Loading...
Minutes-PC 1966/07/06, ., ~ ro~ I ~ 1' I H ~ ~ ~ ~ H I' ~ ~ ' H ' ' ' °z ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ , ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ , rn , ~ ~ ~ c~ i ; ~ i ~ i ~ f ~ i N ~ ~ i p~ f ~ p~ f( f f ~,i .. __ ~ . . i ~ _. ,~ .. } ~T"`__ ~~•~,=.< ~.~.,..~,.~=:,., . ...,~.:~~-~^ - ^ ~,. _.,...m--,. ._ ,..,._...,,.,,~ _ ... .. ~f~~r_ , ~ .~ City Hall ~ Anaheim, Caiifornia July 6, 19ob A i REGULAR MEETING JF THc ANAHEIM ;ITY PLANNING COMMISSION i RcGULAR MEETING ` - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Piannino Commission w to order by Cnai:man pro tem Pe.rr bei as cailed y at 2:00 o'clock P.M,, a quorum ng present, PRESE~T - CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: P erry. - COM1v]ISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, f+~u noali, Rowland. ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: 411red, Camp, PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Uirector: Robert Mickels Zoning Supervisor: cn Deputy City Attorney: Ronala Thompscn Office Engineer: Furman Roberts Associate Plar,ner: Arthu* Daw planning Commissicn Secretar ~ Jack Christofferson Y Ann Krebs INVOC;ATIUN - Reverend L. R. Lash, Fastor of St_ a ?aul's P:PSOyterian Church PLEDGE OF g ve the Invocation~ , ALLEGIANCE - Com~?ssioner Perry led the Pledge ~; of 411egiance to the 30~ ?PPROVAL OF THE ~UI!4UTES - The i~l:nutes of the meeting of June 2(', i966 were a , oprovEd 3, sucrri t±eo RECLASSIFICATION - CO!QTINUED PUBLIC H'r'ARI~G. TED ~Rt~M.AN, Box 3303. .0.r,aheim, Ca;i'c:n~a. NO_ 65-65~106 _ Uwner; ROBERT H4SL.ER, 153i4 Caneiones Drive, Nacienda regq~t~. ' California, Agent; req~esting that prope-±v described as~: 4 rect3ngu•- larly shaped parcel of i3nd with a irontage of :poroxim:tely 60 fee+ ' on the west side of ~Liagnolia /~ver.ue and havino a maximum depth of approxi;r,ateiy i20 Feet, -_ the southern boundary of subject property being approxima±ely 233 feet. nor±h o~ the cen±e:- line of Ball Road, and further dascribed as 919 South Magnolia Avenue, be recins~ified from the R-1, ONE•-F.4MI;Y RESIDcNTIA1., ZONc to the C-1, GENEP..41 CO!JN!EP.CI4i. %u'Jr. Subject petition was continued trom *he meetings of ;Vay 9 ar.d J~~ne 6, 1906, to ;::~w ±::~,F for the sta`f to meet with the p:ope:ety owners and to dete:m~ne wh:t .action h.,± oeer. ±aker by the City Council regar~'ing a simiiar zoning action on hlagnoii.a Avenue Ivo one appeare~d to represent ihe petitioner~ Zonir.c, Superv~sor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission tnat the City Council had ~, continuea their consideration of a similar zoning request on Maonoiia Avenue to the I meeting of Ju1y 26, 1906, in order *_nat a plan uf developmen± indicatino second~ry access and a reduction of the ingress and eqress to properties between Rome .4vern~e and "rali Road on the west side of Magnolia Avenue might be presented. Commissioner Gzuer of;ered a motion to continue public heariny or. Reclassification ~ ~lo. 55-66-106 to the meeting of August i, 1966, in order th~t the Commission mioht *_ake ~ the City Council's action on a similar ~oning action into consideration~ Comrr,issioner Mungall seconded the motion. t~70TIGN CARRIED. i CONJITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HrARING. EDWARD E, STABILE, 3229 IJorth Hoyt, c; !~~~r;~A PERMIT N0, 857 Owner; HENRY LUCERO, 2424 Moreton, Torrance, California, Agent;Creouest13~ ir,g permission to ESTABLISN A WALK-UP RESTAUR4NT on oropert}~ described as: 100 .eet on the northrside.of~Ball Roadeandahavingfalmaximumrde t~~ofaae of aporox_mateiy the westerly boundary of subject property bein a p PProxima~el;- l0o fee±, line ~f Magnolia Avenue, and further describedgasp2569,VJest1Ba194Roadt epst of the center•- classified C-1, GENERAL COPdMERCIAL, ZONE, roperty presently ~' I Mr. Edward Stabile, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed 1 action on subject property which was denied 'oy the Commission and Counc:l, ~nd thenvreviewed ~ * the proposed establishment of a Taco Beil waik-up restaurant on subject prooerty. Vtx ~ :~, , 3095 ~ ..~ MINUTES, CITY PLANA?NG CUb7MISSION, July 6, 1966 3096 CONDITIONAL USE - Mra Stabile, in response to Commission questioni.ng, stated that the PERMIT N0. 857 existing structure would be removed. (~ontinued) The Commission advised the petitioner that any action taken by the Commission did not automatically approve the sign proposed for the development. Mro Russo, representing the Taco Bell Comnany, appeared before the Commission and stated the proposed sign would be in conformance with the Sign Ordinancee Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission the sign proposed was not analyzed since a waiver from the Sign Ordinance had not been requested; therefore, the petitio~er would have to comply with the Siqn Ordinance requirements. No one appeared in opposition to subje~t petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOScD. Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC66-1 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 857, subject. to conditions, and furthermore requiring that all signs shall be in conformanr,e with the Sign Ordinance. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoin9 resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Perry. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMIS:,IONERS: Allred, Camp. VARIANCE NU. 1805 - PUb~?C HEARING. N:ILLIAM C. 0'REILLY, 3610 North Harbor Boulev2rd, Fullerton, Calirornia, Owner; JAMES K. SCHULER, 914 East Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to waive: PORTION 1-(1) ~~1INIMUM SITc AR~A, (2) i::Il7I~:~1Li~ SIDc YF.~D SET~i;CK, /,IdD (3) 6-FOOT ~viF,SONRY WALL; PORTIUN 2- TO PERMIT A PARKING LOT AS A PRIMARY USE on property described as: Portion 1- A rectangularly shaped parcel situated at thc southwest corner of Santa Ana ~ Street and Harbor Boulevard and 'naving frontages of approximat<ly 163 feet on Santa Nna _, Street and approximately 130 feet on Harbor Boulevard; Portion 2- An irre9ularly shaped _ parcel of land lying south and east of a parcel of land (approximately 28 feet by 117 feet) situated at the southeast corner o; Santa Ana Street and Harbor Eoulevard and havingfrontages of approximately 76 feet on Santa Ana Street and approximately 78 feet on Harbor Boulevard. CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY: Portion 1- R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZOIvE, and Portion 2- R-2, MULTIPLE-FAPdILY RESIDENTIAL, ZOIJE. Mr. James Schuler, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and indicated :hat the colored rendering submitted with the peti*.ion w~uld be basically what was proposed for subject property, Mr. Schuler also reviewed the types of materials being proposed for tile office development. Mr. Schuler then noted that waiver of the setback along the south property line was based on the fact that the properties to the south would even±~ially develop for commercial office use and would, in all probability, buiid to the property line as well; furthermore, a number of leasing prospects had signed, subject to approval of the City, and finzncinq aas available. The Commission inquired of the petitioner what was proposed for the property along the e~st side of Harbor Boulevard, whereupon Mr. Schuler stated that underground parking was provided for prospective clients of the lessees, and the parking for employees would be located on the east side of Harbor Boulevard. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson, in response to Commission questioning, stated that there was adequate parking based on four parking spaces per 1,000 on C-0 parking. No one aopeared in opposition to subject petition. '! ~ ~ R .f;t THE HEARING WAS CLOSL•D. Mr. Thompson also noted that an Area Development Plan No. 16 had been approved for subject properties, and, therefore, the waiver ~f the 20,000 square foot minimum site area was un- necessary. . ~ 4 ~ f ' - ~ ~ MINU7ES, CITY PLANNIh3 COMMISSION, July 6, 1966 j 3097 ~ VARIANCE N0. 1805 - The Commission inquired of the agent for the petitioner whether he ! (Continued) would stipulate to dedication of an irrevocable offer for the alley i and a bond for al~.ey improvement at this time, whereupon Mr. Schuler ~ stated he would stipulate to those conditions. ; Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution PC66-2 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for VariancF P~o. 1805, subj=r.t to ~ conditions and the finding that the pet~tioner stipulated to an irrevocable o.fer of dedication for the alley and a bond for alley improvement. (See Resolution Book.) , Gn roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by tha following vote: ^'~~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer. i-lerbst, Mungall, Rowland, Perry. '~ NOES: C~14MISSIONERS: None. ?~ ABSENT: COM:i~4ISSI0NcRS: Allred, Camp. :. ^~ VARINNCE N0. 1806 -?UdLIC HEARINC.. ROSS D. MURO, 207~ South Daisy, Santa f;na, Californiz, Owner; STA;JLE`.' L. ROSE[4, 318 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, ~ A9ent; reou=sting permission tc ESTABLISH A MEDICAL OFFICE I;d ~, Si:JGLt- i - FAMILY RESIDcNCE on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel situated at the ~.{ northwest corner of South Street ard State College coulevard and having fronta es of a roxi- 'i mately 92 feet on South Street and approximately 50 feet on State Colle9e ~oulevard, P d ~ further described as 733 South State Colle9e Boulevard. Proo=rty presently classified ~ R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDEiJTIAL, ZONE. ~~~ ~~'~r. Stanley Rosen, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission ~nd r?vieweo I tne proposed use of subject prooerty, stating that the reason the variance procedure was used was because the proposed lessee of the residence had a iive-year lease; that the lease i was given because, in ali probability, that portion of State College 3oulevard woulo be developed commercially within the next five years; that it was difiicult to lease the home ' for residential purposes because of heavy traific; and that he had discussed with the~djoi:~- ing n2ighbor tne construction of a six-;oot m~sonry wal' on his proper.ty - however, ~he neighoor did not want this wall on his property and ~: ad inst=ad ihat it be constrLCted ~ on subject property. _, Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompso~ advised the Comrnission that t:ie Trafiic cngineer w~s _ relucta~t te permit a curb cut adjacent to an alley since this presented a traf:ic hazard, i .,j iuir. Rosen tnen stated that less parking was needed for the chiropractor because ne gave •! 1=ngthy treatments, whereas a oral medical office had man ,j ge~- y patients oer ho~ro , Mr. Thompso^ tnen stated that the plans had been reviewed at the Interdepartm=n~a1 Commit~ee for Public Safety end General Welfare; that a masonry wall was usually reuuired where com- '~ mercial property adjoined residential property since this was for the protection o: the ~ residents; that the City did not want a wall in the public riqht-of-way since the Ci•:y ~, would 'nave to maintain the wall; tnat ii the wall wei, placed on tne west=rly boundary of ; subject property, th:s =educed the usability of the property for commercial purposes; ~nd r~ , tnat this was the reasor, the staff recommended that the wall be placed on the west sioe °,J i of th= a11ey on the R-1 property. ~ Ueputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commi.ssion that the wall could be requireo on the property to +~e west of the alley; however, tne wall coUld be considered waived I E~ if the property owner aid not, within a specified 1=ngth of time, request tne wall to Ue construct?d o~ his property. ~; Mr. Rosen then stated that since this was only an interim use of the pro ert rezoni ; seemed to be unnecessary, ana that in the event the property was to be used for eanmercial i purposes, the structure could be removed and replaced with a regular commercial structure. Mre Thompson sta~ed that if subject prope:ty were ~oned comme:cially, a wall would be i required and would have to be stepped down in the front yard setback of the adjoining . ~ property to the westo Discussion was the.~ held by the Commission r~s to the methods of ingr~ss and egress, as we:l as parking iu: the proposed ~se of subject property. .;; ` The Commission also noted that granting a varianc> for a specific use of property had not been granted by the Commission for several years, and that the petitior.er had ~~ot proven , a hardship existed in the use of the property to warrant grantina a variance in an area ~ ~ developed with very nice homes - thus it could be said a hardship was bei~g granted on 'I ~ the adjoining homes, not on subject pr~perty. , E~ i f . _ ~ -'~ i - ~ - -- - . , ~. E i ~. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 6, 1966 3098 ' VARIANCE NOe 1806 - Mr. Rosen stated he had discussed the proposed procedure to use for (Continued) subject property - both a variance ar.d a reclassification - and it was his opinion that since the use was only interim, the variance was ~. the only method available; furthermore, if traffic ccntinued to i~crease r on State College Soulevard, the entire area would deteriorate and would become the same as the east side of the street in which many commercial structures have now been builto Commissioner Gauer was of the opinior that no one had yet made an attempt to utilize the ', homes by placin9 a masonry wall in tne front yard and converting the front yard into a patio area, and this had been done in many cities in California where tracts were developed , along arterial highways. 1';;R'~~ Two letters from adjoinin9 property owners requesting that the peti~ioner provide ade~uate ~ • parking, a six-foot masnr~ry wall on his property, and adequateaccess to and from his property; ~: ~ rather than using the alley for access purposes if subject petition was approved, were read ;3 to the Commission. ~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. j Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution ?C66-3 and moved for its passage and adoption, ~ seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to deny Petition for Variance iJo. 1806 on the basis that the request for commercial use of the property was being requested under the wrong type `I~ of procedure; that the commercial use of subject property would have a deteriorating effect on the residential integrity of the adjoining property; that adequate protection was not 1 being provided to maintain this residential integrity; and tnat the use would be deleterious `~J to the area. (See Resolution Book.) 1 On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ NYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, h1unga1l, Rowland, Perry. NOES: COMMISSIONeRS: None. ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONE~S: Allred, Camp. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HcARING. RINKER DcVELOPMENT CORPCRATION, 10_;~0 Katella Avenue, N0. 65-67-1 Anaheim, California, Owner; property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land of approximately 22 acres; subject pFOperty is -• VARIANCE N0. 1804 bounded on the north by Orcrtard Drive and has a maximum depth of approxi- - mately 810 feet, the southerly boundary being approximately 1,100 feet TENTATIVE ;dAP OF north of the centerline of Orangethorpe Avenue, and further described as TRACT N~. 4241 the Rinker Nnnexation. Prc~erty presently classified R-k, hGR?CULTU~AL, ZONE. i ~ RtQUcSTED CLASSiFICATIOti: R-2, hAULTIPL~-FAN~ILY RESIDtDJTIAL, ZOfJE. ~ ~ REQUESTcD VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF: (1) MINIMUM REQUIP,ED LOT AREh, (2) MINIMUI~1 L~7 WiDTH, (:i) MINIh1UM FP.ONT SET9ACK~ ANG (4) MINIMUM REVtnSrD COR~JcR iUT WIDTH. Ti.NTATIVE TRACT: Located north of Orangethorpe Avenue and west of Orchard Dr:•,;e - i property known as the Rinker knnexation, containing 18.71 acr-s, is I proposed fo.r subdivision into 96 R-2 Zoned lots for developn: t with single-;amily homes. Mr. Walter ~rome, representing the Rinker Development Corporation, appeared before ~.he~ Commission .: •' review?d the proposed developme~t, noting that prior to.annexation •.~ tne City some years Nreviously, the Rinker Development Corporation had met with the rl~o~ Control District and the Orange County Planning Department, as well as Butler };arbc~ur Corporation, regarding the difficulty in developing sub`.:t property, and frori that meet- ing the Orange County Planning staff had acknowledged a hardship existed as fzr as develoo- ment of subject property was concerned, and, therefore, stated tney would be willing to entertain a possible classificatic~ to PD5400, or eight units per acre, for subject proper:.,~, and that since that time, subject and adjoining property owned by Butler Harbour had been ann=xed ir.to the City; that problems x•elative to drainaae and flood control had baen dis- cussed and worked out with the Flooci Control District; and that the proposed st~'udivision wou?d be similar to that already approved by the Commission on property to the west, known as the Schoeoe property. ~~~ The Commission noted the tract street designated as Glenview f;venue did not align properly with the adjoining property to the southwest, or Tract No. 5990. ~ ' * Mr. Frome, in reply, stated that Butler Harbour Corporation had given him authority to _~ ,,,~ si te tney would align Tract No. 5990 with the street in Tract No. 4241 if subject petitions ,•~ were aoproved. f ; 1. MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 6, 1966 3099 RECLASSIFICATIODI - Mr, Frome also stated that considerable success had been experienced N0. 66-67-1 by the tract to tht southwest since opening their models, and there seemed to be a need for the proposed type of development. VARIANCE N0. i804 The Comrnission noted for Mr. Frome's benefit that the Orange County 'TENTATIUE MAP OF Flood Control District had made several suggestions relative to the TRACT N0. 4241 manner of handling overflow. of water, and the reasons for it. (Continuedl !~lr. Frome, in response to Commission questioning, stated that of the 24 acres under development by the property owner, 1.2 acres were donated for flood control purposes in the Orange County Flood Control District, and that it would cost considerably to dispose of the water down into Glenview Avenue ar~d then route it through the Butler Harbour property. Commissioner Herbst inquired why the developer was not proposiny 7,200 square foot lots, whereupon Mr. Frome stated that the County at a previous consideration had recognized the fact that because of water drainage problems, a hardship would exist on development of these parcels - therefore they had given a higher density for the land; th~t the questions of economics was involved, and the economical cost oi the water problem made it necessary to develop subject property for 5,000 square foot 1ots; and th~t since the adjoining property being developed by Butler Harbour was already approved for the sGme type of 5,000 square foot lots, and the proposed st:eets from both developments would be a logi.cal extension, the proposed 5,000 square foot lots would tt;en be comparable to that already approved. ~'~ ` S . Ej ~ , ~i ~ i ~~ ~ s R ~ ~ '~ ' ~ ,_ v The Commission also noted that with the terrain to the north oeing quite steep, it wo~ld be more proper to have the proposed cul-de-sacs on Streets "C" and "D" redesigned to permit actual :rontage lots around the cul-de-sac, rather than siding-on as presently proposed,since it had been determined that or, previous tracts apQroved, this was not the most feasible way of developing cul-de-sac streets. h1r. Cal Queyrel, engineer of the proposed tract, appeared before tne Commission and stated the cul-de-sac was designed to provide for run-off from the st=ep slopes to the north; that old Orchard Drive along the north boundary had bee~ abandoned, and that after ois- cussion with Mr. Frome in the interest of compromise, the developer would be willing to redesign one of the streets rather than both of the streets because of the engineering problem developing in the run-off of water. The Commission noted that if one street could be develooed that way, another street could also be developed that a~ay. THE HcFRING WAS CLOSED. Office Engineer krthur Daw advised tne Commission that rather than continuing subject petitions and tract, it might be well to make this a requirement of the approval of the tract, and any final tract would have te indicat? the redesigning of tne cul-de-sacs to permit devalopment of lots around said cul-de-sacs. Commissio~er Rowland offered Resolucion PC66-4 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded uy Co~nmissioner Perry, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclas- sification No. 66-67-1 be approved, subject io conditions. (See Resolution 3ook.) On ro11 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COM~v1ISSIU,JtRS: Gaue*, Mungall, Rowland, Perry. NUES: COMMISSIOD:ERS: Herbst. ABSENT: COG'L4IISSIO;~ERS: Hllred, Camp. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution PC6G-5 and moved for its passage ar.d adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to grant Petition for Variance i~o. 1804, sub;ect to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: HYES: COM~9ISSIONERS: Gauer, Munga;l, Rowland, Perry. NOES: COMMISSIONER:i: Herbst. ABSENT: COMMISSIONcRS: Allred, Camp. Commissioner Rowland, in approving subject petition, stated that similar requests were granted on the property to the southwest; therefore, the waiver requests were in coniorm- ance with a similar development. t MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION, July 6, 1966 3100 RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of N0. 66-67-1 Tract No. 4241, subject to the following conditions: TRACT N0. ~241 (Continued) 2. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 4241 is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 66-67-1 ar.d Variance No. 1804. VARIANCE N0. 1804 1. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub- division, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative TENTATIVE MAP OF form for approval. 3. That a revised tentative map of Tract No. 5990 be approved by the City of Anaheim to coordinate the alignment of Glenview Avenue and the Flood Control right-of-way prior to the approval of the final map of Tract No. 4241. 4. That the design and improvement of the Flood Control right-of-way shall be approved by the Orange County Flood Control District and the City Engineer. 5. Th~t the Placentia ~r,ified School District be contacted to provide a standard street section for Glenview Avenue. The final desi9n shall be approved by the City Engineer. 6. That the final design of "B" Street shall be approved by the City Engineer. 7. That Tract No. 42~a1 shall be developed concurrent with or after Tract No. 6286. 8. That the odd-shaped parcel at the southwest corner of the tract shall be designated as Lot "A", and noted on the final map as "Not a Buildable Lot". 9. That Streets "C" and "D" shall be shortened to permit lots to be developed adjacent to the tract's northerly boundary, as st9.pulated Uy the developer, with the final design of the streets subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 10. That Street "B" shall be named Plaza Circle; that Street "C" shall be named Cymbal Place; that Street "D" shall be named Cornet Place; that Street "E" shall be named Garland Lane; and that Street "F" shall be named Glenview Circle. 11. That on each lot in the proposed subdivision(s) snall be con- structed only one detached, single-family dwelling unit with accessory buildings in accordance with Section 18.28.020(a). * Commissioner Perry seconded the m~tion. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Herbst voted "No". AMENDMENT TO ANAFieIM - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANfdING COMMISSION, 204 tast MUNICIPAL CODE Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, to consider an addition to Title 18, Zoning, entitled Chapter 18.65, Regulations foi ~he Storage of Camp Cars, Trailers, Boats, and Other Commercial Vehicles~ Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts noted that the representative of the Traile= Coach Associatio~ who had asked that he be considered at a later meeting was present and wished to address the Commission for comments regarding the proposed amenament. Mr. Frank Schilling, representing the Trailer Coach Association, appeared before the Commission and stated that he was aware of the growing problem throughout :'~~~ country regarding the oarking and storing of trailers and camp cars - hcwever, certain court actions in several states had taken place, and the problem had become more significant; that 300,000 trailers had been sold in the United States last year;and that the recreational vehicle owner mioht have a problem in parking his vehicle in the rear yard be~ause there was no secondary access. Mr. Sch.illing then reviewed excerpts from the letter which he had sent to Mr. Roberts, as well as quotes from court opinions in the States of New York and California. ~ ; MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 6, 1966 3101 ` AMENQNENT TO ANAHEIM - The Commission inquired of Mr~ Schilling whether or not he had MUNICIPAL CODE copies of the zonirtg codes on which these court opinions were . (Continued) based in order to make a comparison with the City of Anaheim ; zoning codes, because if no zoning code ordinance was available, the comparison could not be made, and the court opinions were of little value. Mr. Schilling stated he had no zoning ordinances to verify the court opinions; however, he was concerned about what would happen if the propo~>ed ordinance was passed v~here an entire street of residences had trailers in their fr~nt yards - would they be penalized even thou9h no complaint was made, and could an automobile parked in the front setback ~•;~ be considered a violation. `f The Commission stated that in all probability the street on which a11 residents had ~~~ trailers in th?ir front yards would be in violation - however, if no complaint had been 1 made, tnere was little likelihood enforcement of t~e code would be made. Furthermore, ~; the driveways of the various homes were built to accommodate automobiles, but not the i ~ stora9e of trailers, cement mixers, trucks, etc. ~{ ;i Mr. Schilling then stated he felt the ordinance was discriminatin9 against certain tyoes i~~ of vehicles; furthermore, many people were unable to gain access to their rear properties t~• to store ine vehicles. E. .I ~~ The Commission felt it was also a hardship on property owners who had spent money and ~, effort in maintaining their front yards to have undesirable trailers, trucks, etc., parked ~`I on the street or in front yard setbacks, thus reducing the value and beauty oi thein c~mes, ond th~`. the proposed ordinance had been brought before the Commission because of tne many ~~ complaints made by property owners who objected to the undesirable appearance of the front ri yards in their neighborhoods - also t"ese presented a hazard in trying to see around the large vehicles when leaving their garages or driveways. ~t ~i The Commission also noted that in tne past year the State had aporoved a trailer and boat storage area on West Lincoln Hvenue which was acclaimed by many as a solution to the exist- ` ing problem; that the situation of parking these vehicles was becoming more critical after ~i reviewing the figures of the sales of boats, trailers, and campers; and that tne si~uation ; would become worse rather than better, and some means was now tiecessary to protect people I who did not own these facilities and who did not want them parked in the street where they ~'-1 were visible to friends and business associates. ~. i `' Nir. Gene Vandruff, 1430 Westmont Drive, appeared before the Commission and stated that ~i although ne had a trailer and could well afford to store it, there was more involved than , the cost of storage: 1. ?~he proposed ordinance represents the loss of an inherent use of the property since no city had freedom from this type of problem or complaint which could not be eliminated by regulations since there were so many ordinances that could not be enforced without making ?iving in the City of Anaheim alrnost impossible; that if this means of regulation were adopted to prohibit the parking or storing of the campers in the front yard setbacks, the ordinance would be dif~icult to enforce or interpret; that this might be the first step in further regulations, and 'ne could not foresee where the City would stop in considering the various complaints made by property owners; that the only thing that seemed to be of the gravest concern was the esthetic values to regulate the parking or storir.g of trailers - however, he felt neiohbors must learn to live together, even thovgh things may be offensive to them; and that this would be an iniringement on t:~e freeciom of use of the property. 2. Additional cost to the people owning the tiailers end storage space - which would be in addition to their sales tax and license fee, since Mr. Schilling had quoted a cost of $120 to $240 per year for the storage of the vehicles, and this amount was sometimes more than a;amily spent on a vacation. 3. Thac elderly people would also be affected because they generally have the camoer on the back of a truck and use it for means of transpoztation, as well as using it for traveling purposes. 4. This ordinance might force people to leave the City of Anaheim for towns which were less restrictive. ~~' 5. Storing traiiers off the premises would discourage keeping a trailer. ~ MINU7ES, CITY PLANNING COM~ISSION, July 6, 1966 3102 AMENDM~NT TO ANAHFIM - Commissioner Gauer stated he did not feel the storag~ of camp cars MUNICIPAL CODE off-site the premises wo~l~d discoura~e the ~se of the camp car=_ (Continued) since residents of Leisure Worid and La Paz Trailer. Park on Orange- thorpe Avenue in Anaheim aid not seem to be discouraged f.FOm use of their camp cars if they had to pa~,k them off the premises. Mr. Vandruff stated that the proposed ordinance would create additiona' cost to the City for~enforcement purposes. Mr. Roberts made the statement that some of the interestied persuns may not have received , a copy oi the o:dinance, and if anyone was desirous of p'otaining a copy tor re:erence purposes when the proposed ordinance was considered 5e*ore the City Coun~il, he should F~ "'~~ leave his name and address v,:•ti the Commission Secretary. ~ ;s , 4i Mr. Roberts then inquired of Mr. Vandruff whether he was opposed to the entire proposed ordinance or only with the storage of camp trailers since the ordinance proposed to pro- ~'i hibit commercial vehicles, boats, etc. Mr. Vandruff stated he was opposed to the statement prohibiting storaqe of campers in the front yard as an infringement of one's inherent rights. Commissioner Rowland reviewed the requirements of the zoning code in which front yards and side yards were defined, and the basic reason for providing the front and side yard was to allow light, air ~nd ventilation, and by storing these large campers, etc., one would deprive a neighbor of his rights at the time he purchased his home; that the zoning code did not permit an~ type of construction in the front yard setback, and a vehicle stored in the front yard area, altho»gh not permanently established there, was similar to having a structure in the front yard area, thus depriving the neighbor of the rights granted 'nim by the zoning code. Mr. Don Marshall, 237 Brentwood Place, appeared before the Commission and stated 'ne was one of the unofficial complainznts of camp trailers parked in the front yard setback; that he was in the real estate business in the City, and every time he drove a prospective . purchaser of a home on a street within eyesight of a trailer, the prospect immediately murmered "oh no! not a trailer!"; that he had listed a home worth $30,000 which could not ~ be sold because the adjo~ning property owner had both a trailer and a boat which overlapped ~ into this property owner s front yard setback and made it totally impossible to attempt to 9et interested persons in the purchase of the property; that he resided on a street with _ 17 homes on which only one trailer anci boat were located, and all the neighbors had com- plained regarding tne trailer and boat parked in this area; that he and his neighbors had dis~ussed this situation with various members of the City, as well as the City Attorney, in oraer to establish some kind of enforcement of the Anaheim Municipal Code, and the storage of trucks and vehicles in the yard could be compared to the City asking its employees to ~rive home City cars and park them in their driveways, rather than spending money for a parking lot for ihe City vehicles; that he had formerly owned a trailer which he kept down ~ along the Colorado River and paid a storage fee of $7.50 a month, and whenever he went down ` to the river, he loaded his supplies in the car rather than bringing back the trailer and loading it; that he was unalterably opposed to the storage or parking of trailers in the ~ front yard because this heavy type of equipmeni was obstructive to the view of aryone, both I in driving and walking, and if a man could afford an $8,000 trailer, he could also afford to purchas? a home on which adequate space was available to store the trailer according to I code requirements without creating a hardship on his neighbors. ~ Mr. Tom Atkinson, 830 Soutli Olive Street, appeared before the Comnission and stated he was ~ an owner of a trailer - however, he could not park his trailer in the rear of his yard because ~ his home was located to the rear of the property; that because of the South Street school he was unable to gain access to the rear property due to the fencin9 of the school; that he had ; built a 14-foot drive in order that all persons using the driveway could see any obstruction ~ around t~e trailer; that he had an agreement with his neighbor relative to the parking of ' his trailer; that he was 100;d disabled and part of his rehabilitation program was utilizing i his trailer to go various places and take pictures; that he had considerable money invested in his camera equipment which, of course, he could not leave in the trailer if it were . parked on a commercial lot; that the last time he had appeared in opposition to ar.ything before the City was at the time two-story apartment buildings were constructed in the single- family residential ar~a alon9 the front lot line; that he and his neighbor were the only ones who still have maintain~d their homes in the setback area which was approximately 65 feet , from the property line; that although he had a 9-foot space between hi• home and the neioh- bor s fence, it would be rather difficult to maneuver an 8-foot wide trailer into that space, ' thus depriving his neighbor of the privacy he needed by the construction of the fence; that _, in order to gain access to the rear portion of the property, he would have to remove two ~. beautiful t*e_s which, in his estimation, would be much more detrimental than the parking ~ of his trailer; and that althou9h he o~vned a$4,000 trailer and his own home, it would be i difficult for him to relocate in a home which had adequate facilities for parking of the 1 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 6, 1:66 3103 AMENDMENT TO ANAHEIM - trailer because he was on a disability pension, and there were MUNICIPAL CODE times when he could barely meet the tax ?xp~nse. (Continued) In response to Mr. Roberts' questioning, Mr. Atkinson stated that he was opposed to any regulations relative to camp cars and trailers , in the front setback and would not express an opinion on the oarkin9 of the other vehicles in the front setback areas. Mr. William James, 1582 Lorane Way, appeared before the Cor,unission and first :hanked Mr. Roberts for submitting the proposed ordinance to him; that he originally intended , to attend the meeting to oppose the proposed ordinance on the ground that it would be .~~~ a serious erosion of personal liberties and rights within reason to use one's own property; ; however, he was amazed that only one industry association appeared before the Commission, !~ , but no representatives of the trade, press, or voice of the trailering public were present, 'g evidently not feeling there was any interest in this proposed ordinance. Furthermore, in il' answer to Commissioner Gauer's statement, he was to take issue in the statement that the trailer owners would be discouraged in use of their vehicles if they had to park them on , other property; that this would create an er,tirely new business within the confines of the City, and all vacant properties not zoned or developed would refuse to sell, and, in his opinion, converting these vacant lots to the storage of trailers would be more detrimental . than the parking of them in the private drives. Furthermore, the statement made by Mr. Marshall that he had stored his trailer along the Colorado River brought to mind many of his friends who stored their trailers at Ensenada and drove down to Ensenada - a four- hour drive - to brin9 their tra~lers to the house in order to pack and take a trip; that he was not opposed to an ordinance that would prohibit the storage of unsightly vehicles, unsight.ly trash, etc., but he dici not consider a travel trailer worth between $1,500 to $8,00() a; unsightly; that he had a representative of the National Campers and Hikers Associition visit him, who thought he lived in an exclusive neighborhood, and that on his street were twelve homes, with two campers at the end of the street. Pdr. James, in response to questioning by Mr. Roberts, stated he wouid be opposed to storage or parking of the camper unit when it was removed from the truck since this would 'oe an undesirable parking of an immovable vehicle; furthermore, it should be stored in the garage ~ similar to commercial vehicles and buses, and that the length of the mobile home would pre- ciude the parking of it in th~ street or in the driveway because ii would overizo into the ~ public right-of-way. It was also noted by Mr. James that the only time the heavy grader ! which was parked in the side yard of a neighbor was offensive was when the vehic!e was _, started in the early hours of the morning. Mr. Jack Lampert, 1207 East Orangegrove, Orange, appeared before the Commission and stated he owned propcrty at 526 West Chestnut Street, which was an eight-unit apartment, an~ h?s complaint was the storage of tow-trucks in a residential area which were summoned ir, the middle c: the niqht and disrupted the rest of the residents of the apartments, and that at the present time there did not seem to be any ruling regulating the sto:age of these trucks in a residential area, and, in his opinion, should 'oe prohibited. A showing of hands indicated seven persons present in opposition and six persons in favor of the propo~ed amendment to the Anaheim Municipal Code. Chairman F.ro tem Perry stated that after considerable evidence had been heard, the Commission was atteroNting to resolve a problem with it being :air and equitable to all. THE }{EARING WAS CLOSED. • r I l Vax Mr. Roberts stated that Section 15.28.240 of the Anaheim Municipal Code ~o~erned the storage of camp cars and trailers and then read the re9ulations of said section of the Nnaheim h1unicipal Code. Discussion was then held by the Commission relative to the proposed Ct;..pter 18.65 amendment to the Anahein Municipal Code, it being noted thzt although ragulations had been established in the Anahei•n Municipal Code, these were not spelled out ano did not regulate the storage of commercial vehicles in a residential area; that if anyone could prove hardship in the storage of his vehicle, a request could be made for waiver of this hardship; that the previous definitions of the Code did not specifically spell out whether or not anyone had been violat- ing the Code! however, the n=w proposed amendment stated specifically what type of vvhicles and the hours permitted for the parking which could not be interpreted as storing of the trailers and camp cars. Co~ranissioner Gauer stated he was an owner yard, and with the proposed regulations, administer than the previous regulations. of a trailer, and that he parked his in his rear this would be considerably better and easier to _ _... _.~ , ; MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 6, 1966 3104 AMENDMENT TO ANAHEItd - Chairman pro tem Perry stated he had owned trav=l trailers over MUNICIPAL CODE the past fifteen years,'and whenever he moved to a new home, he : (Continued) made sure there was adequate space provided for parking uf the trailer in the rear yard in order that the trailer would not be offensive to his neighbors; that the City had ar, oplication to the owners of homes who did not have this type of facility, and Lhey were entitled to the same consideration as people who parked their trailers in the front yard setoacks. Commissioner Herbst stated he was also an owner of a trailer, although he was fortunate enough to park his trailer on his place of business; that there was no reason why people - . who did not own trailers should be subjected to the sight of travel trailers parked in ~.,~ the front setback where they could not build a structure which would hide the view of the I trailer; that although no evidence had been submitted, he was sure mar.y of these trailers ~`~a ' were used as extra bedrooms - although this was not in accordance with the Anaheirn Mur.ici- f pal Code; that no ordinance had been passed by the City that all persons were in agreement ~.~f with; and that he would not consider parking his trailer in the fror.t yard_setback to offend his neiqhbors. ~~ F' Mr. Roberts then reviewed the original draft of the proposed ordinance and the recommer.oed [y changes made at both the Interdepartmental Committee meeting and the last Com~nissiun near- 'I ~ ing and stated he would complete the proposed ordinance for consideration by the Comrr,ission ~.~, in a finalized form. The Commission further stated that the proposed code permitted the parking of trailers for a 72-hour period which would be ample time to park the trailer in the driveway and pack, unpack, or clea~ the travel trailer, or upon returning from a trip. Mr. Roberts, in response to Commission questioning, stated the only prohibition of the storing or parkin9 of a trailer on the street was the City requirement of no parking ~e- tween the hours of 3:00 A.M, and 6:00 A.M. to permit cleaning of the stree~. The Commission then expressed the thou9ht that although the proposed ordinance yas not a perfect document and would present problems, it was a step in the right direction~ Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution PC66-6 and moved for its passage and adoptio~, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council an amendment to Title 18, Zoning, of the Anaheim hiunicipal Code by the addition of Chapter 18.65 entitled "Regulations for the Storage of Camp Cars, Trailers, Boais, and Other ~ommercial Vehicles" as depicted on Exhibit "A". (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed hy the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Perry. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp. Commissioner Rowland in voting "Yes" stated he would have hesitated to vote on the proposed amendment; however, with three of the Commissioners being trailer owners,' and the fact that Title 15 governed the parking of trailers and camp cars in a front yard setback, the proposed amendment would clarify and establish a more cencise regulation. Commissioner Rowland left the Council Chamber at 4:25 P.M. RECeSS - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recess the meeting for ten minutes. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting recessed at 4:25 P.M. RECUPIVENE - Chairman p:o tem Perry reconvened the meeting at 4:3~ P.M., Commissioners H11red, Camp, and Rowland bein9 absent. ~ c r MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CO~Wv1I;;SION, July 6, 1966 3105 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1-a REGOMMF'JDATIONS ORANGE COUNTY USE VARIANCE N0. 5725 Petitioner: Lu Hunt, 801 South firookhurst Street - Requesting permission to expand the existing real estate office to permit the establishment of professional office uses and deletion of the requirement for installation of sidewalks on Stonybrook Drive - Froperty zoned R-1, Single Family Residence District, located at the southwest corner of 5tonybrook Drive and Brookhurst Street in the west Hnaheim area. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson pres=nted Crange County Use Vari~nce No. 5725 to the Commission and briefly reviewed the staff report to the Commission which indicated: ' A. Property zoned R-1, Single Family Residence District. B. Request is to expand the permitted use to include: 1. Accounting 7. Interior Decorating Studio 2. Dental 8. Seamstress 3. Engineerin9 9. Drafting Service 4. Architectural 10. Telephone Answering Service • 5. Advertising Fgency 11. Typing and Duplicating 6. Insurance 12. Secretarial C. The Anaheim General Plan indicates low density for this area; however, existing uses to the north and south of subject property are predominantly commercial. D. Waiver of the required sidewalk along Stonybrook Drive. Mr. Christofferscn also reviewed the staff :eport which recommended that: A. Continued and expanded commercial use of the property be accomplished through a reclassification to the appropriate commercial zone. B. In order to enhance the commercial use, several site development standards snould be required if subject oetition was considered favorably. CoR~issioner Nlungall offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, and MOTIOid CARRIED, to rec~mmend to the City Council that the Ora~ge County Planning Commission be urged to require that tne proposed expansion of cornmercial use of the property be accomplished through reclassification to the appropriate commercial zone; and that the following site development standards be considered to enhance subject property; (a) That a fully landscaped strip (minimum three feet wide) be installed along the property lines parallel to bot~l Brookhurst Street and Stonybrook Drive. (b) ;hat 2% of the interior of the parking lot sha11 be landscaped. (c) That a 6-foot masonry wall be constructed along the west property line. 'I ITEM N0. 1-b I ORANGE COUNTY USE VARIANCt N0. 5753 i Petitioners: Norman W. Bradley and Charles PJ. McKinnon - Requesting . permission to establish an existing temporary tract sign (Tract 5487 - ` Yorba Woods) as a permanent commercial advertising sign in the A1, General Agricultural District, located on the .~orth side of Santa Ana ;1 ~ Canyon Road opposite Crescent Drive. ~ t ' ! Associate Planner Jack Christofferson presented Orange County Use Variance IJo. 5753 to the ; ; Commission, noting the location of subject property and reviewing the report prepared by ~:• ; the staff which indicated that: ~- A. The present use of the sign will cease in the near future since only two homes P• remain to be sold in ?ract No. 5487. ~ r. B. The illuminoted sign has an area of 480 square feet, stands 22 feet high, is mounted ~; ~ on wooden poles, and 'nas plywood facings. ~~~ ~` C. Properties in close proximity are proposed to be developed, or are being developed, for single-family land use, as reflected by the Hill and Canyon General Plan. :~ * D. The re-use of the existing temporary real estate sign as an off-site advertising sign "~ or billboard would not conform to the Si n or Billboard 1 9 provisions of the Anaheim !'i Mur.ici~:al Code. ~ , ~dINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 6, 1956 3105 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1-a RECOMMENDATIONS ORANC;E COUNTY USE VARIANCE N0. 5725 Petitioner: Lu Hunt, SO1 South Brookhurst Street - Requesting permission ' to expand the existin9 real estate office to permit the establishment of professionzl office uses and deletion of th? requirement for installation of sidewalks on Stonybrook Drive - Property zoned R-1, Single Family Residence District, located at the southwest corner uf Stonybrook Drive an~ Brookhurst Street in the west Anaheim area. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson presented Orange County Use Variance No. 5725 to the Commission and briefly reviewed the staff report to the Commission which indicated: ~ A. Property zoned R-1, Single Family Residence District. B. Request is to expand the permitted use to include: 1. Accounting 7. Interior Decorating Studio 2. Dental 8. Seamstress 3. Engineering 9. Drafting Service 4. Architectural 10. Telephone Answering Service ' 5. Advertisin9 Agency 11. Typing and Duplicating 5. Insurance 12. Secretarial C. The Anaheim General Plan indicates low density for this area; however, existing uses to the nortn and south of subject property are predominantly commercial. D. ~aiver of the r2quired sidewalk along Stonybrook Drive. Mr. Christofferson also reviewed the staff report which recommended that: A. Continued ar,d expanded commercial use of the property be accomplished through a reclassification to the appropriate commercial zone. • B. In order to enhance the commercial use, several site development standards shouid be required if subject petition was considered favorably. Commissioner Mur.gall offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, and PdOTION CHRRIED, to recommend to the City Council that the Orange County Plannin9 Commission be urged to require that the proposed expansion of commercial use of the property be accomplished through reclassification to the appropriate commercial zone; and that the following site develop,nent standards be considered to enhance subject property; (a) That a fully :andscaped strip (minimum three feet wide) be installed along the property lines parallel to both Brookhurst Street and Stonybrook Drive. ~b) That 2% of the interior of the parking lot shall be landscaped. (c) That a o-foot masonry wa11 be constructed along the west property line. ITEM N0. 1-b ORANGE COUIJTY USE VARIANCE N0. ~753 Petitioners: Dlorman W. Bradley and Charles N. McKinnon - Requestin~.3 permission to establish an existing temporary tract sign (Tract 548; - Yorba Woods) as a permanent commercial advertising sign in the A1, ~eneral Agricultural District, located on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road opp~site Crescent Drive. Associate Planne~ Jack Christofferson presented Orange County Use Variance No. 5753 to the Commission, notin•~ the location of subject property and revi~wing the report prepared by the staff which indicated that: f.. The present use of the sign will cease in the near future since only two homes remain to be sold in Tract No. 546i. ~ B. The illuminated ;.;ign has an area of 480 sq~~are feet, stands 22 feet high, is moun~ed ?-}a on wooden poles, and has plywooo facings. ~ C. Properties in c1osE proximity are proposed to be developed, or are being deveioped, J~ for. single-family land use, as reflected by the Hill and Canyon General Plan. * D. The re-use of the existing temporary real estate sign as an off-site advertising sign ~"~ or billboard would not conform to the Sign or Billboard provisions of the Anaheim . Municipal Code. ~ - + , , MINUTES, CITY PLANVING COMMISSION, July 6, 1966 3106 RtPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 1-b - (Continued) Mr. Christofferson also noted that if the proposed request is granted, it would have a deleterious effect on the residential development and character of this area and might precipitate many other requests to re-use temporary signs/ billboards of this nature now located in the Santa Ana Canyon area; therefore, denial of the request was recommended. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and CARRIED, to recommend to the City Council that the Orange County ?lanning Commission be urged to deny Orange County Use Variance No. 5753 ~ased on the fact that the existing sign does not conform to the require- ments of the Sign/Billboard 0=dinances of the City of Anaheim; that billboards are permitted only at ihe intersection of two arterials, whereas the existing sign is located along ths side of an arterial highway; and that the proposed use of the sign would 'nave a deleterious e:fect on the existing residential development as well as any future development of this area, and would precipitate many other requests to re-use temporary signs/billboards of this nature presently located in the Santa Ana Canyon area. ITEM N0. 1-c ORANGE COUNTY USE VARIANCE N0. 5754 Petitiuner: Richard C. Dentine - Requesting permission to establish a psychological counseling service to be located in the RP, Residential Professional District on property located on the west side of Brookhurst Street, approximately 280 feet south of Woodley Avenue in the west Anaheim area. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson presented Orange County Use Variance No. 5754 to the Commission, noting the location of subject property and reviewing the report by the staff as follows: A. Off-street parking is requested in the front yard setback. B. Property is a part of property presently under consideration for annexation to the City (Broadway-Brookhurst Annexation). C. Properties on both sides of Brookhurst Street have commercial uses with iront _ setback areas used for parking. D. Due to devel~~ment For commercial purposes along Brookhurst Street on an individual parcel basi:, man~; access aper.ings have resulted on this street. E.' Required street dedication of 50 feet (half width) alono Brookhurst Street will result in the front setback areas being used for street widening, thus eliminating parking in said setback. Some alternative means of access. to the property, such as an alley, will be required to provi~9e access to the rear with controlled access to Brookhurst Street. The remaining fiont setback areas would be reverted to landscaping of the property. ~"r. Christofferson also reviewed the recommendations made by the staff, both if the petition was approved or denied. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commission=r Mungall and CARRIED, to recomr,~and to the City Council that the Oxange County Planning Commission be urged to deny Orange County Use Variance Alo. 5754, on the basis that after dedication to the ultimate 60-foot half width for Brookhurst Street widening, parking in the front setback area would be eliminated; furthermore, the Orange County Plar.ni~; Commission should be urged to prepare and adopt a specific plan for the parcels on the east and west sides of Brookhurst Street, emphasizing the use of an alley or other means of secondary access with controlled ingress and e,ress to Erookhurst Street. If subject petition is to be considered favorably, the followin9 conditions should apply: (a) Full dedication of 60 feet from :he centerline of Brookhurst Street for street widening. (bl Landscaping shall be provided in the front setback. (c) Limitations of signs to 8 square feet. (d) An irr~vocable offer of dedication for a strip of land 20 feet in width along *' the we:.~ property line for alley purposes should be made by the petitioner. t MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 6, 1966 3107 RE?ORTS AND - ITEM N0. 2-a RE~.''v~ENDATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PE4NIIT N0. 827 - Consideration of appealing Council (Continuej) and Commission ection on a request for establishment of a walk-up restaurant with waiver of the 10-foot landscaping strip in the ~;etback area - Property located at 711 West Katella Avenue. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed the staff report to the Commission regarding Conciitional Use Permit No. 827, emphasizing the reasons the Commission denied the conditional use permit, and the extensive study made by the staff relative to definition of an enclosed restaurant. Mr. Christofferson also noted that in reviewing the study made of enclos~d restaurants, two basic rules of thumb were used to determine whether a restaurant could be qualified as an enclosed restaurant, these being: ratio of kitcnen area to eatin9 area, and the variety of menu and method of serving said m=nu. Mr. Robert McKay, representir.q Lblan and McKay, 833 Gilbert Drive, Newport Beach, appeared before the Commission and stated that they proposed to develop sub;ect properiy and then reviewed the proposed development as it compared with similar Taco Bell developments, stating that the revised plan was similar to that proposed in the colder parts of the - cour.try where outdoor eating would be uncomfortable, and that if the storage area were taken out of the cooking space, the comparable amount of space would be equal to ihat presented ir~ tne kitchen-eating area ratio of enclosed restaurants. Commissioner Gauer stated that since tne Commission's public hearing of subject petition, he had been contacted by two motel men who expressed opposition to the Taco Bell being located rn subject property, and stated they were unable to appear before the Commission because of previous commitments- however, the proposed ?aco Bell was incompatible with the development in the area, and tnis seemed logicai since these motels were in the area long before consideratio:~ of a Taco 3e11 was presented; that at the time Mr. Terry, tne property owner, had sold his property to the motels, he had reserved the portion on which his home v~as located stating ne was not desirous of selling it, now or in the future, and that he would have no compunction to deny Mr. Terry's request since he nad kept this small parcel ~ separate from the motels - fuithermore, it Mr. Terry was desirous of sellino the property now, he would have an opportunity to se11 to the motel people and develop accordingly. ; Discussion was then held by tne Commission relative to the request for reconsideration of . establishment of the proposed Taco Be11 as an enclosed restaurant. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to deny the request for consideration of tne revised plans as an enclosed restaurant since the proposed use of the property would still be ir.- c~mpatible as had been stated in the denial of Conditional Use Permit iJo. 827; nam?ly, that the proposed walk-up or enclosed restaurant was not considered the highest and best land use for subject proparty wtiich was located in the Commercial-Recreation Area and would be detrimental to the existing commercial development in the area; that the proposed use would have a deleterious effect on the Convention Center wi~icn was located in close proximity to subject property; and that the petitioner was requesting waiver of the required landscaping in the area which might set an undesirable precedent of development in the Commercial-Recreation Area. Furthermore, the study made by tne staff relative to defi:,i:ion of an enclosed restaurant indicated tnat the proposed kitchen ara~ had 557 square feet, a~d the ratio of 1:2.4 would require 1,337 square feet for the eating area, or a seating space for 89 persons, whereas seating was proposed for 30 persons in tne revised plans; and that the definition of a restaurant would be based on the rule of tt,umb that a variety of inenu and method of serving would also determine the difference between an enclosed restaurant and a walk-up restaurant. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioners Allred, Camp, and Rowland were absent. ITEM N0. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 511 - Establish a motel with later addition of restaurant-bar facilities on property located on the east side of Harbor Boulevard, approximately 240 feet north of Romneya Drive - Approval of d~velopment plans as required in Condition No. 10 of Resolution 986, Series 1963-64, dated December 9, 1963. ~ ~ Associate Planner Jack Christofferson presented development plans for a restaurant ~,nd cocktail lounge in Conditional Use Permit Uo. 511, noting that a condition of appruval o.f ~ the motel required that plans for the proposed restaurant and cocktail lounge be submitted - ', to the Commission for approval prior to the issuanca of a building permit, even though a •~ restaurant and cocktail lounge were permitted in the C-2 Zone, in which subject property ,,,~. was located; that a letter from tne owner-developer stated the proposed restaurant-cocktail ~ lounge would not be a famil t y- ype restaurant; that the original motel plans had 12 extra f MIIdUTES, CITY PI. NNING COMMISSION, July 6, 1966 3108 REPURTS AND RECOM~~~ENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 3 - (Continued) • parking spaces - however the proposed restaurant-cocktail lounge needed 16 spaces - thus the proposed plans were short the required parking by 4 spaces; and that in some previous , motel-restaurant operations the Commission had indicated some overlap of the parking spaces , could occur with occupants of the motel using the restaurant facilities, and a waiver of a shortage to the parking requirements was being granted. Assistant Development Services Director Robert Mickelson then reiterated statements made by A~ir. Christofferson and inquired whether or not the Commission ielt the overlap of park- ~ ing of the motel units would be adequate to compensate for the shortage of 4 parking spaces. ~ C~i~;,~ssion w~5 held by the Commission regarding the proposed parking layout and the fact that the proposed restaurant did not have the bar facilities separated with adequate screening from the dining area. Mr. Jacques Bouchard, a representative of the Arnold Construction Company, appeared before the Commission and stated it was proposed to have a pai•king attendant on duty at all times, and tandem parking would take place with the attendant takin9 charge of ~he cars as they drove up to the restaurant. The Commission noted that if the motel had 95% occupan~y with a r?staurant having space to serve 40 people, adequate parking could not be provided, even if an attendant ~as on duty; that the adjacent restaurant was required to provide for parking in accordance a:ith Code requirements, and the proposed restaurant sh~~uld also have the same requirements. Mr. Bouchard stated that if an attendant was available, there would be ample space :o move cars, and the attendant would serve both the restaurant and the motel; that the resta.rant would be a"plush-type" restaurant, serving steak and seafood and would be considered a dinner house, not be open during the day, and with no thought of serving breakfast to the motel occupants; and that no entertainment was proposed other than ste:eophonic music. • The Commission expressed ihe opinion that although a high-priced, specialty food restaurant was bein9 proposed, if the pian was approved, this could be converted to a family-type . restaurant, and if this could happen, the bar should be properly screened from view of the ! dining area. - Mr. Bouchard then stated that rather expensive rugs and furnishings were being proposed, and the prices foz the meals would be in excess of what a family could afford - therefore, it was felt the clientele would be basically adult. Commissioner Herbst ofiered a motion to deny the approval of plans submitted for ih? restaurant-bar facilities as a requirement of Condition No. 10 in Conditional Use Permit No. 511, and directed that the property owner-operator submit revised plans indicating ~ the screening of the bar facilities from the dining facilities, a,id fui*.her consid?ration ~ should be given to providing parking in accordance with Code. Commissiorer Mungall seconded , the motion. MUTION CARRIED. Commissioners Allred, Camp, and Rowland werF absent. ITEM NU. 4 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT'S PROPOSED WATrR SPRrADING FACILITY (WHRNER PROPrRTY) - REPURT kND ReCOMM'cNDATION TO Tf~c CITY COUNCIL. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that a petition was filed with the City Council requesting that the City take action relative to the proposed Grange County Water District's condemnation of approximately 95 acres in the southwest portion of the Atwood Cone area of the Northeast Industrial Area, and that the City Council has expressed concern on tha import and Pffect of the interim sand and gravel excavation on development of ind~:+ry in close proximity to the property located generally at the southwest corner of La P~~ma Avenue and Jefferson Street. Discussion was held by the Commissio~, several of the members being of the opinion that after reviewing the property and its proximity and ultimate effect on development of the industrial area, the Orange County Water District representative should be contacted to present their viewpoints on the reasons for taking the 95 acres in the center of the Pdorth- east Industrial Rrea for water spreading purposes, and that the Oranye County Water District cooperate to attempt to relocate the water spreading facilities closer to the river, as well as providin9 considerably more screening, together with a setback more than they propose. The Commission also expressed concern that no precise plan of development for the 95 acres was available and directed the starf to contact Mr. Howard Crooke of the Orange Couniy Water District to present and explain the proposed use of the property prior to the Commis- sion's making any recommendations to the City Council. ~. F ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 6, 1966 3109 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 4 - (Continued) Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to direct the staff to contact the Orange County Water District representative, Mr. Howazd Crooke, to appear before the Commission t3nd present his views on development of the 95 acres and to continue consideration of the report and recommendations to the City Council until the meeting of July 18 for said data. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. I?EM N0. 5-a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 590 - Request for an extension of time for completion of condiiions - Establishmer~t of a motel at 1836 South Anaheim Boulevard. . Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed for the Commission the request of ~vir. Julius Nathan, requesti~g an additional ext=nsion of time for the completion of conditions in approval of Cond~tional Use Permit. Alo. 590 by Resolution i~o. 1254, Series 1964-05, on July 18, 1964. It was also noted that a 180-day time extension had been granted three times to the petitioner, with the third time extension having expired June 14, 1966, and the recommendation of the staff that said request for a time extension be 9ranted, subject to street dedication within 30 days. I Commissioner Iviungall offered a motion to grant a 180-cay time extension for tne completion of conditions of Resolution iJo. 1254, Series 1964-65, dated July 18, 1964, granting Condi- tional Use Permit No. 590, provided, however, that Condition IJo. 1 of the aforementioned resolution be complied with - pertaining to street dedication being made within 3G days, said time extension to expire Lecember 12, 1966. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioners Allred, Camp, ar,d Rowland were absent. ITEM N0. 5-b ~~ARIANCE N0. 1372 - RequFst for an extension of time to utilize an existing residence for office use and out.door storage a~d repair of equipment and vehicles - Property located at 1829 South Mountain View Avenue. _ Associate Planner Jack Christofferson presented Variance ido. 1372 and the request of the _ petitioner to extend the use of the property located at 1829 South ~9ountain View Avenue for an unspecified len9th of time. The staff's findings ai~d recommendations were also reviewed by t•~ir. Christofferson. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to grant a two-year extension of time for the use of the property located at 1829 South ~dountair View tivenue granted in l'ariance No. 1's72, said time extension to >xpire June 20, 1908. mmissioner Gauer seconded the motion. ; MOTIOiJ CARRIED. Commissioners Allred, Camp, and Rowland were absent. i I TE~d N0. 6 I SPECIAL DIRECTIVE TO THE STAFF RCGARDING RAMPS IIJ STRUCTUR~S WHrRE PARKING IS SUBTERRANEAN OR SEMI-SUBTERRANtAN. I ~ Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to direct the staif to prepare a study involving problems and solutions of ramps proposed in commercial structures where parking is proposed ~ on the premises in a subterranean or semi-subterran?an manner. Commissiorer Gauer seconded ~ the motion. MOTION CARRIED. j ITEh7 N0. 7 ~ PLp.NfdING CONGRcSS. t , ' Commissioners Perry, Herbst, and Gauer indicated they would attend the Planning Congress + meetina on July 14, 1966. l ADJOIiRNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Mun9a11 seconded the ~ motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 5:25 P.M. , Respectfully submitted, ~ ~ * I 1~e '~ ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Com~nission I d ~