Minutes-PC 1970/07/13'~ ;F.i~',~~~ ~ < ` , ~ ~ r r ," ~ ~ r4 ` F :S''~ ~ r~ ~, ,t _ ~~,.v~vtN~ c.oMMISSION
. t ~ ..3 ar
L~rs'S
fC
~'
'~
ar~
~
~
`
tit
~~
" ~
.,
y.
j
a
~
~
. ~
2
~
v72
r
r
' }~ .,~~ ,~`~
~ -,c
~~
ti
?:
"
~ , :
{~ REGULARo-MEETIN
~ A r
~
,,
~
,
~,
G
e
A ~~ .,~~ , r~ ~~ k gular meeting of~.the Anaheim Cit `~L ',
Y P l a n n i
"^ ~~ ~~ ~ t
g
r
r
'~ "' ° `
o~ b o
n
~
d e
b
, ~ o u~ i s s i o n w as ca l led
Chairman and at
~ ti rv
'~ ~
"` a xT y
RoWl '
2 00
I
,~
;
~
' ~
o clock
r~ t H r ,~ ~ U,~preaent 3 ~;
P M, a•; quorum: being
R y
~ `
_
.~ ~ ~
,
s
n i ,.
a ' °
;
PRESENT 1~ `
~
~
" r
CHAI~IJ
~ ~ ~ t ~;~ c ; , , > ,Rowland , ~ ,, ; ~
l
'
~ S.. . ~ - ,~ r .
. t,4 r .~' : fit ~3. aF,
~ ..
'
~
~
'~~
'
I
~,~
,~~E
~
~
CO1~fISS
ONERS Allr '
~ }~, ,~, L ,, ed, Farano Gauer Herbst'
' ' ,.Kaywood
{ ~
f
Se
,
m
` `
t~"`~
`
~ ~
, ,
,
r
_
y
.~; r
our ~
~
7
ABSENT
~
~ CO1~QfISSION -
;
ERS None ~
~ ~, ~
:
'
r ° ° P~ El~'
1` ~y ~ Deputy City, Attorney ''
~
,, ; ~ ° s i Frank L
~ _
u
Office Eng neer
°~Y
~
~ }
>
r
Zoning Supetvisor ` ' Jay Titus;
l
Cherles Roberts `
~ ~, ~Assistant;2oning Supe
i
rv
sor
Malcolm Slaughter
Planning Commiasio
S
t
n;
ecze
a
PLEDGE~OF ' Y , ,rY Ann`Krebs
`ALLEGIANCE ' ° ~
,~ ^Commisaioner Allred°l
d
~
'
e
in the Pledge of
~ i ~~ Y ~
, ~~ ~. ~ . .
Allegiance to the Flag
ELECTION O
~
~ i ~
E Chairman Ro~aland a ` ° `.
.
PPointed
O
C
I
.
s
FF
CERS FOR {, ~ ,
o~issioner Gauer as t ora
i'Y ~hairman:
}1970
~ ~'~ ` ' '" . ~°P
;
71 a
~. ' ~ y~ ;Temporary Chairman Gauer entertained motiona for nominati
"`,~
chairmsa
of th
;
a
'
e
::
,
ona
e An
for.
h
im Planning Commission,for the-;ensuing~year ~
t " ~` r' r .:~ .~ -:'~ ..
.
Is ,' Commissioner
'Allred n
4
ominated Commissioner Herbst for chairman
, ,~
Coum~issioner
?Fara
se
"
y
,
no
conded
ttie nomination ~ "~
~k " ~ ' a moved,to close~
~~°issionec Seymour
the
n"aminatio
`
f
`
r
t
~
na
,
or
~chairman
;3 s
~ ' ` ~_ ` ~4secondedNthe motion ~`itMOTION
~ ~OO~isaioner, Rowland
~
R
I
CA
g
gD
, t ~V t t ..~ .. r
, ,
~ "`^~ t * ~~ r'~ .
Lv, r4~
~
~
~
w . _ ~
i,. ~ .
:. ~
5 ~ , ) ~ 11
, n
~, Commisaioner Farano moved that`~C~
o
~
~
issi
ner
f
~
z
unanimously''as chairman~
f
be
r ,
ao
the,Planning;Commission
~ Seymour seconded~lth
Coumtission
m
er ,
e
, - ~,
otion MOTION C1RgIED
`~~
1 L'~ I `~ - L 5~.-'
~~ Chairman H
li
`
~
er
st a
seumed the chair '
' '
' :
~ ~
' ~
~ ,.
, ;
;
Chairman Herbst entertained motions f
' , ' ~
or nominationa for:chairnian
pro te ore of.?the.Ari
,, 1°P :, aheim Planning Comm;"ssion for th
e
~ ~ '
'~
~
. : , ,
e
nsuing
year. 3
Commisaioner Gauer no'iui c
F
nated-Commisaioner.:Farano as chairman pro ':
.tempore. Coumiissioner All ~
red aecon3ed the nomination. -Comoiissioner
Seymour~moved~.`to close the.nominations
'f
r
C ~
,
o
chairmaa pro tempore.
ommissioner Kaywood seconded the mofio
~ ~ ~!
~
< ,
n.,:MOTION CAR1tIED,
_
~
;
Commiasioner Seymour moved
•tliat Commi r4S
~
.
ssioner Farano be elected
; unanimously as chairman ~
pro tempore. Cou~issioner Allred seconded
: the motion MOTION CARRIyp ;., -
.
.:
:
- -
i
- -
:
~
{:
~:
~
, ;
.. _ ,:. . , , ; _
. ~ ,.:• :
_
.
_ ... _. ,
.....:. : .. .._ , - -
,. ,. ,.
_ :
,.:_ ,__
, ;
' Commis8ioner Geuer offered a, iuotiu
`'
rn
, ~:
~,~a
~~
~n
to n
uinate Ann Krebs as
,Commiasion Secretary for the.e
i
'
'}
nau
n -
aeconded;
8 year.;~ Commiasioner Raywooa
the nortiination a
~'
.
~
o~nissioner Se •
nominations forjCo
~our moved to close the
iss ~~
' M
mm
ion.Secreta
;the motion.; MOTION CARRIgD.; •~'~ CO~iSBiorier.Allred aeconded
~ =
~9
Commisaioner Allied mov
d
' J
~
e
tc el
ect.Ann Krebs urianimously as Commiasion
:' Secret8ry, Comniissioner Gauer
e
nd r'.
~
s
co
ed the motion: 'MOTION CARRIED
.
.
APPROVAL OF Coromiasioner Ka '
' :
3'~ood 'offered a motion
.,THE MINUTES
,~
meetin
to,approve Ehe Minutes of:the
g of lune_29, 1970, with the foll
iri
~
` Y
ow
g corrections, seconded _
by`,Commisaioner;Allred,`and'+:MOTION CARItIE
D:>
Page 5213, Eixat.pAraBraph
:lin
2:'
' ~ ~
,
e
`
!!~hairmen Pro tem Herbst
Page 5216, parag~a h'10
~~
'
~
. ,
n
ine,;3 -. none of-the neighbors had been
- Page 5219' p ~•
paragra
~
"
h 5
,
p
.
.
;:line..1; l'Mr:.g, Donald Pedersenc . ~
,Sefiool District-Board
-Magnolia
'
' n
of Trustees.
'
a
'
,
par
graph 6,'
line 2 -. "Pedersen. .
~~~~
.
paragraph'8,.,line 1 - "Mrs. Don Pedersen. ,
n
5235 ^~
,
, . .
.. . .~ . . ~ . . ~..
.:.'. -.-. . ' . , . .. . .
, .
j~
i' ~~.
~i :
_..., .... ..-:
CDTUTES Sc,hool `Diatricl
Page 5232, paragraph 2, 1?
delete "D'orset~'
paiagrapti 3 ,!
~ ~ of'`a fire, jusl
>> ttie difference:;
were not-'propei
Avenue, Street~
~ ,
SIFICATION "-' CONTINUED PIIBLIC HEARING
70 63 ' Oakmont Avenue -Oiange "
~ .,
/noi c ~`*
AND , LOr
~i~"~~'~''.~dr~;mn~~ ~~~
~
' S236: '~` . .
ma
.ace. ~. " '~
•_._~
he .,event ,
~ld.=meari
street
ircle;
rencei"-.
4 East~
-. ., • ~ . r-- •a a~ vsucaa~ 1r.U 17VK1A1(lY~ 5118~,~ ~~l
VARIANCE N0; ,2184 ;, ~~~any, 1136 North Broolchurst Street, `Anahei.m, Califomia,; Agent; ~,,.
property described:~as Parcel l An'~irregularly shaped pa=cel of
, land ;located at tiie soutlieast corner ~ of Lakeview Avenue and~McKinnon 1,~
~: : Drive with frontages of sppioximately:133 feet on Lakeview Avenue:"and :?;~+z
approximately 184 !feet oii McKinnon Drive, and,Parcel 2 An irre larl ~~
8u y';shaped`';parcel:?: of '~~
land having;a frontage of approximately 144 feet on`~the aouth side of 1~cKinnon,Drive and ~~A `
" a maximum depth of:approximately 114;feet, the westerly bounda ~ bein °e ~ ~~
r'Y- 8 , ..PProximately : a .
270;:feet east of the cenEerline'of Lakeview pvenue'-r'Parcel~2 being~,adjacent to'and t~~`;
immediately'east of Parcel 1 ProperEy presently classified.R-A, AGRICULTURAL;~ZONE .~ ~-
_ . ~~,.
: REQUESTED • CLASSIFIQATION ` Gl; GENERAL CODASERCIAL,''. ZONE ' (PARCELS 1 AND~ `2) , . ~` ~~ ~
,.: t: • ,, ,.. _
REQUESTED VARIANCEe ESTABLISH'AN AUTOMOBTLE SERVICE STATION WITH WAIVER OF T,HE ~~+
REQJIREMENT THAT~A'SERVICE STATION BE LOCATED AT:THE INTER- , ~r~,
SECTION GF Si+10:HIGFEIAYS,;~DESIGNATID'AS,MAJOR, PRIMARY OR ~~
SECONDARY:`'rTIGHIJAYS (PARCEL 1:ONLY). ' ;,~
. ~, ~ ~ r. '-. :'. ~ '. , ~_ :' ~ . ~ ' . . ~ ' . ' ~ k3
Subject petitions were continued;from Ehe June 15, 1970, meeting,to allow the petitioners ~,;,,`
P p , r
time;to re'are an:evaluation study'on?:the proposal. '
: ~ + ~ , <. . . " ~''c c.
, ,, : : :
~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter.reviewed the location of subject property, ~,, .y,~~
uses eatablished iri cloae proximity,•the proposal,;and:the reason:#or continuance. It<. "
'' was also noted that the p~~itionera,fiad-submitted a letter requeating;withdrewal of ~'~
~ sub ect ' sj
~. j . petitions . , . ,. , . . , ~, .
`s".~
, . ,. . : . , ~ `~.~~
A showing o£ handa indicaEed 25 persons present in opposition to subjecE petitions. a
Comimissioner Rowland offered a motion to approve.the request for withdrewaL_of PetiEions r~
.: for Reclassification No. 69-70-63 and•Variance No.`2184 and recon~erid to the City.Council '
approval of"said withdrawal: Co~isaioner Seymour;seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~y".'`~
,: ,^'`~,~
A request from the opposition was made to clarify the action taken by the Cou~ission; ~~
whereupon'Chairman Herbst advised the opposition that the petitioner had.withdrawn all ~x,,~
action on reclassi~ying the property and tNe proposal for a.service station, and that it
would._remain.with the eiti`sting zoning, namely, R-A with a res~lution of intent to R-1 atill ~
r ~r's
pending, gowever,'if aE a.later`date zoriing action on the property were reactivated, all y r~
interested;properEy ownera would be advised in the same manner as they had been advised `'
on subject petitions.
_ ,
s _ . . , ..•ez~
VARIANCE N0, 2186 - PUBLIC F~ARING. THOMAS DOBBIE, JR., 3338 9cean Park Boulevard, :
" Santa Moaica, California, Owner; DONALD J. PATRICK,.312 South Brook- ~'
_ hurst Street; AnaHeim; California, Agent; requesting WAIVERS OF~(1) 4~
MAXIMUM N[11~ER.OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS `.
, (2) MINIMUM DIS;.ANCE BEIWEEN SIGNS,. (3)'PERMITTED
SIGN;LOCATION, AND;`(4) MAXIM~S,'pERMITTED AGGREGATE SIGN AREA, TO`.ESTABLISH A SECOND FREE-
-STANDING SIGN.on.property described as:" A rectangulerly shaned parcel of land having a
frontage of approximately 130 feet on the east:side of Brookhu.rst Street, having a maximum
depth'of approximately 275'feet; being'.located.approximately 195 feet south of ttie-center- `
y,.and further described-as 312 S
line of Broadwa ` outh Brookhurst Street. ' Property presently "
•~" classified C=1, GENERAL CO1~AfEBCIAL .ZONE: ;:;
-._
. , . .;:.;
Assistant Zoning~Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location'of subject property,
existing zoning; usea established in close proximity, and'the proposal to erect an ,.''
additional free-standing aign for the restaurant „ said sign.to be located only 25 feet
north of the existing sign.'arid.having a 306-square foot area; thaE Che exiating sign on
the edjoining restauranr.properEy hed already.uaed up almost the meximum allowable for
signing - 210-aquare foot area - whereas 260:square Eeet eould be permitted; that the
petitioner preaently was displaying his sign on the rear of a.billboard on property
immediately adjacent to subject property on the north; and Ehis could not.be a1lCwed;•
that the Sign.Ordinance permitted signing for more than one restaurant - however, this ~
~ ,
' - ' . ~ _.
.u.~ - e 3 iv z:~~r u. ~?i r 'F
u "',}i
~ , ~. ~~ Y ~ k~F
MINUTES, - CITY pI.ANNING~ COAiMISSION, July ,13, 1970 ~ ~~~
_: ~
., ' ; ~: ° 5237 ' ~`~
VARIANCE NO 2186:" would have-to be placed„on the.existing free-standin si ~~~
(Continued) _ an:integrated si 8 gn, making it ~~,
gn, aad that since ;the petitioner had periaitted'all u~
' the available signing to~:be taken up.with~the:,"Kentucky Roast:Beef" ~
- • restaurant~sign, tie had bargained away;through~a contractual obliga- ~'
tion his right to have an integrated-'si ' `•
pre8~abl , gn, and thus:had created liis own:hardship and'had ~~'
y:gained;substaritial financial benefitsi Therefore, the'main:consideration ~~
-
before the~Commiasion would be:whether~or not the proposal.would be,an improvement'to
_ ,
the area, whether;there;was juatification of;hardsliip to.give favorable'conaideration to ~~
sub3ect petition s;ince the Sign`Ordinance was;written to preclude:the establishment of
.
• sign;clutter simiTar to fhat on;,the west side;~of Biookhurst $treeE. .
, , :f
<., ; ... ,
' Mr pon Patrick e~ent £or the petitionerr a °' ~' `~.
'~ ~g , ppeared~;before;the Commission and reviewed
the location of the present sigi- as depicted~'on slides:preserited,bq the'staff; noting'.
that,he had>been requested to remove tfie sign'by Ehe,billboard com an
them without any free standin si ' _._P Y,:>thus leavin ` ~~~
S', gn on~the:property'`since:the g`~
an iritegrated aign;with.,the "Keatuc
y were not'allowed to.have ~
under, sepa'rate leases, that althoughytheerequest'was8touplace"thetsihe::properties were` ~`'?
location, this.was•not as`i ~ 8n`in a apecific : ~1'.
" ,. mportant~.as::having:a free-'standing sign in front of-Eheir ~~~
restaurant -
,,
and" Kentsckg RoastnBeef! e3ponse to Commission quesEioning, stated that "The 01' Whaler" s`
Y ,. :resteurants were under separete'ownerahip, with "The:01' Whaler"
t.
restaurant Having.'a fifteen year_,.leaser However, the buildings were awned by the same ~~ti
' property owrier
,;,
. , :. . . 'ST~
No one appea=ed in;rpposition to:subject.petition.
TFiE HEARING~WAS CLOSED. it'
; -: ` ,.: ~
The I'ommission noted that.since the property was owned by one person, there..seemed to ', T.~
be no_;,reason'~why an:integrated sign'could not be erected;,that large ahopping centers µ~
,were required to have integrated;signs:and had'only;'facia si ~"
ing.on sub~ect property,~and then Commiasioner•:ICa " ~s $uch as was on:the build-
either BLOadway or.:Brookhuist Street, the existin~sod noted that while`driving:down °k~
visible for :some distance~_,- ~therefore,, :it would' ag gn on .the buildirig was clearly
aubjec~t•p=operty. ~ PPeBr there'was adequate signing on ~~
- ~ _ -_ " ' ~
Mr Patrick noted that'the property was:not visible.coming from the,north because of ~
the existin 'si p . '~
8 gns,and billboards; and then, in res o~ee to,Commtssion questioning, , '~`~~
stated that..the existing "Kentucky Roast'Beef"'sign.was at least'25 feet in height. ~
~ ° , i~
The Commission noted that signs as close togeth'er as was proposed, with only 25 feet ~
.between them;;wculd defeat:the,intent.of;the;petir_ioner in havin the ro ert si =~"
with a';free standing'sign"'since~,it would.not be,visible from thegsouthP and then inquired ;~
`whether or not the lease the petitioner~:had with.the,landowner obligated him to•furnish
signing, wtiereupon Mr. Patrick replied in the negative. tk
~ ' ~.~.~ :'~~., ~ -' ' :~.. ~- . . . . . . ... . . ., ~ ~ ,F~
The Coa~ission further noted that the petitioner had'leased the building and the property
without being assured of.proper signing, and since Code required.a minimum ten-year ground
lease to permit an.additional sign on.the property, the existing lease could not be
conaidered a valid.one to claim hardship as Eo aigning.
Deputy City Attorney Frank Lo~,,ry adviaed the Commission tnat the only way an additional
sign would be'allowed by Code would be through a lot split of subject property, separating
"The O1 Whaler and:the "'Kentucky Roast Beef" restaurant properties.
Zoning Supervisor Charles'Roberts advised the Commisaion that if a lot aplit were recorded,
the petitioner would;be allowed a sign having 130 square feet per face. However, if this
lot'split were approved, this, then, would make the exiating,"Kentuc
illegal or nonconforming = therefnre, the petitioner would still need theavariances8on~a
technicality, or the !'Kentucky Roast Beef° aign people'would be required to file a waiver
request.
Mr. Roberts, in response to Co~ission_questioning"regardino the possibility of`an
integ;ated sign and:possible reduction of the exiating "Kentucky Roast Beef si
that with the existing street frontage e'maximum,of 260 square feet would be permiEtedted
per display face, and:since the existing sign was already 210 sq,.iare feet, this left
very little to advertise The,01 Whaler" sign: ~
Commisaioner Ka ~
created, as wel~asdt ePexisting bil boarda andginquired whetherror~notithat wouldnremain• '
I whereupon Mr. Roberts atated that in all likelihood it would remain since it was at a f
legal location, namely, at the-intersection of two arterials. ' !
Co~isaioner Kay~aood further noted that w3th such a ai `I- -
viewing`the property, as well as the pictures shown bygstaffttit waswratheridifficult
I~., ±
' .
---•"• . --------",' ..-~a vc~ivnlte~L GvMMr;KCIAL,
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject properCy,
uses_established in close proximity, previous zoning action on the property, and the
proposal to expand an automobile,diaplay area and establiah aa automobile service area;
that previous zoning action approving,the autowobile sales agencq was granted under
Conditional Use Permit No. 370 in 1962, and later a request for rebuilding of the auto-
mobile sales agency was approved -, hawever, tHe request to establish the automobile service
;agency could not be approved under the previous conditional use permit approval - there-
fore.subject,petition hed to be considered by the Commission; that the petitioner was
propo§ing to add a 1900,square foot aervice area having access to the west and would
consist of four bays, each approximately;.20 feet wide;`that with the added building area
plus fhe area devoced to,planting'and car display,'.on1y 53% of the lot would be available
for automobile parking purposes, whereas Code would require 66-2/3%; that if the neFi.car
display area in front of,the building were to be considered as parking area, then approxi-
mately'65% of the land would be available.for pr,rking`purpoaes - tHerefore, this would not
seem.aa un:•easonable interpretation in view.of the fact that this area could be uaed for
:parking puL,•oses shoald the`building be conveited to;another retail use. Therei:,re,,the
maia consideration before.the Co~ission`wes whether or not.such a proposed use was
appropriate for.Che area; givea:th,e fact that'an R-1 Eract w,as located to the west acroas
the alley from.subject property, and the proposed garage bays would open directly toward
the R-l tract, and it conld.be fo=eseen tha£ such a:garage use with the various hammers,
impact wrenches; etc., could be quite noisy and disturbing to the residential area.
Furthermore,.if Ehe`Planning Commission felt the use was appropriate, the Commission
might wish to consider the feesibilitq,of requiring the proposed repair area to be re-
oriented toward Harbor Boulevard - this could eaeily be accomplished by placing the rear
oE the~propased building along the west property line, thereby directing noise away from
the R-1 properties and allcwing;the rear wall to act ae a sound and light buffer for
~
~ ..~.~ -~.~ y~ -. ~,r r., - :; . -, o
t .~° ~ S
t ~~' _" ~ -.! ry .~ ~.. ~ ~ ~, ,~ ~ ~ • °1'W~,
C;
` MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July`13, 1970
5239 ~'~~
! VARIANCE:+NO. 2187 ! added?protection: `-
~
(Continued) ~~
;.
~ Mr Jemes Sutton, ag~at for the petitioner,.appeared.before the f'~
Commission and noted that?;they:had been;located in this area.for ~~'
several years, that the-location of the~prop'osed~new'structure wou ""~
' - ld be in an aree.where t~'^
several garages were locaEed these would be removed and the new"structure,would upgrade .
the propert~.; that',he hsd ~obtained signatures ;~from all but <'one of` the single=femily liome-: ~~'; ~
; owners adjacent to;subject property, who indicated they were not'opposed'to.the,. ro osed,: ~•'~
~. use,,that his agency was for forei ~ p P- ~'
gn -cars, and: noi~es emanating would,not be the voliime r
' that would emanate:from larger cars,_that a 6,,foot fence already`exisEed`at the:alley,• ;,.~
: and that it;was tii"eir desire to`utilize'the alley from a one-way,Eraffic standpoint;
~ exiEing from'the seiwice lisy ares therefore, the';amount,~of,traffic would be similar' ~~`
•, to the amount already existing ;Mr Sutton,:in response.to:'Commission questioniAg as_to "
` why the praposed building`could not lie 'oriented towaid Harbor'BouTevard; stated`.that ~`'
` because of;,lease reasons; he was: unable~. to do :"so ~-~ ~°``
!;s ;; ` . -- „ ' ` ~ ,~
Co~issioner;Seymoux theit'noted.that he,:.did not feel this was a logical.reason; -Whereupon ,;'"'~
' Mr Sutton,stated that the geaeral salee area would 'a` e the front, and;,,it would be. s~~
extremely-difficult` to ha've botti` the salea end;: servic:z _eas'-frontiri trn~ard Harbor "~`~
` Boul~pard, since Chis wouTd-defeat the purpose.of the.sales organization. `~~
,. , . ~ ~
' No one appeared in,opposition to,subject petition. `'..~
t ' ; ; „ . . ; : . ~~'.
The Co~ission reviEwed with.the.petitioner areas where the proposed service facility . .,~
_could be located; however,.Che.,agent.for the petitioner indioafed~`that the sales buildin ~"k
:'was~Tocated:when it:was_ori inell a g n`~kr
8 y pproved,,at which"'time it had been their intent to #~~
have-the shop in one area;,that he had spent^'$23,0OO,:for this improvement`.and could not `
~~ revise the plans.without incurririg too great.~ari expesse, .and` that "it was 'necessai-y to _ "~~
have.more than two•garage.•'doors since six to eight bays would be necessary, and hallways. `~*~
were already;located in t'~e exieting building = fherefore, considerable.money would be ~~
;expended to reviae°plans to confo`rm to the suggest{ons made by the~Co~nission. : ~~'~
5 I r ; 1~~,
, f, ' ~II
THE HEARING WAS CtASED ~ ^~`~
, ~ , ~ : : " ~~
`Commissioner Gauer noted r t aince the R 1 property owners fo the west had submit~ied a '~r~~
'.petition`to the~petitionar indicating they were^not opposed Eo the~:service:facili;ty'which ~ ~' ;~~
the,petitioner plan~ed and,;the fact•,that oaiy, ene way';traffic was'p'rop"osed, this;would _ :-~.~
'not in~rease the traffic into the`~alleyway -~
~ ' • ~?
;Commiesioner Gauer o'ffered;ResoluEfon No: PC70-:122 and,moved~for its passage and adoption ' yz`
~~
yto grant~Peti;tion for Vaiiance~No; 2187'~on the~basis;that although;the propoaed,uae was `
a C 3 use, other similer establishments:had oeen approved in the same zone in this area -
therefore a` rovai':,of the~ waiver.: ~`~`
, PP was granted on that'basis to allow this`properEy similar ~~
+privilegea en'joyed by other:.properties,.in.ttie.area;,and.that.waiver:of the minimum '
,required parkiug was'granted on the basis that'if:the;property were later converted to ''~
;general co~ercial purposea, the`area presently devoted~to new car display would serve "
'as,an:,additional parking E'rea, thereby 3eaging only a'shortage oE l-1/3% of the required ~`
,parking, 2nd subject to coi-struction of e 6-foot masonry`wall along the west property '~:
1ine:adjaceaE to the alley as stipu]a ted by the petitioner, except for one driveway
opening• and.conditions. (See.Resolution Book)
,On roll call the foregoing resolution wae pasaed by the following vote: `'
~
AYES: COPffiISSIONERS: :111red, Gauer, Kay~ood, Seymour, Rowland, Herbst. '''
NOES. , COr4fISSIONERS: Farano. ' b.
ABSENTc .;C01~lISSIONERSi None.
CONDITIONAL'USE - PUBLIC:HEARING. LONNZE M. DUNN,.:MARY R. DUNN, WILLIAM C, SANGSTER,
PERMIT.N0,.1186 AND,M2.RGAREi-N. SANGSTER, 271$:-South Grand Avenue, Santa Ana,
-California, Owners; RAY CHERMAK, DUNN.PROPERTIES COR?ORATION, 2009
East Edinger,,Santa Ana, California, Agent; requesting permission ~
to ESTABLISH A 74-UNIT.MOTEL on pioperty described as; A rectangularly shaped parcel ~
of land heving a frontage;o# approximately 287 feet on-.the e8st side of State Colleye
Boulevard, haying_s maximum`depth of approximately 204`feet, and being located approxi-
mately"280 ~eet south of,the'ceaterline of Urangewood 9venue. Property presently l
c188s3fied M-1, LIGHT INOUSTRIAL, ZONE; - ;
Assistant Zoniag Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, ~
uses established in close proximitq, aad previou~~:oaing actioa on theproperty in which a !
34-unit mot~l was,approved by fhE Planning Commission and City Council limiting.the number '
of kitchen units to 10%,.and that said petition had not been exercised - therefore, if
subject petition were`considered favorably, the Commiasion might wish to terminate '
Conditional Use Bermit No. 1024: Furthermore, since the property was across the street ,:l
~ l . .. i
ti~*,.r~~
; s ^9 '~" '~'~` ,V c ' r, a =
x
( `~ ib' 1~" ev .. -~°W1 ~ ~ _. r f
=
.
,
:~, ~ ~,• ~
':~ ~~ ~
~
- _
,
?4 ~
}
~
.
' ~ ~
~ ,~1
~ MINUTES, . CITI' PLATjNING CO1~IIIISSION, July 13y 1970
r: F~
.
: - , _
, . , 5240
'
s CONDITIONAL USE -:£rom the ;
. '
Pro o
ed
Pacific World
P ;~,~
p
P
complex,.a commercial-recreation complex,
~ PERMIT•N0.~1186
and aince t~-e' ro osed facility was planning to
ha
20
C
~
' ~'~~;
.
ve`
r (
units
ontinued)
with
kitchen facilities,;:the Co~ission would have to determine wheth ~~
er any
~ land use changes have taken place`'to usti 'g "
3. f3' permittin the nnmber'of '
~`-kitchen unit
:
o
s r
n
~
s
;pr
po
ed
' : : •
` ,
~,~
Mr ~SlaughEer thea reviewed the.:type of signiag that would be permitted,,noting that
although "stib ject
p=operty
wa
o
-
~ ~~
~
.
.
s z
ned M
1, -it
was in`Ehe-,-Aphere of: influence of the'; Commer-
cial'-Recreation'Area ~. therefore
the Commissioa
wo
l
o
4Y
l
,
,
u
d als
•have to determine whether or
not.the limitation;of 100 squaie:feet,.permitted in
ttie M
1`Z
e
.
-
oa
.should apply, ,oi whether
the commercial;signing would be:mor
a
ii ,
e;
pprop
ate , j::
Mr 'Ray Chermak,:agent for the petitioner; appeared':before:the Commisaion and noted that
~ the proposed
use of sub ect
r
p
~
t
,
Y
,
-
o
, p
er
y.would be more;>appropriate,sir.ce a large`portion was `
designated'for'recreatiori d~'
purpases; that they would-prefer to retain the-number of kitchen
units prop'osed rather.than reducing the number t
10
a
'
~~
o
~
s previously
approved:since these
would.afford a mearis of rer.ting units during the Rlow wi
te
n
h
' ~'~
7~
n
r mo
E
s; and
that'it was.urged
that:more than Ehe lOQ-aqusre foot sign be permitted, although Eheir plans were not
sufficiently form¢l
d' a,
~•~~
ate
to advise the Co~nission as to the`.square footage n2eded, but it
would be more tkan;l00 square feet.
_ }~<a
' . `.
, :
Chaizman Herbst inquiied as to the square footage the petitioner would be allowed as t
signing ~~~
~
..
o „•,
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that if surrounding land uses
were the determining factor a
o
'~ ii
~~
s t
type of clessificatiori, the use;proposed could qualify
for the 350-square:foot eign peimitted:by Code for co
i ~
t
mmerc
al uses,:and because of the
existing single-famiiq,homes located on the west eide of State Colle
Co
e B
t
l
a
r
i
,. ,
F
g
un
ou
y te
ev
rd
n
ritory, the height was limited to 25 feet
.
Mr Chermak,:in response to quesEio~ing`by the Commisaion regardin~ the need for more than
107 of the.units witb kitchen
facilities
t
t
d
'
~~
~
J
~
.
,.s
a
e
he..was aot aa
authority in the motel
businesa, bct advice from'members of that
ga ~
or
nizetion indicated additionel kitchen
facilities would help in the operation
;.and that he had
b r~~~1
,
not
een;.given the complete `
details and the reason behind requesting 29/ of th
n ~
e u
its with kitchen facilities,
altnough these facilities would lie renE'ed by the dayr: Further
~'
'
' ,y ~
`~`
more, since
:tliey were a
considerable `:dietaace from
the 'freeway, it was'''not their intent to 'have a sign that
'be freewa
orie
t
d:
o }
~`
~
y
n
e
w
:
uld ~:?~
Mr Edward,Gutzman,;,representing'Pacific Thestres a '
, ppeared.;before the Commission and
aoted°his clients
operated the
outd +~
~~
,
.
oor theatre-:ia~ediately.adjacent to subject property
`'to,tke sonth; thst althuugh they
wonld not.o
pose tl
e
,
p
:
deve2opment.of:subject property,
they,were concerned with tne ext~erior'~lighEing,whieh might oe-proposed since this
directly related t
a :~
w
s
o their busixess and could interfere with the picture on the screen,
giving it a washed-out effect; ~tiat when thei
p
;;
r
roperty was conaidered by the Planning
Commission and CiCy'Council, one of the conditions
of
o ';!;
.
appr
val was Ehat all lighting be
down-lighting directed awa~ from the exterior boundaries of th
w
e property; and that he
ould hope this would also be a requirement for subject pr
t
oper
y if approved, namely,
complying with signing and lighting of the M-1 Z~,ae,
~
Mr. Chermak, in reply, atated that thep would have no obj~ction to compl~+ing with the
request of the represe~tative of tr
e i
~
e th
atre as to lighting being down-lighting and
directed away.from the p_operty lines
bu~ the
wo
id
,,
y
u
not want to be.limited to a
specific size.as to signs, buE rather to.work with the adjoining neighbors x
at
a
soluti
ar
x
a ~
z.
.
,
o
on pe
rive
t
ining to lighEing"and aigiiing - however, theo were desirous of not
being limited to the M-1 Zo
n
{.:
~'
r :
ne sig
ing requirements.
~
Mr. Gutzman noted for the Cou~ission that ther were more concern
and location of the eign rather tha
i
e
l
i
,
.
n
ts size since the screen was located
at
the
northn
west,.corner of their property to,minimize the lights from th
t
e s
adium - therefore,
lighting could affect the peripheral vision of the patrons, and if this happened
would ba forced to re
the
~
``
'
,
y
ueet y
q permission to build a wall to elimiaate an visual intrusion. ~
~ ,t-~;
Mr. Gutzman, in respoase to Coa~iasion questioning, stated fhat the wall along State
.College Boulevard was 25 feet high
a
d
t
h (,
,
:
n
o
is knowledge, did not think there was a wall
aloag the north property iine. ~ -
Mr. Siaughter advised the Commiseion that due to the location of single-family homes along
the west side of State Coliege Boalevard
th ~
,
e height of the sign was limited to 25 feet,
and it would have to be iocated 120 feet from t:
o ~
ie s
uth property line.
Mr. Gufzmaa, in response to Commission questioning, noted that although the locetion of
the sign might be a consider
ble
t
a
dis
ance,because of the grade differential, this changed
the viewing of the screen, then perhaps a 25-f
t 4`
oo
wall might be necessary, but until
"" _.. . _ _ ;_, ~~-
~ .
~ L~" .
-~ '''
~ l ;` f ' 6 t _ .
:
~
~'• ' ~` .
'•,~}, [""~~.~.2?
~,.
``'7r ~.i ' .. . . .
~ , a
~%
' MINiJTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July`13
1970 . f~c
''
,
5241
,
`
~ ~"
,
~:t~
,
" .
. _
CONDITIONAL,''USE profiles were_developed as Eo posiEion of°sight'and the patrona' viewing
;~ PERMIT N0
1186 ,
5r.
,'~
..
was obaerved, he could not.commit.himsel`f to answering the',possibiTity
(Continuedj ~that a 25-foot si
n
would
ff
'
h ~~:
g
.
a
ect
t
e patrons.
` ~~~
• .: - ,
. ,
Co~issioner`Farano noted::that the petitioner'should.be granted:.more thari the maximum
~`. permitted 6y:the M
1
` ~~~ 7
°~
f
-
Zone - however, he-was
reluctant.to approve a 350-square foot sign
since'~the petitio'ner was inde'cis
i
~ /
~
,
ve as;to the
proposed aigding and no plans-were before
the Commisaion by which tHe Commission could make some d
t
r
i
e
io ,S~a
e
e
m
n
t
n.
`: ; ;
. ,
' •
Mr Roberts edvised.the Commission that a poseible.solution to the sign problem was that
rather than !filing's petiti
f ~,
~..
7'~,~,~~
on
or a variance,:thet a condition be made Eo'approval,of
subject petition that any.signing be reviewed by the'Planning Commission.
~
~
~
~ s~
:, '~
:' ~~ ~ . ..~- , ~ . .~.~~ -~ . . . -. .
, :
Co~issioner Farano;offered Reaolution No PC70 123'and moved for its passage and adoption
to grant~Petition,for Conditio
al~U n~~
~t~"
n
se Permit No. 1186 aubject to conditions and requiring
signing in-accordance.with,the M-1.Zone; that;all lighting be down-lightin
d di
t
' ~'~
g an
rec
ed
away from
;the side properEy~lines as stipulated to>by'the petitioner; and subject to a
i
~ , ;~
max
mum of:107 of the
ur.its having kitchen facilities. z
Prior to voting~aa':the.motion,:.further discussion was held by the Commission regarding
the signing,:and up
i
~ ~~
on
ts
,conclusion Commissioner.Farano amended'his motion as follows:
`"That~.:signing proposed'shall b
.a
x
um o
:
~ `~
'
e
ma
im
f-
350
square-feet, 25 feet in heighk,'and
plans~shall be submitted to tha Planaing Commis~ion-for review and a
va ;
ppro
l prior to
issuaace of a building permit".~ (See Resolution Book) , - ,;
-
On roll call the foregoing resolution was gassed by the following vote:' ~~,`~
AYES COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Seymour, Rowland, Herbst.
-.NOES COIRIISSIONERS
None ,.~
.
.
•ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: No~e.
~
~
~
Commissioner';ICeywood offered Reaolution No. PC70-124 end-moV.+.d for: its passage and adop-
tion.to terminate all proceedin
s on C
i
~ ~ '~~w~'~
g
ond
tional Use PermitsNo 1024
on the'.basis that
the petitioner had.not,exercised;his right since none
f the
i
i
~
o
.;cond
f
ons were completed,
;and that Coriditional Use Permit No 1186 proposed for~subjecE and.'adjoining properties
<~su
ersed
d th '^i7
~
-~
p
e
e previous petition. (See,ResoluEion Book)
. , „ , , ,,
~
'~
'
'
~
'_ ~~
,.
. .
~.
, .. - . '.
..
On roll call.the foregoing,reaolution.was passed by the following vote: , ~yT1~i
iK~
~ .AYES ' • , COMMISSIONERS: A1lred,. ~Farano;,. Gauer :'` Ka ' .
, ywood, Seymour, Rowland, Herbst
NOES
` CO
S ~, ~
° ~-~
.
. .
NffiIS
IONERS: ICone. _
" : ~-`~>
ABSENT: ~..CO1~AtISSIONERS: None. , ~?
.,
;
,, . ; : y,
hw$
,.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HFARING. R~C.:JEWETT COMPANY, 1150 East Elm 4venue, Fullerton
PERMIT N0
1190 ~
a4
~,~
r'~'
,
,
California, Owner; HILLCREST TRINITY CHURCH, ALFRED S,`FOX, PASTOR
P. -
i
%
,.
O. Box 96;-Ful]e rton, California, Agent; requesting'permission to
ESTABLISH A CHURCH AND RELATEy FACILITIES ,
;
IN AN EXISTING BUILDING,
WITH`WAIVER OF MINIMUM NUMgER OF REQUIgED PARKING SPACES on property described as
A
i
;
rectangulariy ahaped parcel of land heving a frontage of approximately 70 #eet on the
south side of Orangefair L
ha
ane,
ving a maximum depth of approximately 157 feet, being
located approximately 710 feet west of
th
r i
,
e cente
line of Raymond Avenue, and further
described as 920 East Orangefair Lane. Pro ert
p Y Presently classified M-1
LIGHT
IN
R
f
`
,
DUST
IAL, 20NE,
_ z
Ass3stant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slsughter reviewed the location of subject property,
uses established in
l
e
r
c
os
p
oximity,:existing zoning pn the property, and the proposal
to establish a church and related facilities i
a
s
n
n exi
ting building - part of an
industrial oomplex - and requesting waiver of the minimum number of required parkin
ac
s
i
g
sp
e
,
n which only 12 spaces were proposed, whereas: 26 spaces would be required with
a proposed attendance of 125 p
on
ers
s.and 45,spaces when the projected increase in
membership reached 200 persons..
~
'
Mr. Slaughter, in evaluating the propogal•, noted that the use would be incompatible with
an area developed for industrial
~
.purpoaes; that arkin a
confog ance with the
industrial g ~ p S W$ not in
parkin standards• that the'petitioner indicated o
h
I
p
t
er arki,n would be avail-
able since industrial traffic vould not heve-the same,hours of operafion as a church
and tfie church
ld b
t
,
wou
e u
ilizing other' iadustri-al•lots'for parking - however, Code would'require a
Yecorded document:stipulating to their r
se
e
rving lots riot considered with subject
property for parking purposea. Furthermore, the petitioner in his findin
s stat
d th
h
i
~
g
e
at
t
e
nduatries would be exposed to people who normally would not use a street primarily
devoted to industrial '
purposes, thus receiving a form of free advertising - however,
although this might.be true, it conld also b
r
d ~
e
eadily
emonstrated that industries
located on this street becauae they did not need expoaure to the
bli ~
pu
c; and that it
I
"
. ~ `;
~~
,~
~
~
' ":, ~
~ #
~
,~ ~~~ 3~' ~ ,m
, c~
,.
r
~ ^
J
i\f~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION; July 13,'
1970
' .
`~
~
~ ,
,
. r 5242
CONDITIONAL USE _wottl'd a
PERMIT NO;:~:1190 locationsp
Priate at other
if
i
e
e
l
em
r ~
'~
4~ w
h
n
the
city.
sinc
it was'doubtfril
a
{Continued . ° ppropal of the uae
)- would continue to
e ~;~f
rf ,
ncourage the orderly industrial development and
' growth of this ;area ,~
* .
_ ,,~
~
s
Reverend A1£red Fox, Pastor oE the;church and agent.'for the petitioner, appeared before
the:0ommission
and noted he
h ~~ (
2
~ ,
,
ad a letter from Tait Enterprises, who indicated their
willingness,to permit'use of tNeir parking
fecilities
>
~
.
on
Sunday:and in the evening during
the;week:sirice their ac'tivities:,were~`limited`to.forty hours a week - thi
additionaL
32
o
d ~
r
?
s w
ul
mean an
parking..spaces, which would make'thernumber required for maximum membershi
that the use proposed would b
id
s ~
~
p;
e
eal
ince there would be;no conflict.of activities within
the"induseiial tract, and Laura Scudder
did not:liave ~
~. ,
there would.not be,any traffic or.parking of'cars by their8employee
was not a'th
qra
d
h
e
e
~~
s
n
t
at
th
street
rough street and would not attract persons taking a short-cut to reach
area.
th ''
~
ano
er
~
~ ,;
. ~;
Reverend Fox, in response"to Commission questioning, staten xhat he had a three-year plan
as to the maximum time to maintei
c ~
~
n a
hurch facility.at this location since they.owned
property on:State College~Boulevard in Fullerton whi
h
~ K
c
and:that the
would be developed at a later date,
existing building would:provide for a locati
i
n
on w
thi
their financial means
until such,Eime;as the riew church was built; that they purchased this buildin
will:;represent
, a
d it
a
i
g
;
n
n
nveatment in the,future; that there were a ni~mber of churches which
to his Imowledge, first le
d e
ui
,
ase
b
lding to establish a church and later constructed a
church'facil3ty:at a different location; and'fhat h
h
d
e
a
been told this happened quite
frequently in industrial facilities.:in Fullerton as well as in Anaheim since no o
wanted an industrial
e
a
'
n
area
s.a permanent ~ocation of a church.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~_
,;'~;'.:
Reverend Fox then stipulated to a maximum three-year time limitatiom for the use
property as'a ch
f
ch
h ~
ur
o
t
e
. ~
The Co~issioa further inquired whether the petitioner proposed to purchase the existing
structure and what would ha
pen if i
dus M!
p
n
tries in this industrial tract started operating
twenty-four hours a:day, seven days a week, which could hap
en if
r
i
lar
'
p
ece
a
ge contract were
ved witlia.time limit for completion.
` '~
;
Reverend Fox replied that he had been assured by Tait Enterprises-:that their
would,'in alI likelihood
faMlity
not
r ~~
,}:
,
;
ope
ate beyond a forty-hour week,•.•furthermore, Mr. Tait
owned:;the cuilding'in which his c
ompany was located, which was an office-type operation
lacated in an.industrial~building
and the
were pl
n
'
,
y
a
ning to purchase the building for
cburch;purposea. ~,
;,~:
The Co~isaion then noted that the Tait building:could be aold at a later date to a
'industry'which could
e
a ±
n
op
r
te on a twenty-four-hour-a-day basis, seven days a week - this
then, would deprive the church of the
tr
,
ex
a parking, and inquired what would the church
do for parking facilities.
Reverend Fox replied there was an exisCing vacant lot between the Tait building and the
Puildi
g
ro
p
d for church
a
g
pu
~
SeB
purpo
es, and if necessary, this could be purchased for
arkin rp
I
I
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. I
r
THE HEARING WAS`CLOSED..
- ~
' .
~
~
, .
. .. . . . : . . . . .. .
Chainnan Herbst noted that as an owner of an induatrial operation, he did not feel a church
at this location was suitable; that it j.
would be unfair to the established industries 3n
the industrial tract to expcr,~ them to church traffic after they had leased
thei; facilitie
or purchased
s,, assuming this was an industrial area; that since industries wer
limited as to hours of
e not
operatton, if a large contract were received necessitating twenty-
four-hour-a-day, seven-day-a--week operation
the chur
h t
r
,
c
raffie could interfere with the
ights of the industrial zone tenants
; and that there were
th
,
many other areas throughout
e city where a church could better be located.
~
Commissioner Gauer;felt that since this was an interim use, he could ~ee no reason for
it being ob3ectionable
and sinc
Eh
,
e
e church already had property available for future
church construction, it could be assumed they would have their
befo
r
re a.th
new church facilities
ee-year period eiapsed.
Co~uissioner A1Tre3 was of the opinion that there was inadequate parking since the
petitioner did not submit ~
a written reciprocal agreement that off-site parking would be
available for the anticipated 200
er ~
~ p
sone attending church services, j
Coimnissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC70-125 and moved for its passage and adop-
tion to deny Petition for Conditional U ~
I
se Pezmit No. 1190 on.the basis that the proposed
.:.. _
.~ - ;;
~ ~ j'.
t~r.k-, wc+ Ist r Y^ht}a"~"7'...tS4.^.f -s ~?.:Et~S ~ ~oe ~l` ~ p t: ~ t~~ ~:y.~, x
- .. ~ ~~~C~'~~
' 4
.
;. .~! ,. , ? ~~ ~ ~ ~ K 'M
~ ~ .. . . . ~ r`
~ MINUTES C
~y
..ITY PIANNING COMMISSION, July 13, 1970
` ;
~ ~ : •. ' ~ ~ ' S243 ;
CONDITIONAL USE = use wo,uld not be compatible with ,the existing industrial land uses and l~
~ PERMIT N0.'~1190 ;~development.in this ~
h (Continued general area which was:devoted;primarily to 3ndus- ~
. ) trial-oriented facilities; thet the industry-that had been established `$
in.this general area should be givea assurance.that onlq:industrially- ~
' !.,
~t oriented traffic would~be allowed in this general area; that churches ~~~
were more logically located in:other than 3ndustrially zoned areas; and`that the.peti- ;~
tioner had:not submitted evidence thaf'_off-site parking would be available for the ~
, eAt3C3peted 200 ''_
perishioners ;.(See Resolution Book) : ~,~~
' On•roll call the;.foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~~
AYESt ,dOMMISSIONERS: Allred, Faraao, Kayr;~ood, Rowland Se ~
, ymour, Herbat. ~~
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ;'Gauer.:
ABSENT: CO~QfISSIONERS:.'Ncne. ~•
~ . ~~. ~ '. ..~~ ... . ~ ~ . . . . ~ . . ~ ~Y
RECLASSIFICATION - PUgLIC HEARING, TOM SH02I, 3517 West Orange Avenue, Anaheim, r~<'
N0. 70-71-1 California, and PACIFIC TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO.; 525 "B" Street,
. Room-1311, F; O. Box 524, San Diego, California,.Owners; requesting y;
that property des,cribed as; ltao rectangularly ahaped parcels of
land conaisting of approximately 1.S acres, located at Ehe southwest corner of Orange and v'
Knott Avenues,:havin a `<
8 pproximate fronEages of 216 feet.on Orange Avenue and,262 feet on ~
Knott Avenue, and further:described.as 3502 and 3512 West Orange Avettue, be reclasaified ~
from'the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-1, GENERAL COA4~RCIAL, ZpNE, s
~ „~
Assistant 2oning Supervisor.Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of sub ect Y(~
uses established in close j property, ~``~"'
proximity,.and the proposal.to reclassify the proparty from the ~~
` R-A Zone to the C-1 Zone and sioted that the easterly two-thirdo of subject property was ',~
presently dedeloped with Ehe Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Company telephone exchange } s,
buiTding granted under Conditional Uae Permit'No. 301 and was now proposed to expand to ,~
the"property to the weat;.that the petitioner indicated the existing buildiag would be ~
' expanded southerly, and parking for~:this expanaion would be provided on the westerly 3~
parcel, that:the•petitioner:further indicated the ''
y intended to expand the building onto '~
: the weaterly:'lot at some.t3me in;the,future, and the petitioner had been informed of the ~:'~
requirements of the C 1 Zone•as.to setbacks,,,masonry walls, etc.,:and was agreeable to
meeting a11 said,requirements. Therefore, the'Coffiniasion would have to determine whether '
the.pioposed uae of the propertg was compatible with the existing residential development
in this area: ~ °?2~
.. . . . ~ . . . ~ ~.r-~.
~ , , ... '. . ~.:. , :, ' ' ' . ~ .. ~ ~ ,:
Mr• Hal M~rks, agent for the petitioner .~ ` ~
availability.to anawer questions and atatedpthatathey~concurred~withitheereco~enda[ionss ~
of the stwff:report: Furthermore, it'was their intent to_provide for a 6-foot masonry ~
wall along the west property line. ~'=
Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether or not the expansion would be similar to the existing
'building, and would the existing building be somewhat:improved.
_ Mr. Marks replied that it was their intent to add a second rrtory to the existing building,
and in approximately eleven years it was their intent to expand the structure to the south,
and that if future indication revealed thet more building was necessary, then this expan-
sion plan would continue to the westerly property. `
No one appeared in oppositior to subject petition.. }
; •'~
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. . r'~
,-~
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC70-126 and moved for its passage and adoption
to recoc~end to the.City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 70-71-1 be approved
subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: ,COI~IIfISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour, Herbst. I
NOES; COMI~iISSIONERS; None. . ~
ABSENT: COI~tISSIONERS: None.
~
RECESS - Co~nissioner Kaywood moved for ~ ten-minute recess. Cortmissioner ;
Seymour aeconded the motion. The ~aei•ing recessed at 3:30 P.M, ~
RECONVENE - Chair~an Herbat reconvened the meeting at 3:45 P.*i,, all i
Commissioners being present. ,
;- -
. . . . . . . .. . . 1.~ ~ ~
\ .. . . ~ . . .'f/
~ r I : i ~
~ ~ A
~~
' ; V ~
~~ ~
I ~ ~~ .'r S S ~ ~ ... ,
1 X° ,a~
y~~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMI~IISSION, Ju1y-'13, 1970
: :: ;: .
5244
, .
~
; `'`
''~
.~
.
. .
, . . . ,:> . . , .. .. .,
_ _
~` RECLASSIFICATION ;PUBLIC':HEARING ETTA L NENMETZ 224 North Clementine Street Anaheim
~ NO 70 71 2• ,California
Own
r
PACIF
"
~ }V,~~
`~~
~
,
,
e
IC TELEPHONE
& TELEGRAPH CO.,;=525 "B'`Street,
' ~
R `~~
;
,
oom 1311, P,'0 Box~;524, S~-~ Diego, California,.Agent; requesting .
that property;;described as', A rectangulariy shaped'parcel of land
~having a frorita
f ~
~
~~
~5~
ge o
approximateTy 45.feet on:the..east side='of Clementine'Street, having
'a max'imum depth of.,approximately~154 feet
beiing1l
cat
d
pr
imaE
~ ,
.
`
,
o
e
ap
ox
ely 63-feet south of '
'
the centerlirie of Cypress 'Street;;. and 'further~'described as . 224 North Clementine
Str
t
'
b
i '~
; ~
"'~'
.
ee
;
-
e reclass
fied from the R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY .RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the G2, GENERAL
C01~lL1ERCIAL
ZONE
- ~~~~ ~
, .
.
; , ,. • .
, _
'~ .
Assistent Zoning Supervisor Malcolm.Slaughter reviewed the locatioa of
subject
r
ert
,
s a
,
p
op
y
.
usea establi
hed in`close proximity,_and the existing.zoning;on the property, noting that
~the telephode company.propoaed to`
til
z
'
.`i~b
u
i
e sub
ect ro e;t for additional'.off-street `~
j.. P, P Y:
,parking for:`;;Ehe expanded PacificiTelepfione building;.~and tliat the General;Plan 3ndi
ted
<`
h ~~
;='~`
ca
t
is property as being appropriaEe for•general':~commercial usea. Therefore, the proposed,
zoning'~would seem to
be in acco
da
w
' `~
,
r
nce:
ith the;General Plan
:and would ba a,logical
continaationrof the zoning'pattern elready esfablished in this area. ~~~
;
,., . , : . .
Mr ~Hal Marks; agent~for the petitioner, indicated his presence'and availabilit
t
i r_
.
a,
~
y
o
:answer
questions. _ ~:
No one;appeared in opposition to subject:petition. ~-
~ ~~~
,.,
<THE HEARING.WAS.: CLOSED. "
,
' -~r:;
, .
`
~~ - Co~nissioner :Ka . p
_
ywood offered Resolution No PC70 127 and moved.for its assa e'and ado
ti
to ~;.
r` `~
3
g p
on
recommend to the City CounMl thet Petition for Reclassific~tion No. 70-71-2 be
apprnved subject to conditions (See Resolution Book) ~~~y'
On roll`call the foregoiag,resolution was,passed by t.he following vate:
. . ;. . . . . ;~;~
> ~~
AYES '. COM~iISSIONERS Allred, Fareno, ,Gauer,'Kayrbood, Rowland, Seymoar, Herbst.
.`NOES . COI~AtISSIONERS None ;
~~~
a
,
~ ,_
ABSENT,'~, COt~iISS20NERS None • v
' ~5
~
` ~!4c{;
RECLASSIFICATION -'PUBLIC;HE9RING HOWARD W..UNKREy, 3361 Quartz Lane, 4~F-3, Fullerton,
NO 70-.71 3 California
Owner
HAROLD V TOLA
1
: ~ .
T~~
,
,
R,:
405:Scarborough I;ane, Analieim,
'- ' ` Califorriia, Agent; property described as: A iectangularly shaped
VARIANCE N0:-2185 ,parceT of land~having
fr ~~
''
~
a.
ontagerof,eppioximately,l00 feet on the °
west side.of Euclid`StreeE; having a maximwn depth of approximately
AREA DEVELOPMBNT 123 feet, being located approximatel
560 feet
n
' `
~
y
,
orth of the center-
PLAN
N0: 95
line of Orange Avenue, and further described as 429 South Euclid
~ iy
µ F~4
Street. ProperCy presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. .
~~
itEQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL`COMMERCIAL, ZONE, ,
REQUEST~D VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) REQUIRED 6-FOOT MASONRY WALL ADJACENT TO SINGLE- , 4
FAMILY ZONES AND (2) CODE REQUIREMENT THAT PARKING BE LOCATED ~
TO THE REAR OF A F.ESIDENTIAL`STRUCTURE USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES,
TO ESTABLISH A REAL ESTATE OFFICE. : ~
I
.
',
AREA DE1'ELOPMENT pLAN N0, 95: TO CONSIDER SECONDARy ACCESS SOLUTIONS FOR PROPERTIES ON
~
~
~
;;
THE=WEST SIDE OF EUCLID STREET BETWEEN BROADWAY AND
ORANGE AVENOi;. (
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject pro ert
existing zoning, adjoiai3g:land uses and the
' Proposal to reclassif
the
C
1 !
j
y
-
property to the
Zone with waiver of re uired
q paiking to the rear of the structure and a 6-foot masonry
wall between commercial" and r
;
den `
! .
:
ea
.
tial uses. -
Mr. Slaughter noted that subject pro ert was a
P Y. ,parcel considered in the Arterial Front-On
~ Study.adopted by the
Plannin
Co
i
i
' ~.
,
g
mm
ss
on
and City Council`which determined that reaidential
percels fronting on Euclid.Street:between Orange`Adenue and Broadway were a
c
a
i
~
'
ppropri
o~erc
te for
al development, and based upon Ehis determination, the staff previously had init'i-
ated C-l
zoning for all Ehese
e ~
.
prop
rties within the study area - howeyer, at a public
hearing'fne City Council hsd denied the com
mercial zoning, partially due Eo the:lack of
specific develo pme n t p i a n s; t h a t s i n c e t h e, P lann ing Commission and Cit i
y Council had
indicated in the f;ont-on.study.,that this area was a
PPropriate for,cormnercial uses, the
proposed zonipg would a ear to b
PE
-
~
~
e a
ppropriate
therefore, the main conaideration before
, the Planning Coa~ission would be whether the proposed use of this str
t ~
uc
ure and the manner
dn which the property,was to be dev~loped were appropriate since open parking spaces were
propoaed,'in the'side yard, and this
would conflict with th 4
~
--
.
e Code requirement that all
parking be provided to the rear of the structure when a residential st
t ~'°
-
~
ruc
ure was used I
.
---- - _
,
~/.~-> !
r ~ : -
~ ~:~
._ ' ~ ' ~ ` ~ . .
MINUTES~,;'CITY-PLAIVNING COhASISSION, ,July :13, 1970 . 5245
RECI~t1SSIFICATION -~for co~erciai`purposes ~Fnrthermore, upon checking`with the County
NO 70-71-3 ' ~:Recordei~'s Office regarding the-lot split of.subject property, the
' ` parcel under:coneideration before>;;Lfie Cort~issioa was created in
VARIANCE N0; 2185 'violation of the Anaheim Zoning;-0rdinance, said lot split`being
,. .
' recorded on April 26,:,1968,';in; that it did not conform:to.the m3nimum
AREA DEVELOPMENT requirements of the R-A 2one=3n which a'one-acre parcel was required,.
PLAN N0.-95 and a lot,spliE was accompliahed without the necessary processing of
(Continued) a parcel''mep as required by-the Anaheim Subdiqieion Ordinance.
Therefore, based upon this action, it was xeco~ended that;the condi-
- Eions•of dedi'cation,;streeE'improvements, street lights, alley
dedication;,etc., be required of the entire.parcel which existed prior to the creation of
; the illegal parcel. _
Mr. Slaughter reviewed the area development plan'as set forth in the Report to the
Coaunission and,the,>recommendations of the sfaff in the event the C-Z, General Commercial,
Zone was reco~ended. for approval, those being a standard, 20-foot alley provided along
the west:properEy line as the prop,erties deyeloped for commercial or commercia~professional
uses since a 2;1 structurel setbacic adjacent to the single-family residential homesites
to the weat would be required, and that only Ehree vehicular acceasways be permitted to
Euclid Street to lessen vehicular movement on this street as,shown on Exhibit A, which
were suggestions, with final.vehicular accessway locations being approved by the Develop-
ment Services Department and the Traffic Engineer.
Mr. Harold Tolar, agent for the petitioner,.appeared before the Co~ission and noted that
the use of subject property,would.b~e,.compatible with adjoining properties since it would
be used,for grofeseional office use, which would be quiet and less hazardous to the adjoin-
ing properties than other co~ercial;uses; that very little evening work was anticipated;
and that very little additional traffic wauld'be generated by the proposed zone change and
land use.
The Commission inquired of.the agenb for the petitioner whether or not he would be amenable
to,developing the;property in.accordance with.the area development plan as it pertained to
an ;alley'a~d acce'ss :to Euclid ,Street.
Mr'. Tolar:,indicated his;agreemeat to'dedication for alley purposes and removal of the
.garage at`such,time as'the alley wes`to be developed for all'parcels in this study area.
Coamiissioner Gauer then'"inquired ef staff what areas considered by the Coam-ission in area
deWelopment plans similar Co that under consideration had'actually developed.
Zoning Supervieor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that only one area had so devel-
oped, and that was on Herbor-Boulevard south:of Santa Ana Street wherein an area develop-
ment plan had been adopfed, and as each property proposed to develop for co~rtercial office
uses, they were required to dedicate for the alley and street widening purposes.
Mr. Tolar advised the Cormnission that since he was the owner of subject property, he
would be glad to dedicete iand for a11ey and street widening purposes if subject petition
were approved for reclassification.
Mrs. Darlene Davis, 428 South Falcon Street, appeared before the Commiseion in opposition,
stating her property was i~ediately to the west of sub~ect property; .that although the
agent for the petitioner indicated the existing wali was 5 feet high, actual measurement
by her huaband indicated it was only 4 feet, 4 inches high~ ¢hat she was not opposed to
a real estate office or the side yard parking waiver, but a petition she was submitting
from the neighbors indicated they were opposed to the requirement of an al~ey along the
west boundary of all the properties along Euclid Street between Orange Avenue and Broadway;
that in viewing these properties, she could not visualize how an alley could be placed
along.the west property line without requiring dedication from the single-family home-
owners on Falcon Street; and that she wished to request that if reclassification of sub,ject
property were considered favorably, the existing wall be built to a minimum of 6 feet.
Furthermore, that alleys were undesirable because of the increase in noise from them;
that children would use the.alley as,an accessway, and alleys were never maintained
properly, creating an undesirable atmosphere of untidines8 and~debris.
The Commission noted that an alley was necessary in order to remove the excesaive number
of points of traffic conflict along Shclid Street when all of these praperties were
developed for coimnercial uses.
Mrs. Davis further noted that her home would be relatively quiet because of a parking
structure, wall, and a considerable amount of landscapLng - however, the property owners
to the south did not have theae barriers, and thus they would suffer from noise and
traffic, and, in conclusion, all the neighbors were opposed_to the area deveiopment plan
proposing an alley ad,jacent to their properties and waiver of the required 6-foot masonry
wall; however, the Davis and Breked families iu~ediately affected by subject petition
_ S ^~-f.r_~' ,~.t~G,.~' ~r ~' f S. - F {
, ' ... ~ ,
~
xj ~
i~;
^~ . u .
$~
•
~
y.. ~ ti ~ .
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING,CON1bIiSSION, Julq 13, 1970 `
~.1~~
5246
_ .., :., : 1 -.., i ~, . ~~ : .~:- ' + ~ -~ • ':-
_ RECLASSIFICATION " were.not opposed to ao~ercial`zoning,;if the:uaes were limited to
" NO 70 71 3' uses;similar to a:
l es
f
' tns:~~c(.
~~,c'~*?~
~
rea
tate o
fice,
but would be opposed`to a.uae .
` ' ~ ' auch; as a!!hash house" or such 'other~ usea that woald be harmful `to
'
VARIANCE N0: 2185 ~
-a
i ~~
'~~~
.
the
d oin
n residentiel uaes;.;
= , _„ ~ ,.. g _ , .,..
.
'
. AREA•DEVELOPMENT ` `;
' Mrs :Virginia Edwards, 424 South Falcon Stre
t
e
' >
'G
e
, app
ared.before the
PLAN NO 95
:: Commission,;noting her property:was to:the north of.:the Davis ~
(Continued)
e A~
~
prop
rty, and inquired wiiether or not..a
pproval of an.alley'would
'
mean:re
uirin
dedi
ti
n
r
' a'~"~
~.~
~
,
q
g
ca
o
of he
property
Fuitherm'ore, what would
;
revent
li
st
o
~ '
p
a
quor
ore
r bars
from~being approved if commercial:.:
zoning were established
,
' ~~'~,~~~
,
' The Commission noted that.`the alley would be required from those,properties along $uclid
' Stre'et only;;and that•a li
uor
stoie was ~~
q
;
.permitted by righE,:in the C-1 Zone while a bar
'~ would:,require approval of;a conditional.
r
' ~y
;use pe
mit;
that these were uses by right in the
~.. commercial zone but-did not necessarily'slimitithe.property•;since'there
e
a `"
.t~ .;
r
w
re
number of
commeiciai uses p;ermitted in ttie
C-1, Zone .:: `~ `'`
~
.
., ~, '; :- " . ,
Mr Roberts iioted that the C 1 Zone permitted:general retail.uses but not automotive or
~
'~
""'~
~
service etation• uses,
'
'
' ,
+~~
: " • `.
:: :. -
.
Mra Edwards then'inquired_whether or-not the.alley would be for the exclusive use of
: the commercial establish
e
t
r
l
~ ,,` ,~i
m
n
s; o
wou
d
the residential.properties have access to the .
alley;also'. !
_ `~
.
.;h~
~
,
~-` Mr Eoberts noted that it'.would tie a public, dedicated alley and could be used..by the
~ R 1 properties~. ,
.
, ;~ .
~
,. . ,~
Commissioner Rowland inquired when the City last accepted dedication of an 'alley;
,whereupon M
. Sl
u ~~•
r
a
gliter replied it was.approximately three months:ago; along Magnolia
Avenue one of the~Iote developed
:for C-0
s
d
a
:
u
e, an
dedic
tion.of a strip for alleq
;purposes was.`a requirement:"of the rezoning.
`
.
' '
.
~
~ ~
'
~
~,v
,:.•
*;a~°
r
.,, . ,...
~ ~ ~ . ` ..- .,' . '
ti
~ ~. .~
. ,_~.
, .::.
.
. _. . ...~ . .- _': ~. , .
.~ .. ...~. .--... ,.. . ~:..., . ~~
.
~
rJ:..
Mrs Edwards then inquired whether or not the homes would-be removed and r.egular'cou~ercial
structures deyeloped on these properties'encompassed'in the•area'de
l
e ~~,~~
'
ve
opm
. ! , : . „ ,
nt.plan.
' ~
~
'
~
Mr. Roberts noted that single family homes north of subject,property, because•of"their
'narrowness in'depth;.would;:be re
aired.Eo
v
h
x `
~~~=P~
q
remo
e t
e e
ist;tng structures„before;the alley -
'could.be developed However, subject property was sufficienfly
deep ana-wide §o that ttie
exi
tin
u ~~
'~;:~
,
s
g sti
cture need not be removed. .
:
, ~
-
, , . , ,
` , ,
Mrs Corrine,Behnke, 414 Fa
lcon Street
e
ed b
fo
' r r ~7,
~
Y
.
,,
ppear
e
re
the Commission and'noted that if
an alley were to extend,to the north, t;~is would mean-that
the
Weber'
fnrn
r
e ~ ~~
.J
.
,
s
itu
e stor
,
located fo the nor.th of the single-fami7y homes, whi'ch had onl
y a
25-foot rear
ard
ld h ,xr
<v.`
.
,.y
,
wou
ave to dedicate,.'and inquired as to how an alley could eittend through their
property. Furthermore, what type-of buildings would be devel
d
~':
~`
ope
on such small.lots.
Chairman Herbst noted that amall office buildings could be developed, and that the alley
;would`not extend throu
h
the
ear of
ebe
's
g
.
r
W
r
furniture store properEy_but would terminate
either between the two northerly,.:narrow lots or along side the northerly,property line
of the last.narrow,lot.
Mra. Behnke Ehen stated it was her'opinion thaE Code did not permit fwo~etory.-offite
biiildings~aiid tfiat she was op
osed
to alle
ai j -
p
,
ys.
nce she.,formerly lived adjacent to one,
and a1J: allr.ys were dirty, rat-infested,. and dangerous, and that an a1T
~w
a
t f,
ey
ould
dd
o
the deterioration of'an area. Furthermore, the existi,ng fence was.an old, wooden fence
not high enough to discourage childien
fr
m
.
om ju
ping over it = therefore, she would.request
that a 6-foot:wall be a requirement if tHe'reclassificaCion
e
e
wer
approv
d, ;
Mr. Roberts noted thet the Report to the'Commission indicated the rear yards of the five
northerly lota.of subject properEq under the area develo
t
pmen
plan,and south of Weber's
were.£oo ahallow - therefore, the homes'would have to be removed and new buildin
r
gs
aonat
ucted because-of this shallow;depth. Furthermore, there was`a'structural setback
of 2 feet for each
foot of b
ildin
h
i
t
,
u
g'
e
gh
- thus a 12-foot building would require a
24-foot
setback from the R-1 property lin~
I
,
s.
n addition, if the Commissior~ so desired,
a requirement of~:approval of subject petitions would be the conatruction of a 6-foot
masonry;:wall,~and if the wall were only 4;feet,'additional blocks could be placed on top
of the
existing wall to meas
re to'th
e
' 6 '
.
u
e r
quired.6-foot
height. However, where no masonry
wall existed, then a full wall would have to be re
ir
d I
qu
e
. {
Mr. Tolar, in rebuttal, advised the Commission that he would stipulate to providing a
minimum 6-foot'masonry wall
and would att
' i
!
.
empt to obtain
the permission of the adjoining
single-family homeowners t~ add to the,existing wall,' and.that although he was reluctant I.
I
~
_, :.
-. _
.'i
_
-- : ..~, ~- .z ~ _.. _ _. ..._:..,. .,.+sa < e.t .,.nx c .:;ny <v~,S c~, .:~-}
t ;~li'~
`
~
~~
'
~~ ~. . ~ .~. ~ ~..
y
~
MINUTES; ITY ' .;.. i~~.
PLANNING COI~AtISSION
'
July 13; 1970 ~
,
.
, : ` 5247
RECLASSIFICATION ~-`to ive an ro erE <for alle '
N0, 70-71 3 g y p p y Y Purposes., since this was a requirement
~
of '•th
• a ~
~`~
-
,
e zoning
nd:;the eatablishment"of'his business, tie would
provide rt. , '~
VARIANCE NO 2185 . ; ,
.Mrs. Edwards inquired-why the petitioner could not blacktop the rear
AREA•DEVELOPMENT portian of the
` ~~
w;~
.
property instead,of providing an.alley.
-PLAN N0:°.95 _ ~
~:::.(Continued) The Comnissioninoted that in addition to`requiring an aliey
this
w
`~ ~~
,
.
ould eliminate haying
to have accesa to.Euclid Street.since only
three ac
wa
u ,
;'~`
.
cess
ys wo
l:d be permitEed from these lots - so that the
rear circulation was needed in order to =each the
c ~,~.
se a
cesaways,
,
,;.,
;
M;s,-.Edwards expresaed the fear that the alley would be used a ~l
s a raceway and that arkin
would be:permitted.ad acent ~ P
3 to the wall.wh `
_ ich could be damaged
' . . ~'
~.
g
-'
~
' ~'~
w'
'~
..,
.
. . . .
. . .. . . . . .
. ~
.
Mr Slaughter Ehen reviewed the area development'plan as to circulation, noting where
areas of.traffic conflict
ou 4
J.'}~.
i
K
s.c
ld.occur if.accessways were not eliminated,'and then stated
that parking ad3acenE ,to~the`wall would be
prohibit
d sin '~
;
e
ce this would be a public,
dedicated alley;used for circulation only
with no
rkin
,
pa
g permitted.
`
Mrs Albert Raschick, 410 North Falcon Street, appeared before the Co~ission, noting that
although
:she'was~several ho
s `~,
,
me
north of.subject property, she'also owned other property
which was adjacent to.an alley, and the City did not m
i ~
a
ntain Ehe aliey very well, coming
only once every three years to oil;the alley
and'that all't
o ~
~
,
ypes
f debris were found in
an alley which'led to a rat-infested a
c '`
rea;.
reating a dangerous situatian for the children
e who might use the alley
to gain acce
o
a
h '~
.
ss t
;
not
er street.
~ . ; ' ,
i
: , ;i:,
..
~
.
Commissioner.Gauer noted that the concept proposed was acceptable - however, the rity
shoald apply some type of cont
l
f- ,
~1;
~w y
~
ro
o
developmerit;,that land asaembly should.be`required;
and that::by givirig a.blanket d-1 zoning would
not'
s
r ~
.
a
su
e any protection for the R-1 '
properties to:the west'- therefore
he would r
om
'
2h
;
ec
mend that any
concept plana be presented
at;the~.,tiiae other properties weie proposed:for rezoning so th
t b
t
e h~
a
et
ex
er control could be
rcised,-in the developiaent-of these properties on
Euclid Stree
o
c
w ~'~
.
t
t whi
h
ould be adjacent
single-familq'tiomea;' and, in the"best .interest.of the: R-1
rop
"
~ ~'`'
p
erties,
zoning~approval
no certe blanche:
siiould.be.giben.since haphaza=d development of the
b
'
e
properties would not
,beneficial to';the R-1 properties'rior to,',Ehe•app
earance of Euclid S
en
~A
.
g
treet ia this
eral area ,Furthermore, tliere'was.no asaurance`these.`properties would devalop for
commercial uses
in th
n
u ~
,
e
ear f
ture since the property in"a one-block area on Magnolia
Adenue had commercial zoriin a
g ppioved
m ; f~
~~
approxi
atel ten
y years ago and development had
noE'occurred as of this date.-°~
In addf:
ion
th
Ci s-:
,
.
,,.
e
ty was not experienced in knowing what
problem's,.the single=family homeowriers"were faced
with
he t ~%~
-
w
n these homes fronting on
arEerials developed for!commercial uses. `'~'
Co~mnissioner Rowland noted that where land assembly had occurred, such as the property
along the east side of Stat
C
' I
e
ollege
Boulevard where Fredricks Development Company had
constructed a commercial complex
these facilitie
h !
,
s
ad been quite successful, and there
did not appear to be complaints where an alley served both ~
co~ercial and residential
uses, and'the only thing he could see as"un~:esirable was th
~
e trash which the R-l property
f owners dumped into the alleys.
f
i Commissioner Farano observed that a shopping area on Tustin Avenue near Collins in the
City of -0range had cormnercial `
I
uses abutting the R-l properties, and these had their
circulation pattern in the front
with acc
,
ess being somewhat restricted - therefore, he
wondered whether or not the City of Anaheim should
consider aimilar development of these
front-on,problems.
I
Mr. Roberts advised the Commiseion that in order~to develop in the.manner Con¢nissioner
Farano.inferred, 3t would be ~ {^
i
neceasary to remove all the residential atructures, and if
one property owner elected to utilize an exisEing st
' ~
ructure,
tliis would interfere with
the circulatior. pattern, . i
I
The_Commisaion,further,noted that the co~ercial development on Brookhurst Street, south
of Broadway, had their own circulati
i
on
n the front,as well as •Lnternally providing the
ci:culation; whereupon Mr. Roberts noted thet a11
h
b
t
e
uildings were regular commercial
buildings and none were residential structures - therefore
this
w
ir
,
c
as effective.
culation pattern
Mr. Slaughter also noted that the comnercial structures on Brookhurst, south of Broadway
were all on very deep lots wherein ~
,
considerable parking was provided to the rear of the
atructures. Hewever, properties on the west sid ;
e of Euclid Street now under considera-
tion in :the area development plan were very shallow
and beca
of
'
I
,
use of the
requirement
the 2:l building setback, the need for the alley was mo
im
re
portant since this meant
a minimum of 20 feet would be separating the R-l lota fro
th ~
m
e commercial property, and
that generally the City had required that the alley serve only one t
e
f
'--
yp
o
uae rather i .-
i
). '.
._.,. +. . --_ < ...... ~ .___.~-
, .: . .__ _ _ '
. . _.. _... __ .--. ~,
_ ._..._ _
n~ ~n~ r~~~~.~ ~ .. .... . ~ . . . _..tv_T'.."",~"'~,.'?'-i'r~,y~..r,;;~ °~+?xL> ~:~'.
i
t
~ ~ ~? ~~ y. ~~
A~
' `
MINUTES, CITY PIANNING COM.*ISSION, July 13
1970
,
5248 ~
RECLASSIFICATION, ' thari havirig a~,ixture of`uses, and to accamplish this a-wall
NO 70 71 3'
' •=~
was
required:t
o be pTaced oa the.oppoaite,°aide of.the alley. ;Further-
more, if_'ttie area;`development
plan wer
ad
E
° ~~
,:
e
op
ed, all
property owiiers
VARIANCE N0; 2185 ' adjacent to the alley should b
:i
m
e
nfor
ed tfiat access to the alley
'. would be only for.the co~ercial uses<and no~acceas:would.;be
~ AREA DEVELOPMENT t
ermitf
d „
.p
e
o.the R l,property owners ;
,F7AN<N0._, 45'
- ; :
" ~,
~T
' ;
;
(Continued) Mr Roberts`noted in res onse,to ` ~
,• ~. P questioning by one of the opposi-.
: tioa, that;'
r
id
n ~:
p
ov
i
g a•privatei;drive would require.the recordation
f` ;
of-easements
os
.
scr
s each;-property, and?if one proF^rty ~er~did not
= permit this easement, then the_circulation
la
ld
p
n:,wou
~be.nullified.
Offi'ce Engineer Jay Titus'noted for the~Commiasion ttiat the;wall
r
e
c
~ ~
p
opos
stru
d would be
con-
ted on:the,west side~.of the';allep,`-with a:one-foot,strip held in private.ownership
thereby elimiaating an
o
ib
l
~
,
y p
ss
i
ity of access::from:th
e west properties across.private :
` property and acco'mplishing the separation of the two u
s
"
'
c'
~~
se
.
:
,
Commissioner Rowi~nd wondered whether or not the wall should be higher than-6 feet in '
order'to provide as
h ~~
~~
muc
separation as.poasible for>;the residents;aince all teaEimony
by the resident~.gndicated,the~proposed.
alley.cir
la
w
~ ~'~
,
cu
tioa;_
as
not the solution;:but it
was a form of•a solution-to a grave problem facing the City, es
e
i
h
ll
w
'
~`'~~
p
c
a
-
y
ith a street
aviiig a, potential 40;000 ;vehicles per. ;day; ; and some <form'of altemati
' w
'
s
` `~
ve
as needed•
circulation..
o,that commercial developmetit of these`properties:conld,.take`;place without
individual
acces
a ~
'
,
;
sw
ys into a heavily traveled,streef:
_ ~~,
Mr Slaughter.advised the CoQrmission~that the petitioner had ori inall
variance to.'permit:usin
the h
e f y 5
g
om
or a real estate.office:- however, etaffuhaderecom-
mended that:a proper procedure was the filin
of
rec
s ~
g
a
la
sification petition. ,
Mr.. Roberts noted-for the:Commission.that there was another alternative since he could
understand Cormnissioner-Gauer's co
a `~'g
ncern.
s to unlimited co~ercial,uses wtiich could
affect tfie residential iategrity:of the R=1 pro
erties
d'
h
a ;~
p
, an
t
at
lteraative,was.to.
approve only C 0 usea; although the property could,not be'zoned C-0 since'the site must
be a minimum of 20
000
t ~s
~y
,
square fee
.
. . .,
. t~
.
-. r: .
,Co~isaioner~Rowland i~quired whether or
not i
u
~ ~ ,?
~
.
t wo
ld be possible to epprove"a use by
.:way,of:a conditionel uae,~permit and.still retain the existing
z
i
i -'
~
t x...ti;
;,
on
ng,-RUCh as was done
n the:Commercial-Recreatioa Area'_~rior to the.establishmerit
of the
Z
mm
'
;.
.Co
one:since
ercial-Recreation
this was the reeult of;::the Froict-On':Study and.the area development plan
~Furtliermore ::
this
d
' .~r.
:
' ~
-
.
, proce
ure couldr.apply,
to a1Z front-oz problem areas,.
.
,
Commisaioner Farano:inquired whether or not the area development plan could be adopted
and require~Ehe filin
of a
d
i ~~
L
g
con
it
onal"use permit as a,condition of approval in`the '`
area-development plan when each lot
as p
a '
w
ropo
ed for developmeat. Fnithermore,`ell
I dey~~,~R~ent pians should be eubmitted to the
~~..
Plannin
C
i
.
g
omm
asion and City Council for
review"as to,specific p],an§ for each parccl.
One of the women in oppo,sition inquired whether this would be feasible since no access
would be provided until all th
e properties were developed, if ever.
Commisaioner Farano noted that the improvements would have to be bonded for until auch
time as the adjacent ro
er .
ties d v
P P e elo ed i
p n accordance with the area deyelopment`plan
since this wes a blueprint of the:manner in
hi
h
e
"
~
w
c
d
velopmenf could occur.
THE HFARING WAS CLOSED.
Deputy City Attorneq Frank Lowry advised the Commission that the Ci[y Attomey had ruled
previously that these type8 of conditio
s'
.
n
could not be attached ta an area development
' plan since it was only a plan for circulation and had-no bearing
to
~
~`
~
.
on a zoning action except
_provide circulation.
~amnissioner Seymour inquired wnether or not it would be possible to make the zoning more
restrictive, such as C-0
since tHe
,
proposed type of use was permitted in the C-0 2one,
thereby proh3biting more intense use of the
r
'
p
operty without xequesting a
reclassifica-
tion of the property whea the Commissiori could again revie
th
w
e property.
~ Mr. Roberts stated that at one time there waa an.amortization period in the C-0 Zone
~, wherein use of the home fo
r C-O n~es was allowed - however, this expired in February,
1969, and,:therefore, no residential structures could b
~
e uaed for commercial office
uses, Furthermore, aince'the amortization period had eacpired and the lot
20
000
e
,
s w
re not
square feet, unless land'assembly was proposed, rezoning to the C-0 Zone method
Wes no longer available.
~
i
~_ --_---
i
,:,
. .~,..o,~~,
° -aW:
~ ;, ~.., .. - . , ~"„•~
, . fif '.. ~ , ~ . . ~ .
I MiNUTES~•CITY PLANNING-COMMISSION, July;,,i3, 1970
'..: , , , , 5249 _ .
~RECLASSIFICATION -.Mr, Roberts further noted tHat the Commission could recommend approval
N0~ 70-71 3 ' of a lesser.zone" namel
,, -• , , y, C-:O since'the Cit Af.torney'ruled that a
lesser'zone could be approved - however, this would"also require a.
VARIANCE NO 2185 v,ariance since;~subjec[ property.did.r.ot consist of 20,000 square.feet,
~ ~= and that consideration might be given to C-l zoning with deed restric= '
ARPf DEVELOPMENT tions limiting development to office uses,'but.this method had been
,.
' PLAN N0;"95 avoided by„the~Planning Commission and City Couhcil' in recent;:years.
:(Continued)
Commissioner Rowland noted that since the City Council had denied•the
erea development plan et a previous'publir hearing, it would seem
unlikely Ehat anq different decision`.would be made.again,• however, he was not`too.sure he
would;like ~to iecoffiend an unlimited co~¢soercial zone approval:since he was not desirous
of;establishing e conditial by a;nproving subject petition which'might not be good for the
' area. .: . -, ,.
Mr.1 Lowry adyised the.Cormnission that subject pe~ition would have to be readvertised if
C=0 zoning were.approved-since a variance would be necessary to allow 1e§s than 20,000_
'square feet.-
Further discussion;was held by,the Commiasion as to the manner in which action could be
taken on tYe,reclassification and area developmenE plan,,and upon its conclusion
Coa~issioner Rowland bffered Resolution No.`PC70-128 and moved for its passage and adop-
tion t"o recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassifination No. 70=71-3 be
epproved suliject'to providing circulation in accordance with.Area Development P1an No. 95,
requiring~.dedication of.a strip of land for:alley'purposes and the construction_of a'six-
foot masonry.well aiong the ti~est property lipe, as':atipulated to on both conditions by the
petitioner.on the basis [hat each parcel in the area developmen[ plan.would be required to.
.present plans ~'.therefore, the ~ommis§ion could•deEermisie whether or not the uses,proposed
would ~M compatible with tne area, and sub~ect to;ICPS&GW-condiEions. .
Prior to,yoting,'the Commission discussed Che motion and ttie conditioris:attached and then ~
recommended that a.bond_be posEed to:assure the;development of Ehe alley adjacent Eo
subject property at auch time as the balance of the properties.developed. {See Resolution
Book)
On xoll ca11 the foregoing resolution:wa's passed by the following vote:
AYES CONAfISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gaser, Kaywood, Rowland,`Seymour, Herbst.
NOES COMMISSIONERSc None.
ABSENT: CQ~IItISSIONERS: None. ,
Commissioner Rowland offered'Resolution No. PC70-129 and moved for its passage and adoption
~ Eo grant Petition"':~for Variance No._2185, in-part;'for:waiver of the parking requirement to
the rear of.the residentiaT structure since waiver of'the required six-foot masonry wall
was withdrawn,by the.petitioner whe.stipulated Co providing the six-foot masonry wall aLong
the west property line. '
Prior to vo~ing on.the moCion, discusaion was held by the Commission on the motion, and ~
upon its conclusion, with the concurrence of Co~issioner Rowland,•Commissioner Seymour j
amended the resolutidn, adding a time limitation of tfiree years for the use.of the home I
and side yard parking as,propoaed. (See Resolution Book) I
On ro11 call the foregoing resolutien.was passed by the following vote: ~
AYES: COt~FSSi0NER5: Allred, Farano, Gauer Ka '
, ywood, Rowlsnd, Seymour, Herbst. ~
NOES: COi~AtISSIONERS: None. (
ABSENT: COI~ASISSIONERS: None. ~ ` ;
Co~niasioner Rowland oFfered Resolution No. PC70-130 and moved for its passage and adoption ~
to recommend to,the City Council the adoption of Area Development Plan No. 95, Exhibit A,
subject to providing a 20-foot alley, fully dedicated and approved, together with three ~
accesaways to Euclid Street. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the Foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONNRS: Allred Gauer Ka ~
NOES: COMMISSIONRRS: None. ~ ' YWOOd, Rowland, Seymour, I,isrbst. ~
ABSENT: CUrAtISSIONERS: None. ~
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. ~
1
~
i
I 1 r y i' _ , e ` --~~
..1 r- ~ <: _ .
~ ~ ~ :. . ., ~ ,,
` =
~~ ~ E(~,`+1q."`a/ ~
. ~~~~
~
d M"i
;
; ~
' ~ . , ,
~~
~
: MINGTES, CITY PLANNING,COMMISSI~N, Jul~ 13, 1970 ;;
, :.
• 5250 ~
~~
G~L ~'~N PUBLIC HEARING INITIATED BY THE CITY-PLANNING COMM
` ~~
ISSION; 204
- AMENDMENT NO 120 ,
. East;-Liricoln Avenue, Anaheim CaTifornia •' `
, proposing';an amendment to
tl-ie General
~Pl
t ~r~.~ ~
;
an
ext, Community Facilities -:.Parka;, Recieation,
and~Open Space Element, Eo include mini
parks. h E
Y
~
;
, , , ,
Assistant Zoning Sypervieor Malcoim Slaughter,:reviewed for•:the Commission ehe request
of
' the Parks and Recreation D
e ~y
~:'~,
,~iy,
~
,
epartm
nt for:a proposal to include mini.=parks as a.part~of
;~ the Eext>of,the Commu33ry;Facili'ties Elementiin Planni
" '~"
~s
ng
Aiea A under Parks,;:Recreation,
'and Open Space ard cons~ideration b Ehe Cit;;Mana er to're uest o en s a~o
HIID for the a
~ y g q ? P funds from
ui
i
y k
,~
~
.
..q
s
tion of two mini
arks
- p proposed to be 1'ocated in the:vicinity of.the-.
intersectioa:of Ciementiae and~Elm S~
ee
' ,
~
;,~~
r
ts and
,at the intersection of La.Palma-Avenue and
Patt Street,'that information received from HUD indicated
~that•funds'could b
~
p
l ;~~
'~
,
: on
e a
proved
y if snch.parks,were indicated on the Geaeral Plan, that•the Parks and Recreation
; DeparEmerC had recognized~th
e x~
e ne
d in certain'areas~~for sma11 arks to su p?
neighborhood`and community'park ,concept'
as p;ojected
'on the Ma
te
~
t
d ~f~
~
.
:
s
r Plan of Parks
an
the
Anaheim General Plan,, and.the;during;the past:decade'this
potential
ed
i `
~"
ne
had become a
` real
ty, ard..that~these miai parka, sometimes~called "vest`pocket`parks",:were locatedr
` on ipdividual City_:lots,'small freeway
'remnaaf'
l '~
~~
~~
.
.,;
attds,, and:vacant parcels;for which there
appeared to•be no sui~sble~use. 'fiurthermore; in locating these-parks, consideration;had
' been givest to including tIi'e aged, conc
nt ~..
'~'•
e
ratioas of;juvenile probation;cases,•and the ''
; preaence of-neighborhood,,;assistaace ar.d:support iri acqniring; developiag
; a site
and maintaini
i
h `~'
S;x
,
ng
m
g
t, be an importatt~ .cousideration whea e"val
uating a; site:'
~
,
, ;; , . -
~Co~issioner. Gauer ~inquired whether or rot there would be specific,locations, and
`Commissiorier Allred :
z
t
;
_expressed;,concarn tliat the;'mini-parks would jeopardize development.:
af the; ~eighliorhood:`and commuZity~ park~ facilit'ies.. '
` : < r , ,
~
'~4
~~'~
.
Mr Slaughter ~oted'.tha tfie proposed change wss to include reference to mini-parks,-and
there were no;specific locati ;
~
~
ons for these parks since their'size was too',minuscule to
stand out on,`a GenereZ Pla~ map ,-;!:Furthermore
.'representatives
f th
rk
' f,~
~
~'
,
o
e Pa
s and
Recreation
~,Department were availabie'to answer
qriestians'
'.' ;fi'
i
?«~
.
.
, ~: ~ .: _,,; . ; '
YSuperintendent of Parks, Dick Kamphefnet; fn resporse;to Co~uissioe question as to whether
:or not`:mini parks would
eopar3iz
t :;,~.~~{g.~
~~'
,
e
ne oyerall.;plan for community and~neighborhood parks
by taki-eg money appropristed for fl+em to~,purckase and;develop these small;parks, stated
that two specific site
e
e ~~
;~a'~n
s w
r
being atudied, that theae;paiks-were'iather difficult to
plan iie the Mas~er Flan since tney would-;be locatrd in ove
t `"~~~
r
areea would tie considered"on a piiority.basis, that thepCity-'.was~fuYlS~awaretofstheWne
for th
'
d ~~
e
e
se sma21 parks which s~ould be located in poverty."areas - ho6iever, only recently-
~had anything'Seen expressed tor a:
s
ifi
ei ,~r
,
pec
c.n
ghborhood, such;as the residente around
Clemertine and E1~n Streets,;w'~o had coatected the Parks and Recr
Eion
e '`
~
~
ea
D
pertment for
help in develo in two sma11 '
P 8., , private lots•which they rad_acquired'as a amall pley area
for children,,:which
;was mucf~ cl
ser th
t
e ''
`~~~
,
o
an;.
h
greea ares between the-Police Department
and the library thaL these`people had uoyi rQZed tt;e o1d shac~cs with the`permission of
`the owners:and fornierl
used b
the
w
s
q,
Rro
ti Serees and drug addicts,rand with help from
neighbors had`.installed a sprinkler system,at their own cost, togetker vrith.the planting
of l00 pounds of grass 'seed which th
a
e P
rks Department had givere them; and that there
was no doubt the,neighborhood was a better one beceuae of this s
all
t
~
m
park. In addition
he.ge~eral erea of La Palma Avanue and Patt SCreet - properEy actually owaed by the City -
was the-une area in which the Cit~
t ~:
I
v.was s
ud in the
which could,be funded by HtJD -,however; it wasgnot thesintenttof theePark
iD
t
k
rk
t i
s
egartment
e
o
e over these sma11 perks, but at the preaer.t time there was no definite plan.
i
Mr. Kamphefner, in responae to further Commission quest3oning, stated that he did not know
what the exact cost of thesQ parks would be ta Che
it I
~
C
y. I
Commissioner Rowland noted that at a recent zoning petition heariag one of the community
leaders of the La Falma Aveaue-Patt St
e
t ~,
r
e
area stated they 'needed a mini-park like they
needed a hole 3n the head° - therefore, he could not understand how the City could relate
the proposal`for mini-parks with
st
e i`
;
a
at
ment mede by a resident of the area, and then
noted that the philosophy of the.Parks end Recreation Depeitment w
h
~
as t
at the City was
not to try to develop poverty pockets but was trying to get these people out of these
aress; that the park pla. wae a
d (
very goo
,one, but these small parks could not be de~eloped
i on an economic tasis aince theq could not be maintai
d b
e ,.
ne
y th
City. Furthermore, for
years the City:had a policq.not to develop parks that were under five ecres in size -
thus;.was the City now consid
rin
j
e
g this type of recreational facility because it appeared
it would be a popular concept, aad why was the City ertertainin
this p
l !
~
g
cou
roposal since he
d:not see any merit, Furthermore, this group had met wfth the representatives of the
City Manager a number.of tim
t
re ~
es
o
solve other problems in their area as it related to
traffic pzoblems.
'
Mr. Kamphefner noted that theq had met with the Patt Street Improvement Committee; that
tha Improvement Committee had I
'
come with reprpsentatives of the real estate board regarding
establishing thia mini-park, and at.that time r.o one wes aware that the City owned the ~-~''
~
I -
.~ Jj'~ ~ ;~ ~
~ f
i (~~) ~,~ ~ . ~ ~
' ~ ~
~ ~ ~~
r'r`i7 r.•;
.
~ ~<'~' ~.
~~4
~
Y
.
MINUTES
CITY PIA
N'
'
,
N
!NG CONAfISSION; July
13,`1970
'
'
t
, _ , , .
r. ; :
:. -:; ,. :
:; `' - .
5251
;~
~ ~~~ P~N property, and upon finding out ,that the Cit
AMENDMENT N0. 120 wheth
'
'
e
qu ~`
er o,r
not the
Parks.De artment could asaist
P
"inicleaningiu
(Continued) area
this
d
on
`~~
an
c
verting it into a park area, indicating the area they
wanted converted:igto a
p
k ~~"~¢
,
ar
as;well as the materials necessary.
•
Furthermore, the.real estate repreaentatives had indicated they :
would,help in dev~lopin
~~thi
a
k
h
,~~
g
s.p
r
wit
fencing,.etc. Therefore, this'park would nut be
involved with HUD funda
`: '~
~
.
' . ~ .~
Mr Kamphefner, in:respoase to Commission quesEioning as to what facilities would qualify
fox HUD funds, stated thet they
had reco
: -~;~
,
..
gnized
the fact that these areas would'exist.arid
: were makirig'`a study of them - however
there were
'
s
ci
" ~f+~a.
'
,,
no
'
pe
fic.sitea to
indicate at this
time;; that it had been an,;umaritten policy of the department t
o ~`
~
y~~
o av
id amaller parks such .
as this maybe for selfieh reasons but the City did not'
have the
d ~
~~
! P g
.
nee
to recognize the,
however, since they were'riow faced with two groups'
askine forrassistar
ce i
ede
p;
g
~
y~"~
.
a
cel
ttg
~ eir neighborhoods with smal.l parks:or open space
wherein the'reaidents,contributed their time
and m
n
`
s
b +~
.
o
ey to
e
ta
lish them, the nroposaT
` before the Commission was deemnd necessary.
~'
- . . . .
~~~~ .,.:~ . .. . . _~ ' ' .: . .~ .. ~ : .. .~ . .
~Coum~issioner~Rowlaad then':inquired what was so urgent in amending.the General Plan if
^ theae,two mini-parks w
l a ~ l~S'.
~
ere a
reedy being established through private means and were not
~ beirig <fnnded by HITDt
i
_ ~
Mr.. Kamphefner,.replied that it would be a statement ia the Geaeral:Plan that if a need
`occurred fo~r other simil ,
ar parks, then the City could qualify for funding:through HUD,
who would.pay.50% of the cost of`acquisition;
nd
e
' „~„
~ x
a
d
veloping. Furthermore, there was also
the :poesibility ,that~ the,Cit could
y Purchase.the lots
;at Cle
entine
nd y ~
.
m
a
Elm and develop
the park with more than
. juat~.the`green area by`.placing,playgroun3'equipment
on it ~~
~h
~
,
.
` ;. ,
Commissioner'.Gauer noted that if~the City had an.opportuniEy;to obtair, mo,aey from Ehe
Federa,l Government
`
there
red ;
`~
~
,
:
.agpea
to be uothirig wrong.with•that concept since the
citizens were certainl ~,, ~
y peying coneiderabi to:'the Fed
l G
' ~~
' ~.~;
era
overnment in;the form of
.taxes which did~not eppearsto be returned because the:City:was neve
e
h
s
' ~,~
`
r r
t
que
ting it, end
en cited aa experi~ce he had wlien he`wae auperintendent of scHools wheri money was
obtained through the PWA
to re
aii b
ild
s'
' ~;
'~'-:•
;
p
u
ing
damaged,.by Ehe
earthquake of.1933 -'.however,
i `this did not occur until after the.board.of trueteea of the'school
:distiict memberehi
.had chan
ed b'
'
' ';,'~
4'~'
.
~
p;
ecause'of the_:
adverse stands taken;by on'e or two members of:the`board, and
';concnrred by stating that a2though some,'p
l
" '~~~
~
eop
e,had.a:dislike
;of the'idee.of obtaining
money from tli~e Federal~Government'a and if tne;:Cit
had sp
cifi
la ~'~~
'
'
p
e
c p
ns £oi.using the money,
such as parks,:the~t,"they.;should-take adva~tege`of it
.`Furthermore
`the Federnl
` r
~'
.
,
Government
was giving fayorable`coneid~ration to assisting in the development of lar er
8 Parks.
': '~
~=
r . ::
'Mr Kamphefner noted`that althougfi bond iseues had been tLrned down by the voters for the
purchase:of.psrk landa
ther
as
a , y
~4
,
e w
still
consideraole amonnt of mor.ey received through
in-lieu park feea which would be used for the developmeat'
f th ,
,~;,~~
'
o
e perk lands already
purchased, and that on an average of ten acres:per year was being developed for park
purposes
which wa" ~
'
~'
,
s conaiderably more than many other cities in Southern California.
Mr, Jack Mulqueeney, Aeaiatant to the Director of Parka and Recreation,edviaed the
Co~nisaion that he had b
n
vo ~1
ee
in
Zved during the,paet few'weeke with the HUD park programs
and:one thing he found out wae fhat HUD'would
t
c i'
ar
i
i ate in a
aition of the land aad ite developme~t for a park -•however
theyemi
ht
k
e
c
(
,
g
par
give more
if
the
were_located in an area where dieadvantaged people resided; and that the City which
prepared ita re
u
t
r
~
q
es
p
operly hed no difficulty in.obtaining funde. Furthermore, during
1969. Huntington Beach receiv
d
e
over one._million dollara for parka from HUD, and one area
where funds were'ueed was for the acquisitioa.of a 100-acze centezcit ; erk~
cit
f
whi
th
Q
h ~
'' ~'
y
;
or
c
e
entire
cost $750,000, with the balance of the mone y p~
areas for parke eimilar t
m
i
g
a
n i
o
ini-parka where thep were near
schoolam
adjacent
etc.
to
arterials,
I.
~
Mr. Mulqueeney thea noted that the City Manager had requeated their department to make a
atudy of the potential of sitea wherein HUD would
u
grent f
nda; however, since the General
Plan did not specify mini-pgrks in ita texE or in thw symbology on the
map, staff had
requeated that thie'amendment be set for public hearing as soon
as possible so that HUD
could be appriaed of the fact that the City wae considering includiag it in their Genera~
Plan. Also
ia thes
d
.
,
e
iacusaione it wae determined that it was not neceseary to have ~:
symbol on the map = only that reference be
d
ma
e in the text, and this was baeed on the
fact that in certain inatancea it wou2d not be funetional to indi
~
cate a aymbol because of
the minuacule symbol that could be placed on th ~
e map. i
Commisaioner_Rowland nuted that Lhe General Pian vas not specific and did not function in
that manner since it would b ~
e rather difficult to place dots on the plan for one-quarter
acre sites, and specific a~cea desigt;ation would be violating ehe
P
a
concept of the General
la
.
,
;.
,_ .
i
~
~_- "
~ s;~ ~:•
:~.'. _ „ / ~~ ~,; ~ ~.~, 4 ~
.._ ~ .~, :~, ~~~ ~ ~ ~
MINUTES~ CITY~PIANNlNG COh4fISSION, July 13,,;1970 5252
'1 -
' GENERAL PLAN '. Chaiiman Herbst iaquired':~hether'or not there would be strings.
. AMENDMENT""N6 120 : attached to grants made_by HUD,' ~.
" `'(Continued) ~
Cos~issioner Gauer noted;'.that it was only necessary to f.ollow the
' ` rules.and:regulations set'forth by the`Federal Government, and from
his.experience, there were no strings;attached
' Cominissioner Allred inquired whet would happen if appioval had been given for one-acre
; park;sites•;_and the?City'determined it was necessary,to have a ten-acre site - would this
_
deter'the City from obtaining'.funds for:the needed!;size parks
' Mr .Mulqueeney noted tHat the.only thing necessary,would be-fil:ag of an amended applica-±
t3on,;since the,origi_nal,applicaEion indicated.the;use of the moniea for park,purposes,;and
` if the revised.application were considered„~ ~zptable;=then.funds would be forthcoming
in `the same-mannei as for a one-ac=e.site.'. _
Co~issioner:Rowland expressed concern that the language of the sEaff-recommendation-as
to tHe-terminology to be placed `in.the text and inquired whether or not this was needed -
could;it be amended to refer to,the needs of the City rather than designating specific
typea'~of, need ,
Mr..Mulqueeney ~;~oted that`the reco~ended addition to the text was drafted by the Parks
and:Recreati.on llepartment and :the Development Services Department staff inembers, and
.
H[iD had nothing to do with.it - however, the emphasis now was-toward Efie:disadvantaged
neighborhoode;.that.other areas could`apply,,and i£ a good application were_made, in all
likelihood:it would be granted since the program was for.!!land grant open space".
Coa~iesioner`Kaywood noted that.with all the talk"about ecology, peopl.e were finelly
'beginning tr:,realize that it Cook trees, shrubbery, grass and greenery:for humanity to
• survive, because theae plants:did:.absorb the smog, and the litEle parks`were far preferable
to aaother gas station on°a small`parcel,"and which the,City did_not need.any more of.
Coa~issioner.Gauer noted that it would seem that this type of park could be developed
;every:few blocks? which would give,more::open space.
THE HEARING~.WAS CLOSED. -
°-Mr Kamphefuer indicated the only reason mini-parks.were suggested was because the General
'Plan covered:'the other types of parks'- however, smaller. areas were never considered.
;Commissioner Allred inquired whether or not these parks could be sold at a later date.
Mr Kamphefner replied that when an area indicated the need for the park was no longer
necesesry, such as development for commercial or industrial purpoaea, it could be sold.
Mr. Mulqueeney noted that 'if a aite ;for whick HUD had`contributed toward Che~purchase of
land and .development' were so3d for aiiother~ use`, the money whicti HUD had given would have
to be turned bsck to~•them.
Commissioner,Gauer stated he felt the City needed this type of park near cormnercial uses
and apartments so that,more open space was provided in these areas.
Commiseioner Rowland noted that iE was his assumption that no indication or symbology
would be placed on the plan in the,proposed amendment; whereupon Mr. Mulqueeney stated
that-it would be somewhat confusing Eo attempt to provide a symbology due to the fact
that fhe sites were not determined, nor would it be practical to have these so designated.
Commissioner Kaywood offered Resolution No. PC70-131 and moved for its passage and adop-
tion to recormnend to the City Council the adoption.of General Plan Amendment No. 120 to
include in the-Geneial Plan, Co~nunity Facilities Element - Planning Area A- Parks,
Reczeation, and Open Space -,Objectiv~s and Policies, as follows: '.'Design and develop
mini-p~arka which supplement the:community and neighborhood park systems and help meet
apecial recrea 'nn needs", and to include the definition of mini-park as follows: "A
park of.7imit~ size designed to meet the special needs of certain neighborhoods. These
parks ~xt conta.l children's play equipment, a multi-purpose court, and picnic facilities."
(See Ite,^,olution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour, Herbst.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: None.
- ,:;~
E-' ~
i' : ~ ~; ~'~ ~ ~ ' . .
~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING,COMMISSION, July 13,`1970,. ~
` ~-. r.
5253
REPORTS"AND - ITEM.NO. 1 :
RECOMMEIJIjATIONS ".` VARIANCE:NO. 2054.(Apo11o Development Company) - property located
` = on tfie east.side;of Rio Vista.Street :approzimately 550 feet north
of Lincoln;Avenue:- Request to`increase the.number of structures
in the R-2=5000 Zone having less than 1525,square`feeb of floor
area`from the original.l3 to 33.structures.
Assistarit Zoriing Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter presented a-request'from developers of ;
Tract No. 6647 zoned R=2-5000,:_located north'of Lincoln Avenue on the east:aide of,Rio
Vista Street,-to,increase the,ni~mtier~of 1386=square'~foot homes from tiie originel 13 to
33'.homes, m'aking~the latest inciease more than double the number:or`30% of the total
number of lots in::the tract, and then'reviewed the'other.findings in the Report to the
Commiasion,.concldding by stating that in.view of the~fact that there was,a substantial
change from the original request approved.at::a public hearing;'the Commission might wish
to consider the latest request;;at a.pub7.ic::hearing:
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that representatives of the
developer;were present to answer.questiona... -
Mr.'Larry Matzick,;repreaenting'Apo11o Development Co., appeared before:the Commission
and noted.that their successful'sales in the tract had'been primarily the $27,950.00
"A" plan ~having 1386 square feefi, and a waiting list for more'.of the same type of homes;
thaE sales of the other types of ho~aes were.very slow due to a ve;y limited number of
people who could qualify-purchasing;homes in the price range to`$35,000.00; that increas-
ing construction costs had driven the prices up on.homes; that the.all-time high intereat
rates, coppled with taxes,made:monthly payments very high; that with this increase in
costs, most people found it difficult to qualify in the purchase of most homes;.that it
was not their intent to place the smaller type home ad~acent to- the R-1`homes to the
east.and north;.aad:that`additionaY exterior`and interior.,layouts together.with land-
scaping were.proposed, if the requesEed increase we=e approyed. Furthermore, a repre-
aentative.o£ the marketing salea division was`available to'give some background as to
`~the type of people requesting these homes. -
The"Commission discassed,the request.at-length and e.xpressed concern that the request
could establish a:precedent and,possibly undermining'established Code requirements for.
homes . ::
:in the:City,.said discusaion being summerized"as:follows: '
1.- That the-developer ahould have anticipated his sales and requested "a larger number
rather than create an..atmosphere of doubt that s3.milar requests would not be
expected in the future:
2. That the?`developer was asking the Co~ission to.change theiz policy as it pertained
to size of homes in order to-assist in the economics of a 30-year 1oan, when the
sheet metal workers were recently awarded a wage 3ncrease to $500 per ~eek, and
that the approach to the solution was wrong and should be geared toward relief from
qualifications.for loans rather than from quality of construction.
3. That the Co~ission might be forced to review requests becauae of the economic
problems facing the building industry as it pertained to the quality of conatruction
through zoning.
4. That all the problems being discussed stemn;ed from the philosophy of the establishment
of the R-2-5000 Zone, which was intended to provide a home at lesser cost for the
working man; however, this philosophy had not materialized as an actuality, since
homes in said zone were as expensive as those formerly developed on larger R-1 lots.
5. That the City of Anaheim for many years required 1225-square foot homes, and in the
last few years ~aere requiring 1525 square feet in certain areas; however, these
homes were equally as desirable, and there should be no problem in approving the
proposed request.
6. That the City should.not entertain any thoughta of creating a Loa Coyotes situation
wherein h~mes were partially built and left for a number of years due to the ina'-ility
to sell more expensive h.a;,r,.:~s~ as well as bankruptcy of the developer.
7. That the Anawood tract which was develo ed with 1350-a uare foot homes had a ~
yearly in-their re-sale value;.therefore, this could be taken as possible evidenceated
that smaller homes might be desirable. f
$. That th.n ~eveloper had demonstrated a hards~ ~id exist, although it might be
difficu:.t to consider it a valid one as it s^a~ned to land use, since it was an
economic hardshi.~,
~. That the Commission would have to determine .
an advertised •eT ~~r not to take action without
public hearing.
!
s.t a`_ y ' n '. f /
~ ~ ~ t ,Ki, '~S
!i~ v_1r~]. t -~ ~, ~ t ~ ., i -.
i m ~ ` ` iA JCt~ - .
~' ~ a. . .. _ ._ ~ . .. ~. ' _ . , . ~' . . . . . .. . .
~ ~; ;: , -
_ : ~~ ~~ ~ ~
; _ ,
MINUTES, CITY PL,913NING COMMTSSION, July.13; 1970
' S.254 .
` ; , .
..,
;, „
~REPORTS ?~1ND ~ . `:
RECO1~flfENDATI0N5 : ITEM. N0. 1 (Continued)~ ,
Deputy City Attorney,Frank Lowry advised the Commission that aince tHeir body had taken
a~tion in,':March, 1970;?granting an.additional $even homes having'1386:'square feet without
an,advertised pnblic hearing,;a precedent kiad.been set;•therefore,;;it.would nob be.
necessary":to schedule the most-recent:~request,for:public`hearing'.~ -
Mr•yMatzick noted that his company had beenrstudying plans which'would take into considera=
tion those;people who did not earn as`much:money as others, primarily the young people,
who wanted:~to own their'own home; fhat they~had,odeiatiot the market,` and.with interest
rates climbing,'they had been:left "Holding';the'bag'!; and:that,tliey would attempt to. '
design and;enco.urage.new ideas which'would conform!more„with the'.demands of the general
public wliile sr;;11 meeting Code.requirements.for any future tracEs. ..Furthermore, one of.
the'.1525-square,foot home modela originally priced:at''$31,950 had been reduced in,price
to $27;950:when sales became slow; however, it was<still difficult to sell this model
" home.
Chairman Herbst observed that:he had discusaed the housing situation receatly'with a
contractor, who had.stated that because of the very tigh~ money:situation, homes could
not-be sold because of'the qualifying'factor; and rather Ehan;discuss at-length-the
varying problems the requeat.might present,'.it should be:approved so that the tracE
could be compie«d in order thet the_City.might',realize a tex return.; Furthermore,:since
the developer,had made-a mistake~in the type:of`housing fie was.propos;ng, if would be up
to`him to:resolve his own problems wlien building homes in-the future that could aell and
still meet CiEy standards. `.` ` ~~ "
Commissioner Allred offered a motion.to grant permission to'increase the number of 1386-
squere ioot Homes originally,.approved'at~l3~under Variance No:,2054 xo 33,'this increase
being bas'ed on tfie fact'that the proposed h'omes were comparable in quality to the:exterior
of,homea`selling'at $35;0OO,:aad that there would..be no small:homes built adjacenC to the
exis;ting~'R-1 homes to the east aad north... Commissioner.Farano~seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED. .':Commissioner:Rowland`voted !'no".
.ITEM:NO. 2 ':.
:Orange CounEy Zone Change:_No. ZC70-2 - Property locaCed on the
`, north~'side of Santa;Ana Canyon Road opposite MohTer Drive, and
proposea a zone change from County A1 General Agricultural
DistriCt to the R2.i(4000) Group`Dwellings District for several:
parcels totaling approximately 32 acres.
As"aistant Zoning,Supervisor Melcolm Slaughter presented to the Plenning Commission -0range
County Zone Change,No. ZC70-2 noting-the location of the property, exiating zont.ng in
the area, and tlie'proposal, together with a review of the Report fo the Pianning
Commission - copy atEached.
D,iscussion was held by the Commission relative to the various areas of concern expressed
by staff, and its-possible effect on development of the Santa Ana Canyon area, and upon
conclusion of the discussion the Commission was of the opinion that said zone change
should be continued until such time as Density and Scenic Highway Studies were completed,
since approval of'the petition could establish a precedent for'allowing higher densities
in the Santa Ana Canyon; circulation problems could result to surrounding properties if
individual development occurred without the provision of`a complete-circulation system
for all the properties"in this general area; higli cost of providing necessery storm drain
facilities; and time delays necessary to design and construct sewerage facilities.
Commissioner Rowland offered a moCr•n, yeconded by Commiasioner Seymour, and MOTION
CARRIED, to recommend to the City Ccruntitl that the Orange County Plar_ning Co~nission be
urged to defer any`decision on Oran~,te Cu~inty Zone Change No. ZCiO-2 until such time as
the City of Anaheim Development Serd3ces Department staff has completed the Scenic Highway
and Density Studies and presented findings and reco~aendations to the.Planning Commisaion
and City Council for action. _
ITEM N0, 3 '
County of Orange Zone Change Nos. ZC27 and ZC28 - Request for
R-3 Zoning-property located on south side of Ball Road, west
of the proposed extension of Sunkist Street.
.~;
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts presented to the Planning Commiasion Orange County Zone
Change request Nos. 2C27 and ZC28, noting the locati.on of aubject property immediately
east of the presen;, city limits, zoning of the property to the west (northerly 660 feet)
R-3, to the south being part of the Southeast IndusCrial Area, and previoua studies made
_•~,..
I :'ii rY
.' t"~}'. '` .. ...
~- .. ^~p~ . ~:' .~~. ~ : ~~ ,&n ~ . .~. . ~ .
~~ ~'~ ... ~ . '.
~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COI~I?SSION~.July 13, :1970
'~-~~, ' S255
'~'' BEPORTS. AND
Mz RECON4IENDATIODIS '~- ITEM:NO. 3 r:.(Continued)
'~ for•:this ' '
~,,, general area; namely. . _
~ 1.,That,"p=;or to:.1968, a11•those properties,located.south"of Ball Road we
..
~ for industrtal development;on the Anaheim General:Plan, re designated
; ..
v . , . .,; .., .. . _:_
' 2. ,-That in 1968 a,request for:R 3 zoning was requested for the,groperty i~ediately to
~ the west, said"request also;extending to'Winston.Road;.however; afEer numerous
;public':hearinga, the;City:Council;determined that a change'in the General Plan was
ePPr9Priate for the'northerly'b60 ;feet of,property as'measured from Ball Road, and
~• ; the.,southerly 660 feet should remain;industrial. ~
3,"That in`an effort~to create a buffer~between the proposed medium-density residential
and~the.industrial land uses, and to preclude mixing industrial and residential
traffic, Area'i.Development~P,lan No.`94, whicfi propoaed a local sereet (Omega Avenue)
midwey;between Ball~_Road'and Winston Roa'd,~extending ea.sterly to the proposed exten-
sion.of.;Sunkist Street, was adopted by:the.Planning -0o~nission and City Council.
4. That.a number of recent land use changes:.had occurred in tlie area, i'.e., a'new .:
;indust;ial firm has,:located on the`north`side of.Winston Road and the-apartments
h'ave been built in the City;,pf.Anaheim: As,part°of ttie apartment projecE, Ehe
street required by.Area Development P1an,No •~~9~~.was extended',southerly~from Ba11
Road~and eastesly toward Snnkist Street and now stubs into the west property line
of the property undei consideration by the County for R-3 zoning.
5 That as',part of Area.Development Rlan No. 94,•a 6-foot masonry wall;plus a screen
landscap'ing were required in;:a special perkway to the south of the street to act
;as a buffer-and separation:between anticipated induatrial and residential land uses.
Further,.that no access to Omega'S.treet wouid be permitted-from tfie industrial area.
; to the south so as to preclude~the mixing of residential and industrial traffic.
6 That the~proposal,was not in.conformance with the Anaheim General Plan as amended,
aad anyibuffering arid separation of`.the.residentiaT and-industrial uses would be
nullified if these zone chaiiges were approved.
~ Considerable:discus`sion wss held;by the;Commission regarding,the zoning proposals, and
at:ite conclusion,;the Commiasion determined:that strict adher~ance to'the General Plan
~and Area Development P1'an:No. 94`should'be maintained to'provide for the oiderly devel-
-opment` of this general,area by providing~for-the protection`of the existing industrial
developments; as well as tbe separation"of the two types of trafEic and sound buffering
for the reaidential uses proposed.
The Co~nission was also of the opinion-that a representative of the City should be
present at the Orange County Planning Couanission hearing to express the concern and
recormaendations of;the Planning`Commiesion. ..,
Commisaioner Allred offered a motion, seconded by Co~issioner Farano, and MOTION CARRIED,
to.recommend to the City.Council that the Orange.County Planning Commisaion be urged to
aonsider the fol.lowing in their hearings of Orange County,Zone Change Nos. ZC27 and ZC28:
1. That the Anaheim General Plan projects.a portion of subject properties for industrial
• Pu='poses, namely, t?:e southerly 660:feet which extends`to Winston Road.
2. ThaE Area Development Plan No: 94, as adopted, provides needed circulation far theae
aroperties between State College Boulevard'on the west and the future extension of
Sunkist Street on the east southerly of Ba11 Roed, said circulation plan be~•ng of
vital importance for both the Pubject properties and the properties to the west.
3. That the area development plan also provides for buffering and separation of the two
uses with a`6-foot masonry wall acceas restrictions and landscaping which was deemed
• necessary to separate irsdustrial and residential traffic and to shield the residential
land from the industrial light, odor and noise.
4. Tnat proper plaaning requires that the R-3 zoning be limited to the north 660 feet of
the_property and the extension of Omega Street to Sunkist Street (proposed).
5. That the rapid development of the Southeast Indust.rial Area indicates the need for
the industrial area shown on the Anaheim General Plan.
Furthermore, the Planning Co~nission recommends strict adherence to the snaheim General
Plan and Area Develcpment Plan No. 94, thus providing for the orderly det'alopment of
t.:~is area.
~ ~,5' ^7L 2 ~ k `.
t ^cC 4 ~ ~i •i ~ ~. r
i
r -~: ~ ,.*,-.' ~: ~ y ~ ~ C :~. ., ''...~
k 1 ~,,; ~ a r r.` .~ W - r
,.,, ~ , .?'~.~'.x2 .~':i, . . ~, _ ,.... ':" .. . •,s•~. _. , ' ' . ~ : ~ ~i . , .
,
A
r
5 1
~l
/':
L ;;'
{~ fi. r ~, lr ` c~ xf F
'
`
`
'., ..
'~ T -~ ~ 14 Y ~~ 4_! x ~ t T .~ f ~
C lT
~ -- (
f
.
y
' : 1 4 ` . 1 ... . t
Ty~ { r
i '.. 1 - .
!
y 1 'Y,+f 3 ~ f ~f -,~ ~ t ~ .~ ~ '~ ~,
A
~ . }
! 1
y
lYt'A r S ~ f t .~
'
i k~~ U F t /f
f ' '•~,
{ ~
ln .
6 ~
~5~~ .
~1 r t
.y _,
,
r ~ i ti~i 3 t ~
` -
r
~ ~ e. ~. yc f r Y ~ - % '4 _
~ a r
h
i ~ i '
~~
~
.
.
~«. ~ t S + ~ ~
~
y .
,~
.. ., . ,7,~~. . _ ....1.: _~, _ ..,~i.:v:.... _ .._.~.,,~;__~...~.._,.<~.. . ~.. ._.. i. ,_ _.., ., „_ , , ,.:.. ~ ~.. __
_ ~ ' ~
` _
N ~ «
r
-
i5 r
~ ..
, LLt .
•7:
f " ' " . : ' . ..
t
:.: ' ..'. ' . -; .. _•. . _
IR~~11~7AA~4RIAfl~ miaao
' . . ~
r a - .. _ . . .-,....
.. , . _ .. ..
' ' -_~.: - i,.~: . ..
.,._ , ,.:.: ~
..; . ., . , . . .., .. : '. .. ~ ..
.. . . . '~ . ._...
. `~' ~' ;; '' .. ' .. ' . . . . .
~
++ y.. ~
, . _. _ , .. • . , ~ . - . ' . ~ . ~ -
~ .
. . . . . . . ~ ~ ~ . ~+~~ ~ . . . . .
~~:: ~. ~ ~ . .
~ ti%;~!
~ ~ -.-,' ~xr,.~i~~~
;x~~
..~N2. ~~~ .
~ ~
` ..i