The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1970/02/09 ( ~ ~ '~ ' ....~ ciry xaii Anaheim, California February 9, 1970 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Co~rtnission was called to order by Chairman Rowland at 2:05 o'clock P.M., a quorum being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Rowland. - COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano (who entered the Council Chamber at 2:10 P,M.), Gauer, Herbst (who entered the Council _ ~ , Chamber at 2:35 P.M.), Thom. ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Allred. ~ PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Ronald Thompson Deputy City 9ttorney: Frank Lowry Office Engineer Representative: RoUert Jones Zoning Supervisor: Charles Roberts Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Pat Brown Planning Coc~nisaion Secretary: Ann Krebs PLEDGE OF -. ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Camp led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF - The Minutes of the meeting of January 26, 1970, were approved as THE MINUTES submitted on motion by Commi.ssioner Thom, seconded by Commissioner Camp, and MOTION CARRIED. 'i ~ RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. GEORGE COLLMAN AND HORACE MORLOCK 16651 i N0. 69-70-10 , Yorba Linda Boulevard, Yorba Linda, California, Owners; JGrFP.EY ! - I VARIANCE N0 212 MILLET, 511 South Brookhurst Road, Fullerton, California, Agent; 1 ' ` . property described as: Portion A- A rectangularly shaped parcel t ~ TENTATIVE MAP OF of land consisting of approximately 7 acres, having approximate frontages of 530 f t h ~ TRACT N0, 7103, ee on t e east side of Kellogg Drive and 530 feet on the west side of Post Lane, having a maximum depth of ~ REVISION N0. 1 approximately 630 feet and being Located approximately 575 feet ~ north of the centerline of Orangethorpe Avenue; and P••ction B- ~ 1 I 6.8 acres bein A rectangularly shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately L t d h i , g fronta es of S10 oca e on t e north side of Orangethorpe Avenue, having approximate f i g eet on Kellogg Drive, 510 feet on Post Lane, and 600 feet on Orangethorpe Avenue. Property presenCly classified COUNTY A1, GENERAL AGRICULTURAL f DISTRICT. , ~ ~ .+Is REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: PORTION A- R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY, ZONE, PORTION B- R-3, DIULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE, REQUESTED VARIANCE: PORTION A ONLY - ESTABLISH A 44-LOT, R-2-5000 SUBDIVISION WITH TWO LOTS SIDING ON AN ART6RIAL HIGNWAY. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: ENGTNEER: MILLET, KING & ASSOCIATE~, 511 South Brookhurst Road, Fullerton, California; proposing that a 7-acre site be subdivided into 44 R-2-~000 zoned lots. Subject petitions were continued from the September 22 and October 20, 1969 meetings and were further continued from the November 17, ].969 meeting to the December 1, 1969 meeting in order to ailow rime for the staff to readvertise tlie petitions as the resulC of the developer redesigning the rezoning proposal as originally submitted. Subject petitions were again continued to the February 9, 1970 meeting in order to allow time for the petitioners to submit plans of development for Portion B, the souChern portion of subject property which was proposed to be reclassified to the R-3 Zone. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses estabiished in close proximity and the proposal to reclassify Portion A to the R-2-5000 Zone and Portion B to the R-3 Zone as prezoning prior to annexation of subject property into the City of Anaheim; that the variance waiver was to per;,~iC two side-on lot:a oP 5007 ` ,~ _ -~,;. i_ _~...r...,,.. r . ~ - . ~ \. t . ( ~ ~ ~ .> ~) MINUTES, CITY FL2~NNING COMMISSION, February 9, 19i0 5008 RECLASSIFICATION - singFe-family s[ructures adjacent to arterial highwaps rather than N0. 69-70-10 to rear on; that the petitioner had ~ubmitted plar.s for the develop- ment of Portion B, iz~dicating development of a 157-unit apartment VARIANCE N0. 2121 compLex; and that aEter the staff ha3 analyzed the submitted plans, it had determined the proposed development was designed so that no TENTATIVE MAP OF variances from the site development standards of the R-3 Zone would TRACT N0, 7103, be necessary - therefore, with the submission of these plans, the REVISION N0. ~. Commissxon was now in a position [o determine whether the total (Continued) ~ request for sub;ect property, as submitted, was a valid and appropri- ate one for the area in question. Mr. Jeffrey Miiiet, ager:t for :he petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted the reason for requesting the proposed zoning was that the main line of the Santa Fe Railroad was local•~ed tu the south; thaC. commercial zoning had been approved on the properzy immediately to the west and R-2-5000 had been approved to the r.or~hwest; that a po~enc.ial commercial site was located immediately to the east along Orangethorpe Avenue on the east side of Post Lane, and thal• this general area had two apartment developments to serve the industries in this area since the Ci~y of Yorba Linda had recently denied the request for apartment development in their City, which was immediately adjacent to the City of Anaheim houndary; that 41 of the proposed 157 apartments would be single ~ story, and the or~y other apar~ments existing were in the general area of Esper.anza Road and Imperial Highway. No one appeared in oppcsition to subject petitions. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Farano entered the Council Chamber a[ 2:10 P.M. The Commission reviewed the plans of develupment for the multiple-family complex and commenCed that this was one of the few apartment developments which had been submitted wiChout numerous waivers oeing requested. Zoning Supervisur Charles Roberts advised ~he Commission that the variance being con- ~ sidered by the Commissiun was ~o establish two R-2-5000 lots siding on an arterial i highway, Keliogg Drive, rather than rearing on as required by Code. _ Mr. Millet requested clarification of the conditions of approval, namely, the time limitation for completion of conditions for Portion B wherein annexation was required, as well as a Cime limitation of 180 days; Chat L•he owners of subjecl properly had za agreement with the County oF Orar.ge to construct a por.tion uf Orangethorpe Avenue - therefore, dedicaCion of the street width for Orangethorpe Avenue and engineering requirements would noc be needed; that although they intended to construct the side- walks, they were not desirous of construction of the sidewalks until the project was ? to be developed. Mr. Roberts advised Mr. Millet that the effective date as to time limita[ion would be from the date Che City Council acted on the reclassification since any Co~mnission action was merely a recommendation, and that sidewalks could be bonded to insure construction of same at the time development occurred since the owners of subject property already had an agreement with the County fur engineering requirements and widening of Orange- thorpe Avenue. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC70-LO and moved for its passage and adoption t~ reco~nend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 69-70-10 be approved, subject to condiLions as recommended Uy the Interdepartmental Committee for Public Saf.ety and General Welfare. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by L•he following vote: i ~ ~ AYES• CO~TMIISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Thom, Rowland. NOES: COAPIISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ALlred, Herbst. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. Commissioner Camp offered I:esolution No. PC70-11 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2121, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll ca11 che foregoing resolution was passed ty the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Thom, Rowland. NOES; C0~~IMISSIONERS: None, ABSENT.~ CODIMISSIONGRS: Allred, Herbsl. ABSTAIN; COMMISSIONERS: rarano. \ _. _--~-.~ . , _ .. _ " ' ~_.: - --.......' . . ~ ._,. ^ ; ~ -~ i ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PIANNING CGMMTSSION, Febr~ar~ 9, 19;0 5009 r RECLASSIFIC4TION - Co~nissio.er Camp offered a motion to approve Ter.~ative Map of { N0. 69•-iv-l0 'Pract No. %I03, Revision No. 1, subject .o the foliowir.g corditions; ' Commi~sioner Geuer secoaded tne mc[ion and MOTION C.9.RRI~,D: VARIAnCE ";J. 2121 i. That the approval of Ter.~~ative Map of Trac` No, ?iC3, Ret.ision ' - TENTATIVE Ma.P OF No, 'L, i~ grarted sabject to the appruval of Reciassification TR4CT N0, iF03, No. 69-70-i0 and Variance No. 2I2i. ! REVISION N0, i (Continued) 2. Tha~ should this sabdivision 'be devEiuped a~ mat.e than OTIE subdivision, each sabdi~isior. ~hereof shali bE submttted in :ent~::ive fcrm for approvai. 1 3. Tha~ in accordance wi~_n City Councii paiic~, a 6-fo~_ masonry waii shail be constructed on the westeri.; pr~perty tine separating aot Nos. lI, :-2, 33, 3w and 35 and Ke2iogg Lrive, except ::nar for curner iat Nos. 12 and 13, ssid wali shail be st~pped dac•:a to a haight of ~hir~v (30) inches in the required fronC yard se?~back, Reasene.ble iandscapiug, i~c~uding irriga~iun facilities, shaii oE inscalied '.r, ~hE un;,emer.ced portion of the ar~eriai high~.ay parkwa~ ctie full distance of said wail; p:ans for said iandscapirig to be submitted ~o and subi~ct to the apprcvai af L•he Superinte::deni: of Parkwsy Piaintenance. Fol2owing ~ns~alla- tion and accep~ar.ce, :he City of ~naheim shsli assume the responsib?li:p for mai::tena. ce of said Iar.dscapiag. 4. That a1i lot-s wiihi:i i:his <_ract shail be served by ;:r.derground utilities. 5. That the ~ehicuisr acceas rights, except at s=reet and/or ailey openings to Kelicgg G~rive sheii be dedica~ad ca the Cit•r of ?.r.aheim. 6. That dra:r.age eastmai_L-s ~nd f~cili~ies snaiF be previded as required by :he Ci~•y Er.gineer. 7. That aL'feEC r:ames s~a11 be approved b; the Cit~ of Anaheim prior to approvai of a final trsc: map, ~ 8. Thst the owner(s) oi ~ubjecz prupert} shall process the abandonment of Woodwind ~ Laae (formeri~ Orchard urive) being 40 feet wide along the northeriy boundarp ! of Tcac~ No. 7103, Revisicn No. 1, from Post Lane to Kellogg Drive; and, Post Lane - 60 feet wzde - r.orcheri.y of the proposed aiignment of Woodwind Lane. The ' own~r(sj ~f SUD~ECL pr.cperC•y shal: r.emuve and%or ab=ndon all existing ruadway improvements ar,d pub:i: a=iliT.y faciii~ies in the streets abandoned ar.d construct new improvemei~:s and faciiit~~s as requi.r2d ~~ the Ci~y of Anaheim. i ~ .+~c CO:dDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARINC. B~IRTUN AND KENNETH HEULER, 220 West Cypress, PERMIT N0, i155 Ar.aheim, California, Owners; L. NED MILLER, 1035 WesC Beverly Bou'Levard, MantebelZo, Ce-lifornia, Agent; requesting p~.•mission :o ESTABLISH A i20-BED NURSING HOME AND A 150-BEq BOARU AND CARE HOME FOR THE AGED, WIIH WAIVER OF THE MAXIr4irM AREA OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN on property described as: A rectangciarly shaped parct:< of land consisting of approximately 3 acres having a fran:age of approxima~_ely 428 feet on the nor[h side of La Palma Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximateiy 289 feet, and being located approximately 415 feet east of the centeriine of Euclid Street. Property .2resently classified R-A, AGRICULTURr1L, 20NE. Assistant Zoning Su~ervisor Pat Brown reviewed the lecation of subjec: rroper~y, uses esCabiished in ciose proximit~, and previoua zoning action on the proper:y, aoting that C-0 zoning had been requested in August of 1967, but an ordinance had not been read reclassifying the propert;~; that a vari~r.ce was filed in conjunction wich said reclassi- fication tu approve ~he estabiishment of a medicsl office fscility, which was later terminated; that the petitioners had a conditional use permit approved in April, 1969, to permit the estabiishmer.t of a resC iicme with waivers of the maximum height of a structur.e within 300 feet of a singie-family resider.tial zone and minimum driveway width; that later on, in Ju:~ of I969, anuther conditionai use permit to establish a 100-bed convalescert home had been approved - however, both of the latter proposais were con- templated for d_velopmer.t of the easterly two-thirds of subject property and neither one had beer, accivated as of this date; that tbe proposai was to develop the entire parcel originalii considered for reclassification to permit one iarge structure co:~sist- ing of a one-ator;, i20-bed nursing home in the easterl;r portion and a two-story, 150- bed board and care home fur ~he aged on fhe balance adjoining to [he west; that the petitior;er had indicated to l•he staff that n~ category "L" patients were cor,templated; that Code parkins requir.ements were more than adequately met since 50 were required and 73 were preposed; ~hat peripherai circulation t~ad beer, provided wi.Lh a combination of 25-faoC wide, fuii~r paved, priva:c drives and twin concrete ribbons at [he rear of the proper~y, capable of suppor>_irig emergency Yire eqsipment; and that tlie petitioners ~ ._~. I // I + . _____ .__..'_~._~~..~~..~.~.-~ ..n-..~_~_~..w•+-......~..~.....~.~"____. ..~.....~ .............~~..~..-~~.-....~...._..~_~~__~~._..,_. ._. . ~ , ------'---- ~ __...... _. (' } ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PL~NNING COMMISSION, February 9, 19i0 SOiO CONDITIONAL USE - were propcsing a 15-foot higli, 84-square foot, f'ree-s~ar.ding sign PERMIT N0. i155 tu identif~ the home fo: ~he aged and the nursing home, and sin~e (Cor.tiraed} the R-e1 2ci:e, in which subject propert~ was n3w ciaasified, di.d ; not permit a sign Larger than 20 sGuare feet, thi~ waiver was i raquired. i Mr. Browr., in reviewing the evoiuation, noted ~ha~ aitho;:gh they had not disc~ssedit with the petitioners prior Lo filing the petitio., the waivEr of the maximum sign area wouli! ' not be r.ecessary if the C-0 zcning were compieted on subjec•~ Froper~y - therefore, the oniy item of concern ~o tne C~imnissior was w'~e~her e~• no~ the propo~ed rursirsg home and board and care hom.: for .he aged were appropriate for this area, and in :ight of the previously approved actians or, suoject pr.o~ert~ i: wouid appear thaz the request was ~'"~ ~." an appropriate one. M Dir. Robert Chambers, 649 Lemon HiLi Terrac2, Fuiier~or., appeared before ~he Ccmmission .~' and`;oted he was repreaen:irig his mother who owned the pr~pert ab~ttin sub'ect _ to ~he r.orth snd which was sou~herly of the Boss Towel and Uniform Campar.y; thac ar~tubty ~' sl-reeC existed at ~he ex~reme r.ortheast end of subjec~ property which children used [o " gain entran.^e to tne cacant Fand on which to play; that becausz of the fact the use of ~• this street by trucks aErvicing subjecL property could create a hazard and a liability, ~. he requested that the Commisaioi~ require some type of fencing whicli would elimir.a~e the trucks servicing the preperty frcm the stub street and would also keep the eiderl}• persons frum walking onZo this property. Chairman Rowland advised Mr. Chambers that the plans presented by the petitioners indicated subject property had only 15 feec contiguous to this stub street while Mrs. Chambers' praperty had 45 feet - tliereFore, it would seem reasonabie to assume that the petitioner wou:d fer.ce his property if the adjoining propertti• were also enclosed with a fence. " Zoning Supervisor Charies RoberCS advised [lie Commissivn and. Mr. Chambsrs that one of € the recommended conditions cf appr~val vas the posting of a bond to guarantee payment ~' ~ of a pro~or~ionate share of the cost to construct a modified cul.-de-sac at the terminus of the st~b street, Gien Drive, which would eliminate trucks ~r autoanobiles using th:•. sL•reet to serve subject propert; and the vacant property to the west. ~ ; Mr, Chambers then noted tha; Assistant Develapment Services Director Ronaid Tltompson ~; had ,just advised him that a 6-foot masenrj~ wall was proposed to be consL-ructed bv the =~ developers of subjec~ proper[y for both the norLh and east property lines - therefore, his concern would be sa~isfied. a r :j Mr. RoberLS further r.o*_ed tha: in all likelihood trucks would noc use a residential street ~o serve suoject property since there wuuld be ample drivrway acc~ss from La Yalma Avenue to subject property. Mr. Richard Kearrey, 4i05 Eagle Rock Boulevard, architect for the pr~posed ~evelopment, reviewed the plans of development and noted there wauld be adequate parking both ir•. the front and rear of the property; that there would be adequate fire equipment circula- tion provided; and Chat they were amenable to the recommended conditions. Furthermore, the 6-foot masonry waYl as proposed would be a partial answer to the problem presented b} Mr. Chambers. ; Mr. Ned Miller, agent for ti~e peti.tioner and President of Questa Development Corp. ,~~velopers ~ of [he project, ar_d vice president of the corpuracion that would be operating this pro- ,~i posed facility, appeared before the Commission and noted they had spent a great deal of ~ time surveyi.ng tiie general Anaheim area before selecting subject propert.y for their ;~ proposed facilitp; that this location was in close proximity to two large hospi~als, ;; Anaheim Memorial Hospital and Plartin Luther Hospi[al, and these were either expanding ~ their present facilities or had plans for expansion, and these hospitals would pro~ide ~ the cor.valescent patients who would use the 120-bed facility they proposed to develap. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Gauer offerEd Resolution No. PC70-12 and moved for its passage and adoption • to grant Petition for Conditior.al Use Permit No. 1155, subject to the recommended (:; Interdapartmental Committee for Public Safety and General Welfare conditions. (See ; tt Fesoiution Book) _ 't On roll call the foregcing reso'ution was passed by the following vote: *`. AYES; COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Thom, Rowland. ,~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. i'. A$SENT: COMMISSIONERS: Ailred, ?ierbst.. ,i>: _ ... , ir_ . . ~ ~ . . . _.. _....,.._.... . . ~ ... s ~ . ~ + ...._..,._...~.~.._ ~ ' _.___.._ _ . _ _. _ _ i ~ ) ) MINUTES, GITY PL4NNING COMMISSION, February 9, 1970 50J.1 VARIANCE N0. 2148 - PUBLIC HEARING. R. S, HOYT, JR., ET AL, 146 Fast Orangethorpe Avenue, Anaheim, Calif~rnia, Owners; BEN F, TROGDON, 150 East Orangetho:oe Avenue, Anaheim, California, Age~~c; requestin~ aaivers " of (1) maximum number of free-standing signs in the front setback area, (2j location c;F a free-standing sign, (3) minimum distance between free-standing signs, and (4) maximum area of a free-standing sign in the front setbac.k ~rea to pern:it a free-sCaading sign on pzoperty described as: A rectangularly shaped parceL of land consisting of approxi•• ~ mately 9.3 acres, having a front~ge of approximately f81 feet on rhe south side of Orangethorpe Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately o40 feet, and being located approximately 855 feet east of t.ie centerline of Lemon Street, and further described as 150 East Orangethorpe Avenue. Property presently clas~ified M-1, LIGHT TNLUS;RIAL, 7.ONE. ~'~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor Fa[ Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses ~~ ~( ~ established in clos-r proximity; and the request to replace an ~_xisting free-stand~ng sign which was adjacent to the east property line wi.tfi a largzr free-standing sign; that a reader type, free-standing sign identified var.ious uses loca2ed in this industrial tracL• which was locaCed to the west; that botli existing signs were erect~ed prior Co the adoption of the present Sign Ordinance; and that iF sub;ec: petition war•e ~pproved, tlie ~ existing small sign at the easterly end of subject. ~roperCy ;vould be zemoved. '~ ~ Chairman Rowland iiiquired whether or not there wFCe any persons i~~ opposition to subjact ~ petition present. Commissioner Gauer expressed the opinion that he raould rather hear th,e evidence submittei by the petitioner which would substantiate th~e findings for waiving por~:~r,s of the Sign ~rdinance before any evidence was presented by any opposition, and L-his rrocedure was the Roberts Rule of Order. ~ z ~ No one appeared to represent the petitioner. ~ ~ Tir. Charles Bradley appeared beFore the Commission ar.d noted lie was the leasing agenl for Bryan Industries who owned the industrial tracl- of whicli the paint company was a part and that: they were in favor of the proposed sign waiver. ? No one a~peared in oppcsi~ion [o suEject petition. ~ r~f Cummissioner at8s~s[{inquired why Bryan Industries had no opposition; whereur•~n Mr. Bradley '' stated tliat L•he exis~ing sign wa~ very small and did no[ identify the paint cor~pany -~ properiy - however, the otlier free-standing sign di~ identify al.l the ottier in~ustrial ' firms in this Cract, and the paint comnar.y was not a part of Cheintegrated sign. A Commissionec Farano then inquired whe~her or n,~t Bryan Industr:eis wo~id be requesting permission to erect a lacger sign on the premises later on, using the fact that tiiis one company had an individual sigti almost a: large as the i~tegrar.ed sign. Mr. Bradley noted that it was not their intention to ask Eor a larger sign ir, th~ future. The Commission then inquired whether or not they wer~ also :he ownec•s of L•he pr~perty on which the paint company was ].ocated; whereupon Mr. Bradley stated thev owned tlie entire parcel having a 481-foot frontage on Orangetliorpe Avenue. liowevec, ihe paint company was the applicant for the sign request. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts read a letter from 13ryan Lndustries, noting they crere the owner.s of subject property; that they were in favor uf the proposed waiver tr• erect a larger sign; and that they did not con[emplate any request for increa;ing their existing free-standing sign which advertised the other industrial companies. THE NEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ c~ The Commission noted that the proposed free-standing sign was only a replac~mer..t foc an ;~ existing sign, and that the appearance of this ~roperty was far more attractiv~ ~han many others wherein numerous signs were erected to advertise each company, and only two ,~~'~ signs would be existing [o advertise all the industries in this industrial t:-act. ~A ~'~ Commissioner Camp oftered Resolution No. PC7~-13 and moved for its passage and adoption . 'i~ r to granc Petition for Variance No. 2148 on the basis that the proposed sign was basically a replacement for an existing sign, and the owner of the total property involved did not ~' ~' consider the request detrimental to the property, other tenants, or the surrounding area '~ and was, therefore, in agreement taith the proposal, and subject to conditions as set _ '~ forCh by tl;~ InL-erdepartmental Cnmmittee for Public Saf.ety and General Welfare. (See * ~ Fesolution Book) ,~ On roll call ti~e furegoing resolution was passed by the following vote: "'~ AYES: COMMISSION;,RS: Camp, rarano, Gauer, Thom, Rowland. NU~S: COMMISSIONERS: None. !~ AESENT: CO[~tISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst. ~ -~ ti ! ~ t_ ~ MINUTES, CITY PL4NNING CCN.MISSION, February 9, 1970 ~J12 PROCEDURES REGARDING PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Rekland d;•,:u,sPd ~,r•th the Commission his method of conducting the Commissi~~n's pub;..ic heari.ags wl:c•:,~i~ t,e asked whether there was any opposition. Nowever, he did nut i;~~ and thic t~ m2r.a ~;~ac ~.;:'~ere no opposition was presented that it would oe tantamouttt to appi~vaZ by ;:!-~e ;~o!ms~is,sion, but wes an attempt to place the petitioner on notice t.hat he prepare hi,nseif to present in a simple, straightforward mann~r a complete documeata- tion of. his reas~~r.s and evidence for requesting waivers, uses, or ::oning for t.".e Commission's can>:'.~;eration. Furthermore, he was not aware of the ;:act tliat the hearin~;s shoul.d be condu~.t~~:] according to Roberts Rul~~, of Order. Deputy City Attorney Frazk Lowry advised the Co~~missiot, '.~~a! the+,r lody and ihe City Council were noc bound by P.ober[s Rules of Order, althc~u~h ~:his 3ysc~~:! haci beer. used by oCher commip~,.ons aad city courcil_, snd that there were ~tc *ults in the Code book r,eqi•~i:ing thac the petitioner na6•.e a sr.atement. Jiscussion was then held by the Commission, sum:narized as follows: The ir.iportance of t~acing ttiie petitiuner present eviden,:e by which th.~ Commicsion ctS~:i1 det.ermine the validity wf wai.ver of the Code requ,irements requested ar, zllowing the petitioner suff~ic «a~ time C~ present a brief, concise and :ogical documentation, as well as pe.nnitting the Ca•mmissio~ an opportui~ity to question the pecitionei on various aspects of the proposal. The importance of having all the evidence whi~=11 could be given by the st2ff, the petltioner, and the Commissioi.t's inspectiun o1 the property, as weli as opposition pr.esented so th~< <;;;: Commission could acri•~e at alogical., rational, legal decisien Eor findirgs .:,- warrant GB1VE~ of the Code req•liiaments or denial of same. Whether or r.. to abide by 'Roberts Yules of Order to attain the results w~.ch would ~ilow the Commission t, grant a petition, T'•e necessity Lor. reducing the .tength of time of Tublic hearings in order that eacn ~etitioner and the opposirion could present his eviden~e, yet not "drag" a ;ne~tii.g for many hours with ri:pei:icious statement~. At cne conclusion af the Commissi~on's discussion, no final decision was made as to th~e mam~er in which public hearings would be conduct~ed, except that Chairman Rowland atated he weuld attempt tu reduce the iengt;i of time for public iieerings wherever it was legally possible and still hear all the evider,c:e. Fur[her.more, he would learn the Roberts Rules of Order if the other Commissi.or•ers desired to conduct the hearings under tllose ruies duri~g the remaining rer,ure at hi~ chairmanship. --~. .:, ~ T ~ • - ~~r~"': ~ . ~a~~~ . ~ - d ~ __. _.. _ __ _.._ ..--_ __ _ __ _.__ _. _.__ __- ..__.____ __ _. _.__. `? ~ ) ~ 1; MINUTES, CIIY P~,NNING COMMISSIUN, Pebrcarp 9, i9i0 5Ui3 ~ VARIANCE N0, 2I49 -'rUB1IC HE:~,RiNG. MARG~IRET S, WRIGIIT, P. 0. 13ax 425, ;,naheim, ~ Caiifort:ia, Owner; requ~,sting W~IVEFS OF (Ij RE,jU1REL PARKiNG TO ~ THE RE?R OF a RESIuENTIAL ST'RliCTURE, (2) REQI':LRFll LyN;,,SCAPING OF ~~ THE FRONT SLTBACK nREa, ANU (3j RcQUIRED 6-FOOT Mh~ONRY W.,Li ADJ.~CENP TO RESIGENT'IaL } PRO?ERTY, TO FERMIT. THE CUNIINUE•D COMMERC1Ai US~ OF ~. RESILENI'I;;. S'TRL'CTliRE on propert;~ f described as: A rrccai:g;:iariy shaped par~~; of ia;,d Lccated a~ ~he i:or[heaat c:,rner of ~ Euciid Stree~ and Catherire Urivr, havir.g appraxima_e fror.':age; of 1~0 fee~ on Euclid I Street and 55 f~~t or Ca_herir:e Uriv~, bei:;g ~oc~_ed appccxima_eiy 6;5 Yeet south oF ~ the centeriine oY 1,a F'alma Avcu~e: and fur,her d~scrii•ed as 924 Nor:h E~::lid SCr~et. ~ Property pres~n? i.: c"ia~;itied C-i, G~NE'R:,~. C0~1MERCLtiC. ZGNc. ~ ~`j 9ssistant LOI:1T'~ SI.pECViso; Nac Brown raviaw~d :he ioca_iur uf sobjec'. propert,, us~s established in cio~e p~cx.mi , waivers req~E;ted, ar.d ~revio~s zoni~~~ a:;io.- or, subject '~~ , pruperty, reviewir:g ~ii~ zu~~.;.~ ~r.d variar::e pe:i`io:~~ pca.essed ir Septemuer; 2966, wherein [he petitiuc,~r had iT:di..atzd ch< <xis: ir.g r~sidei.':iai scr„~,ure would be ~; , demolished ar.d a r.ew commec_:ie; uuilding wu~Td be C~'L~:[u.:[ed - Ch~refore, the waiv~rs ;~ for minimum req~ired tro:.t s~:uack ~~id L•.iiding h~ighe wer~ appcoved a; !hat ~ime. '~ ? However, the peci~ir•r.er I~ad ir.u:;ar~d tlia~ che exis::ug u,,.lding was r~nted a,:d she T~ ' had no desic•e to dtmc~i;h i: ar~d cor.scru,:c a c;ew commErrial buiiding i~: ttie foreseeable future, ar.d ic was her d~sire io provide ~hE parking i~u[ oni;: ii. .h~ t:ro:.t setback, bu~ ~~',~~' aiso to r~duce or Ei:mir.a[a che required '~arda~aFing and retain ~he 6-:~0+_ wooden fer.ce '~~ in lieu of the reGu'_r~d 6-ro;,t: masor.rq waii. ~~ Mr. Brown fur:ner noced titat rhe psrking was proposed i:ot: onl~• wi[hi; ehe exiscing two- car garage, bu_ rhree ada.tiu~:a~ parki.ng spaces were proposed immedia:ei} adjactnt to the 6-fcc~ wooden fe;;<< or .he easc proper~.; line, ar.d by proposing tne parkirg spaces as indica~ed on ;he plan, rhis wouTd reyu~.re a;~rr-arc~ud area wnich would eftectively e:iminate prac[:i,aii: ali oi the Iror.c iandscaping as required by Ccde where a residen- tial s•_ru;.ture was r~:aii:ed Yor :ommer~ial uses. Mr. b:~wn, in evaluaci:.g tn~ Frupo;a:, c~o;ed [ha_ the C-1 2one pruvided chat s~ructures whi~h were ori~inai~., de.;~.~; ed ur irte::ded for residen~iai pu:pc;es snd were proposed to b~ conver~ed i~~o ofii;:e a:d u"rEice-reiaced ~se; required that the front setback of the ceoidenLiai ~truc[~re oe ier.ds.:aped and main:aired a-~d thar. aIl parking be iocated ~o the resr oC rhe r~sidar.:iai s:rucr~re. ;i~wev~r. bocause uE the iocation u: the ~ e:cisting cwo-car garag~; ac.ess ;o chat POT!1JT Ot CfIZ rear ,ard lcc:,ted to ~he north r~ was virtua;ly imposoioie ~,_der chr. ~xisti.g p"ta:r, cha: the proposai to .o~:ver; [ha frunt _ yard inio a parkin~ ;rza ;u;,1d be visiaii~ camp~r3bie c~ reside:,~ial-commerciai uses found aicng Brcokl-~~ts_ Stre~: ;orth ot ii~:coin AveT,~e, whi.ch was far from a pleasing appearan:.e; rha: chert was a sc~~~.ior to providir±g parking to ~he rear - the petic.ioner could oe[aii an ea;;cmei~;-a~•:cs; a~reemen:: with ~he shopping c~enter ow;.ers, thus removing the 6-Foot wooden tei._e aioc~ ':he _~rth pcepert~ Iir:e and providing six spaces cu the rear of ;he exisf~n.g propere, wn:ch wuuid have access to a priva~e aile:. 711is, then, ! would eiirainatE tha ceed f'ar ~sin~ ::he tro~c yatd setback area for parking and wauld '~t be avaiiabie i:o oe f~:1.~ land~caoed as required by Code. Pur.hecmore, the Commissiun ' I; migl~t also uish ::o det.errninc wlie...~r rhe reqnested waiver oY the 6-foot masonry wali along the ~east pzope:rt~ iine was val.d; based un rhe fact tha: tl~e adjuining pro ert was stili nsed ,•,s si~;Slr-famiiy res?dential, end although a 6-foo~ wooden fer.ce existed, ~ 1 this was nol as sutstan[iai when having ~;,rkir.g adj;cent to ~he fei:ce as a masonry wall. ~ ~' P1r. Browr. r,oted cha, ~he str,:c~:ure in which ihe ,.ommerciai facilicies were localed a~ppeared c~ r,e in gcod .onditior, o~: the ;zenerai appeararce and r~aintenance o[ the landsc~ping wer, in a r,.r.-duwn w nditiou, ~r,d i' was recommended that if Che requested `~ waiver for ~ark~r~; _. [rc rront setback were granted., that a minimum 3-foot wide land- ~~ scaped area b~ E+YOrl(IEtl alang the Euclid Street and Ca:herine Drive frontages, that ~ bumper block~ be ir;~:ailed for those spaces adjacrr,~ tu ~he residential property to the ' i east, the parking acea be proper'ty ~urfaced with asphalt or similar material, and the i,,; landsr.api.ig of tne balance ui the pr.o~serty be upgraded and properiy maintained. i ;,^ ~" Mrr:. i~largarec Wright, the petiCi;:ner, appaared 62fure ehe Commission and notzd tha: because 3 fee~ were r,y~:irtd for dedication on E~clid Seree[ when Cne C-1 zoring was ~ approved, ehis redcced the size ot ~he lat; chat she was under the ass~mption that the { use of the buiLUino was permi~ced b; [he C-1 Zone; and that the exiscing residence could 1~ be utiliaed lor c~iameec.iai pucposes rather than conacructing a new b:_ilding. ;S F Mr. Buren ,yylax, 1633 Catherir.e Drive, appeared befoce the Commis~ion in opposition and .,~ noted [hat. he •+as not opp~sed to parking ir, the front yard since [his was a necessity ~ iE use af r.he existing ~[ructure were pia::ned for commercial purposcs - however, he was , ~~ opposed to ac~. waiver of the reyuirr.d 6-foo: masonry wai). adjacent to [he east property *., line; that whe~~ the cront -.ard was csed for parkii.g purposes, the dus: emanating Lrom .+~ this 1ot was air.:os~ uc.brarahie; cna: he had compiained r.o :he Zoning Lnlorcemeni. Officer ~ ?r; wl~o hsd m,:t with tiiF petiriontr un ttiree occa~ions ?o r~ach ar agreemer.t co st:op parking 'r on s~L"ect ~ , !: ~ ',, ] prc,FCtv' ha' alchc~, h che '.~:•:~-:ts did i~o:. pack on ~he prapzrcy. their i,y~ custnmers did; ~nat ~i:-• c~,mc,~rcial usas now b~in~ uperared :.t: 3uG~E~:C propert~ were k >= _,,~,,~, _.~...-~•w~--'----°.=~~v.~~=..a,.~:~,~-, ...,:.~..,_......~.....,.> ,v~:..,,N - ",.d~+~...~ . .. ... • ' -.' ' ~ ~ ~~ ' ~ . e . . . ' ~ . , _ .. __._._...., . ,h ; ~ c ~ * .,tx MINUTES, C1IY FI.ANNING COMMTSSION; Febr~ary 9, i9i0 5014 V!,RIANGE N0. 2149 - adjace;:t ta a resitiential homE; and ~hat some t.pe of bacrier shouid (Continued; be pr~vided to screen this cummercial use and parking of cars from his propert~, Therefore, if r.I1t Commission approved the waiver of the front setback ~arking, then h~ would r.e5.~e~- ~ha? the Commission require a 6-£oot mascnry wa1i. Mrs. Wright, i:, rebuttal, staced her reaaor~ fcr requescing the waiver of ~tie masonry wail was because the 6-foot wuoden fence already existed; however, if it were necessary to have the 6-feot masonry wall, ic wculd be provided if subject peti~iori were apprcved to allow parking in tne front se::back area. The Commissior reviewed ciie pruposal and compared it to the requireme:ts ut the C-l 7.one, no~ing that ~he pe[iticr~er it obtainir.g the zoni::g had r:at mtc the conditiors ~f thE zone at that rirt; r~,a[ trie C-i 2one requiced adeq..a:e cff-streel- paricing, as well a~ lar.dscapir,g, a:.d frcm ~he sppeara:~•_t of rhe pr•~per::y ar.d che use~ r.ow Established on the proper~ „ i~ wcu~~ ,ppear tne si:e dev~i~pmer._ o~andards of tf~~e C-i Zone were ncr me[. Mrs. Wrignt advised the Commiseicn cbat Che req~iremen=s of the CEb:lUtior, of inter,t stated that stret: iighcs o:.ddei;:r'.ic:~.o~3addit:or.,i feec were reqcired baCcze tl~e ordinat.ce was read t•_r i.hE C•i Zc .:, whi.~h sh~ had c~nipYied with. Cemmissio.-~er Rec•ost r.,;~_~d th~! if subji:c_ pecit~o~: w~er.e ~ra, _ed ir. 1966, the Cicy ef Anaheim had 85C3Eliihcd C-; si_e d~vei.opmer:_ s.a:.da:ds re~arding lards~aoi~g ai-.d zoning, that ::he C•~I z,aing waa gra-.c~d on ~he ba~is that the petitioner had submit*_ed plar.s which indicst~d a~.ew U~iiding w:uld be cor:stzu;:ted: that dedication an Euclid Street was ~ req~iramer.: e_..a•:se Gt :llE s~ree~ wider.i;.g progc•am which i:ot on:~ w.;uld ba of asaistar.c~ t: CrafYi~ iri ~~-.~c~i b;:: to the benePit of the propert; owner; and tllat dedica*_ior. oi 3 ieat i;:r ,.rea: widen:c:g purpeses did r.c~ me~n subject properc: co~1d be liSEd for at. t~,pe :;i :.;mmEr::i~I uses since Che C-i Zone had spe.ifiu requirements when a rESider.:a wa~ ;.;~d t:•r i.mited commerci>i u~es. Zoning S,:pec~isoi Chyri~s R.u_r~s, in reciewing the background of che originai variance and reciasoificaticu, n,:red ~ii3t a vsriarn;:e had 'oeen Rranted original~y in 1959 whicn grarced the ow::<r oP cht proper:; at that ~ime permission Cu utilize two rooms within the s.r::c'.:re f:or commeccial p,~rpoScs; ~ha?~ cpon re~~iewing the resciucion and minutes of said variance it was ir:dicar_ed by the pr~:•ious petitiorer tliat the balance of clie propert~ wo~td be used for re~ider:[iai purpoaes, and if a m• expansion were proposed, this wocid have to ut Icb1dW2G o. the Planning Commission and City Counci.l as to the expanded use; tnat in I966 the p« i_ioner requested C-1 zoning with a variance r.o permit co~ns[ruccion ct a*._w b~i~ding, and because of its narroU wid[h, develnpment of the p:opec.~ was dii'ficai~ due to singie-iamii~ homes and rzquiremen[ of a specific heigL•C and setback Erum a singie-Eamiiy zo~e; tnat tiie bcildir,g height and setback fr~~m Euclid Street were ti~d in wich the variance - howeve~, :he variance was noc exercised ai[hough C-1 zening hsd bEeir grar:ted to htrs. Wrighc; that since the peticioner had not chosen to exercise ehe variar.ce, use ot t.he exis:ing s[ructure would then come ur.der a d?fferent section of the C-i Zone, t;:is being maira enance of the existing land~capiug which had not beeri doi:e; and tt~at the petitioner, therefore, was s[ill requirEd to meet the site developmen*_ sLar.dards of che C-1 Zone whEre an existing residential structure was being used fer Limited commerciai usts. The Commission ther. advised the pecitioner. Mrs. Idri.ght, that al:huugh she had C-1 zoning, since she had nct deve:oped in acccrdai:ce wiLh pians presettted, che C-1 zoning would then -equire that sY~~ meet the cor.dition~ oi use of a r~sidei~tial structure fcr~ commercial purposes - which meai;t adequate off-street parking, adequate land~capin;, screening in such a manr.er Lhet i~ wo~ld iook more iike a commercial ~uilding, and :hat t:he Commission had viewed suojeci properc.; a_:d Che srrue~ure and wer< uf ~he opinio,^. .hac Lhe s~ructure did z:o; have a c;cmmerciai appearan::e buC was resider,c:ial in chacacter; tha: wherever a proper[y owner was desirou~ of converting a residen[ial home for commercial purposes, the site devEiopmer:t standards cf that se.:~ion oE tfie comme:cial zone would have to be met-tc ai.iuw the petiti.,ner co u~ilize the existing s~ructure in the manr.er proposed would set an undesiiable preceden~ wherein the many homes located along I;eavily craveled siree:s would requtst similar cor.v~=rsion and present a very undesirabie appearance tor :hese properties. Eur:he:rmur~, to parmit conversion cf ali these resider,!ial homes front~r.g on heaviiy traveTed srree+_s would deter any fucure rehabili~acion of the down- town :•~rea for co~nercial purposes. The Commission [hen requ~sted chat ~he petitioner suomit revised p:an~ which would be more in conformanc~ with che si.e deveiopment standards of the C=i Zor.e wherein a residence was baing used f~r ccmmerc.ial purposes. Mr. Raberts advised Mrs•. Wright the staff wouid be giad to assist her in working out any problems reiative eo the requirement~ of the commzrciaL zone and oYfer sug~~~stions whiclr mig'r.r, be heipfci in redesignir.fi the exis~ing strucr,;re. MINUTES; CITY FLaNNING COMMISSION, Febru~r~ 9, ~9-0 5015 VARL4NCE N0, 2149 - Commisoi•~ner Herbs~ ~ffered a mo~ion to conti:u~ ~o-_siderarior~ of (Continued) Pacition ior Vacianc~ Na.. 2149 tu cha mee;ing ::f Marcn 9, i9;0, in order ~o aitow time for tne peci-ioner [a rev~cw ~he C-1 sice devei- opmtnt s~andards and co submic a'«<rnate plan~ io_ ~se of the propEr[y having the stru~tare, perking, ar.ti 2andscaping more ir~ cor~formence wi[h the sire deveiop- ment sCandard~ of ~aid zore. C~mmissioner Thom seeonded Che mutio:. MOIION CARRIED. ~ r ~ ; VARIANCE ~0. 2"150 - FUtsL1C HF..~RING. SAM DOMINO, 83i2 Cenrral Avrn.,e, Garde~i Gruvc, x Celifurnis, Owc~er; reyues[ing WAIVERS Of ~I~ P11N1?IUM RE'QUIRED SrECIAL SPRUCTURvI: SETBACk ON HARBOR BOU~EVARD, (2j M1N1Ml~P? REt~:iREli 'LAND- SCAYED SE,I'BACK ON HARBUR BOULEbaRL, (3) ,dUMBER OP FREE-STANDING 51Gn5 YGRTiLIPED. AND ~` (4) LUCA'iION OF FFEE-SIANDING S1GNS, TO ESTiBLISH A 52-UN1T MOI'EL A\D AN FNCi.I)SL'D RESTiU- R~1NT ~~n pruperrp des.:~.ocd a~t in irreg,,larl., sh~ped parcei of laud wnsisur.g of appruxi- mately ane acre., havind a frcr~!age of approximatel', 230 fee[ or~ [he wtsc side ot' Harbor Bouievard, having a maximum depCh of approAimataL, 30U feet, and b~irg io~ated approxi- mately 200 feet n~rtii ~f u~ie cen!:eritne or Ball Rcad, ~ad forther des:ribtd a~ liAl-1i05 SouCh Harbor B6uLEVeCd. PICPEICy pr~ser~tiy classi[i_d C-R, CODLMERCLAL-RECREATLON, aND R-9, AGRICL`L1UR.~L, ZO~:,S. - Assistan[ Zor.i•..g Supervisor Pa[ Broan: re~iewed .he locetion of subjecc prupe:cy, uses esr.ablished i;~ ciosC pr.oximit.:, ~xiscing zoning on the property~, and tne p;uposal co estabiish a 52-ut:it mot~L ite coiijuncticn with an er.ciosed restaurent cT~ sut~jec: property; tha: the r,4mber oi parkii:g spacas would ex.:eed the req.,iremen~ uf 52 req~ired by Code; tha[ ~he macei st.ru..•:;.r~ was propoaed eu Ce set oack 20 feet from the uitimate righr.•of- way of tlarbor Bouievard ai-d che rescaurart 26 feec, wniie Code would require a 50-foot building ~r~back on Hacbor B:,u.evard with landscaping averaging 20 feet in depth, or a miriimcm 35-fuoc stc~::.ucal s~toack wi~h the enc.iie 35 fe~e being fuliy iandscaped; !ha[ the pei:ic.i~•„ec wa~ prc~:o;i.;g rwo iree-scandin~ signs Ca adv~rtise tne mocel and the reSLaaranc - h~wever, ;he;e free-scar,dit:g sigr,s would be io.ated wi hir? 300 feer. of eac'r~ other and wvuid r~t 5e :,,c;!.ed wi~r~i:~ the center 20'/, of rhe property. Mr. Brown, in revtewin~ .he e~a:,.atiun„ noced tha: special setback and iandscaping requiremenc~ had batn Es:ablished oy the City Council for Harbor Boulevard exttnding 440 feec s~u;h of Verm:,n~ Aven~e to Ocangewo,;d Avenue for che purpuse uf enhar.cing the ~ visual qa;iitits of ~he main _horcughfare traversing Anaheim's Commercial-Recreation ! Araa; therefore, ~ht Commis~ion wouid have to decermine whether there was jus[itication - for che pc.zpesed red~rtiot. i.~ this required se~ba:.k, and in doing so, the ramifica~ions - that approv~l uf this petition might have cn fu~ure requescs for the ssme encroachmenc intc ~his seccack ar~a. ~~rLhe~m~:re, !t would appear that a single, integra~ed sign coutd serve the advercising reeds cf boCh [he mo[el ar.d re;taurant adequately, and -auch an arrangemer.c wouid a;sis~ in reducing tne sign ciutcer that seemed co charac~erize Che Commerciai-Recrrar.ion Area. Mrs. Sam Dumina appeared beEore the Commission representing her husband, the peticioner, noting that because ~ubject property was wedge-shaped it was difficult to design a struccure to obtain the best use of che property; that propercies in [his general area were nuc set back ~he reyuiced 50 feeC which had beer. established for Harbor Bauievard, ~, nor was the reqcired lai:dscaping previded; and that Che proposed development would not be incompatible with che sorrounding developments buc would be an asset to [he area. Ii + No une appeared in opposi[ion tu subject pe[iticn. THE HEARING WAS CLUS6D. ~' The C~mmission inqaired of ~ha petitioner whe~her or not the two signs proposed could be combinEd i~~.co one i,.tegrat.ed sign Co alleviate adding co the sign ciu.~er alo:.g Harbor Boulevard, and w~ce bo~h establishmencs proposed to be leased. ~ '.. i : Pirs. Domino advised ti:e Ccmmission ehat if elie waiver to grant the two signs were not approved, they would ai'_~empc to combine the two signs, al[hocgh they would prefer having two separace signs. Fur_hermore, it was their intent to lease out the resi~urant, but the motet would be operaced b; chem. The Commission then tio~ed char ocher than fiiing a lot split for two separaCe uses, an integrated sign wou"L-1 be the peticioner's alternative. Dep~ity City A~[orney Fcank Lowzy advised the Commission and peti[ioner [hat it w~~uld _ depend upon. [he ~~pe of Iease proposed for the res[auran: parcel since thece was a ~ mininium eerm set by [he City Cocncii, and ii [he iease covered air space oniy, this * ~ would not be considered a vaTid lea~e to pe-mit a lot split. ~ '~ 'n Zoning Supervisor Charles R~berts noted tha~ the Stace Subdivision Act required riling v and approval, as weli as recurda:iun of a parcel map, and if thi~ were done, then l :.9 . -... ~ : ~fC' '.~.~s,'..~~. ... . . : ~ ' ~ . --' ___.~._..... . . f ~ J f ; MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMl~1ISSI0N, February 9, 1970 5016 ! VARIANCE N0. 2156 - waivers "lc" and "ld" would be unnecessary~. Furthermore, the restau- ~ (Continued) rant wouid be permitted a 300-square foot per face sign, and the ! motel would be permitted ~i 260-square foot per face sign. ~ Mrs. Domino nuted that the plot plan indicated where the property line for each use was j proposed. i '' Chairman Rowland advised the petitioner that although the plans indicated *he pruperty ~ lines for each use, this was different than the requirement of submi~ting for approval 7 and recorling a parcel map, because this had to be recorded with the Orange County r Recorder's Office. '.;3 Mr. Roberts then stated that based on the fact that the petitioner had stipulated the ~ ~-' restaurant would be under a lease, perhap., an additional condition should be provided ~ as it pertained to the parcel map, namely, filing and recording a~nu~ual ingress and ,,~ egress for parking agreemer,t to the rear of the restaurant property. The Coimnission then determined ti~a[ their bod/ could deny waivers "lc" and "ld", or the petitioner liad twa alternatives, namely, filing of a parcel map aad mu[ual ingLess '~ and egress agreement for parking or providing anintegrated siSn: whereupon the petiCioner ~. stipulated to either providing an integrated sign or the recordation of a parcel map. The Commission, in discussing the balance of the waivers, determined that since [here were a number of other parcels in this immediate area wliich were developed without the required 50-foot setback on Flarbor Boulevard, to require the petitioner to do so wouid create a hardship because subject property would not have the visual street exposure, and that [he parcE?, being wedge-shaped, was also more difficult to develop. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC70-14 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2150 in part, granting tfie minimum special structural setback and minimum special landscape setback on the basis that the petitioner liad sub- mitted the required evidence necessary and based on the fact that the property was an unusual, wedge-shaped parcel, as well as the fact that commercial uses in the area had setbacks similar to those proposed; that waivers "lc" and "ld" were wiChdrawn Uy the petitioner, who agreed that either a parcel map would be filed or an integrated, free- I standing sign advertising both uses would be in conformance with Code; and subject Co ; conditions as recommended by the Interdepartmental Committee for Public Safety and - General Welfare. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSEVT: COAQtISSIONERS: Allred. VARIANCE N0. 2151 - PUBLIC HEARING. BROOKHURST SH~PPING CENTER, 2293 West Rall Road, Anaheim, California, Owner; HITI9PTY DUMPTY HOUSE OF EGGS AND RICH S1GN COMPA~TY, 5353 Topanga Canyon Boulevard, Suite 8, Woodland Hills, California, Agents;:requesting WAIVER OF DiTNIMUM DISTANCE BEIWEEN FREE-STANDING S1GNS on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of Land located at the northwest corner of Ball Rcad and Brookhurst Street and known as the Brookhurst-Ball Shopping Center. Yroperty presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. '~ Assistant Zoning ~upervisor Pat Brown reviewed the localion of subject property, uses established in clo»e proximity, and the proposal to erect a free-standing sig:~ 32 feet I~ in height and approximately 158 square feet in art~., that said sign would be ~;iounted ~'~ on two poles which extend up through the roof and canopy of an existing restaurant i~ stracture, thereby qualifying it as a free-standing sign rather than a roof sign; that ;~ said sign would be within 250 feet of a large, free-standing shopoing center identifi- cation sign; that the p:oposed free-standino sign was basically a replacement for ~ another free-standing sign advertising another use Located in the s,eme structure and i would be approximaiely the same height and area - however, the original sign was techni- ~ cally nonconforming - therefore, staff felt that approval of ~ variance to legalize the •~~ requested sign would be necessary; and that since the requested sign was substancially f~ the ~ame height and area as the sign it was proposed to replace and since all the other ~ :~ sigus in the shopping cer.::er were substantially in confarmance with Code, it would appear the requesr, would be a valid one. * ~ ___--r_ ,, .-_.s;• . --. _ . .. li. ~-r-i w_ . __~..~..~ s . ~ t ' ~ t ' ~~ MINUTES, CITY PL.4NNING COMMISSION, February 9, 197~ 5017 VARIANCE N0, 2151 - Mr. Stewart Christman, General Manager of Humpty Dumpty :~touse of (Continued) Eggs, Inc., appeared before the Commission and noted it was their intention to replace a former restaurant sign since the poles already were i:~ exi.stence; that the sign would be rotating and would be their st•andard sign; and that il was necessary to have a separate identity in the form ~f a free-standing sign rather than being integrated into an existing shopping center sign. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED, Commissioner Thom offered Resolution No. PC70-15 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition For Variance No. 2151, subject to the Interdepartmental Comnittee for Public Safety and Gereral Welf.are recommendations on the basis that the proposed sign would be a replacement of a former restaurant sign, and restaurants were a commercial operation which needed more exposure than other operations in a shopping center. (See Resolurion Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ALlred. GENERAL PLAN - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East AMENDMENT N0. 118 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing to amend the Tabie of Exceptions of the Circulation Element - Highway Rights-of-Way of the Anaheim General Plan, establish'ing Kellogg Drive between Orangethorpe Avenue and La Palma Avenue as an 80-foot wide secondary highway. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown revie,aed the location of subject property and the proposal to reduce the ultimate half-width oF the secondary highway known as Kellogg Drive Located between Orangethorpe Aver.~~e and La Palma Avenue on the Circulation Element - Highway Rights-of-Way Map of the Anaheim General Plan, noting that no physical impruve- ~ ments for said street had occurred - however, the easterly half of Kellogg Drive had been ; dedicated to the County of Orange prior to annexation of the property known as the H:rner- ~ Lambert Annexation; that the County standard secondary highway half-width was 40 feeC - therefore, it would be necessary to acquire an additio~al 5 feet from the pr•operty owner on the east side of Kellogg Drive if said street were to be improved to City of Anaheim standards; that the Santa Fe Railroad, Development Division, had begun development of ` the property abutting the west side of Kellogg Drive, and in view of the existing 40-foot ~ dedication on the east side of the street, staff reco~nended the same 40-foot width be required on the w~+~;: side; that thP 80-foot wide secondary highway would provide for the standard four travel and two parking lanes - however, the parkway would be reduced from the normal 13 feet to 8 feet, and the lesser width would be sufficient since sidewalks were not normally required and were waived in the Northeast Indus~:rial Area. No one appeared in opposition to subject amendment. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution A'o. PC70-16 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amendment No. 118 be approved, estab- lishing Kellogg Drive lo~~ted between Orangethorpe Avenue on the north and La Palma Avenue on the south as an 80-fooc ~'de secondary highway, placing it on the Table of Exc~ptions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoin~ resol~ation was passed b3~ the following vote: AYES: COMMISSICNERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. ~. ! s ~} ~, MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CUMMIWSION, February 9, 1970 5018 AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18 - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY F'i.Ai1'iJiNG COMI4ISSION, ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; to consider amendments to Title 18, Chap~ers 18.37, 18.38, 18.39, 18.40, 18.44, and 18.48, to establish anybusiness activity limited to persons 21 years of age or older in any commercial zone ~ by conditional use permit. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry reviewed for the Commission the proposal to amend Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code for the coimnercial sections, establishing any business activity limited to persons 21 years of age or older in any cotmnercial zone by conditional use permit rather than by right, noting that the City Council would ~T consider an interim urgency ordinance aC their February 10, 1970 meeting to require the establishment of any new adult business by conditional use permit until such time ~~ as the Commission and City Council had considered said amendments at a legally advertised ~ public hearing. The Commission inquired whether findings as to the need for establishing the proposed Code amendments could be considered under the general welfarE and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim; whereupon rir. Lowry stated that this would be categorized as being for the general welfare. 1 No one appeared in opposition to subject amendments. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. PC70-17 snd moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapters 18.37, 18.38, 18.39, 18.40, 18.44, and 18.48 be amended to require that any business activity limited to Fersons 21 years of age or older in the various coimnercial zones of the City of Anaheim be estabTished by conditional use permit rather than by right, as depicted on Exhibit A. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foll.owing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Parano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. NOF.S: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMh1ISSI0NERS: Allred. MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR ACC~SS - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSTON, AND CIRCULATION BY THE 204 East Lincoln Avenue, anaheim, Califarnia; to consider FIRE DEPARTMENT establishing by policy minimum. standards for providing adequate protection of the li~~es and property of the citizens of the Cizy of Anaheim in residential, commercial, and industrial developments and to provide for the safety of personnel and equipment of the City Fire Department relative to minimum required access and circulation, location and type of fire hydrants. Assistant 2oning Supe.*visor Pat Brown reviewed for the Cocmnission their request to the staf~ and the representatives of. the Fire Department to establish a criteria for adequate Fire Department access and fire fighting capability to private developments; that the study was made by the staff - however, the criteria formulated were applicable not only to the residential developments but to the cocmnercial and industrial devclopments; and that the standards proposed were the minimum requirements which had been formulated witti consideration being given to the protection of the lives and property of the public and the safety of the personnel and equipment of the Fire Department as indicated in the Report to the Commission, Furthermore, it was recommended that these standards be adopted by resolu~ion; however, where unusual circumstances existed, the Interdepartmental Coimnittee, at their discretion, may grant minor deviations fr~m +these standards where it was felt l fe and/or property were not endangered by sucF a decision. ' Deputy City Attorney Fra„k Lowry noted for the Commission tha[ a typographical arror on the second psge, under (5) Type of fise liydrants, was noted: the last figure in the first line should be 2~ rather than 24~. ~ Chairman Rowland noted that Assistant Chief James Heying was in t4e Council ChamLer anr'. asked if he had anything further to add to the recommendations of the staff. ~ ? Mr. Heying advised the Commission that he had made himself available in the event ~evel- * opers were on hand to aslc questions. .+ke The Commission complimented the sta£f on the proposed policy regarding standards for ~ Fire Department access and circulation, since it was more definitive, esQecially in - ..-- y-' , .._. .` .~-,. . ~ ~8 _. _. ...__.___._.___ _._._._._.._.,.._~....._.___~.._____._. -- _- ~ ~ __ _ _ 1 , ~ ) ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 9, 1970 ~ 5019 MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR ACCESS - areas which had formerly been somewhat nebulou~, making AND CIRCi7LATI0N BY T:;E it difficult for the Commission to require specific ( FIRE D~F[~RTMENT minimum requirements in muitiple-family residential uses, ` (Continued) and the staff c:arried it further by making the standards applicable to all residential uses, commercial, and industrial developments. Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. PC70-18 and moved for its passage anc: aduption to recommend to the City Council that Standards for Fire Department Access and Circulation be adopted by policy as depicted on Exhibit A, which would establish the criteria necessary to implement adequate Fire Department access and fire fighting capability to private ,.~. ~~~ developments. (See Resolution Book) € On roll call the foregoing resolutian was passed by the following vote: ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland, ? NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. I "~. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. ~ AMENDMF.NT TO TTT1,F. 18, - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMI~fISSION, ApIAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; to consider amendments to Title 18, Chapter 18.08, Definitions; 18.18, Residential Estates; 18.20, One-Family Suburban; 18.24, ` One-Family Residential; 18.28, Multiple-ramily Residential; 18.32, Multiple-Family Residential; and 18.64, Conditional Uses, amending the number of main structures on a site in establishing planned residential developments by conditionai use permit. ! Assistant Zonir.g Supervieor Pat Brown reviewed the findings of the Report to the Commission relative to the number of zoning actions whereby planned residential developments and Che number of main structuTes permitted to be developed on a multiple-family residentially zoned parcel had taken pLace during the six-year period where 26 of these petitions were conditional use permits and 19 were for requested waivers of Section 18.32.020 which ; required that when three or more main buildings were proposed, the site development r standards of the planned residential development section should apply. Mr. Brown noted that of the requested actions none were specifically denied by the Planning Commission or Ci~y Couacil because of tlie number of main residential huildings proposed on a site; that a survey made of 23 cities ia Orange County and adjacent counties was made to determine whether they had specific restrictions in their zoning codes - however, only one city, Garden Grove, did limit the nu•mber of main structures, and this restriction applied only where the parcel was less than 15,000 square feet in area. Dir. Brown also nvted that the Definition Section of the Code referred to Chapter 18.65 of the Anahe~m Municipal Code; however, [he planned residential development was estab- lished by the City Council by Resolution No. 64R-861, Exhibit A, rather than a par.t of the Zoning Code, and that since all other re~idential sections of the Code, both single and multiple-family, did not refer to the establishment of planned residential develop- ments by conditional use permit, these would be reflected if the proposed amendment;' to Title 18 were approved, and that the basic change to the r.umber of m2in buildings on a site be deleted from Chaptezs 18.28 an3 18.32, Sections 18,28.020(1) and 18.32.020(1). Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that rather than delete referer.ce to the planned residential development resolution completely, it was felt this should be retained in the Code in the event a developer submitted a bona fidP planned residential develonment proposal, and the necessary guidelines and requirements of this type of development wauld be available for Code enforcement. No one appeared in opposition to subject amendments. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner F2rano affered Resolution No. PC70-19 and moved for its passage and adoption to recoa¢nend to the City Council that amendments to Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relative to plenned residential developments and nwnber of main structures permitted ~ on a multiple-family residential zoned parcel be adopted as depicted on Exhibit A attached hereto. (See Resolution Book) ~ ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: EOMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Aerbst, Thom, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: ~COMMISSIONERS: Allred. - r' - --- . ~ ~ _. - _ ' , ~ ~ .~1~1 .. ... ... ~ ~ . • ~ } ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 9, 1970 5020 REPOItTS AND - ITEM N0, 1 RECOMMENDATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 802 - Request to eliminate the 6-foot masonry walls as indicated on tne architectural plans filed with the building permit for the north, east, south and west property lines of propesty located west of the wesCerly terminus of Wilken Way, west of liarbor Boulevard and southerly of the terminus of Mallul Drive. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed for the Commissicn architectural plans submitted by the petitioner-developer for a building permit, and their request co delete the proposed 6-foet masonry wall around the periphery of the property. Mr. Brown noted that an apartment compiex was located to the north; vacant C-3 zoned property to the east; C-1 zoned property in the City of Garden Grove to the suuth, which had a motel on it; and an elementary school in the Ci.ty of Garden Grove to the west. Furthermore, the R-3 Zone wouid not require said wall adjacent to the R-3 development to the north; that when the vacant C-3 z~~ned property to the east was developed, tha developer would 'be required to provide the wall to separate comn~ercial from residential uses; that the City of Garden Grove indica[ed their Code did not reGuire a 6-foot masonry wall between R-3 and C-1 zoned property, and since the motel property had a higher grade level than subject property, as well as already having a 3-foot retaining wall, the 6-foot wall aiso wouid not be required; and that the Garden Grove Elementary School District superintendent indicated he would recommend the 6-foot wall be required between the school property and subject property since the City of Garden C~rove had this as one of their site development standards. Discussion was held by the Commission regarding the proposed plans ~f development, and whether [hey met the site development s[andards of the R-3 2one; whecher the garages were proposed along the west property line adjacent to the schcol pro.perty; and the request for deletion of the 6-foot masonry walls as depicted on the architectural plans. Upon completion of their discussion, the Commission determined that there would be no hardship imposed if a 6-foot masonry wall were xequired along the west property line adjacent to the Garden Grove Elementary School site; however, the R-3 'Lone site devel- opment s[andards would not require said walls along the north, east or south property lines. Commissioner Camp offered a motion to approve deletion of the 6-foo[ masonry walls along the north, east and south property lines as depicted on the architec[ural plans for Conditional Use Permit No. 802 on file in the Building Division of the Development Services Depar[ment. However, a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed on the w=_st property line adjacen[ to the elementary school Property since the City of Garden Grove site development standards require said wall, and the school district superincendent requested said wall be required. Commissioner Thom seconded the motion. D10TION CARRIED. Commissioner Rowland abstained from voting. ITEM N0. 2 City of Placentia Zone Change 70/03 - Propercy bounded on the west 5y Angelina Drive, on the north by Alta Vista Street, on the south by Crowther Avenue, and on the east by a line par.allel to and 1,400 feet east of Kraemer Boulevard. G-M, General Mam~facturin~, to U, Unclassified. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts qoted for the Commission that a notification had been received from the City of Placentia regarding a zone change for. property zorth of Crowther Avenue in the vicini:y of Kraemer Boulevard, proposing a zone change from G-M, General Manufacturing, to U, Unclassified, District, and they proposed this change to limit any type of construction on the p~roperty until a determiaation had been made whether or not this would be app:opriate for a civic center. Mr. Roberts advised the Commissian that he had discussed the proposal with a representa- tive of the Placentia Planning Department, who had stated the purpose of having an un- classified zone was co stop any Further actions, industrially or otherwise, on the property without the filing of a conditional use permit in order to discourage development of the property until a study had been made for the civic center. The Commission concurred that since subjec! prope.ty was not within thr i~nediate scope of influence of the City of Anaheim, that the Commission Secretary direct a letter to ehe Placentia Planning Co~nission thankin3 them for their consideration ir~'notifying the pnaheim Planning Commissior., but that the Commission had no comment either pro or con relativ@ to this pruposal. .A:! f _ . • . _:.. ( 's '1 .~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 9, 157U ~ 5021 ~ REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 3 RECOMMENDATIONS Melod land Theatre - Develo~menr. (Continued y 1 p'ar.s submitt2d to ) convert the storage facility room~ _or meeting an~ ' coaference rooms and a further rer~est to the C~,ty ' Council €or use of 10,0.ti0 squar,: feet of trailez J " space for temporary meeting room ~a~ilities until tlie storage rooms were converced„ a period of approximately nine to ten months. - Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts presented the propo'sec~.o4.ans to the Commission and noted that since the City Council had taken finai actitin, the p~,ans were presented to the Commission for their perusal. s No further action or recommei,,!~tions were made by the Planning Commission. ~ . 1TEM N0. 4 Special representa[ive of the California State Board of Health to discuss wiLh the Commission _ the definition of Category "L" patients. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised tlie Commission that a representative of tne . State Board of Health was available to explain what eacl~ type of pa[ient was cZassified as to possible Commission consideration to establish a policy regarding requests for conversion of convalescent homes to accommodate Category "L" patients. Mr. Roberts noted that it liad been the staff and Commission's interpretation that ~iie majority of these patients would be elderly and senile and would not be dangerous; however, this had been indicated by the representative not to be the fact, and that a number of these could be a potential danger since not only eldery but younger people were admitted under this classification. Coimnissioner Thom then inquired whether or not an expert in geriatrics should also be present to present his [houghts on this type of combination of uses in a convalescent home. Chairman Rowland noted that tlie facilities on the north side of La Palma Avenue in the - general vicinity of his office had been operating for some time, and the majorit} were - elderly - however, [here were a number of young people who had brain damage and motor problems, etc., and special types of facilities and precautions should be set up if the two types of paL•ients were proposed for a conva;escent facility, primarily to r:ocect these ~atients more thar. their being a potential danger to the balance of the patients in tliis f.acility. Mr. Roberts advised tha Commission that [his representative would be at the Planning Commission morning review of ttie agenda and would speak to them at approximately 11:00 A.P1., afterwar.d going to lunch with the Commission where tne Commission might be desirous of having further answers to a number of their questions, ITEDi N0. 5 : Southern California Planning Congress. Cortnnissioner Gauer noted that the Southern California Planning Congress wonld meet at ' the TRW System plant for a tour at 6:00 P.M., with Nermosa Beach being the host. ;~ Commissioners Thom and Gauer indicated they would attend. Commissioner Herbst indicated '~ he would advise the Commission Secretary if he were able to attend. ,~ ADJO-_ URNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Conm~issioner Camp offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Coam~issioner Thom ^ seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjouzned at 4:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, , 'L J 2• 7 L~ ~~ f~ ~ ANN KREBS, Secretary / ~ : Anaheim City Planning Conani..ion _-aar.~l'1. : - ~s+- ~~ . . T "~ f . ..__ _. ~ ~ . ...~; ... _ ' 1 -f~. +C'"_~'.'_"......... ~ _ `