approximataly 75 feet along the south aide of Katella Avenue
and a maximnm depth of approximately 205 feet, being located approximntely 550 feet
west of the centerline of Haster Straet, and further deacribed as 200 Weet Katella
Avenue. Propeztp preeently claesifiad C-R~ COMMERCIAL-xECREATION, 20NE.
Assiatant Zonir.g Supervimor pat Browa reviewed the location of aubject property and
uses eatablished in close proximity, noting that the proposal was to eeCablieh an auto
rental agency ea a primary use on aubject praperCy, coastructing a 750~square foot
office stracture with an attached 14-foot high canopy aud providing 14 parking etalle
to the rear of the atructnre, with ample room for any additional parking apaces if
nneded; that tne petitianer was propoaing to erect a sign within Code requiremente,
approximately 23 feet from the easterly property line, whereas 30 feet would be required -
however, it was propoaed to have the 24-foot wide entrance drive in the center of the
property, and said sign canld not be erected there unless the drive were relocated; and
that the applicant had indicated that, if posaible, they would prefer to have the aign
location sa proposed rematn.
Mr, Broxn further noted that aeveral similar requeate had been approved in recent montha
in the Commercial-Recreation Area £or car rentals ae a primary use, and, therefore, the
Co~iseion might wiah to c~nsider amending the C~R Zone to permit car rentala as a
matter of right.
Mr. John Spint, agent for the petitioner, appeazed before the Commieaion and noted he
was available to anawer queations regarding the propoeal; whereupoa Coauuiesioner Gauer
inquired as to the number of vehiales propoaed to ntilize thie facilitp,
Mr. Sidney Doan, 1628 Oak Place, propoeed lesaee of subject property and operacor oE the
Econo-Car Rental Agenay, appeared before the Commiasion and advised that their f?eet
would varp~ depending upan the aeason, with 35 to 40 vehiclea being available disring
~~
jri
~ ~ ~7;: ~...
~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PI.ANNING C01~4IISSION, Asgnst 11, 1J69
i '
J..
r
~!
~ 4759 E`
. ,~
VARIANCE N0,.,2110 - the aummer manths and 25 t~ 30 dnriag tl:e c~ff~season; thst Lhey ;:,';.~
(Continnad) preaently employed oae full time man aad offioe girl, as well as
himselfg aad in all Iikelihood this wouid be the extrnt of employeea. -"~"
~~
The Coffiuiasioa ihen iaquired as to whether or,not ottter vehicles wo~ld be parked thare - A'
wo ':a
other than the reatals and the employee parking. ;",.
~ ':'{;;
Mr. Doan, ia reap~nae, state,~ that the facility was propased m~.inly to better take care "~
of cara phich he had at the present time; that he was now located on motel propertp and ~
had to.relocate the garked vehialea to other places when the motel was fall; that he `~'~~
aatiaipated a 30% increase in business, and these would all 'be day rental cara; xhat no '~
tour~type fscilitiea were proposad; that he was propoaing ta have ~57 of the flee*_ of ':~
the GM-type passeager an~omobilas; and that there would be no trailers or trncke on a ":~~
reatal basis, Furthern~re, he was naw renting the place at the Waikiki Metel for the ~'
past aix years, and t.t was his desire to expand his facility; therefare, the praposed -'±
location was coneidered ideal,
1
'i:'
:>
'=;:
;:,
::{
Mr. Doan, in rasponae to questioning wbet~r or not the pruposed lesaee would be operattng
both at the Waikiki Motel and on aubject property, replied thaC during the traasition
period oF apprasimately ninety days; they would be operating from both facilities.
A letter from the owner oi progerty ~t 131 Ratella Aveaae, occapied by L.T.V., Ling~Al*_eo,
Inc., in opposition to the m5ay garish aigns along the Cammercial-Recxeatioa Area streeta
was read to the Commiasioa,
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED..
Commissioner Allred offered Resolutton No. PC69-172 aad mnved fur iCa passage and adoption!
to grsat Petition for Varianae No. 2110, subject to conditioas.and the additional condi-
tion that no other vehicles may be stored or rented on the propertq other than pasaenger
automobile car rental and empicyyee parking, (See Reaolution Book)
On roll call tfie foregaing resolution was passed by the following vote;
AYES:. CONIl~fISSIONERSs Allred, Gauer, Farano, Rowland_
NOESt COZAfISSIONERSi Nane.
ABSENTi COI~IISISSIONIItS2 Camp, Aerbat, Thom,
CONDITIONAL USE ~ E'UBLIC HEARIrG,. LEO FREEDMAN, 10350 A.lmayo, Los Angelee, Califoraia,
PERMIT NO„ 1129 Owner; NpgMAp HAHN~ p_ 0. Box 6049, Anaheim, Califoraia, Agent;
reqaasLing ger.misaion to ESTABLISH A CHURCH IN AN EXISTING THEATER
STRUCTQRE AND TO ESTABLISH A STRUCTURE AAVING A HEIGHT IN EXCESS OF
75 FEET~ WITH WAIVERS OF (1) MARIMUM SIGN HEIGHT, (2) MINIMUM HEIGHT OF SIGN BASE, (9)
SIGN LOCATION, (4) MARZMUM SIGN AREAa AND (5) MINIMUM REQIIIRED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES
on property described ae; A rectangularlp ahaped parcel of land having a frontage of
approximately 640 feat oa the south side of Freedmaa Way and a maximum depth of approxi-
mately 585 feet, being located appraximately 720 feeC east of the cen~erline of Harbor
Boulevard, and further described ae iielodyland, 10 Freedman Way. Property presently
classified R-A, AGRICIILTIIRAL, ZONE.
Aeaiataat Zoning Supervieor Pat Brown reviewed the location of eubject property, uaea
eatablished in cloae proximity, and the propoaed use of the Melodyland Theatre for church
purposea and to establiah a etructure in exceae of 75 feet. Previous zoning actione on
aubject property were also reviewed, it being noted that the petitioner had requested
ordinances to be read zeclassifying the property to the C-R Zone, and the aecond reading
of the ordinance had been held by the City Council on August 5, 1969.
Mr.. Browa reviewed the proposal, noting tnat the preaent capacity of the theater wae
3,270 aeate a.nd would be espanded to 4.,900 aeats iF subject request were approved;
that exiating pa.rking facilities would accommodate approximately 967 automobilea accord-
ing to the submitted plane, whereas Code would require a total of 1,037 parking stalls
for [his propoaed uae; that a field check of the property by the etaff indicated only
889 apacea on the property delineated by the conditional use permit legal description,
leaving a deficit of 148 parking apacea; that the Anaheim Municipal Code did not permit
the erection of any structure greater than 75 feet in the C-R Zone without the apprcval
of a conditional use permit - therefore,the propoeal of a 134-foot hig6, tripod structure
with an emblematic desaendiag dov~ mounted on Che top of this atructure wae covered as
part of this petition; and that originally the petitioners had indicated this strncture
would be 156 feet high, bat ~cpon being adviaed by the etaff tha: the Commerciel-Recreation
Height Standarda at thie location would permit only a etructure 134 feet in neigbt, the
petitionera had indicated they would concur in thia requirement.
~~ - ~. ~.~. ~
-
., . , ._ .. __ ... ~ . .. , ._ , .. .
~ ,, r . ,. ;. ,;~.
~~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Auguat 11, 1969
LJ
4;60
CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. Brown noted that originally wn.en tfie staff had reviewed the
PERMIT N0. 1129 request for the 134-£oot (156-foot high) tripod structure, chei:
(Continued) interpretation of the Sign Ordinance classified this as a free~
standing sign - hawever, aubsequent Ca the advertisement of th3s
petition, the Ci:y Attorney had indicated he felt th±e praposed
structure should be coaeidered a apecial church struature rather tSan a free-standing
aign per se, since he felt that although the atru.cture was emblematic, a church wuuld
not narmally be considered a cammercial eatablishmeni9 and he further indicated that
if any proper name or message of any kind were attached to this tower strncturef it
would then be conaidered a bonafide, free-standing sign.
Mr. Browa also noted that the Cammiasion mignt wish to quesCion tke pe:itioners relative
to the disgoaition of the existing Melcdyland sign located on the City of Anaheim right-
of-way at the intersection of Freedman Wap and Harbor Bculevard, ae well as ~l:e disposi-
tion of the exis:ing cocktail lounge and restaurant presently loaaCed in tHe Melodvland
atructure if subject patition were approved. '
~w
Mr- Brown noted the prim~ry concern of the Planning Commission in C'r.ie part3.r.Llar instance
would be that of land uae and the use of a struaCUre designed for theatrical entertainment
located in the heart of the Coamercial-Recreation Area as being apropos; that a farther
consideratian would be its relationship to the Commercial-Recreation Area in clcse
proximity to exiating hotel and motel facilities which had been granted on-s~le liquor
privileges as part of t2aeir operations~ and the poesible effect approcal of this use
might have on future requeste for co~ercial-recreation facilitiea in thia area; and,
finally, although the City of Anaheim's parking reqnirements ior chuches might be appro-
priate for the majority of churches in Anaheim, the Plaaning Commisaion should be apprised
of the fact that studies have been made by the Sonthern California Council of Churches
which indicated the ratio in Orange County should be one apace per three seata rather
than the uaual one per five seats - therefore, if this ratio were taken and applied Co
the proposal, it would mean a shortage of 701 spaces, and since the Chriatian Center
Chu mh already had problema relative to parking in their present location, this should
also be a major factor in coasideration.
Mr. Sealp Yates, attornep represeatiag the Christian Center Church, appeared before the
Commisaion and read a detailed statement regarding the prapoaed petition (copy on file
in subject petition ia the Development Servicea Department), summarized as followa:
1. Land uae - in the Commercial-Recreation Zone. The proposed uae and church was not
coneidered an ordinary ehurch in the uaual terminology.
2. Due to the very activeneea of the church facilitiea at their present location and
past Dave Wilkeraon yoaCh ralli.es held for the past four yeara at the Melodyland facility
in an attempt to help young people solve their insurmountable problema made the location
of the propoaed church in the Melodyland facilitiea a deairable one.
3. That the Christian Center intended to establieh a youth center for dailp recreation
for both membera of the church and pouag people vieiting the area, and a aervice men's
center for the purpose af providing reet~ relaxation, recreation, and spirltual encourage-
ment for t~:e thousande of service men visiting Chis area.
4. Provide a nondenominatianal church for the many viaitore in the area each year.
5. Make the facility available for church and other religioue conventione which would
provide additional buainesa Co local bueinese entarprieae, including hotele, motels,
reataurants, transportation, and reoreational facilitiea, and becauee theae conventiona
where generally charitable in nature, they would not be in thie area unlese the facility,
as propoaed, was located here,
6. Utilize the thoueanda of dollars worth of propa and other theatrical equipmenC under
the purchase agreement for varioue typee of religious performancea.
7. Eatabliah a religious art center in thie facility and any other youth or chariCable
o= Ckriatian endeavor for which a gathering place of th3s type would be ideal.
Mr. Yatea further noted that although the church had purchased 18 acrea in the Northeaet
Anaheim Area near Autonetics, upon presentation of an application for a conditional use
permit at this location, the City had informed them it wae desirable to retain this area
for induatrial purpoaea, aud a church weaZd not be an appropriate use in this area, and
that the queation of the higheat and best use for the property - it was felt that the
propoaed use by the Chriatian Center for the many philanthropic and religious activitiee
propoaed made the gelection of thie facility tre most ideal. Purthermore, upon contacting
the neighborhing hotels and motela regarding their propoaed uee af the Melodyland Theatre,
no opposition had been presented by representatives of the Charter House, the Grand Hotel
and other buainesa establiahments in this i~nediate area. As a matter of fact, theae
facilitiea were encouraged that tkis would bring more businesa to their facilitiee.
r
~
~~
:~
,:~,~
_. l
Mr. Yates noted that although the Christian Center was moving intc, an area where alcoholic ~
beveragea were sold, the move was being made with theae circumatancee being well known to
all and with the understanding that in order to fulf:il? the Center's miniatry, such a
move wae neceasary, and although they preferred that no liquor be aold ac Melodyland, if -
~*{ nt ~+'~` ~7'~"'~r ~'r"` ~'mR,'~"~~"'__.,~~.."';+~. +~i ''~'~'7+ ~`~"2; ~ a-- ~ n- e a , ^i
1 y .__ ~, ~
~ . ~ _ --..._.._V.._ . .
~ `•'j
MINUTES, CITy PLANNING COMMISSION, August i1, 1969
~' ~
4761
CONDITIONAL USE - at all posaible, it was the Center's intent to~either purchase the
PERMIT N0. 112q interest or obtain tneir intereat in some other legitimaLe manner,
(Con[inued) and that the proposed tower would be a symbol of the Center, much
the same as the Big "A" was the symbol of the Anaheim Stadiam and
k' the crosa on the top of the Garden Grove Commnnity Church was a
symbol of that church.
' Mr. Yatea, in conclusion, noted that he had been contacted by Dr, Hallstrom of the
». ' Orange County Juvenile Delinquency Preventative Department for permiseion to uCilize
Melodyland facilities in conjunction with the Stanton Police Department program ta
encourage yuung boys to stay off streets through boxing matches aponeored by the Boys
Clubs, and that he had relayed this message to the Chriatian Center who had initially
~ expresaed favorable consideration and looked forward to helping in thia endeavar eince
..~ this seemed to be a logiaal place for auch amateur eventa to be held.
' t
,.,,;~
r~ Reverend Ralph Wilkeraon, 4039 Circle Haven Road, Maheim, appeared before the Cammission
•a and noted that they had a youth center at their present church which was under very care-
~~ ful suoervision by adulta; that i~ was their deaire to expand their present facilities
_ to subject property, and then, in reaponse to Commiaeion quescioning, atated that the
~ aervice men's center would be in the same building on weekenda, and the young people
~+ would be utilizing the facilities during the week. '
Reverend Wilkerson, further in response to Commission questioning regarding the boxing
matches
stated there
ld b
'-~ ,
wou
e no charges for these matchea; that the matter was juat
presented to him this date
and no final de
i
i
T
' ,
c
s
on had been made by the church member-
ahip - however, they were very interested in providin
commn
it
~,
~
k g
n
y servicea since the
Convention Center had turned down many pro
ra
d
#' g
ms, an
that other aimilar programs were
unable to utilize the facilities of the Convention Center beca
~
# use of the cast in rental
fees. However, their facility would be available to many charitabl
~; e organizations.
~
r ~r.:
~ Chairman Rowland noted that he wished to apprise the petitionera of the fact trat there
were 17 undeveloped acr
a ea easterly of subject property, and 10 to 20 bars could be
developed ander the
r
,
v~ p
eaeni zoning for the property; therefore, for clarification
purposes, in the future would the church
`
` present any opposition at auch time as the
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board advertiaed re
uest
f
~~;
i'j
' q
s
or permisaion to hare on-sale
beer within the proximity of the church?
,~; ;i -
,ry j7
~r ~( Reverend Wilkerson stated they were fully aware and were cognizant of the fact that
there were many eatabl
i
h
~
1 .
a
menta having on-sale beer in this area when they propoaed the
purchase of the Melod
land Th
S
y
~ y
eatre, and any requesta in the future would not be opposed
by the church if they were
d
r
~ propose
to be eatablished in thia area.
"
' `'
'
`'; Commisaioner Farano noted that over the ast
p yeare where the Commisaion had received
requests for beer bara a
d
;;' n
cocktail loungea which aerved alcoholic beveragea, one of
the firet which gave rise to theee habit
~''
~`
~ e and other habite and the first to complain
have been churches; although he did not recall R
`
'~ everend Wilkeraon appearing in oppoai-
tion to something like thie, he wae curious ae t
h
o
ow Reverend Wilkeraon could rational-
ize the injection of the uae of euch a facili[y which
ae fa
,
r ae he wae concerned, was
incorrect; that the peti~ioner wae about to create an entire facilit
- al
n
t b
h
h
y
o
t
oug
he wae
eing critical aince he felt it sounded like an exceptional idea - i
t
;
a
n an area no[
all suited in tenor or temper; that the intended purpoae of the entire uae would be
in~ecting
oun
l
~ y
g peop
e into poseibly the exact environment that so many other church
people and citizena hav
s e complained about, in which they stated they did not want a
beer bar within 500 feet down the block f
~ rom their neighborhood becauae of the location
of a church in the vicinity - whereas a church
~
ri wae about to create an eatabliehment which
plMCes thie undesirable environment right in the middle of a
i
center proposed zor young,
mp.ressionable people se a religious meeting place.
~
5? _~
< Reverend Wilkeraon, in response, etated that Jeaus ate and drank with the publicans -
that doea not mean h
~
~: e participated in their ain, he wae among them. The church ia not
relative - it muat be out where th
~
~
` e people are. Melodyland ie right next to Disneyland
which is one of the hi hest t
g YPe entertainmenta in
~„~
~ ~"
~ our county as well as in the nation,
and hia church had
proven that thia was the place for a ch
h
*;, - urc
because they had had
forty rallies in that immediate area; that they had had no
roble
i
~,;
ai p
ma w
th young people
moving to the adjacent bara, and he felt that if his
es
~~ y~ _ m
eage were not etrong enough to
help the young people and help them out with their problema
the
h
q, ,
n t
ere was something
wrong with the church; that he was not afraid of the bars
but h
f
t~
` ,
e
elt they were afraid
of him - that hia gospel was more pawerful than what they had to offer
th
; - neverthelesa,
e propoaed aite was the moet ideal place for a church to be located. Furthermore
there were man
h
~
' ,
y c
urchea in the downtown areas which were near bars, and almoat every
ma3or church in Ctie United Stat
b
ea was
uilt in a center as prapoaed - that was why he
felt this was the moat logiaal aite f
r
h
o
t
e proposed uae.
~
.:M~
_Nk:i
,~
~ ~
~ ~
~
~
''~1
Commisaioner Farano then asked what age groupa did they anticipate would be utiliziag
these facilitiea - would they be young teenagera or older teenagera? ,
'~9r ..~ - - n. ~~ ~:•. g::
~
: ~; ;~ ;.. _ , ~
;
, ,
~.::.
~
MINIITES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August
I '~1. .: 4 ~=;~; i t -x~,' ~~
i
- 4'~+
- .ti~ r.
~ ~ ~
11, 1969
4762
CONDITIONAL IISE - Reverend Wilkerson replied thaC there were several groups of alY
PERMIT NO.. 117A ages, anQ these groupa were divided according ta their agea =
(Continued) however, they were highly superviaed and they had never had any
problema with them; this wsa proven anp a~ber of times because of
the youth rallies 6eld both at Meladyland and the Convention Center,
and if they were not operating on a high degree of morality~ the church members would
not have voted to purchase this facility,
Commissioner=Farano t~Cn inquired ~ philosophicallp, aince the Commission waald hear
this fr.om other applicents~ since Reverend Wilkerson was an expert in this field, would
he be ~n accord with the objection of an establishment that aervea wiae, beer, etc.,
being close Co a church?
';'~ Reverend Wilkerson stated he vas not in favor of thst tyge of operation, but ir was hia
"'~ opinion [hat a churoh ehould be established ner_t to every bar since the people aould not
find a church when they were in need, and they wouln then be able to help tham; that
he further expected to convert a nucaber of tl-.e frequenters of these bars in the very
near future.
Mr, Ben Soakind, Holiday Inn, 1850 South Harboz Boalevard, appeared before the CommissionD
noting he repreeented a steering cummittee o£ the flotel-Motel Operatora Asaociatioa and
_ 1 requested that a continuance be granted their organization ao that he might present tne
evidence heard at the pablic hearing; that hia organization had been too busy becauae of
the many visitors to the City to have a meeting regarding this - however, every one of
the repreaentativea he had contacted was ogposed to tke praposed use of aubject property;
;:'. • that it had been [he Holiday Inn's policy to drive their guesta to and from church, and
~`` x:- if the continuance were granted, he would call a meeting of the Hotel-Motel Operatora
Aasociatioa eteering co~ittee te determine their feelinga. .
, Mr. Jose Arias? Manager ofithe Dianeyland Aotel, 1421 South West Street, appeared before
~ the Co~iesion and requeated favorable consideration of Mr. Soskind's request for a
" ,~ continuance; thaC he was not deairocs of ivin an C
8 g y ype of recommendation without
;~ further atudy ta determiae what effect the proposed use would have on the entire area,
and it was his desire to maintain the image of Anaheim - however, the feelings of all
L~ members of the asaeciation were aeeded before opposition or approval could be given.
; Mr. Myron DeLacey, Jolly Roger Inn, appeared before the Commiasion and reiterated the
i atatementa mride by Mr, Soekind and Mr. Arias regarding the continuance; that the geti-
{ tioner had not contacted him in regard to his feelings ae to the propoeed uae~
'~
Chairman Rawland noted that although a number of motels and hotela had not been notified
regarding the public hearing, by law the City was required only to advertise the legal
notice in the newapaper, aad as a coureesy, notifiad property ownera within 300 feet of
~,i. eubject property.
-~ Mr. Yatea, in rebuttal, etated they had not denied anyone an opporl•unitp to review their
proposal; however, the hearing befare the Commiesion had received coneiderable publicity -
more than the narmal pttition - eince it had appeared in aeveral newepapere circulated
throughout the countq a number of timae during the paet weeke; that they, themselvea,
_ did not have sufficient time to contact all the people in the area - howe:var, aince
three aeparace motels were repreeented at the public hearing, they were fully aware of
the proposed uae of the Melodyland Theatre; and that they had contacted the Faataey,
Parkway, Tangiers, and all motele along Harbor Baulevard who had indicate~ no oppoeition.
~ Commiasioner Ailred noted that notwithetanding whatever the hotel and mo ` people
sequestad, he could not vote for the proposal ae it stcod until eome diep_aition was
: made of the restanrant and cocktail lounge; tnat he would not vote for a church where
thia type of facility was aext to the church structure - therefore, he woulcl auggeat as
' a solution termination of these uses be preaented before he could vote favorably on the
i`.,.,; petition.
Commiseioner Gauer expresaed eimilar viewpoints as Coarmiasioner Allred, and although he
had been contacted by individuals, he had expreased his feelinga in private talka that
he was not opposed to a church at thia location aince a church was a18o conaidered an
assembly of people, and an asaembly of people for religious or other purposes was to be
coaeidered a form of recreation~ since this meaaC recreate, and thia could be done in
many different ways - therefore, it was hia opinion that none of the adjoining uees
would be harmed by the propoaed uae of the Melodyland Theatre, and oateide of the loca-
tion of the cocktail lonnga and bar in cloee proximity to the propoaed church, he was
not opposed to the propoaed uae. However, Chia was predicated on the fact that the
petitioner had atated he would waive his right as to any futnre bar in the vacant areas
or on adjoining propertq. Furthermore, the Disneyland complex screened people who
- _"_.9 :~.._:...,. T
'
r~ ~ ' kit }
t ~9 h . _ a.~ FP 'S Ja' .,f• J ~~' Y~ 1 ! /e .
~. ~ 4 3 f... ... .~ ..-:t aj h ~
5;'~ ,k ..
ri- ~ - _
' ~ ~ ~ ;
~, MINOTES, CITY PLANNING COrIItISSION, August 11, 1969 4i63 •;
~ CONDITIONAL USE - were permitted to enter their Eatilicy, and this was one of tha
PERMIT NO.. 11~ highest type recreation centers -~ therefore, be could not see why
(Continued) a charcl: in this area would ba harmfa.l,
Commissioner Allred nated hia msin concern was t:he existing bar oa the psopertp
and -
~ ,
he felt aince a full Comaiasioa was not preaent, any deciaion ehould be deferred eo
th
h
d
at t
e
ecisien conld be made by a representative group.
~{
''
Commiasioner Farano inquired as to the tppe of continua~e deaired by the hotel-metel
gronp, and receiving a responae of a 30~day continuance, Commissioner Farano seated he ~'
` was not inclined either one way or the other as to the eatabliahment of a church; that ~
he had seen chnrches all over the world located in entertaix~ment centers - therefore
'
~~ ,
he had no strong feelings as ta the proposed use~ but he was more coacerned about other
~w uses to which the property would be put and was deairous of having a more complete list-
, ing of propoaed usea otaer than ita use,for a church before he could make a decision;
~ i
~+ that even thoagh t~e petitionere had aubmitted answers to a n~ber of queationa, it
was hi
f
li
~ e
ee
ng these answera were not anfficient to warrant conaideration of hie approval
.~,. of the proposed use. Furthermore, it was his feeling that a basic concern of everyone
~< ahould be the parking for the pr~poaed usea which could be overlapping, and eince the
~ ataff felt there were,insufficieat parking facilities, any combination of naes for the
~, eatablishment could tax the parking facilities of this general area..
- Reverend Wilkeraon stated he d3d not feal anything would he proposed for the new facility
~~~ that they were not doing at their preaent facility at ,~hich they had been operating a
F youth ceater, and this youth center was the basia o£ their success in having young people
as membera of the church; that the other activitiea anticipated would not be in conflict
,
and whan chcrch services were being held, the parking would not be taxed any mare than if
_ other types of uses were permitted at night.
~.i Co~.issioner Farano noted that since Reverend Wilkeraon's church had gained a tremendous
;;
' following, and the hope was to increaee th±s following, he wae basically conaerne~ Chat
;{ proviaions would not be made for increased parking facilitiea, based on the fact that
multiple usea were propoaed for tre facility. Furthermore, he would like to see aome
i j further consideration being givan to the type of emblem proposed aince he was not in
t ;,a favo~ of grotesque architeatare or aignd or emblema being projected in[o the air
and
~~ ,
the Planning Commission frum a community aGandpoint had attempted to diacourage s~ruc-
`~ tures which pro,jected above the topa of atructurea in an area - therefore, he would
~ reco~end that the petitioners re-eva'uate their propoaed emblem and attempt to preeent
o y
_ s
mething much more compatible. ~
~
Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Commission that the City Attorney had ruled i
~
; the proposed emblem could not be canaidered a eign as long as there was r.o wording on it. ~
~ Co~isaioner Farano offered a motion to continue Petition for Conditional Uae Permit ~
°,
~ No. 1129 to the meeting af September 8, 1969, to allow time for the Hotel-Motel Operatora
. Asaociation to meet to preaent recommendatione and opinions ae to the proposed use
for j
,
the petitioner to aubmit a detailed outline of propoeed typas of ueee other than a church ~
and youth center for eubject property, and for poeeible revieion of the propoeed emblem ~
to be more compatible with the recommendatione made by the Commieeion. Commiseioner ~
Gauez seconded the metion. MOTION CARRIED.
~ Reverend Wilkeraon advieed the Commisaion that a four-week continuance wae rather lengthy
and would be harmful because of the fect that they had an eecrow time limitation and ~
requested consideration uf a two-week continuance.
The Commi9sion then inquired of the tlotel-Motel Operators Aesociation repreaentatives i
'
whether or not their meeting could be resolved in a two-week continuance; whereupon
h ~
I t
e apukeaman, Mr. Soskind advised the Commisaion that two weeka would be adequate. j
'
` -' Commissioner Farano ~ffered a motion to rescind hie previoua action for a four-week ~
continuance of eubject petition, Commiesioner Gauer aeconded the motion
MOTION CARRIED i
w ~ .
.
R''
Commiasioner Gauer offered a motion to continue Petition for Conditional Uae Permit 3
{
z
'
' No. 1129 to the meeting of Auguat 25, 1969, to be acheduled se the firat item on the ~
"
,
;: agenda, in order to allow time for the Hotel-Motel Operatora Asaociation to meet and !
present their opinions at the next public hearing and for the petttioner to submit a
~ ; detailed o~tline of all usea propoaed for aubject property other Chan the youth center
` < and church facilities, and for the petitioner also to conaider revision of plana as to
r: the propoeed emblem as requested by the Commiaeion. Commissioner Allred .seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
~.~ , - .-. -
y ^~_
_ - `; _
z ~z : ; f x _ ~- .1; ~~~. ;
_ 3~
. __
. .__.__. ~~ .
~
~ ~ ~~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 11, 1969 476k
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC AEARING. FOREST LAWN CEMETERY ASSOCIATION, 1712 Seuth
PERMIT N0~ 1130 Glendale Boulevard, Glendale, California, Owner; MARTIN LUTHER
HOSPITAL, INC., 1825 Weat Romneya Drive, Anaheim, California, Agent;
requesting permission to EXPaND AN EXISTING HOSPITAL WITH WAIVER OF
MA3CIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT TO ALLOW BUILDINGS AS HIGH AS 155 FEET on praperCy deacribed as:
A rectangularly shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 10 acres, having a
frontage of approximately 830 feet along the south side of Romneya Drive (a private
street) and a maximom depth of approximately 528 feet, being located approximately 820
feet west of the ceaterline of Euclid Str~et, and further described as Martin Luther
Hospital. Property presently claeaified R-3, MI?LTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE,
Asaistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brnwn revtewed the location of sub~ect propertv and
uses eatabliahed in close proximity, n•ating Chat the existing medical facilitiea on
the parcel to the narth had been approved under Conditional Use Permit No. 1? in 4pri1,
195~ that sub~ect property had been realassified to the R-3 2one in June of 1958, at
the same time the parcel ta the nortY~ was recisesified to tee C-1 Zone; thaC t'r.e pro-
posal eubmitted by the petitioner indicated a very large hospital and medical faciliLy
complex ae an expanaion of the exiating facilities to the north, said expansion to take
place in aeveral phases; that eight large atructures were contemplated, five o~f which
would be located on subject property and three additional large, main atructures were
contemplated on the vacant R-3 parcel to the east - however, this parcel was r.at under
coneideration s~ this time; that two nursing towers of 155 feec in height were proposed;
that a paramedical training building 85 feet in height, a research unit atructure 85
feet in height, and an auditorium approximately 15 feet in height was the maater project
on aubject property; that the first building wonld 'n~~.: a gross area of approximately
168,000 square feet, requiring 168 parking spacea according to Code, and 254 apaces
were being provided; that ultimate development of sub~ect property when completed woald
be approximately 4449000 sqaare feet of grosa floor area, with 540 parking spacea being
provided; that the arahitect for taia project had indicated to staff that at all scages
of development a parking ratio greater than one epace per thousand squara feet af
grosa floor area would be provided; and that a hoapital was a pezmitted use in tne R-3
Zone subject to approval c;f a conditional use permit - therefare, the uae, which was
an expansion of an existing facility to the narth, would be an appropriate one.
Mr. Eugene Dahlgren, Executive Director and representative of Martin Luther Hospital,
appeared before the Commiasion and advised them that the arcnitect and repreaentative
of Foreat Lawn Cemecery Association were also preaent to anawer queationa= and that
the report by the ataff was anfficient ta cover their proposal.
, Chairman Rowland inqnired whether or not there were any findings or conditions of the
~ Report to the Commiasion which the representativea of the hoapital or the agent had
~ to diacusa.
Mr. F. Kubit, Director of Planning of Houghton Aaeociatea, 1475 Sixth Avenue, San Diego,
architect and engineers of the proposed devel~pment, appeared before the Commisaion and
noted that the only item of concern was whether or not it wae eeeential as a condition
of approval to build a 6-foot maeonry wall to the rear and side of the property; that
they would ratyer eee this developed with landacaping - however, if it were a definite
requirement, this would be the onlv point of contention, and he was available to anawer
queations,
The Commiseion advised Mr. Kubit that the wall had been a requirement in Che past and,
therefore, would atill be a requiremen~.
Chairman Rowland coumented on the matter of the landscape median in the atreet -
it was hia underatanding thie had been diecusaed at considerable length by the etaff ?
;:,- and repreaentatives of Martin Luther Hoapital regarding ica abandcnment, to which he was
' categorically oppoaed to any change of this nature; that a decision at thie time was
r somewhat premature; and that as development plana were finalized~ aome of theae pointa
` of conflict could be reaolved, aad the landacape median then could be retained.
n ~ Furthermores he doubted very much that the plan had progreased to the point where the
~~ final deciaian had been made regarding said landecape median.
r_, '
Mr. Kubit adviaed the Co~issicn that tlnia assumptien was correct; Cnat the engineering
of the road plans had not been started - as a matter of fact, they did not know where
spECific entrances would be from the street to the hoapital aite, but they would attempt
to keep theae entrances ta a minimum so that there would be adequate space left for some
landscaping - however, he would prefer reaolution of thie problem at a later date when
more data wae available.
Chairman Rowland furt6er noted that the property to the north with the varioua medical
buildinge had numeroua entrances to the atreet which, parhapa, could be cambined to
reduce the number of entrances in order that this landscape median could be retained.
~ p~~~ -... .
,,, , .
. ,
, c~, ,: , . ~
, . ., . . , , .
.~ . _~
; . , .,. . ,,
. - ,.. ::: . : _
O ~
MINIITES, CITY PLANNING COPIliISSION, August ~ 1969 .
4765
CONDITIONAL USE - THE HEARING WAS CLOSED,
PERMIT N0. 1130
(Continued) Co~issioner Allred offered Resolution No. FC69-173 and moved for
its passage and adoption, to grant Petition far Canditional Use
Permit No. 1130, aubject to conditions. (See Resolution Boak)
j On roll call the foregoing resolution was pasaed by the following vote:
°:i~ `
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Herbat, Thom, '
~~r',:~~ " RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. PAUL B.. TRFe1T AND LYAfAN BOOTH~ P, 0. Box 7~
~ '~ N0. 69-70-7
~ ;s Fullerton, California, Owners; PAUL B. TREAT, P, 0> Box 7, Fullerton,
~ - . Califcrnia, Agent; property described as; A rectangularly shaped
5 parcel consiating of two portiona of land at the southeas[ carner
,- : of Lincoln and Grand Avenues, and further deacribed as Portion A- A rectangnlarly
~L ,~ shaped parcel of land located at the southeast corner o£ Lincoln and Grand Avenues,
having approximate frontagee of 300 feet along the south eide of Lincoln Avenue and
200 feet along the east side of Grand Avenue, and Portion B- A rectangularly shaped
; "-! parcel of land having a frontage of approximaceLy 185,feet along the east side of
' Grand Avenue south of Portion A~ with a maximum depth of approximately 161 feet, being
~ ~~ located approximately 266 feet aouth of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue. Property
~ ~r presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, AND R-3, MIILTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONES
~ ~a (PORTION A); R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE (PORTION B).
~ ,,.F~
~ REQUESTED•CLASSIFICATION: PORTION A- C-1, GENERAL COMME:RCIAL, ZONE.
; ~~ PORTION B- R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMZLY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
~~,'- , .., .;x
Aasiatant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of aubject property and
uses established in close proximity, noting [hat the Preliminary General Plan-1969
indicated that southerly from Lincoln Avenue highway-related commercial, medium density
reaidential, and law-medium density reaidential uses would be appropriate for the area;
that the easterly parcel was reclasaified from the R-A to the R-3 2one as part of the
reclassification action covering approximately 8 acrea of land, said action taking
place in June, 1969; that subject property consisted of two parcels, with xhe wes[erly
parcel consiating of approximately 1.7 acres of land and the eas[erly parcel consisting
of a parcel 140 feet by 200 feet; that the petitioner wae propoeing to have the north~
erly 200 feet of boch F'ortiona A and B for commercial uees and multiple-family reaiden-
tial usea for the southerly 185 feet; and that no development plane`had been aubmitted
for either portion of the property, but the petitioner had indicated to the ataff
[hat Portion A was propoaed Co be developed with usea permitted in the C-1 Zone and
Portion B would be combined with a larger, already exieting parcel located east and
south of Portion B to develop an apartment complex.
No one appeared to represent the petitioner.
No one appeared in oppoaition to aubject petition.
TRE HEARING WAS CLOSED,
Commissioner Farano offered Reeolution No, PC69-174 and moved for ita passage and
adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclaseification No.
69-70-7 be approved, aubject to conditiona. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregaing resolution wae pasaed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS; Allred, Farano, Gauer, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None„
ABS IIVT: COMMISSIONERS; Camp, Herbst, Thom.
`-~-W~~ tJ 3 .~_..1~ _ . ~ ~ {.. .
MINUTESQITY pLANNING COMMISSION, August 11, 1969
~~
~~766
1
. _. ~
~l
RECLASSIFICATION ~ PUBLIC HEARING. LOYD P. NICHOLS, 420 North Janss Street, Anaheim, f
N0. 69-70-6 California, Owner; MORRIS HODGES, 160 Hillcresr Drive, Fcll~rtomg
Californiap Agent; property deecribed as: Farcel 1 ~ An irregu.larly
VARIANCE N0. 2111 shaped parcel •+f land containing approximately~ 13 acr~s situated
north ar.d west of the northwest corner of Creseent Atenue and
Chippewe Avenues, eaid parcel having frontages of appzoximately
425 feet on Chippewa Avenue and 1,498 feet on the Santa Ana Freeway; an: Parcel 2-
A rectangularlq shaped parcel of land situated at the nortawest corner of Crescent
and Chip~ewa Avenues, said parcel having approximate frontages of 150 feet on Cresceni
Avenue and 195 feet on Chippewa Avenue. Prcperty presentlp classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL.
ZONEQ _
REQUESTED CLASSIFICAI'ION: PARCEL 1- R-3, MULTIPI.E-FA:lILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE.
PARCEL 2- C~1, GEN~RAL COMMERCIAL•, ZONE..
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) M.LNLMUM DISTANCE BE~TWFEN BUILDINGS,
(2) .'~1A}CIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN UNITS Ah'D r1 STANDARD STREET,
(3) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF Me1IN BUILDINGS ON A SITE, AND
($j MINIMUM aCCESSURY BUIiDING SETBACK 1N THE FRONT 75%
OF THE LOT, TO ESTABLISH A 339-UNIT aPAR1?lENT COMPLBX.
Aasiatant Zoning S~pervisor Pa= ;own reviewed the location of subject prcperty, usea
established in close proximity, xnd the proposal with four waivers requested to estab-
liah a 339-unit, twu-story apartmeat complex on Parcel 1, deyelopment to take p].ace in
three phases, with 114 units in the first phase, 105 units in the aeaond phasey and
120 units in tne third phase; that Parcel 2 was propoaed to have a service station and
a convenience market to be developed iu the future; that plans submitted indicated
435 covered and 67 open parking sr.alls, or a t~tal of 502 parking stalls~ which w2s
in exceas of the curren.t requirement of 1'~ apacea per dwelling unit - howe^er, the new
amendment to the multiple-family site development standazds for parking requ:^ements
would require 530 parking atalls, and the proposal, thereEore, would be 29 short,
and since theae new amendments would be effective sftrr Seotember 19, 1969, any plan
approved at this time ~should reflect deve7,opment in accordance with the newly adopted
standarde. Furt6ermore, the entire de~.:;i,ynment coneisting of approximately 13 acres
and having a maximum depCh of 1,369 f~er;, u3a proposed to be served by a sys~em of 25-foot
wide, private alleys, and no primary mtas?.a of aacess had been propased,
Mr. Brown, in reviewing the evaluation of the I:epo»t to the Commiseion, noted that the
Preliminary General Plan-1969 indicated thia land tnse to be an appropriate one for
Parcel 1- however, the Planning Cormnisaion would have to consider whether the request
for cammercial zoning as propoaed by the petition would be appropriate giver. the exist-
ing and proposed land uaea in this general area, snd if a aervice station were to be
developed, a conditional ase permit wouid be re~uired aince this eite was not located
at tne interaection of a ma~or, primary er secondary highway, and it would be located
within 75 feet of reeidentially zoned property. At the Interdepartmental Cummittee
meeting of Auguat 4, it was their opinion a pro~ect oi thie eize and deneity ehould
incorporate an aceeptable eyetem of primary accees ae well as aecondary acceee, and
eince the petitioner wae no~ progoeing eny primary acceae, but wae propoaing en alley
syatem serving the project meeauring 4,000 feet in length, with the weeternmoat dwelling
unite being reached through a maze of 1/4 mile of alleyways, it would not be conducive
to a reaidential environment due to the £act that both ground floor and seco.^,d atory
would be i~ediately adjacent to alleye, with no provieion made to buffer the noiae and
congestion of the traffic ueing the alleys.
Mr. Walter Chaffee, representing Morrie Hodges, the agent for the petitioner and tne
owner, appeared before the Cammieaion and noted they were somewhat amazed at the Report
t
h
,
~ o t
e Commieeion aince the plana had been redrawn a nwaber of times during the past
eix monthe to accommoAate the ataff's recammendations; that eubject property was a
problem
arcel b
a
p
ec
uae of the flood control channel on the northerly boundary and the
Santa Ana Freeway on the aouth and weat bou!:dariea; that man
att
~
,
` y
empte had been made
to design the property, and althongh they were not happy with the acceas to the
r
.
"~ ~ p
operCy
ae propoaed, it was nat felt that street dedication would be appropriate since it would
aerve onl sub ect
Y j property; that the private alley proposed would give a better cirnuls-
tion t
h
~ o t
e property than a required 60-foot etreet; thaC einne circulacian wae a major
problem
if th
C
i
,
e
omm
ssion adopced the proposed system of e:irculation, one auggeation
for relieving thia problem would be to h
ave a gate keeper at one end which could take
care of eome of the problema of acceae; and [hen
in rea
~ ,
ponea to Commission questioning
relative to the poaeibility of theee alleys conCaining trash and stored iceme
noted
,
that the proposed 25-foot driveb would be offering the tenants wider drivea or etreeca
than a dedicat
d
d "
"
' e
atreet, an
no.parking
signacould be poat.d 1n the allepa ~o prohibit
anyone parking in the alleys ~o the Commiaeion suggested might happen
~~ .
'~':..
'.~~~;:~.i
.
.
-----~.._ _
--_._ . -~
+ 'a. . ~ ,. 1 w T Y ~
. . . ::~ ~ - . ar~:~
., . , . . __ _ .. . . . . ~ .. .~. ~ ~ . . ..
,.;.,
.r-7 ~-_~_-_.___ r~ ~'4 ! ~ ~ ~~ s .' . .
MINDTES; CITY PLANDiING COMMISSION, Augas~l, 1969 ~~ G;b~,+
RECLASSIFICATION -. Mr. Chaffee further noted that although they wEre only 29 parking
N0. 69-70-6 , s~a;ces short of the new parking requirements, chey wuuld make every
~~te:npt to resolve this and provide the parking as required under
VARIANCE N0. 2111 the nsw requirementa,
(Continued)
Mr. Mor.ris Aodges, agent for the petiti~n~r, appeared before [he
Commisaion and nuted he had been working with the Planning staff
for~several months on subject proposal; that he realized Che acceas problems were
somewhat difficult, but it was hia feeling a new design which he had presenCed would
give the development at leaet as much as a 60-foot deditated streec would give in the
matter of a clear right~of-;way; that 67 parking apacee were being provided at the
en'trance of the development; and using this method of offset parking, tnere would be
clear accesa directly into the development of 25 feet, and no parking would be permitted
on said access; that wnen Che plans had beEn submittedII they were net required ~o gtovide
gueat parking - h~wever, thia was done in order to provide off~strae~ parking; that the
pr~~possl was to be in a three-phase development, renting the first to young, married
people and the second anit ta be rented to families witn children, wlth tha rear portion
to be for adults only, such as oldez peaple who want to 13ve in aparcments rather than
a development auch as Rossmoor; that tne carporta were groposed along the freeway and
were proposed to be 10 feet in heigl~t, wnich woald be ample for parking campera and
trucks; that t;e was aware of the possibility of Crescent Avenue being extended over
the freeway, and Lhis w~uld add a considerable amount of traffic co the on and off-ramp
traffic of the 5,000 cars per day presently utilizing Crescent Avenue; thac the reason
for requesting coamercial usea for a portion of the property was to shield their
development and minimize the excesaive noiaes from the freeway traffic as well as the
through traffic; that it was his opinion the staff had presented an unnecessary issue
as to the alley accesa since he felt the 25-foot driving arPa would be much better
to provide for fire and trash pickup tban hst*ing a 60-foot street with a parkway and
sidewalka which would reduce the actual driving area to 22 feet.
The Co~isaion noted thac the recently adopted R-3 site develop~ent star.dards germitted
units to be located more than 200 feet from a dedicated street.
Mr. Aodges then noted that it was his opinion the propased development would be of
better quality than was presently built in *_he area; that the development would be
well planned architecturally and would be an asset to ~he area.
The Commiasion not•ed that they had driven through a multiple-family developmeut
immediately adjacent Co subject property, and in looking at the carports and open
garages, boats were stored ::here and cara were parked on the streete; that they could
not aee how the posting of a"no paricir.~'aign would diacourage or prohibit people from
parking aince no one psid attention to aigns, and in the event emergency vehicles were
called to servica the facility: if cars were parked in the alley, there would be no
meane of providing thia emergency service without considerable difficulty,
Mr. Hodges noted tnat it wae his belief this was the original intent of the etaff in
recommending to the Commiesiun that additional parking be provided under the new Code
requiremente; that they had propoaed additional gueat parking on the plan, and addi-
tional parking would be provided to meet the new Code requirements; that it wae hoped
thie would a private development with considerable landecaping, and the overall
development would be quality - Cherefore, it was felt tenante would not object to
walking from parking epacea that were policed by guards; that it was their intent to
maintain all the alley circulation, whereas the City would be required to take care
of any dedicated etreet; that the pro~ect was in need of park and recreation areas,
and the property on the extreme weat wae undeairable for living and was next to the
freeway, and ic was, therefore, determined thie would be a amall recreation grea for
children - however, there were three pools planned for each phase of development,
Mr. Sam Porter, 8523 Bluebell, Buena Park, owner of property at 1837 Gramercy Place,
appeared before the Commiasion and noted that when he had purchased his property he
felt it would contribute co hie retirement ~ however, the area east of Chippewa Avenue
was now being converted to one of the most de.+.;aely pooulated areas in Orange County
with condominiume built wall-to-wall; that au e;!diticnal 50-unit complex was now being
built adjacent to Chippewa, which was addicig to the denaity of the area, and the number
of people who had moved into this area during the past few montha mas creating a ghetto
and would be one of the worat in the country; that although subject property wae located
adjacent to the freeway and eouth of the flood control channel, the number of unita
proposed to have accesa to Cdipgewa Avenue, a local street being only 40 feet wide and
havfng sidewalka on the east aide only, would create a traffic problem far in excesa
to the problem already on this atreet; [eat tF~e request for cammercial zoning on a
emall portion wa9 unnecessary becauae of the location of a very large commercial
ahopping center within a block of the area, and an additional amail ahopping center
was undeairable; that he suggeatea the City stop, look and liaten and Cry tu determine
what was beat for the entire Ci.ty rather than atteaupting to create a ghetto; that
4 ~`
A"~
~ f~
;:`2$
:a;
~;o
.i . . .
_rx~ .~n~.'~~'~. ------ _ - 9 ~ - ...~r~w.~
. ~ _.'.~k" ~.ru '~1 ~ J~25 . ~ S
. . . .. _ . . . . ~ . ~ , w `~ ._.. , . ..
~,~r ~+ ~ r ?tt f ~ , 7 '.1 r .~.N't~ ~ ~ .
~ f '
~ j _ ' ^. ____. ._" ~"'_' .
} ~ ' ~ ~ l~
MINOTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 11, 1969 4768
~ RECLASSIFICATION - owners of property in this area were now paying considerable taxes,
NO_ 69-70-6 and it was his feeling that aubject property could better be ased
as a park for the many apartment residenaes in this general area
VARIANCE N0, 2111 rather then permitting additional housing.
-- ~ (Continued!
Commissioner Gauer inquired as to whether or not tf~ere was any
* consideration being given to extending Greenleaf Avenue over the
flood control channel to provide for an additional outlet for aubject property.
Zoning Supervisor, Charles Roberts adviaed the Commiasion that there had been no thought
given to extending Greenleaf Avenue with a bridge; however, from previoas atudiea made
~ _ of bridges ecrosa flood control channels, it was detexmined this was very expensive,
":,~,; and the only consideration of an extension acrosa the Santa Ana Freeway was for
~° a;~`'~'~ Crescent Avenue in the future.
J C~
,~' The Coffiuission then noted that one of the major problems i.n developing subject propertg
~k ~ was the matter of acceas fur all the people who would be utilizing these many apartmenta.
I"~,- . ~
`1> "~: Mr, Loyd P. Nichols, one of the ownera and pekitioner, appeared befnre the Commisaion
,'_ ;,f; and noted that the apartment developments in close proximity to subject property having
;.,' 1,( two bedrooms and more now had only one parking space; tha[ he realized the parking
I. requirements had changed - howe~er, the environment was auch that his project should
~i not be expected to go to extremes, even though they were willing to meet parking require-
? <,~: ments; and that the aolution to pronibit parking in the alleys would be a good one aince
,'A' guest parking would be provided immediately off the alley near the entrance at Chippewa
' Avenue.
Mr. Hodgea, in responae to Commissioner Gauer's concern relative to parking in the alleys,
~ noted that che only place where a carport might be blocked was at the southerly entrance
il from Chippewa, and they were proposing off-atreet parking with the hope of picking up
? ,;~ an additiona]. 29 spaces adjacent to the "H" portion on the plot plan where it could serve
':,(~ any of the three phasea of development..
q
~ Co~isaioner Gauer noted that the Commisaion had driven through numerous areas that had
developed with alleys as circulation, and it was a less desirable envizor,went, both
' from the standpoint of circulation as well as living environment, and if a fir2 occurred,
,Y~ it could be a catastrophe.
L ~~
, Chairman Rowland noted tnat the Commission in their most recent amendment of the site
' development atandards had permitted carporta to be built with 25-foot alley access
`~` driveways.
~
} Assiatant Development Servicea Director Ronald Thompeon adviaed [he Commisaion that
the ataff recognized thie within the confines of the ordinance; however, aubject property
,,zy; aeemed to be something wherein only alley circulation might not be [he most desirable.
aa@~;
THE HEARIN~ WP_S CLOSED.
::~ `
Comnisaioner Farano noted that although the Commisaion had approved a code amendment
to permit davelopm~nt of parcele with alley acceea, the proposed development was
pro,jecting unita 1,100 feet from a dedicated at:eet.
Chairman Rowland noted that the reaeon the 200 feet from a dedicated atreet had been
removed wae to allow for development of larger, 100 and more unit development which
differed conaiderably from those originally approved along Ball Road, which were the
barracks-type develepmEnta, and later, ae the economic etructure changed, marginal
developera could nat find financing for thia type of developmeqr;; that the lenders
and developere were now going to larger type developmente of l0U units and more; that
the Coffiiseion had recognized ihat development of the 100-unit complex mechanically,
socially, and environmentally ar.u aad tailored the aite developmen[ atandards according-
ly; that with a 100-unit development, given the normal tyge of land found in Orange
County by permitting peripheral drives or accese, this would be a reaeonable way for
a development of thia aize; that it would allow for the aeparation of the vehicular
and pedestrian accesa by having vehicles going around the development and placing the
recreatianal facilitiea, the people, and ;;adestrian ueea in the middle of the develop-
menC; and Chat by providing reasonable accees wich adequate cuCoffa, circulation for
emergency vehicles would also be nrovided. Furthermore, thie would allow a developer
with great akill greater flexibility to design an acceptable development - it would
allow development of problem parcels also; that he peraonally felt that even though
Mr. Hodgee and hia people had made several attempte at thie thing, there were atill
some problems to be aolved; ~hat within certain confines, peripheral access could be
provided; and that eome of the things which he could not live with even if the plan
were brought before the Commisei.on thoueanda of times were: 1) circulation at the
~~
( wi
I 1'z
~ ~~
~_~ ~.
tr~-+ia'~". ^~= ~~'". .
s~ct «.,
y ~., *,,. a ~ ,~,~ y.~~,:
„ ,, .
. , . ,:
_ ' ..• ;,
; ~,
,,.. , .._ , , , ..
_ . , . . L~
~~ ~y_~q r 'fi"Y
IE`~ .~''i'~ i~~t. ` ~ . ~` 't ; '"'"@ 7aN ~.t ` i v~'45uRY~/ 5.~ d [ ~
_ ,' 4 T,' Z Y~: .,,~
_ „~l~
4 ;
~~ ;
l
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~
•~ ~~~~
,nl
Y 5!
~ ie/
MINDTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 11, 1969 4769 ~ M~
`
RECLASSIFIC~ITION - deep end is difficult to handle, the dead-end elley
woich alone ~ ?,~
~
;
'~
r
NO_ 69-70-6 would not have been appraved by the Commission considering past .
:
~ ?~
action by the Commisaion wherein modificatinn was required before a
' VARIANCE NO.. 2111 favorable consideration was given to a project - in ahort
the ~
~ ,
(Continued) proposed development had miserable access with only one accesa tu
` Chippewa Avenue, and aomething would have to be done; 2) the -•~~
request for R-3 zoning was a reasonable one - however, the request
fo
C
1 ~
2
`
~ r
-
on a small portion was unreasonable since chere was no logic to introducing `:Xi
+
~~ co~ercial uses into this residential area with auch a large cvmmercial complex clcae
b ~
y; 3) the waiver ef minimum dietance between atructurea - theae are main buildings j
~ which he felt were not desirable and which he could not live with since the develop- ~
meat was not providing proper living environmenC - since the portiun of the Code which r.N
4'' ~~,; the Co~ission had waived before where it pertained to distance between atructures ~
~ was between main and accesaory buildings - same of these main structures were monumen[al
a,
~~
.: in scale, and this could be a ve serious
ry ~roblem; and 4) that he would not object to ~
~'
a
' living unita 1,000 feet :€rom a dedicated atreet provided aome recognition was given to ~~
~; the funneling effect tkie proposal gave at the westerly end - circulation might be
~; ;
~ handled with two accessways to che property, but the developer would have Co provide
z a traffic pattern that was less devious than Chat proposed in order that this could
wor& satisfactorily.
_' Commiasioner Allred noted ti~~at these were also his concerns; that although these
might be constructed, il was highly likely that they would have success in renting
these apartmenta, eapecial2y with the long alley dead-ending a[ Che west.
s
~~
° Commissioner Gauer also expressed opposition to considering the small parcel for
. commercial uses, feeling that he could aee no reason for this requeat aince people "`~
x" would never walic to th±a small stere but would drive to the store in their cars `
,
and it was more logical they would go to a regular shopping center instead of a ~'?
~
' small, neighborhood center. Furthermore, he could not aee a development of this
~ aize havin nothin but a
8 g lleye for circulation, and the Commisaion had seen too IREily
developments in tne City wherein alleys were the only circulation, and even though
~
) people did park in the street, they paid no attention to aigns when they per[ained
to
arki
i
i
~t , p
ng
n pr
vate alleys.
t ~~
~ Commiasioner Farano noted he was also concerned with the circulation propoaed and
~`,~ could not vote on subject petition with the circulation plans as
reaented
~§l ~ p
.
`~ _~
;; Chairman Rowland noted that the l,ast thing the Commission wae desirous of doing was
looking over the ahould
f d
i ~
`' er o
es
gnera and buildera; however, when they were faced ~
;; with a very difficult problem, auch as sub,ject property, it was urgen[ that conaidera-
tion to all
f th
l
~
y o
e g
aring factors be brought out at the public hearing
.
~ ;~ Mr. Hodges then noCed that not only were they faced with meeting the City's problema ~
;
` but also the lender's problema, and regardleas of whether the City wanted streeta or~ ~
y~ not, by providing a atreeC would remove some of the recreational facilities propoaefl
in th
f ~
, e center;
ur~hermore, the sr,aff had in~`icaced to him at one of the meecinga ~
that they felt aubject praperty wea a natural epot for a mobile home park as being ;
` an interim uae - therefore, the suggeetion made that aubject petition be continued ~
x to allow time for reviaion of plans, f
^ Y
~ Chairman Rowland nated thaC the Co~iasion would consider the poeeibility of a mobile t
home park - however, they would need eome type of plane which would indicate the '
x proper circulation, and if this circulation also presented the eame problem with the
mobil
h
e
ome park, then chere would be no reason for aubmisaion of plana for a mobile ~
,,,
~ home park.
i
;
' Commieaioner Gauer no[ed that in mobile home parke they always provided for parking
~ on the lot, and in all the mobile home parke he had viaited, he aeldom fnund cara
~ ~: parked in the sCreeta,
~
~j.7 ,:
~ Mr. Roberta advised the Commission that Mr. Chaffee and Mr. Hodges ahould be appriaed
~ i ~of the fact that if a mobile home park were to be conaidered, a condicional use permit
would be necessar
y y.
Mr. Hodges then agreEd to a six-w~~[c continuance.
7i... . .... •. t. , .. ..
~ Mr. Roberts then noted that eince aeveral of the Commissionera had indicated the
propueed C-1 was undeairabie, perhaps the developer could take thia into accoun[ when
reviaed plans were aubmitted. '
~~ Commiasioner Allred effered a motion to reapen the hearing and continue Petitiona £or
~;! Reclassification No. 69-70-6 and Variance No. 2111 [o the meecing of September 22
Ln '
i
,. ,
order to allow t±me for the peticioner to submit revieed plana to fall more in line
i
Y
~ .~,, , ._ ` -
:.:<„ ~ . ..~ ~ . ' .
..
:- .. . ::~.: ~ : -., . ~
..,+~..
R:".., ~ ~, ._,_
.
~a
7 .:;-~
7 ~
:. .
~
.
..
~a
r . . .. _ ~i'~ _ . . .. . .. .. ~ . ~ . .. .~ ~ . ~. . . .
`~t- Ytw ~s ~^ rc ,~rs ~^ y i W z ~"~'`r ~'y. k a r ~ a F
3i r~. i. y~ ~~
`~ _ _ y,
~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 11, 1969 4770
RECLASSIFICATION .- with establiehed'community goals, providing an adequate syetem of
NO,: 69-70-6 vehicular circulation including both primary and secondary
accesaways, Commiasioner Gauer aeconded the mot~on. MOTION
VARIANCE N0, 2111 C;ARRIED.
(Continued)
~~, „1- REPORTS AND - ITEM i1U.: 1
~".,~ . RECOA~fENDATIONS Underground utility requirements.
'M'M":l _a~.. . .
;i."1~~...~:: ~;:, .
~, ; Asaistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Srown reviewed the report regarding underground utility
?,1. .t requirements as oet forth in the Subdivision Section of the Anaheim Municipal Code,
Title. 17, noting that due to the fact that a parcel map waa not required as a condition
k;,". .
.?~"'.,~. ~ of new development and was required onlq when land was aplit, an illogical pattern of
.~,.,;~~j underground utilitiea was likely to develop - for example, in the Peralta Hills - and
~ one manner of remedying this would be to amend the General Section of the zoning ordinance
so as to require all new construction to be aerved by underground utilities. Thie would,
~ •,`, of courae, reqnire public hearings to amend the ordinance, Section 18.04.045, General
,~"?;. .?~ Proviaione - Underground Utilities.
F Commiesioner Farano offered a motion ~o direct the ataff to set for public hearing
;, ~ ameadment to Title 18, Zoning, Section 18.04..045, General Provieioas - Underground
~, '~~ Utilities of the Anaheim Municipal Code for the meeting of September 8, 1969.
:-*~ Co~isaioner Gauer seconded tne motion. MOTION CARRIED.
u "
~k ~
± ITEM NO,. 2
~'~:~,-
''``'':'` Code Interpreta[ion
'"`?_'~ SecCion 18.52.050(1-g), Conditional Usea
,,~
,~,~` ;, Assiatant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown presented a report to the Commisaion regarding the
'~':_.;~~:j? interpretation of Section 18.52.050 1-
, ( g), "An encloaed or semi-enclosed reataurant (with
~' or without cocktail lounge)" se a permitted use in the M-1 Zone, subject to the approval
~A' „w of a conditional use permic, noting that the City Council approved Conditional :ise Permit
~
~='~'F" No. 764 for a"Dog House" walk-up reataurant at 406 South Anaheim Boulevard - which is
~r` '~~' within the central induatrial area, said reataurant having been out of operation for
~~ ~,~ eome time; that the owner some time ago requested etaff approval to expand the existing
'"'" structure and use it ae a beer bar with food aervice, doubling the aize of the exiating
~, ,~~ structure, making eubatantial modificationa and completely re-doing the facade; and
'~, ?~~ that the etaff interpreted the worda "wi~h or without cocktail lounge" to mean that
'~ L~~ once a reataurant was approved in the induatrial zone by conditional uae permit, then j
~ x~ on-sale beer and wine would be permitted. Therefore, based on this interpretation, the ~
, ti ataff ave the a licant ;
~` ~;~ 8 pp permieaion to proceed with his development and indicated that ~
~ on-sale beer and wine would be a permitted uae on the property, i
~ Further diecusaion at the staff level indicated there was some doubt ae to whether this ?
~,r~ wae a correct interpretation of the Code, and, therefora, the etaff wae now requesting ?
;E that the Planning Commieeion interpret the ordinance for future reference with one of ~
,~~ the two interpretations ae followe being conaidered resaonable; ~
~
1. That once a reetaurant ie approved by a conditional uee permit in the M-1 Zone, #
'` then on-eale liquor would be permitted without an additional conditton~l uae
permit; or i
i ~~ 2 ~
. That even though a restaurant had been petmitted by ¢onditional uae permit, a ~
„ further conditional usa permit would be needed to allow on-sale liquor in the
~; already approved reataurant.
Diacuseion was held by the Commieaion ae to the moet appropriate procedure to follow
where a reataurant had already been approved in the M-1 Zone by conditional uae permit;
that one of the basic criteria would be to review plana to determine if the bar area wae
a aeparate and ecreened area from the main dining area, and at the concluaion of the
diecueaion it wae determined that revised piana ehould be preeented to the Commiaeion '
and/or City Council, where a conditional uae permit to eatablish a restaurant had aYready ~
been approved, eaid plane to be approved prior to the issuance of s building permit or l
prior to the commencement of the on-aale activity, whichever ia the moet appropriate.
Commiasioner Farano offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that consideration
be given to interpreting Section 18.52.050(i-g), Conditional Ueea, wherein e restaurant
had been approved, plane for any change in operation auch as on-eale liquor be submitted
to the Planning Commiesion and/or City Council for review and approval prior to the ~
iseuance of a building permit or prior to the commencement of the on-eale activity,
whichever is appropriate for a given eitaation. Commieaioner. Gauer aeconded the motion. ~
MOTION CARRIED.
c
'__. ~ ~,. ~~_~~:Y.~
'~ t~ .. :. ,... : . :, _
,
", ~ ~y~ ,'~ +~;xts
, ,
,~. . ' . , „< - . ,- ,. .: . ~
~ C ~ ` ~~'^ t.
_ ~~... .. ~ ,... _, . . . . d . , , .
~a~k~ 4~~~~:T yL't- '3[rR,.A' qv~'n r;,:{ wryy~ .t,V t a, r.~?v #j Rre ` ~.~: T 5,, /4( ~V':~` ha
.. .
r
,~µ~ T ~ ' 1,
~f ~,
~r f
~~ 0 ~ ~ ~
~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 11, 1969 4771
'~ REPORTS AND - ITEM NO_ 3
RECOh4IENDATIONS Atwood Cone Area - Community Study - Orange County
; (Continued) Case No. ZC69-38 (Sectional District Map 33-3-9) -
~'~°• ~ Atwood Community located southeasterly of Van Buren SL•reet
~ and Oran ethor e Avenue
8 p propoaing a zone change from the
r,.; M1, "Light Manufacturing" District to the R-1-3800 "Single-
•` Family Residence" Mstrict.
.,3
<.~ M Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson presented a report to the Planning
, Commiasion regarding zoning action and community study by the Orange County Planning
~~;, Commission, Case No, ZC69-38, propoaing the reclassification of an area knciwn as the
_ Atwood Community located southeasterly of Van Buren Street and Orangethorpe Avenue from
,~t the M1 "Light Manufacturing" District to the R-1-3800 "Single-Family Residence" District,
~'-`~~~t~ ~ a copy of which is attached.
r,
{ :~
;~ Discuasion was held by the Commission and ataff as to the proposal, its possible effect
on the nortneast industrial area; Limitation of residential zoning Co boundaries as
x" `",',; outlined on the map presented by the ataff; need by the people of this area for some
~ other zoning than industrial in order to obt~in loans for the improvement of their
. existing homes; aad the policy of the City of Anaheim to discourage residential encroach-
'~~ ment into areas set aside for industrial purpoaes.
o. ~
At the conclusion of the discussion, it was the opinion of the Commission that approval
ahould not be conatrued as aetting a precedent for residential encroachment into the
~ induatrial areas of the City, nor for the establiahment of similar lot sizes in reai-
x ~~ dential areae of the City of Anaheim.
~'
, Co~issioner Gauer offered a motion, seconded by Commisaioner Allred, and MOTION CARRIED,
`~ to recommend to the City Council that the Orange County Planning Commisaion be urged to
~~ approve Orange County Case No. ZC69-38, reclassifying an area located southeasterly of
•F, ~~ Van Buren Street and Orangethorpe Avenue from the M1 "Light Manufacturing" District to
~;~ the R-1-3800 Single-Family Residence" District, provided however;
~a
1. That this action shall not extend beyond the boundaries as delineat.~d in
Study Area "A" prime, excepting the easterly 6.75 acres;
2. That thia action shall not be construed as aetting a precedent for approval
of similar residential encroachment into the industrial areas of the City
of Anaheim or those areas delineated on the Anaheim General Plan;
3. That this action ahall not be conatrued as setting a precedent for approval
of eingle-family lot sizea of 3800 equare feet within the residential areas
of the City of Anaheim;
''^ 4. That the Orange County Planning Commisaion be advieed that the area unde:
'~ conaideration has been included in Anaheim's long range planning for some
ten yeara; and that thie has formed the baeie for the deaign of utility
systema that will ultimately serve *_he general area; and
5. That the City of Anaheim has indicated that they would provide City service
to this general area upon annexation to the City of Anaheim.
ITEM N0. 4
Consideration of an amendment to Chapter 18.37
Anaheim Municipal Code, to allow car rentals as
a permitted use.
Zoning Supervisor Charlea Roberts inquired of the Commiseion whether it was their
deeire to have the staff etudy and aet for public hearing consideration of permitting
suto rentale in the Commercial-Recreation Zone aince several had been approved recently
by the Commieaion and Council,
Comtoieaioner Farana offered a motion directing the staff to pzepar~ a study regarding
suto rentals in the Commercial-RecreaCion Zone and aet for public hearing on September 22,
1969, conaideration of an amendment E~ Title 18, Chapter 18.37, Section 18.37.020,
Permitted Usea, to permit auto rentals ae a permitted uae in said zone, Commisaioner
Allred aeconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
~ ~... r. . _
.. ., ,
~:
~ , . _ ;. ~
MINUTES, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION; Auguat~11,,1969 4~~2
REPORTS AND _ ITEM NO.. 5"'. _
`.ItECOrIlIENDATIONS " Driving range on South Anaheim Boulevard ad~ar.ent
(Continued) to the Anaheim Boulevard overpase,and the Santa
Ana`Freeway - Exterior,lighting`,
Commisaioner.Farano noted,in:driving on'the.Santa Ana Freeway northerly at night he
had noted;that the exterior lighting aeemed to be creating a nuisance,,and he was
unable to see oncoming traffic because-of either'the brightnesa,of the lights or the
manner in which they were:erected~and felt the staff ahould be inatructed to examine
the manner in which the ligtiting was being,uaed and how it affected the motorista.
Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson noted that they could ask for
a report from.the Traffir Engineer, the Highway Department, and the Police Departmemt
relative to this:
Comissioner Farano offered a motion to direct the ataff to requeat reports from the
various Citq departments selative to the exterior lighting of the driving range on
Sonth Anaheim Boulevard adjacent to the Santa Ana Freeway. Commieaioner Gauer seconded
the mo[ion. MOTION CARRIEA.
AD3OtIRNMENT - There being no further buainesa to discusa, Commisaioner Farano
offered a motion to adjourn the meeting.. Commisaioner Allred
seconded the motion, MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjouraed at 4:55 P.M.
Reapectfully aubmitted,
~
ANN KREBS, Secre ary
Anaheim Citq Planning Commiasion