Loading...
Minutes-PC 1964/04/27~~ ~ • City Hall Anaheim, California April 27, 1964 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANANEIM CITY PLANNING CONPAISSION REGULAR A~ETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mungall at 2:00 o'clock P~Mo, a quorum being presento PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Mungallo - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Rowland, Perrya ABSENf - COMMISSIONERSs Peble;~, Sides. PRESENT - Zoning Coordinator: Martin Krsidt Deputy City Attarney: Furman Roberts Office Engineer: Arthur Daw Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs INVOCATION - Reverend Ar*hur Stevenson, pastor of the First Presbyterian Church gdve the f~iwcat38na---__ -- ------- - - ---__--...----.. - ------ - - - _----- -- -- -- - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANC~E - Commissioner Gauer led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flago j APPROVAL OF TI~ MINUTES - The Minutes of the meeting of April 13, 1964, were approved wi+.h the following correctionss Page 2061, paragraph 6, the name should be "Visser"o Page 2069, first paragraph should read: "Commissioner Rowland expressed concern in the latest scheduling of the removal of trees in t~ie ~ark- ways due to their damaging the curbs and sidewalks; that many of the trees being removed were 40-year old trees; that in his opinion, these trees could be saved and left in the parkways by a method of trimming the roots; that trees that were subsequently planted in the parkways were quite small and W~uld take another 40 years to grow; that the .. City's plan to beautify the city would be taking a setback if the proposed program of the removal of approximately 1200 trees was con- ' tinued; that if the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance were interested •in saving these, he could contact the cities of Ojai and 1'asadena who had tree ordinances which have effectively preserved many of their old +rees; and asked that the Plan~ing Department prepare a proposed ordinance to ~, preserve all the old, large, and beautiful trees that the City hado" , RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC F~ARING, ROBERT B. BURROWS, ET AL, 9821 Therese NOa 63-64-56 and Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; property described as: A rectangular parcel of land with a frontage of 98 feet on the north VARIAPICE W0. 1610 side of Orange Avenue, and a depth of 412 feet, the easterly boundary . ~ . , of said property being 660 feet west of the centerline of ~ucl~.d Street ,. ~and ~further d'escribed a'3 17+39 W~st Oiange Avenuee ' Property presently classified as A-A, R£SIDENfIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE~ REQUESTED CLASSIFICA?ION: R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDEM'IAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCEi WAIVE THE RHQUIRED LOT FROM'AGE ON A DEDIGAT~D STBEET ~P. ALLEYo Subject petitions were continued from the meetings of November 13 and December 9, 1963, and February 3, 1964, to allow the petitioner time to meet with ad~acent property owners and the Planning Department for possible development of adjoining parcels £or a standard subdivision, single-family tract. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that although a number of attempts ~ had been made to contact the petitioner, both by telephone and letter, no response was receiv- ed on sub~ect petitions, and that no further devclopment plans had been submitted. - 2070 - --- ...._.._ _._ __._ _ . 0l F ~. , i • . ~~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 27y 1964 2071 RECL~SSdfICATION - THE HEARING WAS CLOSED~ NOo 63-64-56 and Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to recommend to the City Council VARIANCE NOo 1~10 that all proceedings on Petitions for Recla~sification Noo 63-64-56 Cdiat'friued and Variance Noo 1610 be terminated due to the fact that the petitioner has never appeared at subsequent public hearings scheduled for.sub3ec.t petitions, and that although the Planning Department had made numerous attempts to contact the petitioner for cqnferences with adjacent property owners, the pot3tioner did not appear, indicating a Tack of interest in the processing of his petitionse Comnissioner Gauer seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED~ CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC FIEARING. W~ H~ JEWETT, 1141 East Ash Avenue, Fullerton, PERMIT N0~ 539 California, Owner; R„ L• URRY, 12413 Sungrove, Garden Grove, California, Agent; requesting ~ermi ~on to: ESTARL.ISH A SWIMMING POOL DISPLAY AREA CONDITIONAL USE WITH RETAIL SALES TO T4~E GF.NERAL PUBLIC .AND WITH A BUILDING NATEltIAL PERMIT NOo 546 STOR.4GE Y.4RD on property described ass An L-shaped parce! of lana with a frontage of approximately 81 feet on the east side vf State College GENERAL PLAN Boulevard, and a maximum depth of epproximately 382 feet, the northerly AMENDMENT NOo 15 boundary of said property being approximately 353 feet south of the centerline of Katella Avenue, and further described as 1822 South State College Boulevard for Conditional Use Permit Noo 539; ESTABLISH A BUILP- ING MATERIAL STORAGE YARD WITH INCIDEDTI'AL SALES AND DISPLAY YARD on property described ass An L-shaoed_perc_gl..of__land with a frontage of approximately 81 feet on the east side of State College Boulevard and a maximum depth of approximateiy-382-ieei,-ttia-r,orthe:iy-bo::nd-- ary of said oroperty being approximately 375 feet south of the centerline of Katella Avenue, and further described as 1832 South State Coilege Boulevard for Conditional Use Permit Noo 5A6o Property presently classified as M-la LIGHT INDUSTRIAL and F-L, PARKING LANU6CAPING, ZONESo Subject petitions were continued from the meetingsof February 17, March 16, March 30, and April 13, 1964, for the submission of revised plans, and at the request of the petitionera 2oning Coordinator Ma:•tin Kreidt read a letter from the petitioner of subject conditionai use pexmits, asking that all proceedings on said petitions be terminatede M:~e Kreidt further stated that sub,~ect property and property considered in General Plan Amendment Noe 15 was located in the area where the proposed new stadium property was located, and that any circulation element amendment for that area might be drastically changed from that presently proposedo THE HEARING WAS CLOSED,. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to recommEnd termination o' Petitions for Conditional Use Permit Nosa 539 and 546, toge+:her with General Plan Amendment Noo 15, based on the request for termination by the petitioner, and further based on the fact that the circula- tion element for that area in wh3ch the General Plan Amendment was proposed would change considerably if the new stadium were constructedo Commissioner Gauer seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED~ CONDI?IONAL USE = PUBLIC tiEARING, MONA ATJD RA~PH PETRENY, 1Q50 h'QSt -Kate~lla Avenue, - ' PERMIT N0. 563 Anaheim, California, Owners~ requesting permission to ESTABLISH A COFFEF. SHOP IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING MOTEL AND OFF~CE BUILDING on property described as: An L-shaped parcel of land with a frontago of 200 feet on tho south side of Katella Avenue ond a ma::imum depth of 620 feet, the western boundary of said oropart.y hrai~g approximately 190 feet east of the centerline of West Street, and further descrfbed 1040-1050 West Katella Avenuee Property presently classified as R-A, RESIDHMIAL AGRI':ULTU . :ONEo Mr. Ralph Pet~.eny, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commissic.i and stated he was available to answer any questions the Commission might havea 2oning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that the original Fetition approving subject motel and office building indicated all conditions had not been complied with, and ths Comiu.ission might consider termination of Variance No. 1480 covering the previous approval by the Coaunission. Discussion was held by the Commission r~lative to incorporating the revised plans, since the sub~ect petition would take precedence. ~ Office Engineer Arthur Daw ac~vised the Commiss+or, that, to his knowiadye, alI conditions had been met, and that street dedication had taken Nlaceo l y j __. . 3 i 't , , i ; 1 , f ~ .,. f ? .__._ _~ ...-_____~'____---~. . , _._~..._.,_. __..__.... " ~ lJ ~ • MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 27, 1964 2072 COND.ITIONAL USE - Mro Petreny advised the Commission it was his desire that Variance No. PERMIT N0~5,~3 1480 not be terminated because of the existing motel and office buildirtg (Continued)' being covered by said petition, anu the proposed ceffee shop would be an additional building adjacent to the pool, and that adequate parktng was being prcvidede No one appeared in opposition to sub,~ect petitiono THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo Commissioner Camp offered Resolution Noe 1140, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption~ seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 563, subject to conditionso (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NOESs COMMISSIONERSs None. ABSEMs COMMISSIONEk?S: Pebley, Sidese CONDITIONAL USH - PUBLIC HEARING~ W. Ho JEWETT, 1141 East Ash, Fullerton, California, PERMIT NOo 565 Owner; DAVID Bo KERR, 1305 West Valencia lh~ive, Fullerton, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A RESTAURANT WITH ON-SALF BEER, on prooerty described as: An irre3u2ar parce2 0: land with a.':antage of 130 feet on the east side of Fouiitain Way and a maximum depth of 110 feet, the southern boundary of said property being 203 feet north of the centarline of La Palma Avenue, and further described as 1I16 P~untain Wayo Property presently classified as M-1, LIGN; INDUS- TRIAL, ZONEo Mro David B. Kerr, representing the attorney for the petitioner, appeared before the Commis- sion and stated the area in which the proposed restaurant with on~-sale beer was iocated was in need of eating facilities; that there were inadequate eating facilities in the immediate area; that the subject property was located in an industrial subdivision of twenty lots which the proposed restaurant would service; that four buildings were presently under con- struction in the subdivision; and in response to Commission questioning, stated the hours of operation would be 10:00 aomo to 2s00 aomo; that under no circumstances would the on-sale of beer be converted into a cocktail bar; that the proposed location was chosen because the corner frontage of La Palma and Fountain Way was too expensive for commercial use; and that it was unlikely the corner lot would be developed fox• comme=cial use because of the exhorbi~ tant costo The Commission expressed concern that to grant the proposed use would be an encroac'~ment on the continuity of the industrial developmerrt of the area; that this would set a pattern of development for commercial development in the area for any portion within an industrial subdivision; that Autonptics had a large cafeteria for its employees, and outsiders were not permitted; that three othez establishments served meals in the vicinity of subject prope*ty, and inquired of the petitioner whether the demand was so great that additional facilities would be neededo Mr. Kerr stated ~hat eating facilities were so crowded that the employees telephoned for their..meals in ar~vapce, ,~ven though there were staggerad l+.~nch hours.~ . ~ , _ ... „ The Commission continued discussion relative to the proposed use, noting the need was there, but the location was not the most favorable; that there was a possibility if sub,ject petition were approved, similar requests for bar licenses would be put before the Commission; and L•hat the precedent had been established by granting, in the past, similar usas~ No one appeared i.n opposition to subject petitiono THE FIEARING WA& CLOSED~ The Commission continued their discussion relative to approval or denial o£ sub3ect petition, noting the location was the ieast offensive; that the petitioner proposed to serve people in the area; that the use had been established, and the petitioner had a right to the same privilege for a similar land use hat although a use had been established, this did not mean the C!:mmis5.ion shnuld perpetuat .^~istake; and that subject location would not be on a main ttior~uyhfare, thereby being less ^~ ~sive. Commissioner Perry offered Resoli. , No. 1141, Series 1^53-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commission~r Camp, to grant Petitton for C~nditional Use Permit No. 565, subject to conditions, and the posting of a bond to insure the construction of a six-foot masonry wall on the east property lineo (See Resolution Booko) - _ _...._.---~ ~..__._.... _ _ _ _ _ __...._ __._....._..._._._r_~__......_. _ ... .. _.. . _.. --~ ~ ~t _ .. ____ ____W_ ~~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNIhG COMMISSION, Aprii 27, 1964 2073 CONDITIONAL US£ - On roll ca11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following uote: PERMIT NO.. 5 5 p~ Mun all Perr (Continued AXES: COMMISSTONERS: Allred, Cam Gauer, 9 , Y^ NOES: COMMISSIONERSs Chavos, Rowlando ABSEM : COMMISSIONERSs Pebley, Sideso Commissioner Chavos qualified his "NO" vote by stating the continuity of M-1 subdivision would be broke:~ by the introduction of commercial use, and would be an invitation to furth~r commercial development in the areae CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. WES7ERN UNITED LAND COMPANY, 15533 Crenshaw Boulevard, pERMIT_N0. 564 Gardena, California, and ELMER So CHILD, 1800 West Lincoln Avenue, ~-" Anaheim, Califor~~ia, Owners; requesting permission to CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL EIGI-fl' SECOND-STGRY UNITS ABOVE SINGLE-STORY pORl'ION'OF AN EXISTING MOTEL~ on property described ass A rectangular parcel of land with a frontage of 102 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and a depth of 359 feet, the eastern boundary of said property ~6eing approximately 1,327 feet west of the centerline of Euclid Street,'and further described as 1800 West Lincoln Avenueo Property presently classified as R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONEa Mr, Ken Nimes appeared before the Commission and reviewed the previous motel development ' and the proposed addition of eight units on the rear portion of subject propertyo He further sLated a business and professional building was being constructed to the south of subject property which changed the requirement of single-story construciion ~OT t}tE single-family homes to the west of subject proparty; that his client had purchased the sinyle-family resi~ dence immediately adjacent to subject property and would utilize it as a home for the resident engineer for the motel; that in order to reduce any oppo;ition to two-sto:y construction, y they were proposing to plant trees 15 to ?0 feet in height on the west property line to reduce any invasion of privacy; and that the existing development was highiy successful and ; did not create any undue noise which might be considered a detriment to the areao ; The Commission review~d the proposed development and inquired of the agent for the peti•tioner ' whether or not an accessway would be provided from the abutting single-family residence which : they purchased to the existing motel, and the exact distance be~ween the proposed two-story i construction and the single~family residences to the westo i Mr, Himes replied that there wbuld be no access to the motel through the west property line, and that the distance from the residence was 84 feet from the property line, although the property line of the single-family residences was only 72 feet. No one appeared in opposition to subject pEtition~ TI-!E HEARING WAS CLOSED. i Commissioner Chavos stated that in previous petitions two-story coristruction had been denied `: where it was adjacent to R-1 property, and the Commission should give some considerat n to approval of eny type of use proposin9 two-story constrUCtion within 250 feet of single-family residential propertyo i Zoning C,;ordSnatoz Ma~ct?.n-Kreidt advised the Commission the intent of. the City Council was to ~ have a:. ,~ht ~creen at window height from ~he second-story m~it`s; and the'agent for the- petitione:r'a statement that trees 15 to 20 feet in height ~vould be constructed along the west ; property l.i~~~ would cover only a portion of the two-story motelo ~ Discussion was held by the Commission relative tn.requiring i:he sight screen as indicated in ; Condition Noo 5 of Conditional Use Permit Noo 244; that although the Commission had Freviously j denied the Conditional Use Permit Noo 244, the City Council in their approval had eliminated_ j the rear porti~n of two-story construction, and the petitioner had built in accordance with 1 the City Council requirement; and that the statement that the petitioner had purchased the i single-family home immediately ad3acent to sub3ect property could not be considered a valid , argument because it could be resold or become a rental unit, thereby creating a similar situa- tion as presently existed. Commissioner Chavos again stated the Ordinance of the City required single-story construction ~e maintained within 150 feet of any single-fami.ly residential development; that this had been required of other petitioners, and t'~at if the Commission were not to follow and be consistent with this requirement, the Comcnissian should consider an amendme~t to the Zoning Code relative to the height limitationo Commissioner Gauer stated he was in favor of holding to tha roquirement of singie-story co~- struction wit•hin 150 feet of single~-family zone, but where a deviatlon had been made, the Cotmnission cou1~1 not require tlie ~etitiors: ta c:~i^tain the single-story height limitationo j 1 ' _ __ _ . . .. . _. .. . _ •---. .., . _ _. _.._ i ~ . ... __ . . _ ... . .__. . ..__ ---- ~ ..._. aC7i~ ~ „ ~ -.. _ . _.. --'. ; ~ I • ~ ~ ..--- f, ~ ~ ~ 1 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ April 27~ 1964 2074 ; CONDITIONAL USE - Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noa 1142, Series 1963-64, and moved PERMIT N0. 4 for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to grant , (Continued Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 564, sub~ect to conditions, and ~ the requirement as stipulated by the petitioner of the planting of trees ~ 15 to 20 feet in height :c form a wall along the west side of subject ~ property line, and that by stipulation the petitioner aiso stated no access would be permit- ted between t'~e existing :notel and the residence to the westo (See Resolution Book.) Or, roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYHS: COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Gamp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry. NOES: COMMISSIONERSs Chavos, Rowland. ABSEPTI': COMMISSIONERS: Pebley, Sidese Commissioner Chavos qualified his "NO" vote by stating that the property owner to the east was required to construct single-story offices, and to grant the proposed two-story construc- tion would be a privilege not granted to the builders of the office structureso RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. TONY AND MILDRED JULIAN,]2780 West Lincoln N0. 63-64-100 Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; IRA L. POMEROY, 7711 "B" Fillmore, Buena Park, California, Agent; requesting that property described a.s: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of 100 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and a depth of 222 feet, the westerly boundary of said property being approximately 245 feet east of the centerline of Dale Street, and further described as 2780 West Lincoln Avenue, be reclassified from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-1, NEIGE~ORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE to utilize an existing residence for professional offices for two physicians~ 5ubject petition was continued from the meeting of March 30, 1964, to allow sufficient time for the petitioner to submit revised plans incorporating a commercial facia, additional landscaping in the front setback, parking provided in the rear9 and plans for future coR- struction on the rear portion of subject proper~ty„ Mr. Charles Schlegal, attorney for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated Dr. Pomeroy was not presently at the meeting, and asked that the Commission consider this petition later on in the agendaa After a considerable wait, Mro Schlegal advised the Commission he would be unable to answer any qu~stions the Commission might have, since he had none of the answerse The Commission reviewed the proposed development, noting there were numerous questions relatived to ultimate development for the rear portion of subject property, and parking facilities, which could only be answered by Dr. Pomeroy, and that additional landscaping should be provided for the front portion of the propertyo Commissioner Perry offered a rt~otion to continue Petition for Reclassification No~ 63-64-100 to the meeting of May 25, 1964, because the agant for ti~e petitioner was unable to be present to answer questions the Commission might have~ Commissioner Gauer seconded the motiona MOTION CARRIED. -RECLAS3IFFCATION -~:ONTINUED P~JBLIC H£ARING. 'AL9E~T TIKKEk, 2914 West Lincoln Avenue, • N0. 63-f~4-36 and Anaheim, California, Owner; (BILLY J. KIKER, 725 Kenmore Street, Anaheim, ~alifornia, Agent) COVINGTON BRClI'NERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, 841 'Aarth~ CONDITIONAL USE Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, California, New Agent; property desc•ibed ass PERMIT N0. 479 An irregular parcel of land approximately 185 feet by 600 fPt•i, the west- erly boundary of said property being 110 feet east of Rid,s::~ay Street, and the northerly boundary being 396 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, and further described as 2914 West Lincoln Avenuee Property presently classified as 8-A, RESlDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE~ RHQUESTED CONDITIONAL USEs ESTABLISH A TWO-STORY MULTIPtE•-FAMILY PLANNED RESIDEMIAL DEVELOPN~IJI' - WAIVE ONE•-STORY I~IGHT ~IMITATION WITHIN 150 FEHT OF SINGLE•-FAMILY ZONED PROPERTY. Subject petitions were continued from the meetings of Spptember 16, October 26, November 13, and December 9, 1963, January 20, Febri~ary 17, and Marc;~ 15, 1964, in order that the petition- er might have sufficient time to submit revised plans and file a tract map. Mr~ Gared Smith, architect for the developers of s,.t3ect property, appeared before the Commission and roviewed the proposed developme.~t~ noting thatin all probability the property to the east would develop for multipl,e-family useo ...V-.___...------- ----.T....__...._........-----------_____., ' .. ~ ~, ~ ' I~ . .. v ~ . . . ~ . . ..a: , -y; . ~ '. ~. . . . , ~ . ' ~. ~+ . " ~~' ~ ... . , . . . . .. , ' , . ~ .~ .. ~ . ' . . V MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ April 27~ 1964 ~~ ~" ~ 2075 RECLASSIFICATION - Mrso Albert Urbigkeit, 2884 West Lincoln Avenue, appeared before the N0. 63-64-36 and Commission and stated she was the property owner to t{ie ~~ast of subject ~ property~ and it was not their intention to develop for multiple-fami2y CONDITIONAL USE use, and she especially requested that the Commission require the masonry PERMIT N0. 479 wall on the east property line in order that her orange groves miyht be Continued) protected from any intrusion from the residents ° the multiple-family developmenta No one else appeared in opposition to subject petitionso THE HEARINC WAS CLOSEDa Coneiderable discussion was held by the Commission relative to requiring that trash storage areas be in accordance with the p?an specified by the Director of Public Works, Commissioner Rowland noting that many times the requirement requests that the architect deviate from the esthetic placement of trash storage areaso Commissioner Camp stated that the standards were to be considered 3s guides for minimum space and materials which would be acceptable to the City, but that often this became the requirement instead of the guidee Mr. Hd Wright, one of the Sanitation Inspectors, appeared before the Commission and stated the City's position as to location and materials of trash storage areas was very flexible as to design, and as a rule, there was rarely a r,ardship indicated by the architecto Commissioner Rowland then asked that it be a matter of record the plans and specifications -on-~'31e-with-~he-D'rrEC~uro-F-?tb~~c~-LUorns-ha--corsidar~d ~h2-minimum-stan,a.a-rd-gtiide-.~tk:er-- than the firm policy for the developers to construct trash storage areas since hlro Wright had made the statement the City was flexible in their method of analyzation of trash storage araaso Zoning Coordinator Martin Kx•eidt then stated to the Commission there was a possibility that dur'ing the time the Building Depa:tinent piar.s were checkrd by the Plan Check Engineer, the require- ment of trash storage areas might be considerably less flexible, and this would be discussed within the department to determine the best means of resolving any trash storage problemso Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No.. 1143, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification Noo 63-64•-36 be approved, subject to conditionsa (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followir,g vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry9 Rowlanda NOESs COMMISSIONERSs Noneo ABSENf: COMMISSIONERS: Pebley, Sideso Commissioner Allred offered Resolution Noe 1144, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage ' and adopt•ion, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 479, subject to the payment of $25v00 per dweiling unit for park and recreation purposes, and subject to the approval of Reciassification No~ 63-64-369 and conditionse (See Resolu- tion Booke) On roll call the foregoin9 resolution was passed by the following vote: • AY~S: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rpwlando . • •. NOESs COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS: Pebley, Sides~ PIIBI.IC HEARING, RECLASSIFICATION - FREf` C. F3RANDT, JR.., 330? Grand Avenue, Huntington Park, California, N0. 63-6~•-10¢,_~ Owner; MACKI IvVESTMHPTf COMPANY, 2180 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of 150 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and a depth of 594 feet, the eastern boundary of said property being approxi- mately 448 feet west af the centerllne of Magnolia Street, and further described s 2638 West Lincoln Avenue, be reclassified from the R••A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE, to the C-3, HEAVY COMN~RCIAL9 ZONE. No one appeared to represent the ,~etitionero I ~ I A petition of opposition signed by twenty-three property owners was received and read to the P ~ , ~. i , ~ , _ ..._.__ _ ~ _ _ __.... ___. . . _ _ .. _ --..._. ' ~ --- _ _ .... t -- --.~r~^ -~•~. Commission opposi.ng subject petitiono ~. Mr. Robert Glad, 2651 Serrano Placo, appeared befor~ the Commission in opposition tu subject ~ petition and stated all of the singl~~-family re~idential subdivision property owners on ~ Serrano Place were onposed to tha tv;o-story construction of the proposed moLei; that with _ , ih ~ . t ;ti; ~ ' ' , ~ ~ • MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ April 27, 1964 2076 REGLASS~FICATION - the great deal of land surrounding subject property, this might set a N0. 63-64-10 precedent for two-story development in close proximity to the single- Conti~nued family subdivision; that the p:oposed motel indicated kitchen facilities for each motel unit, which in his estimation was pioposing sub-standard apartment development under the guise of a motel; that the mul±ip2e- family development standards should be applied to the proposed development if kitchen faci- litfe5 were pioposed for each unit, since the p~oposed method of development was a disguise for•iater use as apartments; that two-story construction was proposed within 60 feet of a single-fainily subdivision; that no other person should realize a profit from his land which would'deprive other property owners of their own rights; and that the proposed two-story motel would btl an infringement on the property rights of the single-family subdivision to the southwest of subject propertyo Discussion was held by the Commission relative to limiting the nursery across the street to C-1 useo Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that although C-2 use was propcsed by the nursery, and the Commission recommended C-1 use, the City Council had approved the C-2 use, and the petitioner requested the C-3,Heavy Commercial use in order to by-pass the limitation of single-story within 150 feet of any single-family residentia) subdivisiono Ten persons in the Council Chan:ber indicated their opposition to subject petitiono TFIE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo Discussion by the Comi~i-es"ion irdic~atea'cne-proposed-de~celopmen~ wa~ ;:;i-a-.c~~~~-c:-~-guise-----=-- for sub-stsndard apar'.ments under the name of a motel, and if any favorable consideration were given to subject petition, it be required to conform with the R-3, Multiple-Family ~ Residential, Zone of the Anaheim Municipal Codeo Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noa 1145, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that Peti- tion for Reclassification Noa 63-64-106 be d3sapproved, based on the fact that the proposed development was a sub-standard R~-3 use; that the development was not a motel in any manner; that the proposed heavy commercial zoni~y requasted was incompaiible to the area; that the density proposed was too great fi~r the proposed use; and that under the present plans, fire vehicies and trash trucks would h~ve in:+dequate turn-around acr.esso (See Resolution Booke) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followinq votes • AYESs COMMISSIONERS: A7lredr Camp9 C:~avos9 Gauer; :Aungail, ~'erry, Rowland~ N(IES: COMMISSIONERS: None~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Pebley, Sides~ PUBLIC HEARINGo RECLASSIFICATION - JAMES SPARKES, 146 Anned Drive, Placentia, California, Owner; TOM BALLAS, NOo 63-64-110 19926 Rambling Road, Covina, California, Agent; property described as: ; and An L-shaped parcel of land with a fron~tage of 345 feet on the north side CONDIT:.ONAL USE of Lincoln Avenue and a maximum de~th of approximately 1a288 feet, the PERMIT NOa 562 eastern boundary of said property being approximately 1,660 feet west of ; ' the centerline of Dale Avenus; the total area of said property being ~ approximately 14 acres, and further de.:ribed as Portion "A" and Portion ; e~Bu i i ~~Por~ion "A" ~ a re~tangularly shaped portiorc•of land with'a froi~tage of 345 fee`t•on'the ' '~ - north side of Lincoln Avenue and a depth of 200 feet, the eastern boundary ~ of said portion being approximatol; 1,650 feet west of the centerline of. i Dale Avenuee ~ Portion "B" - An L-shaped portion of land lying direct'ly north of and adjacent to Portion i "A" with the southern boundary of aaid Portion "B" being eaual to and coincid- ! ing with the northern boundary of the aforementioned Portion "A", the eastern boundary of said Portion "B" being a*~rox.imately 1,660 feet wes+. of the center- ; line of Dale Avenusa ~~ Property presently classified as R-A, RESIDENtIAL AC~P.ICULTURAL, ZONE~ ! REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: PORTION"A'= C-3, HEAVY CU~~k!FRCIAL~ ZONE. PORTION"B'•- R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENfIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USH: ESTABLISH A MOBILE HON~ PAR!: ON PORTION "B"~ AND PERMIT TRF.ILER SAI.ES ON PORTION "A"o Mro Tom Ba.llas, a.ent for the petition~ry appearec before tne Commissi~n and stated no serious opposition was gvidenced to the Repost to the C~romf.ssion, and he would be availaLle to answer yuestio:i~ on the merits and tnt location of the ~c•~posed trailer parko ,. _ ~ ...._. ._._ .......__.. .---_.~.... ~ -... .----------- _,.___._._.. __ _..__.. ._ • , ~ _ _ .___ . ~ i . i ' ~ ;,~ ~ '~' ~ MIPIUTES, CITY PT,AD1~1£NG COMMISSIG~ . April 27, 1964 2077 RECLP,SSIFICATION - A colored rendering wa.s presented to the Commission, indicai:ing the "]Oo E3-64-110 _ layout of ttie proposed trailer park~ anw CONDTT?JNAL ~.;SE The Commi~.sion advisFd the ays;~t for the petitioner thai in accordance PERMIT N0. 5^~ with the '~ity of Anaheim's proposed Trailer Park Ordinance, u~on tAe Continuec]) suggestion of a number of peopl.e interested in this, it was requested that overright spaces be provided ir. a permanent trailer park; that there w~s a definite need fo. overnight par.kiny ai trailers, since many of the mobile homes had small campers they !~?;i t~a park. Mr, Dalias advised the Commission the developer t~ad p•rooosed to have storage space on the ~:outh side for '~oats and campers; that the prok:c.sed oevelopment was projected to.vard permanent resi.dents rathez than transxent res:s?eni~;; that a recreation area cesting in the vicir;:~+.y of $75,OOG •to $80,000 was being p-^pose•d which would be paid fur by permanent residents ~~t~lizing tn=: Yacilitiess and, ther~f~re, it was felt that in ord~r to discourage ~verc~?ght trai~si.~nts, no provision wou.d be made fo~ overnight trailer parkin; in the pro- p~sed developn~nt_ Tn response to Commission questioning relative to the required 20•foot setback of the ' p:roposed trailer ordinar:e, :he at~orney for the petitionEr, Mro Don Hol~ien, stated this would present no probi.~m, ar,:~ all othAr xequirements with the exception of the masonry ~ w<ill on the east property line would be complied wi•tho Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission the ordinance required that a ; 35-fout setback be maintained on Lincoln Aveni~v; and that the petitioner propased a C-3, ---rieavy-Commerciai;-ase iox~~in~~-irohtage oi ;~~7~c'~Pr~~periYwhiah-covid--be-reduced-i:o-~-i,-----=---- Ne~.ahborhood Commercial, Zone with subsequent conditional use permit for the proposed ' trailer saleso Further discussion was held by the Commission and the ettorney for the pet:i~ioner relative to the masonry wall, noting that except for a small portion where an at~anaoned d~:mp was formerly located, the six-foot masonry wall could k~e constructedo The Commission ex~ressed opposition to anyi:hing other than a masonry wall~ Mr~ James Sparkesy owner of subject property9 app?ared before the Co~:dniasion and stated the property adjacent to the high school had solid ground for a masunr~~ wall on the nor•:h; that th2 west had solid ground, as well as the south, but that for a distanc? of 915 feE~t, to his knowledqe, no solid ground wonl~i be obtainable; therefore, it was t•equzsted that a more flex3ble condition on the v:all to che ea~`. be permitted by the Comr,~ission, and the engineers were presently running compaction t.~~sts on the land to determine whether or not there was sufficient compacti~n of ~t: grou•ad to permit the construction of a six-foot masonry wallo The Commission :xr,r~ssed the apinion that there was a possibilii,y that if the compaction test proved a mascnz~y wall wou:d be inadvisoble, this might be waived by the Cit;r Council at the time the p~tit:.on was considered ai: a public hearing by that Bo~yo No one appeared i~~ upposition to subject petitionso TFIE HEARING WAS CLOSEUe Commissioner Camp offered Resolution Noo 114E;, Series 1963-64, and moved fos its passage , and_adoption, seconded by,Commissioner Allred, to~ ecommend.to the City Council_ttiat Peti- tion for Reclassification Noe 63-64~110 be approv~d for i:-1 on :'ort9on "A"~and R-3 an Portion "B". (See Resolution F±ouko) On roll call the foregoing SQa"vzutian was passed by the folicn•ing ~otes AYESa COhRuIISSIONERS: Allre~3, G~mp, Chevos, Gauer, M~ngall= Perry, Rowlando NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSEM': COMMISSIONERSs Pebley, Sides. Commissi~ner Camp offered Resolution Noo 1147, Series 1963-•54, and moved for i±s passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Pet::ion for Condit3on.a1 Use Permit Noo 562 for a trailer sales on Portion "A" and a mobile trailer park on Yortion "R", snd further subject to the stipulation that the petitioner stated a six-~fooi: masonry wal' would be constructed on the east boundary of subject property provide.i the soil ^ompactior report by the engineer indicated adequate compaction for said masonry wall, and further proti•ided the 20-foot front yard setback be landscaped in accordance with the pro~osed Trailer Park Ordinance, together with one tree for each two trailer spaces, and conditionsa (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregaing resolution wa9 passed by the following votes AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOESs COMMISSIONERSs Noneo ABSBNT: COINMISSIONHRS: Pebley, Sides~ --.,._ __. ..., . a,,,,..~_ __ _---~ ~~ _~° , ._. .._ _ rs i • ., ; ~ ~ ___ ... ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COfVN:S~?ON, April 27, 1964 2078 RECLASSIFLCATI~N - PUdLIC IiEAR:[NGe LIONEL H. AND LUCILLE BROWN, 6'T49 Mitchell Avenuey NOo 63~64-107~ Riversicle, ~.alifornia, ~+ners; GLENN BURCHETT~, 627 South Brookhu:st Street, Ana'neim. C'aiifornia, Agent; requesting that property described as an irregularly shaped parcel of 1a7d with a frontage of approximately 100 feet on tHe we~t s;.de of State Coliege Boulevard and a maximum depth of approximately 325-feet; the s~u;;hern bound~iry of said propF-+.y being approximately 310 feet north of the centeri'i.ne'of Centei Street, and further des : bed as 125 North State Cbllege Boulevard, be xeclass:fied from the R-A, RcSIDENTZAL A~;RIC~,.fURAL, ?ONE to the C~1, NHIGI~ORHOOD COMMER- C fAL, 'Ll)1 F ~ 'i::~G;enn Bu*chette, ag~nt for thP peti!.iorer, appeared before the Commission and requested a contin~~ance of from eighL ~o twelve weeks be granted the petitionexs because the original planssub:nitted ~vith the petit:o~i ~~erC ;,o longe: applicable, and the added time would be n~eded to Z:resent new development p?a~~s.. M;o Lionel Brown9 one of the petitir,~sars, appeared before the Commission and asked whether the~~changing of the F~ oposed use frorn a real estate office to 3nother use might jeopardize ihe .request for G-? zoninge The~Commission advised Mre Brown if a similar use wer2 propose9 as stated in the C-1 section of -the Cocle, no change i~; the request for C-1 woi~ld be necessar~~o The Commission advised the~petitioners that on a field tri~ i.n the morning, the Commission had noted the property on the soutY,east corner of :fnderhill and State College Boulevard had a masonry wall with a v?ry prea:entable landscaping treatment frontittig said wal]., and suggested to the petitioners this type of txeatment be taken into consideration when revised plans were drawn, together ~~ith a commercial fac~ia for the building- , h~r, Br~wn stated the revised plar.~. would be comparable to that at Underhill an~ State Co7.lege, and they were proposing a rock front for the structure, Commissioner. Gauer offered a motion to continue 1'etition for Reclassification No.. 63•-64~-107 to the meeting of July 20, 1964, in order to allow the petitioners sufficient time to submit revised plans,as requestec~ by the petitione~::., Commissioner Camp seconded the motion~ MOTION CARRIEDo RECLAS:.'IFICATIO~~ - PUBLIC HEARTNG. EDWARD :'o AND ANGELI[4E BACKS, 227 Nc,rth State College N0. 63-54-11I___ Boulevard, Anaheim, Calif~~rnia, Owners; HERBF°'C D. TARLOW, M. Do, 2008-F Fas` Lincoln Avenue,• Anaheim, California,, .•^.ger.t; raquesting that property described as: a;i irregularly sl~>.pau+ par.cel of lan~! witn a frontage of 162 feet or i.hc west side of State College Boule~:rd ar:! a max3.:num depth of 583 feet, the rsouthern boundary of ~air; property being approximai:el~ 509 feet north of :he centerline of Center S~;~et, and furti~er described as 215 North State Collage B~~ulev~r~i, be reclassifir>d from the R-A, ~ESIDEM'IAL AGRICULTURAI., ~ONE to the C-0, C~MMERCIAL OFFICE, ZONEo M.:, Gerald Foreston, representing the petitioner, appear~d be;ore the Commi:•sion a~d stated a medical grouo proposed to purchase subject property, and the proceedings were pre:r•ntly ir escrow, and ihe proposed development would be cons•:ructed in two phases, wi±h the z•ear qor~.ion being a second phase and paiking being proposed between the first phase and ~~eco~d phase of develoE~ment; that so~e stcne concrete and veneer would enhance the pro~osed:•C:•~ct~re as thEy propos•~c1 ±o develop~ .- . _ _ . . .. . . - No one appeared in opposition~to subject petitiono THE I-IEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noe 1148, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommena to the City Council that Peti.tion for Reclassification No. 63-64-111 be approved with developmpnt ~,lans for the front portian only, and condi:ions. (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing r~solution was passed by the following vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, i.amp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall~ Perry, Rowlando NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Pebley, Sidese ".'"""~ ~ t , - ---__-- - __~...~.--------._._..._._.._.....~..._..:. - --- ----- r- ~ _ ~~: ~ _ _ _ ~~ ~~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 27, 1964 2079 ftEELASSIFICATION '- PUBLIC HEARINGe EVERETT Ho MILLER, P, 0. Box 731, Long Beach, California, NOo 63-64-108 Owner; Co J~ QUEYREL, McDaniel Engineering Company, P. Oe Box 3668, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of lar,d with a frontage of 232 feet c~ the east side of Brookhurst Street and a depth of 220 feet, the seuthern boundary of said property being approximately 681 feet north of the ceni:erline of Bal~ Road, and f~rther described as 910 South Brookhurst Street, be reclassified from the R•-A, RESIDENfIAL AGRI- CULTURAL, ZONE to the C-0, COtvA4ERCIAL OFFICE, 20NE, Mr~ Cal Queyrel, representing the McDaniel Engineering Com~any, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the prooosed development, noting that the waiver of the height limitation was approved under Reclassification No. 63-64-64 for three stories; that the petitioner presently planned to construct i~~ to eight stories, and in the design stage it is important that ap- proval be given so that the foundation pians mighi be incorporated; that approximately $30,000 was~ being spent to update the development plans;•that the C-0 Zone provide•' more liberal parking req~~~~pmPnts than the approved_C~1 Zone; that the height would sti.l be limited due to one-half the distance from the R-1 to the east; and that present plans indicated a three- story structuree In answer to Commission questioning, Mr~ Queyrel stated the nearest single-family development was approximately 400 to 500 feet distant; that the petitior.~r was considering underground parkin9, or roof parking, and before his expansion plans could be completed, revised plans could be submitted to the Planning Department or Commission for consid~ration; and that the air conditioning and e'lectrical facilities would be housed in the basement of the proposed structuree Mro Queyrel further presented a colored renderfng of the proposed eight-story structure, and the Commission requested a reduction of this rendering be submitted for the fiZe in accordance with City Council requirementso Commissioner Rowland offered Resolutiun Noa 1149, Series 1963•-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification Noo 63-64•-108 be approved, subject to con9itions and the requirement that final,precise plans for i:he eight•story structure be submitted to the Cor.unission and Council for approvalo (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CONWIISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungail, Perry, Rowlando NOES: COMMISSIONERSs None~ ABSHIJI: COMMISSIONE;S: Pebley, Sides. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noa 1150, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Cov•cil that Petition for Reclassification No. 63-64-64 and Variance No. 1614 be terminated, ba. 9 on the fact that Petition for Reclassification IJoo 63-64•-108 superseded the proposed use~ (See Resolution Look.) On ro11 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENT~: ~ COIu1MISSI0NER5: ~ I~ebley, Si~es. ' ' ~ '• • - Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noo 1151, Series 1963-64, and.moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that an amendment be m~de to the legal description of Petition for Reclassification No~ 62~-63-113, based on the fact that Petition for Reclassification Noo 63-64-108 incorporated a portion of the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone property in said petition for C-0, Commercial Office, Zoneo (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the f~~llowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Csmp, Cl~avcs, G~uer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland~ NUES: COMMISSIONE3S: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Pebley, Sides. ~ -----r--- - ------ --- - - - - ^ . ._- - ... _ ---.._ _ _~ ____--- - -._..__ •. . . _ ~ i ~.. __ ,._ _ ~--- L~ ~~ g ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 27, 1964 2080 RECLASoIFICnfION - P(JBLIC HEARING. WILSON AND AYAKO NhKAMURA AND NOBORU AND TERl3K0 N0. 63-64~7.0~_ NAKAMURA, 2760 West Orange Avenue, Anaheim, Cal!fornia, Owners; WILSON NAKAMURA, 2760 West Orange Avenue, An?heim, Calif~rnia, Agent; requesting that property described as: !: U-shaped parcel of land with a total frontage of 155 feet on the south side of Orange Avenue, the easternmost frontage being 70 feet, and the westernmost frontage being 85 feet, and a maximum depth of approxi- matel.y ?40 feet, the west boundary of said property being approximately 813 feet east of the centerline of Dale Avenue, and further described as 2760 West Orange Avenue, be reclas- sified from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to i.he R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Mr. ~lilson Nakamura, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and stated he and his brother intended to remain in the area and proposed to subdivide the remainder of the property surrounding the fire station for single-family use. No ona+ ~p~~ared in opp^~ition to subjer,t petition. THE FsFARING WAS CLOSED. Commissianer Camp offered Resolution No. 1152, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and ~doption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 63-64-109 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) On roll Gall the foregoinq resolution_was passed_by the following votes AYESs COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NOES: CONWIISSIONHRS: None. ABSENf: ' COMMISSIONERSs Pebley, Sides. t REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS Reclass3fication No. 58-59-99 - Letter from Marjan Development Company. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission tha~ subject petition had been continued from the previo~:; meeting, April 13, 1964, in order to allow the City Attorne;'s office sufficient time to determina whethar all dedicatior, had been received by the City on property covered unde: Reclassification No. 58-59-99, and that it was now recommended that the Commission recommend to the City Council termination of subject reclassification. Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution No. 1153, Series 1963-64, and moved for its oassage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 58-59-99 be terminated, based on the fact that the Marjan Development Company no longer owned subject property, and fur±her recommending that the bond to insure all street improvements be terminated under said reclassification. (See Resolu- tion Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYESs COi~MAISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NOES: COMMI~SIONERSs Nane. ABSENT: COM-utISSIONERS: Pebley, Sides. „ .. ... . , . . TTEM N0. 2 ~ Conditional Use permit No. 138 - Fairmont School, 1557 Mabel Street - Approvel of Revised Plans. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt presented Revisic•n No. 1, Exhibits 1 through 3 of ~ Conditional lTse Permit No. 138 for the Commiss.~~~* s consideration and read the findings of the Development Review CommiLtee relative to said revisi~n. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to approve Revision No. 1, Exhibit Nos. 1 tiu ough 3 ' of Conditional Use Permit No. 138. Commissioner Perry seconded i;ie motion. MOTION CARRIEn. , Commissioner Rowland stated that, in his opinion, the approval of these revised plans shouid have been a departmental ft~nction, and that the Planning Department shouid be encouraged to take the initiative to handle more of these administrative problems and details without the Commission's approval of revised plans, since this was of no useful purpose except to deter the petitioner in the development of his pro3ect. i _ . -." ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 27, 1964 2081 REPOATS•'AND - ITEM N0. 3 RECONA~I3f7ATI0NS .Amendment to Code: Sectlon 18.24e030 (3-a and b) ' Continued Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the proposed amendment to the Code,.noti-i'ng that by the amendment, this would assist the Zoning Representatives in admini- stering ttiis~section of the Code, and that an immediate amendme.nt was deemed neces~ary. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to set for public hearing for May 25, 1964, an amendment to Codes Section 18.24.030 (3-a and b) Area - Rear Yard. Ccmm~ssio~er Gauer seconded tfie motion. MOTION CARRIED. . ITEM N0. 4 Orange County Planning Commission reques't regarding the Orange Unified S~;h:~ol D~strict's proposal of a junior high school site. Zoning C'oordinator Martin K-aidt presented to the Commission a request from the Orange ~County Planning Commission for comments regarcling the prop~sed juni,or high school site in the Hill and Canyon Area westerly of the Imperial Freeway between the proposed River- side Freeway and Santa Ana Canyon Road. Discussion was held by the Commission as to the location of the proposed school as it is reflected on the proposed Hill and Canyon General Plan, and as presei,ted to the joint meeting of the Orange County and City of Anaheim Planning Commissions. Commissioner Allred offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange _.-'- ._-- .. ~ ' . hi n~h__er.. County-Planning Gommission-be-advised-~ha~-t;c-~~~rasad-junior ._ __hool-_si.t~...located __ __ in the Orange Unified School District be approved, based on the fact that the site, as proposed, c.orresponded with the site indicated on th2 proposed Hill and Canyon General Plane Corrunissioner Gauer seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED. . ITEM N0. 5 Conditional Use Permit Noo 359 - Request for an addition to the Jolly Roger Inne Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt read a letter from Mr. Richard Duffey, owner of the Jolly Roger Inn, requesting permission to construct a storage room to the existing restaurant buildinn. Mr. Kreidt further read the findings and recommendations from the Planning Department, Development Review Seci:ion, noting the request would represent an encroachment into the existing 20-foot landscaping strip established along Katella Avenue at this site in accordance with the Planning Commission and City Council policy for the Disneyland area; that no elevations were stibmitted for the Commission's review, and the recommenda- tion that'in order to maintain ihe visual amenities established in the Disneyland area, encroachments irto the 20-foot landscaping strip should be discouraged. Commissioner Perry offered a motion to deny the _:quest for an addition of a storage room to the Jolly Roger Inne Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion, noting that to establish this would set a precedent in the Disnepiand area detrimental to further development of the 20-root landscaping strip. MOTION CARRIED. ' TEMPOkARY~ • = CommissiSner Camp off2red a motiop to.adjcwrn.the meeti.ng f~s . _, AA70URNMEIJf dinner. Commissioner Gauer seconded the mution. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 4:30 o'clock p.m. RECONVENE' - Chairman Mungall reconvened the mePting at 7:05 o'clock p.m.~ Commissioners Pebley and Sides being presenta SECTION 18.62 OF - PUBLIC HEARING. THE ANAHEIM SIGN ORDINAI~E MUNICIPAL CUDE Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts presented the basic approach to the proposed Sign Ordinance entitled "Signs, Advertising Signs, and Structures". Mr. Roberts furtF.er indicated that Section 18e62.010 covered the purpose of the chapter; j 18.62.020 the classification of signs, (a) outdoor advertising signs - billboards, (b) b~isiness signs, (c) guide signs, (d) xeal estate signs, (e) nameplates; Section 18.62.030s ( Definition, (a) display surface, (b) face of building, (c) free-standing sign, (d) location, ' I ~ i i ,' _~ -^---- --°^-•--^~.-. ._ ..._. _ __ ...... .._..-- . ~` _ .._ .. . ~-~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CONNIISSION, April 27, 1964 2082 SECTION..1,B.62 OF -(e) marquee (changeable copy) sign, (f) projection, (g) roof sign, T~.:ANAHEIM (h) structure, (i) wall sign, (3) zone, (k) area sign, (~1).flashing MUNIICSPAL.:CODE' sign, (m) billboards; Section 18.62v040: Specific requlations for Continued'""~ ' certair. zones; Section 18.62~050: Multiple-Family Residential Zone; 18.62.060: Single-Family Residential Zone; Section 620070: Temporary .. off-site, for sale or for lease signs; SectiGn 18a62.080s Commercial Office Zone - liusiness signs permitted; Section 180620090: Other commeraial zones - business'signs~p"ermitted; Section 18.62.100s M-1 Zone - signs permitted; Section 18.62e110: M-2 Zone -"s3gns~permitted; Section 18.62e120: Biliboards establ~ished by~'conditional use permit'; Sec'tion~18e62.130s Signs included in conditional use permit or variance applications; Sec'tfon 18:62e140s Temporary display of flags and banners for advertising purposes, and window signs; 'Section 18.62.150: Public utility signs and signs required or permitted by any lau"v;" Section 18.fi2a160: Flashing signs; Section 18.620170: Rbtating and revol~ing signss' Sect'i'on 18:62.180: Lighting of signs; Section 18.62.190: Variance procedur.e relat- irig to si'gns;~ Section 18.620200: Non-conforming signs; Section 180620210: Administration of signs; Section 18062.220: Inconsistent provisionse Mr. Roberts further indicated the original printed preliminary ordinance"for Section18e62e120 wouli3'be modified to indicate that biilboards would also be permitted in the R-A, Residential Agricul'tural, Zone as conditional uses; that no billboards shall be'd~Veloped in any R-A Zone wittiio'ttie radius of 200 feet of any structure used exclusively for residential purposes, and "when any billboard is erected or constructed in any R-A Zone as a conditional use pursuant to Chapter 18e64 of this Code, the provisions of Section 18062.200 (a and b) shall apply, and the amortization period shall be established in accordance with Section 18.620200 (a and b) at the time of the erection or cons~.ruction of the billboard; such amortization peT3-oa-so estabZishe~~ siia"1i-appiyZa-said-Dilipoard reyai:u:e~~ v:--s;;h~~y~a~~-dav2~cpmer.t-af structures used exclusively for residential purposes within a radius of 200 feet of such billboard; provided, however, that if no such residential structures are developed within tr« aforementioned radius of 200 feet of said billboard at the expiration of the aforemen- tioned and established amortization period, said billboard may continue, but only until such time as such residential structures may develop within said radius of 200 feet of such billboard". The Disneyland area, Mr. Roberts continued, did not involve a zoning action, but must have a provision for signs in the area, even though development was in an R-A Zone, all uses being developed were as though a commercial recreation zone or use was established, and that these signs were similar to other commercial zones within the limitations of the com- mercia) recreation useso In Section 18.62.200, Mr. Roberts continued, the non-conforming signs legally approved by the City Council and the Building Inspector would have a time limitation requiring their removal within a year; that flashing signs were not permitted in conjunction with residential uses because of the desire to protect these usesa It was further noted by Mra Roberts that when the Natural Resources and Conservation Zone was established, a provision for signs would be projected at that timea Commissioner Gauer noted that Section 18a62o060 proposed one unli~jhted sign advertising the premises for sale, and wondered whether or not this would apply to corner lots as well; that if more than one sign was approved for corner properties, all signs should not exceed 10 square fe~t in total. Mr,-Roberts stated he would i:ake tt~is_unde_r consideration. and present a•poss4ble'~hange at' the later hearing for the Commissian. YOUTH IN G:'•':ItNMENT - Cnair~~~;.,-, ;viungall then stated that in conjunction with the Youth in PRESENfATIi. ,_~ Government Day held every year by tha City, Public Information Officer Bud Nagel was present in the Council Chamber to introduce the student officials. Mr. Nagel then introduced Mayor Elect Bernard Schneider from Magnolia High School, City Manager 'elect David Bellsinger, Western High Schoo~, and Senior Planners Catherine Loudon and Michelle Garrett, both of Anaheim High Schoole The hearing continued on the Sign Ordinanceo Mr. Roberts then continued with the recommendations made by the Ansheim Board of Realtors in their Planning and Zoning Committees' letter dated April 27, noting that Section 18o62.Oti0 had been briefly discussed by the Commission, and this sub-section would be given additional consideration at a work session; however, sub-section (c) did not indicate the numLer of days the "open house" signs and flaqs would be displayed, and since these were of a temporary i , ~ , ~. _ __ . - __ ._._. _ ... ~~- . .._. . . _ . .._ ~ ~..~ i ~~ • f MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 27, 1964 2083 SEC~IQN'18:62 - nature, a time limitation should be indicated if said displays were OF Tk~~A~IAi~IM proposed for the daylight hours. MIIlVIGIPAL- : CODB C'oritinued" In discussion of the recommendation of tlie Board of Realtors relative to Section 18.62.070, sub-section (d), that althougn'it was-not specifi- . cally stated in the Ordinance that notification of the expiration would take"place;'tliis was a normal procedure of the Ruilding Department'in notifying the recorded ~owner'and'tlie user of the sign prior to the expiration date, and that although the Buildirlg Depai.tment'~was not always successful in having these signs removed, it was assumed the Building'Department continued their practice of notifying the interested persons relative to the'removal of said signse Secktion'18.62.080, sub-section (2) was then reviewed, noting the dele~ion of the statement o~ a'75=foot radius of such roof sign there exists a structure used axc:usively for resi- dential'~purpo:;e~and the substitution of the words "R-1 Zone"; that cori~iderable study had. ~been made relative to this, and by stipulating the~R-1 Zonea this wou3d give no protection to resiclents in apartments, dupiexes, and +.railer parks, and the terminology Mexclusively for residentiai purposes"would be more aproposo Mro Galen Moore, representing the Board of Realtors, stated he was concerned with many of the aieas of Anaheim which were in the stage of conversion from single-family dwellings to commercial uses within the area, and to limit the signs bec'ause of this transition area would~be detrimental to the complete development of the areaa Mr. Roberts stated the wordage was not to be interpreted for homes being utilized for a - comtiinat3on ot cominercia~and-residentiai ~urpu~c~ vn8er on2 :oc:o Mr. Moore then stated it was his opinion additional studies should be made of this type of development wherein two uses were in conflict, namely residential and commercialo Commissioner Rowland stated an Area Study was being made for the commercial change; that distance was not the best means of ineasuring lighted signs with brightness, but by uniform brightness in the elements; and if the City had an ordinance whereby existing signs would be amortized, no one would be detrimentally affected by the ultimate replacement, and brightness or level of light for the community was for the interest of all concerned, and not just a spECific zonee Section 18e62.090 was next discussed, relative to limiting the number of signs within a specific area; Mr. Moore stating this would be discriminating against the small business owner in advertising his property, and that some consideration should be given to large parcels of property which had frontages on two highways or arterial streets, and that again the statement "exclusively for residential purposes" should be changed to °R-1 Zone"o Mr. Roberts stated he would take the suggestions on this section under consideration and present a revision to the Cortu~issiono Commissioner Gauer asked whether this was for a highway or a shopping center, to which Mr. Roberts replied this referred to highways and was in conformance with the Code which defines any street open to the public and maintained as such~ Mr. Moore then stated that Broadway, Harbor, and Euclid Streets were in transitional areas and should be given further co ~siderationo Commissioner Rowland then stated that although he had a tremendous respect for statements made, it was the Commission's place to judge whether or nnt the value of placing a sign in a specific location near manufacturing or incustrial uses, and that the M-1 section of the Code required the integrity of the landsca~ing should be maintained in the frontyard set- back o: any M-1 area. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission and interested persons that for seyeral manths aftex havina :lo.rked with.the.automobile sexvice station operators and dealers the.ordinance approving the serVice standards referred to ~iia proposed Sign Oxdinance, and~ r.ersons pr3marily involved in.the #ormation af the sarvice station standards agreed that .if a ~ign ordinance requirement was applicable to the service station operators it should lae applied to everyone within the City, and that the only control the City presently had re- garding aiivertising signs was in Section 404 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relative to advertising structures. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to eliminating Section 18e62o200 which ' governed all non-conforming uses, but if this provision were not maintained in the Ordinance, the City would be wasting its time in trying to regulate non-conforming signs in the City, and there would be no justification to deny other requests for relief from any sign restric- ~ tion imp~sed within the proposed ordinance, it bQing noted that the Building Department or I ~ I ~ ~ . _ __- r .. . - _ _ ~~`~- . . _ ___ __ _._. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN~ April 27, 1964 2084 SECTION 1'Sob2 - the Chief Building Inspector would be have to determine when the OF: TliH A~I~Uk'F~IM amortization period of non-conforming signs had"expiied, and, further, MUtJICTI~AL"CODE' to determine whether the signs having assessed valua£ions.of..$20~ shall C'o'ntinued be required to be removed Nithin one year, if said'non-co~forming signs did not meet the provisions of the proposed ordinance, or should be permitted to continue for such a period as established by the Chief Buil'ding'Inspector, or his authorized representative, and that any appraisal by the Ch:o# Building Inspector should be subject to review by the City Council if a review is requested by. the ownere Mn> Moore stated the statement made by the Board of Realtors Committee was rather stror;s, but the re'sponsibility placed on the Chief Building Inspector was putting him under pr.e.sstre and duress from tlie outside if an accurate appr•iisal was not madee Mi. Robeits stated that in the face of the rapid development of the City, in which two-thirds of.the building of the business signs was for advertising uses having an amortization to tha value of the businesses themselves, that ±•he City Council had followed some aspects of the ~proposed' ordinance; that the ordinance ~~~a a guideline to the administrative staff of the City to measure the limitations and relieve the City Council of the many adrninistrative. reqtiest's for signs presently being handled; and that the City Council'had tried to regulate reque,sts for sign applicationse Commissioner Chavos was of the opinion that Section 18.62a200 had many "loopholes" and the new petitioner would be required to comply with the new ordinance, whereas his neighbor, who had applied previously, would be able to maintain his sign in acco:dance with a non- conforming use, thereby permitting pxivileges to one pe~•son nat granted to another, and • there was basis for additional improvement to the proposed ordinance in order that it ; might be more compatible and not create a hardship, but retain the uniformity of an ordinance. ' Mr. Mike Garron appeared before the Commission and stated he was interested in and concerned ! with small businesses; that small businesses depended upon the economics to determine the ! size of the sign they would be able to put up; that it was important that the little business ; men be considered bECause they formed the backbone of an economy, even though large businesses ' were gradually brought into the City; that many small businesses from other towns were start- ~ ing in this City because of the opportunities available to them; that if an absentee owner leased out his property, •the lessee would be restricted, because even though the original sign was placed on the property by the previous owner, it would then be outlawed, and he urged the Commission to give considerable attention to the limitations imposed on the small businesses by the proposed sign ordinance~ Mre Lawrence Hayman, representing Linbrook Hardware, appeared and asked whether supposedly non-conforming signs approved by the City Council could not be considered as being conform- ing, and the way he understood the present writing in the Code, these non-conforming uses would be allowed to continue, and that amortization would take placeo Mr. Homer Wallace, Chief Building Inspector for the City, advised the Commission many of the signs in the Disneyland area ranged ir. price from $500 to $15,000; that most advertising signs were considerably more expensive; that $200 signs were rather small; that Mro Hayman should have no difficulty because of the amortization being proposed; the removal of his sign would be in the distant future because it was far in excess of the $2000 Don Davis, representing Foster and Kleiser, appeared before the Commission and stated his cotlcern'had standard•pricee for-structures for~eutdoor advertising, poster paneib, and th~, price was the same whether lighted or unlighted; that in his estimation the proposed ordi- nance was an excellently written document classifying the signs; and that his only correc- tion or suggested change would be in the landscaping provision, the replacing of two words; instead of saying "shall be", it should read ".^.:~y be", and referred the Commission to adver- tising signs at Wilshire and Western in Los Angeleso Mr. Hayman then appeared before the Commission and asked for clarification on the guide signs as they pertained to the directional signs to direct traffic within their parking lot; as he understood it, one guide sign would be insufficient to control traffic flow in the parking loto The Commission advised Mr. Hayman this section of the Code pertained to directional signs similar to directing traffic on the freewaysor arterial highv+aysto places of interest, such as ~isneyland or Knott's Berry Farm, and any directional signs within a private parking lot would not be governed by this section of the Codeo Tf~ IiEARING WNS CLOSEDo Mre Wallace advised the Commission the Buildin9 Department permitted signs 8 feet square on tracts and three signs were allowed which acted as guides to the tract itself, and also , ~ / ._ ~-- ___.___ ~___ , _.__..____.----- _.______ - ~ ~ ~. _ _ , - -- - - , . ~ ~..~ ' ~t ~ . MINllTES,'.GITY'PLANNING CO~M~fISSION, April 27, 1964 2pgg SECIION ?$.62 - indicated these were within the confines of the :~ection governing guide OF.TFiE.itf~F;4•HEIM signs. MtlNICIPAL CODE • ~ Continued Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to reopen the hearing and con~inue the public hearing of the proposed sign ordinance to the meeting of May 2~, 1964o Commissioner Chavos seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION -(Although the Commission continued the public hearing on subject N0: 63-64-100 petition, the owner of subject property asked to be heard at the evening sessiono) Mro Tony Julian, une of the property owners, appeared before the Commission and stated although his request might he contrary to normal procedvre, Dro Pomeroy, the proposed property owner of his property, was desirous of reducing the continuation of subject petition four weeks to a possible two weeks; that the doctor was unable to attend the maeting because o; commitments to the hospital which he was serving until midnight, and asked whether or not h;s could clarify any of the Commission"s problers or questions they might have since he understood Dr. Pomeroy had no immediate plans to build on the rear portion of subject property; that he proposed additional parking for the rear, and would blacktop that area, and he was of the opinion adequate landscaping was indicated on the revised plan submittede Chairman Mungall stated zoniny was recommended for approval on the entire parcel, but if the Commi~sion did not have plans for the rear portion of subject property, they would be unable to render a decision untii the plans were s~bmitted; that if Dr. Pomeroy h~8 na intention of building at this time, it was the Commission's desire to have him stipulate at a public hearing no development plans would be forthcoming on the rear portion of subject property, and it could be a condition to any future plans being subject to Development Review or the Commission and Council approval~ Commissioner Rowland expressed regret that the agent for the petitioner would be delayed in developing the property for his specific use, and that the Commission should deny the petition in order that any additional changes might be submitted to the City Council at the time they consider it at a public hearing~ Chairman Mungall stated the Commission was a recommending body to the City Council, and as such should have complete plans prior to making any recommendations to the Councilo Deputy City Attarney Furman Roberts advised the Commission there was some doubt the Commis- sion coul~i rznder any reduction in the continuation of time, at this time, since their original 2ction had been taken earli~r at the public hearing; that if the Commission desired plans to be submitted, it -vould be difficult for them to review plans if a denial were recommended to the City Council, and that in his estimation, he would recommend the Commis- sion take no action at this timeo Mro Julian then asked the Commission to give him some indication of what was required, ar.d was informed by the Commission a commercial facia front was to be presented to the Comnission, adequate landscaping plans, plans indicating where the parking was proposed on the rear portion of subject property, and a verbal statement by Dro Pomeroy that any future develop~ ment plans for the rear portion af subject property would be conditioned to the Commission and Council reviewing the plans prior to approvalo ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to adjourn the meetingo Commissioner Chavos seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 9:17 o'clock p,me Respectfuliy submitted, ~/l/c~l/{~%~~7/~LC.~,tf~ ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim Planning Commission r ~ "~~ .._. ..~.~____.~_.__.__..____.~._..____.____ . __ _.._ _ . _ . . _ . -._ _ _. ~ r_. - • . ..., ~ ' 1. _ _,... . -- . _ , . ~. _