The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1970/04/06NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLV~U 'that the Planning Co~ission of the City of Anaheim does hereby express their appreciafion for the services which Aorace [ Camp, as a member of the Planning Co~ission of the City of Anaheim, gave in the intert.:_ of the citizens of the City of t~naheim. BE IT F[TRTH~R RESOLVED that :.his resolution shall be made a matter af record in the official MinuEes of the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, and that a copy be presenEed to Horace A. Camp in''appreciation of his services as a Commissioner"of'.tl:e Anaheim City Planning Commission, and further express their best wishes'for his good health and continued success in all his future endeavors. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is hereby signed this 6th day of April, 1970. ~signed) Dan I.. Rowland CAAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION (si~ned) Lewis Herbst CHAIRMAN pro tempore 5082 P ,.,:3 '.: ~ ~ ~ .::~~.:.. '~.. ~. . - ..'.':~ . ~~ . ... , .. ..,. ' '~ ..~ ~ ~ ' . .~ ~ . . ~ ~.. ~ ~ . . . ~~~ .. . \~~ MINUTES,.CITY PLANNING'COMMISSION, April 6, 1970 5083 (signed) Flovd L. Farano COMMISSIONER (signed) Melbourne A. Gauer COMMISSIONER (signed) William J. Thom COMMISSIONER (signed Lenzi M. Allred COMMISSIONER ATTEST: (signed) Ann Krebs. SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CONIl~fISSION VARIANCE N0. 2149 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. MARGARET S. WRIGHT, P. 0. Box 425, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting WAIVERS OF (1) REQUIRED P~ARKING TO THE REAR OF A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE, (2) REQUIRED LANDSCAPING OF THE FRONT SETBACR AREA, AND (3) REQUIRED 6-FOOT MASONRY WALL ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, TO PERMIT THE CONTINUED CO1~QiERCIAL USE OF A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE on property described as: A rectangalarly shaped parcel of land located at the northeast corner of Euclid Street and Catherine Drive, having approximate froatages of 100 feet on Euclid Street and 55 feet on Catherine Drive, being located approximately 675 feet south of the centerline of L9 Pa1ma Avenue, and further deacribed as 924 North Euclid Street. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COIAfERCIAL, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the meetings of Pebruary 9 and March 9, 1970, to allow the petitioner time to resolve developmental problema. Assistaat 2oning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the reason for previous continuances. It was also noted`that the staff had met with the petitioner in an attempt to resolve the problem areas set forth by the Planning Commission, and as a result a new plot plan had been sub- m'tted which indicated two co~v~ered parking spaces in the garage and three apen parking spaces in the front setback area; with access being provided from Catherine Drive; that an attempt had been made to add additional parking spaces in the rear portioa of thR lot having access from the private alley adjacent to the shopping center to the north - however, this was only an 11-foot wide alley, and a mutual easement agreement had not been obteinable, thus due to these factors, the size of the property, and the location and extent of.the existing structure,' it svas impossible to design more than five parking spaces, alt~ough a minimum of six was needed for the uaes established in the atructure - however, waiver of the number of parking spaces had not been advertiseel, and if the Commisaion considered subject petition favorably, then subjer.t petitioa~ should be con- tinued for readvertising. Furthermore, the one-foot landscaping strip ~proposed for Catherine Drive would be inadequate to support screen lan~:scaping for t:he parking area without considering the additional 29. landscaping required for the interior parking area. Dr. Edward Ross, 924 North Euclid Street, appeared before the Commission and stated he was a tenant of the peEitioner, who had asked him to appear in her behalf siace she was iYl; that the petitioner had advised him the waiver of the required 6-foot masonry wali would be withdrawn and she would stipulate to construction af said wall along the east property line - however, landscaping would be as indicated on the revised plans since it would be impossi~le to meet Code requirements and still provide parking. Pir. Buren Myls:, 1633 Catherine Drive, appeared before the Co~isston and stated he still insisted upon the 6-fa~t masonry wall along the east property line which was adjacent to his property - ho~tever, he was not opposed to the waiver of the parkin~; and landscaping. Furthermore, it was his understanding from the statements of the repr.esentative of the ~petitioner that the wall along the east property line was intended to be constructed only from .~the existing woodea fence to the south property line. The Co~ission advised the oppoaition that the petitioner had indicated they would construct the wall for the east property line. Zonin,g Supervisor Charles Roberta noted for the Commission that the wall separating co~ercial and residential uses had to be stepped down to 30 or 42 inches in the froiit setback rather than the 6-foot height, and this was aecessary for pedestrian safet3-. Furthermore, the C-1 Zone required that screen Pandscaping be planted adjacent to xtee wall in the front setback for additional buffering. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. I-, ..- ~ ~ I . . . . ' . . ~'` . _•~:~ ~'.,i;G: :;~ "e` ~ 1 ~~ . h - F ' 1 .~t~ t~..7.' .>s.. N . ..:...~ . ,rL: 7.%3, ~x~~'Tfd ';~-.qr~~'~~~;,.~~~._!ti`~a-~;K~.,?~ t?.. ' ~.~-s - - ' `~~~~ ~ ' ~ . . ~ - . ~ .. . u~w~e-'~oe~~as .. ~ '. ~ ~ ' .~~ ~ , ~ ~~~ ~~:~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ , " ~ ~ MINUTES,.CITY PLANNING COI~SISSION, Apri1 6,.1970 5084 VARIANCE N0. 2149 - Considerable discussion was held by the Commission, staff, and City _(Continued) Attorney repres~ntative Frank Lowry regarding the method in which ~iver of the required parking could be reaolved,.and at i.ts con- ~+Yusion it was determined.it would be necessary to readvertise this waiver if the petitioner were unable to resolve the shortage. Co~issioner Gauer was of the opinion.that:tliere were too many businesses in the amall structure; therefore, the number of parking sparea becamc difficult to meet. Mr. Slaughter advised the Commission that the existing uses required aix sp.:_,:,a, and if the.required C-1 landscaping were made a condition of approval, then an additional park- ~ ing space.would be eliminated, leaving only £our spaces. The Commission further noted that ~the existing etructure presently encroache~? into t~-e ultimate.right-of-way of Euclid Street and inquired vhether or not there was any plan _to widea Euclid Street in the near future, where the petitioner already had an encroach- ment permit; and the length of time the petitioner would be allowed to encroach inta the ultimate right-of-wsy. Mr. Lowry adviaed the Commission that said encroachment permit could be revoked whenever the City Council deemed it aecessary for street purposes. Mr. Roberts noted that the City Council approved zoning on subject property in 1966, with a condition otE approval being dedication of an additional 3 feet for ultimate street widening purpoaes; however, under that proposal, the petitioner had iAdicated the exist- ing structure yrould be removed and a new structure would replace it. Furthermore, the zoning was accomplished, and the petitioner was still using the existing sCructure which encroached into the ulKimate right-of-way and was contrary to the action tak~n by the City Cou~cil. ' . Office Engineer Jay Titus advised the Commiasion that plans for widening of Euclid Street were in progress and nearing completion, wherein the cttreet width vould cut through approximately 4 feet of the exiating building. Mr. Roberis noted that.the only permit granted by the Planning Co~ission and City Council for the use of the existing atsucture was under a variance in 1959, wherein approval for uae of two sooms for office purposes was granted. Co~isaioner Herbst inquired whether or not subject petition dould be granted with a time limitation since it would be impossible to allow the building to remain for an indefinite period of time with ultimate atreet widening planned for Euclid Street; whereupon Mr. Lowry stated that the time limitation could be granted. Commissioners Farano and Gauer were of the opinion that the petitioner had allowed too many office uaes for the atructure, thereby creatiag her own problem by overloading the property, using th~ front aetback for parking purposes and eliminating the landscaping, and to grant subject petition even for a short time vould only compound the existing problem, as well as aet a precedent for similar use of homes throughout the City which front or aide-on arterials. Comnissioner Gauer offered Reaolution No. PC70-54 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2149 on the basis that subject property was too small to provide for the number of basiness uses establiahed on the property and still maintain the minimum site development standards of the zone; that the C-1 Zone pe~itted only li.mited co~ercial uaes.of a residence and required maintenance of setbacks and Iandscap- ing so that the resideatial integrity of the area was retained; that the C-1 Zone had been approved on the property oa statements of the petitioner:that the existing structure would be nemoved and a standard coumiercial structure built - however, thf~s was not accomplished, and the petitioner was in violation of the C-1 Ord3nance; that the petitioner had not demons'trated a hardship exiated in that adjoining property owners were enjoying a substan- tial property right, and the petitioner was being denied this right; and that granting subject petition would establish an undesirable precedent for similar requests fzom other ~omeowners whc+ae properties fronted or sided on arterials, thus granting a privilege not enjoyed bq r2hers. (See Resolution Book) On roll r,ell the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COi~IlfISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. NOES; CO1~iISSIONERS: None. ABS:,NT: CO1~AtISSIONERS: Seymour. . . _ ~.ri.:: "~:~ ~5-~ii _ _ _ _. _-- -- - _ _.. 0 ~, ~ -. MINUTES, 'QITY PLANNING COPIIfISS;ON, April 6,, 147U 5085 VARIANCE N0, 2161 - CON7TINUED:pUBLIC-HEARING; LUSK CORPORATION, P. 0. Box 1217~ AThittier, California, Owner; requesting' WAIVER OF REQiTIREMENT TtiAT RESID':.'NTIAL TENTATIVE ~fAP OF STRUCTURES'REAR ON ARTERiAL HIGHWAYS on property described as: Aa TRACT N0. 5674, irregularly shaped parcel of laad consisting of approxfmately 22 acres REVISION N0. 3- - located at:the northwest cor¢er of Nohl Ranch Road and Royal Oak Road, ' hatKing approximate froatages af 940.feet on the north side of Nohl Ranch Road and 700 feet'on the west sfde of Roya~ ~aic Road. Property presently;classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.' TENTAT~VE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: LUSK CORPORATION, P. 0, Box 1217, Whittier, Califomia. ENGINEERc Hopeny Hedlund & Dar1~y, Inc., 3030 West Main Street, Alhambra, Ca1i€ornia. Property located at the northwest corner of Nohl Ranch Road and Royab Oak Road, consists : of approximatelp 22 scres of land, and is praposed for sub- division into 52 R-H-10,000 zoned lots. Subject petition and tract were continued from the meet~ngs of March 9 and 23, 1970, ia order to allow the petitioner time to.resolve certain engineering and site development problems connected with this proposal. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter advised the Commission that the Engineering ' Division and the Interdepartmentai Ccmmittee reco~eaded that subject petition'and tract be continued to the meeting of May 4, 1970, in order to ai~low time for the compietion of a drainage fee study for the entfre hill and canqon area, and that the petitioners concurred with this continuance by submitting a letter Co that effect. Commissioner Thom of£ered a motion to continue conaideratio~ of Variance No. 2161 and Teatative Map of Tract No. 5674, Revision No. 3, to the meeting of May 4, 1970, to allow time for the completion of a drainage fee study for the hill and canyon area. Commissioner Allred seconderl the motioa. MOTION ~ARRIED. (Co~issioner Seymour w~s absent) VARIANCE N0. 2166 - PUBLIC HEARING. FRANK D'ALESSANDRO, 119 Queensbury Street, Anaheim, California, Orcner; requeating WAIVER OF PERMITTED USES IN TAE R-1 ZONE TO PERMIT A CONVALESCENT-REST HOME on property desrribed as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage uf approximately 55 feet on the weat aide'of Queensburq Street, having a maximum depth of approsimately 149 feet, and being generally located northeast of the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Rio Vista Street, and-further described as 119 Queensbury Street. Propertq preaently alassified R-1, ONE-FAMII,Y RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Mal~olm Slaughter reviewed for the Commission the location of subject property, uses established in close~proximity, and the proposal to permit utiliza- tion of a single-family residential home as a convalescent-rest home for six women in addition to the petitioaer and his wife; that board and room would be provided for these guests while tney were convaleacing from hospital treatment of one form or another; that none of the propoeed guests, now or in the future, weuld have case histories involving mental problems; that plans submitted with the application indicated the petitioner's home coneisted of £ive bedrooms, two batha, living room, family room, kitchen, and large recreation room; that the Anaheim MunicipaY Code defined a"family" as an individuel, or two or more persons related by•blood or marriage, 9r a group of not more than five persons, excluding servants, who are not related by blood or marriage, living together as a single hausekeeping unit in a dwelling unit; and that the City Attorney's office had.indicated that in essence this definition stated that when unrelated people were living as a"family", the number of people living in said residence may not exceed a total of five - therefore, the petitioner's wiah to establish eight unrelated persona residing at this residence no longer qualified tk~em as a"family", and, instead, would be classified as a conval- escent or rest home in this particular rase. Furthe~ore, the petitioners had been caring " for convalescing patieats in their home for approximately two years, and as far as staff could determine, there have been no complaints to date from surrounding residents regard- ing the use - therefore, the Cormniasioa would have to determine whether the requested'use would ba appropriate in the R-1 area, and particular consideratioa should be given to possible ramifications as to future requests for even larger care facilities in a single- family azea. Mr. Frank D'Alessandro, the petitioner, appeared before the Co~ission and stated his wife worked wi~h the State in the rehabilitation of patients; that the only reason the request was before the Co~ission was because it was their desire to have six patients since two patients per room was proposed for each bedroom; that it was not their ir_tei:t to establish s convaleacent home per se, but only to give apparently cured patients a "jamping off place" between tiie hosp3tal and the mainstream of life again. The Commission inquired whether or not the State compensated Y.he petitioner for c_r~ oE thESe patients; whereupon the petitioner replied in t~z affirmative, noting that or.I,; __~ _ ~ 1 _ _ _ __. _._~. ,... ~-~ - ~~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COPQfISSION, April 6, 1970 5086 ` VARIANCE'NOr 2166~-`$150,per month per patieat was received, which herdly covered the `(Continued) 'expenses involved.. The,Commission then noted that since compensation was received this was considered a business operation;in the R-1 Zone; that sabject.property was l.ocated among many very attractive:homes, and granting subject.petition, permitting a business establishmeat, would-be detrimental to-these residents. The"'petitioner stated that,if subject"petition were not approved, they would revert+ro having only five patients;'that all the patients were ambulatorq and occasionally walked to the store; that.they were assigned ho~sehold duties and none had automobiles; that if inedical care were needed, he or his wife took them to.the physiclan's office; that the families of'the patients nsually picked them up for a day's visit at home; and then in responae to Commission;questioniug, stated that these.people were fotmerly mentai gatients, and the State would not release tftem unless they were considered well mentally, and thaE the petition'was to permiE the sixth'patient. ' Zoning.Supervisor Charles Roberts.advised the Commissioa that clarification should be noted on this particular point, namely,that the Zoning Ordinance defined a"family" as being two or more persons related by blood or marriage or five unrelated persons, either by marriage or blood; that the City Attorney interpreted that since there were two members related by-marriage, only three additional persons would be permitted - therefore, the petitioner was somewhat confused when he stated he was permitted to have five patients. The Commisaion then noted that by right the peCitioner could have three patients, and if subject petition were approved, this would permit an unspecified number to be housed in thia home. The petitioner advised the Co~isaion that the State law required approval of a convalescent home if more than six patients were proposed for a home; however, their home was used only on a'family care bseis, and they were only attempting to assiat these unfortuaate persons to,assi~me their normal r.esponsibilitiea in life; and then noted for the~Commiasion that although the State al,lowed five persons, they had had four for the past four years and only five for the past .three months. The Commission noted they were not trying to be unfair to the petition~er and felt what was being'done was_for a verq worthwhile purpose, but the Commission's prime consideration was whether or not this was a proper land use, and since the petitioner was receiving compensation, thi;s was a business in a.residential area, regardless of whether a profit was being made... Deputq City Attorney Frank Lowry adviaed the Co~ission that compensation was not taken into consideration - it was whether or rc~t the Go,fke was to be interpreted as five un- related persons living under one roof, snd Aince none of these persons were related to each other, the petitioner would be allowed oaly three additional persons. I i A ahowing of hands indicated twenE ersons . y p pxesent in opposition to subject petition. Mr. Henry Sinai, 101 South Trevor, appeared before the Co~ission in opposition and presented a petition signed by 274 persons, aIl in opposition to sub,ject petition, and noted .it was the concurrence of the oppoaition that approval of subject petition would be perm3tting a co~ercial use in a residential tract; that said tract was approximately six yeara old, and many amall children lived there who would be faced with the possible traff3c hazard when the increase in the number of cars took place; that the petitioner did aot live in the house with only his wi€e but also had children; and that although he did noC incur any problems with the existing use, the adjoining neighbor to the west had considerable problems, Mr. Ron Thome, 110 South Queensbury Street, appeared before the Co~ission in opposition and stated this tract had deed restrictions which prohibited co~ercial uses; that any increase in traffic would be hazardous to the manq children on their bicycles or those who often plaqed ball in the street; and t~hat if he had known a business was being operated in this tract, he would not have sigaed.the papess tc, perchase his home. The Commission iaquired of Mr. Thome the exact nature of the automobile problem in the street; whereupon Mr. Thome replied that aot onlq were there four automobiles in the dtive, but a number vere parked on the street, both on Queensbury and extending to Belvedere Road last weekend; and that he was primarily concerned that if subject petition were approved, this s~ould increase the number of vehYcles eatering and leaving this tract, wllich could be hazardous to the maay children, and the establishment of a precedent where- by many other businesaes would be requesting permission to use their homes, thus turaing this very attractive residential tract into a blighted area. "i r ~ r.r.' ~ MINOTES CI , ,TY PLANNING'COMMISSION, April 69'1970 5087 VARIANCE N0:'2166 - Mrs..Roge;,Allen, 106 Glendon.Way, appeared befor;~ the Commiseion in (Continued) opposition and stated that during't~e summer montns very loud noises emanated from snbject property.!at aTl hours; that many people had `; complained that these noises were undesirable,_and`since the patio of subject property.faced the rear of her.p=opertq, she was subjected to these many noises; that she did not objecG to the noise-so long as it ebated at a reasonable hour ' because elderly people living nearby.needed their,rest. The.Commission noted that their prime concern"was whether or not this was a proper land uae, and wheie undue noises occurred, fhis was a police matter. Furthermore, there was no'law agsinst:people haying ~arties, and then inquired whether or not these parties were scheduled on.a regular basis, ~iace this could:be part of the rehabilitation treatment. Mrs. Allen replied.that the parties were held quite regularly during the summer months, and perhaps were also held during the wituter months - however, because of the weather they might be held indoors. ~ The petitiontr, ia rebuttal, stated that the reason for the many vehicles in the driveway and alonE.the streets last weekend was because e~f a christening.reception, and their families were invited; that he and his~wlCfe each had a car, and their two children also ~ parked their cars in the driveway or in 'front of the house. However, as to undue noises, perhaps the four grandahildren who visited them occasionally cried, but there were no undue noises from parties held on a regular basis.- only from family members visiting: Mr. Jamea Croff, 2962 Ma1:Court, appeared before.the Co~ission in opposition and stated that since thts was a variance request for a commercial uae, he urged the Commission to retain this area for single-family residential-purposes, and that the existing home was more than adequate to take care of the petitibner 8nd his wife, together with three adult persons. . Therefore,'there was no need for the room addition which the petitioner made to hia property, which extended from the garage in the front to the rear of the property. The C.~mmissioa noted that ainy ~ingle-family homeowner had a right to add to his home so long"as it was maintained.withi~t the site development standards of the R-1 Zone as to aetbacks and rear yard requirements. Mr. Croff noted that if only the:petiticner.aiid his wife resided in the home, there appeared to be no reason for this.large addition except to increase the number of patients proposed to be housed in this home. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. A letter was read to the Planning Cormaission by the Co~ission Secretary from the Comprehensive Health Planning AsaociatioL of Orange County (copy on file) referring to need for spproval of their assaciation as set forth by the California State Health Council under Publit Law 89-749 prior to issuance of a State approval license, and the Association's concern of the rapidly increasing number of convalescent beds in Orange County, an addi- tional 3,000 beds mostly centered iu the northwest part of the County. Commisaioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC70-55 a~¢d moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2166 on the basis that this proposed use would encroach upon the residential integrity of the area; that ttce particular use was not des.irable to the living eav~ronment of the area since menq attractive homes were located in this tract; and that approval of subject petition would establish an undesirable precedent for similar requests.for co~ercial usea in residential areas, and no '~ardship had been proven 3.n this particular instance wherehy the petitionet was denied a pri~ilege a#fosded othex property owners in the area, and if a hardship had been establiahed, this a~~s self-imposed due to the fac,*, that the petitioner was desirous of expanding the existing use. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoins~ resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COIIIfISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. NOES: CON4fISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Seqmour. ]}._~' ~ ~.~,~y.y( t ~~. y fr ~~'4~' ~ %~ .• +~'.rfy+. ~',~~~', r, ?~,3~ }'s ?-• ~ ~ :'~{ ~ ~ .i_~ * 1 .~ v s 5 . P.~ F ~ . . ~'/C4 (~'~ ~, y~. . 1 r.~ +a „t... `s -,v L ,, asl ~' ~, ?.~~. e.~~'. . ~3a~~ ~d"',~;~i 4~ ~~ , y ~ r , - s~w ry _ ; ~G . . ~ . ~ _ . ~ _~....: ~ ~.. ~ ~ ~ . ~~MINUTES, CITY'~PLANN1IVG COMMISSION, Apri1 6, 197Q. 5Q88 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC, HEARING, ALLAN AND DpgA ICEy, H~NRy AND MILLRED GUZIEJKA, N0. 69-70-49 WILLIAM AND HELEN.PHILLIPS, AND ROBERT AND LORETTA HOCKENBERRY, 900, 90E; 912,'and 916 South State !'ollege BouEevard, Anaheim, California, O~erS~ yOUNG ggp,L ESTATE;COMPANY, 435 North State College Boulevard,_Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting t(iat property described as; A rectangu- larly shaped parcel of,land.located at the southeast corner.of Sta~e Coll~ge Boulevard and Vermont Avenue, having approximate frontages of"240 feet on 5tate College Boulevard and 100"feet on;Vermont Avenue, and further described as 900, 908, 912, and 916 South State College Boulevard, be._reclassified`from the R-1, ONE-FAMIL~i RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the C-1, 'GENERA:, COlA1ERCIAL, ZONE.' , : _~. Assistant.Zoning;Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed tne iocation of sub,ject property, y ~ uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to reclassify sub~ect pr~perty to t the.C-1 2one in order'to.develop a neighborhood shopping structure on the three northerly parceZs, w;th the owner of,the fourth parcel indicating he was not interested in the concept.plan but was deairous of obtaining C-2 zoning; and that the concept plan submitted indicated,utilizing the 20-foo~ wide alley easteriy of subjec~ property for access to parking spaces proposed to the rear of the commercial building, with additional access from_two.driveways'from State College Boulevard. Mr. Slaughter, in reviewing the evaluation of the proposal, noted that subject properties were considered several years ago as part of "The Pro3lem of Residential Homes Fronting On Arterial Highways", However, the conclusiom reached in that study adopted by the Planning Commisaion and City Council in 1967 indicated these lots should be retained for single-family residential uses; that.the Anaheim General Plan reflected these conclusions by designa~ing this area, extending to Wagaer:'~,venue, as being appropriate for low-density residential use; that a considerable amount of commercial or commercial-professional zoning, either developed or undeveloped,'already existed between Ball Road on the south and the Riverside Freeway on the north, a siCuation which existed throughout the City - therefore, it'would appear the proposed C-1 zoning was neither necessary or appropriate, and the Commission must determine whether ar not the proposed zoning request was appropriate, given the poasible effects this approval would have on adjoining properties wherein commercial zoning requests would likely be received from the lots fronting on State College Boulevard between Viking and Vermont Avenuea. Mr. Mike Garrett, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Comnission and noted that the reaT estate agent who did all of the preliminery work had worked closely with the,staff trying to meet all Ehe recommendations, and from his understanding,at no time did the,staff discourage the agent from filing the reclassification; therefore, this should hava some beariag on the proposal. Chairman Rowlend advised the agent for the petitioner that the staff w~re paid personnel who were required to assist anymae desirous of applying for a land use change and were not paid to diacourage a petitioner from filing for a reciassification petition. Mr, Garrett continued, noting that he wiahed the Co~ission to bear this in mind for any future similar situations. Furthermore, subject property had been listed for sale for a number of montha as potential commercial; that the City of Anaheim had never di.scouraged real estate brokers in the past in an endeavor to sell properties; tha~ the City Manager on April 1 appeared before the Board of Realtors and stated the realtors were the leaders in a counuunity, and because of this Anaheim was forging ahead and was projecting a 300,000 population in the future, which was indicative of a progressive city; that he had received a number of calls from nearby residents regarding the concept plan proposed and inquired whether any specific type of use had been proposed; that he also owned property on State College Boulevard and agreed with Co~issioner Gauer that residential homes were not desirable or appropriate for commercial office space; that commercial property was at a premium in the east Anaheim area since there were no stores available at the present time; that the staff's comment of inadequate parking was erroneous since the plaas were revised in accordance with the staff's recou~endations - therefore, it was his opinion the plaas were adequate; that concesning the statement made regarding the availability of commercial land by'the staff, it was his opinion there was not enough coc~mercial land available; that tY.ere would be no conflict of traffic in the alley used by commercial vehicles since this situation also existed to the north, near the large shopping center, and seemed to work out very well; that he questioned the requirement of a corner radius return since his compan~'s facility at Sycamore and State College Boulevard was not required to provide this;.and that they were attempting to project into the fature any poteatial commercial for this area - therefore, no precise plan was submitted. The Coumdasion inquired of the agent whether or not subject property had been on the market for commercial use or for homes; whereupon Mr. Garrett replied that it was not their intent to fool the bu3iag public-since it was their opinion thi.s was potential cominercial property, it was listed as such; that theq had not.received any specific requests for property - however, it was not their plan to sell the property as residences: •• ~;:'7 ..i_;:.., -, ~,,:~, ~:, :. _. .: _ ......, . _ .. _ . _ , _. `'.... _ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PIANNINC,COMMISSION, April 6, i970 5089 _RECLASSIFICATION..-~The Commission noted that although the real_estate office had subject NOr 69-70-49 propertq Tiated for potential commercial for a number of months, there (Continued) did not seem to.be.any specific-use - therefore, it would seem rather puzzling that the property was beiag proposed for cou~ercial zor•.ing. Mr.. Garrett replied that`his•company:was acting as agent to obtain tce reclassification; •however, this was;not indicative that potential huyers were not available - generally potential buyers were`more:desirous of not having_to wait for zoni~,g and usually looked elsewheze:for propertp,which did not>hav.e to be reclassified. The Commission noted that subject property had been considered at great length wiCh many other iots ,throughout the city hacing similar,froat-on problems; that said Front-On Study had been adopted.by the Planning Commission and City.Council after holding pubiic hearings leas than four years..ago - therefore, the petitioner would have_to iadicate whatrland use changes.had,occurred in this general area to warran2 aonsideration by ~he Commission of other than residential use for subject-property.. Mr.;.Garrett.replied that the owners af the property and other residential homes fronting on State'Goilege Boulevsrd had been subjected to an increase in traffic from 20,000 to 40;.000 vehicles per day, and the traffic•noises were r.ot conducive to residential living, especially the many heavy trucks traveling on 5tate CoT'Pege Bouleyard; that it was almost impossible to cross the street during the afternoon rusl: hour between 4:00 and 6:00 P.M.; and that re did.not feel the traffic could drop even after the Orange Freeway was in use. Thp Commission then inquired whether or not this was the basis on which the agent for the petitioner based his proof that a land use change had taken.pluce. Mr. Garrett replied that in addition to the traffic increase there was also a need for sdditionel"co~nercial property given the fact that manp industries were developing to the.south of'Ba1T Road; and that since the City vas considering widening State College Boulevard'to 93 feec,`even with the advent of the Orange Freeway, this was also indicative af the.Eype of traffic which this street would experience. " A showing,:o£ hands indicated nine persons present in oppoaitien to subjecZ petition. ' Mr. Vern Stenley,: 2103 Viking Avenue, appeared before the Co~nnission and presented a petition signed by 88 persons, a1I in opposition to subject petition and stated he had been>.esked to represeat the owners of properties to the east and north of subject property; ~ that,a majority of,the people living in these single-family homes were the original owners of these homes which had been purchased aQproximately fifteen qears ago based upon the fact Lhat they would be their homes, taking pride in ownership by additions to the homes and landscaping; that said original owners had purchased their homes intending to live out their lives t6ere, and 3t would be a disservice to these•hardworking property owners Eo aubject them to land devaluation if commercial zoning were approved for subject property which was mainly.sought by speculators who woald not have to live there, but were subject- ing the other residents to this undesirable aspect; that it was the Commission's responsi- bility to protect these solid citizens who were the heartbeat of the City, rather than those who were interested only in the profit they could make from selling the property; that there were many areas in the City where commercial uses could be established without attempting to utilize these sma11, 60 by 100-foot lots abutting other lots of similar size; that the alley between subject property and the property tiu the east was the minimum size required and under the circumstances would be just wide enough to gain access to the garage spaces since the alley served both lots to the east, as weYl as those along State College Boulevard; that it would be tiighly unlikely that trucks could maneuver in this allep since it was just large enough for passenger automobiles to move; that there were over 550 persons living in this general area, all in single-family homes, and only two access points were available to State College Boulevard - therefore, if co~ercial uses of these Lntersections were permitted, this could create a very undesirable traffic hszard for automobiles and the many children who went to the park on the west side of State College $oalevard; that these interaections were necessary for children to go to school on the west side of State Colleg~ Boulevard; that the signalized intersection was also used by students goiag to Katella High Schuol; that it was difficult to understand how a co~ercial faciliry could'operate at a pro£it witt~out adequate parking facilitiea,,nor was.it possible to determine what Eype of doubEful co~ercial ventures would be located in this facility which might be.undesirable from the standpoint of parants of children who were not desirous of subjecting their children to outside influences, such as narcotic pushers who already had invaded this ge~eral area; that off-street parkin~ was required of those homes on State College Boulevard so thet if curb-side parkir_g were considered, this would be very dangerous to potential customers; and that deed restrictions were imposed on all these properties in the tract in which commercial uses of residen:ial structures was prohibited where only one- story height limitation was permitted and where no signs or billboards were permitted - saixl deed restrictions were in force until 1985 and would be extended automatically for an additional ten qears anless the majority of the tract owners requested a change (copy oi- deed restrictions on file with the petition), and said covenants would run with t:? use ~~ ~ ~} "~'~ ~d'' ~'~.Sa~Ka' ~y'~~-'~'ta' P~.~` F fy,, V ,~~~~Y ~s ~"~ w.~us}~~ ~ f ~ ~ C i ~ l~~ a, . "~`"~ '~ !`~t~ . r ~~ e ~ f; ~E,~ ~n-..~ . ws~ 't~ ~'~- ~ ~- '~ ~`~ ..~ ,~ ' f ~ ?'. .. . : ~ ~' ~. - ~ . . . ' . . ~ ~ ~ . .. . . . ~ ' . . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COhIIiISSION, Apri1 6, 1970 5090 RECLASSIFICATION -~ of the land, and if necessary, theee restrictions would be defended N0. 69-70-49 in a court of law - therefore, he requested that•ti~e Co~issioh~deny (Continued) eu~b~ieet petitiom eed maiataitt~this area~for residential purposes. FurShermore, since the agent for the pe~itioner stated the property had been listed for commercial potential for more than six months, if he would have listed this fur residenEial uaes, he was sure saies would have been made since the owners of the propertp on SCsaA1e•Gollege Boulevard main¢ained their properties, making them deeirable in appearance for residential use. Mr. Charles Antonuccl, 888 3outh State Co2lege Boulevard, appeared be£ere the Commission, noting his property was located at the northeast corner of State College Boalevard and Vermont Avenue; that he had been reaiding at this location for approximately eight years and had been unable to sleep becau~e of the traffic noiaes, and it was his opinion these homes were nut attractive for reaidential purposes, and he was desirous of selling his home for commercial purpoaes. Mr. Garrett, in rebuttal, stated that many atatements had been made regarding the proposal which might be argumentive. Chairman Rowland requested that any commeats made in rebuttal ahould be made regarding land use, not a!1 atetements made by the opposition, since the Planning Co~ission would consider only the approprla'teneas of land use for aubject property. , Mr. Garrett then continued, no~ing he did not feel this would adversely affect the adjoin- ing land usea because of undeairable uaee; that he only represented the property owners, and covenants had been broken. Chairman Rowland noted that covenants or restrictions on propertiea were not a concern of the Plenning Commiasion aince these were a private, legal matter which had to be handled by the property ownera themselves. Mea. Arend H. Floyd, 911 S,outh Reaeda Street, appeared before the Commission and noted her property was directly to•~~h~ east of aubjert property, and if any land u$e change were to take,p2ace ~permitting cob~ercial use of aubj~ct property, her property would be the first affected by any change eince they had the corner lot and had a pool with normal activity; that;ahe.was concerned as.to the type of buaineas operaEions vhich might.be ,~rojected for subject property end was desirous of protecting her family aince it was somewhat difficult to prohibit children from going to a shopping center to purchase some tidbit or to con- gregate there aftCr coming home from school; ehat her family had apent considerabie money in maintaining their medium size home because it was all they could afford, and if they were forced to relocace, 3t would be extremely difficult to replace their existing home with the return for the sale of their propezty, taking into consideration the amount of money and time inveated during the past fifteen yeara to upgrade their home, even with the inflated pricea of tod.y; that all the homes facing on the alley had their living guartera facing thia alley, and there would be no protection from viewers from the street or alley if commercial usea were permitted to develop on subject property; and that some privacy was gained from the davelopment of these homes i~long State College Boulevar~ which would be lost if removed. The Commisaion Secretary indicated there were three letters of opposition received by the Planning Department. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Co~aission noted the atudy, "The Problem of Residential Homes Fronting on Arterial Highways'; was mad~ because of the number of strip co~ercial developments that had been occurring, and i,-~i thia etudy there we~ee a number of alt~rnatives preaented which could be adopted by any reaident having a home fronting on an arterial highvay, namely, a 6-foot mesonry wall or`talY screen la:~acapfng, both of which acted as buffers to any noises and would provide additional patio eRace in the front yard, and at the same time keeping the dirt, duat, and noisea out of the front yard area; that the front wall treat- ment was used at great length bq the people in the sonthern states, as vell as some part~ of Southern California; that the landscapi^ig and wall treatment made a very attractive appearance for theae homea and still kept the no{.ses and dirt from invading the privacy of these homea; that according to the General Plan, the amount cf acreage needed for commercial uaes had already ~een reached; that the i;ity vas faced with the continuous deterioration of homes by requesta for conversion of •.heae residences into office uses because they were more conveni~ent and leas expensive than regulation commercial facilities, and conversion of these homea cteated coneiderable problems with strip coffinercial appear- ance and inadequete parking; ant~ that the preaen~;~propertp owners were aot utilizing their propertiea to the best advantage but were juat arraiting possible co~ercial ventures being o£fered them by various realtore. 1~,----~-- -- - - .. ,-. ~,~ ~ ,- ~ti. ~ _ ~ MINUTES, CI2i 1`L:'~vd~fPlG Cf1Ml:ISSION, April 6, .1970 ' S091 RECLASSIFICATION ,- :ommissioner. Herbst offered Resolution.No. PC70-56 and moved for its N0.`69-70-49 passage and.:adoption to reco~end to the City Co~til that Petition (Continued) for Reclassification No. 69-70-49 be disapproved on the basis that no.lan~ use'change had taken place since the adoption by the Planning Commission and City Council of the Front-On Study; that this would be creating spot zoning and.strip,commercial development and weuld be the precedent to further establish.commercial intrusion all along SEat~ College Boulevard; that the adjoining pxoperty owners should be afforded some form of prot~ytion'to maintain their reaidential integrity; and thbt if strip co~er,ial were conti~ued, an~ plans for xehabilitation of the;downtown area would become.nall.and void;,and.:that the petitioners had not submitted ~ evidence that a land-use;change;had taken.place to wa;sant anp fsvorable conaideratian by the Co~iasion at this Eime. (See Resolution Book)' On roll ca1T the.foregoing resolutiom was passed by tf:e following vote: AYESr CO*~fISSIONERS: A11red, Ferano, Gauer, HerbsC, 3non;~ Rowland. NOES: . COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Seymour. CONDITIONAL USE = PUBLIC HEARING. LOIS K. CAMPBELL AND HELEN L. HINEMANr C/o William PERMIT N0, 1162 Grafton, Manchester and Thalia, Anaheim, California, Owners; JOHN H. IRWIN,-9931 Westminster Aver.ue, Garden Grove, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH AN AUTO PAINT SHOP, WITH WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM REQIJIRED FRONT STRUCTURAL SETBACK APJD LANDSCAPING AND (2)`PERMITTED FREE- STANDZNG SIGN.LOCATION_on propertq.described-as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 370 feet on-the weat side of Manchester Ave~ue, having a maximum depth of approximately 90 feeta and being located approximately 60 feet north of ,the centerline'of Broadway, and further described as 209 South Manchester Avenue, Property presenEly classified M-1,'LIGHT~`INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Assistant 2oning Supervisc+r Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, uses estaoliahed 3n cloae proximity, and the proposal to establish a 7,625-square foot auto painting facilitq in the nor.thern portion of subject property; that parking would ' conform with Code;requirements;.Chat landscaping as`indicated on xhe.original plans was not:adequate, and the staff had diacussed this matter with the petitioner, advising him that more'landscaping would be,necessary; that the propoaed structure would be within 10 feet of the ultimate.right-of-way of ManchESter Avenue, whereas the M-1 Code'would require a 50-foot aetback'- however, due to the shape of the lot; it would be extremely difficult to develop any tqpe of atructure on the property without some type of infringe- ment of the required setback erea; and that'the proposed signing for the southerly po::tion of the property would be in conformance with the Sign Ordinance, except that it would set back only 4 feet from the west property line, whereas Code required 7 feet. In reviewing the evaluation of the staff, Mr.. Slaughter noted that the proposed use might be permitted in the M-1 Zone provided it was not incompatible with the other uses in the area - therefore, the Coimnission would have to determine 3f the use were appropriate; that many lots in this area had similar developmeat problems, i.e., unusual shaped lots, and were granted waiver of the required structural setback; and that while the required number of parking spacea was proposed, the Co~iasion might be concerned about storage of vehicles being prepared or awaiting painting or completion, which could sffect the parking problem, and if automobiles were proposed to be stored, then the M-1 Zone would require a 6-foot masonry wall to encloae the outdoor storage area. Mr. John Izwin, agent for the petitioner, indicated his presence to answer questions and stated that the district manager for Earl Scheib Company was also present to answer questions. The Coa~ission noted there were several questions which remained unanswered and inquired as to Ehe number of vehicles planned to be processed daily and whether or not landsaaping would be provided as staff had depicted on the plans. Mr. R. W. Andersfln, District Manager of Earl Scheib Company, appeared before the Co~ission and stated that 60 to 70 vehicles per week would be processed; that at no time would they plan to store vehicles on the exterior which could not be stored indoors afCer 6:00 P.M., their closing time; that preparation,of the vehicles was started in the stalls and since they operated on a one-day principle, each vehicle would be leaving the premises most of the time on the same day since vehicles were processed by appointment only, and any vehicles not picked up would be &ept inside the building to discourage vandalism. Mr. Anderson, in response to Co~ission questioning, stated he would stipulate that there would be no outdoor storege or overnight outdoor parking, and that the amount of body work was small, such as removing dents, which would be done inside the building, since any major framework repair would be done by companies who specialize in this regularl;. i'_ - - `'~~ ~ ~ MINUTES,~CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 6;,;1970 5092 CONDITIONAL USE = Mr. Charles Bradley, representing-Bry:an Industrial Properties, PERMIT.N0.~1162. appeared before~.the Couaiise+_~n and read a letter. in which:no:opposition (Continued) was,>`expressed, provided;Ehat the petitioner provided landscaping as depicted by staff; tF.at,n~-automotive tiody;work would be done is the ' ' parking area or yard; that.exhacst~controls would be i~ talled so that no painC fumes and airborne paint particles co~zld'leave ttie.buifding„to coataminate the properties of others; end that sound controls be undertaken to eliminate noise problems emanating:from.the body shop„area. ,: - Zoning Supervisor,Charles.Roberts noted for the Commission and.the oppositian that the M-T site.development standarda required the elimination of noise, dust, and other condi- tions; however, the letter from Bryan Industrial Properties was a littie more detailed than.the Zoning Ordinance set forth. The~Commiasion then inquired of,Mr. Anderson whether or not he would stipulatE to these requests.made'by;Bryan Induatrial Properties; whereupon Mr. Anderson repiied that their equipment would control ventilation as set forth and that all body work would be d~ne indoors - however, there would::be a certain amount of noise which any industry generated, but~Ehis.would not be of a nuisance character. THE.HEARING'WAS CLOSED. i Commissioner Fararto offered Reaolution No. PC70-57 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1162 on the basis of stipulations by the petitioner Ehat':landscaping would be in accordance with'2andscaping as depicted on Exhibit No. l b~ the ataff; that,no outdoor,:overnight storage of.vehicles would be contemplated; and that no outdoor automotive work would be performed; and subject to conditions as set forth by the ICPS&GW, with an amendment to Condition No. ll to require that landscaping ahall be installed:as depicted on Exhibit No, l, inserted by staff; that exhaust controls shall be inatalled to eliminate paint fumes or airborne particles from contaminating adjoining propertiea;,and that sound controls.be provided to eliminate noises emanating froin the body sfiop-areai '(See Resoluf:ion Book) On roll_call the fo=egoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS; Allred,,Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. ~ NOES: COP4IISSIONERSt None. 'ABSENT: COlyIliISSIONERS: Seymour. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. STATE COLLEGE MEDICAL CENTER, 215-B N. State College PERMIT N0. 1163 Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Owner; JAMES A. CARTER, 1540 East ~ Santa Ana Canyon Road, Orange, California, Agent; requesting permission to EXPAND AN EXISTING MOTEL, WITH WAIVERS OF (1) REQUIREMENT THAT A LOT HAVE FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC STREET AND (2) MAXIMUM gUILDING HEIGHT on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located generally northwest of the interaection of State College Boulevard and Center.Sereet, having a maximum depth of a pproximately 270,feet and a maximum width of approximately 155 feet and being located approximately ~10 feet north of the centerline of Center Street and 220 feet west of the centerline of State College Boulevard. Property presently classified C-O, COIAfERC7AL-OFFICE, ZONE. Assistan. Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject pro ert ;~ uses r.stablished in close proximityi and the proposal, noting that a.letter had been y~ recei~ving requesting a two-weeks' continuance for the submission of revised plans based ;~ upon the evaluation as set forth in the ReporC to lha Co~nission. Co~issioner Allred offered a motion to continue consideration of Petition for Conditional Use Permit iJ~. 1163 to Ehe meeting o£ Apri1 20, 1970, to allow time for the submission of revised plans. Co~issioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS , Co~issioner Thom offered a motion to recess the meeting. Co~issioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting recesaed at 4:00 P.M: RECONVENE - Chairman Rowland reconvened the meeting at 4:10 P.M., all Commissioners with the exception of Seymour being present. ~. ,: . ,K _ ~ Q MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COP4IISSION, Apri1, 6, 1970 5093 VARIANCE NO 2167 - PUBLIC HEARING I.AMPORT'CORPORAZION.dba GRAND HOTEL, 1 Hotel,Way, , Anaheim, Califoinia, Owner,.HEATH &.COMPANY, 3225 Lacy Street, Los,Angeles, California,"iAge~,t;~.requesting WAIVER OF MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN AN EXISTING ROOF,SIGN AND A PROPOSED FREE-STANDING SIGN on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel';of land`•co~sisting of epproximateTy 6,5 acres, having an east-we'st:dimension of approximetely 560 feeE and a narCh-south dipension of app=aximately 505'feet; and being located approximaEely 660~feet east of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard and app described.as.7 Frroximately.205,feet north of the cenEerline of Freedman Way,,and further eedman Way, Properfy-preseritly.classified C-R, CO1ff~RCIAL-RECREATION, ZONE. Assistant'Zoning'Supervisor Malcolm Sleughter reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity,:and the.number of free-standing signs located on the property and,the;request:to erec~ a 76-aquare foot, 16-foat high, free-standing sign on the-entrance canopy of the Off-Broadwaq West club located in the western.poztion of the ~ hotel complex; that the proposed aign would be located within 190 feet of the existing roof sign?on the hotel proper, wl:ereas'Code would require a maximum 300-foot separation - however,.due to the height of the hotel atructure; it-was highly improbable`tiiat both sigres would be visible to anpone at the same time;.and that orientation of the sign would be to direct people to use the entrance provided for this facility. Therefore, the Comnission would:have to determine whether the reQ~~e~t as submitted would be an appropriate one-to ttiis generel area: Mr: Jack Lloyd, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted,the locatioa of the proposed.sign'and the roof sign would be on a plane 190 feet fiorizontally or 250 feet vertically; that it-was his opinion the intent of the C~de was to avoid a conglomeretion`of aigns on the property - however, bo*_h signs could not be seen at one.Eime; and that the man,,er of.the hotel was available to explain the reason for the ~ , proposed sign., Mr.'Ray Maier, Manager'of'the Grand Hotel,`appeared before the Commission and noted th~zy had had a number of convenfions using:this room during the daytime hours, and due to the in- ability of patrons using,the convention facility not knowing the exacE location of the direct entrance to.this facility, they generally requested direction by going through the lobby, and'by erection of this.ptoposed sign, this would eliminate the convention partici- panEs-from~.using,the_main lobby. No one appeared in opposition to subject.petition.. ?HE.,HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion was held by the Commission, it being determined that the proposed sign was basically a directional sign and would not be viaible in conjunction with the roof sign at any location." Co~issioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC70-58 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2167 on t:he basis that the sign would basically not be visible off the property and would not present any intrusion into adjoining property and could be considered a directional sign. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ,AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS; None. ABSENT:. .COMMISSIONERS: Sepmour. VARIANCE N0. 2168 - PUBLIC HEARING. WILLIAM AND J~.MES DE FORREST, 616 North Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim,•Californifa, Owners; requesting WAIVERS OF (1) PERMITTED C-2 USES T0 PERMIT EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING, NONCONFORMING USE (WHOLESALE ESTABLISHLtENT WITH MINOR RETAIL AI:TIVITY), (2) MINIMUM REQUIRED N[JI~ER OF PARKING SPACES, AND (3) MAXIMUM pERMITTED LOT COVERAGE on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of'land having a frontage of appxoximately 54 feet on Anaheim Boulevard, having s,maximum depth of approximately 149 feet, and being located approxi- mately 204 feet north of the centerline of Alberta Street, and further described as 616 North Anaheim Boulevard. Property presentlp classified C-2, GENERAL COt~II4ERCIAL, ZONE Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, existing zoning, and the proposal to construct a two-story addition to the rear of the existing structure, increasing its size to 4,860 square feet; that the existing atructure had been used for some time by the American Lock Company as a wholesaling establiahment with minor retail activity and was presently a nonconforming use in the C-2 Zone; that 6'angle parking spaces were indicated to the r>_~r of the property, whereas the exist3ng and proposed structure would require 20 park:ng ~". - - - - _ ~ ~~ ~ ^ ~ ~ . , ~- . - ;~MINUTES,~.CITY~PLANNING COlAfISSION, April 6, 1970 " 5094 VARIANCE N0: 2168 - spacea, 15,for retail uses and 5 for wholesaling purposes); that the (Continued) ~ petitioner had indicated:the>natu=e of his-,business was wholesaling his products with minor retail activity; and the number of parking spaces ` required would not be necessary; and that tfie existing use-apparently had.no deleterious.effECts,upon.Ehe surrounding area - however, the Commission would have to' be concerned with the proposal to ,expand the~existing facility by 162% with minimal r~ parking provided -.although the'petitioner stated the,proposed parking was sufficient,' ~ there was a'possibility this.could be converted into'a'regular retail activity in the futuie,.creating a;.greater deficiency since 39.parking.spaces.would then be required. Mr. William.De Forrest, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and noted his.company-was the:American Lock & Suppl}i Company;".that xheir main business was whole- saling, and when the business was establiahed five years ago it was felt the facility would be adequate - however, because of the greater increase in Che criine.rate, their business had grown':considerably, and 3t was:necessary to obtain supplies and maintain a substantiaL inventory that would last up to one.year because of the inability of the lock companies to fill orders;`that they had experienced at least up to six Eo eight months' delay in.having their ordera filled; and that most of'their business was supplying schools with locks.and keys, as well as manufacturers, The Commission inquired how the petitioner planned to have trash pick-up from the alley since this was a very narrow, 20-£oot alley and if there were any walk-in business if, as the petitioner claimed; retail'business was of the minimum. Mr.'De Forrest indicated this alley ~s~s`not.a:true alleq since it had no exit to Alberta Street, but there had been no problems in the past as to traffic in the alley, even though the trash trucks did back up into the alleq for pick-up ~urposes, and that the only;counter service was an an:emergencq.•¢esis wherein someone telephoned ior a specific ' item.and later picked up the item. Mr. De Forrest also noted,'ir, response'to Commission questioning, that the two-story addition.would.be primarily for warehousing; that the majority of.the orders were picked up by,United Parcel; that there were only two office girls, two full time et~loyees and one.part time employee; thaE he and his brother drove to work together, and there was no service fruck since they did not offer this type of service; and that it was assumed this new addition would be-more than ample for their needs since they had purchased the property and were making plans to'purchase the property to tfie north at such time as it became available. The Co~iseion noted that the parking as proposed would be adequate for the existing use; however, in the event subject property was sold and general retail uses were planned, the parking would be inadequate „ and a self-imposed hardship would be created if surject petition were approved,,primarily for the nonconforming uae which might necessitate removal of the $2d,000 structure in order to provide adequate parking. Mr. De Forrest replied that he and his brother owned the property, although the corpora- tion owned the business; that it was fe1C this was an ideal place to remain, and it was not their intention to relocate to another area for warehousing purposes. Furthermore, if the warehouse were located elsewhere, this would create a hardship since it was vitally important that they know every piece of equipment available at a moment's notice upon request of a customer. No one appeared in opposition to aubject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst expressed the opinion that he could nc~t justify waiver of the number of parking spaces for this specific uae since the building proposed would be there For fifty years~ W;th the possibility of the existing use relocating, and any subsequent use might have a parking deficiency which could not be corrected. Furthermore, the City had never in the past waived the number of parking spaces proposed by the petitioner. Ca~nissioner Thom noted that the petitioner justified his hardship on the basis that his specific type of business did not require the parking spaces of a regular commercial facility, nor would it require the number of parking spaces a similar operation required in the industrial area. Commissioner Gauer, in response to a question by Coum~issioner Farano as to the possible establishment of a geaeral retail operation on subject property, stated that a hosierp company and a plumber operated in this general area, and these uses could be construed as being industrial. ~ ! - ?;?:;~ ~ ni ~,. ~~~ Q ' . ~ ~ ~ . . . -'MINUTES~ CITY.PLANNING COMMISSION, April 6,.1970 5095 , , :: . ~~ : VARIANCE N0.`2168 -'Zoning;Supervisor,Charles Roberts.nuted the Co~nission seemed to be '(Continued)= `;,quite,conc~rned abouEnthe-iossible future use of the fecility. Ixi the event,retail uses weie.proposed; this would require 20.parking spaces, ; and possibly :the petitioner>could_provide warehousiag on t,he second ~:floor~witn parleing on the'f~rst floor,.or. as an.alternative, develop a second story to the e~i'sting building~and use'ihe balance of;<the:property Eor parking purpoaes: _ Mr. De`Forrest advised~the"Commiesion t&atiihe Had not:discussed ~he gassibility of a second story, on the exiating structure with the>conCractor; howevei, he would stipulate to removal ° of the;bailding in the event they;r~located and.`a,shortage os perking spacea occurred. The Commission advised the petitioner that his stipulation was possiole;.however, once the building was erected, the'general=concensu~s.would be to request a"wafver to allow the building to remain~rather tha.:''remove it because of insufficient parking area. Chairman Rowland was:of the opinion th~t the petitioner shoul,d coatact his contractor to determine 3f it were feasible;to erect a second story to the existing building befare any decision was made-by the Commfasiori since the parkiug had been calculated very liberally by`.the_staff for warehousing purposes - howeyer, tL~e Commission should be fully aware that a minimum of 30'spaces would be needed for any ot~er type of use. Commissioner Allred offered a motion to grar,t Petition for Variance No. 2168 on the basis that'the petitioner had proven a hardship.existed.in the type of use presently made of subject,property, and the need for additional storage so that orders might be filled with- out waiting six to.eight months,.and that the-additional parking as required by the site development standards for said zonp were not needed for the use; and subject to conditions. On roll ca1T the:foregoing resolution fai2ed to.pass by the following vote: AYES: COIAiISSIONERSi. Allred, Gauer, Thom. NOES: . COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Herbst, Rowland. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Seymour. ` Deputy Citq Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Commission that when a tie vote occurred this meant the resolution passed; however, he would further check with the City Attorney for "confirmation: The Coa~ission then,held in abeyance any further decision until the tie voting problem was reaolved. (See page No. 5097) RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. T. E. AND MILDRED B. YELLIS, 623 North Zeyn, Anaheim, N0. 69-70-48 California, AND L•ARWIN MULTI-HOUSING CORFORATION, 9100 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, California, Owners; BORIS MARKS, A.I.A., VARIANCE N0. 2165 Kamnitzer & Marks, 1627 Pontius, Los Angeles, California, Agent; prnperty described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land consist- ing of approximately 13.5 acres having approximate frontages of 970 feet on the south side of Crescent Av~aue and 970 £eet on the north side of Alameda Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 608 feet and being located approximately 360 feet east of the centerline of Brookhurst Street. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICUL- TURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1).MINIMUM REQUTAED DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS, (2) TWO-STORY STRUCTURES WITHIN 150 FEET OF R-A ZONING, AND (3) MINIMUM REQUIRED LANDSCAPED SETBACK ADJACENT TO A LOCAL STREET. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, uaes established in close proximity, and the proposal to establish a 380-unit, two-story apartment complex with waivers of minimum distence between buildings, one-story height limitation within 150 feet of R-A property, and minimum required landscaping adjacent to the required setback and front of the open parking area. Chairman Rowland noted that the Commission in reviewing the plans determined that the only area of difficulty was the minimum required landsceping in the setback area since none of the City staff inembers could determine how the required screening of the parking area could be provided with a 5-foot berm. Mr. Boris Marks, architect representing the petitioners, appeared before the Co~nission and noted that it was proposed to depress the parking area approximately 4 feet below and parallel to the local street; that it was their intent previously Co have a rounded berm with a slope and a wall - however, it was difficult to put in the required landscep?.ug in this area, and as one alternative, it was proposed to have ~~~te3e1 landscaped ::~ea, 3 r'" - ~ '`;.'~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMIS$ION, Apri1 6,:1970 5096 RECLASSIFICATION .- retaining the wall which would.give_approximately 7.S feet of laad- N0..69-70=48 scaping;;Eliat.it was intended to.h3ve this plaated with dense land- ' ~ scaping~so.that the carports,,facing,Ehe street could be blocked from VARIANCE N0: 2165' view, or to construct a'decoratLve fence at the approved height to ~.(Continued) screen.the;parking.area °=tiowever,.some of the softness wauld be lost if no landscaping~were proposed, and:that it was not desirous of having a solid masoriry'wall;since tfiis would be presenting a harsh appearance. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts, in response to Commission questioning, stated the R-3 Zone site:development standards required that the setback be completely'landscaped and no parking.ptrmitted. Mr..Marka, in responae`to question3ng by the Co~is~sion chairman;as to the.required land- sceping, atated;that:the:preliminat~r p'lans proposed a street through:the center of the ~.project since it was originally planned to use more property; however, now in order to gain.the appearance of-openness wfthin the project; 3t was felt a street should be pr~vided along the west.property line and Heavy landscaping with 5 feet being adequate aince the spaciousness.was provided'.in the cenEer of tlte project;'that.the density was originally 28,units ~er ac;e -.however, with the type of setback proposed, this had now increased to 34 units; tfiat a 1:8 and 1:20 slope or 5% to 12y was proposed; that two sloped driveways were proposed .from Alameda and from Crescent; that sidewalk:access was proposed of approxi- mate 8 faot widEh 20 feet from the streets; that the drive "ramp would be adequately pro- vided with pumping facilities for drainage purposes; that there were some areas where the parking was not visible from the new street - however, greenery was necessary; and that approximately 30 feet was lost because of the requirement of a new street. Chairman'Rowland noted that approximately 8 parking spaces would require a 25-foot turning radius - however, the balance of the parking on the new street did not require this radius. Mr. Marka replied that there were single and double parking areas - therefore, the radius would be 'necessary. Office Engineer Jay Titus noted that the requirement of a new street was 54 feet with a - 1-foot holding strip'to be picked up when the property to the west was developed; that the curb and sidewalk being required would still be installed along the west side by thaE property owner; and then inquired whether or not arrangements had been made with Mr. Yellis, owner of the property.to the west, to provide the balance of the street width. Mr. Yellis responded in the affirmative. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions. ~~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Titus, in responae to Commission questioning, atated that the width of the curb and sidewalk was 13 feet, and that the special requirement for the Alameda StYeet section was to provide for better eathetics. Co~i.ssioner Herbst expressed the opinion that perhaps as far as the new street was con- cerned, the sidewalks could be located adjacent to the curb, and the normal parkway could be incorporated in the landscaped setback only on the new, local street. Mr. Marks replied that they would be willing to comply with this setback for all streets. Co~isaioners Gauer and Thom concurred in Cou~issioner tlerbst's statement that the side~ walks could be relocated adjacent to the curb and normal parkway area incorporated in the landscaped setback; this would provide for a more attractive development and still shield the parking area from view from the street. i Chairman Rowland inquired whether the developers proposed to provide adequate protection for safety measures where only a 4-foot recessed area was proposed. Mr. Marks repl~~ed that with the ~~heavy• hedge• screen landscaping, together with a chain- liak £ence, this would be difficult to penetrate with a vehicle. ~ Mr. Titus noted,regarding the statement made by the developers that they would agree to f placing the sidewalka adjacent to the curb would be acceptable for the local street only; i however, for Crescant Avenue and Alameda Street it was suggested that because of the type i of traffic and speed, in order to protect the pedestrians, the sidewalk should be at its I normaL position with the parkway separating it. ~~ Co~iasioner Herbst offered Reaolution No. PC70-59 and moved for its passage and adoption to reco~nend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 69-70-48 be approved subject to ICPS&GW conditions, amending Condition No. l by adding, "Provid~d, however, that an alternate means of dedication and improvement for the new north-soutn ~ ., ; JC _'T Y~!-:'~t4~.. :yJ ~~ ~~ . ~ . . . ~ ... .. ~- ~.. . ~ ..' . ~ . . . MINUTES, CITY;~PLANNING CON4IISSION,=.Apri1 6, 1970 5097 RECLASS~IFICATION - street'that wili'~rovide a fd17.'64-foar wide.street, improved to City NO 69-70 48 ' ,sraaaaras, may be_approvedby,; the City Engineer."(See Resolution Boak) r _ On rolL;call.the foregoing resolution:was passed by the following qote:` VARIANCE N0. 2165 ` . (Continued),;.. AYES., ' CO1~IIlISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Them, Rowland. NOLS: . , : '. COMMISSL'ONEItS: . : None. I 'ABSENT::: COMMISSI~7AiERS: Seymour. Commissioner Herbst offered,Resolution No, PC70-60,and moved for its passage and:adoption Eo grant Petition for Variance No:"2165`aubj~ect to ICPS&GW conditions, requiriaig that sidwalks be relocated ad3acent to the cnrb eaccept where fira.hydrants werE located, then said sidewalke sHall;_be,extended 5 feet behind theifire,hydrant, with the balance of the parkway,to be;incorporated:into the required landscaped setback:area.to provide adeqnate buffering befween the open,parking space and the street for the new street only, as stipulated to by the,peEitioner.,:'(See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing:resolution wes passed by the following vote: ' AYES• COlIl~fISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. NOES: . -.COrIliISSIONERS: ,None. ABSENT:' COMNIISSIONERS:. Seymour;` VARIANCE N0. 2168 -'Mr. Lowry adviaed the Commission that the City Attorney had advised (Continued) ; him a tie vote would.mean the motion passed only if all Commissioners were,present and one or more Co~issioners abstained from voting; however, in_this instance the voting would have to be held over to the next meeting for the.Co~ission again to act on it. Furthermore, no further action was necessary b~~the>Commissi•on exc~pt that the Conanission Secretary achedule this item for.voting consid~ration at the nexE public hearing. - ~ REPORTS.l1ND - ITEM iVO. 1 I RECOIIl~IENDATIONS ~,CANDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 941 -(Greek Orthodox Church . of Orange County) - Request for extensfon of time for temporary use.of existing structure for church offices, a language school,:and limited church services - Property located at 405 North Dale Avenue. Assistant Zonfng Supervisor Malcolm.Slaughter presented to the Commission a requeat from the Greek Orthodox Church"of Orange County for a three-year extension of time for the use of property located at 405 North Dale Avenue, midway between Crescent and Lincoln Avenues, for the use originally approved, namely, temporary church of£ices, a language school, and limited church services in an existing residential structure. It was £urther noted that the time limitation e;r~ires in May, 1970, and the letter from the petitioner indicated their building,program for the church would not begin until approximately 1973, and the existing home was needed for administrative offices and language achool facilities. Commissioner Thom offered a motion to grant a three-year extension of time for the use of property approved ~or temporary church offices, a language school,and limited church services under Conditional Use Permit No. 941, said time limitation to expire May 8, 1973. ' Commissioner Heibst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ' . I ITF1~i N0. 2 CONDITIONAI. USE PERMIT N0. 1022 -(Herco Properties, Inc.) - Request for extension of time - Property located on the east side of East Street, approximately 360 feet north of Lincoln Avenue. Aasistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter presented a request from Herco Properties, Inc., for an additional six-month extension of time in order.to comply with conditions of Conditional Use Permit No..1022, to establish a walk-up restaurant on subject property. It was further noted that none of the conditions of the resolution had been met; that two previous exteasions of time had been.granted, the lest having expired on Januarq 10, 1970; and that at the,time the first extension was granted the Plaaning Commisaion required that the petitioner offer a 40-foot dedication along Eest Street within sixty days of Februaryi0, 1964 ~ however, this dedication had never been made. Therefore, if the Co~nission deter- ~' mined that an additional extension of time were warranted, this extension of time should ~I be granted subject to street dedication within sixty days of the Planning Co~nission action. I - ( ~ Discussion was held bq the Commissian relative to the fact that the petitioner had not ; offered the dedication under the original time extension, and if said dedication were Ya: ~ obtained within sixty days, the petition should be considered null and void. .,,: ,, . . . _ . . _ .. _. , _::. _.., t <; . . . . . . . . « .: , . . . .<. h ~ . ' . ~~ 7rl ~ ~ . . ~ . . ~ - . ' ' . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CONIl~fISSION,. Apri1 6 '1970 y . . , . . . . . . . . . 50Q8 ' ' REPORTS AND:; ~ ItECOZAIENDATIONS = ITEM N0. 2 (Continued) , ~ Co~nissioner-.Farano July 10, 1970 fon , offered a motion to grant a six-month extension of time, r•~ ~Ra~.~,_.~. C di o ~~ , days of this :date on ti nal Use Permit No, 1022, subject to dedication,w4s..~3:~1~a ~;an: f~ said extension t b n F . ,, ~:that time,;and the o e ull and void if dedication were nR: ~~~c? ~~f;z,f_y;;. conditional use_pe=mit would then automaEically be te m ' ~ = ~, Commissioner Herbst , r ii,..t ~ . seconded.the motion. -MOTION CARRIED. s ' ` Chairman Rowland le the cheir. ' ft Ehe Council Chamber at 5:20 P,M. Chairman pro tem Herbst assumed - ITEM N0, 3.. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 802 -(American West Nuraing Centers) - Weatern Pennsqlvania National Bank of Pittsburgh - Request for approval of storage space proposed beneath the teanis courts in a co~on;storage room"having 24,000 cubic feet (240 units x 100 cubic feet) on.property located vest of Harbor Boulevard north , and south of Wilken Way and east and west of Mallul Drive - Property zoned R-3. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter presented a request from the developers of a 240-unit apartment complex located on Mallul Drive and Wilken Way to approve a coa~on storage room having 24,000 cubia feet - the equivalent of 240 storage cabinets 100 cubic feet in size - based on the fact that because of the structural characteristica of the proposed parking structure, the contractor for this project ata• ' it would be very diffi- ault,to provide the required storage cabinets conveniently nea= .~.~. parking spaces; said common storage to be located beneath the fennis courts. Furthermore, although Code. paro~itted the location of storage facilities conveniently located to parl~ing facilities, it did not specifically,allow a common room as a substitute; therefore, staff requested that the Commission.determine whether the proposal was an appropriate means of providing storage space for residents of this apartment complex. Mr, Ben Ruckell, representing American West, appeared before the Co~ission and briefed the Commission on t~he proposal to establish a storage room having an entry from the lower level of the parking structure, entry would be only with an attendant from the Manager's office, with each tenant having.an ID card;.and that approval was needed for storage in order to obtain a buiTding permit for the parking structure. Considerable discussio~s was held by the Commission, staff, and Mr. Ruckell regarding the proposal, summed up as follows; 1) possibility of theft if common storage facilities were provided; 2) need for more than the minimum 24,000 cubic feet if atorage lpckers were provided in the co~on storage room; 3) need for more apace than the mfnimum cormnon storage room, since it would be impossible for tenants to gain access to thei~r property if no corridors, etc. were provided~ 4) provide lockable storage lockers having a minimum 100 cubic feet each for all but the bachelor units; and providing a general sCorage room for all the bachelor units, the area of said bachelor apartment storage to be equivalent ~ of the sum of 100 cubic feet for each bachelor unit - plus sufficient area for access aisles; and thst access to said bachelor storage area would be gained only bq way of an ~ attendant from the.Manager's'uf£ice to persons having ID cards. Commissioner Farano recommended to the agent that he contace a~arehousing authority to present his storage probiems - to determine his storsge needs for the co~on storage area. At the conclusion of the discussion, the Commission determined that the storage proposal would meet the basic inteat of the zoniag ordinance; how~ever, certain dr_tails must be worked out in terms of exact areas necessary to meet storage and acces~s requirements, and that said plans should be submitted to the Development Services P,epartment for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit for the storage structure. Furthermore, based upon this determination and the fact that the developer stipulated to pursuing a solution to the storage requirement, the staff is authorized to issue the building permit for the parking structure. ITEM N0. 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1109 -(Frank and Loretta Krogman) - Request f~or interpretation by the Planning Commission as to whether the use approved would permit a beer bar and sale of sandwiches - pcoperty located in a shopping center located at ,the southwest corner oE Magnolia Avenu~ and La Palma Avenue. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts presented a request from the attorney Por the prooo4ed lessee of property located in the shopping center at the southwest corner of Yagno:ia _ _ ._. ...... ... ~ Q ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNiNG CO1~AiISSION, April 6, 1970 5099 REPORTS AND :. . RECO1~AiENDATIONS - ITII~i:NO. 4 (ConEinued) and La Pa1ma Avenues approved by.:the Planning Commission on Apri1 7,.1969, in Resolution No. PC69-71,.permitting on-sale.beer and wine ~n conjunction`with a restaurant, for an interpretation,as.to whether or not this would allow operation of the premises as a beer bai or hofbrau type operaEion serving beer and sandwiches.' Mr. Odra Chaadler,'.608 South Harbor Boulevard,.attorney representing the proposed lessee °r,of the exisEing restauran~:appeared before'the Co~nission and noted that the conditions ',of approval;!required development in accordance with;plans; that the use of the property 'had been basically.for a beer bar rather than a restaurant - therefore, his request was for Ehe Commission's"interpretetion of.the original approval £or aubject property, and would it permit:a h6fbrau type operation; that the only problem he could visualize other than-this was with the Alcohofic Beverage Control Board in the fact that approval of the wine.and°beer was subj~ct to sale in codjunct~on with a restaurant; and that since the operation had not,been as originally approved by the Co~ission, his request was for this clarification.• Diacusaion was held by She Co~nission as to the original intent and commitments made by the petitioner, it being determined that the Co~nission approved the on-sale beer and wine in conjunction with the restaurant with leas than.z5% kitchen area on the basis that the petitioner had proven the 21% proposed was adequate to serve her needs and the type of food, mainly broiled fooda, which would be served'in this reataurant. Mr. Chandler not~d that the staff felt they could not interpret the Commission's reason . for approvel,on thg basis of the reaolution although the minutes did indicate the dis- cussion.by the Co~nission. Further diacussion was held by the Commiasion, staff, and attorney for the representative, and upon its conclusion the Cou~ission advised Mr. Chandler that a new conditional uae permi`t would have.to be filed since their original approval was based upon the applicant's requeat to have:on-sale beer and wine in conjunetion with a restaurant, whereas a hofbrau type operatiaz~ r.~ould not be considered in the same interpretation as a restaurant. No furEher acEion was ea3cea by the Co~ission. 2TEM N0. .5 Amendmetyf td.Title 18 relative to animal ordinances currently in effect fo~ all residential zones. Zoning Supervisor Charles Rober~$ noted~for [he Commission that a report had been sub- mitted to them regarding the p.roptasal to revise the General Provis3ons and Definition sections o:f the Anaheim Mu~ticipal Cbde since Chapter 8.08 contained the adoption of Orange County ordinances pertaining to the keeping of dogs and other domeatic animals, and the City contracted with the C6unty for enforcement of this section of the Code; that the proposed amendment to the Anaheim Municipal Code was written in such a way to complement and clarify Chapter 8.08, and there were no apparent conflicts - therefore, if the Commission concurred in the proposed revisions, it was recou~ended that Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapters 18.04 and 18.08, be set for public hearing. Co~issioner Allred offered a-motion to direct the Commission Secretary to set for public hearing conaideration of amendment to Title 18, Chapters 18.04, General Provisions, and 18.08, Definitions, of the Anaheim Municipal Code for April 20, 1970. Cormnissioner Farano seconded the motioa. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT - There being no furCher business to discuas, Commissioner Thom offered a motian to adjourn the meeting. Co~nissioner Gauer secor.~ed the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 6:12 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~~~ ~.~o~ ANN KREBS, Secretary . Anaheim City Planning Commission f `~3 i I '~ I "3 i j '::'., ~ ~ :~ , :~ ,~ :, ~ 'a `~ _ 'i~ , si