Loading...
Minutes-PC 1967/02/27City Hall Anaheim, California February 27, 1967 A REGUL.F+,R MEETIiJG OF THE ANHh~iid CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR M~ETING - A regular rneeting of the Anaheim City Planning Cemmission was called to order by Chairman Camp at 2:00 o'clock P.M., a quorum ~eing present. PRESei~T - CHAIRMAN: Camp. - COMMISSIGNERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland. ~ ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Mungall. PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Robert Mickelson Planning Supervisor: Ronald Grudzinski Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompson Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts Gffice Engineer: Arthur Daw Associate Planner: N~arvin Y.rieg?r Associate Planner: Jack Christofferson Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Allred led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ,4PPRQVAL OF - The Minutes of the meeting of February 15, 1967, were approved as THE MINUTES submitted, on motion by Commissiorer Rowland, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, and MOTION CARRIED. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC 1-~ARING. EUCLID SHOPPING CENTER, 1660 West Katella Avenue, PERMIT N0. 921 Anaheir, California, Owner; JOHN COX, c/o Euclid Shopping Center, 1660 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A PLANT NURSERY IN CONJUNC"fION WITH A:d "c:tiiSTING SHOPPING CENTER on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land situated at the southeast corner of Euclid Street and Katella Avenue and 'naving a frontage of approximately 455 feet on the east side of Euclid Street and a frontage of approximately 460 feet on the south side of Katella Avenue, and further described as 1660 West Katella Avenue. Property presently classified C-1, GEIJERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed the location and proposed use of subject property, and also noted the uses established in close proximity within the Cities of Anahei^~ and Garden Grove. No one appeared to represent the petitioner. The Commission noted ther~~ were several questions they would like the agent to answer, and suggested that subjec~ petition be heard later in the meeting. Later in the meeting Mr. John Cox, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that it was proposed to store one and five-gallon metal pots of azaleas and camelias under the overhang of the existinc scructure, and that no screening of this area was planned. Furthermore, these plants haa been storPd along the side of the building before they had been informed by the City that this was not in accordance with the Anaheim Municipal Code. Again, in response to Commission quesiioning, tdr. Cox stated that no screening was planned because it was anticipated to construct additional buildings adjacent to the existing building; that it was their intent to sell these plants from the front of the store; how- e~er, these plants would be on display for prospective customers to mahe their selections. Discussion was then held by the Commission relative to the interpretation which mS.ght be assumed by similar types of operations in other commercial centers, and whether or not this would be an invitation to encourage outdoor sales which could extend into the parking area; that a permanent screening should be placed adjacent to the storage area to discourage encroachment into the parking area. Mr. Cox advised the Commission that it was ~iot their intent to sell anything except plants and gardening materials; that at other stores plants were stored in a similar manner, which was not unsightly; iurthermore, fertilizers, which would require storing outdoors, were not handled by thie store - only the chemical type fertilizer was sold, and it was 3344 ~ ,.,., _., ,-..__ . __. .~ _ -• - , ----•..~.b ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 27, 1967 3345 CONDITIONAL USE - necessary to store this indoors; and that ii the Commission was desirous PERMIT fJO. 921 of requiring a screening area, this miyht be done and still allow (Continued) customers to view these plants which were not kept there all year, but for a period of five months of the year were offered for sale. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE I-I~ARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion .:~s held by the Commission regarding the type of screening which would be required since the agent ior the petitioner had stipulated to providing some type of _~~ screening; that other discount houses were *equired to enclose their plant storage areas with a chainlink screen fence (White Frontand Save-Co); and that there was a pote;itial { ~ fire hazard if this a~as not separated from the parking area. ! ~, ~ ,. Zoning Supervisor Ronald ?hompson, in response to Commission questioning, stated that a conditional use permit was the proposed zoning vehicle since the petition came under the , plant nursery interpretation. Considerable discussion was then held by the Commission, and at its conclusion it wa~ ' determined that a five-foot fence or wall should 'oe required to confine the selling area so that it would not encroach into the parking area. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC67-41 and moved for its passage ano adoption, seconded by Commissioner Farano, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit ~~o. 921, subjeot to conditions and the requirement that a five-foot metal screen or masonry wall sha11 be constructed to separate the selling area from the parking area, as stipul~ted to by the petitioner. (Sez Resolution Book) On ro11 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the :ollowing vote: AYES: CO~Wu1ISSIUIJERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. I ABSENT: CON~AhISSIONERS: Mungall. ,'j CONDITIOiJAL USE - PUBLIC f~ ARING. ORDER OF TFIE SERVANTo UF MHRY, 1952 Niest La ?almo PERMII N0. 922 Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; WALTER A. FRGME, JR., P. 0. 5ox 2547, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to EXPANU Ai~ EXISTING PRIVATE HIGH SCHOOL on p~operty described as: H rectangularly shaped parcel of land 'naving a frontage of approximately 660 feet on the south side o: La ~a1ma F,venue and having a maximum depth of aoproximately 99° ieet, tne easterly ~ou.darv oi sui~jFct property oeiny approximat.ely 525 ie?t west c. tne centerline oi Uno~daga k~~~~ue, and :urther described ~s 1952 Vicest La Pd1mo Avenue. Property presently classi:ied n-r., ~+~2ICULTUi?F;L, ~v`ic. F~.=sociate Plar~:~er JGck Cnristoiierson re~~iewed ti~e loc~tio:~ a;d p:oposed use ef suujec~ property a~d uses estaolished i~: close proximity. ;~~r. '~h'alter Frome, agent for tt,e peti~io::er, apprrre;i ueiure ti~e ~ommissio:~ ar;d ~:o;e.i ~nu~ ne would like to t:ave tile reouireme~~.t oi street liyht fees witt~in 180 days deierred ~.til such time as t'r~e bolar~ce of ti:e street was developeu with simila: liyht poles. kir. Ci:ristoiierson noted that it would ~e ::ecessary to have ~ ci-;ree-io; t s~rip ~f la::o- scaping alor;g the La Pal;no Avenue fron~age ar~d 2ro i&ndscape trees i:~ ti~.c new oar;i~:g are~~:. "Loning Supervisor Ro~~a1o :i~ompso:~ advised th;e ~ommis~io,i ihe la.idscaping i•eyuir::mr•~t co~~1~ oe made a psrt uf Condition :.o. ~~, reyuirirq ;.rees in the •~ew par};ing „rc-a - ti~e ~. ti:ere would be no puestion from the co:itractor ec ti;e time ti:e cuil::i~;g pern~it was is~ua~i. Discussion was held by tiie Commission relative to 1a:dscapir,y in tF~e exi~ting parki:i~ are~. ano wnether or not tne e~cisting landscaping along the L'a Paima kverue :rontage siioul.i i~e considered adequate; that landscapir,g st;uulci be required in t.he r.ew parki~;g nra~ - tiowever, because oi the expen~e involved i~ removal n; asphalt. to install sprinkiers, it did not seem feasible. ;4r. Frorne adviseu the Cornmission ti;at the landscapi~~,g along ~i~e La ~aima r.vanue ;rontage was 18 to 24 inci~es in depth a~.d was between the sidewall: a:~d tne ~,spf,alt, ;,nu ;n~:t ii tiie Commissior, waived tne Code required trees in the olti parki~;g area, they~ wo::1.i wi~ie;~~ ti~e lonoscaping to ti~ree ieet along La Palma r.venue. ~ _.._. _Z ~ MINUTES,.~ITY PL~NNING COMMISSION, February 27, 1967 3346 CGNDITIONAL USE - The Commission advised fnr. Frome that a three-foot strip of landscaping PERMIT N0. 922 along the La Palma Avenue frontage, toge~her with the installation of (Continued) sprinklers and hose bios, would be adequate. Mr. Thompson, in response to Commission questioning, stated that it had been the City's policy to ir;tall the new marbelite light standards within six ;~ionths to two years after payment of the street light fees. The Commission advised Mr. Frome that upon request for tamporary waiver of the street light fees to the City Council, it would 'oe their jurisdiction to waive said lignt fees. , ;do one appeared in opposition to subject petition. r' ""~# THE HEARING WAS CLOScD. , •F ; ~ Commissioner Herbst offared Resolution No. rC67-42 and moved for its passage and adoption, '~ seconded by Commissin;,er Gauer to ~ '1 e grant Petition or Conditional Use Permit No, 922, ' subject to conditions, and further to provide a three-foot strip of landscaping along the ia Palma Avenue frontage and trees and irrigating ;acilities in the new parking portion I of subject property. (See Resolution Book) C.i ~,~ On roll call the foregoing resoluiion was passed by the followin vote: 9 ~ AYES: COMh1ISSI0NERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Camp. , NOES: COMMISSIO~cRS: None. ~j ABSENT: COAM7ISSIONERS: Mungall. i:. ~ F~ CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC I-~kRING. ORAi~c d 39, A Partnership, 5152 Beacn Boulevard, ~i PERMIT NU. 924 Buena Park, California, Owner; WILiIA[d, A. TOPLIKl,R, 3gp~ W,ungall ~~ Drive, Ananeim, California, tigent; reques~ing perrt:ission to ESTF.BLISH ~~ ~+ 250-BED CONVALESCEN? HOSPI?AL on oroperty described as: An irregular_y ` snaped parcel of land 'naving a frontage of approximately 2~2 ieet on the west siue oi ' Beach 3oulevard a~o having a maximum deptn of approxirnately 3<8 feet, the souti.e:l•; ooundary [~ of subject property being approximately 423 reet norc~ of tne centerline oi u s Property presently classified C-1, GEiJER4L CUIMJ~ERCIAL, ~;;,~t. r~'~~F tive:~ue. ~ Associate Planner Jack Cnristefierson revi~wed the locatio:~ and proposed us ~ _, property, noting that a hospital and service station were locate e!or suL•jec~ property, and that altnougn the Staff had recommended terminatioa oa~~~~^` to Sl1pjBCt ~,i Permit No, 250, this could not be done since the 'r,ospitai was partially coveredlby`tnis ~-i conditional use permit. ~ h1r. William Toplikar, agent for tne petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated i he represented Qoth tne owner of the property ard the '~ proposed use would provide a neep which tne hospi~al feltPwould~aidathem~innservingtmoxe ~~ ~' patients. ,~ ~ The Commission inquir?d of the agent what was prooosed for the vacani portion between the i ~ existinq nospital and the ~ ProPosed convalescent home. ~ ( Mr. Toplikar replied that tne owner of the pronert ~I i sion of the h~spital for ihis Y planned a medical building or an eX~e,•-,_ I portion of the property. ~ Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the ~ and a hospital or a medical buildin were ProP°rty wa~ zoned C-1, ti 9 permitted us~s in the commercial zone. ~~ir. Toplikar advised the Com.r.ission that the entire parcel would be developed ~vitn tne f~ j hospital, convalescent nome, and service station. ~ ~i ! ~ No one apoeared in opposi;_~n to subject petiticn. ~• • i ! TNE HEARING WAS CLUSED. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC6'-43 and move' ~' seconded by Commissioner f,llred, to grant Petitio a for its passaye and adoption, M1; subject to conditions. ~ for Co~ditionel Use ?e:mit ',~, q~q~ ~ (See Resolution Book) r•'~; ; On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ` ~ AYtS~ CGM~v1ISSI0NERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Camp, ~ _ NOES: COMMISSIONcRS: No~e. ~ ' ABSENT: CO:v1MISSIONERS: !Aungall. '~ ~ . "I I ~ I ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ .. - : _. ... . -- _.. ..~ ._ _-~-~-~-rT~"' ~ . _.,.___.. ~ I . - ----- - ---- ~^^-.nwarc.~ 'y _ ._ ~ . • ^ .t;.. ~ ~ n ~.- ~14INUIES, CITY riANNING C0.1M1ISSION, February~27, 1q~7 " CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. ,T, E, PRUETT, 422 Nest Hampshire Avenue, ,4nahe m, pEE7MIT N0. 92g California, Owner; requestin STRUCTURES FOR OFFICE USE, WITHPWAIVERS~UFt(1)TMINIMUM REQUIRE~D1,NUMBER SCAPING, OF OFF-STRE~T PARKI[JG SPACES AND LOCATION, (2) MINIMUM REQUIRED LA;QD- ~9) REQUIRED 6-FOOT MASONRY WALL AND ~ as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land lccateo atNtheMsoutheastAcorner of Hampshire Avenue and Harbor Boulevard and having frontages of a prOPerty described Avenue and approximately 120 feet on Harbor BoulevardPpandlfurtherldescribednasa4~8hand ZONE. 422 West Hampshire Avenue. Property presently classified i:-1, OIJE-FAMILY RESIDENTIp.L, Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed the location and request for use property, noting that the front setback, blackto petitioner was proposing the deletion of all landscapi~g i~bthet required, whereas onlyp81spacesswerea for parking purposes; that 1q portion of the proposed; that Perking spaces were property by the removal of one of theparking could be provided in t'r:e rear a 10-foot landscaped setback, and the petitioner was asking waiver of the required masonry wall adjacent toaresidential the C-0 Zone required and east; and that under the resolution of in~ proposing no landscaping, as well as in which no area development plan was a ent appr~ving r~eclassification~~o.he south C-0 uses such as medical offices were pFroved, pro~!iding ior secondary ;ccess, etc,66-63 intent to reiain the garages for parkipermitted; furthermore, it was the ~ g purposes. F~eti~ioner s Mr• J• E• ~'ruett, the peiitioner a in one of the nomes; tnat one of~thepconditionsrofttheCresolu uonao{ intent wasrdedication for street widening purposes - however u on be within three inches of the westerly~end of9thenstructure~sidingnonhHarbortBoulevardould that although the Staff had su rear of the structures, he wougd ehave someVdifficulty9inaadheringrtonthis because of special easements; and that a 10-foot a: 9 Parki~y to the drive to gain access to the ea between tne two homes was inadequate :or z parking area to the rear. No one appeared in onposi.tion to subject petition. TrlE HEA~I;JG WAS CL~~SED. The Commission reviewed zoning action for ti~e 1ot fronting on Harbor Bouievaru at ~~ Street, no'i~g that tne petitioner was granted a two-year extension of tin;e subject to the posting of a bond to insure installation of a 6-foot masonry wall along the nortn,no,,L property 1ine, and ihat the proposal to eliminat= the landscaping in the front setback '~'~u1d set an undesirable precedent for similar requests of other residences conversion io C-1 uses along Harbor Boulevard. proposing The Corr,mission also noted that parking requirements for medical facilities on a smaller b~~sSs th.an a large medical center were very difficult to design - however the W~s proposing to provide only 50% of the re uired difficult ;o waivF 9 parking spaces, and it~wouldpbelextremely parki^g requirements; that many of the hoRes along i~arbor Boulevard would be faced wi~h a simitar problem - however i. these waivers were set a pactern o{ , r possible re-uses of the iront-on homes on which the Commission hadsbeenlo doing ,;onsiderable study, and a flood of requests ior parkin9 in the front area would be pres=n±Pd ~o the Commission - such as the undesirable commercial- rofe P ssional uses estab- lished in the Caunty along Brookhurst Street; and that since Harbor Boulevard was one of the main access streets, property owners who were desirous of developing their ror commercial purposes si~ould be required to develo i; ment standards of 2he a P accordance with the site~develop- residential homes, but snouldlrequi~emremov;lZOfethe homeslsowthattadeq~atersion of the be provided, since this would be the same requirement of someone who had raw land which ne was develo parking may ping for a commercial zone, thus granting a privilege to this not enjoyed by other. propFrty oWners. property owner Commissioner Herbst o;iered Reso~ution ;Jo. PCo7-44 and moved for it•, passage ano adoption, seconded by Commissioner Farano, to deny Petition ior Conditional Use Permit ;Jo, the basis that it wou7.d establish an undesirable precedent b front area, removing all landsca in 925, on too small for conversion to commercialpoffic~enusesaaandathatathismwould9havekan9adverse effect or, the future development in the area. P 9' and utilizing lots On roll call the iore3oing resolution was pa;sedSby RheofollowiBgovote: µ AYES: COMMISSIOiVERS: kllred, Faran~, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Camp, NOES: COMMISSIOi4ERS: ?Jone. ABSENT: COMMISSIG;JEkS: 1/~u;19ai1. ., . . ~ -- - A9INUTES, CITY FiANNING COMMISSION, Feb~•uary 27, 1957 3347 CUNDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. .J. E. F?UETT, 422 West Hampshire Avenue, knaheim, PERluIIT N0. 925 California, Owner; requesting permission to UTILIZE TWG RESIDEiJTIAL STRUCTURES FOR OFFICE U5E, WITH WAIVERS UF (1) MINIMUM REQUIRED NUIdBF? OF OFF-STREET PARKIIJG SPACE;3 AND LOCATION, (2) MINIMIJM REQUIREC i'n'~~~- SCAPING, (3) REQU'_RED 6-FOOT MASONRY WALL, AND (4) N~I^!IMUM SITE AREA on. property desc;'~b~~! as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at ±.he sot,theast coi•ner of i~anps,~i;~e Aveni~= and Harbor Boulevard :~nd having frontage= o: ~s~;;rcximately 110 feet on Hamr:~h:re Avenue and appro;<imately 1~J feet on Harbor Bouleva.o, an,'. further described as 4'.E :t~.~ 422 W.est Hampsh~re Avenue. Property presently classiiie,; R-1, ONE-fAMILY :~ESIL~Idll.i.„ ZONE . A=soc~a~e Planner Jack Christofierson revi.F:aed the location and request ::or use oi sub~~ct property, noting tha~ tce petitioner wac ;~roposing the deletior of all lsndsca i o in the front setback, blac!~.• .,,~p; ~g this ar~a i~~: parking purposes; that 14 parki~g spor.~~ , ti~~re required, whereas ,,r.:y g;N;ce~ xere proposed; that parking could be prcvided in ;r.e reaz portion uf the property '~:y ~;~e :emoval of one of the garaces; that tr-.,,> C-C Zone re::_uired a 1Q-foot landscaped e~.~.,,;:~~ __~~± ihe petitioner was proposing no la:idscaFing, as Nell as as!:ing waiver of the; r~:~uire~ mascnry wsll adjacent to resid=ntial Froperty to th~: south ~rd east; ar.d t!iat ur:der the resolution of intent approving ~eclassification :;o. ~~5-56-63 in ~vnich ne G.a~ oevelopr,~en: plan Kas a~Froved, providi~g for secondary ar.ce,s, Ftc., C-G uses such as medical oi?ices were permitted; further:no;r:, it was thr pc.ti'.ioner's intent to rt~ai;~ the garagev for parking purposes. Mr. J. E, Pruett, the p?titioner, ap~eared bcfore the Commissio^ a~d stated ii~~ resiaed ir• ~^o of the home;; _nat one of the cor.ditions of the resolution o: intenc v+as dedication f_~: =treet wi~~ening purposes - however, upon giving this dedication the r?o%it-or-way would be within three ir~hes of the westerly end of the structure siding on i{arbor Boulevard; that although the Staff ha9 suggested removal of the garage and orientiny parkizg tc '.nP rear of the structures, he would have some difficulty ir. adherir,g to this because c: special easements; ar.:? ;nat a 1Q-foot area between tne two nomes was i.nadequate for ~ drive to 9oin access to the parking area to the rear. iVo one apoeared in oppositio~. to subject petition. THE HEAr~IIJG WpS CLOSEll. The Commission reviewetl zonir.g acti~n for tne lo~ f; .~ ing ~^ Herbor i.ici;! avar:i a. ;'- *;no:it .,~ree+. ~oting that tne patitioner was gran~ed - ,,-•.:-ar axtension oi ~.ime subject to the posti.ng o: a bond to ir:sure installation o~ a o-foot masonry wall a:~~g the no*tn property 1ine, and t.nat t~;a psoposal to elimir,ate the lannscapin9 in the front setba;ck would set ~;; undes:rable precedent for similar re:qutsts of otner :esi,~ences proposi:;g conversion to C-1 use=_ a1o~~~ Harbor Boulevard. The Commi:;sion a1:.c no-•i t!iat parking requirements for medical facilities on a~maller b~sis than d 1a^ge me^.ic:al center were very difficult to design - howe/er, the ,r,etitioner was pr~Nasing t~ provida~ only 50% of the requireB parking spaces, and it wo~i:d be extreme].y di:ficult '_o w,aivc parki~g requirements; that many or ti~c .".omes along Harbor Boulevard would be faced with ~ similar problem - however, if tr:ese waivers were gra:~ted, this would set a pattP:;i of possible re-uses of the front-on homes c~n ,vltich the Conmisc.ia;, had been doing co~si.derable study, and a flood oi requests for r,arki,,, i.n :he fz•cnt ai•ea would be presented to the Commission - such as the undesir~hle comme:cial-professional uses estab- lished in ±he Cour,ty along Broo~tr.!rst Str~eL; ar.a .ha*. since Narboz Boulevard was ane o.` the mair, access s>treets, propert~~ nwners ~•:ho were desi~ous uf developi:~~ their pronerties for commercial purposes srould be re,~,:i:eo to deve?.op in accoz•d~~;ce witi~ the sit~ oeve.lop- ment star.~ards of the appropriate commeccia; zone by r.ot allowing t5e conversiun of the residenti<.1 homes, but should require removal of the h~mes so that adequate pa~kin, m:~~ oe provioed, since thi;; ,vould be t:~e sarne reqairemant of sor~.eone who had raw lan;: which ne was uev~looing far a commercial zone, "~u; qra~ting a priv~lege to this property c,,~er not enjoyF~d by *.her prnpe:ty owners. II Commissicner Herbst, offered Resolution iJo. PC67-4u ;nd muved for its passage and ador-~on, seconded ~•y Cor,imi;sioner Fa:-eno, to deny Pe?;tien io. Conditi.~na1 Use Yer~ir.iJo. 925, on ~ the basis t7~at it would establish a~, u,ic:esirable precede~~~t !;~- per:r,ittir~ parkzng in ti~e front area, rem. ~~i~n -,ii landscaping, providing i~adP~,,:ete pa:'iciny, ~nd ut.ilizing lvts too small for conversion to coun.~ercial office uses, an~i that this would have an adverse effect on the future developm=nt in the area. ;See Resulut°.ori Pook) ~ i On roll call the foregoing resolutior-. .vas passe~ b~ the f~ll~wing vote: ~ AYES: CONuMISSIO',tRS: Allred, Fara-~o, i3auer, Her~:~., Rowland C.,mp, ' , NOES: COMMISSIONE~'S: ~o;~E. * ' ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Munga~l. .~x ~ ~ F?TP~I'iES, CIT`f PLANNING COMMISSION, Fabruary 27, 1957 3348 '/ARIANCE :;~. 1854 - PUBLIC HEARIfVG. CiiARLES R. LARFl'NfiY, 1837 Gree~leaf Avenue, Apartment A, Anaheim, California, Owr.Fr; requesting permission to SPLIT 21 EXISTING R-3 LOTS INTO 42 LU;S, WITH YJAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM LOT WI^?H, AND (~' N?PIIMUM LOT AREA on property described as: 21 R-3, MULTIPLE-FA~4IILY ZONED lots locate~ generally south of Glenoaks Avenue, east of Chippewa Avenue, and north of CrESCent Avenu~>, and having a maximum depth of approxim~tely 339 feet as measured easterl~ from the centerlin? o: Chippewa Avenue. Property presently classified R-3, MUL~IPL't-FAMILY P.cSIGE?JT_AL, ZOf~E. Associate Planner J;,ck Christef;~:~o^ reviewed the request and location of subject p:•operty a~d the uses establ;.shed in r,lose t imity. Previous zoning ac;:ion on subject prcperty was also reviewed by Mr. Christctiei,,,,n. ,~:r. Ch.rice La:away, the petitioner; appedred tefore the Commission and stated tna~ due to e~~:;or~~ic ~~ob'.2ms over the ,~ast five years it had been difiicult to rent or sell ~he apartment units; t~at '_ne ,~ropexty was in receivership presently to clarify titles oi eubject property; tuc,;, sorr2 ~f tY.e propErty sold had reverted back to tne origi~zi owners ar.d to tne mortgage compa~~~; *.!;at the condominiums built to the east and west had an economic impact o~ his property; znu '~~~t it had been difficult to dispose of the unite as 'r.ad been anti;.ipat~d. ;he Comn~?ssio.~ inquired as ~.~ Mr. Laraway's meaning regarding ciarification ~o titles, wh~reupc~n Mr. Lara~,vay sta*:,i there had been some for>closures, ano that on? of ~ne eight- unit structures had been turned back to tne original uwi~ers, with the seco~d trust deed holders taking c~e four-unit and the mortgage company `he other four-unit. Chairnan Camp inyu:red whether cr nct loans had t~een obtained on ~he separate u~~its ar~;i whether they had spiit. tl~e propert}' f:r loan purpoees without approval Uy tne City; that tney were, in e.fert, oy ±he filing of subject petition,requesting approval oi ar; illegal act by ma}:ing it 1e,::: tnrough zoning action r.~t:ier than a~;,omptishiny tnis tr:rouy;; due process ~f :aw. 1lir. Laraway stated that ti~is division did not, in any way, chanye the ~oFearance o; ~ne property. Chairman Camp, however, rFplied that it would, in that .=.ervice facilities were built to serve eight units, and unless a mu~~.:; agreement had been filed with the County itecoruer for joint responsii~ility for repairs and upk=ep, 1e9a1 problems could result. Mr. Laraway tti~n ,taied that Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts hac ocivised him ti,at a mutual agreement could resolve thei.* problem in respect to sewei Nroblems, and f~r;.nermore, in respor.se to :,ommi;si~^ questioni~g, stated that only o~e eignt-unit lot had beE•r. s;::i~ - however, he was advised he should file on the entire dev=:l~r•^4~t so ~hat a uniforR :uli;:g could be obtained rathar than coming in each time :: lot s::'t occurred; tha± ~ume of •ne units would be scld as four units, whereas o±;~ers would ~e ri~h.; units; arn9 that w:~ni;; 45 days his interes~ in these zoartment; would be ended. T~c ~nmmission noted that tne S~aff suggested tna± tne entire oevelopment be considered so that any future let split requests would not be scheduled ;~efore the Co,nmissi~n and City Council. Zcni~g Supervisor Renald Thompson advised tne Commission thi~ was their i~tent - that tne Staff ::id not have an accurate record as to lo*. splits without consultir:g with che ksc.essor's Office >ince t;~e City's reco~ds were out of date, and since it se~med likely tha •~~ o;;~~r @1(jCt-FJ~,P_XC', would be handled in a similar fashion, the entire was advertised. ~ Commissioner Gauer inquired as ~o tne legal problems tne City v~as faced with in the proposeo subdivision. Deputy Cit•; Ai.torney ~urman Roberts stated that tne State Subdivision .4ct and Chapter 17.08 would 'oe violated becausi~ the lots did not confor~n to tne R-<' Code requirements for purposes of sale, lease, or financing; that since tnis was referred to ti;e Staff, tae petitioner was ~old a variance might. accomplish the subdivision ir~to sraaller 1ots. Mr. Rorerts further noted that if subject petition were approved, in addition to Park ar.d P,ecrea`io.^. ~,~b:~,,, there would be the problem of one service con~ection betweer. two separate ow~~crships, and unless the owners provided separate service conne::tion facil.ities. the Cor:nissiun might approve it subject to reauiring a mutually r?corded doc~ment whict~ wouid r~n wit;: the land for sewer lateral connections which should be r.,aintaine,i on a m~tual ba,:,. ` The Commission no?ed approving subject petition would DE compounding a felony; that ;.;~is , could start a trend in all k-"s y~bdivisions building eiyht-plexes ar.d ihe:. cominy in later w' for subdivision into fcur-ple~;es and circumventing the required rt~c~eat:~n area ar.d side „~ ~ y-ard requirements established by oroinance; that the reques: was ',,he easi•.~t w,y out u.` a ! i 'e" _-i `°-=-~~:..r._..~T -r-__,_--.. :-~, ~--.~. ,e'~;~~._ - .:, ., ,__. . ... .~,,.o~„ ,. _ . a, ~ ---_ - - ---• •• ~ .. ~ .~r*:;~- -1. MINUIES, CITY PLANNING COMMIS5I01~, February 27, 1907 3349 VARlANCE N0. 1854 - 1e9a1 entanglement of the property ova:~.ers; that the demands on the (Continued) community would be greatly increased in the community park are~s since a precedent would be set for similar requests of other develop- ments already built or proposed to be built; that reducing side yar~.s would make these substzndard lot widths, and creating another precedent; and that the additional burden on the already overta~ced community parks for recreation purposes would be a foregone conclusion. Mr. Laraway stated, again, that the property was in receiv~rship; that he wzs not attempt- ing to obtain something for himself or circumver:t the City's ordinances; that he would - like clarification of the statement by the Commission regarding the recreation areas. ~iT-~~ Commissioner Rowland stated that tne recreation area was based on the computatio.^. of an eight-unit structure with a 75-foot wide lot within Code required side yards; ~hus, if ;~ this were suodivided, either owner could erect a fence along the recreational bou~,dary, I reducing the amount available to less than Code requirement whicn then would ada to use of public parks for recrEation purposes. Furthermore, these lots would be grossly sub- j standard from the R-3 requirements. Mr. Laraway inquired whether or not a condition oi approval, prohibiti~g erection o: any ~ fer.ce, could be made so that recreation areas would be as ihey were oresent:y designed. The Commission advised Mr. Laraway this was impossible to do. Furthermore, it would DE le9ally impossible to prove something contrary to the State Subdivision A^•i. No one appeared i:~ opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS C UJSED. Commissioner Rowland offered ~esolution ~o. PC67-45 and moved ior its passage a~d adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to deny Petition for Variance Vo. 1854, o^ tne basis tnat substandard lots would be created, setti~g a precedent for similar requests o: et:^er c~-3 developments tnroughout the City; tnat tne zoninp action snould not oe considereo ::e venicle to adjuoicate legal title matters; tnat i~adequate area would be provid•_: :or recreation purposes if the proposed lot split was apnroved, thereby creating ~:,.:rde~ on ~he nublic park system facilities; and tnat a previous request was denied by the Ci•.y ~ Cour.cil for substandard lots whicn were larger than those presently proposed. ~~ee Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing reselu;.ion was passed 'oy the following vote: AYES: CO,WJ~ISSIONERS: All:ed, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Rowlond, Camp. NOcS: CO~WJ~ISSIUIJERS:: iJone. ABSENT: COh1~MISSIOIJER;: M~ungall. Commissioner Rowland left the Council Chamber at 3:2C ?.~1. s ' VARIAiJCE ;10. 1855 -°~nLi;: HEHRI;JG. NrIGH30RS RAUCHcS, A PART;IEr~SHIP, 533 North Pi~e Way, A~.aheim, California, C~~~er; JOScPH C. NEIGHHORS, 633 North Pi.^.z Way, Ananeim, California, Hgent; requesting permission to ~XPAND nN " EXISTIDIG POOL SUPPLY FACILITY, wiTH WAIVERS OF (1) REQUIRED PARKiNG, (2) REQUIi~ED TRASH ~ AND STORAGE A~EAS, AND (3) REQUIRED LANDSCA?ING on property described as: ~~ rectangularly ~ shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 1G0 feet on the north side of ~ La Palma Avenue and having a maximum depth of approximately 133 feet, the eastErly boundary ~ of subject property being approximately 250 feet west of the centerline of Euclid Street, and further described as 1717 and 1719 West La Palma Avenue. Property presently classified g R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed the proposed request and location of subject ' i~ property, together with uses established in cl~se proximity. " ~ Mr. J. C. lJeighbors, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and revieweu tlie original zoning action on subject property, toyether with l~ter Commission initiated zoning action, noting that because it was impossible to extend the alley along *_he rear cf the propert~~, provision of t*ash storage areas - or.e ef the conditions of approval under ~ the later reclassification - could not be completed; tnat trasn was picked up irom the curb alung La Palma Avenue from 55-gallon containers; that dedication i~ad been accomplished, as well as streEt lights paid some time ayo; that t.he ~arking proposed were 10-foot wide stalls ~ instead of tiie minimum 8~ feet; and that trees required ior the parkway would be completed ~ when the proposed addition was completed. Furthermore, in response to Commission question- ,~r ir.g, Mr. Neighbors stated that a chainli~k fence and gate would be constructed at the front , ' t MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISST~N, February 27, 1907 3350 VARIANCE N0. 1855 - and rear of the new addition; that tl~e roof height would be the same (Continued) as the original structure; and that the Sanitation Inspector told him that because of the height of the trash pickup trucks, they could not go throu9h the drive-through on the east side of the building. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that t~e originzl structure ~o the =ast had developed under the old zoning action. Mr. Neighbors, responding to Commission questioning, stated that all truck facilities would be stored in the fenced area. ' - No on~ appezred in opposition to subject petition. F. ---''~FS~ ~ TI-tr HEARING WAS CLOSED. E{ S Discussion was held 'r,y the Commission zo determine wnether or noi the proposed cnaialink "'i fence would be de~rimental to the estanlisnec commerciel appearance of the area, z~d , whetner or not a decorative masonry wall wi2h an overnead door might not be nore comoli- I mentary to the adjoining commercial facilities, whereupon tne petitioner inouired wnether ' or not an area could remain open ~o place a glass window in order ~ha~ tne pool display ' _I area might not be visible ;rom the stree~. The Cortmission ;elt this would be more accept- able than the chainlink fence and gate as originally proposed, and that the waiversrequir- ,' ing parking and trash areas were necessary because development had occurred previously • I , without providing adequate parking and secondary access of a^ al?ey; that by reouirinq ~ the wall would ;orestall the possibility oi a.uture te::ant usi~g this as a catcn-all :or s~orage of supplies rath=r than ~ display area. i Commissio~er Allred oifered Resolution No. PC67-46 and moved for its passage a~a adoption, , seconded by Commissiorer Herbst, to grant ?etitioi. for Variaace No. 1855, suojec~ to conditions, witn an adriition to Condition No. 6, as follows: "I'hat tne rdCdQE o: tne ~~•. proposed covered storage area shall be enclosed to represe~t a new commercial iro~tage, with tne possibility of an overhead door anri a decorative masonry wall with a~ ope^ing E„, for a window". (See Resolution Book) ~' On roll call the foregoing resolution was passea by tne fol;owi~g vote: i AYcS: C0~~1ti1ISSI0~ERS: Allred, Fara~o, Gauer, Herbst, Camp. i _ ~OES: c,J;~t~1I5S:0~cRS: None. ! _ ABSENT: CO~v1~AISSIUiJc~S: ,'J~ungal'_, r~owland. i ~: VARIA,:CE IdO. 1850 - PUBLIC HEF,RI;JG. VILLk FOiJTAI;JE ENTERPRISrS, I?~CORPURAI'cL:~, 3251 :vorti~ t• Harbor Boulevard, Fullerton, California, Uw~er; EUGENE L. DURAJvD, ~ 3261 N~rth Harbor Boulevard, Fullerton, California, l,gent; requesting p- WAIVER UF MAXIi~1JM PER~v1ITTED SIGN AREA on property oescribed as: A~ irregularly shaped ~~, parcel of la~d of approximately 3.18 acres, naving a f:o^ta~e of approximately 60 feet o~ ! the so~atn side of Li^co1.^. kvenu~ and having a maximum depth of aoproximately 675 :eet, ~; ~ the easte:ly boundary of s~.:bject property being Gpproximately 831 feet west oi the ce~ter- ,' i ~ line of Da1e Fvenue, and iurthe: described as 285o West Lincoln Avenue. Property prese~tly f.~ classified C-1, GE~JcR~aL CO(J~NFRCiAL, ZGyE. ~ I Conuniasioner Rowland returned to the Council ~namber at 3:42 P,h1. ~ r Associate Pla;~er Jach ChrisLoffersor, reviewed tne keport to th? Commission, the loca2io~ ~" ~~ ef subiect property,and the uses established in close proximity. Mr. Ricnard Pierce, 1736 Antigu2, idewport Beach, representing the agent for the petitioner, ; appeared before the Commission a~id stated he was one o: the ow~er-builders of the R-"s ! j development; that when they proposed the original zoning tnere were so mony difierent types ~ ; of permits to yet that the pos~ing of a uond to insure removal o: the sign within six months was overlooked; that the sign would be removed when the Commission decided on the i present request; tnat in the projecilOfl of a new sign they were attempting to build the sign within the decor of the apa.rtments wnich were located 'oppruximately lo0feet souti~ oi Lincoln Avenue; tnat because of che setuack some type of advertising was necessary to direct prospective tenants to the develepment; that e,rcause of the speed of automobiles along Lincoln Avenue a 90-~auare foot sign was necessary, rather than t;;e 20-square foot ;~~ sign permi~ted by Code; and ~nat the sigr. was proposed for the center of the 50-foo* private drive. I , , :he Commission inquired as to tiie effect ti~is pror~sed sig:: would have on the C-1 property ~, to the east and west whicn had mutual easem~ent ri~~~ts over rhis 60-foot wide, private ~~; ~ street. i i _ - .-, ~ MINUTES, CITY PiANNI~G C~~MMISSION, February 27, 1967 3351 VARIANCE v0. 1856 - The agent replied that they had purposely retained a 60-foot strip (Contini•~) so that the apartments would have a link with Lincoln Avenue, and that the sign would project the same tiieme as the apartment development. Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission and the agent that a$100 fee was required in addition to bonding for removal of the sign, and that he should check with the Building Department regarding said charge. Mr. Harold Andrews, 1023 Fairway Drive, Orange, appeared before the ~ommission in opposi- tion, presenting a petition signed by ten property owners, all in opposition to subject petition and stated that he had purchased the two C-1 lots adjacent to the 60-foot wide private drive; that the lots had an easement for access; that if the siqn were proposed for the center of .he street, he might be denied access to tnis property and would not have corner lots; that if he had known the sign was proposed at the new loc~ ion, ne would ; not have purchased tne C-1 lots since it was most important that the lots were corner lots, which would be destroyed if the sign were approved; furthermore, he noted that he was °~ unaware the existing sign was ille?al and left on his p:•operty - however, he had asked 1 the petitioner to remove it, and it was relocated to it.s present site, and now tney were ,~ asking for a different sign which would be detrimental to the possible sale of nis lots ~ since it was impossible to convince people he had corner lots. i N1r. Pierce, in rebuttal, stated that if they had sold these two lots as teing fully y improved 1ots, they would take down the existing sign, as well as post a bond; th~t it was not their intent to run down the neighborhood since, in his opinion, the apa~~ment development was one of the nicest in Anaheim, and it was not their intent to do a~ything which would be detrimental to the neighbors. Chairman Cr,mp inquired of Deputy City A rtorney Furman Roberts whetiier or not the petitioner could ere~t a sign if easements for street and utility purposes were grantec to the purchaser of these two ~-1 lots adjacent to subject property. ;Ar. Farano also inquired whether or not the holoer of the easement was also a p~r., ;o t5e application. ~Nr. Roberts advised the Commission he could not tell without studying the legal description regardinq easements whether or not the owners of the R-3 retained their "in fee" riynt and gave *he owner of the C-1 property or~ly the easement right. Considerable discussion was then held between tne Commissior. and hir. ?oberts regarding tne easement rights and the fact that ne was permitted a 20-square foot sigr,, since ~his would be an accessory use of the property. R ~ The agent then advised the Commission that they were owners "in fee" of the 60-foot strip - however, permission to have ingress a~d egress from this private street ratner than having ingress and egress to Lincoln Avenu? was grznted the property owners; tnat the si9n was now located in the LO-foot setback area, whereas tne si~n could be placea on the property li~e; and that the existing roadway was 40 feet wide. The Commission inquired as to whetner o: not the property was C-1 or R-3, wnereupon the a9ent replied tnat the reason it was zoned C-1, although it was r~oi their intention to have it developed as commercial, it was part of the original zoning action; however, the adjoining C-1 properties would 'nave to de~:~lop in accordance with the C-1 standards unless a request was filed before tne Commissior~; a~d that altnough the property ;or the 60-foot street was ~-1, this was not asked fo: by tne petitioner, but was included as part of the rezoning action for the entire parcel. Zoning Supervisor R.onald Tnompson advised th~: Commission tnat the street was a standard street width, although the parkway areas were unpaved. Commissioner Farano inquired whether or not the owners of the C-1 lots on either side of the private road would b= able to have ingress and egress to and from Lincoln Avenue without u=_ing thi= street, to which Mr. ?homoson replied tnis could be done. The Commission noted that the sign was :onsiderably over the size permitted by Code; however, tne lettering was considerably smaller than most signs had. Nr. Andrews read his ea;;ement rights and then stated that the petitioner advised him when the original subdivisio:i plan was approved, he did not know tnis was included in tne C-1 Zone - that this strer..t w~s not identified as the center of these two lots, and this nad to be resolved by the title company, and that now that he knew he did not have two corner lots, he would have diificulty in disposing of the lots since it was only during escrow negotiations tnat he learned the street was not a dedicated street. F MINUTES, CIT'i PLANNING COMMISSION, February 27, 1967 3352 F ~ . { ~ ~• i. ~:. ~I ~ '~ , ~ ;) ` , ~I ~ :i ~ VARIANCE N0. 1856 - Mr. Eugene Durand, the petitioner of the apartment development, (Continued) appeared before the Commission and stated that the original sign was 75 square feet, although the Sta;f indicated it was 95 square feet; that he and his partner did own the private street outright - nowever, Mr. Andrews had easement rights access to the private street from his property; that the existinq sign was in the 10-foot area on one side of the street; and that these lots fror:ing on Lincoln Avenue were quite valuable. TI-~. ,~ARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission noied that their concern was primarily land use and not potential value ot property; that if the owner of the two C-1 lots wanted to, he could object to tn2 location of the sign regardless of wnere it was put by stating this would be his i~gress end egress road - however, the petitioner could, by right, erect a 20-square root sign on his property, although th~ size of the parcel was too sma11 to construct anythi~g on it, and access to the apartments was necessary since this would otherwise make the apart- ments landlocked. Furthermore, if the petitioner proposed a sign in the center o; the street, this could represent a hazard to traffic even thou9h on a private street most people were not aware the street was private, and the hazard would occur during a;og when the sign was not easily visible, and that if apartments gained a good reputa;.ion, there was no need for an elaborate sign since its locatio~ weuld be known by word of mouth. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion io deny subject peti~ioz since it would set a precedent for other apartment develepments requesting ofi-site advertising, and tha~ the sign should be within the requirements of the Sign Ordinance. However, aiter further discussion by the Commission, Commissioner Gauer withdrew his motion, it being determined that the owner of the C-1 property to the east a~d west oi the 60-foot private street and the petitioner should resolve problems for access. Commissioner Gauer offere:d a motion to reopen the hearing and co~~inue Petition ior Vaz•iance No. 1856 to the meeting of March 13, 1967, in order to allow time for t'r:e petitioner and the adjoining property owners to meet with the Staff to resolve t- access problems. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motior.. A10TION CARRIED. RECESS - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recess the meeting. Commissioner A11red seconded the mction. t~i0TI0N CAnRIED. The meeting recessed at 4:20 P.M. RECONVENE - Chairman Camp reconvened the meeting at 4:35 ?.~~5., all Commissioners being present except Commissioner Mungall. VARIANCE N0. 1857 - PU3LIC HEF,RING. RICHARD W. LNHITE, 803 Canoga Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; WILLIAAI R. BROWN, 1011 North Magnolia Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF MI;'IMLM REAR YPRD SET$ACK o,~ property described as: Hn irre9ularly shaped parcel of land located at the southwest corner of Faircrest Drive and Canoga Street and havin9 frontages of approxi- mately 85 feet on Faircrest Drive and approximately 67 feet on Canoga Street, and further described as 803 Canoga Street. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Mr. William 3rown, agent for tt~ petitioner, appeared before the I,OTifi11551J~ and reviewed the proposed development, notir that a room addition was necessary, and the o~ly logical place for the room was between the y:rage and the house; thus the request for the waiver was necessary because the garage became part of the main structure and had to be ten feet from the property line. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. Tfft :IEARIiJG WhS CLOSED. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PCo7-47 and moved for its passage and adopti~n, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for '•;;ria~ce No. 18~7, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMidISSIONERS: P.llred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Mungall. ,. F ~ ~ t:ItJUTES, CITY PLANNING CG;NJiISSIO'.~, Februery ?:, 1?•;7 3353 DIRcCTIVc TO THE STAFF - Commissio~er Rowla~d offerea o T.n~ion to insiruct the Staff to review Section 13.24.030{3-:,; rEOurding the minimum rear yard setback as i~ pertained to tne additio~ of a room connecting the accessory ~u:lding with the main ~uilding to determine whether or not this can be administered by tne Staff, and whether or not it should be establish~d as a Council policy. Commissioner Herbst seco~ded tne motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECLr,SSIFICATIOV - PU3LIC :~ARii9G. i~JWARD R. POLZIN, 1205 Connecticut Avenue, Anaheim, . N0. 59-60-14 Caliiornia, Owner; property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land 'naving a frontaqe of approximately 121 feet on ine tivest side oi i~~ C~:7DITIONAL USE Euclid Street ~nd having a maximum depth of approximately 1:~ feet, the ~{ PERMIT N0. 923 norti~erly boundary of s~bject property being approximately 175 feet ~a south of tne ce~terline of Orange Avenue, and furtner describe~ a, ~, ~ 515 Sou~n Eucl.id Street. Property presently classified C-1, G~VcRAL ~ CON~II~RCIAL, ZQVc (Dc~D RcSTRICTED). I ~eQUcS?cD CLASSiFiCA:ION: D'ci=TiO\ OF JccD 3ESiRICTIO~S W;iIC:i LIMIT T;-L"- USES vF i SUBJcCi PRO?c~TY TO 3USI~cSS AND ?ROFESSIOVP.L CFFICES j ~ ~ PERMIT TE-IE fULL RANGE OF C-1, GE;JERAL CGiVi~47cRCIFL, I, ZO;IE USES . r~cQUcSTcD COI~DITIO:dr,L USc: ESTF.BLISH A WALK-UP c~ESTAURANT WIT~ VJAI~RS UF (1) Y~Lt- STE~NDING SIGiJ LOCATION AND (2) idItiI1lUhl DISTAidC~ 3c~"+~EiJ F. FRiE-STAiJDIidG SIGN AND A RCOF SIG;J. ;I Rssociate Plan~er Jack Christofferson reviewed for the Commission the proposed request I for amendment to deed restrictions, the locatiun and development of subjec~ property with ! ;~ a walk-up restaurant, and waivers oi the Sign Ordinance, together with the uses esioblished ' in close proximity. Mr. Howard Polzin, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated he wuulo con- form with all conditions of approval as indicated in the Report to the Commiss_on: that waiver of the sign location was necessary because of the neight oi tne office uuilding to the south which would obstruct the sign if located in accordance with the Sign urdi~~r,ce; that the sign was proposed to be located closer to the service station which would ~ot be affected by its location; that the representatives of the company leasin9 the prooerty for the proposed walk-up restaurant were presen+. in the Council Chamber to a~swer questions, said representatives being considered some of the outstandin9 restaurant and food manage- ment operators; and that tne Anaheim operation would be the traini~g ;acility for ~ possible nation-wide orgenization. idr. Frank LaMagna, 1730 West La Palma f~venue, appeared before tne Commis:ion and submitteu a brochure and artist. drawing of the proposed walk-up restaurant for the C;ommissio~'s review and reviewed the experience and background of the officers of the organization, noting that concecn expressed un similar types of restaur~nts regarding cleanliness oi the premises woulu be taken care of th:ough the employment oi one person assigned primarily to maintain the cleanliness of the premises; that it was their irtent not to make this a "hangout" for teenagers because no tables were to be provided - reither would there be a~y juke box music nor liquor ~icense request; that the organization was presently participat- ing in civic a:fairs; and that the officers of the organization would be present daily in tne restaurant since this would be the headquarters and training facilities for other operations. The Commission noted that some of the front patio could be converted easily into an area for tables and inquired what was proposed ;or this area. Mr. La~'~agna replied that t7e tivalk-up area was designed so that people leaving their cars would not have to walk in front of other automobiles, and that it was not their intent to permit food to be consumed nn the premises unless within the automobiles themselves: however, no service would oe provided for these automobiles. Mrs. William F~annigan, 605 South Alvy Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition, noting that the area was zoned for business ano professional uses only; that the property was not large enough for ;.he prcrosed use; that there were three other restaurants in the area similar to the one proposed; that considerable trash and debris would be blowing into the residential area if food was taken from the restaurant and consumed while people were walking or driving after leavi;g said premises; and that she represented a iriend and her husband rvho were a!so in opposition. .~x MINUTES, CITY PLANNIyG COMMISSION, February 27, 1967 3354 RECLASSIFICATION - The Commission determined, on inquiry, that the hou.rs of operation N0. 59-60-14 of th t e res aura~t would be from 11:00 F.M. to 10:00 or 11:00 ?.N,.; that the maintenance man would not be limited to pick-up and clean-up CONDITIONAL USE of subject property, but surrounding ro t P p per y as well; that the pro- ERMIT N0. 923 posed operation, together with three other restaurants in var (Continued) i y ng stages of development, would be the first of this proposed nation- wid e restaurant chain; and that landscaping proposed would be adhered to if at all possibl e regarding the planting of full-grown trees. THE f~ARIIJG WAS CLOSED. , ~ Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC67-48 and moved for its passage a~d adootio~, seconded by Commissioner Farano to rec ~ ; ~ , ommend to the City Co~~cil that deed res ui;;tions limiting the use of subject property to business and professio l ~ ~ F'~ na offices be dele~ea to provide for the development of a walk-up restaurant which i~ th ~ ' , e opinion of the Ca~mission was not detrimental at its location - located between a servic ~ ,~ e station ~nd an office building, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) ~I ~ , Gn roll ca11 the fore9oing resolution was passed by tne followin~ vote: ~ ~ i ~ AYES: CUUuNISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Camp. NOES: CO~NJ,ISSIONERS , i~ ^ : None. ABSENT: COt~IIdISSI0NER5: h1unga1l. ~ ~1 Cammissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC67-49 and moved for its passage ar.d ~doption seconded by Commissioner Herbst to ~•a , , grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit :do. 923, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) ~! ' I ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: I f , AYES: CGNINISSIO,IERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Camp. NOES: CC~W~IISSIUNERS: None. ,~ ABSEUT: CUhVJ~ISSIUVtRS: 1lungall. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. WILLIAM M. SMALL, 1032 West Ball Road, Ananeim, N0. 60-57-52 California, Uwner; BETKER CO~STRUCTION CUR,'~ RpTIO;Q, 524 West CommomNealth P.venue, Fullerton, California, Hgent; property described VARIANCE N0. 1858 as: A.rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a irontage of approxi- mately 1::0 feet on the east side of Palm Lane and having a maximum deoth of approximately 290 feet, the northerly bound~ry o{ subject proper~y being approximately 230 ;eet south of the centerli~e oi Ball Road. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONe. R~QUcSTcD CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAh1ILY RESIDEiJTIAL, ZUNE. REQIJtSTED VARIA;dCE: WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIN,UM BUILDI;JG HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FcET UF R-A ZONED PROPERTY AND (2) :~7INIMUM BUILDING SETBACK. Associate ?lanner Jack ~ristofferson advised the Commission of a slight typographical error in the Report to the Commission i~ that the Request and Location Item Uo. 1(a) should read "R-A to R-3 Zone", rather than "R-k to C-1 Zone". Mr. Christofferson then continued and rEViewed the r~eport to the Co;runission, noting the location of subject property, the proposed request, and the fact that subject property was bounded on three sides by R-3 development and the agricultural zone to the north. Mr. Graham Wilson, represe~~ting the agent fcr the petitioner, appeared before ttie Commission and noted that his firm f:ad constructed a number o: the proposed type of apartments in the area, and it was planned to continue ~he same type of arcnitecture for this development. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions. ~ iHL HEARING WAS CL~SEll. i , Commissioner Farano offered Resolution IJo. PC67-50 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by ~:ommissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi- ~;~ fication No. 66-67-~2 be appruved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution 9ook) ~j ~~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: r.. ~ - AYES: CUMMISSIONL-RS: A11red, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Camp. ~<, ~ NOES: C011MISSIOid"cRS: None. t'1, ~ i ABSEiJT: CpMMISSI0IJERS: Mungall. F MINU'~ S, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 27, 1957 ) ~ 33~5 RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Farano offered Resoluiion No. PC67-51 and moved for its i N0. 66-67-52 passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to 9rant Petition for Uariancz No. 1858, subject to conditions. (See Resolution VARIANCE N0. 1858 Book) (Continued) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CO~~ISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, ~;amp, NOES: CUMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Mungall. ~ . i MINUI'ES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 27, 1967 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS AMENDMENT TO THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE, TITLE 18, ZONING, entitled Chapter 18.65, Regulations for the Storage of Carnp Cars, Trailers, Boats, and Other Commercial Vehicles - Report and recommendation relative to the drafts of the Committee appointed by the City Council, Trailer Coach Association, and Planning Commission. The Planning Commission, Staff, and Deputy City Attorney Furman R~berts discussed at length the proposals of the Committee appointed by the City Council to draft an ordina:~ce, the Motor Coac'r. Association, and the Commission's ordinance recommended for adoption August 16, 19ti6, together with regulations as established in Chapter 15.28 regarding the sturage of campers, trailers, etc., and at its conclusi~ !he Commission did ~ind and determine the following facts: I. That the Committee's proposed ordinance had: A. A number of well written definitions. B. The ordinance was written as being a permissive use of the property, which would allow the storage of campers, irailers, camp cars, etc., in the required setbacks, giving rio consideration to the heaith, peace, safety, and general welfare of the nei9hbors of the recreation vehicle owners. C. Section 18.64.020, Parking and Storage, Subsection C-2, pertazning to vehicles a maximum length of 27 feet, wouid be far in excess of anything which should be permitted in the residential zones based on the fact that most lots have a required 25-foot building setback, and the 27-foot vehicle could often extend into the public right-of-way which would be hazardous to the line of sight of oncoming pedestrian and vehic~lar traffic. D. That in the parking of vehicles in the side yard, ~o consideration was given to the fact that vehicles parked too close to structures Nould deprive occupants of thE dwellings of the necessary light, air, privacy and fire protection. II. 7hat the Trailer Coach Association's proposed ordinance had: A. Several items in Section 18.65.010 of the definitions, namely "d", "e", "f", and "g" which ~vere very clear and concise and warranted being considered for inclusion in any revision to present Code requirements. B. That the ordii~nce was too permissive in regard to the parking of these vehicles, favoaing a minority, whereas an ordinance should be written which would give primary consideration to the majority. C. Section 18.65.020(c) "Permissible parking subject to revocation procedures" is not enforceable since an•~ ordinance established by the City Council should be enforced by the governin9 agencies, whereas this section permits enforce- ment through adjudication by the neighbors, thus depriving the City Council and the Planning Commission iheir right to admini~',er the required Code set- backs through zoning actions. III. The Plar,ning Commissior.'s comme:~ts to the r?commended ordinance Cha~ter 18.65 draft of Auqust 15, 1966, are as follows: ~y_ -=+ 7 ' ~ ~ ~x ; ~> ~! `E - ~, .. ._ a., _ ._. A. The proposed ordinance by the Commission is more acceptable and enforceable since it is a prohibitive ordinance. B. Amendments could be made, which are of a minor nature, to the proposed ordinance and shall i~~lude refere~ce to dune buggies, passenger cars, and airplanes. C. As an alternative, Section 15.28.010 "Definitions" should be updated to include the definitions as depicted in the proposed ordinances, as well as amendment to Section 15.28.240, incorporating the basic principles of the Commission proposed ordinance and strictly enforcing this revision as they pertain to residential zones onl/. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CAMMISSION, February 27, 1967 REFORTS AND RECANUc~ENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 1 (Continued) D. That an amortization time of two years shall be provided to permit the vehicles presently being par!ced illegally, in order that arrangements may be made for the relocation of the vehicles. E. Grave concern is expressed that if the required setbacks are not main- tained, both those persons owning the aforementioned vehicles, as well as their non-owning neighbors, will be deprived adequate air, light, . privacy, and fire protection. q~~ Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that consideration ~{ ~ be given to the Commission's findings of fact as aforementioned regarding the Committee x~ and the Motor Coach Association drafts of the ordinance for parking of trailers, etc.; ~~ and that the Commission's recommendations that their proposed ordinance, with minor revisions, considered as the most acceptable document as an ordinance. However, if an alternative ~ solution is iound necessary, that amendments be made to the existing ordinance Chapter 15.28 ~ to include the definition as indicated in the Commission's proposed ordinance; and incor- •~ porating the basic principles of the proposed ordinance in Section 15.28.240, together with ' the enforcement of these restrictions in any residential zone. i Furthermore, that an amortization period of two years be established through application of ~ a permit being granted to allow the parking of these vehicles until such time as the owners ~ have found a solution and arrangements made for the relocation of the vehicles off the ~ premises, if they cannot be parked in accordance with Code. I Consideration also should be given to the retention of the side yards unless the vehicles ~ can be parked in t~~e side yards without loss of air, light, privacy, and fire protection, ~ if these vehicles are parked closer than the required setback. , Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTIGN CP.RRIED. R .~t - ..._... _ _ . ~_ ` ~ ...,r::.~_ _ _... .: , _ ._ .. ~ . -- - ,. MINU?ES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 27, 1967 33'_~8 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 2 RECOMMENDATIONS Orange County Use Variance No. 5854 - Proposing the enlargement (Continued) of an existing steel fabricating business in the A1 General Agricultural District located on the south side of Fletcher Street, approximately 280 feet east of Ba*_avia Street in the ~ west Orange area. 1 Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson presented Orange County Use Variance ~Jo. 5854 and reviewed the Report to the Commission relative to subject property. Commissioner Allred offered a motion to receive and file Orange Couqty Use Variance ~' PJo. 5854. Com~issioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.. ITEM N0. 3 City of Stanton Conditional Use Permit C-67-2 - Proposing tne establishment of a residence and a child day care center on Cerritos Avenue between Magnolia and Dale Avenues. The Commission reviewed tne locaiion oi subject property and noted tnat R-3 uses were ~ established around subject property. Commissioner Allred offered a motion to receive and file City of S~anton Conriitional Use Permit C-67-2. Commissioner Herbst seconded the notion. MOTION CARRIED. '• ITEM N0. a i Conditional Use ?ermit No, 565 - Clarification of permitted use. ; ~ Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that tne owner of tne ;ap City Restaurant nad submitted a letter requesting clarification of Conditional Use Permit No. 565 for on-sale beer, determining whether or not on-sale wine, in addition to t^e on-sale beer, would be permitted. Tne Commission was of the opinion that on-sale wine wae in the same category, wnereupon Deputy City A~torney Furman Roberts advised the Commission tnat a resolution should be '~ paseed, amending Finding No. 1 to permit on-sale beer and wine. Commissioner Herbst of'rered Resolution No. PC67-52 and moved for its paseage ano adoption, seconded by Commiseioner Allred, to amend Finding No. 1 of Reaolution No. 11A1, Serieo 1963-64, granted on April 27, 196a, eetabliohing a restaurant with on-~ale bear, to inciude "on-eale wine". (See Reaolution Hook) On roll call the :,regoing resolution was peeeed by the followinq votei AYES~ CO~MISSIONERSi Allred, Farano, Geuer, Herbbt, Rowland, Camp~ NOeSi CO~~ISSIONERSi None. ABSENT~ CA~NISSIONEr1Si Munqell. ITEM N0. 9 Sente Ane Canyon Roed Accebb Point~ Implem9n±ation pf Preci~e Alignment• for Accees ?oint Nos. 7, 9, 10, end 11 e• depictad on ~xhiblt No. 7. Zoning 5upervieor Ronald Thompson preeented a report to the Planning Commi~rlon on the Santa Ana Canyon Road Acceas Points from the Planning Divi~ion a• followo~ ~ "Approximately one year has passed (November 8, 1965) 41nce tha Planning Commission recommended to the City Councii (adopted by the City Council January 11, 1966) the ~ Santa Ana Canyon Aoad Access Points R,aster plan. In the paat year it he~ become in- ~ creasingly obvious that an additional atep muet be taken to fully imple~ent the access ' points plan. That 6tep would be the establishment of precise alignments for the erterial highways intexsecting the adopted occess points. Through the adoption of precise al!gn- ments, the re~pective government agency, either city or coun:y, would be able to definitely indicate the location of arterial highways so that property owners developing property ~~ - adjacent to such arterials wo~.d know their routes of circulation. 4,, ~ "In addition, Staff would strongly suggest that the Orange wunty Planning Commission ' refer to the City of Anaheim! not only zoning cases and subdivision mape (as they presently ~ do), but in addition, minur subdivisions such as parcel maps. This would enable both the ,,~ city and county to keep closer tabs on the development taking place in the 5anta Ana Canyon and thereby hope to eliminate difficult (if not impessible) circulation problems. __ _.. . . ~:_..~ .. ; ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 27, 1967 3359 ! REA~RTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 5 (ContinuAd) "Recommendations: "1. That the Orange County Planning Commission be urged to initiate precise alignment studies for the arterial highways intersecting Access Point Nos. 7, 9, 10, and 11 (see Exhibit 7, Access Points Santa Ana Canyon Road). "2. That the Orange County Planning Commission be requested to refer all minor subdivisions (parc=l maps) within the potential area of expansion to the City ~~~ of Anaheim for consiGeration and comment." ~`~ ~ The Comr.iission reviewed the recommendations made by the staff and inquired whether there 1 j were any specific instances when parcel maps would have affected this circulation. ,. ~ ~ Mr. Tnompson stated that one had been considered b t~e Count however the Y Y9 , property owner who was proposing tne parcel map had contacted the City of Anaheim for approval, ~ and this request then precipitated the Staff recommending steps be taken by the City to eliminate any recurrences of such actions. P ~ Commissioner Herpst offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange ~~ County Planning Commission be urged to consider implementing the following steps as I soon as possible: t ~ 1. The initiation of precise alignment studies for the arterial highways intersecting hccess Point Nos. 7, 9, 10, and 11, as depicted on Exhibit 7, I Access Points Santa Ana Canyon Road. i I 2. I'he refersal of all minor subdivisions (parcel maps) within the potential , area of expansion to the City of Anaheim for consideration and comment. I i Corranissioner. Allred seconded the motion. N~TION CARRIED. I ;i ITttd N0. 6 Variance No. ii98 - Retail nursery sales in conjunction f -, with wholesale sales in the M-1 Zone (Hertzler) - - Property located at the sout;~east corner of State College i Boulevard and Cerritos Avenue - Request for additio~al time. I Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompeon advised the Commission that a;etter had been received from ,Mr. James E. Wilmoth requesting consideration of an additional three months' time in addition to thai already granted Mr. and Mrs. Charles Hertzler, said time lirnitation to expire June 6, 1967, and that Mr. Wilmoth was in the Council Chamber to explain his reason for requesting the additional time. Mr. James Wilmoth appeared before the Commission and stated that he was the owner of the Yorba Linda Nursery and Garden Center and had made arrangements to dispose of the Las Palmas Nursery palm inventory, who had met some reversal in their attempt to dispose of this nursery stock, and that he felt if he were given additional time for the disposition of this stock, said time extension be no later than November 1, 1967, and if a7.1 the stock had not been sold, he would remove the stock to his Yorba Linda Center. Commissioner Farano offered a motion to grant an extension of time not to exceed ;Jovember 1, 1967, for the disposition of all retail and wholesale stock of the Las Palmas Nursery, with the stipulation by Mr. James lNilmoth to remove any excess inventory upon the expiration date of November 1, 1967. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTIOy CARRIED. ITEM N0. 7 ' City of Buena Park Planning Commission complaint regarding excessive signs on display alor.g the west side of Beach Boulevard, north of Lincoln Avenue -"Big Bun Drive-Ir". ~ Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson reviewed the minutes of the City of Buena Park Planning Commission regarding a complaint by the City of Buena Park regarding enforcement of the j' City of Anaheim Stgn Ordinance, noting that the Big Bun Drive-In was flagrantly violating , this ordinance by the display of 19 signs along the west side of Beach Boulevard. I ~ . ~ ~ I ~ I ~ F _.~ i MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Febr~_~,~y ~7~ 1967 3360 ~ REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, - ITE~4 N0. ? (Continued) The Commission directed that the Zoning Enforcement Officer handle the matter of sign enforcement by contacting the property owner, and to advise the City of Euena Park the disposition of same. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRiED. ;~~ The meeting adjourned at 6:10 P.M. Respectfully submi~ted, (~L : ~ •~1'~.~ !' '/ ANT~ KREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission r ... .~::~ ~