Minutes-PC 1970/02/25i
i ( ) ;' ) .}
~ ~
;
t .. ..
_
~ .
City Hall
' _. • Anaheim, California
~ February 25, 1970
A REGULAR MEETING '~F THE ANAHEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called
to order by Chairman Rowland at 2:00 o'clock P,M., a quorum being
•'~ y preaent.
~~ PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Rowlan6.
r.
- COrIliISSIONERS: Allred, Camp (who entered the Council Chamber at
_ 2:04 P.M.), Gauer, Herbat, Thom, Farano.
ABSENT - CO1~Il~tISSIONERS: Yone:' ~M •
~+ PRESEN~T - Aasiatant Development 5ervi~ea Dir.ector: Ron.ald Thompaon
~ Deputy City Attomey: Frt~nk Lowry
Office Engineer: Ja~ Titus
Aasistant Zoning Supervieor; Pat Brown
Planning Couuniasion Secretary; Ann Kreba
', PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE - Commiasioner Camp led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
APPROVAL OF - The ?i~.nutes of the meeting of February 9, 1970, were approved with the
THE MINUTES following correction on motion by Couaniasioner Thom, seconded by
Commieaioner Allred, and MOTION CARRIED:
Page 5011, parageeph 8, "Commisaioner Farano ...'~
TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: ARMOUR COMPANIES, 2731 West Lincoln Avenul, Anaheim,
~ TRACT N0. 7185 California. ENGINEER: Anacal Engineering Company, 222 East Lincoln
' Avenue, Anaheim, California. Subject tract, located at the southwest
_ carner of Frontera and Armando Streeta, containing 8.6 acres, is
propoaed for e~~bdivixion into 3 R-3 and R-2 zoned lots.
Asaistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown, reviewed for the Pianning Co~iesion the location
of subject oroperty, uses establiehed in cloae proximity, and the resolution of intent
to rezoY~e property covered by subject tract which was approved in October, 1968; that
~ Lot Nos, 1 and 2 and the northern half of Lot 3, or 150 feet, were propoced for develop-
i~ ment with R-3 Multiple-Family Reaidential, 2oned uaes, while the southerly portion of..
i~ Lot 3 was to be reaoned to the R-2, Multiple-Family Residential, Zone; that Jackson
Avenue was indicated to continue westward aeparating Lot Nos. 1 and 2 as indicated on
General Plan'Amendment No. 97 and Area Development Plan No. 37; and that correapondence
from the Orange County Flood Control Dietrict requested that the aubdivider be required
I to conatruct a 5-foot chainlink fence along the portion of the tract which was adjacent
~ to the Santa Ana River channel right-of-way - therefore, Condition No, 9 reflected this
requeat.
Mr. Calvin Queyrel, representing the engineer, appeared before the Commiaeion and noted
thet according to the engineering maps the Ssnta Ana River did not touch eubject tract,
, and that an easement was recorded to provide acceae to the "not a part" parcel.
~ Co~nissioner Camp offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 7185, seconded
~ by Co~isaioner Fare^.a, and MOTION CARRIED (Commiesioner Rowland abstained), aubject to
I the following conditiona:
1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7185 ia granted aubject to the
~ completion of ReclaeaiFication No. 68-69-13 and Variance No. 2p44,
2. That ahould thie aubdivision be developed as more than one eubdivision, eacb
aubdiviaion thereof shall be aubmitted in tentative form for approval.
~ 3. That a p
predetermined rice for Lot A shall be calculated and an offer of dedication
of Lot A ahall be made by the developer and aubmitted to and approved by the City
' of Anaheim prior to approval of the final tract map, eaid offer of dedication to be
~ recorded concurrently with the final tract map, The cost of Lot A shall include
,~t;t land and a proportionate share of the underground utilitiea and etreet improvements.
~ 5022
~
- ~ °~ •~~_ ~ ~=' - ,_..~,...
~
_,.
^
' ~ ~ ~) ; 1
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 25, 1970 5023
TENTATI~E MAP OF - 4. That all loCs within this tract shall be served by underground
TRACT N0. 7185 utilities.
(Continued)
5. That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior
to approval of a final tract map.
6, That Lot B shall be del~ted at the westerly terminus of Street A.
7. That drainage of subject tract shall be disposed of in a manner that is satisfactory
^ i to the City Engineer.
8. That the owner(s) of aubject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum of
~ $75 per multiple-family unit, said amount to b~ paid at the time the building pex~it
,. is issued.
9. The subdivider shall conatruct a 5-foot chainlink fence along those portions of the
property ad~acent to the Santa Ana River channel right-of-way.
I '` VARIANCE N0. 2139 - PUBLIC HEARING. JOHN AND ANNE KRAJACIC, P. 0. Box 3716, Anaheim,
Californis, Owners; requesting amendment to conditions of approval
', by the Planning Coaanission on property described as: A rectangularly
shaped parcel af land consiating of approximately 1.5 acres havin a fronta e of a
~ 8 8 PProxi-
~ mately 108 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, having a maximum depth of approxi-
~ mately 598 feet, and being located approximately 570 feet east of the centerliae of Dale
Avenue, and further described as 2760 West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified
R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses
established in cloae proxi:rity, and the request of the petitioner to waive or amend
conditions of approval in Resolution No. PC69-235 granted by the Planning Co~nission on
; November 17, 1969 under the original consideration of Variance No. 2139.
~~ I
~~ Mr. Brown further noted that at their January 26, 1970 meeting, under Reports and Recom-
~ mendations, the Commisaion conaidered a request by the petitioner to waive the conditions;
however, because of the fact that the request involved all of the conditions which were
"_ established under the original resolution, an advertised public hearing was deemed to be
necessary and appropriate under the circumatancea.
The conditions of approval under the variance in Reaolution No. PC69-235 were then
reviewed by the Cormaission, it being noeed that since the petition had been readvertised,
the Commiasion was now in a position to conaider and act upon the validity of the
netitioner's request.
~~
' Mr. John Krajacic, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission, stating he was desir-
oua of having hie attorney preaent his requeat - however, he was not present, and he
would, thexefore, proceed, and then noted that he had purchased subject property several
~ montha ago aince this was something he had done in the past - purchase trailer parks,
renovate them, clean them up and remove the junk; that when he had purchased the property
~ the previous owners did not inform him that trailera could not be stored on the property
since for the previous ten years this had been done; however, he had been informed by
the Zoning Enforcement Officer that the etoring of tzailers and boats was not permitted
• by the Anaheim Municipal Code. and that a variance hpd tu be applied for and approved
to permit storage of these vehiclea. Furthermore, at the public hearing on November 17,
~ 1969, he did not underatand that trailera h~d to be removed - that he did not understand
i` that he would have to meet the conditions, which were extremely expensive, and to meet
them within ninety days or the tr~ilera would have to be removed; that removal of these
~~; trailers was imposaible aince he wae unable to contact the owners, many of whom were out
!' of the country; that the revenue he received from the storage of theae vehicles helped to
pay the taxea on the property; that aince a very large motel had been opened directly
east of aubject property, thie created a conaiderable drain on the number of potential
motel gueate he had; that if the income from the trailer atorage were denied him, he would
not be able to operate the motel on a going basis; that the improvements required in the
reaolution would be in the vicinity of $14,000, which included curbs, gutters, sidewalks,
graveling the atorage portion, and the expenae of inetalling a$7,000 fire hydrant; that
~ the previous owner had never received any complaints from dust and reduced the dust problem
with an oil application, whereae the condition of approval required asphalting the storage
, area travelwsys, which would mean removal of this when money was available to enlarge the
• motel facilitiea - something he had planned some time in the future; that there were three
*~ fire hydrante in the front part of the property, and the Fire Department had inspected the
~'t Qroperty, but they t~ad not told him a£ire hydrant wae neceasary - only that they could
serve the property in the event of a fire; and that if he were not permitted to store
~•, these vehiclee, it would be a waste of land, with weede growing there.
__-- - , "~_ :,~~F...r_. .-...._._._,_ - •
• ~
- _.
~ .
i
~ ~ } ~~ ~ ~. )
( M pi ^ ..
INUTES, CITY ....~IJNING COMMISSION, February 25, 1970 5024
VARIANCE N0. 2139 - The Commission inquired as to the time the petitioner needed to meet
(Continued) the conditions of approva2 in Resolution No. PC69-235 or the removal
- ' of the vehicles stored there,
Mr. Krajacic replied that he did not have the money to make the improvements required,
although he was willing to meet them; that moat of the trailers were on jacks; and that
even employees of the Police and Fire Departments stored their trailers and boats there.
j The Commission noted that since they had recently recotmnended a policy for fire accese
_ ~ to residential, commercial, and industrial properties, the location of the existing fire
~. ''q hydrant would mean pulling hoses over a distance of 600 feet, which would be contrary to
the policy, and even though these trailers, campers and boats were on jacks, there was
no assurance a fire would not occur. Furthermore, a fully occupied mobile home gark
~ abutted subject property to the west, and these people could be affected by a fire which
did not have proper fire fighting equipment availability,as wellas problems from dust and
odors if a sewerage dump station were not provided, and that if any waiver of the sidewalk
and curb were desired, this would have to be granted by the City Council since the C,ouunis-
i sion was not empowered to waive these engineering requirements.
Coimnissioner Thom inquired why the Co~nission informed the petitioner that subject petition
,M would have to be readvertised when certain conditions could not be waived.
Commissioner Farano noted that the Commission could not consider waiver of the conditions
unless activated at a public hearing - therefore, anything which the Couanission could not
grant, could then be considered by the City Council after receiving the Commission's
recommzndations. Therefore, no matter what the Co~nission stated at the previous meeting,
the requested waiver of conditions would have tcs be reconsidered at a public hearing be-
fore any action could be taken by either the Planning Coumiission or City Council.
The Coimnission then noted that in viewing subject property and the pictures there were no
travel lanes for access to the property, and what appeared in the pictures was very un-
sig!itly.
Mr. Krajacic advised the Commission that there was a circular drive around the property
which was composed of limestone and oil; that there was room for 120 spaces; and that he
did not plan to have more than 80 vehicles stored on the premises at the present time.
Co~niasioi:~* Gauer was of the opinion that additional time should be given to the peti-
tioner to meet the required conditions, just as other developers were required to meet
conditions within 180 days; that the use was a needed one since there were very few areas
where storage of these typea of vehicles was made available; even though the use was a
nonconforming use, to require meeting these conditions in 90 days was imposing a hardship
on the petitioner.
Mr. Krajacic, in response to Co~nission questioning, stated there were 46 to 48 vehicles
parked on the property now; that he hoped to be able to eventually store up to 120
vehicles since people had to get them off the stree:ta.
Commissioner Herbst noted that since this was a nonconforming use, if the petttioner were
agreeable to continuing an operation with the existing number of vehicles, pe~haps this
coul3 be permitted; however, if any additional vehicles were parked, then all conditions
originally imposed would have to be met iwnediately. However, there were two conditions
which he felt were antly needed now in order to provide for the peace, health, safety
and general welfare~ the neighbors - providing adequate fire protection and sewerage
facilities since the ownera of the vehicles would have no place to dump their refuse;
that these conditiona should be met first if any increase in the number of vehicles
stored were proposed.
j~ Mr. Krajacic, in reaponse, stated that the City required a$2,80d meter to be installed
before a 6-inch fire hydrant could be put in; that the cost involved was considerable,
and taking into consideration the increase in taxes from $900 to $2,200, this expense
- was almoat prohibitive.
The Commission then noted that if these spacea rented for $8 per month, this meant an
income of $4,600; for $10 per month an income of $5,760 for the 48 vehicles now stored;
~ and if the number of vehicles stored were increased to 80, this would be $7,680 or $9,600,
and a comparable increase if 120 vehicles were contemplated. Therefore, the increase
from $900 to $2,200 was minor in comparison to the increase in income.
- s
*?~ Mr. Krajacic noted that the inaurance company required him to pay an increase if the
.~e i3 trailers were kept there, and he could not afford both the increase in insurance and
.>e the cost of ineeting the conditions on the balance of the income from this storage.
~~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
~ . ~_ _.. ~__.,_, .
._..
I ~i ~ ._ ~ ' ~
I MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 25, 1970 5025
VARIANCE N0. 2139 - Co~nissioner Camp inquired of the staff tHe length of time the trailer
~ (Continued) storage operation existed on subject property and what prompted Zoning
~nforcement Officer Wayne West to inspect subject property if this were
an illegal use.
Mr. Brown advised the Commission that the trailer storage had been in operation about ten
yeara.
Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Commission that the office of the Zoning
Enforcement OfEicer had been estab'Lished approximately three years ago with only one
r. ~;~; person attempting to enforce all zoning laws - thus the majority of his time had been
spent on zoning complaints received, and, therefore, any violations not reported might
~ be existing for some time.
x Mr. Brown noted that the storage of trailers became known when the motel recently built
east of subject property was begun, and concern was expressed regarding the dust caused
~ during construction, and upon inspection by Mr. West it was noted that the trailers were
being stored in violation of the Zoning Ordinance.
~~ Mr. Krajacic noted that no complaint had been made from the motel. The only complaint
he was aware of was not by a City taxpayer but by someone complaining about the painted
~ sign advertising the storage of trailers.
The Co~mnission then noted there was a complaint which prompted the variance request.
The Commission continued discussion on the variance conditions, summarized as follows:
1. Whether or not there was a need for the sewerage dump site, and if the condition
should be eliminated - or whether the need was for the protection of the health and
general welfare of the adjoining residents.
2. The need for adequete fire protection, not only for subject property but for the
residents of the trailer park to the west.
3. Claim of the petitioner that income was insufficient to meet the conditions was
not substantiated since income would more than meet the increase in taxes-if the storage
area were maintained in a better manner, there would be an increase in the demand for
storage on subject properhy, thereby increasing the income of the petitioner.
~~$ Co~nisaioner Farano offered Resolutfon No. PC70-20 and moved for its passage and adoptton
-~ to amend Resolution No. PC69-235 dated November 17, 1969, granting Variance No. 2139,
~ by increasing the time in which to complete conditions to 365 days, said 365 days to
~ expire DTovember 16, 1970, and the deletion of Condition No. 10 covering the sewerage
~ dump station.
ti Cormnissioners Allred and Herbst inquired whether or not the foregoing motion could also
~,~ include use of the exiating facilitiea with storage of 48 trailers as a nonconform::lg
~ k use during the 365 days - however, if any increase in the number of trailers stored were
;~ contemplate3, then all conditiona must be met immediately; that the condition requiring
;; the asphalting of the travelways could be amended and require instead "pea gravel",
~~ cleaning up the entire facility to present a more sanitary appearance; and that Condition
~':~ No. 10 be ratained.
Co~issioner Farano then amended his motion as follows: That the time extension of 365
days would apply only if the ex~sting nonconforming use is limited to the existing 48
stored trailers; that if any additional vehicles were proposed, then all conditions
originally imposed in the granting of subject petition, as well as the granting of 365
days in wh~.ch'to complete them,shall become null and void and the conditions shall be
completed immediately; and that in lieu of asphalting of the area where trailers and
boats would be stored "pea gravel" shall be provided - however, all drives and travelways
shall be blacktopped; and that at the expiration of said 36S days, namely November 16,
1970, if the conditiona have not been met, operation of the storage of vehicles shall
cease and desist within ten days of said expiration and all vehicles removed from the
premises. (See Resolution Book)
'~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
? AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbat, Thom, Rowland.
~ :~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
R
.ikt
_._..__. ~ ~ ., --"„r_ ~..-~.p~~.~-... ~r, ..~ ~,. . -:
-. ~
- ~
- _a
~ . , .
i~ .
~ ~, )
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 25, 1970 5026
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING• DOMINIC ETCHANDY, 570 Dwyer Drive, Anaheim,
N0. 69-70-36 California, Owr,,:r; COVINGTON BROS. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, 2451 East
" Orangethorpe Avenue, Fullerton, California, Agent; property des-
~ARIANCE N0. 2154 cribed as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 13 acres, having appror_imate frontages of 323 feet on
the south side of Orange Avenue and 474 feet on the east side of
Western Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 800 feet and being located south
of the intersection of Orange Avenue and the Carbon Creek Flood Control channel. Property
presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) PERMITTED NUMBER OF PfAIN STRUCTURES, (2) MINIMUM
~ REQUIRED FLOOR ARFA OF DWELLING UNITS, (3) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT,
' (4) MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF R-A OR A SINGLE-FAMILY
_ RESIDENTIAL ZONE, (5) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES, AND
(6) REQUIRED NUMBER OF ENCLOSED CARPORTS, TO ESTABLISH A 348-UNIT
, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses
established in close proximity, and the request for R-3 zoning and the six waivers from
the site development standards, noting that the density proposed would be 30.2 dwel:ing
units per net acre and coverage would be approximately 42%; that circulation was propo~ed
through 28-foot wide, private drives and a turn-around area at the southeast corner of
the property; that this circulation would be adequate for access for fire and trash
vehicles.
i
r
Mr. Brown also noted that the property was formerly considered appropriate for a park site,
but the Parks and Recreation Department now felt this was no longer needed.
Chairman Rowland asked that this be clarified for the benefit of the many people present
in the Council Chamber.
Mr. Brown further noted that although subject property was no longer being considered for
' expannion of the park site, a 10-acre parcel to the east of the 10-acres originally
r j~ proposed for the park site was now propased to be purchased for the park expansion,
_ and because of existing uses, a church to the west and the flood control channel abutting
to the north, a commerc ia l parce l to the northwest, and low-medium density tract to the
north, the proposed reclassification appeared to be appropriate. Furthermore, the waivers
requeated had been granted in the past on projects of this size.
Chairman Rowland noted that a representative of the Parks and Recreation Department was
present in the Council Chamber - therefore, he would ask that this representati~e explain
?~ further his department's feelings about the park site.
Superintendent of Parks Richard Kamphefner advised the Cormnission that approximately six
;b months ago the department became aware of the fact that subject property was in jeopardy
for a park site; that the asking price of $44,000 per acre was beyond the amount set aside
for acquisition of park land and which could be afforded - therefore, they had studied the
10-acre parcel to the east of the existing park site for expansion; and that in 1959 a
5-acre increase had been proposed, but this was now increased to 10 acres.
, Chairman Rowland then noted that a 100% increase was proposed by the Parks and Recreation
Department from their original requirement.
~!
"' Mr. Kamphefner also noted that the determination that 10 acrea ;~as needed was made by the
~~ 1968 Citizens Coimnittee and was reco~aended to the City Council; that this would be a
I~ part of the bond issue up for consideration at the next election.
~ Mr. Gared Smith, 2043 Weatcliff Drive, Newport Beach, archttect for the agent"for petitioner,
appeared before the Coimnission and noted that the developers also were ~resent to answer
questions; that the staff had enumerated the characteristics of the proposed development
- very clearly; that the site was an independent site since it was isolated from other
> residenttal uses by the flood control channel and an R-2-5000 development to the north,
~' the school to the south, a park site to the east, and Western Avenue and a church and
j sarvice station site on the west side of Western Avenue; that the project was oriented
` .~ to the inner portion of the property; that access to the property would be one drive
from Orange Avenue and three drives from Western Avenue, which were so placed after
meetings with the staff in order that traffic hazards might be minimized; and then
* presented a colored rendering of the development which indicated the type of archi*_ecture
.~ ~~ proposed.
Mr. Smith also noted that the open carports were not propoaed as a means of economizing
but were propoaed to give a more garden type appearance since landscaping was planned
. ' ~ ~" :. ~ ~ f~ . ___.....,..-. . :
~ -
- _~.
( ~ ( ~) ~,
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 25, 1970 5027
, . ...;.
RECLASSIFICATION - for the entire park area with depressed areas so that the residents
N0. 69-70-36 of this complex could enjoy a complete view of the landscaped areas;
that smaller units were proposed for approximately 20% of the total
VARIANCE N0. 2154 number of units, and these units were intended for adults only, and
(Continued) the entire apartment complex was geared for adults only; that although
these smaller units were proposed, the density was below the maximum
permitted by Code; that the waivers requested would not detract from
the development but would enhance it since more open area was proposed; that the question
before the Commission was the feasibility cf the proposed zoning at this location consider-
ing the asking price of the property; attd that because of this acreage cost,. development
with R-1 homes was not feasible. Furthermore, the Parks and Recreation fees alone would
be around $25,000.
Chairman Rowland inquired whether or not only a roof was proposed for the parking not
enclosed on three sides, and wliat ~vas planned to replace the storage areas required in
the enclosed carports.
~ Mr. Smith, in reply, stated that these storage areas would be r.elocated closer to the
living units rather than nearer the garages.
z "
The Commission further inquired whether or not the person having a small R-A parcel at
the southwest end abutting subject property had an interest in this development; where-
upon Mr. Smith replied that one of the six owners of subject property resided on the
R-A parcel.
The Commission then noted that if dedication for street widening purposes was required of
subject property, and the small R-A parcel did not dedicate, this would create a traffic
problem since the street could not be widened but would have this parcel jutting out into
the street area.
Mr. Loren Covington, developer of the proposed project, advised the Commissioi~ that he
would be glad to talk with the owner of the property regarding improvement of this r;*tion.
! The Commissian then noted that the owner of the R-A parcel should be willing to dedicate
'~ this portion so that a hazard was not created.
_ ;;
Mr. Smith then advised the Commission that the location of the home was too close to the
" street to allow for a full curb, parkway and sidewalk; however, when he discussed this
with the Engineering Division, they stated that the full street width for travel lanes
could be provided - the only thing which might be eliminated was the parkway, thus having
the sidewalk adjacent to the curb.
~ The Commission noted they ;vere concerned only with the location of the curb, not the
?' distance of the house from the street since a considerable increase in traffic would
~ result if subject petition were approvad - therefore, it was important to have the street
,~ alignment correct and straightened out.
~~ Mr. Smith advised the Commission that he had had no contact with the property owner but
~ would be glad to try to resolve this street problem.
i The Commission inquired of the staff what was the basis for the statement that the R-A
~ parcel would ultimately develop for a more intense use.
~
~ Dir. Brown noted that from past history where small parcels were left out in development,
these later were developed For either commercial or multiple-family residential uses.
~~ The Commission inquired whether or not t:ie owner of the R-A parcel was present in the
I event the Coimnission might wish to ask questions; whereupon an affirmative answer was
II received from someone in the au~iience.
w ~ A showing of hands indicated approximately 80 persons present in the Council Chamber in
opposition to subject petitions.
Mr. Gordon FJalker, 3100 West Rome Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition,
noting that a request from R-A or park use to R-3 seemed highly unusual since generally
~ zoning was from the lowest density to the next lowest; that generally apartments were
developed where less deairable uses had been established, such as coffinercial development;
, that the present land use was somewhat misrepresented since i~ediately south of the
* i school single-family development extended to Ball Road, said R-1 homes having been there
~ for the past thirteen years; that there wera no apartmente located in thia area for one-
~ half mile, and these we.re garden-type apartments at Knott and Orange Avenuea, as well as
at Lincoln and Western; that although the area on the north eide of Orange Avenue was
indicated for R-2, thie wae developed for single-family homes; that to the west of the
church on the west aide of Western Avenue all aingle-family homes were developed; that
,, .__..,~.- ,,, _
' '. ~`~ ~r--. ~...__ ... . .
- ~
_ _~
\ . ~
~
t ? , ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 25, 1970 5028
RECLASSIFICATION - the coffiaercial property indicated in the Report to the Commission was
N0. 69-70-36 a service station site which had been closed for some time, and no
other commercial uses were established within one-half mile of subject
~~ARIANCE N0. 2154 property, being located either on Beach Boulevard or Knott Avenue;
(Continued) that subject property was prime R-1 prop.;rty and the only parcel left
in this area of the City and should nc*_ be 3acrificed for apartments
since apartments would add more children tn the school facilities,
even though the architect stated this would be an adult facility; that presently no side-•
walks existed on the east side of Western Avenue for the children to go to Twila Reid
School; that the traffic on Western Avenue was already heavy, especially around the time
the children went to school, and to add approximately 600 cars exiting and entering this
development would be hazardous to the children; that traffic on Western Avenue, particular-
ly on rainy days when children were driven to the elementary, junior high, and senior high
schools, became almost at a standstill; and that as voting taxpayers who were still resi-
dents of this area and who would still be there even after the apartments were developed,
the single-family resident3 would be the ones who would be suffering the hardship if
subject petitions were permitted to develop for R-3 uses.
~ Mr. Carle Herman, 3109 Rome Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition and
~ noted that approval of subject petition for R-3 zoning would only enhance the welfare of
, a very few people, at the expense of the property owners in this area, the City, and
~ the parents of the children who would live there and go to school, making all facilities
~ extremely crowded wi.th people, automobiles, and children•from a complex of this size;
, that Twila Reid School was already filled to capacity, and children from 348 units could
j double the size of the school at the great expense to the City and taxpayers; that subject
1 property was choice R-1 property fronting on Western Avenue, which was not a fast street
in terms of speed of traffic, and this property was also set back from Orange Avenue
because oP the flood control channel; that if R-1 homes were built on subject property
they could sell for $30,000 to $40,000; that the only reason the petitioner could obtain
$44,U00 per acre was because of the type of development and low-density amenities in the
area, as well as possible potential R-3 zoning; that approval of subject petitions would
force the residents of this area to incur a sacrifice after having maintained their homes,
showing pride in their community; that approval and development with R-1 homes would be an
asset to the area without adding any extreme burdens to the schools and parks; that
' tenants living in this type of complex would find themselves in a ghetto-type existence
~ since with a density of 30 units per acre and approximately four persons per unit, this
'_ would add more than 100 persons per acre ar.d would not enhance the standard of living
3 for them or be an asset to the area which had been developed primarily for single-family
homes, nor to the communit-y by adding to the cost of welfare, police protection, etc.;
and that approval of subject petitions would be retrogressing in progress in the co~unity,
enriching a very few at the expense and welfare of the residents of this entire area.
Mr. John Ruscoe, 3204 Stonybrook Drive, appeared iiefore the Commission in opposition and
noted that the second picture presented by the staff was taken irom his front yard, and
that no evidence had been submitted to warrant favorable consideration of R-3 zoning for
subject property; but meant an increase in the number of people, vehicles, and chfldren
~' into this low-density single-family residential area.
Mrs. Lester Allison, 3405 Weat Faircr.est Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposi-
tion and stated she spoke for the concerned mothers in this area; that one of her children
attended ltvila Reid School and the other was going to Western High School; that both of
these schools were already bulging with children, and any increase in the attendance
could mean children having half-day sessions; that the influx of the many apartment
residents on Knott Avenue had also brought in many undesirable aspects, such as a possible
homicide and a suicide on the 23rd of February, wherein children being naturally curious
were subjected to this undeairable sight; that many of the people living in these apart-
ments made them breeding grounds for dope places; that dope raids occurred at least once
a month on the apartments on Ball Road; and she would recoimnend the Cormnission deny subject
petitions and consider the property desirable for R-1 development.
Two letters of opposition from Mr. Wallace Truslow, 3127 West Rome Avenue and Mrs. Julius
Nuccio, 3156 Bridgeport Avenue were read to the Courtnission, as well as a telegram from
Mr. and Mrs. Tsupomu Iwasaki, 3313 Stonybroak Drive, Anaheim.
~ Ms. Charles Bradley, 3208 Faircrest Drive, appeared before the Commission in opposition,
~ noting that the architect referred to an R-A parcel - however, from his observation of
the area, the entire area was developed with single-family homes completely surrounding
_ i subject property except for the church, school and park site; that the service station
site had been abandoned for some time; that the flood control channel fronted sub3ect
~ property on Orangewood Avenue and also created a small triangular parcel at the southeast
.kc corner of Orange and Western Avenues, which would be very difficult to develop; that the
,;,~ nearest apartments were at least one-half mile in either direction; that the dividing
~~+ line fur elementary school children was Orange Avenue - therefore, an.y childrw_n from the
;~ proposed development would have to go to Twila Reid School which served the a~ea bounded
~
._ ~
\ .
( -) ;')
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 25, 1970 5029
RECLASSIFICATION - by Orange Avenue on the north, Ball Road on the south, Beach Boulevard
N0. 69-70-36 on the east, and Knott Avenue on the west; that kindergarten students
were placed on a waiting list or attended other schools, and because
VARIANCE N0, 2154 os this reason, he would recommend denial of the proposed reclassifi-
(Continued) cation.
Mr. Royal Marten, S11 South Western Avenue, appeared before the Commission, noting that he
i was always in favor of protecting the rights of each individuai to develop his land to its
~ highest and best potential; that he also owned a one and one-half acre parcel but.was•also
I protesting approvai of R-3 for subject property because from a land use point of view,
y~T'_ subject property should be developed in accordance with the uses established in the area,
namely R-1 uses; that cities surrounding Anaheim had permitted 6,OOG-square foot lots -
however, the lots in rhis general area were large, many of them being more than 8,000
~. square feet with especially attractive, large homes; that good homes were being developed
in Anaheim; that he could not imagine living in a unit only 425 square feet in size since
this was the size of a double garage, and to consider units of this size for an area
developed with homes very large in size, from 1,400 to 2,000 square feet, seemed incon-
gruous and was not an enhancement to this area; that m.any times the general public forgot
that homeowners sacrificed a great deal to own their homes, especially at the time the
~ tax bill was presented; that a large portion of the taxes to the City was derived from
~ the single-family homeowners, said tax being especially high and would continue to be
high; and that from his viewing of the General Plan, this area was desi,o,nated for low-
density residential uses before the most recent updating and should be developed for
that density now.
Mr. John Simpson, 3309 Deerwood Drive, appeared 'uefore the Commission in opposition and
stated he was somewhat perturbed by the statements in the Report to the Cotmnission in
support of this propcsed reclassification; that the staff had not consulted with the
residents living in this area as to whether or not the property should be developed for
a park or apartments; that in 1964 John Collier had advised him there would be a park
in this area; that the apartments on Ball Road, in his estimation, were monstroaities, .
and the GiE~ Council considered them.as prime examples of poor development, stating they
would not permit a densitq of 28 units per net acre, and the proposal was for more than
30 units per acre; that when subject area was considered in the presentation of the
' General Plan in 1963, it was indicated for low-density residential uses or a park use;
i and that to his way of thinking, this was still appropriate since no land use change had
~~: taken place to consider a greater density. Furthermore, he had worked with the Planning
' Department, Parks and Recreation Department, and the City Manager's Office on the bond
~ issues - therefore, since the community had supported the City's fund requests in the
past, it was now the City's duty to support the residents of this area by denying the
proposed reclassification.
Mr. Smith, in rebuttal, noted that efficiency units for one person were proposed for a
portion of subject prnperty - therefore, the proposed development would not be desirable
as an apartment development for families with children; that their studies indicated a
need for parking spaces equal to one and one-third vehicles per apartment unit, whereas
Code required one and one-half, and this was being provided in accordance with said Code
requirement; that he was not familiar with what the needs of the City and County were,
but he li:~ed in an apartment and did not feel they were an undesirable living environment;
that in all likelihood mos~t people present in opposition lived in an apartment at one time
or another, especially where young people who were too old to reside with their parents
needed an apartment for themselves,or young married people who could not afford'hbmes priced
between $35,000 and $40,000; that the proposed development, in his and the developer's
estimation, was the best project ever proposed by them for Anaheim and neighboring
communities; that less density and coverage were proposed than permitted by Code; that
a good deal more landscaping was proposed than generally provided; and that the develop-
;~ent would not be detrimental to this general area.
~}~ The Commission inquired whether or not the developer had an apartment complex in close
, proximity which the opposition could view; whereupon Mr. Smith noted the closest was on
w the north aide of Lincoln Avenue, near Magnolia.
~` Chairman Rowland noted that other Covington Bros. developments were good developments;
however, the Cormnission's primary concern was whether this was an appropriate land use
+~ and that the waivers requeated had been granted a number of times in the past or had
' ~ been recotmnended for amendment to the City Council..
.~
`; THE HFdaRING WAS CLOSED.
~' Cotmniss3oner Farano noted a statemant made by one of the opposition regarding the staff's
.+~ support ofthe propoaed development was misinterpreted; that since he had served on the
~ Planning Commission for over three years, he could not recall at any time when the staff
i had made a statement which could be interpreted as being in favor or against any petition;
~_ . _. ..._,._ . _.._. -- -~«~.--- ..,~.~,...,r,...~.,a...-,...,._... ...,.....,.,..,s..m..-
~: ,~ ~,.,..~,.~,,.,~„~,,.~,,.,~
_ ,~~'" -a"' " . ~ ~ . i ~
~ ~ ~_ ~ -.. __.~
- ,_„
~ ~
+ __..~~
- j t-~ ,-~ 1
MINUTES, CITY PLANNTNG COMMISSION, February 25, 1970 5030
RECLASSIFICATION - that the staff was a fact-finding group who presented all evidence to
N0. 69-70-36 the Commission based on their past experience and as professionals -
therefore, it was the duty of the Commission to determine from facts
VARIANCE N0. 2154 presented by the staff, the petitioner and opposition whether or not
(Continued) the use was appropriate.
Co~issioner Thom inquired of Coimnissioner Gauer what th~e land use indication was when
the General P2an was adopted in 1963.
Commissioner Gauer noted that prior to the adoption of the General Plan in 1963, the
h. Comnission and staff held work sessions with property owners i~i areas throughout the
City; that a zoning map had been prepared to be used along with the Oeneral Plan -
'~ ,~'.~ however, the City Attorney,at phat time Preston Turner, advised the Commission that both
documents could not be acted u on at the same time - however, this area was projected
; for low-density land use or a park site.
sa
Cotmnissioner Gauer also noted that the comment made regarding an increESe in school
" children population was somewhat misleading since he had been superintendent of schools
'' in Anaheim a number of years prior to retirement and studies made indicated there were
~ ~ sin le-famil
less children from apartments than from R-1, 8 y ho~;es, and approximately one-
third more children when the single-family homes were on 5000-syuare foot lots which
were permitted in lieu of apartments for areas determined to be appropriate for R-3 zoning.
Nevertheless, the prime issue before the Commission was appropriateness of the zone and
land use proposed.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolutinn No. PC70-21 and moved for its passage and adoption
to zecommend to the City Council that Petition Eor Reclassifica:ion Nr~. 69-76-36 be
disapproved on the basis that no land use change had taken place to warrant favorable
consideration of other than low-density residential development and that no apartments
or medium-density residential uses were located within a perimeter of one-half mile of
subject property, and approval of subject petition would establish an undesirable prece-
dent, injecting apartment development into an area devoted primarily to single-family
residential homes. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was oasred by the following vote:
AYES: CODIIfISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
Commisaioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC70-22 and moved for its passage and adoption
to deny Petition for Variance No. 2154 on the basis that the Commission denied the re-
classification of the property, and the waivers would no longer be applicable to subject
property, and that there were no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
involved in the property or the proposed use that did not generally apply to propecty or
class of uses in the same vicinity and zone. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the £ollowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
Commissioner Herbst left the Council Chamber at 3:55 P.M.
RECESS - Commissioner Thom offered a motion to recess the maeting.
Commissioner Farano seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting recessed at 3:55 P.M.
RECONVENE - Chairman Rowland reconvened the meeting at 4:05 P.M.,
~ ~ Co,.:missioner Herbst being absent.
i
~
.+kt
i
-_,,,~,,,., . -
~
_n
`
i } ~i
' MINUTES, CITY PLA1VDTING COMMISSION, Febrsary 25, 1970 5031
I
~ VARIANCE N0, 2153 - PUBLIC HEARING. WILLIAM A, EDDY, 5420 Las Lomas, Long Beach,
• California, and JAMES A. SHELTON, 14662 Natalie Drive, Whittier,
' California, Owners; JAMES A. ROE, 18456 Rio Di Plata, Yorba Linda,
j California, Agent; requesting WAIVERS OF (1) REQUIREMENT THAT ALL MANUFACTURING USES BE
CONDUCTED WHOLLY WITHIN A BUILDING AND (2) REQUIRED 6-FOOT ~IASONRY WALL ENCLOSING A
; PERMITTED OUTDOOR USE on property described as; An irregularly shaped parcel of land
~ located southwest of the southwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Richfield Road, having
f apprc~ximate frontages of 135 feet on La Palma Avenue and 155 feet on Richfield Road,
being located approximately 2,900 feet east of the centerline of Jefferson Street, and
• further described as 4126 East La Palma Avenue. Property presently classified M-1,
~; LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE.
Assiatant 2oning Supervisn: pat Brown reviewed for the Commission the location of subject
F property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to utilize an existing
19,000-square foat structure for the manufacturing of advertising neon signs and the
~ roposal to assemble said signs in an outdoor area for a period of four years; that a
' 6-foot chainlink fence was proposed to the rear of the required 5-foot setback adjacent
x to Richfield Road and along the southerly property line of both portions of the property;
1'~ that the existing eucalyptus trees along the Richfield Road frontage were to be retained
3 in lieu of the required 5-foot landscaping area; that a 6-foot high, wooden fence was
proposed along the nortlierly boundary of the easterly portion of subject property, said
; fence being located approximately 245 feet south of La Palma Avenue• that the
~ had indicated that the outdoor aasembly of signs was contemplated as a temporarytuae~fors
approxiA~ately four years, or until funds were available to construct a building suitable
~ for this phase of the operation; that in evaluating this proposal it was the staff's
feeling that the temporary outdoor assembly would not prove to be particularly deleteri-
t ous to the surrounding area - however, Code normally required a 6-foot masonry wall
~ surrounding such an assembly area; that the petitioners' request to erect a chainlink
fenca along the south property line would appear to be justified since a sand and gravel
operation was located immediately adjacent and to the south of the property; that the
proposed 6-foot wooden fence along the easterly portion of the northerly property line
was based on the fact that t'he petitioners stated they anticipated erecting a la:ge
structure within the next Pour years immediately adjacent to the property line - there-
' fore, the Commission would have to determine whether or not this request was valid,
;~ and if so, possibly requiring the posting of a bond to insure construction of the masonry
wall along the northerly property line. Furthermore, the Commission would also have to
~~ determine whether or not the proposed chainlink fence and existing eucalyptus trees along
~ the Richfield Road frontage would suffice to screen the assembly area since this frontage
~ uould have direct exposure to the public right-df-way and developments iimnediately Co
~ the east of subject property.
?~,
Mx. Brown, in conclusion, noted that a aimilar operation on Vermont Avenue was required
to completely enclose their outdoor assembly area with a 6-foot masonry wall, and since
the Northeast Induatrial Area in this general location was generally undeveloped, the
Commission would have to conaider future ramifications involving new developments which
may or may not have outdoor atorage areas if the request for waiver of the storage area
masonry wall encloaure was conaidered favorably. Furthermore, it had been the City's
policy in the past to grant temporary waiver of the sidewalks in industrial dreas because
very little foot traffic would result - therefore, this tem~jorary waiver could be made by
the City Council upon request by the petitionera.
Mr. Jamea Roe, agent for the petitionera, appeared 6efore the Commisaion and reviewed the
proposal, noting that the existing building and future buildings proposed along La Palma
Avenue would adequately acreen the outdoor storage asaembly area from view from the sr.zeet;
that because a sand and gravel pit wae in operation along the aoutherly property line, it
aeemed more appropriate to have a chainlink fence eince said operation was also screened
with a chainlink fence and oleandera; and that most of the items to be stored would be
emall materiaTa which would be atored in an orderly fashion.
Mrs. John Glenn, 119 Richfield Road, appeared before the Commission and inquired whether
or not the proposed outdoor asaembly and atorage would be itmnediately adjacent to her
property ?ocated at the aoutaweat corner of Richfield Road and La ?elma Avenue; whereupon
the Commission indicated on an area map the exact location of aubject property, which was
approximately 65 feet aouth of Mra. Glenn's property.
Mrs. Glenn noted that ehe was concerned becauae ahe had small children and did not want
Richfield Road to be uaed by large trucka; that the trucka from the sand and gravel opera-
tion did not uae the street to gain accesa to and from the pit to the south, and if they
had any plana to use Richfield Road, they uaually called her so that she could keep her
children indoora; and that their home was a very attractive one with a pool - however,
aince development would be 65 feet aoutherly and 135 feet weaterly of her property, her
oppoaition was not as great.
~~
' . _ ..~""'".'*:.-..~~~~^-_ ;; _ ~w~~ _ ~'"~~`-
~ _ .__...._.
. ,__
- ..A
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 25, 1970 5032
VARIANCE N0. 2153 - Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson noted for the
(Continued) Commission that one of the reco~nendations required underground
utilities, and this would apply only if the new atructure werebuilt
since the existing structure was now served with overhead utilities,
and this requirement would apply only to any new structure.
{ Mr. Anthony Fernandez, 1660 South State College Boulevard, appeared before the Commission
i in opposition, noting he represented the Anaheim Manufacturing Company, Division of Tappan
Company, which had been located in Anaheim since 1965 on State College Boulevard; that
they had purchased the 20-acre parcel on the east side of Richfield Road south of La Palma
;; Avenue and were in the process of building a 52,000-square foot manufacturing building at
•,~ the easterly end of this property having access to Fee Ana Street; that the balance of the
property was being held in the R-A Zone until expansion was warranted; that he was opposed
to waiver of the site development standards of th~ M-1 Zone since after having looked at
numerous large parcels for expansion purposes an3 after having discussed the problem with
~ various City personnel, they had located in the Norther..st Industrial Area primarily
because the City stated the area would rival the Irving Ranch industrial complex and
~ because of the park-like appearance of the Lambert Pharmaceutical Company and the Jo-Line
~ Tool Company on the north side of La Palma Avenue; that their investment of $750,000 in
land and buildings was substantial - therefore, it was important that less desirable
~ aspects of industrial development be discouraged since it would not be beneficial to
them esthetically or to the area, and the waivers requested by the petitioner would not
~* enhance the area if allowed ta be waived permanently.
The Commission inquired of Mr. Fernandez whether or not he felt a chainlink fence behind
the eucalyptus trees would impair his development; whereupon Mr. Fernandez replied that
he had spent considerable time in this general area, and from his observations, the trees
were totally inadequate to shield from view any outdoor assembly or storage. Furthermore,
he was•primarily concerned with the esthetic appearance from a ground level view rather
than an overhead appearance, and it was his understanding there would be access from
Richfield Road; thus a complete, open area would result from this access.
.'~ Mr. Brown advised the Co~ni~sion that access was proposed along the southerly portion of
.;~ the property.
;, Mr. Fernandez further noted it was his opinion that th~ function of an assembly line should
- not be ~isible from any adjoining nroperty, and the trees there now weretotally inadequate
-'? for proper screening of this use.
Mr. Roe, in rebuttal, stated that he felt the trees would be more effective than a solid,
6-foot masonry wall.
The Commission then inquired whether or not subject property was i~nediately adjacent to
the s~nd:atid~gravel pit.
Mr. Roe stated there was a 2S5-foot wide strip along the southerly portion immediately
adjacent to Richfield Road and was also bounded on the south by the sand and gravel pit.
Mr. Fernandez stated that tnia was also the strip he was primarily concerned with and felt
it was important that this be properly shielded with a more solid barrier than the exist-
ing eucalyptus trees and a chainlink fence.
Mr. Roe, in r~eply.totthe opposition presented by Mrs. Glenn, stated it was not their
intent to turn Richfield Road into a thoroughfare or to be used for at least two years
since it was planned to have access to ehe property from the La Palma Avenue frontage,
and only a portion of this property would be used for outdoor assembly, with later p~ans
to enclosE the asses¢bly area in a structure.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
f Discussion was held by the Commission as to the possibility of posting a bond to insure
; construction of the required 6-foot masonry wall along the north and east in the event
expansion did not occur within a given period of time, particularly along the Richfield
~' Road frontage and whether or not the wooden fence should also be replaced eventually
~ with a 6-foot masonry wall and bonded at the same time.
i
~= Mr. Roe, in response to Commission questioning, stated it was his opinion the eucalyptus
;,; trees would afford a better screening technique than a 6-foot masonry wall, and it was
' their intent to add more landscaping and run an irrigation line through the landscaped
~~{ area L•o maintain the existing trees and landscaping.
'~ ~~ The Commission further noted that the were attem tin to ive the
y P g g petitioners as much
flexibility as possible; however, this was predicated on substantial proof that the
!~ petitioners intendad to provide the enclosure and only wanted temporary relief from
, the site development standards of the M-1 Zone.
_ '^~__ . .._._...__ . -
~
-_A
( ~ , }
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 25, 1970 5033
VARIANCE N0. 2153 - Mr. Albert Iten, 5488 Oliva Street, Long Beach, appeared before the
(Continued) Commission and noted he represented the owner of the building and
would like to state that they would be willing to post a bond for
the walls, if necessary - however, as an alternative, the Commission
could grant the use for four years and at the end of that time if the new building were
not erected, then require that the wall be provided or revoke permission to operate since
there was no question Chat La Palma Avenue would be developed during that time, and
buildings, then, would be more adequate screening than a wall.
The Commission was of the opinion that the wall should be provided now or some assurance be
given that within four years the property ti~ould be developed with either a structure or ,
the wall, and this applied to both the northerly property line and Richfield Road -
however, the 6-foot masonry wall aloag the southerly property line could be waived
because of the existence of the sand and gravel operation which was enclosed with a
chainlink fence and screened with oleanders at the present time.
Commissioner Thom offered Resolution No. PC70-23 and moved for its passage and adoption
to grant Petition for Variance No. 2153 in part, waiving the required 6-foot masonry wall
along the southerly boundary of subject property adjacent to the sand and gravel operation
~' ar.d providing, however, that the southerly portion of the property not planned to be used
shall be properly maintained and free from dust and weeds for the general health, welfare
and safety of the people in this area; granting waiver oE the required 6-foot masonry
wall along the easteriy portion fronting on Richfield Road along the north and east
property lines for a period of four years or a lesser period if construction of a building
occurred prior to the stated time - however, at the end of the four-year waiver if no
construction had taken place, the 6-foot masonry wall shall be provided; that additional,
dense landscaping, together with irrigation facilitie~ be provided in addition to the
existing eucalyptus trees along the Richfield Road frontage and permanently maintained
in order that the outdoor assembly and storage are properly screened from view from
adjoining properties to the east; that the 6-foo~t-znasonry wall along the northerly boundary
of the easterly 185 feet of subject property be temporarily waived to permit the proposed
wooden fence; and that bonding in en amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim
shall be posted to insura construction of said masonry wall upon the expiration of the
,?~ four years in the event rtie building has not been constructed; and subject to the Inter-
departmental Committee for Public Safety and General Welfare recommendations. (See
~ Resolution Book)
- On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
'~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Thom, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
'~ ABSENT: COrAfISSIONERS: Herbst.
VARIANCE N0. 2155 - PUBLIC HEARING. ASP LAND COMPANY, 222 South Euclid Street, Anaheim,.
California, Owner; DAVID KLAIDMAN, 7820 Burnet Avenue, Van Nuys,
California, Agent; requesting WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN
FREE-STANDING SIGNS, (2) ~IMUM HEIGHT OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN, AND (3) LOCATION OF A
FREE-STANDING SIGN on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land
iocated at the southeast corner of Euclid Street and Pampas Lane, having a frontage of
approximately 200 feet on Euclid Street, located approximately 43~ feet north of the
centerline of Broadway, and fi:rther described as 222 Snuth Euclid Street, Property
preaently classified C-1, GENERAL COPQiERCIAL, ZONE,
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses
established in close praximity, existing zoning, the existing free-standing sign on the
property, and the proposal to erect an additional free-standing sign 31 feet in height
and 110 feet from an existing 40-foot high sign which was erected prior to the estab-
lishment of the Sign Ordinance. It was further noted that the new sign proposed was
4 feet higher than permitted becauae of the location of a multiple-family residential
development 320 feet from the sign location, and that the petitioner indicated the second
sign was needed to provide an integrated sign to identify an optical store and a business
college in the expanded portion, as well as a future, unidentified business.
~ Mr. Brown also noted that the first waiver requested involved both the required 300-foot
,~ separation between free-standing signs and the number of free-standing signs since subjezt
property had a width of only 200 feet; that the intent of the Code was tfl combine several
, - uses proposed on one parcel into one, integrated, free-standing sign, and this could be
accomplished by eliminating th~ existing free-atanding sign, the Standard Shoe sign,
~/ which was nonconforming by present Code standards and combining it with the other uses;
.,'kc that the waiver of the maximum permitted height would not appear to be extremely critical
~::: since the height was only 4 feet greater than that permitted by Code, and the existing
i; and new structures would act as a visual buffer between the proposed sign and the apart-
~I5 ments to the east; that the existing sign was 40 feet in height and by relocating the
-_ -...~.-~ . , .
~ • Y- . ~. _...,
_,.
~ ,
^
~ ~ -
f~l r-) , ~~
MINL'TES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 25, 1970 5034
VARIANCE N0. 2155 - proposed sign 16 feet further north, waiver "c" could be eliminated -
(Continued) therefore, the Cotmnission would have to dete~mine whether or not the
variance request was warranted and appropriate to the area.
Mr. Max Perlman, representing the owner of subject property, appeared before the Commission
and stated he felt there was some mistake regarding the existing sign in that the Standard
Shoe Company had made application for the sign, not the ASP Land Company; that they had
purchased both Standard Shoe and the additional 100 feet adjacent to this facility; that
since the second building was constructed all three tenants were obtained and proper
identification was necessary; that if the property had been developed by someone other
than themselves, the s3gn would have been permitted by right; that the setback required
would make it difficult to provide the proper advertising exposure to the street traffic;
that the existing shoe company sign was erected six to seven years ago at a cost of more
than $6,000; that the area was well maintained and signs in the windows were eliminated;
and that this same ruling would apply to the new tenants.
~ The Coimnission inquired whether or not consideration was given te consolidating both signs
since the present sign was sufficiently high to add the three additional uses.
'` ~ Mr. Perlman, in reply, stated that this could not be don~ engineering-wise to consolidate
the two signs, because the existing sign would have to be torn down, and it was a very
desirable sign from an architectural standpoint.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commission inquired whether or not a separate parcel existed at the time the petitioner ;
purchased the 100 feet adjacent to the shoe company property.
~ Mr. Brown advised the Commission that this was a separate parcel according to the Assessor's .
records; however, there was no evidence of filing of a separate parcel map in the Engineer-
ing Division to substantiate this was a lot split, and the lot split had never been
recorded - therefore, this could not be considered as a separate parcel:
Iti Commissioner Camp noted that there seemed to be a few technical differences, and if he
~~~ recalled correctly, when this parcel was sold it was supposed to be divided i~nto
'~ several parcels and sold prior to zoning action; that at the time a parcel map may not
have been required, and if it were, then the property had heen developed illegally for a
long time with building permits issued and buildings constructed; that recordation of a
~ parcel separation would have been recorded in the Recorder's Office; that since the
~ petitioner owned both parcels, thia should be taken into consideration since the sign
~ would be permitted if the property were owned by someone else - however, now it seemed
that because one person owned both parcels, this right was lost; an3 that the present
~~ and proposed sign combined would be less than permitted by Code. namely 350 square feet.
e
~ The Commission further inquired why a 31-foot high sign was proposed rather than the
i;z permitted 27 feet, to which Mr. Perlman replied that aince three tenants were on the
I~ property, the lesser height sign would be blocked visually, especially the bottom portion
~ which would be completely invisible.
Y Co~nissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC70-24 and moved for its passage and adoption
to grant Petition for Variance No. 2155 subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
i. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Thom, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano.
,~4 ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst.
.~ VARIANCE N0. 2156 - PUBLIC HEARING. DR. EDWARD H, ABRAMS, 517 Uwyer Drive, Anaheim,
California, Owner; BARBARA DURAND, 3240 Santa Maria, Fullerton,
California, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF (1) MINIMUM REQUIRED SIDE
;k YARD AND (2) MINIMUM REQUIRED REAR YARD on property described as: A rectangularly shaped
~ ~ parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 81 feet on the west side of Dwyer Drive,
~_1, having a maximum depth of appror.imately 135 feet, and being located approximataly 400 feet
_;,~ south of the centerline of Westmont Drive. Property presently classified R-0, ONE-FAMILY
SUBURBAN, ZONE.
* ~~
,~t Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses
established in close proximity, and the proposal to add three structural additions to
~.~ an existing residence which would extend to within 5 feet of the north and south property
lines, and one of the additions would extend to within 20 feet of the rear or west property
- _•_'..`_' V'i,__ _:. _ _.____,._. ~..
!~
._a
~a _ ~ •
i
,
I ( ~ ~~ )
;
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 25, 1970 5035 '
VARIANCE N0. 2156 - line; that portions of the er-isting strn~cture extend to within 5 or
j (Continued) 6 feet of the side property lines since the structure was constructed
" prior to the adoption of the present R-0 Zone; and that because one
of the additions was proposed to extend into the required rear yard
approximately 5 feet, the variance petition was suggested since technically both the
request for the side yard waiver and the rear yard waiver were not in conformance with
j the existing site development standards of the R-0 Zone, and the Commission would have
~ to judge the validity of the request bnd ita appropriateness to the surrounding homesites
in the area.
~
<:,s;,.r,,~ i~s~j Dr. Edward Abrams, the petitioner, appeared before the Coimnission and noted they were
planning to add approximately 1,400 square feet to their er.isting residence; that because
of deed restrictions thEy were unable to add a second story - therefore, they had to
•~, expand to the outer limits of their lot; that a portion of the existing home already was
within the r~quired side yard setback, and the proposed additions would not be detrimental
to the adjoining properties; that these additions would enhance the existing strucCure
and perhaps make it much better in appearance; that the proposed additions would in no
way interfere with the privacy of the neighbors.
'` i The Coimnission then inquired whether or not the building to the north, at 511 Dwyer Drive,
~ was also constructed to within 5 feet of the side property lines, to which Dr. Abrams
replied in the nega[ive, stating they did not know who had built these homes since they
had purchased the property after the homes were built.
~ Mr. Herschel Roberts, 504 Wedgewood Drive, appeared before the Commission and noted his
property abutted subject property immediately to the west; thac the area in which subjecl•
property and his property were located was in one of the better residential areas of
Anaheim; that deed restrictions prohibited two-story construction, and this was done with
good reason; that he was not desirous of having the privacy of his family invaded since
he had a teenage daughter; and that their property was separated b~ a 5'~-ioot masonry
wall.
Mrs, Edward Abrams, wife of the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that
i~ the addition which would be extending into the required rear yard was their master bedroom
and the extension would be the bathroom facilities; that no windows were proposed for the
; westerly portion of the addition; and that the balance of the residence was more than
-~~ 30 feet from the rear property line. Furthermore, a family room addition would be 40 feet
from the rear wall.
- THE HEAFING WAS CLOSED.
The Commisaion inquired whether or not the petitioner proposed the swimming pool as
indicated on the plans; whereupon Dr. Abrams replied that this was a possibility, but
; waa not a definite plan.
'~ Commissioner Camp noted that after viewing the plans there was only one small portion of
the proposed additions that would extend into the required 25-foot rear yard, and this
appeared to be the bathroom addition of the master bedroom; therefore, there would appesr
to be no encroachment into the privacy of the adjoining properties.
~ Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. PC70-25 and moved for its passage and adoption
,~ to grant Petition fer Variance No. 2156 subject to conditions, based on the fact that the
~, . ~ existing structure already had a S-foot side yard setback, and the proposed structural
~ projectians into the required rear yard were insignificant, and that the requested waivers
; should not prove to be deleterious to the surrounding properties. (See Resolution Book)
~
~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
i AYES: COMhIISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Thom, Rowland.
1 NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
I ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbat.
VARIANCE N0. 2157 - PUBLIC HEARING. HALO INVESTMENTS, 3425 West Ball ~coad, Anaheim,
California, Owner; GLENN PULASKI, ROCKET NEON COMPANY, 2850 Temple
Avenue, Lon~ Beach, California, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF MAXIMUM
PERMITTED DISPLAY AREA TO ESTABLISH A FREE-STANDING SIGN on property described as: A
rectangularly ahaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 210 feet on the
' north side of Ball Road, having a maximum depth of approximately 343 feet, and being
- located approximately 460 feet east of the centerline af K^ott Street, and further
,,,~ described as 3415 West Ball Road. Property presently ciassif3.ed R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
;` Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property. uses
established in close proximity, and the previous zoning action on the property to ustab-
lish a 150-bed convalescent hospital with waiver of the minimum building setback; tYat
... ------ -- --
.. , ..,,. -~.
. . .. ,.
.. , , . ~
__ _ ,~w. , - . , ~ ,.:.
_ ~.4--`... ,.._.r._..
- ~
. ._..
~/ I
.
~ --_ '~_~...~w..w~-m~..~..~..-rK.+r- _.n-~~ertiwa~wrr.~a~..~..~- - ~ '~___.._ .-.~+++es..uas~r'..~.~~-..e.~~:~-m.vn-~v~.~..,+'.r..+.~...m-a.-_~..
I ~ ) t 1 ',_~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMIMISSION, February 25, 1970 5036
VARIANCE N0. 2157 - the proposed sign would identify the convalescent hospital, and
(Continued) since subject property was still zoned R-A, a 20-square foot sign
- only was permitted - however, if the property were zoned C-1, which
j would be the most appropriate zone for the use, a 350-square foot
1 sign would be permitted, and only a 112-square foot sign was proposed. Furthermore, the
~ Commission might wish to recotmnend that the sign be relocated in the center 20% of the
' property rather than being only 36 feet away from the existin~ apartment development to
I the east, if subject petition were approved.
No one appeered to represent the petitioner.
.r~ '~
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
.~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Co~issioner Farano offered a motion to deny Petition for Variance No. 2157 on the basis
4 that no evidence was submitted that a hardship existed under the Sign Ordinance to warrant
favorable consideration of the petition, and that the petitioner was not present to
present evidence for favorable consideration.
1 '
Prior to roll call, the Commission discussed the proposal, noting that a couv2~escent
hospital was permitted in any zone subject to approval of a conditional use permit, and
the proposed sign would be permitted in the C-1 Zone, the most appropriate zone for the
use; therefore, there were questions the Commission had which needed answering before
taking any positive action.
Co~mnissioner Farano withdrew his motion for denial.
Commissioner Farano offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue considerakion of
Petition for Variance No. 21:7 to the meeting of March 9, 1970, and directed the Commission
Secretary to advise the petitioner or his agent to be present for the hearing since a
decision wouid be made either for or against the request. .d°urthermore, the Cormniss±on was
~ desirous of having a number of questions answered regarding the proposed sign and its
location. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION rARRIED.
''' CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. MORRIS DRUL AND STEVE CEBRYNSKI, 18251 Gramercy
- PERMIT N0. 1156 Drive, Santa Ana, California, Owners; requesting pezmission to
ESTABLISH AN OUTDOOR STORAGE OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT, WITH WAIVERS OF
(1) REQUIRED 6-FOOT HIGH MASONRY WALL,ENCLOSING STORAGE AREA~ (2)
MINIMUM LANDSCAPED FRONT SETBACK AREA, (3) MTNIMUM LANDSCAPED SIDE SETBACK AREA, (4)
PERMITTED USE OF A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE IN AN M-1 ZONE, AND (5) MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING
SPACES on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at the
southwest corner of Broadway and Vine Street, having approximate frontages of 50 feet on
'~ Broadway and 135 feet on Vine Street, and further described as 808 East Broadway.
~ Property presently classified M-1, LIG'.iT INDUSTRIAl, ZONE.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses
established in close proximity, existing zoning on the property, and the proposal to
utilize the property as a contractor's equipment storage yard for various types of trucks;
that the existing home would be converted into an office for the storage yard; Chat the
small, 405-square foot shed located at the rear of the property might be used for sterage
purposes - however, because of its condition due to a fire, etc., the Building Division
had indicated this shed could not be used for any purposes until it met Building Code
requiremencs; and that only 5 parking spaces were proposed, whereas 7 spaces would be
required.
~~ Commissioner Thom left the Council Chamber at 5:10 P.M.
I ._ _
` Mr. Brown further noted that in fairness to the petitioners, since the petition was
processed and the Report to the Commission prepared, the staff had been informed that
the petitione:e proposed to store only three pick-up type trucks on the premises at night
and no heavy equi~ment was planned to be stored on the premises - therefore, this portion
of the conditional use permit petition was unnecessary since light equipment storage was..,.
t permitted in the M-1 Zone; however, some of the waivers requested were still applicable -
~ namely, 2a, 2b, 2c, and 2e.
, Mr. Morris Drul, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and noted that
when he submitted his petition there appeared to be a misunderstanding as to the type of
*~ storage proposed for the property; that they were in the electrical maintenance and home
-+~ improvement businesa with a small plaster-cement mixer being the only equipment stored
in addition to the pick-up trucks; tliat it was their desire to have the storage area
i~ enclosed because equipment would be maintained in the trucks, and the enclosure would
discnurage vandalism and theft; that the trucks would be stared at night and on weekends,
- ~5 , a,-,-. _..
d
_.
~
O ;!} }_.
MINUTES, C?TY PLANNING f.O.QiISSION, February 25, 1970
5037
CONDITIQNAL USE - and the only other vehicles would be the office personnel; that the
- PERMIT N0. 1156 wooden fence was proposed since it was their intent to remove the
~ ' (Continued) existing buildings at some time in the future and construct a new
building, and the construction of a masonry wall would be rather
expensive for the few years it would take to erect a new building;
that the storage of some supplies was planned for the shed - however, he was fully aware
that this structure wouid have to be improved and meet the Building Code requirements;
and that it was their intent to add landscaping to the area, paint the existing home, and
generally clean up the area.
~ The Coimaission inquired whether or not outdoor storage was contemplated for plumbing
fixturea, wood paneling, etc.
'~ Mr. prul advised the Co~nission that this would be stored in either the office building
area or the shed since there would not be sufficient room for this type of storage and
parking. Furthermore, the staff had advised him five parkin,^, spaces only would be
necessary - therefore, the plot plan had been drawn with five spaces, but the seven
spaces could be providcd if the Commission deemed seven spaces necessary, and these would
be between the west property line and the residential structure.
~
Mr. Brown advised the Commission that if seven apaces were proposed, this would be tandem
parking and it was seriously doubted if there would be sufficient room between the exist-
ing structure and the adjoining building to the west for parking purposes.
Mr. Drul noted that there would be only three trucks parked overnight, and these would be
driven to the work site each morning, and it was proposed to have only two office personnel.
Mr. Brown noted that the structure proposed to be used for an of~ice had 2,000 square feet
which would mean four parking spaces, and with three trucks this would mean seven parking
spaces.
; q Mr. August Litz, owner-operator of the Litz Overhead Door Company at 804 East Broadway,
~ appeared before the Cormnission in opposition, stating that the existing home was not in
~; conformance with other commercial-industrial structures in this area which had been
~ required to set back and provide parking in accordance with Code; that the old shed at
;~ the rear of the property was in such a run-down condition it should be removed, and this
~~ y would apply to the old huuse as well; that he was glad the petitioner stated Chis property
-! would be improved since it had been an eyesore in this area and was detrimental to the
; adjoining buildings; that if trucks were proposed to be parked between subject property
( and the building he occupied to the west, this would mean providing access to Broadway
l which would be extremely difficult from a visual standpoint; that there was no entrance
'~ to the property except from the alley; and that if subject petition were approved, the
existing structure should be torn dewn and more compatible structures built which would
}% be an asset to the area.
Miss Aitken, owner of Beverage Bevelopers, Inc., 801 East Broadway, appeared before the
Commission in opposition, noting she had just completed a large, new industrial building
which was attractively 'Landscaped and was an asset to the area and iTmnediately to the
north of subject prope_ty on the north side of Broadway; that she was opposed to use of
an existing, old building which was an eyesore to the area; that rhe building had been
constructed in 1907 and was, therefore, generally not considered a safe and desirable
structure for the area; that she had attempted to ascertain the best possible means of
developing subject property and use of it, but because of its size, it was impossible
to construct anything that would be c~mplimentary to the area and urged der~s~ ~f subject
petition and the use sinez it would not be compatible with the property in.,~•. etely to
the west or her property, as well as the reaidential uses to the east.
The Commission inquired of the petitioners how long they planned to use the existing
structures before removal for a new building; whereupon Mr. Drul replied that it would
be four to five years before a new structure would be built.
" ~~' The Coauaission reviewed the various requirements which would have to be met before the
use of subject property could be accomplished and inquired whether or not the petitioners
planned to comply with these conditions.
~ Mr. Drul advised the Co~ission that it was not his intent to blacktop the parking area
but to control the dust and weeds with an oil treatment, because it would mean removal
of the blacktop at the time e new building was constructed; that if the Commission desired
' gravel, they would provide this in the parking area; and that since access was available
~ to the rear of the property, there would be no difficulty in providing adequate parking.
~
THE HEARZNG WAS CLOSED.
The Commission diacussed the length of time which was to be granted for the use of subject
_ . ' .""~° :~.~1'sr.;:~:_. _...___......
_ ~
. ._a
. ` , ~
r~
~ i. ) 1 ) ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 25, 1970 5038
CONDITIONAL USE - property, provided, however, that all recommended conditions were
. PERMIT N0. 1156 met which also included the existing old shed, and upon its conclusion
~ ~ (Continuzd) it was determined that a two-year time limit be given with the option
~ of requesting an extension of time of the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC70-26 and moved for its passage and adoption
to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1156 for a period of two years, deleting
the request for heavy equipment storage facilities since the petitioner stipulated only
panel trucks would be parked on subject property and no heavy equipment storage was antici-
pated, subject to ICPS&GW recommendations; and that the existing shed and structure shall
be brought up to Building Code requirements, and if the shed cannot be brought up to Code
it shall ba removed; end that the area ahall be treated with a compound which will retard
the growth of weeds and keep down dust in order to protect the health and general welfare
of the residents in close proximity. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMM'iSSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Camp, Gauer.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst, Thom.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEP.RING. DR. IRVING MOSKOWITZ, 4201 Long Beach Boulevard,
PERMIT N0. 1157 Long Beach, California, Owner; JERRY HANSEN, CENTURY CONVALESCENT
CENTERS, INC., 12540 Beatrice Street, Los Angeles, California, Agent;
requesting permission to ESTABLISH A 99-BED, ONE-STORY GENERAL
HOSPITAL IN CONJUNCTION WITH A 240-SED CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL on property described as:
A rectangularly shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 5 acres having approxi-
mate frontages of 369 feet on the west side of Anaheim Boulevard and 369 feet on the east
side of Lemon Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 527 feet and being located
approximately 480 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road, and further described as
1025 South Anaheim Boulevard, Property presently classified C-1, GENEFAL COMMERCIAL,
AND P-L, PARKING-LANDSCAPING, ZONES,
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses
established in close proximity, previous zoning action on the property to est~blish a
240-bed convalescent hcspital, and the propo;al now to establish a 99-bed general hospital;
that the plans submitted with the application indicated the location of the general hospi-
tal to be in the Anaheim Boulevard frontage; that 28 parking spaces were required by Code
and 89 off-street parking spaces were proposed; that two 30-foot wide access drives
located along the north and south perimeters of the property would provide vehicular
access to Anaheim Boulevard, and these drives were contiguous with the proposed 30-foot
wide drives for the convalescent hospital exiting to Lemon Street, and said drives would
provide adequat~e fire and trash vehicular access; that due to the fact that the majority
of the proposed parking would be located in the front of the structure facing Anaheim
Boulevard, it was recommended that screen landscaping be provided in the required 6-foot
wide, P-L landscaped area ad,jacent to the ultimate right-of-way of Anaheim Boulevard,
and that a 42-inch high, maaonry wall be erected to the rear of the landscaped area to
provide an additional screening effect for the parked automobiles.
Mr. Jerry Hansen, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed
the suggestions made by the staff, agreeing that these would be accomplished, namely,
the landscaping and the 4?•inch high wall, and then requested clarification as to whether
or ..ot they would be limited to the square footage as set forth in the Report to the
Commission, or whether chis could be expanded since they were not desirous of being
limited to the size indicated; that all services would be at the lower level; and that
sizce they were providing more than the required number of parking spaces, this would
then compensate for any expansion of the structure. Furthermore, that when the conva-
lescent hospital was proposed, a certain amount of parking was projected on the portion
now proposed for the general hospital, thereby reducing the number of spaces indicated
on the plans by ten; these ten spaces would be allocated to the convalescent hospital.
'.~ Mr. Brown noted for the Coimnission that when the conditional use permit was approved for
the convalescent hospital, the plans indicated a 15-foat landscape strip with a decora-
' tive block wall to the rear of the landscaping. Furthermore, because of ambulance service
going to the general hospital, it was recoimnended that the Commission consider requiring
, entrance and exiting of ambulance service to this facility from Anaheim Boulevard because
of the residential character of the properties on Lemon Street.
*
+~ Mr. Hansen advised the Commission that when signs were placed on subject property,
directional signing would indicate the entrance and exit, and he had assured the residents
i;~ on Lemon Street that they would attempt to route all traffic to Anaheim Boulevard rather
, than Lemon Street.
ti
~
r
i
~~ i
~ ,~_._~_.__.~.~..,..~._....~....m. .~,.,d.,....~,....-•.~.....~~..-._..._,_.,.,_. .................._~...r.
~~)
'I:..
~ 1 . M '.~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 25, 1970 5039
CONDITIONAL USE - No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
PERMIT N0, 1157
(Continued) THE HEARING WAS CLOSED,
i Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC70-27 and moved for its passage and adaption
to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1157, subject to conditions, amending
Condition No. 2 to provide for a 42-inch high, decorative masonry wall erected to the
i rear of the screen landscape area along the Anaheim Boulevard frontage to provide a screen-
ing effect for the parked automobiles, and subject to the limitation of all vehicular
traffic, in particular ambulance service wherever practicable, to vehicular access drives
~~r~ lucated on Anaheim Boulevard rather than Lemon Street due to the many residential struc-
~ tures located on the latter street, and that directional signing would be erected so as
.~ to aid in the implementation of this traffic pattern. (See Resolution Book)
" On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Rowland.
NOES: COMI~lISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst, Thom.
~
AREA DEVEI.OPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East
PLAN N0. 105 i.incoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; to consider circulation in the
Southeast Industrial Area in the vicinity of Cerritos Avenue, Katella
Avenue, Howell Avenue, Sunkist Street (future extension) and the
proposed Orange Freeway.
Assistant Planner Malcolm Slaughter reviewed fcr the Co~mnission the background and reasons
for the proposed area development plan, noting that it was the result of a proposal for
the zoning pending annexation to the City of Anaheim of a 10-acre parcel of land located
north of the intersection of Howell and Katella Avenues wherein a circulation pr~blem was
indicated by the Traffic Engineer upon review of the plans; that alternative plans were
~ studied since it was determined that the entire area between Cerritos Avenue on the north,
i the proposed Orange Freeway on the east, Howell and Katella Avenues on the south, and
~ Sunkist Street on the west should be incorporated in these studies; and that three assump-
~ tions were made:
-; 1. That no direct access from Katella Avenue be permitted due to the traffic conflicts
- this could create when the Orange Freeway off-ramp was completed to Katella Avenue;
2. That any proposed street should provide access to the 5-acre, State-owned parcel
which would become landlocked upon completion of the Orange Freeway; and
3. That the area would develop primarily for industrial purposes as depicted on the
Anaheim General Plan.
Mr. Slaughter then reviewed the six alternatives as posted on the east wall of the Council
Chamber:
Alternate No. 1 proposed a street along the northerly boundary of the Howell and Mayes
properties having access to Sunkist Street, ultimately terminating at a frontage road,
then swinging north to Cerritos Avenue and having a cul-de-sac street extending southerly
through the center portion of the Mayes property.
Alternate No. 2 showed a cul-de-sac street running easterly from Sunkist Street with the
street having southerly access to Howell Avenue.
Alternate No. 3 proposed a street running easterly from Sunkist Street to a frontage road
and n through street having secondary access to Howell Avenue.
Alternate No. 4 proposed a cul-de-sac street running from Sunkist Street to the State-
owned property on the east and a simple cul-de-sac running southerly with no access to
Howell or Ketella Avenues.
Alternate No. 5 propoaed a realignment of Sunkist Street, curving east acxoss the Howell
property, with Howell Avenue being realigned directly east and west and curving up through
the Mayes property across the State property, and again foxming a frontage road northerly
to Cerritas Avenue.
Alternate No. 6 proposed a street extending northerly and easterly from Howell Avenue
across the Howell and Mayes properties, thence swinging east across the State property
and again forming a frontage road, eventually connecting with Cerritos Avenue at the north.
Mr. Slaughter, in concluaion, noted that a frontage road was highly desirable and could
, be done in the same design as had been done on the Irvine property and the Newport Freeway;
that this frontage road would provide additianal circulation into the area and would
enhance the appearance of the area aC a primary exit of the freeway into the stadium area
~ and the new extension of the CoTmnercial-Recreation Area and would also have attractive
~ building frontages facing the frontage road rather than rearing onto a freeway. Further-
,~ more, in a meeting with the various property owners and their representati.ves in this
area, Alternative No. 6 appeared to be the most acceptable circulation for all concerned.
~ However, the Traffic Engineer was of the opinion that :he designs as proposed under
Alternative Nos. 2 and 3 were undesirable because of the points of signalization and
truck movement difficulties which would detract from these alternatives.
.. ,_-~`_ ~~_:.~~_ •._..~... ` .
_~
! _ ~ .
w
~.} t.) ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 25, 1970 -- 5040
AREA DEVELOPMENf - Mr. Richard ~•lalsworth, 1238 West Collins Avenue, Orange, representing
PLAN N0. 105 the Mayes property and also the agent under the variance petition
(Continued) to follow, indicated that they were in agreement with Alternative
No. 6 as one of the acceptable and workable plans for the development
of his client's property,
Mr. Vern Monroe, representing Dunn properties, advised the Co~mnission that their firm had
already deve7cped more than sixty acres of industrial property in Anaheim; that they
pianned to develop the Howell property; and that Alternative No. 6 was acceptable to them.
Mr. J. S. "Solly" Fluor, 14572 East Cerritos Avenue, indicated his concurrence that
Alternstive No. 6 was acceptable and would benefit this area.
~ Mr. Ledger Smith, 15 Miramonte Drive, Fullerton, indicated he owned property on the south
side of Katella Avenue and approved adoption of Alternative No. 6.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
.,
Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that if
'` ° any alternative plan of circulation were recoimnended for approval to the City Council,
that the City Council should also urge the Orange County Planning Commission and Board
~ of Supervigars to adopt this same alignment as part of the County of Orange Circulation
Element - Arterial Streets and Highways Rights-of-Way.
~ Comnissioner Camp offered Resolution No. PC70-28 and moved for its passage and adoption
to recommend to the City Council that Area Development Plan No. 105, Alternative No. 6,
be approved, providing a circulation plan for properties loca~ed between the proposed
~,, Orange Freeway on the east, the alignment extension of Sunkist Street on the west, the
~ Southern Pacific Railroad on the north, and Howell and Katella Avenues on the south as
~ being the most appropriate circulation plan for all concerned since it relocated the
proposed access from i~nediately adjacent to the off-ramp to approximately 300 feet west
? of the intersection of Katella and Howell Avenues, with access to Howell Avenue only;
.'; and that it further provided for access to any landlocked parcels as well as providing
~; a frontage road adjacent to the future Orange Freeway, culminating with Cerrito:a Avenue
'~ on the north; and that the Cit}r Council further urge the Orange County Planning Commission
;~ and Board of Supervisars to adopt the circulation pattern as depicted under Alternative
~`~f No. 6 of Area Development Plan No. 105. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst, Thom.
RECT.ASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East
N0. 69-70-34 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing that property des-
cribed as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 16.9 acres, having a frontage of approximately 220
feet on the north side of Katella-Howell Avenues, having a maximum depth of approximetely
1,050 feet, and being located approximately 1,850 feet east of the centerline of State
College Boulevard be reclassified from the COU~ITY A1, GENERAL AGRICULTURAL, DISTRICT to
the CITY OF ANAHEIM R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE, establishing pre-zoning on the property
pending ultimate annexation to the City of Anaheim.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses
established in close proximity, and the proposal to establish City of Anaheim zoning on
property described as the Struck-Katella Annexation now being processed by the Local
Agency Forming Commission. It was further noted that a portion of the proposed annexa-
tion was a part of the State owned property for both the Orange Freeway and off-ramp,
as well as excess property adjacent to the Mayes property uncer consideration for
annexation.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
- ~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
~ ~~
;~ Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC70-29 and moved for its passage and adoption
' i''~ to reco~mnend to the City Council that pre-zoning be established on property known aa the
R j Struck-Katella Annexation establishing City of Anaheim zoning upon annexation into the
,,,t~ I~ City, and subject to annexation to the City. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing rPSOlution was passed by the fo~lowing vote:
~
._~,
// I
~ '___~.~~~__..~_____.~__~...~...._...~~~.w~._.~..-«.-~~.....u~.v....~.~.~..~..~~~...._ ~ .
l ,I ` ' ) ~'~~
MINUTES, CITY PI.t1NNING COMMISSION, February 25, 1970 5041
RECLASSIFICATION - AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Camp, Gauer, Rowland.
~ N0. 69-70-34 NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Non?,
(Continued) ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst, Thom.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. RECLASSIFICATION INITIATED BX THE CITY PLANNING
N0. 69-70-35 COMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California.
MARGARET MAYES, CLARENCE CLEMENT, CLAIRE J. SHORT, AND NORMA'JEAN.
VARIANCE N0. 2152 WyNNE, lbl North Main Street, Orange, California, Owners; RICHARll
B. WALSWORTH, 1238 ~lest Collins Avenue, Orange, California, Agent;
proposing that property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel
of land consisting of approximately 9 acres, having a frontage of approximately 220 feet
on the north side of Katella-Howell Avenues, having a maximum depth of approximately
1,050 feet, and being located approximately 1,850 feet east oi• the centerline of State
College Boulevard, be reclassified from the COUNTY A1, GENERAL AGRICULTURAL, DISTRICT
to the CITY OF ANAHEIM M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF THE REQUIRED STRUCTURAL SETBACK ADJACENT TO
RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTIES.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, noting
that it was 9 acres of the Struck-Katella Annexation property presently zoned County A1;
that plans presented indicated development of nine separate, concrete, tilt-up structures
for either side of the street curr=ntly proposed to be a cul-de-sac street running up
the center of the property from Katella Avenue.- however, since the Commission had
recommended adoption of Area Development Plan No. 105, Alternative No. 6, said street
would no longer be applicable to the proposal; that the southeast corner of sub,ject
~~ property, according to the plans submitted, was not proposed to be a part of the complex
but was being reserved_by an oil company for a futuce service station site; that the
waiver requested was to permit development of industrial structures abutting the property
~ lines, whereas the R-A Zone required a minimum of 40 feet where said structures abutted
~i residentially zoned properties - however, since this was a technical waiver because the
surrounding properties were zaned agricultural, the entire area was in the area of intent
for industrial land uses as indicated on the Anaheim General Plan - therefore, it was
~ presumed that ultimately these surrounding properties would develop for industrial uses
~ and not for residential ~ses; and that in order to provide for more controlled develop-
_+ ment in accordance with the master plan of the Southeast Industrial Area, it was recom-
i mended that subject property be reclassified from the County A1 District to the City of
S Anaheim M-1 (resolution of intent) Zone.
Mr. J. S. Fluor, 14572 Cerritos Avenue, appeared before the Commission and noted that one
of the conditions of approval in the Interdegartmentai Committee recommendations required
underground utilities. However, he had discussed this with an employee of the City, and
he had stated that he did not know of any industrial park which had been successful with
underground facilities; that he personally leased industrial buildings throughout the
County, and he could guarantee that it was almost impossible to gauge with any reasonable
accuracy as to the requirements of an industrial concern, and when underground facilities
were provided, this pre-set the type of development that would lease these facilities.
Commisaioner Farano noted that this had been discussed with other developers in the past
however, it had been demonstrated that this could be predicted - therefore, the statement
made by the City employee was somewhat perplexing in that he, for one, would not be in
favor of waiving this requirement af underground utilities.
Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that if a
pole were within a given number of feet from a prepoged industrial development, then
overhead utilities were provided; however, where poles had to be provided to serve an
area, then underground facilitiea were req~:ired. This was true in the recent Bryan
Industries development on the south side of '?all Road wherein one building nearest the
atreet was permitted to have overhead fa~1.J,ities because the pole was within the given
number of feet; however, all other buildin~s in this industrial tract were required to
have underground utilities, and that the policy not only affected transmission lines but
linea going to the building which would have to be placed underground.
Mr. Walsworth,agent for the petitioner of the variance, stated that the City employee
h~d indicated he could see the problem but that he had nothing to do with the require-
ment, and that if the project he developed had to provide isnderground utilities, this
might change the uses that could establ.ish in their buil~ings.
" Chairman Rowland noted that it was
~ _ bility to aerve the properties with
,;;~ with 100 amp loads.
the power company's - the City of Anaheim - responsi-
~lectricity, and they generally served properties
~-
_ ,__ ^, .
~ ~: 'r'. ; . .,~ .._._.,.,... .
~
.,r
( ~ ) , ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 25, 1970 5042
RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Walsworththen inquired what would happen if a tenant wanted an
N0, 69-70-35 expensive outlet of electrical equipment, and how would his needs
be met.
VI~RIANCE N0. 2152
(Continued) Chairman Rowland then noted that any prospective industry knew its
electrical needs and would be fully aware of a building which would
have inadequate power before it decided to establish its company in
the building.
Mr. John Geary, representing Geary-Dunn Development, advised the Commission that in their
normal industrial developments they provided only 100 amp power, and if a prospective
tenant needed 2,000 amps, he would either spe•nd the additional $18,000 or find an indus-
trial building where adequate electrical power was provided, and that the cost was the
difference between underground and overhead utilities.
Commissioner Allred inquired why these buildings could not be served with three and four
- phase electrical power.
Pfr. Geary, in reply, stated that normally the developer anticipated the electrical power
' from lighting of the facility; however, he could not predict what electrical power a
client would like to have, and if the power were not sufficient, he would shop elsewhere
for an area that provided for his needs and which were the least expensive. Furthermore,
the City of Anaheim stated they would provide the power to the property, and it was the
developer's responsibility to provide the transformer. Thus, a line was brought to the
building with a specific amperage, and when an industry desired to develop in that~ --
specific area, sometimes it was necessary to tear up the gr.ound and install a heavier
line.
~ Mr. Thompson advised the Commission that this would have to be discu~sed in further detail
at the Commission's next public hearing morning work session, and that the staff would
attempt to resolve the problems which industry might be faced with for the Commission's
consideration.
Comm~ssioner Allred i.ndicated he was in favor of retaining underground utilities.
I Comr~~issioner Camp noted that some facilities could not be served with underground utilities-
--~ therefore, some would have a problem.
:j
~
Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC70-30 and moved for its passage and adoption
to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 69-70-35 be
approved, requiring development in accordance with the circulation pattern of Area
Development Plan No. 105, Alternative No. 6, and that dedication of all access and
pedestrian rights to Katella Avenue be an additional requirement of this approval, and
t' ~ubject to conditions. (See Resolution Book)
i'
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSION~RS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
; ABSENT: COMPiiSSIONERS: Herbst, Thom.
`~ Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. PC70-31 and moved for its passage and adoption
% to grant Petition for Variance No. 2152, subject to conditions, amending Condition No. 5
to read, "That subject property shall be served by undezground utilities, subject to
• review by the Development Services and Utilities Depar::ments as to its feasibility or
~~ modification," and amending Condition No. 7 to include Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 and
~ Area Development Plan No. 105, Alternative No. 6. (See Resolution Book)
i~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
A ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Rowlaad.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS; None.
;~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst, Thom.
~
.+~t
' :" ~'; _ ____._..-.
~
_,.
.r // ~
~
~ __~~.....~~~..~~~_"_ ___ ....:-__"_." _.__.""_~___
_ I 1' ~ ' / 1
~ I MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 25, 1970 5043
. ~
~ RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARi•NG. INIT,LATFD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East ~
N0. 69-70-38 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing to establish City of
Anaheim R-A, Agricultural, Zone on property described as: Portio~i A-
An irregularly shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 11
acres located at the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Fee Ana Street, having
approximate frontages of 1,007 feet on La Palma Avenue and 409 feet on Fee Ana Street,
and Portion B- A rectangularly shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 5 acres
located at the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Fee Ana Street, having approximate
frontages of 617 feet on La Palma Avenue and 368 feet or, Fee Ana Street, and further
described as th~ La Palma-Fee Ana Annexation.
` ,d.., ,, . . • !
~~ ~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property and uses
established in close proximity, noting that the property had already been anna;ced into
r. the City of Ar.aheim and the R-A Zone holding zone should be established on the property
pending devalopment of the property into an industrial complex.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
-.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC70-32 and moved for its passage and adoption
to recoimnend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 69-70-38 be
approved, establishing City of Anaheim zoning on recently annexed property described as
the La Palma-Fee Ana Annexation. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS; Allr.ed, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst, Thom.
:;~ RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East
'• N0. 69-70-39 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing that property des-
;, cribed as Portion A- An irregularly shaped parcel of land consisting
~: of approximately 11 acres located at the southeast corner of La Palma
~" Avenue and Fee Ana Street, having approximate frontages of 1,007 feet on La Palma Avenue
Z and 460 feet on Fee Ana Street and Portion B- A rectangularly shaped parcel of land
~ consisting of approximately 5 acres located at the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue
and Fee Ana Street, having approximate frontages of 617 feet on La Paima Avenue and
; 368 feet on Fee Ana Street, and further described as the La Palma-Fee Ana Annexation
be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRYAL, ~ONE.
i
'` Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property and uses
establiahed in close proximity, noting that the proposed reclassification would establish
a resolution of intent T.o the M-1 Zone on the property at such time as development
occurred.
j No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
! THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
' ~ Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC70-33 and moved for its passage and adoption
~ to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 69-70-39 be
approved, sub~ect to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. (See Res~lution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
I
~~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Rowland.
NOES: COMMIS~IONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMPiISSIONERS: Herbst, Thom.
~.
- .~
~ 1
~~
_ j :~
;..
* !.~
.kc ~
1,~
j ~~
,~
- - -- - ~ ~ -- --,a. r~-^..... r . . . . . .
- ~ ~. r . c. . ._..____. , . .
~
- ., r
~ ~ • •
(~~l ! ~ : _)
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 25, 1970 5044
REPORTS aND - ITEM N0. 1
RECOAfIiENDATIONS Orange County Use Variance No. 6397 - Request for r.ontinued use
of property located at the northeast corner of Orangethorpe
Avenue and Richfield Road for a farm labor camp and equipment
storage in the A1(0) General Agricultural (Oil Production)
District in the Atwood area:
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown presented Orange County Use Variance No. 6397 to
the Planning Commission, noting the location of the proper*.y and the request for continued
use of the property for a farm labor camp and equipment storage facility, and that said
}a ' use was originally granted in 1957 with a number of continuances. Furthermore, the staff
reco~mnended that since the use had been in operation for the past fourteen years, a time
~, ~ limit of three years, subject to review at the end of that time, be made to the City
,~ Council.
Cormnissioner Camp offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange
County Planning Commission be u:ged to approve Orange County Use Variance No. 6397 for
a period of three years, subjecC to review at the end of that time to deteru~ine if the
~ use were still appropriate. Com,;.issioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM N0. 2
Orange County Use Variance No. 6394 - Request to establish a
trucking business and truck storage yard in the A1, General
Agricultural and M1, Light Industrial, Districts - Property
located about 183 feet west of Jefferson Street fron a point
about 915 feet south of Orangethorpe Avenue.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown presented Orange County Use Variance No. 6394 to
the Planning Commiasion, noting the location of subject property and the request to
establish a truckir,g business and truck storage yard; that an existing residential
structure on the property would be used as an office; that an existing storage shed
would be used for storage purposes; that a new 40 by 60-foot structure was to be erected
as a maintenance and repair shop; that only a 6-foot high, chainlink fence was proposed
around th~ perimeter of the property; and that access to the property was proposed via
a 15-foot easement extending along the northerly perimeter of the property fram Jefferson
Street.
Mr, Brown further noted that truck storage, repair, and maintenance would be permitted by
right only.tn the City of Anaheim M-2, Heavy Industrial, Zone; that the proposed use in
an agricultural zone would not appear to be consistent with good zoning practices, even
by approval of a use variance; that the site development standards for an industrial use
within the City of Anaheim would require a 6-foot masonry wall around the perimeter of
any outdoor storage ar.ea; that surfacing of the area was proposed with an oil mix,
which would not appear to be as satiafactory as the use of asphalt or some other more
durable material; and that While subject property sets back somu distance from Jefferson
Street, the entire parcel is clearly visible from that street, and e chainlink fence
would accomplish little in the way of screening effect.
It was also noted by Mr. Brown that a trurking facility recently approved by the Planning
Co~nission was required to asphalt their truck storage area; that a chainlink fence was
permitted along property 1'aes whi~h woi:ld not affect adjoining properties - however,
dense landscaping was required in lieu of the required 6-foot masonry wall to completely
shiald the storage areas from view from adjoining properties and any street.
In conclusion Mr. Brown noted that the staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission,
based on che findinga presented,was to recommend to the City Council that the Orange
County Planning Commission be urged to deny aubject variance, and that the petiti.oner be
required to file a more appropriate zoning request; that in any plans of development
either a 6-foot masonry wall surround the atorage area, or that dense foliage screen
landscaping be provided to the interior of a 6-foot chainlink fence; and that the area
be properly surfaced with asphalt or sor~e other suitable material.
.~ Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange
County Planning Commission be urged to deny Orange County Use Variance No. 6394, on the
c basis that the use propoaed was a heavy industrial use for property, the major portion
~ ~f which was in an Agricultural Diatrict; and that if the use had a more appropriate
zoning approved, it should be properly shielded from view with either a 6-.foot masonry
~ wall or dense landacaping on the inner perimeter of a 6-foot chainlink.fence; and that
t, surfacing of the outdoor storage area should be composed of a more durable materi.!al or
~ asphalted rather Chan an oil mix as proposed. Coimnissioner Camp seconded the motion.
1~OTION CARRIED.
- ~_ ._ _._ ~
~
--~
~ (~ > ~, ~;) ; ~~~
' MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 25, 1970 5ti45
~ REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 3
, RECOMMENDATIONS Admission of Category 'L' p~tients in convalescent hospitals.
' ' (Continued)
Asaistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown inquired of the Commnission
whether subject report and recoimnendation should be continued
based on evidence submitted at tke meeting held with State Public Health officials
during the morning work session.
Commissioner Camp offered a motion to continue consideration of admission of Category
'L' patients in convalescent hospitals as an amendment to Title 18 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code, Conditional Uses, until such time as additional information submitted
'' by the State Public Health officials had been incorporated into the recoffiaendations~
to the meeting of PfarCh 23, 1970. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION
~: CARRIED.
4 ,
ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to diacuss, Commissioner Camp
offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Allred
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
1
The meeting adjourned at 6:12 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
L;~2T ~vn/
ANN KREBS, Secretary -
Anaheim City Planning Commission
~
*
i
.fix
~ ~