Loading...
Minutes-PC 1970/03/09~ ...__~ , : i ~ 1 11 ~ . ~ 3 i ~ ;r ~ ~ R ~ ~ ~ `~ ~y ; PLEDGE OF ^ , .~= . ~ ~ ~ 1 City Hall Anaheim. California March 9, 1970 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE 4NAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Co~nission was called to order by Chairman Rowland at 2:00 o'clock P.M., a quorum being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Rowland. - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer , Hezbst, Seymour, Thom. ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS; None. PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Ronald Thompson Deputy City Attorney: Frank Lowry OfFice Engineer: Jay Til•us Zoning ~upervisor: Charles Roberts Assistanl• Zoning Supervisor: Pat Brown Planning Commissiol Secretary; Ann Krebs INTRODUCTION OF - Chairman Rowland introduced the new Commissfoner, John F. Seymour Jr NEW COMMISSIONER and welcomed him as a member of the , ~ Anaheim Plenning Commission. ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Seymour led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF - The Minutes of the meeting of February 25, 1970, were approved as THE MINUTES submitted on motion by Commissioner Thom, seconded by Co~nissioner Farano, and MOTION CARRIED. VARIANCE N0. 2149 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. MARGARET S, WRIGHT, P. 0. Box 425, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting WAIVERS OF (1) REQUIRED PARKING TO THE REAR OF A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE, (2) REQUIRED LAND- SCAPING OF THE FRONT SETBACK AREA, AND (3) REQUIRED 6-FOOT MASONRY WALL ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, TO PERMIT THE CONTINUED CO,~IDiERCIAL USE OF A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land iocated at the north- east corner of Euclid Street and Catherine Drive, having approximate frontages of 100 feet on Euclid Street and 55 feet on Catherine Drive, being located approximately 675 feet south of the centerline of La Palma Avenue, and further described as 924 North Euclid Street. Property preaently classified C-1, GENERAL'COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Sub~ect petition was continued from the February 9, 1970 meeting to allow the petitioner time to resolve developmental problems. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed for the Commission the location of subject property, usea established in close proximity, previous Commission consideration, and reason for previous continuance. The Comnission inquired of the staff whether the petitioner had contacted the staff regarding the progress being made of revised plans; whereupon Mr. Brown noted that the ataff had discussed by telephone the various problems facing the petitioner, and that because of her inatility to reaolve all of theae problems, ahe had requested an additional four-weeks' continuance. Mr. Buren Mylar, 1633 Catherine Drive, noted that he was interested in the revised plans as they affected his nroperty s3nce he was located i~ediately east of subject ~roperty. The Commisaion then suggested that if the opposition would contact the petitioner, she might review for him the proposed changes, and i~ he were agreeable, then he would not have to appear at the next public hearing. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to continue consideration of Petition for Variance No. 2149 to the meeting of April 6, 1970, in order to allow the petitioner time to pre- pare revised development plans in accordance with the suggestions made by the Planning Commission and Development Servicea Department staff. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 5046 ro'. - ~' ;:~t ' .. . , . .' u. '~-.... . ~ . _ ~. m ~ ._SI + _ . _ _.____ __..__..: ____..._.._._-----___--- -w. _ _ . _ ;. . ~ . . , ` -. ) ' MINUTES, CITY PL~NNING COMMISSION, March 9, 1970 5047 VARIANCE N0. 2157 - CONTINURD YUBLIC AEARING, HAlO INVBSTMEtv'TS, 3415 West Ball Road, ! Anaheim, Californ.ia, Owner; GLENN PULASKI, ROCICE'T NEON COMPANY, ~' 2850 Temple Avenue, Long Beachr California, Ager.t; requesting ; WAIVER OF MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISPLAY AREA TO ESTABLISH A FREE-STAb'DING SIGN on property F described as; A recCangularly shaped parce2 of land heving a frontage of approximately t 210 feet on the i:orth side of Ball Road, having a maximum deptn of approxima~ely 343 ~ feet, and being located appror.imately 460 feet east of the centerline of Knctt Street, and further deacribed as 3415 Weat Ball Road. Property presentiy classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Subject petition was conCinued fram the meeCing of Februa:y 25, 1970 because there vas no one present to represent the petitionera, and the Commission wished to discuss the petition with them. I.~ ,~ AsaiatanC 2oning Superv3sor Pa~ Brown review~ed the lccstiun of I ;~ sub,ject properCy, uses eatabliahed in close proximity, previous zoning action, and the proposal to erect a , 25-foot high, 112-aquare foot, free-etanding sig:: identifying the convalesceat hospital, and thea noted that a2thaugh subject propertq was aened R-A, a convalescent hospi:a2 Was ~ permitted by condi~ional ~ae ~:ecmit in reaidential and conanercia2 aones, and that the ~' R-A Zone permitted only a 20-equere foot eign; ~het the sign was proposed to be l~caied . 36 feet from the west properCy liae; and Chat if subject prcperty ~ere soned C-1, the moat appropriate zoise for the use, a 350-square foot, free-steading sig:t, ~-outd be permitCed, Therefore, the Cummiasion wouid heve to determine whether the sign sl~ould be relocated in the center 20% of Che property, and wh~t4er tha sign proposed Was ~ appropriate since Che R-A portion of the Sign Ordinance did not specifical2y delineate vhere a eign could be locaCed. :~ Mr. Glenn Puleaki, repreaenting the agenC for the petitionar, appeared before the Comvaisalon and noted thae he had diecueaed with the developers the reluc~tion of the ,t sign as suggeeted by Che etaf£; however, they had indic~ted they ~rnre still desirous oF plactng Che aign 36 £eet £rom the weet property Yine, but ff tlie Cnmmission desired it, they wouid place it 36 feet from the easC property line. Mr, Pulaski, in responae Co CommieeLon quaetioning, sCated L•h~t the reaso^ for placing :` the ~ign eieher the 36 feet from ehe weet or easC properCy line Was based on tiin fact i~ Chat Che shape of the building which jutted out in Che ce:~.•er port3on ol tha prnperty ~';~ liee would be afEectad Liy rhe loc~tion of the sign in thia ~rea, and ic Was tliair d~sxire to retain Che ~rchieecturel amenit~ee by not h~ving a sign abskructing thia vieW. , Hovevar, tf tt~e Commiesion fe1C the eign wo~ld affece the ap~rtment complax an the vast, ~ they ehen aould ralocaCa te on the e~at portio:~. 'n ';$ No one appm~rad in oppnnltion Lo s~b~eat petition. ! ~ 1'HE HEAAING WA5 CLOgED, ~ riiaewsion a~i tirld ty rhe Cnmmiuion on Che eiae ot ~tgn permiteed in Che ~unxn~arairal ~ tonEa and eho f~at eha~ eh¢ uep wix cbmmercial in nut~re etehongh the aoKing was nut j'; cemmtraial. ~: ~ Zoriirig 8updrvieor Chsrl2e Rdbpree adviaed :h~ Cammieeton th~t airi~~ th~ pa~c~l ta e~i~ ; w~se w~r dlready d~velcsped with apartimenee und th~ parcel ta the eas~ wae ~tiit br~tc~ ; uedd fdc s~rieultural purpab~r, p~c~ha~e tlip ~ign ehbuld be retain~d dn tl~e v~rxe: ~~rtiaH • ~ a~ eh~ prop~rty rr, a~ not ~~ poxgibiy x~t up a hardehip eab2 in the av~r~t: ;he p~e~ee~ t~a ~:: ~hb gsrt a~s d~vei~p~d ~nU clrimed ~dequ~~~ bigning wee impobeible bec~uae dt ~-i~ ~a~a- '~ tiori ~£ Cke e~,gn on the peciperty ra the wert. ~~ ~' C~~~~ier~er 'thoin a£fer~d ttpboik~tion Nn, pG70-34 ~nd moved Eor ica p~a~~~~ ~n~ ada~~~an ~~ go ~rAr+e ~@ti~eidn ~~r Veri~n~e Nu, 2157, eubj@ct to condi,t3~trb, baapd ot~ tl~~ E~et ~h~t ~~ s1kh~u~N klj~ z~ni~~ ~n au~ jece pt~~-erty a~a etitl tt-A, the use approvpd und~r ~~ct~~~di- ~3~na~1 u~~ p~~rnit ivb~ cdn~m~~ciel iri nature, ~nd ae auch aould permit ~~50-uQ~~e~ ~t ~i~n, +ih@r~a~ th~ p~~i~iditipe ~ru~o~@d e ii7-equ~re foa~ oign, ~nd ir~iuld ~p~~~r t~ b@ a~p~~priwEe f~s rh~ ar~~ g4v~n tlie ctlmm~reiel u~ea est~bii~h~d ~n C~t@ ~tl1-~It ~R~ ~11Y~I1~ZY ;~ we~+~. (~C~ Nd~~iu~ion Unok) ~ dn ~eii ~~1~ the ~ofe~d~t1~ r~~~1~ti~e a~a ~~~~e~ by tMe ~oiiaw~ng vr~i:e; ~ A~~~f ~EiMMib~f6N~x~~ plirpd; ~'@Y@nof G~uer, Nprb~t~ seymoury `Th~m, ttuwlt~ad, ~9~~ s ~6fiHdI~~fON~ti9 f Ndr~~ ~ ~~~~~'gs ~62~il~fis~i6N~t~~~ N~n~, ~ y , ~ •r v- ~ ~ . ~ .. ___ _~, N `.. ! ~. / MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 9, 1970 5048 VARIANCE N0. 2162 - PUBLIC HEARING. GEORGE M. ELTINGE, 1840 West Imperial Highway, Los Angeles, California, Owner; HEATH & COMPANY, 3225 Lacy Street, Los Angeles, California, Agent; requesting WAIVERS OF (1) REQUIRED SIGN LOCATION, (2) PERMITTED NUMBER OF AND MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN FREE-STANDING SIGNS, (3) REQUIRED MINIMUM FREE-STANDING SIGN GROUND CLEARANCE, (4) PERMITTED MAXIMUM AGGREGATE SIGN DISPLAY A:.EA, AND (5) MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN, TO ESTABLISH TWO FREE-STANDING SIGNS on property described as: A~n L-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 8 acres lacated north and west of the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Beach Boulevard, having approximate frontages of 475 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue and 490 feet on the weat side of Beach Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approxi- mately 625 feet, and further described as 3021 West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. ~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to erect two additional free-standing signs on the Lincoln Avenue frontage of subject property; that the existing Zody's free- ,~ standing sign was 53 feet in height and was approximately 340 square feet in display area ~ per face; that the westernmost sign was proposed to be located approximately 116 feet _,~~ from the west property line and would be approximately 30 feet, 9 inches in height, having a total display area of 1?0 square feet, whereas Code would require said sign to be 120 I~ feet £rom the west property line; that a 300-foot separation from the existing Zody's sign would be required, whereas only 239 feet was proposed; that the easternmost sign ~ was proposed to be approximately 80 feet from the east property line, whereas Code would ;~ require this to be a 120-foot setback; that the sign would have a display area of approxi- ;~• mately 18 square feet, being 9 feet, 6 inches in height and having a ground clearance of ~ 7 feet, while Code r.equired a minimum of 8 feet; and this sign would be 45 feet from the ~ Zody sign, whereas Code would require a 300-foot separation. Furthermore, the total tJ aggregate sign display area, includin g the Zod y si gn, wou l d b e 5 4 8 square fee t, w hereas ~ Code would permit only 350 square feet, and that because of the location of the mobile ~ home park on the west property line, the maximum height of the westerly sign would be ; 25 feet - therefore, the Commission would have to determine whether there was any justi- ;~ fication for the requested sign variances, particularly in view of the fact that this • 1 exact situation was anticipated at the time the Zody's sign was before the rlanning ;~ Cou~ission, at which time their representative stated that the proposed bank would be ;;~ some ten years in the future. Mr. Brown further atated that the amall sign also created the major deviations from the Sign 6rdinance, and since this was a directional sign advertising the bank, it could be eliminated and an entrance-exit aign permitted by Code could then be erected in place of it, and that two 16-square foot wall signs were proposed which could be expanded to 20% of the aize the side of the atructure and would provide #or adequate advertising exposure for thia new facility without the necessity of the free-atanding signs proposed. ?~~ Mr. Joe Finkleberg, representing Heath & Company, appeared before the Commission and noted ~'% that hia company proposed to erect the signs for the Imperial Bank, and the signing pro- poaed was the standard aize aign for the Imperial Bank, aimilar to other branches; that they were attempting to keep the proposed aign below the height of the Zody's sign so ~,' that there would be no obatruction by either sign; that the smaller sign was in reality I; a directional aign to direct potential cuetomers to the bank's parking space, and raising the sign to 8 feet would not create any problem; that the other banks had experienced difficulty aince cuatomers could not seem to read the directional signs and were using exite for entrances to the premiaea. ~;: The Commission inquired whether or not a aign identifying the entrance only would not be , aufficient to guide the customers to the parking area; whereupon Mr. Finkleberg replied '-a Chat they were attempting t~ keep the bank traffic from parking in the other coum~ercial ~' parking area, and that if any change in the directional sign were contemplated by the ~,,~ Commiseion, the answer would have to be given by the bank representative. , ,;t The Commisaion further expressed concern that with only two operations in this commercial center it aeemed rather unusual that aeparate free-standing sigis were proposed when other co~ercial shopping centera with numerous operations had been required to have integrated free-standing eigna, and theae centera were upgrading their facilities by placing these integrated aigna on the property. Mr. Finkleberg noted that if the bank were located on a separate parcel within thia complex end had the parcel map filed, the sign propoaed would then be permitted. ' ~~ The Commiaeion also noted that although this was a atandard aign of the Imperial Bank, ~ , other banke were required to provide integrated aigns, and the petitioner had not sub- .,kc ' mitted evidence that an integrated aign could not be provided, or if the propoaed free- ~ atanding aign were approved, it ahould meet Code height ef 25 feet. ;i :~ ~ ~. h ~ _ _ _ _-_._.._--------- - _ 1 r ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 9, 1970 SQ49 VARIANCE N0. 2162 - Mr. Finkleberg advised the Commisaion that it was their opinion that (Continued) the height of a sign should be a given height since anything above 33 feet would disappear over the roof of an automobile as the vehicle neared an area where the use was located. The Commission then c~bserved that the height of the sign proposed was not ~ecause of obstructions but for distant visibility and inquired whether or not the petitioner could meet Code requirements of 25 feet; whereupon Mr. Finkleberg replied that they would prefer the height proposed. Mr. Robert Goldberg, Director of the Imperial Bank, appeared before the Co~¢nission, noting he was in the public relations department; that the Imperial Bank was new in Orange County, and because of this, adequate identification was very important; that he realized aigning in many areas had become a problem, with signs being erected without any control; that they were not before the Commiseion thinking that the sign proposed should be approved and grant them a privilege not granted other banks; that the height and location were projected to obtain the best identification for the new bank; and that it was their hope to be in the County for some t.ime - therefore, it was their hope the Commission would grant the sign waivers requested. The Commission then inquired whether the petitioner preferred that the height proposed be given them rather than the required 25-foot height; whereupon Mr. Goldberg replied in the affirmative and stated that if the Commission insiated upon the lower height, this would be done, and the bank officials were fully aware of the fact that Zody~s had used almost the maximum of the area for s3.gns permitted for this frontage on Lincoln Avenue - however, they were not aware of Chese problems aince they had begun negotiations regarding the proposed bank site approximately fifteen months ago with the owners of the property and not the 2ody company. Co~issioner Farano noted that the Zody's sign had been granted in 1967; that the Planning Couu~ission for the past two to .•hree years or more had been dealing t,rith land developers presenting wsiver requesta from the zoning code to the Commission, and in order for the Commission to make any kind of an intelligent determination had asked the developers what was planned for thp balance of the property in order that sufficient signing would be available for other buainesses - however, it appeared that the developers neglected to mention anything regarding future plana, thus making the Commission play a guessing game; that he wiahed a representative of the Zody Company were present since this signing problem had been discussed in great detail with them; that even though the bank felt a separate free-standing sign to the height and design which would serve their interests was desirable, the Commission still must edhere to Code requirements - therefore, he was requesting the petitioner-agent to present a good reason for granting the waivers other than a desire to have a separate aign since a variance request must have a hardship proven. Mr. Goldberg adviaed the Cou~ission that they were only asking for the right to erect a reasonable sign. Co~issioner Farano then inquired whether or not conaideration had been given to an integrated sign, to which Mr. Goldberg replied they had approached the 2ody people regarding an integrated sign but had been turned down. Furthermore, when the Zody sign was approved, the Co~ission was fully eware of the fact that a large parcPl was still undeveloped. Cos~issioner Farano note3 thmt this problem had been diacussed with the Zody representa- t3ve, and the agent stated that when the bank was developed, a variance requeat could be filed. Mr. Stanley Pawlowaki, 40S North Pine Street, appeared before the Coimniasion and noted he would like to express aome of his feelings regarding the new bank - renderings of the new bank were preaented - that the Commission was fully aware signing of a new businesa was very esaential to its growth, and without exposure on both Beach Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue, any potential or exieting customer would have a difficult time find- ing the Imperial Bank, eapecially because of the speed of traffic on both thoroughfarea; that he did not feel hia company was asking for something that would not be acceptable to the City of Anaheim; that during hia long aseociation with another bank in the City, he had appeared numeroua times before =he Cos~anission and City Council and felt his reputation would be a guarantee thia would be a compatible sign; and that the proposed sign, in his eatimation, would be acceptable as well as a benefit to the City. Mr. Pawlowaki, in reaponse to Commisaion questioning, stated that he would prefer to have ~ the aign at the height requeated. .,~x The Co~is~ion noted that aince the 2ody sign had been granted at a height of 53 feet, the height of the proposed aigu need not be an iasue; however, the second free-standing sign located 45 feet from the exi.ating 2ody aign was in reality a directional aign and ~ -~ ~ , . _ _. _.. . --. _ _ - _L_._ .. . - --- - ~ ~ ~ _.~ -~ '~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNiNG COMMISSION, March 9, 1970 5050 VARIANCE N0. 2162 - was of greater concern; that the location of the bank was such that (Continued) it was easily v isible from a considerable distance and there would be su£ficier.t time for customers to turn into the parking area - therefore, this sign should be eliminated since it was not needed. This, then, lefL the one sign which the Commission wouid have to give more serious consideration. Mr. Pawlowski noted that he was not familiar with the area before, and not until he had spent ccnsiderable time at this location did he realize the need for directional signing since they would be forced to use a specific parking are~ aiid it was felt a proper directional sign indicating the bank parking area was necessary at the entrance. Co~issioner Herbst noted Lhat if this were granted it would be establishing a precedent for similar requests from other banks and shopping centers, and since this had not been granted to other shopping centers before, there was no reason to give favorable considera- tion to the propoaed request. Commissioners Thom and Seymour iaquired whether nor not the proposed wall signs were planned for the parapet since the rendering did not indicate their location, and what was the exact size of these signa. Mr. Pawlowski noted that these would go at the top of the entrance area on both the Lincoln Avenue and Beach Boulevard sides and would be only one foot by sixteen feet, which could not be seen from the streets, especially Lincoln Avenue. Commisaioner Seymour noted he felt Chese wall signs could act as directional signs instead of the proposed directional sign. Commissioner Farano advised the petitioner that he regreted they seemed to be "shaEted with a sharp stick", but this was because the Commisaion had been presented with sign variances in the past wherein only portions of the development of a large parcel occurred; that he was desirous of clarifying this with *_he Zody people or the owner about consoli- dation of these two large, free-standing sign.s in the hope the Co~ission would pursue this further since this had occurred too many times in the past; that the Sign Ordinance was adopted after considerable study and consulation with the sign people, and it was up to the Co~ission to try to require signing of property to be in accordance with Code requirements. Mr. Pawlowski advised the Commission tl:at a cantinuance for the Commission to discuss this problem with the Zody people would work a hardahip on the bank since they were required by the Federal Government to open within a given time or be penalized; and that a conaiderable investment was already made in this facility - therpfore, he requeated that no further delay be considered. Co~iasioner Farano noted this had been the same argument presented in the past when the Commisaion tried to adhere to the zoning ordinances and obtain a continuance for consulta- tion with the poasibility of consolidating signs. Mr. Goldberg then nated that through no fault of the City the bank was running against a deadline, and the Co~iasion had givea considerable deliberation to this petition - therefore, he would auggeat that the entrance sign request be deleted from their requeat if the remaining free-standtng aign were approved as aubmitted. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Comuissioner Farano was of the opinion that subject petition should be continued so that the Co~iasion could pursue the posaibility of an integrated aign, even though he was sorry the Imperial Bank representatives had to bear the brunt of the delay, and that the Co~ission will be allowing themselvea to be drawn into every hardship problem because of the deliberate acta of the first developer of a large parcel, and would be faced with similar requests man~ times in the future. ;~ Co~isaioner Herbat offered Resolutioa No. PC70-35 and moved for its passage and adoption ~ to grant Petition for Variance No. 2162 in part, denying the request for the easternmost ' ~ free-atanding aign aince the petitioner had auggested that this be deleted - however, any ~ ; directional signing won2d have to be in accordance with Code requirementa, and subject to conditiona. (See Resolution Book) -;y R - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: -~ AYES; COPIliISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Seymour, Thom, Rowland, NOES; COMMISSIONERS: Farano. ~~ ABSENT: COTff~iISSIONERS: None. -^-- _ _,o, ___- -'-'^•.~~-s..-,,.. . _ _ _ - -- --------- - -- ._ :- :: ,,W . . ,. . -- ---- . ~ ,. „ _ ' -- ~ ~,~,-.. ~,, ,. . . _ ' . ~ , _ . .~~~_... ~h ~•- + _ ~ _~' MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COINMISSION, March 9, 1970 SO51 VARIANCE N0. 2158 - PUBLIC HEARING. JOYCE LANLIFORD, 1158 Hazelwood Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting WAIVERS OF (1) PERMITTED USES IN THE R-1 ZONE AND (2) REQUIRED TWO-CAR GARAGE, TO PERMIT AN EXISTING BEAUTY SHOP on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 60 feet or. the south side of Hazelwood Street, having a maximum dept:~ of approximately I00 feet, and being located approximately 270 feet east of the centerline of Walnut Street. Property pzesently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAI., ZONE. ~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in cloae proximity, and the request to permit the continued operation of a '~ beauty shop in the garage on subjec: property; that the petitioner was issued a permit ~~~ by the City to operate a beaety shop in the rear half of her existing two-car garage in ~ 1959 and was now proposing to sell the home to the prospective purchaser who wished to ~ continue the same activity on the premisea; that a home occupation permit had never been isaued for the exis~ing beauLy ahop, nor would it be permitted under the oresent code in the R-1 Zone since a home occupation permit did not allow customers on-eite, nor the ~ special equipment necessary for this tqpe of operation; that to the staff's knowled e ~ k no complaints had been lodged by the surroundir nei hbors and a g~ 8 8 , petition signed with ~ twent~four signatures (only eight within 300 feet of the property and five with no address) ; of surrounding neighbors was received recommending approval of this request; that entrance s to the besuty ahop was through the house rather than through the garage door; that only ; two open parki.ig spacea were available in the driveway; and that no outdoor advertising j was noted upon field inspection of the property. ~ Mr. Brown also noted thaC on occas±on in the past the Commission and City Council had ~ approved variances of this nature, and since the petitioner had been in operation for eleven years without any deleterious effects to the neighborhood, the Coaunission might i wish to conaider this present operation as being appropriate, with the petitioner stipu- lating to maintenance of the property as it now existed, that no advertising be permitted, ~ and that cuatomera be limited to one at a time because of the lack of adeGuate on-site ; parking facilities. '~ 't Mrs. Jo ce Landford the .;~ Y , petitioner, appeared before the Co~mnission and reviewed the manner in which ahe was given permisaion to eatablish her preaent beauty ahop. She also ~i noted that the prospective purchaser of Lhe property planned to continue the same opera- ~~ tion in order to aupplement her family's income; and that she respectfully requeated -~ favorable conaideration of eubject petition. ii i Mra. Dolores Forayth, 1164 Hazelwood Street, appeared before the Courtnission in opposition, a atating she was not deairous of having this existing operation continued since there was ;:5 e very aerious parking problem with customera parking in front of her home because there j~ was a fire hydrant in front of subject property; that when she first moved in this area > a roximatel eleven ~.. PP y years ago, she also thought it would be ideal to have a beauty shop I next door - however, this did not prove to be the most ideal situation; that the number of cara parked there was hazardoua to her amall children; that there were as many as ten ~'~' vehiclea parked at one time around thie property on both sides of the atreet; that the majority of the people who originally purchased in this area had aold their property, and ~ when ahe talked with the neighbora abou~ the continued operation, there aeemed to be a great deal of indifference; that the only pereons iimnediately affected by the parked cars were residentg on either aide of aub~ect property ae well as acrosa the atreet; that she wae curious to know how one operator could handle eo many customers at one time; and that there was no way in which to effec*_ively control this operation whether or not the new ~` owner worked part time to supplmeat the family income. i Mra. Foreyth, in response to Commiseion queationing, stated that eubject property was ~ located on a curve, creating a problem for speeding care which, in turn, were a haaard ahe was concerned with since emall children crosaing the atreet could be hurt with the I apeeding cars soming around the curve and parked cara hiding the children from view. Furthermore~ she had lodged a complaint but had been informed that this uae had been permitted prior to elimiaating it as a home occupation in the R-1 Zone. ~ Mrs. Landford, in response to Commisaion questioning, atated she had three dryers and one wash basin, and further noted that eha wae fully aware of the parking problem - however, when one had to make a living for one's children, ahe was force~ to work long houre, and ehe mould be willtng to comply with the condition of no advertieing signs. , Furthermore, becauee she worked rapidly, ehe wae able to handle five or six cuatomers per hour and poesibly twelve to fifteen pereona per day in an eight-hour period. " Mrs, Sandy Brock, propoaed purchaser of aub~ec~ property, appeared before the Commission ~~ and in reeponee to questioning stated that ehe planned working only one evening a week, and her daytime houre would be from 10:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. - thus, by the time the ~ reeidente in the area came home from work, her patrone would be gone, and parking would be available. Furthermore, eha would not be the eole eupport as Mrs. Landford had been, ~. , /~ ..___. ' .. _ .- . .... ...._.__. ._.~ _ .. . .. ..... ._"_.__... _. I f\ J~ + f'v~ , . _/ MINUTES, CITY PLANNxNG COMMISSION, March 9, 1970 5052 VARIANCE N0. 2158 - but would only be supplementing the family income; and that she would (Continued) agr.ee to limiting the number of customers on the premiaes at one time, ?nd she and her husband each had an automobile, with both being parked in the driveway, but only one during the day, THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Seymour expressed the opinion that the area in which subject property was located was primarily single-family residential, and that approval of the continued use would also continue the parking problem, and just because a conditional use permit or - variance was not required at the time the original beauty shop was permitted did not warrant continuation of a nrnconforming, illegal use. ,~ ,~. Co~issioner Farano, in concurring wfth Commissioner Seymour's statementa, stated that he would not deny the continued use of the existing beauty shop to the original owner, Mrs. Landford - however, there was no guarantee that subsequent owners of the property would maintain the facility as it presently existed. _ Commissioner Allred offered a motion to approve Petition for Variance No. F158, subject to hours of operation being from 10:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. and one evening per week, with a maximum of three patrons being on the premises at one time as stipulated to by the getitioner. k +Y On ro11 call the foregoing motion lost by a vote of three for and four against. Continued discussion was hald by the Cou~ission as to the appropriateness of the proposed continued use of subject property for a beauty shop, perpetuating the use for an indefi- nite period; the fact that 24 neighbors indicated they had r.o opposition to the continued use; and that limitation of hours and number of patrons was not enforceable. Cortunissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC70-36 and moved for ita passage and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2158 on the basis that the petitioner had not submitt~d evidence of hardahip by being deprived of a privilege afforded others in the area; that statements made by the petitioner indicated this was a full-fledged co~ercial operation which could not be construed as a home occupation; tha[ the existing use was also in violation of the zoning ordinance; that this co~nercial operation created a parking problem aince the petitioner could not provide adequate on-site parking for even two customers at a time; that even though customers could be limited, as well as hours of operation were agreed to, policing of this operation would be extremely difficult; that approval of subject petition would eatablish an undeairable pr~cedent wherein many requeats for commercial uaes in residential homes could be requested by variance; and that this would further discourage revitalization of the dawntown area and create vacancies in legitimate commercial sreas. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing reaolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Seymour, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst, Thom. ABSENT: COrIIfISSIONERS: None. VARIANCE N0. 2159 - PUBLIC HEARING. INCOME PROPERTY SPECIALISTS, INC., LLOYD E. KLEIN, 524 Weat Commonwealth Avenue, Fullerton, California, Owner; request- ing WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS, (2) MINIMUM STRUCTURAL SETBACK FROM A STREET, (3) MINIMUM REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES, AND (4) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MAIN BUILDINGS, TO ESTABLISH A 61-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Olive Street, having approximate frontages of 300 feet on I.a Palma Avenue and 292 feet on Olive Street, Property preaeitly classified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE, ~ Asaiatant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of aubject property, uses establiahed in cloae prcximity, the existing zoning being R-3, and the waivers requested, atating that waiver "b" wae not necessary since the measurement was made from the corner ~ q:~ radius return; that the proposal to establiah a two-atory, 61-unit apartment complex ~ having a denaity of 34 dwelling units per net acre and coverage of 47.2% would provide - for only 90 parking spaces, whereas 92 would be required; that an existing 15-foot wide , alley weat of subject property provided acceas to several of the carports and was the *_ only access to La Palma Avenue; that a private, 25-foot wide drive was indicated on the plans for the northerly portion of the property, which also provided access to Olive -'~ Street; that the existing and proposed vehicular sccesaways were adequate for fire and trash vehicle circulation; that waiver "a" could be eliminat~d for the separation of two carport structures eince reloc~tion of the northerly carport approximatel~ 6 feet ;~ to the north would eliminate thie, and private patioa without a 10-foot separation from _ °---~ - - ___...._... ~ _,. /' ..__.______ .___ _`__. _.._~..,.~.~..... ~~.....-~.-...~. ~ .........__..i_....,e.~i.~~.~.-...~~.._ 1 . ..~..~..~Y..~"..___..._ ~ ~ .. .._. ..__. ~_`~ ,ti~ . i MINUTES, CITY PLANNING C01~iISSION, March 9, 1970 5053 i VARIANCE N0. 2159 - carporta had been granted in the past; that the required number of ,+ (Continued) parking spaces could be provided by site redesign of the project• that the maximum number of main buiidinga on a site had been recom- mended to the City Council for amendment since the Co~ission and City Council granted this in the past; and that the Planning Commission would have to determine whether the requested waivers from Code were valid and appropriate to the surrounding area. Mr. David Stone, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commiasion and stated they concurred with the staff's reco~nended conditions as well as the proposal which would eliminate a portion of one waiver and another which was withdrawn, but reauested clarification of Condition No. 1 regarding the alley. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts explained that this dedication should have a strip of land 10 feet in width for alley widening purposes, and that street improvementa for the alley should be included in Condition No, 2. The Co~nission Secretary advised the chairman that a petition of oppos~~ion from 26 homeowners north of La Palma Avenue had been received; whereupon th3s ~was read to the ~ Planning Co~ission. The petition basically stated that they requc~~ted subject petition not be approved until the hazardous traffic problems had been reaolved. Discussion was heZd by the Commission and staff regarding traffic problems in the area surrounding subject property; whether or not a decision had been made on the widen:ng of La Palma Avenue; and whether or not four-way stop signs were proposed for the La Palma- Olive Street intersection since traffic problems had been created not by zoning of the property or the variance requeated before the Commission, but because of the development in this area, and since the petitioner could develop subject property in accordance with all R-3 Code requirements without appearing before the Co~iasion, the requested waivers were made to provide for a more desirable complex. Chairmen Rowland noted that since the staff had been studying the traffic problems in this area, one of the conditions of approval was widening of the alley by an additional 2'~ feet - this might resolve some of the problems presented by the reaidenta of this area - however, it would not ato~ large trucks from using the alley to gain access to and from the industrial developments to the north and east of subject property. Mra. Mary Salazar, 1016 North Patt Street, appeared before the Cormnission and inquired whether or not the adjoining property owners to the west of the alley would also be required to dedicate property for alley widening purposes, and would the entire alley be improved, or juat that portion adjacent to aubject property. The Commiasion advised Mrs. Salazar that dedication was being required from the east side of the alley only, and that the petitioner was required only to improve his side of the alley, but might want to improve the entire alley adjacent to his property since this would be to his benefit. Mrs. Salazar noted that several years ago it was rumored that Patt Street would be widened, and the yarda were staked by the City Engineer - however, nothing came of this - and inquired whether there was any plan in the offing for widening Patt Street. The Co~iasion noted that the ultimate width of Patt Street was propoaed for 60 feet; that the portion i~ediately adjacent to La Palma Avenue on the east side had dedicated to the ultimate width, as had a amall portion on the wesC side immediately to the west of Mra. Salazar's property; however, there was no i~ediate plan to widen the street and would occur only, in all likelihood, when these propertiea along both sides of Patt Street developed for a more intenae use, auch as apartment houses - then street widening would be required. ~; Mrs. Salazar then inquired why all these trucka were permitted to uae the residential w ~' streeta r•nd alleys which were very narrow, namely, Patt, Kemp, and Julianna Streets. Mr. Roberts noted that one method of reaolving this would be to post signs limiting the load size of trucks. ' The Co~isaion then noted that a study could be made by the staff as to traffic problems, circulation, poasible signalizing or a four-way stop at LF Palma Avenue and Olive Street, , poasible signing of the reaidential streeta, and limiting the size load of trucks which would be permitted on these streets. R ~ Mrs. Salazar then noted that the reaidents had called the Police Department regarding theae trucks but had been informed that since the streeta werE n~~ posted, limiting the ~~ aize of the load, there was nothing they could do to keep them off the streets; further- more, she would like to know what rentals were propoaed for theae apartments and hw _ . ., ..~. ,~ ,i ~ ~ .. 4.' .. w . . ._......_... . ~ . , ' ~ h ~~ _ ~ ~ _~ _.. ) . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMZSSION, March 9, 1970 5054 VARIANCE N0. 2159 - would these apartments affect their comnunity. (Continued) Chairman Rowland noted that these apartments would provide needed housing fur v,•orkers in the industrial area and industries close by, and rentals would be similar to those throughout the City -$140 per one-bedroom unit, etc. Mr. Stone noted that they would attempt to work out the varioua problems presented by the residents of this area; that it was their plan to have rentals of $140 per month per one-bedroom and $165 per month per two-bedroom units, and it would be to their advantage to pape the entire alley rather than just their side - therefore, he would stipulate to this paving of the alley for the distance of their property. Mrs. Salazar, in response to Ca~nission questioning, noted that the residents of this area were fully aware the zoning existed on the property but wer.•~ concerned about how it would affect their community; whereupon the Coc~ission expressed the opinion that this would enhance the entire area. Mrs. Salazar then inquired whether or not something would "oe done to solve the many problems which the residents of the area had; furthermore, Mr. Manuel Mandez, architect, was supposed to have represented the residents at this hearing but was not present. The Cowniasion noted that consideration of subject petition was their only duty, and any further problems as to the entire area north of La Palma Avenue was a matCer which shouid be discussed with the City Council. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Rowland, in reviewing the evidence submitted by the residents of this general area, advised the Coa~ission that it would be in order to direct the staff to study thi.s area in regard to the traffic problem and the intrusion of industrial traffi~ into the reaidential area, together with the possibility of a trafiLc signal or fuur-way stop for the intersection of La Palma Avenue and Olive Street. J'I Commissioner Allred offered a motion to direct the staff to prepare a study of the traffic ~ conflicts; possible signing of the streeta encompassed by Patt, Kemp, and Julianna Streeta, !h limitin~cltT,uck traffic on these narrow, local streeta; and possible four-way stop signs -~j for Olive Street and La Palma Avenue, to be presented to the Co~ission by April 20, 1970. ~~ Coumiiasioner Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~ Mr. Manuel Valdez, 233 East Julianna Street, appeared before the Co~ission and asked if ~ he could have clarification of the aciiun ,just taken by the Commiasion. ;~ Chairman Rowland noted that it was hoped the study would give the Commission an idea of '~ how to solve the problems facing residenta of the study area. ~ Mr. Valdez inquired why truck traffic had to be permitted along Patt S*_reet, especially 'Y~, since said traffic was destined for the Riverside Freeway. I~ Office Engineer Jay Titus noted that Patt Street had accesa to Cou~ercial Street; where- :~ upon Mr. Valdez atated that since Olive Streex was a direct street to Co~ercial Street, ~x and was also wider than Patt Street, this would be a more logical street to take if • ;x properly signed; that there were many children on Patt Street, whereas Olive Street was 4Q primarily developed with industrial complexes, and many of the cars and trucks traveled on Patt Street in exceas of 35 miles per hour. ~ ;~ ~'~ The Co~isaion expressed the opinion that when the study was completed and the data I'~ presented and available to the Co~ission so that the Commiasion and City Council could i'~ determine the beat solutiona for the problems presented by the residents of this area, perhapa the residents of the area could be notified when the atudy was to be presented ' ~k~ to the Co~maission, and inquired whether Mrs. Salazar was agreeable to being the contact in notifying the other residents, - Mr. Valdez then inquired whether a small park was planned for Patt Street and La Palma Avenue. i Assistant Development Servicea Director Ronald Thompson advised the Commiasion that some , thought had been given to a mini-park as part of the Citizens Co~ittee for Parks and Recreation. * ' ~ Mr. Valdez then noted that it was his opinion a much larger facility was needed, including a building where the residents could meet for meetinga and supervise the young people, and that although a building in this area had been designated as a youth center, none of i' the Mexican-American children were allowed to use this building. .....m,_. _ ~.._--- - .__..__ ~. ---~.. - --,..._ ~-- .... . . _..~ - • .. ------ , : ,. . ~ ,, ;,. .... _ .-+,-~+- - , . ~ . . ~ . , _ ._~__. _ . - -'~ , ~ -: ~.,,~ ~,,..,~ ....,,_.._.....----- . ~~ ~J ~ .~? MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 9, 1970 5055 VARIANCE N0. 2159 - Mrs. Salazar advised the Commission that she would agree to being (Continued) the contact regarding the information of the study to be prepared by the staff, and she would,in turn, contact all the reaidents of this community in order that they might be preaent to hear the results. Mrs. Salazar then inquired whether it would be up to the property owners themaelves to pay for r•treet and alley.improvements in this area: . ( Chairman Rowland noted that in the past when property owners requested a more intenae use ~:1, of their land, they were required to dedicate for street and alley widening, and improve- ments such as curb's and gutters, sidewalks, paving, etc., and that the alleys throughout the City were not maintained by the City as were the streets - therefore, if any cleaning ,~, up were to be done, this would be up to the residents themselves. Furthermore, the , Commission was fully aware of the problems facing the residents of this area - however, the Commission was appointed by the City Council to implement the General Plan, and the queations preaented by the residents had nothing to do with the action before the Co~nis- sion - therefore, he would ~::g~ast that these questions be presented to the elected body ' by requesting the City Clerk to place their request before the City Council at the next '` most convenient meeting. Administrative Assistant John Harding advised the Co~nission and interested persons that ~ the City Manager's Office had been meeting with Gloria Lopez and Manuel Mandez to work ~ out some of the problems preser.ited to the Commission; therefore, he would suggest that the residents of this area contact these two persons to find out what was discussed and planned. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC70-37 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2159 in part, granting waivers "a" and "d" - however, denying waiver "c" on the basis that off-street parking in this area was extremely important, and no waiver should be granted since the parking could be provided with proper redesign; and that waiver "b" was withdrawn since the staff indicated this was advertised in error, and subject to conditions recommended by the ICPS&GW, and amending Condition No. 1 to reflect a 10-foot width for dedication for alley purposes, amending Condition No. 2 to reflect improvement of said alley for its full width, as stipulated b;~ the petitioner. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: j AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Seymour, Thom, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. , ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. RECESS - Coumiissioner Herbst offered a motion to recess the meeting for ten minutes. Cormaissioner Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting recessed at 4:00 P.M. RECONVENE - Chairman Rowland reconvened the meeting at 4:12 P.M., all Commissioners being present. VARIANCE N0. 2161 - PUBLIC HEARING. LUSK CORPORATION, P. 0. Box 1217, Whi.ttier, California, Owner; requesting WAIVER OF REQUIREMENT THAT RESIDENTIAL TENTATIVE MAP OF STRUCTURES REAR ON ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS on property deacribed as: An TRACT N0, 5674, irregularly shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 22 REVISION N0. 1 acres, located at the northwest corner of Nohl Ranch Road and Royal Oak Road, having approximate frontages of 940 feet on the north side of Nohl Ranch Road and 700 feet on the west side of Royal Oak Road. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. i TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: LUSK CORPORATION, P. 0. Box I217, Whittier, ~ California. ENGINEER: Hopen, Hedlund & Darby, Inc., i 3030 West Main Street, Alhambra, California. Property located at the northwest corner of Nohl Ranch Road and Royal Oak Road, ~ ~ consists of approximately 22 acres of land, and is proposed for subdivision into 52 R-H-10,000 zoned lots. ~*i Aasiatant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, the proposal to subdivide subject property into 52 .~ i R-H-10,000 zoned lots, and the waiver of the requirement that reaidential structurea , rear on arterial highways, to permit four side-on lots where rear-on lots were required. I i I ~ ..A ~~, i I- ~ , ....~ ..~ .+ke MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 9, 1970 5056 VARIANCE N0. 216I - Mr. Brown noted that at the Interdepartmental Co~ittee meeti+.ig on March 2, 1970, a two-week continuance was recommended to perr~it the TENTATIVE MAP OF applicant time to resolve problems connected with this proposal, and TRACT N0. 5674, a letter was on file concurring with this continuance. REVISION N0. 1 (Continued) Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to continue Petitions for Variance No. 2161 and Tentative Map of Tract No. 5674, Revision No. 1, to the meeting of March 23, 1970, in order to allow time for the engineer to resolve problems connected with the engineering of this project. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. VARIANCE N0, 2160 - PUBLIC HEARING. PAUL J, AND RUTH E. KNAAK, 1751 S.E. Skyline D:ive, Santa Ana, California, Owners; BIG BRAKE, INC., P. 0. Box 1790, Newport Beach, California, Agent; requesting WAIVERS OF (1) PERMITTED USES IN THE C-1 ZONE, (2) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FREE-STANDING AND ROOF SIGNS LOCATED WITHIN 300 FEET OF ONE ANOTHER, (3) MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN, AND (4) MAXIMUM AGGREGATE SIGN DISPLAY AREA, TO ESTABLISH A BRAKE SERVICING SHOP on property described as; A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 100 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 150 feet and being located agpxoximately 190 feet east of the centerline of Brookhurst Street, and further described ss 2170 West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. As~istant 2oning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to establish a brake servicing shop with waiver of permitted uses in the C-1 Zone and sign waivers. Mr. Brown surther noted that the petitioner had telephoned the Coimnission Secretary to requeat a two-week continuance of subject petition due to the fact that the agent for the petitioner and proposed operator of the brake shop was ill and could not attend the meeting. Co~issioner Allred offered a motion to continue Petition for Variance No. 2160 to the meeting of March 23, 1970, as requested by the petitioner. Commisaioner Farano seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. SAMUEL LEE MILLER, SR., 421 South Oxford Avenue, PERMIT N0. 1161 Los Angeles, California, Owner; W. G. MILLER, 1600 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH AN AUTO REPAIR AND PAINTING FACILITY on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at the southeast corner of Loara and Embassy Streets, having approximate frontages of 210 feet on Loara Street and 162 feet on Embassy Street, and further described as being 900 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDIISTRIAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses establiahed in close proximity, and the proposal to establish a 14,000-square foot structure for auto repair and painting facility; said facility would be an auxiliary function of the McCoy Ford agency located on the west side of Loara Street, directly acroas from subject property; that the petitioners propose to initiate the repair acti- vities i~ediately if subject petition were approved, and the auto painting operation in approximately a year; that Code psrking would be more than adequately met; that auto and truck overhaul and painting operations would require the approval of a conditional use permit in the M-1 Zone - therefore, the Commission must determine whether the proposed use would be appropriate in this area; that at first glance the proposed use would appear to be appropriate to Che area zoned for more intense uses than this use would normally require; that the industrial area in question was a well developed, cleanly kept industrial subdivision with relatively light uses; and that an auto repair and paint- ing facility was normally associated with some noise, odors, fumes, and unsightly outdoor atorage areas - therefore, if the Commission considered this request favorably, several additional conditions other than those recommended by the Interdepartmental Co~nittee might be considered: no outdoor storage of damaged automobiles or trucks or those in the process of being painted, repaired, or for sale may be permitted on subject property; painting or repairing of automobiles or trucks shall be performed wholly within the structure located on the site; sound-proofing methods shall be accomplished within the structure so ae to preclude any disturbances to the adjacent tenants of this subdivision; and neceasary ateps shall be tal.cen to eliminate odors, fumes, or airborne particlea from escaping to the outside air fram the structure by !•he uae of exhaust controls, etc. Mr. William Miller of McCoy Ford appeared before the Commission and noted that the additional recommended conditiona by the ataff covered the agreement aigned by the propoaed uaera of aubject property in conjunetion witl~ Bryan Industries, and that he ~ _,. ;j ' ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 9, 1970 5057 CONDITIONAL USE - concurred with all recomcnended conditions of the staff. PERMIT N0. 1161 (Continuec~; The Commission inquired whether there seemed to be any problem as to storage of cars within the buiZding on subject property; whereupon Mr. Miller replied that it was their intent to store all cars on the property adjacent to an existing fence and landscaped area on the west side of Loara Street, but these cars would not be visible from Loara Street, and that it was not their intent to s:ore vehicles on the property since this would provide additional employee parking. Furtheimore, in response to Commission questioning, Mr. Miller stated they had negotiated a ten-year lease for subject property so that this could not be inter- preted as an interim use. Mr. Jerry Knudtson, 146 East Orangethorpe Avenue, representing Byan Industrial Buildings, appeared.before the Co~ission and noted they were interested in nine buildings adjacent to subject property to the east, north and south; that adjoining property owners and lessees were also interested in the proposal - regarding the possibility of noise, dust, odors, parking, etc.; that the President of Bryan Industries had discussed with the McCoy people conditions to alleviate the problems expressed before the Commission; and that a letter was on record in the petition file to this effect - therefore, if the conditions signed by Mr. Miller of the McCoy company were met, this would greatly relieve some of the concern of the industries in this industrial complex. The Commissian noted that an industrial firm could have a paint operation on subject property without meeting other than the normal site development standards of the M-1 Zone; whereupon Mr. Knudtson replied that the proposal was for a body shop, not only a paint shop, and a body shop could become very noisy - therefore, a conditional use permit had to be approved, and the City of Los Angeles had experienced some very unfortunate conditions when body shops were permitted by right in the zone. Mr. Miller noted that a letter had been drafted on Friday for consideration by the McCoy people; however, a later letter dated March 9 was on file with subject petition which was basically the same as the letter of March 6, but the verbage had been changed. Said letter had been signed by Mr, Miller agreeing basically to the conditions outlined by the staff in their evaluation under a, b, c, and d. Mr. Knudtson noted that an additional condition which was not set forth in the Report to the Coa~ission was to require unobstructed vehicular access around subject property, namely the south and to the east of the building, and one of the basic reasons for not objecting to the proposed use was the fact that the McCoy people had agreed to said condition; however, this had not been included in the report. Aasistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson noted that the wording had been somewhat changed in the later letter, and from the City's standpoint, the conditions could be made a part of the recommended conditions of approval in the reaolution; ho~ever, since this agreement had been with two individual parties, the City would have no control unless so apecifically stated in the resolution of approval. Furthermore, according to the plana of development there would be unobstructed vehicular access provided as required by Mr. Knudtaon, and since one of the conditions of approval was tied in with plans, then this would be a requirement in approving subject petition. Mr. Knudtaon stated that the letter with the McCoy people agreed to thia atipulation, and, therefore, he requested that this be a part of the Commiasion's approval if subject petition were conaidered favorably. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commiasioner Farano offered ResoluCion No. PC70-38 and moved for ita passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1161 subject to the Interdepartmental Committee recommendationa and further provided that no outdoor etorage of damaged auto- mobiles or trucka or those in the proceas of being painted, repaired or for sale shall be permitted on subject property; that painting or repair of automobiles or trucks shall be performed only within the atructure located on the site; that aound-prodfing methods shall be accampliahed within the atructure so as to preclude any disturbances to adjacent tenanta of this aubdivision; that necessary steps shall be taken to eliminate odors, fumes or airborne particles from escaping to the outside air from the +, -ucture by uae of exhauat controls, etc.; and that an unobstructed vehicular access to and tnrough subject property shall be required as a condiCion of approval, and subject to the letter of agreenent between the McCoy Ford people and the Bryan Industrial representatives and other indus- tries in this indus*_rial subdiviaion. (See Reaolution Book) ~,~ On roll call the foreguing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Seymour, Thom, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSEP;T: COMNIISSIONERS: None. ~ -~ ~ . .. ~ ' ~ ~ , MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMNiISSION, March 9, 1970 5058 CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. WALTER AND LENA KOSTIW, 700 South Plymouth Place, PERMIT N0. 1160 Anaheim, California, Jwners; TACHIO GOYA, 137 Laxore Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A SELF-SERVICE CARWASH WITH WAIVERS OF (1) MA}(IMUM NUMgER AND MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN FREE-STANDING SIGNS AND (2) LQCATION OF A FREE-SfANDING SIGN on property described as: An L-shaped parcel of land located north and west of the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Harbor Boulevard, having approximate frontages of 100 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue and 25 feet on the weat side of Harbor Boulevard, and having a maximum - depth of approximately 190 feet. Property preaently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. ';! ~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses establitthed in close proximity, previous zoning action on the property in which a condi- tional use permit had been approved 3n January, 1969, to establish a 25-unit motel - however, thia had not been activated, and it was further noted the proposal was to estab- lish a four-bay, self-service carwash with an additional open bay for washing of campers; that ac s was proposed by means of a minimum 25-foot wide drive in the northerly portion of the property, exiting and entering from Harbor Boulevard, with an additional 35-foot wide access drive in the center of the La Palma Avenue frontage; that 11 open parking ~~ spaces were proposed which could be utilized either for employee parking or detailing of the cars after being washed. Mr. Brown further noted that the petitioner proposed two free-standing signs, one on the La Palma Avenue frontage, 35 feet east of the west property line and the other on Harbor Boi~levard on the common property Line between subject property and the service station to the south. However, because of the width of Harbor Boulevard frontage, it would be impossible to locate the sign at the minimum required 10 feet from the south property line since this would place the sign in the center of the driveway, and the La Palma Aven~e sign could not be located the required 40 feet from the west property line since this would also place this sign in the center of the driveway; and that the plans indicated the La Palma Avenue sig_^, to be 48-square feet in area and Che Harbor Boulevard sign to be 24 aquare feet - however, the petitioner stipulated that the signs would not be more than 25 feet in height, and, therefore, the Co~ission would have to determine whether or not the proposed carwash use of subject property was an appropriate use and that the waivers requested were valid. Furthermore, only a 14-foot drive was indicated on the plana between the proposed carwash structure and the weat property line, which would be inadequate for fire and trash vehicles; thus the staff had contacted the petitioner who had agreed to relocate thia drive so as to provide for a driveway suffi- cient to meet minimum fire and trash standards. Mr. Tachio Goya, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commiasion and noted the proposed uae had been determined to be appropriate after having made a 9ix-month study of the area, and that any technical questions would be answered by someone who was more familiar with the operation. The Cortanission inquired whether or not a 6-foot masonry wall would be required on the north property line. Zoning Supervisor Charlea Roberts advised the Commiasion that the wall was a requirement of the zoning of subject property to the C-1 Zone, and although the zoning to the north abutting subject property was R-A, it was part of the City of Fullerton's water facility, and sub,ject property was formerly owned by them - therefore, it was felt a wall was a neceasity. Furthermore, ssid wall would have to be stepped down in the front 10-foot setback to 30 inchea in height. "~ Mr. Jack Robinson, 900 South Harbor Boulavard a ~= that Mr. Goya had asked him to answer technical questionaefthatttheCpl~ansewere redrawn I~~ in line with auggeations made by the staff to provide sufficient access for fire and I trash vehiclea; and then aubmitted colored pictures of similar operations in other cicies of the propused carwash - these were made a part of the exhibits on file - whereupon it ' was also noted that it was his opinion these were the moat attractive self-service car- wash facilitiea in Southern California, with structurea having slumpatone and a consider- able amount of landacaping which would add to the esthetics of the area. Mr, Robineo~i aleo:noted that he had been in the field of civil engineering and was of the opinion that the area, traffic-wise, would permit this type of fscility because of access to the facility from two arterials, and that rather than having a 6-foot masonry w~,:l, , they would prefer to provide additional landscape screening aince there already was a conaiderable amount or landacaping on the northerly boundary of the property. ~ +~ The Commiasion advised the petitioner and his repreaentative that since this was a requirement of the reclassification to the C-1 Zone, thia could not be waived by the ~ Planning Cenm~iasion. ~ _~ ,~ ~ ~ 'i _._ _ _ _ . _ _ - ---- - {_ ' , _ 1 y~ ) MINUTES, CITY PLAATNING COMMISSION, March 9, 1970 5059 CONDITIONAL USE - The Commission further noted that because of the location of the PERMIT N0. 1160 curb on Harbor Boulevard, it would be extremely difficult to make - (Continued) left-hand turns from subject property to Harbor Boulevard, and some provision should be made to sign the property indicating no left turns. Mr. Robinson advised the Co~ission that signing could be accomplished which would indicate no left turna onto Harbor Boulevard, and then in answer to Commiasion questioning, sCated that in order to make the carwash operation a paying propositiou, 4,000 to 10,000 cars would have to be proceased per month, with a mean average of 7,000 being the amount. ;,, ~ The Co~isssion noted that with this volwae it would mean 200 to 300 cars per day would have to be using aubject facility, and this seemed to be a considerable number considering ',~ the amount of traffic for both streets, ~ ~ Mr. Robinson noted that the structure housing the carwash bays was located 100 feet from the street, and this was a sufficient area for cars to wait their turn on subject proper[y - without backing into the arterials themselves. The Co~ission then inquired why the motel was not proposed to be constructed; whereupon -.~~ the owners, Mr, and Mrs. Kostiw,advised the Commission that they had been unable to obtain il~ financing for the motel, and this was proposed to be dropped. i~ No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. I~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED, ' i~ ~' Coa¢nissioner Herbst offered a motion to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1160 i~ on the basis that this was an improper use for suhject property due to the type of traffic ~~ generated on both La Palma Avenue and Harbor Boulevard;.that said streets could not hand~e { the increase in traffic for ingress and egress if the number of vehicles to be processed t' per day were considered valid; that the use would be detrimental to future develo ment of the C-1 property to the west, fronting on La Palma Avenue. P On roll call the foregoing motion loat-by°t~Ei€'"following vote: ' AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst. ~ NOES: COMI~fISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, 5eymour, Thom. _ i ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONEQS: Rowland. ! Co~iasioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC70-39 and moved for its passage and adoption j to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1160 on the basis that the use adjacent to a service station aite was appropriate; that waivers "a" and "b" were granted on the basis that the size and shape of the parcel made it difficulc to meet Code requirements ,; as to adequate aigning; that the peeitioner stipulated to signing being no more than 25 {~ feet in height and both aigr.s were to be primarily directional signs; that the petitioner ;,: stipulated to moving the proposed carwash atructure to the east property line so as to ~: provide adequate vehicular circulation along the weat side of subject property; and aubject :o conditions, with Condition No. 4 being amended to read "provided, however, ~' that the structure be relocated immediately adjacent to the service station site in order to provide adequate accesa for fire and trash trucks, as stipulated to by the petitioner". (See Reaolution Book) f `i On roll call the foregoing reaolution was pasaed by the following vote: - AYES: COMt~fISSIONERS; Allr.ed, Farano, Seymour, Thom. !'2 NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbet. n ;~ ABSENT: CODIIfISSIONERS: None. ~:? ABSTAIN: COMDiISSIONERS: Eowland. I~ ,~ ~,;~ RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. JEFFERSON INVESTMENT AFFILIATES, 1711 Weatmont Drive, ,,~ N0. 69-70-44 Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting that property deacribed as: ~ An irregularly ehape3 parcel of land having a frontage of approximately ~ 330 feet on the north aide of Riverdale Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 600 feet, and being located approximately 360 feet west of the centerline ;~ of Lakeview Avenue be reclaeaified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-0, COMMERCIAL ; ~ OFFICE, 20NE, in order to eatablieh a three-etory,medical-profesaional center. _'.~ Asaiatant Zoning Supervieor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uaea ; establiahed in cloae proximity, and the fact that a general hoepital had been approved ~ ~,; under Conditional Uae Permit No, 1145 to the north; that a resolution of intent to R-1 ~ I. existed on the property to the west, end a eingle-family tract and resolution of intent to R-1 property exieted to the south, ~~ Mr, Brown noted that the proposal wae to erect a three-etory, 51,340-square foot, medical , _ , ._ --,~: _ . .~c.a~.r .. t _ .. _. y-„ a _ _ _ _.. . , - ' ~ _ __~ . ~ ~ ' ^ .~ ~ ~ ._~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 9, 1970 5060 RECLASSIFICATION - office complex on subject property, providing 308 parking spaces, N0. 69-70-44 232 of which would be on subject property with the balance being (Continued) localed on the property approved for a hospital to the north; that ' the three-story structure was proposed to be set back approximately 130 feet from the ultimate right-of-way of Riverdale Avenue on the southerly property line and 85 feet from the westerly property line; that at the time the Plsnning Commission and City Council considered the conditional use permit to estab- lish a general hospital on the property to the north, it was indicated by the applicant that there was a future possibility of developing a medical-professional center as an adjunct to the hospital facility since this would be a logical extension of the total development - therefore, it was strongly advocated by the staff and the Planning Commis- sion that this expansion take place only on properties ad~acent to the hospital site and be confined to those parcels located at the northwest corner of Riverdale Avenue and Lakeview Avenue in order to concentrate commercial development and to avoid spot commer- cial zoning ~hroughout this region, and the proposal conformed with these original des~res, and that with the interior proper~y line and street setbacks provid~^ vould appear to be appropriate to the overall development and the surrounding area. ~ Mr. Brown, in reviewing the finding of the Report to the Commission, noted that sinca it ~,~ was desirable to protect surrounding properties and enhance the site itself, the Commis- ~ sion might wish to require that in addition to the 6-foot masonry wall along the west property line, that tree screen landscaping on 20-foot centers be provided adjacent to ,~ said wall; that ample landscaping including a large number and variety of trees be pro- ~ vided throughout the site, said plans to be approved by the Development Services Depart- "~! ment; that ample landscape screening be provided at the Riverdale Avenue frontage since the majority of the open parking for this facility would be located in that area; and '~ that all mechanical equipment which might be located on the roof tops be architecturally screened from public view, and any proposed signing be tastefully done in conformance ~i with the Sign Ordinance. i Mr. LeRoy Rose, architect for the proposed development, appeared before the Commission ~ and noted they condurred with the conditions and reco,mnenda~ions of the staff relative "c to landscaping, screening of the mechanical equipment, and si3ning, as we11 as conditions .!;~ of the Interdepartmental Committee, and that he was available to answer any questions J 1I~ the Commission might have. ~I, Mr. Rose then preaented an enlarged colored rendering of the proposed structure (a 'I3 reduced copy on file with the petition) for the Comnission's viewing. ,~ i~ No one appeared in opposition to sub,ject petition. Y '~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. :~ Co~mnissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC70-40 and moved for its passage and adoption ~~ to reco~nend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 69-70-44 be ; approved, subject to conditions and the stipulations made by the petitioner as to land- ~ scaping, screening of inechanical equipment, and signing of the property, and the Inter- departmental Coimnittee recommendations. (See Resolution Book) :i On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ? AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Seymou=,,Thom, Rowland. ,~ NOES: COMIfISSIOtiERS: None. ~ ABSENT: COMI~lISSIONERS: None. ~.;~ RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CI:TY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East I., N0. 69-70-42 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing that property des- I~ cribed as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land consisting of ;,~ approximately 84 acres and 13 separate parcels, $enerally located at . v~ the northeast and northwest corners of Katella Avenue and Douglas Street, with a small ~ parcel south of Katella Avr_nue, generally bounded by the Santa Ana River to the east, the Southern Pacific Railr~ad to the north, the western limit of the proposed Orange •~ Freeway to the west, and Katella Avenue to the south, and further described as the Douglas-Katella Annexation, be reclassified from the COUNTY A1, GENERAL AGRICULTURAL, ~ .~ AND M1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICTS to the CITY OF ANAHEIM R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. ~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of sub ect ' eatablished in close roximit 3 property and uses P y, noting that this property was a part of the Douglas- R Katella Annexation; that vehicular acceas was provided by both Katella Avenue, a major ,[x _, highway, and Douglas Street, a aecondary highway; and that in order to provide for < controlled development of thia area in accordance with the master plan of the SouthQast ~: Industrial Area, it was recommended that City of Anaheim R-A zoning be established ~ ~i aubject to annexation to the City of Anaheim. ~ -_F ~ ~ _ _ -------~-=---- _ ------.. _ i -------___ _ __ ._ ;. ~ ~ \`~ ` ' _~ ; MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 9, 1970 5061 RECLASSIFICATION - No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. N0. 69-70-42 (Continued) THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Cormnissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC70-41 and moved for its passage and adoption to recoamznd to the City Council thaC Petition for Reclassification No. 69-70-42 be approved, subject to annexation to the City of Anaheim. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~~' AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Seymour, Thom, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ ~;, ABSENT: COMM7SSIONERS: None. r. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HFARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East N0. 69-70-43 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing that property des- cribed as; An irregularly shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 84 acres and 13 separate parcels, generally located ~~ at the northeast and northwest corners of Katella Avenue and Douglas Street, with a small parcel southerly of Katella Avenue, generally bounded by the Santa Ana River to the east, the Southern Pacific Railroad to the north, the western limit of the proposed Orange Freeway to the west, and Katella Avenue to the soutii, and further described as the Douglas-Katella Annexation, be reclassified from the COUNTY A1, GENERAL AGRICULTURAL AND COUb~TY M1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICTS to the CITY OF ANAHEIM M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, noting that the proposed reclassification would establish a resolution of intent to the Pi-1 Zone ~ £or those properties under consideration for annexaCion known as the Douglas-Katella Annexation. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HFARING WAS CLOSED. ~. Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC70-42 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclasaification No. 69-70-43 be "' approved, subject to conditions and annexation to the City of Anaheim. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: r AYES: COMMISSIONERS; Allred, Faranu, Gauer, Herbat, Seymour, Thom, Rowland. is NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East N0. 69-70-40 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing that property des- cribed as; A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 132 feet on the south side of Miraloma Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 300 feet, being located approximately 284 feet west of the centerline of Red Gum Street, and further described as the Red Gum-Miraloma Annexation be reclassified from the COUNTY M1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT to the CITY OF ANAHEIM R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. ~ ' Asst: Zond $fs zsg peivYsbrPat•Brown~reviewed•the~locatioxi:o~uiuY~i,~kctpaop~~'lya-idusaa..eat,pb~;,t,shod. in cloae proximity, noting that aubject property was described as the Red Gum-Miraloma Ii~ Annexation, and the proposed zoning would establish interim zoning until such time as ~ the property was developed. ~ No one appeared in oppusition to subject petition. ' !~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED: Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC70-43 and moved for its passage and adoption ; to reco~end to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 69-70-40 be i approved, aubject to annexation to the City of Anaheim. (See Resolution Book) . On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ ~ ~ AYES: COMMISSIOP7~RS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbat, Seymour, Thom, Rowland. . ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ,, ~--~r:_ . ~~. ~', , ,.~_..__. . . t ~h \ ~ -j -~ . -~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 9, 1970 5062 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING, INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COP4~fISSION, 204 East N0. 69-70-41 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing that property des- cribed as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 132 feet on the south aide of Miraloma Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 300 feet, being located approximately 2d4 feet west of the centerline of Red Gum Street, and further described as the Red Gum-Miraloma Annexation, be reclassified from the COUNTY M1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT to the CITY OF ANAHEIM M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposed zoning to establish a resolution of intent to the M-1, Light Industrial, Zone for property known as the Red Gum-Miraloma Annexation. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED, Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC70-44 and moved for its passage and adoption ~. ;. to r~cortaoend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 69-70-41 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) } On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Seymour, Thom, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~} ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1 RECOIQiENDATIONS Orange County Use Variance No. 6408 - Property located on the east side of Brookhurst Street, approximately 780 feet north of Lincoln Avenue. Petitioner proposes to establish a contractor's office with less than the required access to parking, and a sign more than the permitted area in the RP Residential Professional District. Assistant 2oning Supervisor Pat Brown presented Orange County Use Variance No. 6408 to the Planning Co~nission, noting the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, the proposal to utilize an existing single-family residential structure as a contractor's office, said structure to be redesigned primarily by the addition of a atructural facade to the front, said facade to be located within 6 feet, 6 inches of the ultimate right-of-way of Brookhurst Street; that the City of Anaheim Code requirement as to structural setback is a minimum of 10 feet wherever property is ad,jacent to an arterial street, and the County of Orange requiras a minimum of 20 feet; that the existing struc- ture ia located 11 feet from the ultimate right-of-way; that the original side yard is only 7 feet, 6 inches, and the petitic,ner proposes to increase this to 12 feet to provide for a private drive to the rear parkiiig area, which meets Code; however, this width is 8 feet leas than required by both the City of Anaheim and the County of Orange; and that the proposed wall sign of approximatel.y l.5 square feet is greater than permitted by the City of Anaheim and County of Orange Sign Ordinances. Furthermore, no landacaping has been indicated on the plot plan, whereas the City of Anaheim would require a minimum of a 10-foot wide landscaped strip adjacent to the ultimate right-of-way of an arterial street. Considerable discussion was held by the Conanissi.on as to the numerous homes along Brook- hurst Street being uaed £orco~ercial uses, and nat maintaining the aeathetics desired for an arterial street or commercial appearance of the structures; that properly landscaped aetbacks should be required where at all practical; and that signing should be required to be in conformance with the sign ordinance. Commisaioner Allred voiced the opinion that the Cour.ty of Orange ahould be urged to deny any interim uses of the homes on Brookhurst Street, and these buildings should be removed and replaced with a more deairable compatible co~nercial structure, since this entire area has taken on the appearance of deterioration, because of lack of co~ercial building aesthetics and proper setbacks as well as landscaping. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompaon advised the Commiasion that a number of singie-family homes had been converted with aeathetically acceptable appearance ~ along State College Boulevard, specifically the Tom Key Realty office at State College t, :~ and Sycamore, and the TAB - answering service at Broadway and State College Boulevard. '~ Coimnisaioner Gauer offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange County ,; Planning Commisaion be urged to require a minimum building setback of 10 feet from the ~~ qltimate ri~ht-of-way of Brookhurat Street, said aetback to be fully landscaped, if Orange - :.:"" o_"ar .. :L~.,•_._._„r ` ~ _r. , ~ --- _ - - ----~-- _ J __------- - -. _ ! ` ~ '~ ~,, ! ~- - _) MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 9, 1970 5063 REPORTS AND RECO1QiENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 1 (Continued) County Use Variance No, 6408 is approved; and that consideration be given to disapproving any further interim uses of residential homes along Brookhurst Street unless they are I remodeled to commercial standards and appearance, such as the residential converaions 1 along State College Boulevard in the City of Anaheim, said conversions are aesthetically ~ acceptable for commercial standards; or, removal of the exisCing structures and construc- f tion of regular com~ercial facilities in order that this area north of Lincoln Avenue on ! both sidea of Brookhurst Street does not deteriorate further to the extent:that it resem- a~_{, bles a slum area, which would be deleterious to the adjoining properties located within the City of Anaheim. Couanissioner Herbst aeconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. I .~. ~ ITEM N0. 2 Orange County Use Variance No. 6401 - Property located on the west side of Richfield Road, approximately 1,100 feet south of the centerline of Orangethorpe Avenue, zoned M1, Light Industrial, District; proposing to establish a batch plant and constructing ~ two industrial buildings of 900 square feet and 4,800 aquare feet, storage tanks ar bins for sand and cement for mixing gunite, and storage of trucks and related equipment. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown presented Orange County Use Variance No. 6401 to the Planning Commission, noting the location of the property, the proposal to establish a batch plant for mixing gunite, and construction of two industrial buildings of 900 and 4,800 square feet each, the latter of which is to be of corrugated metal construction; that atorag~ tanks or bins were proposed for sand and cement; that only 5 feet of front landscaping was proposed, whereas City nf Anaheim standards require 10 feet; and that plana did not indicate any type of screening for the outdoor storage auch as a 6-foot masonry wall. It was also noted by Mr. Brown that in 1966 the Planning Commission and City Council, after considerable study of industrial areas within Anaheim's sphere of influence, determined that batch plants and other heavy industrial uses should be limited to that area iu~ediately adjacent to the Santa Ana River, aouth of La Palma Avenue and east of Richfield Road, and the location of this batch plant was not viChin this area. There- fore, the Planning Commission should give serious consideration to the potentially detrimental effect the establishment of this use might have to future industrial develop- ments in thia general area - this was particularly true in view of the objectionable nature of the propoaed use because of the dust created and truck and equipment noise. Diecussion was held by the Co~nission as to the merits of the proposed use at the proposed location, its proximity to the City of Anaheim industrial area, both developed and un- developed, and the nuisance created by the inevitable dust, noiae and trucking operation this use would have on sensitive electronic industriea which require relatively clean air operationa in the immediate vicinity of their planta. Co~nissioner Farano offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange County Planning Commission be urged to d~ny Orange County Use Variance No. 6401, on the basis that the proposed type of operation would Y~ave a deleterious effect on the ultimate development of the propertiea lecated in this general area for industrial purposes due to the inherent dust created by the operation, excessive noise from mixing equipment, and large tr.uck traffic further creating more duat, Furthermore, the City of Anaheim, after eattensi.ve atudy of the industrial areas within the Anaheim sphere of influence, determined that bcitch planta and other heavy industrial uses should be limited to that area immedi- ately adjacent to the Santa Ana River, south of La Palma Ave~~~ and east of Richfield Road becauae of their incompatibility with uses which have been established in these areas. Commissioner Gaser aeconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 3 t ~~:~RIANCE N0. 2062 (C..Michael, Inc.) - Request for extension ~ of time - Property located approximately 150 feet north of ;p the intersection of Ball Road and East Street. ' t~ Asaiatant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of aub ect that a resolution of intent to R-3 for a 10 -acre j PraPerty, noting ~ variance was to permit the establiahment of~a 279-unitelone andatwosstoryiapartmenthe ~ complex; that Tentative Map of Tract No. 6824 for four R-3 zoned parcela was approved .~ in conjunction with the reclassification; that a one-year extension of time for said tract, Revision No, 3, and Tract No, 6825, Revision No, 1, was approved by the City i~ Council on February 24, 1970; that the only condition to meet in obtaining the R-3 ! zoning wae the recordation of a final tract map; that the only condition to be met ,' '""'~. . :~".,; ~; _ _ ,. , u. 4-~ :~t . ..__ ~....-n- .. ~ ...A ~ ~ • ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 9, I970 . 5064 { REPORTS AND Q RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 3(Continued) within a time limitation was also the recordation of a Einal tract map, all other condi- tiona being subject to final building and zoning inapections; and that the petitioner had indicated thst financing would not be obtained until after the toi~'.' Cioir°lig~` , ~~,~•-• ~t'r'~fine limita- _ ~~;,~,est•~~o~~~el year. Mr. Brown also noted that plans submitted with Variance No. 2062 indicated a parking ratio of approximately 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit f.or the apartment complexes. ~, ;:~ l;; This parking ratio, however, was not in conformance with the newly amended parking requirements for the R-3 Zone, namely, a minimum of 1 covered a ace and ~ parking space for one and two-bedroom units and 2~ total spacespfor three-bedroomeunits - ~ ' "'' therefore, ~qae4ofFC;his• latter ~e uireme - q.. nt - three-bedroom units at 2~ spaces per unit, the overall development was short of the required number of parking spaces, and it was the reco~endation of the staff that the one-year e~Ehension of time be granted subject Co the proposed total development complying with the presant Code parking requirements, and any plans submitted for a building pesmit shall be subject to the review and approval of the llevelopment Services Department regarding said parking requirements, ~ ~ Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to grant a one-year extension of time for the completica of Variance No. 2062, subject to development plans being submitted to comply with preaent Code parking requirements for the R-3 Zone. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~ ITEM N0. 4 VARIANCE N0, 2054 (Apollo Development Company) - Property located ~ on the east sfde of Rio Vista Street a of Lincoln Avenue - R-2-5000 - RequestFto~increase numbereofnorth singl~-family structures having less than minimum 1525 square feet of ~loor area from 13 structures to 20 structures. !• Assistant Zoaing Supervisor Pat Brown presented a request from developers of R-2-5000 ~, homes in Tract No. 6647 located adjacent to an R-2-5000 tract already developed immedi- ately adjacent to Rio Vista Street and adjacent to R-1, 7200 zoned property on the east ,; and north of aubject property, requestiag permission to increase the number of 1386- -`•" sq;u+q~~e foot homes from those granted in Resulution No. PC69-27 from 13 to 20, an increase - of SO% more than approved originally by the Commission, and that a representative of the 'r developer was present tu answer questioi:s, 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Co~ission that in the discussion with the ~ petitioners it was determined tha~ the smaller home was selling better than the larger !~ F~ome - therefore, this request for additional homes in the smaller size was before the ,~ Co~ission. ~ ";~ Mr. Larry Matzick, representing Apollo Development Company, appeared before the Commission ;~ and noted they were now designing the second tract, and in reviewing past sales action on the first tract it was noted the larger homes were not selling as well as they had anti- I~ cipated - however, there was a greater demand for the smaller, three-bedroom, two-bath !:~ home which sold for $27,500 and was known as the "A" p1an. Therefore, the request before ':P the Commission was basically to permit an increase in the number of these units to be ~ built on the second tract, :~ Mr. Matzick, in reply to Commission questioning, stated it was their hope to heve two homes of the same plan aide by side; however, the firat tract had been completely devel- oped, said tract being adjacent to the R-1 to the north, and none of the "A" plan homea had been built on the large, 7200-square foot lots adjacent to the R-1 tract. Further- more, the larger homes were becoming more difficult to finance. Co~mnisaioner Seymour advised the Cou~ission that his real estate company handled the sales on subject pro~~rty; that he would Like to assure the Commission that these were especially well constructed homee a~d were comparable to the $35,000 homes, both as to exterior and interior construction, and that it was his opinion that the reGuest for an increase in the number of smaller homes would have no undesirable effect on adjoining R-1 homes to the north and east. , Mr. Matzick advised the Commission that because of the slow turnover of the larger homes, namely the "C" plan, the price was now redu~~.' in order to have a quicker turnover. * , ~ Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to grant permission to increase the number of homes ,' permitted under Variance No. 2054 to be less than 1525 square feet to a total of 20, i~: ~ I ~~ ~ , _ . _ ------ -- -_ _--- ~ 1 t~~ . ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ` .~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 9, 1970 i 5065 ~ REPORTS AND ~ RECOhIl~iENDATIONS - ITII~J N0. 4 (Continued) ! ~ , this increase being based on the fact that the proposed homes were comparable in quality $ ; to other homes developed in this tract and would not be detrimental to the single-family ~ homes easterly of subject tract aince none of the smaller homes were proposed for the R-1 lots in this tract which were adjacent to R-1 homes to the east and north. ~~ Commissioner Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Co~isaioner Seymour abstained ; from voting. , ITEM N0. 5 Special study of the Sign Ordinance to determine if an amendment should be made regarding integrated signing of large parcels. Commissioner Farano offered a motion to direct the staff to prepare a study regarding a possible amendment to the Sign Ordinance requiring integrated aigns in shopping centers meeting Code requirements so that a situation similar to that of the Zody-Imperial Bank '' petitions would not occur. Co~issioner Thom seconded the motion. MOTZON CARRIED. ADJOIJRNMENT - There being no further businese to discuss, Commissioner Thom offered a moticn to adjourn the meeting. Co~issioner Herbst seti:.onded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 5:17 P.M. Respectfuily submitted, ~~~~ e7'rr.e~r.~-e/ ANN XREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission ~ .~c 9 -=~..".- ' ' .~ -"~'~i4~ _'~~. +.->.~ ~~.. ._r.,.,...,.., t ~ ~ , ' ~ _a . .