Loading...
Minutes-PC 1964/05/25~:~ =~ • ~~ City Hall Anaheim, California May 25, 1964 A REGULAR MEETING OF TfiE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ~ . f3EGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mungall at 2:00 o`clock P.M., a quorum being presento PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Mungallo - COMMISS~ONERSs Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Rowland, Perrye ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Pebleyo PRESENT - Zoning Coordinator: Martin Kreidt Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts Office Engineer: Arthur Daw ~ Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs INVOCATION ~ Reverend Kenneth Fischer of the Magnolia Baptist Church gave the Invocationo , PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Per.ry led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flago APPROVAL OF TIiE MINUTES - The Minutes of the afternoon meeting of May 11, 1y64, were approvnd as submittedo RHVISION N0. 1 - DEVELOPER: BLANK CHECK INCORPORATED, 1807 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, TENTATIVE MAP OF Californiao ENGINEER: C. C. Bonebrake, 1115 East Orange Grove, Orange, TRACT NOe 5608 Californiao Subject tract, located on the south side of South Street~ ~ 660 feet east of Sunkist Street and containing approximately 15 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 63 R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONED lotsa Mro C. C. Bonebrake, engineer for subject tract, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the revisions made to the original tract, noting that the proposed new streets would increase the circulation of subject tract to Sunkist Street when the property to the west was developedo ' In the Commission's review of the recommended conditions of approval, Mro Bonebrake stated that he could foresee no problems in complying with the conditionsa _ Commissioner Gauer offered a motior~ to approve Revision No. 1 nf Tentative M,ap of Tract Noo 5608, subject to the following conditions: • - • lo That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each ~ subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approvalo ; 2. That the alignment of the Route 19 Freeway and South Street Overcrossing be 4 approved by the State Division of Highwayso 3~ That the southerly stub street be relocated between Lot Nos. 5 and 6 of Revision j Noe 1 of Tentative Map of Tract Noe 56080 4. That the northerly stub street be relocated between Lot Noso 11 and 12 of Revision No. 1 of Tentative Map of Tract No. 56080 ~ Commissioner Chavos seconded the motione MOTION CARRIED. - 2103 •- .___. _~._._.______-, ~ .- ~) ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 25, 1964 REVISION N0~ 1 2104 TENfATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: BAYPORT DEVELOPIu1EM' ~pMpqNy~ 1535 East 17th Street, Santa TRACT NOo 5623 Ana, Californiao ENGINHER: Jennings-Halderman-Hood, 1833 East 17th Street, Suite 200, Santa Ana, California. Subject tract, located between Crowther and Orangethorpe Avenues approximately 820 feet east of Dowling Avenue and covering approximately 10 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 22 R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENfIAL, ZONED lots. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that subject property was originally :~pproved by the City Council for multiple-family residential development under Reclassifica- tio~~ No. 62-63-112 and Conditional Use Permit No. 422, and that the developer proposed to subdivide the easterly 10 acrES into an R-3 subdivisione Mr. Richard Brown, representing the developer, and in response to Commission questioning, stated that they proposed to develop the property considered in subject reclassification as an R-3 subdivision rather than the condominium as originally approvede Mra Kreidt then stated that since the subject tract proposed the dayPl~~fiAr~ „f ±ti~ ~~~t~~l~ lti acres, and plans approved under the reclassification and conditional use permit were no longer in effect, the Staff had recommended that revised plans be submitted to be consider- ed in conjunction with the reclassification and that the conditional use permit should be terminated, with any conditions which had been attached to the conditional use permit being recommended for inclusion under the reclassification. The Commission then stated that the revised plans should be reviewed by the Interdepart- mental Committee and Planning Department to determine if al:. Code requirements have been met, and inquired of Mre Kreidt whether i;he subdivision map met all Code requirements~ Mr. Kreidt stated that the subdivision map met all requirements, that the proposed 54-foot street would be increased to 64 feet when the property to the east developed, and that the one-foot holding strip or Lot "A" would have to ~e acquired by the propei~ty owner to the east in order to develop a fully dedicated 64-foot wide street~ • Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to approve Revision No~ 1 of Tentative Map of Tract Noo 5623, subject to the following conditions: lo That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivislon, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approvale 2. That the vehicular access rights, except at street and/or alley openin9s, to Orangethorpe and Crowther Avenues shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheima 3„ That a predetermined price for Lot "A" shall be calculated and an agreement for dedication entered into between the Developer and the City of Anaheim prior to approval of the final tract map„ The cost of Lot "A" shall include land and a proportionate share of the underground utilities and street improvementso 4~ That the drainage shall be handled in a manner to the satisfaction of the City Engineero 5o That the alley extending northerly from Street "A" ,hall be provided with a - • tur.n aro.und tp the .satisfactipn of,the. City, Engineero 6a That the all?y cut-offs shall conform to Standard Plan No~ 130„ 7. That Streel: "A" shall be recorded as Prado Way~ Commissioner Allred seconded the motion~ MOTION CARRIED~ RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGe FANNY SHOWALTER, c~o DECON CORPORATION, N0. 63_64-BNand 1833 East 17th Street, Santa Ana, California, Owner; DECON CORPORATION, 1833 East 17th Street, Santa Ana, California, Agent; property described CONDITIONAL USE as: An irregular portion of land having a frontage of 1,266 feet on PERMIT N0. 450 the westerly side of the Riverside Freeway, the westernmost boundary of subject property being 550 feet east of the centerline of Jefferson Street, said property being further described as PORTION N0, 1 and PORTION N0. 2; PORTION N0. 1 being located in the City of Anaheim, PORTION N0. 2 being located in the County of Orange. Property presently classified as R-A, RESIDEtPfIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE, REQUESTHD CLASSIFICAI'ION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. _---°--------r _ _ _ 1 _ ._..... . ____--..,._.._.. - _. ._____ _. .__.....~ ~ )/ ! ~; 1 I ~ V MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMNISSION, May 25, 1964 ~~. ~ 2105 RECLASSIFICATION - REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A ONE AND TWO-STORY MllLTIPLE- NOa 63-64-8 and FAMILY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMEf~TT WITH CARPORTS - WAIVfi ONE-STORY I-~IGHT LIMITATIONo CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0~ 450 Subject petitions were continued from the meetings of July 22, August 19, (Continued) September 16, October 28, December 23, 1963, and January 20 and March 30, 1964, in order that the petitioner might have sufficient time to submit revised plans incorporating suggestions made by the Commissiono Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that no revised plans had been received, and that the Planning Department attempted to contact the petitioner's representa- tive but was unable to receive any responseo Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue Petitions for Reclassification No. 63-64-8 and Conditional Use Permit Noo 450 to the meeting of November 23, ;964, and to advise the petitioner that revised plans were neededo Commissioner Perry seconded the mationa MOTION CARRIHD. RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINIJED PUBLIC HEARINGo TONY AND MILDRED JULIAN, 12780 West Lincoln NO.o.63-64-100 Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; IRA Lo POMEROY, 7711 "B" Fillmore, Buena Park, California, Agent; requesting that property described a~: 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 oi said.oroperty being approximately 245 feet east of the center~ine of Dale Street, and further described as 2780 West Lincoln Avenue, be reclassified from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE, tc the C-1, NEIGFIDORHOOD CGMMERCIAL, ZONE, to utilize an existing residence for professional offices for two physicianse Subject petition was c~ntinued from the meetin9s of March 30 and April 27, 1964, to allow sufficient time for the petitioner to submit revised plans incorporating a commercial facia, additional landscapiny in the front setback, parking provided in the rear, and plans for future construction on the rear portion of subject propertyo Mr~ Tony Julian, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and stated Dr~ Pomeroy, ; the future owner of subject property, was unable to attend the meeting, and he would answer any questions the Commission might haveo Mro Julian noted the present plans for the rear portion of subject property were for parking purposes only; that some time in the future the . existing structure would be either removed or remodeled; 3nd that revisions to the plans were as the Commission requested at an earlier meetingo In response to Commission questioning, Mro Julian stated he was of the opinion an easement from Dale Avenue would provide adequate access for trash truckso Of#ice Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that any alleys on which a private easement was permitted would not be used by public vehicles for trash truck pick-upo / It was noted by the Commission that access to the r.ear portion of subjec~ property would be impossible, and the petitioner would be required to set trash on the curb for pick-up purposeso ' Zoning Coor~linator Martin Kreidt advised the Comm,ission the cov~red accessway~t~ the rear of ~~ subject property was inadequate to provide for a 14-foot vertical clearance, and if the rear~ portion of subject property were to be developed, a finding might be added to require the 14-foot nverharg be removed prior to any development of the rear portion of subject property in order to provide adequate access to the rear portion of subject propertyo THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution Noo 1167, 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 63-64-100 be approved', subject to conditions and a finding which would require that the covered accessway to the rear of subject property be removed in order to.provide access for trash trucks or for a 14-foot vertical clearance at the time the property to the rear was proposed for developmento (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CUN9ulISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSEM's COMMISSIONERS: Pebleyo ~.._-.--.__...__ .___.__. ... . __.._.._ . ._..___ .__...__ .. .. ~ ~ . .: ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 25, 1964 2106 VARIANCE N0. 1638 - PUBLIC NEARING. MARY MAASS STAEHNKE, 125 East Water Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; BETTY ROBERTS, 1705 East Lincoln Avenue and Jo Ro WHITE, 707 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agents; request- ing permission to WAIVE THE SINGLE-STORY HEIGfiT LIMITATION WITHIN 150 FEET OF R-1, ONE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONED property described ass A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of 51 feet on the north side of Water Street and a depth of 113 feet, the wester- ly boundary of said property being approximately 209 feet east of the centerline of Anaheim Boulevard, and further described as 115 East Water Streeta Property presently classified as P-1, AUfOMOBILE PARKING, ZONEo Mro J. R. White, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed development, further noting that the owners to the west of subject property did not oppose the proposed development; that the existing residence was too near a car wash to make it a desirable living environment for single-family use; and that the pruposed four unit apartment building would act as a buffer between the commercia2 and the :;ingle-family resi- dential use to the east of subject property by reducing the noiseo In response to Commission questioning, Mr, White stated the alleys would provide access to the garages on subiect property. Mro To J, Posser, 601 South Claudina Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject petition and stated he was opposed to constructing four units on subject property because it was an insufficient space for that many units; that adequate parking was not being p.rovided and many people from the commercial developments were using the residential streets for parking purposess that the proposed development would be detrimental to the area; that if the car wash adjacent to a single-family residence was presentl.y undesirable, it would be equally undesirable for any apartment dweller; that the vacancy factor and undesirable elements moving into the units would further depress the area; and t!iat all the neighbors he had spoken with opposed apartments in the areao The Commission informed Mro Posser that the existing zoning on subject property permitted the development for multiple•-family use, and the only thing under consideration was whether or not one-story or two-story construction would be permittedo Mrso Betty W#~i-te, therother agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and st,~ted she spoke for the petitionei•,noting she had spoken with Mr~ Posser and had explained to him what was being proposed for ~ubject property, and he had advised her he was not opposed to it; that it was his opinion this would be a vast improvement on subject propertya TIiE HFARING WAS CLOSED~ Commissioner Camp offered Resolution Noo 1168, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Cortunissioner Rowland, to grant Petitio~i for Variance No~ 1638, subject to conditionso (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passEd by the following vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Ro~vlando NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSEM's COMMISSIONERS: Pebleye ~' VARIANCE N0. 16 7- PUBLIC HEARINGo M. N. LILES, 500 South Citron Street, Anaheim, California, ~1 ~' ~ ' Owner; M~ E~ KOFFORD, 3Ra, Fiank Curran Lumber Company, 1003 East 4th ' :~ Street, Santa Ana, California, Agent; requesting permission to EXPAND AN ~ EXISTING NEIGFBORHOOD GROCERY STORE on property described ass A rectangularly shaped parcel ~r, of land located at the southeast corn~r of Santa Ana and Citron Streets with frontages of 110 i,~ feet on Santa Ana Street and 61 feet on Citron Streeto Property presently classified as R-1, ~~ ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONEo Mr. M, E. Kofford, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed expansion, noting the house to the south would be removed for the expansion; that no plans were made for parking because the proposed neighborhood grocery store would not require it since delivery service was provided for customers; and that plenty of parking was avail- able at the curbe The Commission noted subject property also included apartment units for whicti no parking provisions were made, and apartments should be required to have one and one-quarter garage spaces,per apartment. Mro Martin Liles, owner of subject property, appeared before the Commission and stated that at the time the apartments were constructed, garages were not required; that the proposed expansion was necessary because of changes in the marketing of food and its preservation; and that he did not anticipate having any additional customers to those he presently hade . __ _ __+___._.~._.___-~ . _ ._ 1 ~ . ~ ~~ ~ • ~ MINUTF~, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 25, 1964 2107 VARIANCE NOo 1637 •- The Commission noted subject property was located immediately south of (Continued) the proposed civic district, and this proposed expansion might be a major deviation from the requirements of the proposed C~-0 Zorte for the areao Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts stated the non-conforming use must have been ]egal at one time in order to be able to be granted a variance. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reminded the Commission that inadequate trash storage faci- lities were being provided, and for a grocery store would present an unsightly appearanceo Mro Liles stated a 10-foot easement existed at the rear of the properties, for which trash storage could be provided, to which the Commission reminded Mro Liles that trash trucks required at least a 21•-foot width and a 14-foot ciearance~ The Commission expressed concern that the proposed expansion would locate the buiZding adjacent to the.sidewalk; that subject property was located v~ithin a residential area; that subject property should incorporate a similar setback as the re~.idential area in order to be more compatible with the z.~sidential integrity; and determi~ied through questioning that the tenants of the apartments owned only one car among ail thra~ tenants, and that the petitioner was planning to remove one of the units for this expansiono Mr, C. H. Rhinehart, 506 South Citron Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition to suhject petition and presented a petition signed by 15 property owners on Citron Street oppos- ing the proposed expansion, and further noted six persons were ;.resent in the Council Chamber opposiny- ~ubject petition. Mro Rhinehart further stated that customers of the grocery store became a public nuisance at times because they parked in front of access routes to private property; that access routes to private property were used as temporary parking facilities while purchasing groceries; that the expanion of the present facility to twice its present size would necessitate the expansion of a business to at least two and one-half times its present gross income to justify the cost of the new construction, thereby compounding the traffic problem and further necessitating additional parking facilities which were not avail- able along Citron Street; tl~at a variance to permit the expansion of the present facility ,would change the nature of a small, neighborhood store serving the local people to•a commercial pursuit not compatible with the residential integrity of the area; that the R-1 Zone was set up as a specific protection for the property in the area; that the history of variances permit- ting commercial uses in a residentiai area invariably resulted in depreciation of the residen- tial property, and this was reflected in the resale prices of the property in the area since the area would be considered undesirable from the standpoint of home ownership; and that he urged the Commission to deny subject petition in order to protect the rights of all the property owner.s in the area which was a right the property owners expectedo In rebuttal, Mro Koffo*d inquired whether or not the 15 names on the petition were individual property owners, or Eamilies; that several hundred people were involved and lived in the area, and by their absence, indicated their approval of the Froposed developmento ' It was noted by the Commission Secretary that ten families signed the petition, all within the ;~ immediate area of the subject property on Citron Street, and that 46 legal notices had been mailed out~ Tf~ HEARING WAS CLOSEP. ~ Commissioner C,suer stated a wariance was granted to-upgrade an.area.and to grant a use not enjoyed by the property ~wner, but enjoyed by other areas, whereas this was a clear case of -~ granting a use to an individual who had already received this right, but was proposing to ' expand. ! Discussion was then held by the Commission as to the inadequacy of parking facilities and the proposed alignment of the grocery store along the property line; that the existing setback on Citron Street for all the other residences was at least 20 feet, and to permit the proposed expansion would be detrimental to the residential integrity of the area; that although the existing neighborhood grocery store had been there a number of years, to permit an enlargement of it might set the pattern of development for other than the C-0 Zone being proposed on the General Plan for the Civic Center Area; that the best interests of the area might be served if the petitioner were allowed to revise his plans to provide adequate parking facilities on the property, rather than utilizing the streets as they were presently being used for•parking purposes; and that the proposed expansion might break down the residential integrity of the areao Commissioner G~uer offered Resolution No, 1169, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to deny Petition for Variance Noo 1637, based on the fact the petitioner already enjoyed a use not generally granted to others in the area; that the proposed expansion would be detrimental to the residential integrity of the area; that the petitioner proposed no parking facilities; that to permit a commercial expansion , ~ ...... . . - ~ ---- ___-- - ' _ ._. _., . ~ .. _ ~ l ~- . . ; ,~ ~ _..___~_ ........... ..~....._._.-- ~ - ~~ ~ _:~ -.. . • ~' MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 25, 1964 2108 ~ VARIANCE (Continue NOo ~637 - might be detrimental dT~ a to the Civic Area since this mi~gtrE be perpetuating F non-conforming use within the proposed C-0 Zone. (See Resolution Booko) ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: f AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Per.ry, Rowlando NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ASSENT.: COMMISSIONERS: Pebleyo RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC }{EARINGo INITIATED BY TI~ CITY PT.ANNING COMMISSION, 204 East ~NOo 63-64-119 _ Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing the reclassification of property described as: That certain property having a frontage of 1,178 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, the easterly boundary of said property being approximately 800 feet west of the centerline of Euclid Street and the westerly boundary being approximately 133 feet east of the centerline of Broadview Street; the south- ernmost boundary of said property being approximately 638 feet north of the centerline of Broadway, and further described as 1750-1842 West Lincoln Avenue, from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL and C-1, tJEIGFIDORH00D COMMERCIAL, ZONES to the C-0, COMMERCIAL OFFICE, ZONE, in order to reclassify subject property into its most appropriate zoneo Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the Planning Study 70-47•-1, Exhibits "A°1 and "H" and the findings in the Report to the Commission, noting Exhibit "A" indicated the property was being developed for medical and ofiice facilities which was the basic reason for the initiation of the C-O,Commercial Office, Zone~ that in the event the property owners were desirous of expandin9 subject properties, conditions attached to the proposed reclassifica- tion would be applicable; that one of the recommendations proposed the plartting of trees in the parkway portion of Lincoln Avenue; that said trees would b~ maintained in perpetuity by the City; that landscaping along Lincoln Avenue would be desirable; that the C~-0 Zone requir- ed landscaping in the parkway, as well as trees; that compliance with all provisions of the C-0 Code could be applicable only to Parcels 3 and 5, since the other~ had been developed; and that Parcels 1 and 2 have been developed for a medical center havt~g access to Embassy Street~ Commissioner Chavos expressed concern that Parcels 1 and 2 were in violation of the develop- ment since they were granted commercial access to a residential street, and•the Commission should require dedication of all access rights to Embassy Street, and the requirement of a masonry wall; that he had checked with the develope: of the medical facility and had been informed the Commission had ~ot required the masonry wall, so he did not construct said masonry wall; and that access rights, in Mra Chavos' opinion, had not been granted by the Commission to Embassy Street~ Discussion was held by the Commission relative to previous action approving the medical center on Parcels 1 and 2, and asked that Mro Kreidt investigate said petitions to determine the action by the Commission relative to access rights to Embassy Street~ A petition of conditional opposition signed by 64 property owners along Echo Place, Embassy Street, Broadview Street, Hacienda Street, and Florette Street was read to the Cortonissiono Mr. Frank Beitel, owner of the Kettle Restaurant at 1776 West Lincoln Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated he was in agreement with the proposed zoningj that he opposed the requirement of planting of trees in the parkway as this would possibly present a traffic hazard wifh the excessive speeds on Lincoln~Avenue, ~s the cars leaving' his'property might have their view obstructed of oncoming traffic; that he was not desirous of reducing the beauty of the City, but still was sure the p~anting of trees in the parkway would•be a haz:.:do Mra Kreidt stated the C-0 Zone required tree wells as one of the conditions of development; that the City had a street tree program along arterial streets and highways, and these could be planted so as not to create a barrier to prevent people from seeing oncoming traffico Mr. John Harris, 1850 West Embassy Street, appeared before the Commission, stating his property adjoined the medical property; that he represented the property owners in the single- family tract to the south of subject property; that he was not opposed to the rezoning of the area to C-0, but felt that in the interest of the residentiai and commercial facilities, a definite demarcation by the construction of a six-foot masonry wall along the south property line of subject properties should be made; that the medical center has already had three different owners, and the property owners in the single-family subdivision had no assurance the existing center would be torn down; that the employees and patients of the medical center used Embassy Street for parking purposes, thereby having commercial encroachment in a residen•- tial area~ that 350 homes were included in the Lincoln Park Civic Association; that all these homes in the area could become deteriorated by the encroachment of commercial uses if the wall were not installed; that the existing trash areas were an enticement for children to investi- gate, and if the masonry wall were constructed, this would prohibit the children from going a ~ t, `•' ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 25, 1964 2109 RECLASSIFICATION - through the trash area to look for dangerous drugs and materials; that N0. 63-64-11 an undesirable element would be prohibited from gaining access to these (Continued~ trash areas; that a~y construction on the remaining properties should require a Noo 2 fire wall toward the R~-1 in order to prevent any visual intrusion; that the 64 signatures on the conditional petition of opposition were only the residents within 300 feet of subject property; and that six persons were preseet in the Council Chamber from Embassy Street to indicate their oppositiono THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission expressed concern tne medical facilities were not abiding by the law which prohfbits the disposal of dangerous drugs and materials into the trash area; that no wall was existing on the front Parcels 1 and 2 to protect the chi.ldren from gaining access to these trash areasf that children were injured on Embassy Street because of heavy traffic; that although most of these properties were developed, the only way any of the conditions could be enforced was at the time of expansion to any of the properties presently developed; that possibly the Department could contact the owners of Parcels 1 and 2 to determine whether or not the access rights to Embassy Street could be dedicated to the City, and a block wall constructed~ that although the Commission might recommend approval of the reclassification, this did not mean the wall would be put up until the developed properties proposed any expan~- sion; and that if access rights were dedicated, the driveway aprons be removed and replaced with standard curb and gutter~ Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission if any of these problems did exist, it was the duty of the citizens of Embassy Street to report to or contact the Juvenile IIivision and the Streets and Sanitation Division of the City in order to rectify any errors or problems which existed in this areae Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission an investigation of Variance Noo 462, granted in 1955 and Variance Noo 1000 did not indicate dedication of access rights to Embassy Street.be made, or that a block wall be constructed, and, therefore, the ownersof Parcels 1 and 2 had developed in accordance with requirements of the Commissiono Commissioner Perry offered Resolution Noo 1170, Series 1963-64, and moved 'ror its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification Noa 63-64-119 be approved, subject to the requirement of a dedication of the accessway to Embassy Street for Parcels 1 and 2, and construction of a six-foot masonry wall along the south property line; the removal of concrete aprons along the southerly portion of Parcels 1 and 2 and replacement with standard curb and gutter, and conditions as outlined in the Report to the Commission. (See Resolution Booka) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Pebley. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC E~ARINGa INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 3ast NO• 63-64-117 and Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing the reclassification of the following described propertyz A rectangularly shaped parcel of land CONDITIONAL USE located at the northwest corner of Zincoln AvEnue and Muller Street with PERMIT N0. 7 frontages of 795 feet on Muller Street and 321 feet on Lincoln Avenue, the total area of said property being approximately 5.7 acres, and further described as 1925 West Lincoln Avenueo Property presently classified as M-L, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL and P-L, PARKING LANDSCAFiNG, ZONESe PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION: C-3~ HEAVY COMMERCIAL, ZONE. PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A CONFORMING USE OF AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING BOWLING ALLEY WITH RESTAURANT AND COCKTAIL LOUNGE AND PHRMIT T[-IE EXPAN- SION OF THESE FACILITIES. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the proposed reclassification of property covering the existing bowling alley, noting the property owner and lessee had :equested of.the City Council permission to construct an addition to sub,ject property, and the City Council had directed the Planning Commission to initiate proceedings for reclassification and conditional use permit. Mro Leonard Brutacao, 1625 4Yest Lincoln Avenue, lessee and operator for subject property, appeared before the Commission and stated C-3 Zoning was requested; that they could not develop within the M-1 Zone, and the above reclassification would permit this expansion of the bowling alley. -- _~ _...--. -.-__.__--------...__ _ --.__.., _ I ~ ____..._._._.._..._--- . ~ --__.__~.~..~..~__...._...,..._...:____ ~---- ~ ,~. ~~ ~ !~ MINUfES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 25, 1964 2110 RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Chavos asked whether or not the operators of the bowling N0. 63-64-117 and alley could eliminate the rotating sign or relocate its direction to east-~•~est rather than north-south; that the bright lights over the past CONDITIONAL USE fuur years had been detrimental to the single-family residents to the PERMIT N0. 572 west, north and south of subject property, and the homeowners adjacent Continued to subject property had requested this of the property owner four years ago. Mr, Brutacao stated it was not his desire to arouse any antagonism with the neighbors; that four years ago he had thought they had resolved the problem regarding the sign~ and that he would attempt to resolve the problem as soon as possibleo Mro Chavos then stated the City Council had requested the market at Brookhurst and Ball to turn off their lighted sign at 9:00 p~mo, and if the existing sign were just directed east to west, and not rotated, this would be a considerable help. Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that under the proposed Sign Ordinance, rotating signs would be regulated, and all non-conforming signs would be elimi- nated within a year, since these signs were known as "flood", "spot" or "rotating" signs9 and he would take this recommendation under advisement at the time the Sign Ordinance was consideredo Mro Kreidt then suggested to the Commission that the new C-1 Zone considered recently by the Commission and continued for further study, permitted a bowling alley by right in a C-1 Zone, and a cocktail lounge and restaurant by filing a conditional use permit, and it was his recom- mendation that subject reclassification be approved for C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zoneo No one app~aared in opposition to subject petitionso TI-IE HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Cortunission expressed the opinion that in light of past work sessions, there was a possi- bility the C-3 Zone would be eliminated; therefore, a more appropriate zone, such as a C-1, would be more applicablee Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1171, 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•-117 be approved unconditionally for a C-1, Neighborhood Com- mercial, Zone, and that a finding be made thzt the amendment to tlie existing C-1 Zone being considered before the Commission inciuded a bowling alley by right in the C••1 Zone, and~ therefore, the C-3 Zone was not grantedo (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSEM': COMMISSIONERS: Pebleyo Commissioner Camp offered Resolution Noo 1172, Series 196d-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 572,~unconditionally~ (See Rasolution Bool:~) ' • . . . • • On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland~ NOES: COMMISSIOI:~RS: None~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Pebl~y, RECLASSIFICATION - PUgLIC }IEARINGo INITIATED EY TFIE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East I~Qo.b3-64~118 and 1.incoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; property described as: AL1 that certain property situated on the west side of Brookhurst Street extending CONDITIONAL U5E southerly from the Anaheim City-Orange County boundary to Orange Aveaue, PERMIT NOo 573 the maximum depth of said properties being 350 feet and having fror;:ages of 140 feet on Orange Avenue and 875 feet on Brookhurst Street, and further described as 403-533 South Brookhurst Street. Present classification of property R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, C-1, NEIGFIDORHOOD CONWIERCIAL, and C-3~ HEAVY COMMERCIAL~ ZONES. PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY: C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ 20NEo PROPQSED CONDITIONAL USEs PERMIT OPERATION OF A WI-lEEL ALIGNMENT AND BRAKE ALI7USTMENf SHOP on property described ass A rec±angularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approxi- mately 74 feet on the west side of Brookhurst Street and a depth.of 140 feet, the southerly --- --- - -- _ _ _ __ ___ _ ,- __... _._..._--. _.___. . --._. _ .. ____ , ~ ~ ~ ~.1 ~ ~ ~~ • . MINUTES; CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 25, 1964 2111 RECLASSIFICATION - boundary of said property being approximately 190 feet north of the N0. 63-64-118 and centerline of Orange Avenue, and further described as 519 South-' Brookhurst Streeta CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOa 573 Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the proposed reclassification (Continued) of subject property, noting that a special meeting had been scheduled with the property owners of subject properties,and two of the property owners attended said meeting; that the Staff was interested in hearing the reaction to C-1 Zoning from the other property owners~ and that the Staff would appreci- ate a two weeks' continuance in order to present a revised parking plan for the Commission's considerationo The Comm3ssion discussed the feasibility of requiring street trees and tree wells, the requirement of sidewalks, the closing of some of the drives to improve the parking and reduce traffic hazards with so many access'drives presently existing to Brookhurst Street, since this would assist in the ultimate development of the properties involved; that upon iieid trip oi tne subjeci properiy, a generai ~Iean-up af Lhe area was note~ tc ba ~z~a~saryq and.that the existing wheel alignment shop had been there for some time prior to betng annex- ed into the Cityo Mr. Kreidt again stated it was the Staff°s desire to hear any reaction of the property owners, as well as the Commission°s feelings, regarding the proposed reclassificationa The Commission stated that on the field trip it was noted there was a great deal of property undeveloped at the rear portion of the various commercial lots; that a general clean-up of the area was necessary; and that the weeds in the areay together with trash areas, should be considered by the Uepartment of Public Workso Commissioner Camp offered a motion to continue Petitions for Reclassification Noo 63~64-118 and Conditional Use Permit Noo 573 to the meeting of June 8, 1964, in order to allow the Planning Department sufficient time to prepare a revised parking plan and to make a fu~ther attempt at contact~ng the remaining property ownerso Commissioner Perry seconded tt~e motiono MOTION.CARRIEDo CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC 1-IEARINGo CLIFTON M. AND ANN Mo MARTIN, 1427 Easy Way, Arraheim, PFyR_IT N0~ 570 California, Owners; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A DAY CARE NURSERY FOR CHILDREN on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a£rontage of 124 feet on the south side of Ball Road and a depth of 342 feet, the easterly boundary of said property being approximately 190 feet west of the.center2ine of Nutwood Avenue, and further described as 1916 West Ball Road. Property presently classified as C-1, NEIGtIDORH00D COMMERCIAL, ZONE, offices onlye Mrso Ann Martin, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and stated her husband planned to have offices out of the City, and the existing home would be utilizec~ for a child care nu.rserye The Commission inquired whether or not the petitioner planned to construct the driveKay as originally proposed, to which Mrs< Martin replied it was their intention to construct the driveway, and that she planned 1:o start the nursery with ten children and would ba controlled by all State requirementso It was further noted by the Commission that the streets, curbs, and gutters were constructed "prior to the ordinan~e being~-read for ree:assificrr;,iort to t,'~e - . C-19 Neighborhood Commercial, Zoneo No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDe Commissioner Allred offered Resolution Noo 1173, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage ~ and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 570, subject to conditionso (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolut~on was passed by the following vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOESs COMMISSIONERS: Noneo • ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSs Pebleyo r _. __.._.__.__ ~ ~ =- -.... . . . % ! I _ ~~~ ~ `/ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISS]ON, May 25, 1964 2112 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARINGo INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 20q.East NOo 63-64-116 _ Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing the reclassification of property described as: That certain tract of land, Lot Noso 1 through 15 of Tract Noo 2534, situated on the north side of Ball Road and having Roberts Street cul••de-sac through the central portion, said tract consisting of multiple- family dwellings presently existing; the westerly boundary of said tract being approximately 337 feet east of the centerline of Euclid Street, and further described as 916•-955 Roberts Street from the C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE, deed restricted to R-•3 uses to the R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONEo Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the present zoning on subject property, noting nnl,v two property owners met wiCh the Planning Department regarding the proposed reclassi- fication, and that the purpose of the proposed reclassification was to eliminate the confusion of C-1 zoning since it was deed restricted to only R-3 uses~ No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDa Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No~ 1174, Series 1963~64, and moved for its passage and adoptiony seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification Noo 63•-64-116 be approved unconditionally~ (See Resolution Book~) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COf.!MISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos~ Gauex, Mungall, Perry, Rowland~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo AbSEM': COMMISSIOPIERS: Pebiey~ RECLASSIFICA'TION - PUBLIC NEARING~ OWEN B., AND ROSE MARIE LAMPMAN, AND WILLIAM Bo.AND ~2_ ~ 2.r__ N0. 3- 4-1 0 and WANEVA HARRIS, 1243 Eastridge, LNhittier, Californiay Owners; J,. A~ HAR.1rEY, III, Rimel 8 Harvey, 4th Flooi, United California Bank Buiiding, CONDITIONAI. USE 10i0 North Main Street, Santa Ana, California, Agent; property described PERMIT N0,~571 as: That certain property situated at the northeast corner of Brookhurst Street and Katelia Avenue, consisting of four adjacent lotsy three of which having frontages on Katella Avenue and the fourth lot having fron- tage on the cul-de••sac oi Midwood Laney and further described as 2171••2181 West Katella Avenue and 2180 Midwood Lane., Property presently classified as R••19 ONE-FAMIL.Y RESIDENTIALy ZONE„ REQUESTF.D CLASSIFICATION: C~-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ ZONE„ REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USF.: ESTABLISH A SERVICE STATION AND SMALL OFFICE BUILDING. Mro John Narvey, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed development, noting that the small office building proposed with subject service station was not to be developed imnediately; that plans were presented only for the•.service station; that after numerous conferences with the Planning Department, it was determined the only way to develop the corner property at Kateila and Brookhurst was to incorporate an addi- tional R-1 lot; that if subject petition were approved, a condition be requiredthat development pTans'be su6mitfed ta the~ Com,~~~iss•ien fox app:•ov~ ; tt~at the existing residence woulti be removed; andthat the plot Nlan indicated part of the lot would be for the service station site, and the balance for the office building~ Commissioner Gauer expressed opposition to proposing a service station which was penetrating the residential area and would create adaitional zoning problems if approvedo Mr. H3rvey stated that the three Iots cn Katella A~~~nue were presently deed restricted to R-1 uses; that upon having the property viewed by a title insurance company• they stated they would guarantee insurance that these deed restrictions would not be upheld, because i:he character of the neighborhood Was changing so greatly; and in response to Commission-question- ing relative to encroachment into Midwood Lane, stated it was necessary to have an additional lot for the servi~ce station site for adequate circulation, and it was not proposed to split up Lot No. 76 because there would be insufficient ground space to develop anything else on the propertyo Mr~ Harvey then stated he wished to request a thirty-day continuance in order to submit revised.plans to improve the esthetic appearar,ce of the proposed service station~ Mr. John Chmura, 2163 West Midwood Lane, appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject petition, stating forty property owners had signed a petition of opposition to the proposed service station; that the residents of the tract to the east of the existing Shell - ---~.:....--. _ __.... ___ .... ._._____, -- ... ~'';: ~ ~' ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 25, 1964 2113 RECLASSIFICATION - Service Station on Brookhurst and Katella Avenue had expressed opposition NO°.53-6;"-~I 0 and to the lights emanating from the service station, and to propose or approve a service station immediately adjacent or within 13 feet of one of the CONDITIONAL USE property owners on the cul-de-sac would be detrimental to the health and PERMIT NOe 571 welfare of the proQerty owners adjacent to subject property; that if (Continued) subject petitio^ were approved, the existing cul-de-sac street would be eliminated and would permit automobiles to use Midwood Lane to bypass the intersection of Katella Avenue and Brookhurst Street; that the proposed service station would be within 20 feet of 2170 Midwood Lane; that the corner property was much more valuable than to propose a service station there; that it was too early to consider development of the property for commercial uses; and that six persons were present in the Council Chamber to indicate their opposition to subject petitions. A letter of opposition was read to the Commissiona In rebuttal, Mr, Harvey presented the letter whicn was part of the file, stating the reasons for the proposed development, and that the property could not be developed for multiple-family use because of its close proximity to two arterial highways, and in response to Commission questioning, stated Standard Oil Company would be the lessee of the property, and one of the petitioners, Mr, Lampman, proposed to purchase the Harris property on Midwood Street and would lease the property to Standard Oila Mra Alfred Hart 1734 William Miller Drive, appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject petitions, and stated the service station count between Lincoln Avenue and Brook- hurst Street totaled 20, and four additional service stations were located on Katella Avenue in the.immediate vicinity of subject property, and that to approve subject petition would create an additional problem for the property owner immediately adjac~nt to the service station, thereby compounding an undesixable land use for a single-family residential sub- division, and since all lots in the subdivision had been required to sign deed restrictions limiting the use to R~1 uses, these deed restrictions should be adhered toa TF~ HEARING WAS CLOSED~ Cormnissioner Gauer was of the opinion he was never in favor in breaking down the residential integrity of an area by approving service stations, and the proposed service station would be an encraachment into a single-family residential subc~ivisiono Commis.sipner Gauer offered Resolution Noa 1175, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to recommend to the City Council that Peti- tion £or Reclassification Noo 63-64•-120 be disapp~oved, based on the fact that the proposed service.station would be incompatible with the residential integrity of the area; that if subject property were to be developed for commercial purposes, an area development plan incorporating all properties primarily affected by commercial uses for a change in zone would_be considered; that the Lot Noo 76 of the subdivision which fronted on Midwood Lane would be affected by the cul-de-sac being utilized as an access area to Brookhurst Street; and that the proposed reclassification was not necessary nor desirable for the orderly and proper development of a commun~ty~ (See Resolution Sooko) On roll call the foregoing resolutio~ was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIQNERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.. NOES: COMMISSIOIVERSa None~ ABSEDIT~: COMMISSIONERS: Pebleye ~ ~ ~ ' • • - Commissioner Gauer offer:~~ Resolution Noe 1176, Series 1963-64, and moved for iis passage and adoption, seconded by c'citi~issioner Chavos, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 571, based on the fact that the proposed use would be detrimental to the peace, health, safety; and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim, and that the adjaining land uses would be adversely affectedo (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOESs COMMISSIONERSs Nonee ABSENf: COMMISSIONHRSs Pebley. i i ~''-~- ~ r_.___..._...._._...___ _._......~._ w. ,,... ... . . ~ , .__._.~ ~:. ,- ~_ ~~s _ • ~ ~ ~t MINUTES,.-CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 25, 1964 -2114 AMHNDMENI TO - PUBLIC HEARINGo INITIATED BY TI-IE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION~ TITLE 18 --ANAHEIM proposing Amendment to Title 18, Section 180240030(3-a and-3-b)9 MUNICIPAL.CODE AREA - Rear Yardo Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the proposed Amendment to Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, further noting that the proposed Amendment was necessary to eliminate the ambiguity of the administration of this section of the Codeo No one appeared in oppositione THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo Commissinner Camp offered Resolution Noa 1177, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend to the City Council that Title 18 of.the Maheim Municipal Code, Section 18o24a030 (3-a and 3-b) be amendedo (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOESs COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Pebleye SECTI.ON 18.62 - COMINUED PUBLIC HEARINGa ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL Sign Ordinanceo CODE Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that after having met with the Planning and Zoning Committee of the Chamber of Commerce to•review the proposed Sign Ordinance together with the recommended changes con- sidered at•the meeting of April 27, 1964, the Chamber of Commerce requested that the Commission consider continuance of the public hearing of the Sign Ordinance for a minimum of four weeks in order that they might completely review the proposed Sign Ordinance and submit alternative plans.far billboards, which would be presented to the Board of Directors for their recommenda- tions.e Mre Roberts continued that one of the first problems the Chamber of Commerce presented was the~size of the guide signsq that under the proposed Ordinance, these signs would be limited to three square feet~ that this might present• some problem and illustrated this with a photo- graph for the Commission's consideration~ noting the sign was a Disneyland sign located at a service station which was typical of guide signs to Disneyland; that the Knott's Berry Farm signs were in the form of a brown arrow; the Movieland Wax Museum signs in the form of a black arrow with red lettering; that these signs were all located at service stati.~n sites and were considerably larger than three square feet, and were standard signs in the surround- ing areae ~.. Mr. Robexts then stated a possible Amendment to Section 18.620020 (c) might read as follows: "Guide Signsi This category shall include all signs and sign structures which sexve as directional guides to recognized areas of regional importance and patronagee It is intended that signs within this category shall be correlated with traffic flow and designed so as to assist those seeking out recognized areas of regional importance qr patronage. To clarify and define srach areas of regipnal importance, and patronage, four types of areas are intended to be included: " la Tourist attractions catering to an average,~personso 20 .Regional shopping centers maintaining a minimum of_parking spaces in the ~ immediate vicinity, with signs which were sufficiently large enough to fall ~ within the guide sign category, and small signs to advertise the centers ; themselvese 3e Major sport stadiums or convention centers having a aeating capacity of ~ personso 4o Any recognized historical landmarka" Mr. Roberts continued the secand problem mentioned by a real estate representative in• attendance at tne Chamber of Commerce meeting regarding home site real estate signs, small signs.ad~ertising the sale or rental of the property; that this had been discussed with Mr. Galen Moore at the previous public hearing of the Sign Ordinance~ secondly, the size of al, on-site real estate signs, not temporary tract signs, located on large acreage sites similar to potential industrial or commercial sitea in areas where the economy had~not as yei: been developed. This candition would require more than one sign of eight square feeto The legal staff was presently working on an addition br change to Section 18a62.020 (d) regarding the size of the sign being contingent upon the acreage involved, as well as the number of signs proposede ; r. ~: ' R+`''~ _..__._ -;~ - --------_ ' .. _.--.._._ ..._ - - - ---- _ ~ .,. , ;~;.,- ~ . - .:~ ~eA - - ------••-~ _ !~ . . . ._ . ~ ~ MINl1TFS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 25, 1964 ~~ 2115 SECTION 18a62 - The third problem Mra Roberts continued, was presented to the Commission ANAHEIM.nAUNICIPAL during their consideration uf a petition earlier in the public hearing CODE of today; namely, the Anaheim Bowl, such as flashing and rotating signs; (Continued) that Section 18.620170 referred to rotating and revolving signs; that a number of these rotating signs were not non-conforming, and as the pro- posed Ordinance read, "all rotating signs would be eliminated within one year", but some of the signs would be eliminated within a year, namely, those flashing, spot, flood, or bright illuminating signs which may have mirrors or aluminum upon which light is directed to reflect light to the surrounding areas, and since these signs might be affected by 210455 or e456 of the Vehicle Code, this being a basic reason for possible revision to this section of the proposed Sign Ordinance; and that the Commission might wish to consider further refining this section on rotating signs, namely, that "no rotating sign having ~ artificial light on the rotating portion shall be permitted within a 200-foot radius of such rotating sign where there exists within 200 feet of such rotating sign, a structure used exclusively for residential purposes". Mro Chavos then stated that 200 feet was insufficient since at a distance of 500 feet the sign was still clearly visible, and would continue to be a heaith hazard to the residents within this areae Mr. Roberts then stated if this proposed change was inadequate, a policy change would have to be made during the public hearing or during consideration at a work session as to how far.to.go on rotating signs of any type of artificial light, including artificial light which had a more diffusing quality than a spot or flashing sign. The faurth problem arising was flashing signs in which within a 200-foot radius of the flash- ing sign any residential structure existed, which had been discussed at the previous meeting with the representative of the Board of Realtors, at which a request to change it to R-1 was suggested, rather than residential purposes, since this would also include trailer parks. Mr. Roberts then suggested, in addition to Section 180620030, regarding flashing signs, the following should be added: "In no event shall flashing signs be erected in the City of Anaheim in which signs • using flood lights or spot lights are used"o Mr<-Roberts stated he and Chief Building Inspector Homer Wallace visited the Nabco Company at 1433 North Central Park Avenue, at which time Mro Art Showalter displayed their signs which were referred to as "shadowbox" signs; that 11-watt, clear-colored bulbs were used; that.the bulbs were placed in a circular pattern with an electrical apparatus to turn the bulbs on and off; that although these signs were considered flashing signs, they did not present the same problem as the competitor's which he also displayed in the room; these signs were similar to those erected at McClure's Mercury, the Swedish Smorgasbord, and Dell's which had arrows with 30-watt flood lights and aluminum or silver backing which gave a reflecting effect; that this gave a comparison of the intensity of the lights of Nabco and the competitors, and the present writing of the Code would not permit any type of flash- ing signs within 200 feet of residential structures; and that the only suggested revision to this section was to prohibit any flashing signs in close proximity to any residential purposeso Mr. Roberts than stated the Vehicle Co~e, 210456, states "anylight interfering with the eyes of a driver on a highway shall not be permitted"o The last and most difficult pr3blem, Mro Roberts stated; was•how•to handle the billboard ~' situation; that following the theory of the existing Ordinance of allowing billboards a little more than is allowed under the present Ordinance, by permitting their construction in aa.M-2 Zone by righi: and in the C-1, C-2, C-3, and M-1 Zones by conditional use permitj that under the present Code, no signs were allowed by right anywhere, except by filing an approval of a conditional use permit; that one change from the original draft was made, namely, that billboards were permitted in the R-A Zone, depending upon the subsequent devel- opment of that zonef that if development occurred within 200 feet around these signs, these signs would be required to be removed at the end of the amortization period of the sign at the time the billboard was permitted to be constructed, since t:~is was in conformance with the National Advertising case; that at a recent meeting held wi~h billboard ofiicials at the Chamber of Commerce, the Chamber of Commerce was rather critical of the approach of permitting by right billboards in the M-2 Zone, since very little M-2 property existed with- in the City; that the billboaid industry was being placed in a precarious position; that they di.d not like the conditional use permit approach since it was their feeling a standard should be written into the Ord3nance as to when a billboard was permitted in a given zone, since this v~ould indicate whether or not a billboard could be placed in a given area; that since the meeting with the Chamber of Commerce, the City Attorney's office had been discus- ` sing various alternatives,with the latest alternative being that a given business or par.cel ~ of land in the C-1, C-2, or C-3, and M-1 Zone would have certain aggregate sign area allowed to be used for on-site business signs, that upon the use of the sign area for these signs, ,I ~ '~,.._,_--- --- ~~ _. ..._^_~ ~ __ . _ .. _ _. _.. - ~ - ~ ~ MINUfES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 25, 1964 4 2116 SECTION 18062 - further signs might be classified as off-site signs within limitations ANAHCIM MUNICIPAL and would advertise i:he business on the property, or the space could be CODE leased for outdoor advertising, and that this would be up to the Commis- (Continued~- sion to decide an the type and size of si9n permissiblea ~ In response to Commission questioning, Mro Roberts stated he had met with the Chamber of Commerce and the representatives of the Real Estate Board, and that he had discussed with a number of people involved the drafting of various alternatives which the Commission might wish to considero Mra Carl Roe, 609 South C~rand Avenue, Los Angeles, California, representing the Western Oil and Gas Association, appeared before the Commission and stated most of the trade name•repre- sentatives in the City were members of their organization; that he also would like to have the Commission's continuance of the Sign Ordinance in order that he might be able to discuss the various problems presented with the divisions of his organization as he was not familiar with all facets of the Ordinan.e as it pertained to the gas and oil business; and that he would dike to participate in the study which the Chamber of Commerce and Board of Realtors proposed because of these aforementioned probiems. Commissioner Rowland left the Council Chamber at 5:08 poma Commissioner Gauer stated the Planning Commission had made every effort to improve service station standards within the City, but after viewing many service stations, signs had been located in the required planting areas on the corners, tires had been located; that other Cities, such as Beverly Hills, had streets on which a great deal of business was located, and very few signs were located there to display their merchandise in comparison to the number of signs displayed on Anaheim Boulevard, and these businesses were just as prosper- ous;.and,that sometimes the sign business could ruin the appearance and planning or a City b~ the promiscuous placing qf these signso Mro Roe then stated the regulations placed on the gas and oil business was probably brought on by themseives; that he did not bring up any questions at this time, but he hoped to obtain clarification of a variety of problems confronting him, such as, (1) under the proposed Ordinance were "fin" signs peimitted, which were attached to the pump islands or to poles - was this a free-standing sign or a projecting sign, and how would the Ordinance be adminis- tered regarding this?; ('2) the permitted areasof signs;that the Ordinance proposed the limitation of signs in all commercial zones through a formula permitting only a small sign; that he was concerned for the traffic safety involved with the oil industry, or any industry which obtained its business through the arrival of customers by way of automobile; that the proposed sign did not permit a motorist to locate the service he was looking for in time to decelerate his automobile to change lanes which would permit him to reach the area without having too much difficulty; and from the standpoint of public safety, the City should consider the problem of adequate advance warning to the motorist when he was looking for these serviceso Mr. Roberts then suggested that Mro Roe meet with him at the City Attorney's office to discuss the problems he was primarily concerned with and to present all evidence regarding the formula used to arrive at the size of signso Commissioner Rowland returned to the Council Chamber at 5:13 pomo Commissioner Chavos left the Council Chamber at 5:13 pamo Mra Walter Brooks, 2312 South Suzanna Street, Santa Ana, appeared before the Commissiorr and statad he represented the Southern California Electrica~ Sign Associatiorr Ordinance Committee; that the reason they had not appeared at a previous meeting was because of the fact they were at Sacramento regarding the display of highway signs; that the economics of the sign industry gave employment to many people in the City of Anaheim; that from the standpoint of esthetics, the designers, architects and draftsman for their industry were paid considerable salaries to maintain the esthetic compatability of the signs with the surrounding areasy that advertising was not sold from the standpoint of cost, but traffic circulation and demand; that one..industry in Anaheim designed and buiit all the signs for gasoline stations; that the proposed Ordinance considerably restricted an architect in his use of materials of any new signs proposed for Anaheim; that the electrical sign industry manufacturer was important to the economics•of the City; that the men of their industry participated in many City activities; and that it was their desire to ask the Commission to continue sub~ect Sign Ordinance hearing so that they might be able to contact the City's representatives regarding ttie proposed Ordinance, since by the proposed Ordinance, the electrical sign business would be greatly affected by its limi~ta- tions. ~ Commissiorier Chavos returned to the Council Chamber at 5s20 p,me Mr. Ed Cranan, Executive Secretary of the Southern California Electrical Sign Association, appeared before the Commission and stated that although the Commission had considered the Sign Ordinance at a previous public hearing~ because his organization was involved in the State sign law, they had been occupied with this problem at the State Capitol; that he was requesting the Commission censider continuance of the public hearing of the Sign Ordinance --------- --- --- --~_- ~ ..__. _.. .~ ; i ~ ~ MINUFES, CITY PLpNNING COMMISSION, May 25, 1964 ~ . 2117 SECTION 18.62 - until such time as he was able to contact the City Attorney's office ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL to work with the Chamber of Commerce, the Flanning Department, and. CODE members of industry, to work out ~ontinued the proposed Sign Ordinance for the~CitySOfhAnaheim; thatehis organiza- tion was in favor of a Sign Ordinance and were hopeful an Ordinance could be drafted which would be compatible to both the City and to the members of his associatione Mro Cronan further complimented the Planning Department and the City Attorney's office in their efforts to draft a Sign Ordinance, and expressed confidence in Mr, Roberts' ability to draft a 3ust and equitable Ordinance that would be acceptable to his association as well.as the Citya Mr. James Matkins, representing Foster and Kleisser, 1550 West Washington Boulevard, Las Angeles, appeared before the Commission and stated the bill Mro Brooks and Mre Cronan TEie2't@t~ t0 had met withptheaCity AttorneytstofficeWandDthe ChamberrofiCommerce,aandhsinceYthenhhadhe had little time in which to study the proposed Ordinance, and requested the Commission consider.his request for a continuation so that he migh~ present recommendations to the Commissione Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to continue the public hearing of the Sign Ordinance, Section 18.62 of the Anaheim Municipal Code to the meeting of July 20, 1964e Commissioner Camp seconded the motione MOI'ION CARRIEDo -.._.---r---- - -------_ ...._.._.._---__._._._____ _ .----•.------ 1 ~ . - ---- . . . ~ ~' ` ~ ~ • MINUfES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 25, 1964 2118 RESIGNATFqN OF - Chairman Mungall read a letter of resignation submitted by Commissioner COAM7ISSIONHR James Sides to the Commission. Je C..SIDES Commissioner Chavos expressed regret that Commissioner Sides would be unable to act as a member of the Commission and stated that he felt he was a]so expressing the general concensus of opinion of the Commissiort. Commissioner Gauer offered a Resolution of Appreciation, seconded by Commissioner Rowland as follows: RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION WHEREAS, James Ce Sides has served the City of Anaheim as a Member of the Planning Commission since March 25, 1963, and WFIERERS, his membership on the Planning Commission of f:he City of Anaheim complemented this group bf laymen in the performance of their duties, and WHEREAS, his resignation from the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim is being accepted kiy the Commiss:on with regret, and being forwarded to the City Council for further actiono NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that on behalf of the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, we do hereby express to James C, Sides our personal appreciation and gratitude and the appreciati~n and gratitude of the citizens and residents of the City of Anaheim for the outstanding services rendered during his tenure as a member of the Planning ~ommission; ~nd further express best wishes, good health, and continued success in all his future endeavorso BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution be spread upon the minutes of the City Planning Commission, and a copy be forwarded to James Ce Sides. The foregoing resolution is approved and signed this 25th day of May, 19640 /s/ Robert Wo Munaall CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ~s/ Melbourne Ao Gauer CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE /s/ Lenzi Allred COMMISSIONER s Horace Eo Camo COMMISSIONER U James Fo Chavos COMMISSIONER /s/ Herbert Perrv COMMISSIONER /s/ Dan Rowland COMMISSIONER Y ATTEST: Ls~ Ann KrPhc j SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ~ Gn roll call the foregoing Resolution of.Apprecia+ion; was duly~passed and adopted ' by the following vote: ;~ AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlanda NOES: CONVuIISSIONERS: None. ABSEIII': COMMISSIONERSs Pebley. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 4th day of June, 1964. Ls/ Ann Krebs SECRETARY ANAFIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ~"'. ~ MINUTES, CITY P~.HNNING COMMISSION, May 25, 1964 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. le RECOMMENDATIONS Lettersto the Commissiona 2119 A letter from Mro Joseph Nix, 528 Mancos Avenue, Anaheim, California, was re3d to the Commissione A letter received from Mrs. Ronald Lenc, 3312 West Glen Holly Drive, Anaheim, California, was read to the Commissiono Chairman Mungall directed the Commission Secretary to acknowledge the letters and file them.. ~' ITEM N0. 2. Conditional Use Permit Noo 422 - Robert Ro Dowling, et al, 15622 Placentia-Yorba Boulevard, Pla..entia, California - Property located on the south side of Placentia-Yorioa Boulevard, approximately 1,200 feet east of Dowling Street and proposed for subdivision into two-story multiple-family planned residential development with carports, and waiver of the one-story height limitationo Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the previous tract action on subject property, noting that the Conditional Use Permit Noa 422 approved development of a condominium on subject property, whereas the tract was proposing an R-3 subdivision tract, and since subject conditional use permit was no more apropos, it was recommended that the Commission recommend termination of such actiona Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noe 1178, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend to the City Council that Condi- tional Use Permit Noa 422 be terminated, and that all conditions apropos to the development of subject property be transferred to Reclassification Noo 62-63-1120 (See Resolution Booke) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the follo~ving votes AYESs COMMISSIOI~RS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonea ABSENT: COMMISSIONHRS: Pebleyo ITEM N0. 30 Conditional Use Permit No~ 549 - Orangethorpe Industrial Park, 420 Beverly Drive, Beverly Hills, California, Owners - Requesting approvai of revisF:d plans - Property located on the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue easterly of the railroad tracks in the M-1, Light Industrial and P-L, Parking Landscaping Zoneso Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt presented revised plans for the proposed office building on sub~ect property, noting that the proposed restaurant had been eliminated; that the City of Anaheim had received access rights to the west 100 feet of Lvt Noe 15 of Tract No. 4703; that the proposed revised plans indicated a lesser us~~ than was previously approved; that parking as proposed was in excess of the C-0 Zone requirement; and that conditions set forth in the'original resolution would be applicable to the proposed revision, and recommendations of approval for the revised plans were made. 1 ; t ~ ~ ~ Y r Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to approve Revision Noo 1, Exhibit Nosa 1, 2, and 3 of Conditional Use Permit No. 549o Commissioner Perry seconded the motione MOTION CARRIEDe ' ITEM N0. 4. Request of the City Council regarding a study of the existing non-conforming uses within the Citv of Anaheimo Zoning ~oordinator Martin Kreidt presented to the Commission 16 parcels of property being presently utilized as non-conforming uses within the City of Anaheim in various zones, and recommended to the Commission these be set for public hearinga Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to request that the Planning Department set for public hearing properties located at the northwest corner of Orange Avenue and Knott A.venue, the northwest corner of Ball Road and Knott Avenue, the southwest corner of Ball Road and Knott Avenue, 7341 West Lincoln Avenue, ; the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Western, the southwest corne•r of Lincoln Avenue t--~._.._. _~_ V~_' --_ _ _ _ _. ~ - • ~' • I ~ i ___ -- _ _ . ~ ___.~~_..... _ l-~ ~ ~ MINUfES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 25, 1964 2120 ~ REPORTS AND - ITEM NOo 4(Continued) RECOMIu~NDATIONS and Western, the southwest corner of Orange Avenue and Western, the northeast corner of Ball Road and Knott Avenue, the southeast corner of Bail Road and Knott Avenue, the southwes~ corner of Ball Road and Western Avenue, the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Gilbert Street, 3130 West Lincoln Avenue, 3132 West Lincoln Avenue, the northeast corner of Ball Road and Western Avenue, the southeast corner of Western Avenue and Ball Road, and 911 Nortki Brookhurst Street, for the meeting of June 15, 19646 Coramissioner Gauer seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDe AA70URNMENf - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to adjourn the meetingo Commissioner Camp seconded the•~notiono MOTION CARRIEDo The meeting adjourned at 5:35 o'clock P,Me __. Respectfully submitted, -~~~2~~2~ j~''G~4/ ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim Planning Commission . .... "'_'_"~_~_` .~_""_"._..__..""_..._.__""'_'"._..."""" ._... ._..,__.._,_.~."'"__'__' _""'_"'_.'...'_'_._........ . -_ _y~ • ( ~ /I