Minutes-PC 1970/06/15- ^ : -v.>" Ks::TMiY}ilrr:-~`?~! :.4.'"'v. ~~.~''`=S'~'.~`. `~; - _ 1 '~e ~'~ ~
'.:"; .- ~.:,: ... . .
.,,. , _. .. ..:r ~., ..:. _' r _ .~ .... . _ . _ .
- ':, ~.~. ,:, ~i. :... .. ~ Q . . . .
MINUTES, CITY PLANrTING'COrAfISSION, June 15, _1970 - 5183
RECI1lSSIFICATION =~fronting on Ball Road on^which th"e City Council originally establiehed
`. N0.:69-70=59 ' a reaolution.of intent for,C=1'zoniag in conjunction with;the<proper-.
(Continued) ties:'on both;sides'of Webster Avenue,;and since pioperties to the wesE,
` ~ ~~ north and east vere developed.or approved for;development for R-3
zoriing, the,;commercial~.zone would not'be compatible: (See Resolution
' Book)', . '~ . ~;
On roll call therforegoing resolution.was•passed by the following votes .
AYES: , COI~IlfISSIONERS: 'Allred,' Herbst,. Kapwood, Seymour.'
~NOES'; '. ., COPAfISSIONERS: ~, Rowland~.
ABSENT:' ~CO1~IIfISSIONERS.:,:Farano; Gauer.
,
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. .RAYMOND DINIQ.ER, 520 North Rio Vista Street,
NO 69=70-56. Anaheim, California;.0~er;.MODULAR TECHNOLOGY;'INC;, 1104 East l7th
"'~ " Street,,Santa Ana, California, Agent;_property described as: An
VARIANCE N0, 2176 "irregularly shaped.parcel of land consisting'of approximately 25 acrea
locateH at,the eoutheast corner of Rio Vista Street and Frontera Street,
TENTATIVE MAP OF having approximate frontagea of 1,OOQ feet on:Rio.Vista Street and
TRACT.NO.• 7218 1,360 feet on Frontera Street, and further deacribed as 520 North Rio "•
__
Viata Street. Property presentlq'clasaified R-A(0), AGRICULTURAL (OIL'
TENTATIV~.MAP OF PRODUCTION)`ZON$..'_
TRACT N0:': -7219
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION:: R-3,.MULTIPLE-PAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED'_VARIANCE: WAIVER OF,MIIVIMUMrREQUIRED IANDSCAPED SETBACK TO ESTABLISH AN
' 89-LOT, FOUR-PLSX CONDOMINIUM"SUBDIVISION.. `
i. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST:: DEVELOPER:.. MODULAR:TECHNOI.OGY, INC., 1104 East 17th Street,.
Santa Ana,,Califoraia. ENGINEER: Williamson & Schmid,
1535 EasE 1sY Streef,'Santa Ana;' CaTifornia.'
- Trect No. 7218..proposes the subdivfsion..of the westerly
15:9 acres of!subject property into,52:R-3'aoned lota.
,
~ TLact No. 7219
propoaes the subdivision of the easterly
9.2 acrea of subject property into 37 R-3 zoned lots.
Subject petitioas were continued',from the meetin of M
a 18
$ y , 1970, to allow time for
the petitioner ta submit data requeated by th~ Commisaiori and to provide sevised plane
'indicating'more open recr~eation area and proviaiona for children:
`Zoning Snpervisor Charles Roberts revieved the location of subject.property, usea estab-
`lished ia,cloee proximity, and the propoesl to reclasaify subject property to the R-3
2one to develop a condominium_project on a 25-acre parcel, together with the vaivers
' requeeted Eor the tracte submitted vith the propoeal.
Mr..Roberts then revie~aed the seasonefor continuence of sub~ect petitione and thn
Co~ission'e coo~ents as to what they considered acceptable for developmesit of aubject
property,and the fact that the Co~niesion.wae desirous of having a more complete explana-
tion of the manner in.which the aesociation would better control~through regulationa~the
number and.type of residents,and the assurance that the association could guarantee the
proposed deyelopment would not turn into a ghetto environment, and to reaolve the
responaibility;of maintenance of the-common area. Furthermore, the Commisaion aleo
requeeted conaideration of redesign, with the-possibility of developing cluster-type
houeing, relocating the east-west.atreet further south, adjacent to`the achool park
eite and a;change in density for the.property;bordering Rio Vista Street eo that it
~ would be more compatible with,the R-1 homes exiating to_the weat;.that said plaas had
~ beeri received by the etaff, which indicated the developers were proposing private patioe
for three of'the four unite on the lot, with.the.balcony having a second-floor porch
which would suffice for a.private patio area; and that the peCitionera had indicated
~. they would have an expert preaent at the meeting to diecuss population make-up and other
matters of concern.to,the Co~ission. -
Commisaioner_Gauer entered the Council.Chamber at 2:15 P.M.
Mr,:rRoberta then distributed data from Modular Technology which vas proposed to be.
revieved by the representative of Development Reaearch Associatea.
Chairman Rawland noted that the report basically covered by the firat two pages wae
pertinent to subject petitions, while the balance of the report vas justification that
the bevelopment Research Aasociatea had the ability end background to present auch a
report. ;Furthermore, theae firet two pages subaEantiated the poaition taken by the
agent for the petitioner at the last public hearing - as he underetood it, the peti-
tioner stated that the unita were too small and were not planned for a major influx
~
~ . ~
MINUTE$~,; CITY~ PLANNING. COI~AfISSION, June 15, 1970
± t r i~.`v ~: } . ,~,
1 6
~
518,4.
.,..~ .
RECLASSIFICATION - of children, and then inquired of.the Commission whether that.was
N0. 69-70-56 their.understanding.~ ;
VARIANCE N0. 2176 Co~issioner Seymour noted that in addition to both statements, the ~~
socio=economic levels of the people expected to live in these unite
TENTATIVE MAP OF would not be the level"that would eake these square footage of units,
TRACT N0..7218 and thia would"preclude the posaibility of theee reaidents living in
' the units when the'#amilies became larger - thus they wauld move to
TENTATIVE MAP OF larger facilities.
TRACT N0. 7219
(Coatinued) Mr. Ra1ph Jensen, Executive Vice President of Modula* Technology, Inc.,
the agent for the developer, appeared before the Commisaion and noted
they were the develapers of subject property; that the qualifying
data presented to the Co~ission'wae`aubmiEted for their body to glean some idea that
the research firm was qualified to make thia study; and that Mr. J•. Nattelson would
expand on thia report and on v!rrious types of experiencea with this type of development.
Mr. J. Nattelson, Senior Aeaociate with Economic Associates in Los Angeles, appeared
before the Co~ission and stated they were primarily involved in real eatate economics;
that they were esked by Modular Technology to research and evaluate the housing concept
preaented to the Commisaion; that without going into a lengthy explanation, he Would
attempt to si~arize on a point basis their findings and conclusions, and in this regard,
in their recent investigations had looked into a aeries of housing concepts throughout
California and the western United States in general, in which they had been asked to
offer their judgments and opinions in regard to questiona the Commiasion had raised at
their last meeting, and with thia in view, he would open the diacussion, being available
to answer any questions the Commission might have at any time.
Mr. Nattelson further noted that they had looked into the competitive type developments
as to both general price renge and concept within California, together with other
detrimental factora in other areas; that the most competitive facility they could find
was the ~cKeon project, a four-plex complex.in Sacrawento, which had the advantage of
both being representative as to the type of project as that before the Commiasion and
being in operation for six yeara.
Chairman Rowland inquired,how Mr. Nattelson justified the comparison of Sacramento and
Anaheim on a population profile, income and eocio-economic profile.
Mr. Nettelson replied that he found Sacramento to be a major urban aector vith major.
employment centers located in close proximity to the development; ti~at SacramenCo wae
a growing area - hwever, it could not be compared with Anaheim and other areae in
Orange County; that it was aimilar in the sense of employment; population, growth and
living cycle type; and Chat in Sacramento there wae a prolilem of land availability for
R-1 housing as approached to the McKeon project and others of thia type in trying to
alleviate the situation and find n~ew forms of houeing to satisfy the housing needs.
Mr. Nattelson, in reeponse to Co~iaeion questioning, stated he did not have the popula-
tion profile data betWeen Sacramento and Anaheim with him; however, in the income profile
of Sacramento - when one talked about apecific types of houeing, this automatically
2imited the diecusaioa as to incomes of the purchasers of theae units.
Chairman Rowland noted that from statementa made he would assume what Mr. Nattelson
wae attempting to say wae that the population and income profile goal whiZh Chey wished
to reach in Anaheim did not necesearily exiat in this.area at the present time.
Mr. Natteleon replied that this was not neceesarily so, but it was a question to coneider,
and what he was diacussing vas housing types per ee, which did have a definite appeal'isi
other areas where it had been tried ae it pertained to certain aocio-economic levele and
profiles; that there were elements of these typea of buyers in Orange County, but they
did not knoW whether that same type of person would be attracted to thia epecifia area;
and•that tnie xae the area for the Commiaeion to decide. Furthermore, he wae attempting
to preeent an example of a type of housing concept that had been tried over a Feriod of
time so as to eliminate the question of children, etc., that might be found; that the
experience in Sacramento indicated initially the purchasers of theae units were divided,
with 50% being singl~ pereons, 35% couplea without children, and 15% of the original
purchaeers being families with one or two children; that they were limited in the
initial". purchaee arrangementa by the F.H.A. to no more than two children, and initially
there vas only 15% of the purchasers having children; that the average buyer age was
42 years for the entire project; and that the 85% - singles and couples without children -
was predominant in all ratios. Furthermore, the queation now vas vhat had happened during
the past eix yeera in terms of family eize, taking couples with no children possibly
having three or four children, and after analyzing the neweet data, a very interesting
aspect of thia phaee indicated no change, and the McKeon Company maintained very accurate'~
atatiatical date becauae they were running a very active program eleewhere in California,
, ~ :. ~. ~: ~~~1
>, ~ f ;:~'' -
~ ~ ~ ; - y~ ..
~~t
. . . F .~. .~ .n..~, .. ~.~. .. ~ ~ . ~_ . .. .
~_ ~
~
,r, ., Q.y .. . ; ~ ~ . . ~ - . ~ . .
~~Y
'~MINt1TES; CITY PLANNING COIIl~fISSION, June 15, 1970 5185
REQLASSIFICATION - and through these atatistics it was determined that tHey found data
N0. 69-70-56 which remained;amezingly constant; that the general pattern for young
couples moving in with one or no children indicated they moved out
VARIANCE NO. Y176 when the second child was born, but there were no reporta o£ more
` than t~o chiidren in this facility at the present time - if this were
TEIITATIVE MAP OF so, this would be the-exception rather thaa the rule;~- therefore, they
T~iACT N0, 7218 experienced no increase in the number of children according to their
reporta.
~'TENTATIVE:MAP'OF
"TRACT'N0,.7219` Mr, Nattelson the-; noted that one of the main factors to consider was
(Continued) that the physical nature of the Sacramento development had been
exemplary as far as they could gather from opinions of the city
officials and others throughout the neighborhood who were involved;
fhat'the deyelopment was bery well maintained over the past aix yeara and had become an
example of a.model housing coacept, which had a meaningful effect upon C'luet~r^housing
liying because the association had taken,the burden of maintenance chores from the
individual homeowner, thereby guaranteeing that the neighborhood would be maintained
in a fine physical appearance which seemed to tiave an unusual effect upon the homeowners
who paid t~etween $15 and $20 per month in sosta for thia maintenance;, and the amount
varied by unit and by project.
Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether the $175 figure quoted included the maintenance
cost, or was the maintenance coat an additional amount which the owner had to pay.
Mr. Nattelson replied that':the maintenance cost was included in the $175 monthly payment;
that the income levels ranged from $9,000 to $12,500 for the buyers who were young
married, professiona,l, or working people using these unita as alternatives for small,
aingle-family homes which could be purchased a number of years ago, and were also uaing
thie as a meana of accumulating equity for more suitable facilities in the future when
the children arrived.
Co~iasioner Kaywood inquired whether the situation in Sacramento existed whereby there
were apartments available.
• Mr. Nattelson replied that at_the time theae unita were placed on the market there was
a slight oversupply of apartments; however, there was no doubt this type of unit had
some type of an overZap demand for a particular type of apartment dveller,:'.no6 ao::much
as to the living style, but because o# the coat involved end the co~on sense that it
seemed to make to thia type of market it appealed to. Furthermore, many were young, well
educetldccouples.
Commisaioner Herbet inquired whether the aite in Sacramento was adjacent to a school;
vhereupon Mr. Nattelson replied that it was not directly ad~acent to a school, but a
achool was near by.
Commisaioner Herbst noted that one generally found that older people were not desirous
of purchasing apartmeAts that were adjacent to a school or a park.
Mr. Nattelson concurred, stating that this was likely becauae of the noiae element.
Co~iasioner Herbst then noted that when one was comparing sitea it wae necessary to
have comparable conditions, and it was hia opinion the Sacramento development could
not be compared with the location proposed for the Anaheim development.
Mr. Nattelson noted that the higheat ratio of families with children or without children
in comparing this in the McKean project was a 1:1 ratio, with half,not having children
and the balance having one or two children, and that the maximum situation had occurred
in other areae other than the Sacramento project - however, with limited experience
available and with a review of the other McKeon. developments, even this ratio had tended
to remain constant as these buyers upgraded their living habits, and in no inatance did
they see any trend tor,ard expanding aize of the family, and this could 'ue attributed
primarily to the size of the unit. Also, one must consider that the diacusaion presented
had involved very stable, aocio-economic levels with buyers having salaries ranging from
$9,000 to $12,500,'and theae people were not willing to accept cramped living quarters
which a 950-square foot, two-bedroom apartment would do; that theae facilities s~,;ild not
be for minimal income families who had no alternative but to stay in these apartments
for one reason or another; and that these buyers must have had a goal in mind when the
units were purchased, and th3a was to upgrade their living facilities at the nearest
opportunity, transferring to single-family homea or some other form, and with thfs
documentation in mind, their company could see no danger that the proposed facilitv in
Anaheim would generate any more children, although the propoaed pro~ect would not have
the same profiles as that in Sacramento - but they did feel it was a relatively sophis-
ticated form of housing which appealed to a limited variety of high level, a0aio-economic
,,,..
, -x ~.~.^
? , j',' _ ,~~ .i,, .
,:~ ~+
~r ~ 'r/ ~TrS~ : ~u~ . tY dOsP.. ,y, ~,. a.~ -s ~'ts++r "'r t a i
1~ ~: F t~ .w. s~ t3°( ''h 3-, •.~~ ~' ,tw -~"'~i~. e '~ ;~,r r~'. t l~~ ti~r 'h F t y,. r r je ._ ~L k" ~"
-~ ~ .. ~ fs . . ~1 ,G,~ a~ S }~~y,~ ~,Z~.''i~'`F~ ~~' ~ t . fi q } ,~"., . 5 ..._ ~
~~S'::i~`~~.G~ ~ ..1~'i ~'~tBJ. S.1'~-tr'F~'~,~~f~+~! -l~ 1~}~ ~'~~ t '~~ . e. ~ *1 - -
'~~ '~S- arz t. 1.~i . ~"G*~ ~ ~,.... .: h~rr .r,:- { \
~ `r ~ ~
.~
MIN[JTES,` CITY PLANNING COI~ff~tISSION,'.7 ~ 5;" 1970 5186
,1..'.
,RECIASSIFICATION - group and did not have in it the inherent dangers that might be
N0. 69-70-56'. ,suggested by some'of the Commissioners?. co~ents.
- - VARIANCE:NO.•a1T,6 One more consideratioa, Mr. Nattelson noted, was the effective manner
'` in whicti the MeKeon Company controlled the size of families with
TENTATIVE MAP OF children,'and this was done,primarily thrnugh initial me~chandizing
' TRACT-NO, 7218 " 3n the aense tilat•they stressed to •the peuple in the beginning that the
~ units were`limited in size,`that,they were not the most convenient
TENTATIVE MAP OF for large familiea and'in this manner putforth`~tPegi~roaacept i~ediately;
TRACT N0:-7219 --: that the units were not designed for large families, and without having
.(Continued) the advantages of large, well-equipped recreation areas,on the site,
those families with.a number of chil3ren would tend to.be discouraged.
from•~purchasing these units, and:apparently it was working and the
J~•mixes,d,~d help; that they.basically felt`this type.of unit ahould be considered by the
..•.Commissian regardless'of how the Co~uission felt as to the proposedr.Bfte aince it had a
real value as alteinative'housing-thet-was,replacing the R-1 residence in the moderate
income level at this time, and;poes3:uly in five years the existing R-1 type facility
would be-obsolete and the proposed eype wc~uld be the type of housing that:would be offered,
which would be a way of:filling.a real N~using need; that this proposal was providing
suitable units with some green a.rea.aqd ~ith new planning concepts behind it on a cluster-
type basis; and that`they generally,felt the present single-family hous~ing preaented on
the market would:be the last of a~oncept which did more overall harm to a city in the
appearance of the neighborhood than a well-planned, modern concep~ such as was being
proposed.
Commissfoner Seymour inquired if Mr. Nattelson was familiar with the proposed development
as.to ita layout - how did it compare with fhe ~icKeon Sacramento and San Joae developments
aince it appeared it would be laid out in a grid form rather than a cluster group such as
the MCKeon SacramenEo and San Jose developments were suggested:
Mr. Nattelson replied there was a difference between this proposed development and the
MeKean developments; however, the MeKeon developments were laid out in.sections of grid
and cluster'because of their size, but most were cluster type, and the predominant element
i.n tbe:M+~Heon•developmenta:was•the sttachments tietween.th~,:unft~-•and~~v~ait6ue::: sections of the
element by •pads and green belts and`the availability.of the open area to all of the units.
-0ommissioner Seymour noted his second question was the price range and financiag of the
M¢Reiom:"developments since Mr. Nattelson indicated the Sacramento project was financed by
F.i.H.A.'- could he recall the specific aection of the F.H.A, code this project was financed
under.
Mr. Nattelson replied he was not aure of the section of the F.H.A. code - however, the
San Jose project had standard financing through private•ftnanCtal institutions.
Coa~issioner Seymour then inquired as to a comparison figure of the price range since
$16,000 was quoted for Sacramento and San Jose, and he wanted thia figure compared with
the eame figure in Anaheim.
Mr. Nattelson replied that the $1b,000 figure covered a two-bedroom, two-bath unit which
brought paymenta to $175 per month; however, the price range for Anaheim could be conaider-
ably higher only becauae of the general econosaic dffference o~eth•e~~p3pniatiioa'.and^.tRe~:land
cost involved as to the general concept, but with the difference in market and market
demands, these unite could be expected to be upgraded.
Co~issioner Kaywood then inquired whether or not with the present inflated interest rate,
would the $175 per month still include the cost and maintenance or was it in addition.
Mr. Nattelson replied that the price of $160 per unit was the payment applied to the
purchase price, and $15 to $20 per month - depending upon the type of unit - made up the
difference in the $175, and that this covered maintenance of streets, pools, gardens,
etc., which had proven to be a sufficient amount to cover the maintenance; that the units
and their physical appearance was something someone would have to see since it was con-
siderably better than many R-1 homes in this general price range.
Co~issioner Kaywood then inquired whether or not in the Sacramento development when the
owners moved out, was there any record ae to whether or not these units were difficult
to sell.
Mr. Nattelson replied that re-sale was through the McKeon Develop~ent Company who main-
tained recorda on re-sales, and these re-sales had been very healthy with a waiting list; ~
that in a:ae~rnnit:in the Newberry Park area in San Fernando Valley 80 units were pre-sold, i
and they had a five-month waiting list to pick up the units as they were built, and the (-----
purchasers of these Newberry Park units had been profesaional people or young working ~
; _
~"7~r~-r~ "f v-i'FC~,~`.~'x ~.3;~ny~~. n.y~j, , ~ ~~-~~y~wf `'nj,~;7p-.L~# } ~ ~~c .. ,r`"1~~ .~ 3 } , in_,."
t' .,~ ~` x ~" _ gl~ >~ . f ~~ x fS' ~ 1'a ~ ~ t _ ~.
;,~`~t :..,y:t`,`i'`r?:". ba c{,F,Mi'v:'S`'"'.~~~..j;'~},~, s{~ ~'~r''`.~' {rn s..?n`f' r'`.~~ y ~ ~ ~ -~~ .~.
. . ' ' Ja.X d .9C~.f': ~'~ .n ~` . {, ~ r c> ~
. ~ ~ ~. - ~ . . _ .__.." - :~f t.4r
~ .. . ~ ;~ ~:.":. . , L~ .
k. MINUTES; CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1970 . ~~
_ . 5187
RE¢LASSIFICATION -•couples looking foY housing in this generel price range.since their
N0. 69-70-56 feeling was"this could be an opportunity to save some money as they
' had been paying.top dollar for rental of other housing, aad for the
VARIANCE N0. 2176 money involved, it was equivalent to better housing. Furthermore, it
' provided an equity to be built up and there would be no.loss if these
TENTATIVE MAP OF apartmenta.were sold - therefore, it was his feeling there was no
TRACT N0: 7218 problem as to re-,sales in-the Sacramento and San Joae projects.
TENTATTVE MAp OF Mr. Jensen again appeared before the Commission and noted they were '
TRACT N0: 7219 asked by the Co~nission to xeview the proposed development to determine
(Continued) if there were a possibility of redeaigning the project, and as a result, -j'
they had contacted the PlacenEia School District in reference to their ~'`:';
preference in the.location of the ~ast-west atreet and had been adviaed
` by the school;district that the.present layout was satisfacto for their ~
Secoridly, they had asked to be permitted to have acceas to the school sitepf omsthree
` cul-de-sac streets; which they agreed'upon but requested a 6-foot masonry wall at.YGhe~::e-
pedestrian openin~s at said cul-de-sacs and these openings should have,~no.nffcHiled gates
which could be locked by the achool on holidays.
~ Mr. Jenaen furthez noted that they had had meetings reg~rding the location of the east-
west street with the Engineering Department and a meeting with the developer of the trailer
park.Eo the east, said meetinge indicating there seemed Co be ooncern as to the drainage
of the'area,.and it was their determination that the overall drainage coming through
suhject property, if developed as proposed, ahould be divided - some being drained to
Jackaon Avenue and possibly a drainage area set up and some type of a cu2vert constructed
along the south property line adjacent to the school property.
Another item the Commission requeated, Mr. Jensen continued, was the assurance of perpetual
care which would be meaningful and lasting, and this could be taken care of through dis-
cusaions between their attorne~s and representatives of the.'City Attorney's office, and it
was his understanding that the City Attorney's office had agreed that the developers could
set up this perpetual arrangement, and if the Commisaion were desirous of further infor-
mation from their attorrEys, they were preaent. Finally, the revised plans also indicated
the addition of patios for three of the four units.
Commiasioner,Herbst inquired how the developer proposed to handle the parking where the
l:l garage ratio was provided and two spaces would be jointly owned by four individual
parties; whereupon Mr. Jensen replied that these would be jointly owned, and it would be
a matter of educational thinking; that they had checked this over with other types of
developments and there seemed to be no legal problem involved - however, there were aome
situations which could be handled within the structure of the covenants and reatrictions
inaofar as someone parking a boat or permanent trailer for an extended period of time.
Co~nissioner Herbst noted the`:parkirig requirement-' of ' 1'~ :spaces per :unit was for R-3
apartments; however, this was not the case since 2 spaces would be in joint ownership,
and since these apartments pere being sold to individuals, how did the developer propoae
to handle allocating these 2 parkiag spaces.
Mr. Jensen atated that the code required only 6 parking spaces per lot, and since the lots
were 70 feet in width, there would be additional parking available on the atreet.
Commissioner Herbst noted that when the City adopted the 1'~ garking spaces per unit, this
was under the assumption that a larger apartment complex would be under one ovnership
wherein the owner-manager could shift around these one-half spaces and allocate them
according to the need; however, with the proposed development many individual owners would
have tvo cars per unit, and the situetion would be similar to single-family homes.
Furthermore, when an apartment complex having 90 units was under one ownerahip, there
was considerably more flexibility as to the additional parking than could be provided
under the allocation of two spaces for four separate units.
Mr. Jensen atated that since this was part of the package deal, he could see no problem
since they had researched other similar developments which indicated no problems since
each apartment owner would have a deeded interest in the two parking spaces.
Chairman Rwland noted that the CC&Rs assigned to condominium developments were revised
to take care of these things, and he was sure the City Attorney could handle thia as part
of a project to the City's be8t interests.
Commiasiouer Allred noted he concurred urith the questions raised by Cou~issioner Herbst
since thia zepresented four individual homes owned by four people hawing to share two
parking spaces-- however, he felt that where units were owned by indfviduals they should
provide two parking spacea per unit, such as required of R-1 deveiopments because the
situation was similar, and it should be assumed that each family would have two cars
because of the lack of public transportation in the CSty of Anaheim, and many times
~
_ _. ~.._. _ , -
; ;. .
:
'. . ~ ~ . ~
'r ~ ~::. . .:
MINUTES; CITY PLANNING COtIl~fISSION, June.15, 1970 5188
~ECLASSIFICATION - where th~re.was a teenage child, this could 3ncrease the number of
N0.`69-70-56 vehicles to three.per unit - therefore, he wondered whether this
cauld be worked out in the CC&Rs.
VARIANCE N0. 2176
Commissioner Herbst noted that the purpose of requiring Rarking was
TENTATIVE MAP.OF to remove the vehicles from the street and from the propo,sed setup,
TRACT N0.-7218. _ this would not be done.
TENTATIVE MAP OF Mr. Roberts advised the:Commission than in initial discussions with
TRACT N0.-7219 the developers, based upon the character of the multiple-family
(Continued) development, the staff.felt the requirements for parking in the R-3
Zone were applicable -`however, since a variance was before the
Commission, they would have to deEermine whether or not the propoaed
parking could applyi
Commiasioner Herbst noted this could be true, where apartments were under one ownership;
. however, when the parking requirements were changed in the R-3 Zone it was not the intent
of the Cou~ission that condominium parking should be the same - therefore, he felt the
- developer had.not preaented a'.solution to.the parking problem in this condominium proposal,
. thus creating a considerable.on-street parking problem, and the Commission should not
consider creating a aituation which could be most undesirable.
Co~iasioner Seymour noted that at the last public hearing the Co~ission discusaed in
some detail the prablema rega;ding children, and Mr. Jensen had indicated F.H.A, had
some.limitation,as.it perEained to children in the form of financing and then inquired
under what section of the Government Code did this program:•occur.
Mr. Jensen replied this was Section 234 under~~~Condominiums~=wherein it stated that where
condominiums vere proposed as a designated program "space project" which is processed,
Chie muat meet the criteria under that program, and relating similarities under single-
family.housing, this was a 203 Program, and there were other subsidized programs -
however, he was not-familiar with them, and if the Co~nission were asking for the basics
of the program, he was not that knowledgeable es to this, but they had to proceas under
that program of mulEiple-family division of F.H.A.
Couunissioner Seymour inquire.3 whether or not the 234 Program provided.benefita for the
home buyers, auch as lower down payments, than the 203 Program; i~hereupon Mr. Jensen
replied there was no difference,to hia knowledge, in the ratio of down payment per $1,000
amount of loan, wheEher for multiple-family or single-family - prices would be depending
upon the value of the house, and it was no different thah he was aware of.
Co~tieaioner Seymour noted that the Commission also discussed at the last public he:aring
the feasibility of redeaigning the project to provide for "cluster type" housing - however,
the changes preaented to the Co~ission were only relative to three patios and an enlarged
walkway and inquired whether or not it was possible this project could be laid out similar
to the MaKeon project which Mr. Nattelson had referred to, so that e cluster type layout
housing was projected rather than the grid housing.
Mr. Jensen replied that the proposed development was a:.sim~lar layout to the ~leKean
project except he felt it was better;~that certain~aspetts•of•:rhe McRean aubdiviaion
were as the subdivision presented - however, this pro~ect had exceas apace which was
being devoted to a park area, and the McKeon project subdivided into lots and extracted
one lot on which.no four-plex would be built which would be devoted to a recreation area -
therefore, since there was extra apace and school grounds adjacent, as well as a f~ture
park, it was felt this would offer a large green area and open apace.
Co~issioner Seymour expresaed the opinion that perhaps Mr. Jensen miaunderatood him as
to vpe~7li~ge - what he had intended to say was whether or not the layout could be mede of
one to four units in closer arrangement with co~on paths leading to other clustera,
other than providing,the street cu2-de-sac and lining up the lota in rows; that the
cluster type arrangement provided a better type of aesthetic quality which was lacking
in the propa~d project - and inquired was it economically feasible to lay out the propoaed
~ development in the cluster arrangement.
Mr. Jensen replied that economics were tight, and it would take additional land and i
ground which would run the improvement coats up. Secondly, the success of this project i
had been simplification - simplification on how the unit was conveyed which aet on a
particular piece of property and maintenance of the unit - however, if the proj~ct got ;
a little out of line, t.hen the economics wotild••not follow, and thia was also one of the '
main reasona for not presenting the reviaed plans indicating this - simpliE~4ton laept
the program very clean. ,
THE HFARING WAS CLOSED,
~ ?~
., ,
F~e ~ { ~ „ x ~ - a " x~.. d`~ / ~. ~ .~ y ~ :. ~
:.K~i ~ .,,f'~< < ..~+p~~,~,r, l ~•~ ~ '
1~rL~iy~r~b.~r~ ~ ~~~ d
"
y ~ y
~1
~
>.
' ~
~ .
~~
.~
tl~ .
r
. . . _.
. .
-,...~. l. v.s .: F
Y ' 3 r•.`" , . ...
.
.,.. .., :. .
~
~
..,n ...
4' . ..
. . ~ .
... '..~ . ~. - .'. .... ~ . .. ~ . ...... .. . . "'`"-- '~~
~ _ . . . ~ . . - _
~~w~
' `~ ~ ( j
MINUTES, CITY.PLANNING CONAfISSION, June 15,.1970
5189
i RECIASSIFICATION - Commissioner.Seymour noted he concurred with Mr. Nattelson's concluding
N0
69-70-56 r
.
emarks regarding the:need for high'er-density_tesidential land uaes
such
th
;:
,
as
e condominium proposed to face the.rising land costs; however,
VARIANCE N0. 2176 the proposed development for thi
n
s area i
general did not offer the
architectural aesthetic valuea it could potentially provide, primarily
TENTATIVE MAP OF i
i
s
n
t
layout as it pertained to developments in this area, and would
TRACT N0. 7218. not be compatible.
~`
"j
` TBNTATIVE MAP OF Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC70-96 and moved for its
TRACT N0
7219 ~
.
passage and adoption to reco~end to the City Council that Petition
(Continued) for Reclasaificati
n '`
~ o
No. 69-70-56 be disapproved on the basis that
• the density was four times greater than the exiating densit
of the ~'
~
y
single-family homes to the weat, even though it would be acoeptable
as a density for the R-3 Zone - however, th
e ~~~'
es
would be treated as single-family unite,
thereby reducing the_effectiveneas of the required parking for multiple-family re
id
u
ti
a
l
d ~
~
a
en
aes;
a
n
creating a shortage in off-street parking; that the propoaed land use would be
aestheticall
unaccept
bl
y
a
e since the General Plan projected low-medium density for a
portion of subject
ope
pr
rty, with higher density awa, from the ezisting:.siiigle-family
residential uses; fhat approval of subject
ti
i
pe
t
on would piace an undue environmental
burden upon,the existing single-family homes; and that subject
ro
t
d
`
p
per
y, a
jacent to a
school and park, wouid be more ideally suitable foi single-family homes since the project
was
rop
d ~~
p
oae
primarily for adults, whereas a school and park were generally aesociated
with familiea, (See Reaolutios Book)
Prior'.to:a'.vote being taken, Cheirman Rowland noted that perheps this might be the only
way~available to th
, u
e Commission to deny sub,iect petition; however, the higher and limited
amourit of density was not:.neC~s6erily;~undesi=abie'~
a
'
o
~ ~'
• ~
s
,plrop
sed
t; b~t-•he paa:ioppo"aed':tio the
straight grid pattern projected, and that most of the eviden
d ?;
ce preaente
would be accept-
able for inclusion into the CC&Re for controll:Ln
g purposes. Furthermore
the plan pro-
posed
~'
,
was regressing to a former positi.on which the Co~ission was notedest~3us~:to~£ace;;
and that the petitioner
o
was pr
posing a density four times greater than single-family
uses, although fhe uae proposed would be aimil
ar to aingle-family - namely, sale of the
individual units creating additional problema as to ;.'-'
open space, green areas, and parking. ~
Commisaioner Herbst noted that aubject property could be developed in the manner propoaed,
but'it would be a ste
backward i
C I
p
n
ity planning. Furthermore, the propoaed type of
development,,if favorably considered, should require parkin
3
n a
d
g
.
ccor
ance with apacea
required in the R-T Zone, or at least oire covered and one uncovered space per unit.
Commissioner Kaywood noted that with the easy accesaibility of the elementary school and
the park site
thie
ro
t
,.
p
per
y would appear to be ideally auited for single-family residen-
tial development for families having child
ren rather than the proposed primarily adult
de~pialopmeitt;.:arf~hoat ~childIIen or with few children.
On roll ca11 the foregoing reaolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COrAIISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywoad, Seymour.
NOES
; COrIliISSIONERS: Rowland.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. i
Commisaioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC70-97 and mw ed for its passage and adoption
to deay'Petition for Variance No
2176
.
on the basis that the zoning was reco~ended for ~
disapproval, together with the fact that the la
out was
t
he
~
y
no
aeet
tically acceptable;
that it would be placing an environmental burdea on the single-famil
homes
th
t
k
~
ld b
y
;
a
par
wou
ing
e inadequate since these units would be sold and the required 1'~ spacea could not ~
be accomplished without legal documentati
f
on as to the ownership of the extra spaces.
(See Resolution Book)
i
~
On roll call the foregoing resolution wes pasaed by the following vote: ~
AYES; COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst Ka ood Se ~
' ~ . 3'mour, Rowland. j
NOES: COt4tISSIONERS
N
;
one.
ABSENT; COPIISISSIONERS: Farano. i
Co~issioner Herbst offered a motion to deny Tentative Map of Tract No. 7218, seconded
by Co~iasioner Seymour
and MOTIO
,
N CARRIED on the basis that since the zoning had been I
recou~ended for disapproval
aubdivision of th
,
e property in the manner proposed could
not be accomplished, j
Commieaioner Allred offered a motion to deny Tentative Map of 1~act No, 7219, seconded
~
by Co~iasioner Herbst
and MOTIO
,
N CARRIED on the basis that since the zoning had been
recommended for disapproval
subdivision of th
~ ,
a property in the manner proposed cou3d
not be accompliahed.
.~
t rl ~ ~
' c." F
;, T ~ r ~ '
. ._ ., . ,. . . ...` ~~ ~ . ~.
~ ~'~~+ /E I~' ~ ~~_ } .i~ ,,C'$ ~~i.'~ ., ~ ~ .'?* ~b
Ya?i t4 , ,~
S M^'~ 4 '~ ; ~ u ~ .; \' t C..
~
a ` 1 # t~ . ~ t. ~1i T
>.~ ':l . ~l r~ Y .:j"j ~ ~ ~ ~ .
,i~' 7
~ . . . ..
. . . .
. ~~f
Q, ~ ~ - ~ .
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMtiISSION, June 15
1970
,
5190
RECLASSIFICATION -
= Comm,;:,sioner Gauer was of the opinion that if~speciaY•r~~ortg:su'tiatanti- ,'
: N0. 69-70
% ating the position of the petitioner were proposed Eo be sulimitted to
-
VARIANCE N0
2176 the Commission. for consideration, these be presented as a part of the
. Report to the Co~iasion packet which is sent•:to the Co~ission rather
'
TENTATIVE MAP OF than submitted to the Co~ission at the public hearing si,nce this did
h
Co
on ``=
TRACT N0
7218 t
e
mmiasi
an injustice;beoause they would be unable to evaluate
. the evidence:fairly,and reco~ended to staff that this be made a part
of the future requirements. of any petition.
TENTATIVE MAP OF ._
'
TRACT N0. 7219 ~t
" :,?:
(Continved) `,
CONDITIONAL USE - PUSLIC HEp,RING.: FRANK KROGMAN, 1572 Clearview Lane, Santa Ana,
PERMIT N0. 1181 California,_Owner; JERRX.I,(~UB AND RALPH SLAYTON, 12581 Harbor Boulevard,
Garden Grove, California, Agents; requesting permission to PERMIT
ON-SALE BEER IN A PROPOSED BEER BAR WHICH WILL BE LIMITED TO ADULTS
ONLY on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land located eouth and
west of the southwest comer of I,a Palma and Magnolia Avenues, having approximate frontages
of 105 #eet on the south side of La Palma Avenue and 181 feet on the west side of Magnolia
Avenue, and further deacribed as 1024-31 North Magnolia Avenue. Property presently classi-
fied C-1, GENERAL COPQiERCIAL, ZONE.
Assiatant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property,
usea established in close proximity, the existing zoning on the property, and the proposal
to establish on-sale beer in a proposed beer bar limited to adults only.
Mr. Slaughter then reviewed previous action in April of 1969, at which time an on-sale
beer and wine license in conjunction with an existing restauraat was approved by condi-
tional use permit, and the Planning Commission at that time approved said petition on the
basis that the use would be an accessary use to the operation of the reataurant on the
premises - however, the petitioners, in submitting aubject.petitian, had indicated that
the conditional uae permit previously granted had not heen exerciaed in the manner
approved and was operating as a beer bar, which would.appear to be in violation of the~
conditions of approval of Conditional Use Bermit No. 1109.
Mr. Slaughter then reviewed the proposed plana to establish an 11-stool bar and three
separate tables seating four peraons each, together with two areas, 10 by 15 feet to the
rear of the bar for which no usage was indicated and a 9 by 10-foat tiled area exposed
to the publ±c; which could be used as a dance floor, although nothing was indicated on
the proposal. Furthermore, one the petitioners initially had indicated thay~wou~.d:•apply
for the beer and wine license from A.B.C. which would allow persoas under 21 to enter
the establishment, and subaequent discussions revealed that the petitioner now intended
to limit the facilities to only persons over 21 years of age. However, even further
discussion created considerable confusion as to whether the ~~faCt11Z3CS::::woald ~Be
limited to over 21 or not, and in light of this, the Coc~ission might wiah to discusa,
this maGter with the petitionera in some depth so that a clear understanding as to what
was actually proposed might be obtained for, future considerakion since the propoaed use
~tas located in what is essentially a neigtiborhood shopping center.
Mr. Odra Chandler, attorney representing the petitioners.and prospective purchasers of
the facility, appeared before the Coa~ission and noted that in April of 1970 he had
appeared before the Commission for clarification of the intended use of the property
uader the previous conditional uae permit, at wh3ch time the Commission indicated that
the use propoaed by his clients would not be similar to that approved under the previous
conditional use permit - therefore, a new petition would have to be filed since the
primary use would be on-sale been rather than the serving of food; that t:he proposed
operation would be similar to the "Humdinger" operations in Garden Grove, Be=na Park, and
Orange; that the limitation of over 21 was somewhat confusing, and thia limitation was '
undoub*_edly a atep taken by the City Council to regulate pornography in the City, and the
propoaed operators had been operating bara for some time and wanted their license from
A.B.C. to be in accordance with the use proposed - however, if this were a bona fide
eating establishment, then persona under 21 were permitted.
Chairman Rowland then inquired whether the petitioners' attomey propose that his clients
have the same privileges that were enjoyed by the previous owner; whereupo:~ Mr. Chandler
replied that hia clients were in escrow to purchase the property for the p:oposed opera-
tion, and their intent was to operate a beer bar - however, when they origi.nally checked
the existing operation it wae being operated as a beer bar, and only upon checking the
conditional use permit file did he determine that the operation was not utilizing the
conditional use permit as originally granted, even though the Commission did allow a
slight deviation from the 25% zequirement for food preparation area.
The Commission then inquired as to the method of operation and whether "go-go" girls were
~^:,.,.:
~ ~ ~ _ fi - ~i:'~t ~~'.f . .. ~ .
. ~ ~ N ` . . . . . `I
~- ~~ . . .. ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ -..~~ .
. - ' . . . , . . . ~ . .
MINUTES,;CITY.PLANNING COMMISSION,.June 15, 1970 •5191
_ ,
CONDITIONAL USE - planned;,'or would there be general dancing.;
PERMIT~NO: 1181
;(Continued) : Mr. Chandler replied flat all entertainers would be completely clothed;
~; that any of the entertainera would be selling beer:part of 'the time;
'. that he;was not sure this would be permitted under the present permit;
and~that:the entertainin
g.would be contrc,iled through;reco~endaEions'of the Police
Department to=the City Council.
Mr Ra1ph Slayton, one~of the agents.for the,petitioner and proposed`operator of the Ueer
bar, appeared-before:the Commission°and reiteraEed etatements made by:Mr, dhandler as to.
~.d'ancers'being~olotHed!and,being paxt-time:;enterEainers as well as•'serying beer to.patrons,
and in respect:;to the"Commission's`:questioning,,noted that the 9 by 10=foot area was only
extra space and,was;no't intended ae.a dance floor. In.addition, the City's'ordinances '
would-rr,quire an'approved entertainmant`permit which they did not have at the present time,
and this entertainment.permit would-apply,to.both'public dancing arid entertainment by the
girls,..and that it was'their intent to have a licenae to sell beer and sandwiches and
allow.biiliard playing: _ .,
The Co~iission noted that billiards attracted persons'under 21 years of age even though
' the door vould be posted;that peraons under 21:would not be permitted.
Mr. Chandler'noted that the requirements:would be for a bona fide beer and eating license -
an adult-only-licenae,wa,; not,being applied for, but in order to meet the City's require-
ments,,those under 21 would.not be.permitted, and signing that only persons 21 years of
age or older would be permitted would have to be poeted on the enErance.
Mr: Chandler, in reaponse to further Co~ission queationing, stated they were proposing
on-sale beer with the serving of food such'sandwiches and snacks as an accessory use for
subject;property; that they were.not the same petitioners as had been granted a previous
conditional use'permit for beer as an accessory use;:and that they were puxchasing the
operaEion from the previous petitioner, Judy Corsale.
No one appeared in oppoeition to subjeat petition.
'THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts, in reaponse eo Cos~ission questioning, stated that he ~
did not think Ehere were any complainte filed against the:exisEing operation. ~
Mr. Chaadler noted that if complainta had been filed, these reports would be filed with ~
the District.Attorney, Criminal Division, and A.B.C., and then the peraon operating the
faMlity would be given an opportunity to appear,before A.B.C. and/or the Criminal Court -
however, this did not.neceasarily cut off a hearing or a fine, and they would be allowed
to continue the hearing and discipline would be enforced in accordance with the appropri-
ate laws.
Co~iasioner Herbst inqui~ed that aince it was the City's requirement that under 21 not
be permitted, would A.B.C.'recognise the City's requirement or permit peraons under 21
to enter the premisea.
}
Mr. Chandler replied that it would be a violation of A.B.C. to violate the City's (
practices. ,
I
Mr. Dawson concurred that the conditional uae permit could be revoked iffinediately if it I
vere determined that persons under 21 entered the premises.
Commiseioner Herbst offered a motion to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1181
on the basis that the applicant wae not changing the operation although the existing ~
operation was in violation of the conditional use permit originally granted, and that the ~
use would not be detrimental to the area. ,
On roll call the foregoing motion loet by,a vote of four to two, Commissioners Herbst and I ~'
Rowland voting "aye". :~
,~
Commiasioners Seymour ard Gauer stated they were considering this petition as though it
were e new petition and not taking into consideration the previous conditional uae permit
granted.
Co~issioner Geuer offered Resolution No. PC70-98 and moved for its passage and adoption ~
to deny Pet£tion for Conditional Uae Permit No. 1181 on the basis that th.e approval of a i
beer bar in a small neighborhood shopping center would be deleterious to the area in
which it was proposed to be located, and that although a petition for the incidental `
sale of beer and wine had been granted previously in con~unction with a restaurant, ~ `.;
, .. --
I:
~.
. . . ~.i. . ~.~i
-,-r z : ti r
,•:i:
i. ~ :'.
~ ~ ~ ~~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COI~AfISSION, June 15, 1970 5192
CONDITIONAL USE - the fact that the petitioner_had violated the conditions of the
PERMIT N0. 1181 condifionel use p.ermit was not tantamount to approval of subject
(Continued) petition. (See Resolution Booi:;,
On roll cail the foregoing reeolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS; Allred, Gauer, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COPIIfISSIONERS:. Herbst, Rowland.
` ABSENT: C014fISSIONERS: Farano. ;;
VARIANCE N0..2180 - PUgLIC HEARING, MARY SCALZO BAILEY, c/o Chuck Chandler, Attorley,
„ 608 South Harbqu~ Boulevard, An~heim, California, ~wner; AD ART, INC.,
Tom Dunovan, 14365 Firestone Boulevard, La Mirada, California, Agent;
requesting WAIVERS OF (1) M~CIMf1M~?'pERMITTED SIGN DISPLAY ARFA AND (2) PERMITTED SIGN
LOCATION TO PERMIT A.FREE-STANDING SIGN on property described as: An irregularly shaped
parcel of land having a frontage of approximatexy 85 feet on the east aide of Harbor
Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approximately 600 feet, and being located approxi-
mately 710 feet north of the centerline of Freedman Way, and further described as 1570
South Harbor Boulevard. Property presenEly classified C-R, CO1~AlERCIAL-RECREATION, ZONE.
Asaistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of aubject property,
uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action on the property, and the
proposal to erect a new free-standing sign 57 feet in height, having a display area of
348 square feet - whereas Cade would permit only a 170-square foot sign becauae the
property had only an.85-foot frontage on Harbor Bo'iYlevard; that a field inapection
indicated that in addition to the existing free-standing sign, there~ias an additional
8-foot high by S~-foot wide, free-standing sign located at ground level, advertising
the credit card companies acceptable at this motel; that the petitioner indicated thet
. although the property had only an 85-foot street frontage, it was actnally 1,'0+ feet,
and if.the Co~iasion ruled against the petit£on, they would be penalizing the property
owner for the size and ahape of the parcel; that the staff in reviewing the meets and
bounds of the property_determined that the 170-foot width was based on the rear portion
of the property; that the frontage on Harbor Boulevard which the petitioner~i~~nded
was the location of an existing reataurant - the property also owned by'the petitioner~•-
tad:: the reatau;ant sign on said propertyfar~eacceededthe size eign permittpd by ordinance;
and that it would seem na evidence was submitted that any justification was warranted to
the claim of an additional 85-foot frontage in order to permit the propoaed sign,
Mr. Slaughter then reviewed articles from publications concerning urban prohlems which
used graphic illustrations oE the sign problem on Harbor Boulevard as tc ~xhat could happen
if signing were nor controlled - therefore, while there was no guarantee the area wortld be
more aeahhaticell~ ~resentable if the Sign Ordinance were strictly complied with, at least
the aigns would be more to scale with the developments they advertiaed. Mr. Slaughter
also noted that the petitioner further atated that the deaign and size of the sign
propoaed was n2cessary because of other existing dieplay in the area which wauld be a
graphic illustration of the aymptom which had•occurred frequently in urban.development
where one owner would obtain a variance from Code to permit a specific development not
normally allowed, which led other:~owners~to feel that they were entitled to the same
treatment, and that if the City were desirous of controlling and developing an attractive
area with appropriate signing, it would be necessary to take a very hard and close look
at each•sign proposal so that the tone of the Coa~ercial-Recreation Area would not be
set by earlier petitiona for exemptions from the ordinance. Thus, Mr. Slaughter continued,
the Co~isaion could have several alternatives available to the City to regulate signiag;
1) continuance Eo gxant varianceb in the same manner as in the past and ending up with
larger and more maseive signing in the Coumercial-Recreation Area - few of which were
readable from the street, or 2) grant no more sign variancea from the present Code,
although this might preaent some problems to those owners who had not requested or had
variances approved for their properties, but a poasible solution to this problem would
be to establish a five-year amottization period for those signs which presently exiet
along Harbor Boulevard eaoe~ding Code requirements - this would assure those people who
construct ei~8 in accordance with Code reduirements that at the end of five years, or
whatever length of time the Ctty'might edteblish, all aigna would be subject to ths same
requirements, and that either of theae alternatives would not aeem.to be unreasonable.
However, one altemative presented would a21ow the Planning Commiasion and City Council
to solve a problem existing in the Comraercial-Recreation Area in establiahing a palicy
regarding any alternative atepe which might be taken.
Mr. Thomas Dunovan, agent for the ~
petitioner, appeared before the Cammission and presented
a rendering of the propoaed aign, noting that they attempted to design a sign to meet the ~
surroundings; that there were many large signs along Harbor Boulevard *_hat were very
attractive; that *_he sign at the restaurant adjacent to subject property was more than ~-----
_ ,;; ~
. , -
' ~ 4~ O
y ~~y..~ _ . . .
MINt]TES, CITY PLANNING CO1rIIzISSION, June,15,.1970 5193
VARIANCE N0. `2180 - ZO feet.high,:.end:tHen, in reaponse to Commission questioning, stated
(Continued) that Ehe•.errow,would be.a "nervous" arrow, on and off flashing sign.
`Coirmissioner Allred•Ynquired~,whether or.not the aign people ever"considered erecting a
sign.that;could be seen by the'aderage motorist; whereupon Mr: Dunovan replied that if
'it were not for the fact thet signe in tkii"s area were'all so high, they would comply with
Code requirements - lio~,tever; it wae necessary for prospective custaners to see their sign.
~ ."Co~issioner Allred Ehea stated he would like to have a':sign erected that would be at
eye ledel and oaly 4:by 4'feet.in size, and with the number of unsightly signs nw in
exi'stence,`perhaps,the ;equest: of the,staff to initiate an ordinance change in order to
reduce``the.'.poseibility of,looking like Las Vegas would be 3n.order. Furthermore, the
,:proposed sign.was far from aesthetically sttractive.
,. Mr Dunovan atated`-Ehat the star sign proposal was well designed, and from his viewpoint
< was riot.•unattractive; furthermore, there wPre many other signs he could`point out that
aiere more unattractive to the average person.
Mr. Dunovan then presented photographs of other signs in this general area to illustrate
the fact that denial'of subject petition would be depriving the petitioner of a privilege
graated to others.
The Co~iasion noted that many of the signs in the photograph were granted prior to the
adoptian of the Sign ~rdinance, and that the Commisaion vas only considering subject
:petition rether than sigas throughout the City.
Mr. Dunovan,;in reaponse to Co~ission questioning, stated that the exiating sign would
be removed:and that would i4sclude,the credit card sign,if aubject petition were approved,
- and that he would stipulate to this.
No one appeared in opposition to subject pet:.tion.
Mr,: Od'ra Chandler, 600 South Harbor Boulevard, attorney representing the petiti.oner,
appeared before the Commisaion end noted the restaurant aign which was part oi subject
property since'the reataurant property had a depth of 60 feet, together,with aa 85-foot
'frontage, was conaiderably larger.in aquare footage.as well as being 70 feet-high than
the proposed sign; that Ehe petitioner had spent in excess of $225,000 on the property;
thaE,the:sign hed been.approved when there were only 30 units on the properCy, wheraas
the pr~aent-operaticin now had 90 units and the aign was the eame aize as the motel next
door ~thich,had only 20 units;.and that with the amount of money apent for these signs,
one could not consider them "junlcy° signa, especially when one coneidlered the reataurant
sign cost $25,000 and the Charter House sign manp thousands of dollars - therefore,
people spending money to increaee the sign of their operationa ahould be givea a better
means`of identificetion that would put them in competition with other developmenta having
larger signs.
The Commission noted'that a flaehing sign was most distractive to the motoring public; ~
vhereupon Mr. Chandler stated that a sign was designed to be both attractive and dis-
tractive to the motoring public. Furthermore, aince staff made co~enta regarding the
sigaing problem, perhaps the five-year phase-out program might be the ansrier but ahould
I be done in statatory terms.
Co~aisaioner Gauer noted that Mr. Chandler was a City Councilman when the Sign Ordinance
was adopted and since tte adoption the aign companies were constantly requesting waivera
from the ordinance, even though they had agreed at the time the ordinance was adopted
that they could live with the ordinance.
Mr. Chaadler than reviewed the manner in which the City Council„ at the time he was a
Councilman, handled aign requesta, noting,that a true hardship ahould be the reason for
grsnting a variance - thus if s hardship were proven, then this could not be coneidered
as establishing a precedent for`other requests since°in each instance a hardship would
have t:o be proven. ,
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED,
Some of the Co~isaion were of the opinion that wRe~her the.petitioner complied with
Code requirements or,not, it would not be any more harmful to the exiating aign aituation
along Harbor Boulevard.
Othera of t1~e Co~mniasion were of the opinion that if all requests for large signs were
granted, then there would be no limit as to the height of aigne, and perhaps the ataff
'should be directed to draft an amendment to the Sign Ordinance to control the aesthetics
of signs on Harbor Boulevard eince most signa there were not readabls, and that the
~ . - - , ~_.._.,. _ ,. _ - ,~
y 1:~~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY-PLANNING COrAiISSION,`June'15, 1970 5194
'VARIANCE N0: 2180 - existing signs could be phased out over a five-year period so that no,
-(Continued) . more high and large signs would be allowed in the Co~ercial-Recrestion
. _ Area.
Commis$ioner Gauer offered a:motion to grant Petition for Variance No. 2180 subject to
conditioas and"deletion of the proposed flashing sign; and further subject to the peti-
tioner'e;stipulatiori to removal of the:ex3s ting signa including the credit card eign.
On roll`call the foregoing resolution failed to pasa with the vote being tied:
Co~issioners.:Herbst; Seymour, Gauer voting "aye" and Coummissionera All::ed Ka ,
Rowland'votirig;"no". , ywood
Further'discnssion was held by the Commission regarding the proposed sign as to whether
`or not there was a technicality involved wfiich limited the size of the sign becauae of
an 85-foot portion of the property being the onlq frontage,on Harbor Boulevard; that an
85-foot..by 60-foot parcel wae not~owned by the petitioner but the balance of the property
was,.developed by the,petitioner; thereby'creating a form of a hardship; whether or not
further signing would,be erected with the knowledge that a five-year amortizatioa period
would'make thoae signa obsolete and.contrary to Code requirements and whether further
requests of a hardship would be claimed at the end of eaid amortization period so that
the signa would not be removed; whether or not large aigns were the answer to advertising
in the Commercial-Recreation'Area or whether the City wanted to have the appearance of
the Las Vegas strip instead of an aeathetic,family-quality appearance desired for the
City; and upon its conclusion, Co~niseioner Allred offered a motion to deny Petition for
Variance No. 2180 on the basia that.aigning-could be accomplished within the confines of
the ordinance and would be adequate_for advertiaing subject property.
On roll call.the foregoing motion lost with a tie vote: Co~isaioners Allred, Kaywood,
Rowland voting "aye" and Co~issioners Herbst, Gauer, Seymour voting "no".
Chairman Rowland.atated that the voting ori the petition would be continued to the next
meeting on June 29, 1970, for a full Co~ission to vote on.
Mr. Chandler requested that the hearing be re-opened for the submission of evidence for
the abaent Planning Co~isaioner.
Chairman,Rowland noted that thie would be determined after the Commission convened for
that meeting.
RECESS - Chairman Rowland declared a ten-minute recess at 3x53 P.M.
j
~.
~~u~~ - Chairman Rowland reconvened the meeting at 4:03 P.M., all
Co~issionera except Farano being present.
REAFFIRMATION OF REQUIRII~NTS OF THE STGN ORDINANCE
Co~iasioner Kaywood offered a motion that the Planning Commiasion go on record not to
grant any £urther variance from the Sign Ordinance on the basis that one aign waiver led
to requeats from ad~acent property ownera for aimilar or other sign waivera, and that a
five-year amortization period be eatabliahed for the existing nonconforming aigns along
Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue. Co~isaioner Allrcd recormnended that this be con-
fined to the Co~ercial-Recreation Area, and Commiseior.er Kaywood concurred in the
amendment.
Prior to seconding of the motion, conaideration and diacussion was held by the Commission
as followst
Commieaioner Gauer inquired whether a five-year amortization period would be aufficient.
Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that five years was not too short a period of time
since IRS would allow these signs to be charged off in five years, and the ownera are
probably doing this now.
Chairman Rowland feli.that the motion if voted on would not be a legally reaponsible vote
aince it would have to be on the basis of aetting a public hearing, and then requested
clarification from the City Attorney's office as to whether or not the City would be
aubject to some challenge since the Plaaning Co~iseion wae a recoa~ending body.
Assiatant City Attorney John Dawson advised tlie Commisaion that their bodq could make
Buch a recou~endation to the City Council since the recommendation was not proposing -
that the Sign Ordinance be amended - a11 the Co~ission was doing was atating that the
.. ~-: ...,.,; .,. ~,. :..., .:~ ..... . ..... .... . . .... _ ' _ r. ar:cr .i,..~.. ..:•r'~:
~ ~~ . ~ .
~4 ~~ .. ~ .. . . . ~ ~ ' ~ .
~ MINUTES, CITY PLANIQING CODiLiISSION, June 15, 1970 5195
~
` REAFFIRMATION OF;REQUIREMENTS`OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE (Continued):,
e _ , •
~ Sign Ordinance should and would be adher~ed to. Only when the Commission proposed an.
~ ,: ,.amendment`to,the ordinance was`it necessary to have.a publia hearing. Furthermore, this
~ was a matEer of policy,;iand it might~be determined by the,.Co~isaioa's motion that this
s ~ ; was a 'reco~endation only.. . • ~ '
' _. ~ , - , . , ~
S Co~issioner Herbst noEed that,the Co~iasion might recommend to the staff that this
k reco~endation:be studied, to obtain the actual ruling from IRS as to what theq,actually
r would allow for'amorCi'zation on ttiese-signs, so thet the Commiesion would know what
position they could~take or be in regardirig.amor.tiaetion; however, he felt that five
qears was adequate since thi"s was what his factory did as it perteined to machinery.
Mr. Dawson•:noted'that in connection'with highway signs the amortization time of as little
as,three;years on these~large signs had been held by the courts to be aufficient in many•
~ insfancesr' '
~~ Chairman:Rowland was of the opinion that these billboards were primarily a structure with
movable'cop,y or changeable throw-away copy,
~ Mr. Dawson stated'.that there were si
gns which many times were palnted on and were change-
able; however, theae:signs-bfllboardo far exc~eded the coat of the sigas the Co~iasion
was:preeently:discussing.
Chairman Rowland stated<that personally he would be happy for any auch reco~endation
which would help:'solve some of the problems and'are maaifested and are increasing daily.
Commiasioner Allred aeconded the aforementioned motion made by Commisaioner Kaywood:
MOTION CARRIED..
Commissioner Seymour then aeked that the motit~n be read in full aince he did not clearly
underatand,;everyfhing that.was added to the motion:
The.Coi~isaion Secretary.read the moEion as amended aloud, noting that Coffiissioner
Kaywood had established this motion for Hartior Boulevard.and Katella Avenue;.however,
Co~issioner Allred had amended.it.with the concurrence of Cou~issioner:Kaywood to
include only the Co~ercial-Recreation Area.
2oning Supervisor:Charles Roberts noted for clarification purposes that by reference to
Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue this encompassed a great deal of territory; therefore,
the limitation to;the`,Co~ercial-Recreation Area was reco~ended. Furthermore, there were
many business establishments on Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue in the C-R Area that
had C-1 soning. _
Chairman Rovland noted that the GeneraT Plan designates the C-R Area, and that ahould be
the confines of the boundaries for this motion.
Co~iesioner Kapwood then suggested perhaps ahe ahould amend her motion to include the
entire City; however, Commissioner Seymour stated he would be atrongly oppoaed to such
s motion.
Aasiatant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter noted that the City had granted a number of
variancea from Code in;the C-R Area, and he was not sure whether or not these signs were
considered nonconforming_for the purposes of the_ordinance, and it would seem that perhaps
the Comnission might wiah to reao~end termination of theae variances in order that they
would be nonconforming in line with Co~issioner Kaywood's motion.
Chairman Rowland then suggested that the staff study thoroughly the implications of the
motion„ and if there were any loopholes ~in the motion, to bring these to the Council's
attention.
Mr.,Roberts then inquired whether or not the Commission vished to have these findings
brought to the Crnr~ission for further consideration.`
Co~issioner Seymour vas of the opinion that a etudy should be made as to the amortization
period in order that a proper determinatioa and reco~maendation could be made to the City
Council.
Chairman Rowland noted that eiace this was a recommendation to the City Council, he felt
that the staff should make the study which should accompany the recomQiendation; however,
if the staff needed more time to prepare the st~.idy, perhaps the City could continue any
consideration until the study and recommendatione were available.
'`3
i
a
~ ,
,.:: J
`' :~
`:~
'i~
I ~'~
<;~
~
,
:~
~
;~
~
~::r~
;<.~
c'j
9
~- -:-:._-3
~ ~ ~ ~r ~z x ~ . .~ .~y,~' r~' , {' ? A~,.r r x t ~. i . •y':-.
~ . t ~.: - ~ r 1 . ~ ~'< -~' '
+uF`• ~' '~.,ii ~y~~. '~' ~. _ i e ~~,~,y~, '~n~~+'s~ y~`~L'ft N~F"v"rv ~~-, r =.>~
:~ 1 ~' x c ~ -
/ ~ . . ' . . - . . _ . .
. ~. ~ . .. , . ~ . ~ . . . .
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING C~SISSION, June 15, 1970 5196
RFAFFIRMATION OF REQUIREMENTS OF TEiE SIGN ORDII~l1NCE (Continued)
Mr. Roberts.advised the Co~iasion that'he personally felt that the recommen~ation of
the'Planning Commission would have more force if the Commisaion had the benefit of all
` of the items,that the staff might come up with as-to possible loopholes, etc., and he
would:suggest that the Cormniseion might wish.to direct the staff to prepare a study and
''bring'the findings and reco~eadations to be considered by the Commission at a later
date, and th'e motion made by Co~isaioner Kaywood could then be attached to this study.
Aseistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson noted ftie the Co~ission that
the staff, after completion of the study, could present alternative solutioas to the .i.;
aiga:problem;which, in turn, could be submitted to the City Council since this was a
very strong.policy statement with wide range.implications; therefore, the benefit of the `'~
~ study,and the Planning Co~ission's thinking in regard to the study and the various
alternatives and solutiona would have much greater effect and impact on the City Council.
Co~iseioaer Seymour offered a motion that prior to the submission of Co~isaioner ~':.•••• •
Kaywood's motion to the City Council that the ataff be instructed to study the problems
regarding IRS tax write=off, variances granted for siga waivera of signs, which although
nonconforming, might l~e .~.egal aigns and perhaps the variances could be terminated ao that
the.effectiveness of Commissioner Kaywood's motion would be more meaning£ul as it per-
taiaed to nonconforming signs, said study to be prepared with findings and reco~endations
within two weeka for the ^.o~isaion's conaideretion and approval prior to their recammenda-
tion to the City Council.
~
Mr. Thompson noted that the Commiseion should be apprised of the signing as to how many
veriancea had been granted, what type of variances, etc.; therefore, he felt a minimum
of six to eight veeks would be needed to complete a comprehenaive study.
Co~ieaioner Herbst inquired whether or not Commissioner Seymour's motion was an amendmeat
to Cou~iss,ioner Kaywood's motion, or wr~s it a separate motion.
Co~isaioner Seymour felt that his motion should be separate.since the Co~iasion had ~
adopted tfie philosophy preaented by C~.-~issioner Kaywood, and the motion by him was to
initiate the study of this philosophy and delay the presentation of the motion to the
City Cauncil`until all data was available to the Planning Conanisaion for review; there-
fore, he would reco~end that this study by the staff be presented within two months.
Co~iasioner Allred aeconded the motion, directing tIie ataff to prepare a study to '
substantiate fhe position taken by the Planning Commission. MOTION CARRIED. ''
CONDITIONAI,.USE - PUBLIC HEARING. RAY AND CHRYSTAL THOMPSON, 1727 South Nutwood Street,
PERMIT N0, 1182 Anaheim, California, Ownera; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A
NURSERY SCHOOL IN AN EXISTING RESIDENCE WITH WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM
REQUIRED PARKING SPACES IN A GARAGE AND (2) MAXIMUM pERMI1TED SIGN
DISPLAY AREA on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located on
the northwest corner of Nutwood Street and Tamara Lane, having approximate frontages of
65 feet on Nutwood Street and 132 feet on Tamara Lane, and further described as 1727
South Nutwood Street. Property presently classif~ed R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
Asaiatant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of aub~ect property, ~
uses ~stablished in close proximity, and the proposal to establish a nursery achool which
would accomnodate 30 to 35 children and two teachers; that the existing atructure for the
present would be used for both a residence and as a nursery school; that parking vas "
propoaed !,n the front yard setback, with the area being asphalted; that the R-1 Zone
required °cwo parking spaces in a garage - however, the petitioner was proposing to convert
the existing gara~e into a playroom, and, therefore, thia Code requirement could not be
met; and that Lhe petitioner wae further proposing a 40-square foot, free-standing sign,
but only oae sig,~n, one-aquare foot in size would be permitted. !
, Mr. Slaughter, in reviewing the evaluation of the Report to the Commission, noted that ;
' the Planning Co~ission first would have to co~Rider whether or not the land use proposed ~
was appropriate since the property was surrounded by si~ng~e=€am~j•'~.tra~ets„ and the noise ;
emanating from 30 to 35 children could create a problem; that the use was cloaely related ~
to commercial uses, and the Planning Commission and Cit~ Council have not generally '
allowed co~ercial uses in the R-1 Zone; that all the parcels fronting on Nutwood Street i
in this ares had been considered ae a part of the Front-On Study several years ago, and ;
the conclusion reached by the Planning Cos~ission and City Council was to retain the i
single-family residential characteristica of Nutwood Street - therefore, if the Co~ission •
, deemed the uae appropriate, further conaideration would have to be given to the proposal ~
to fully concrete the front setback, which would not be in harmony with the balance of the ~
single-family environment in this area; and that a subatantial increase in traffic would ~-"`
reault in this predominantly residential area both from parenta delivering ai-d p~cking~up
ti,
;.
+t S _:,.1 '.':r.
~, 4.:
3M1
..~..;T
. . . "T'4~.:':~ ~.~'.::.
~
~
~ MIRUTES~,CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1970
~
5197
CONDITIONAL USE - the children and truck traffic delivering goods to the facility.
PERMIT.NO. 1182
: (Continued) Mrs,.Ray THompson, one of the petitioners, appeared before the
Co~ission and reviewed the proposal to establieh a nursery on `
subject.property, noting that the traffic would not increase in the
area since the program for theae children would be scattered throughout the day; that
the play periods`would'also be scattered, and only one-half hour play time vould be
devoted to the outdoors; that they were unaware of the sign reqairements at the time
they filed•Ehe petition - hwever, they would comply with Ccde requirements; that when
the maximum numb~er of children was reached, transportation would be provided for them;
that they'~inteaded to use the home for both a home and nursery for approximately a year,
F or until the number of students reached the paint of capacity; and that although they
intended,'to a~Ephalt the front aetback area, their intention also was to plant shrubbery
since it~was not,their intent to create an unsightly environment.
Mrs. Nancy.MeF.~rZdsad, 1715 South Nutwood Street, appeared before the Co~isaion in
. opposition, atating that although ahe resided wichin 300 feet of aubject property, ahe
did not receive~a notice (notice Bent~to post office box asaigned in their name according
to the assesaor s listing), nor did the property owner immediateTy ad~acent to aub~ect
property, who was a new owner of the property; that at the time the City Council allowed
• 202 apartment units to surround the single-family homes, in order to protect their children
and keep them away from the increased influx of traffic, the property owners on Nutwood
Street; except the petitioner, had sidewalks installed; that many of the residenta in this
area have spent more than $24,000 for their homes and considerable monay in the beautifi-
cation of their homes; that the property owner ;mmediately to the north af aubject property
stated she would not have purchased her home had she known that a nursery was propoaed
immediately adjacent to her property; that 8 of the 58 homes in these tracts had been sold
in.the past few months due to approval of apartment development in the area.by the City
Council, and if a commercial use auch as was proposed were approved, then the residential
integrity of the area would further deteriorate; that Nutwoad Street was very narrow tn.
many places, vith only 18 feet from centerline to curb, and if automobiles were parked on
both sides, children attempting to crosa the atreet would be ~tn danger of being hit
because there would be no excess area to swerve if children were in the street; and that
manq people who had purchased their homes would be faced with property devaluation and
would not receive the money they had invested in their property,
Chairman Rowland noted that notices ~aere mailed to property owners as a courtesy, whereas
• the law r~quired the property to be posted and the notice be published in the newspaper.
Mra. Mck'arland then noted that when the apartment complex was approved by the City Council,
the Coun~+Ll asaured the property owners that no co~ercial uses would be allow~d in that
area. ,
xhe Coa~iss;on advised the oppoaition that the City could not prevent a property owner
from requesting a zone change or use - therefore, it was up to the Co~isaion to determine
from evidence presented that the request was or was not appropriate. Furthermore, from
the latest sales of homes in that area the Co~ission could assure the oppoeition there
was a great increase in value inetead of decrease.^'•>~
Mrs. McFarland noted, in completing her opposition, that all the property owners were
opposed to reaidents selling the hames ~aithout advising the buyer that apartments were
contempiated for the large grove in that vicinity, and then submitted a petition aigned
by 51 peraonaj said petition, together with two letters of opposition, were read to the
Comniasioa by the Commiasion Sacretary.
Mre. Thompaon, in rebuttal, atated a day nursery would be a convenienile tb°vorking mothers
in this area; that the children were kept off the etreet and usually indoors under super-
vision of college teachers who were well qualified; that there were other achoola in this
general area, name2y, an elementary school and t~,o high schools - therefore, she felt the
proposed use would not be detrimental to the area, and that they had maintained their
property so that it would not be an eyesore to the area, and it was their intent to
continue maintaining the property.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commisaioner Seymour noted that although the petitioner expreased the opinion that a
nuraery achool was neceseary and such uaea had been approved by the Coamisaion in the
past, the location was uot the most desirable for this general residential area, and
that approval of a nuraery school in this neighborhopd would contribute to t:he u•teriora-
tian of the environment of the residential area already establ ished.
~;:
~~A.~ `~'~ J t 5%~ ~~ 6 k .5 :~ ~ ~" ~jt, (~' ~ r " } , .
) , ` \
A
. .. . . . . ~ ' . .. ~ . . 1 ) .
S~/
MINUTES, CITY PLA1VDiING CO2~ff~tISS ON, June 15, 1970 5198
CONDITIONAL USE - Commission r Seymour offered Resolution No. PC70-99 and moved for its
PSRMIT N0, 1182 passage and adoption to deny Petition for Conditional Uae Permit No.
(Continued) 1182 on the basis that the uae would not be compatible with the
residential environment of the area; that approval of the use would
establish "spot zoning" on the property; that the proposed use would
not contribute anything.to the improvement of the environment but would add to its
• deterioration; end that the City had many homes approved for commercial uses throug;~ the
Front-On Study in>vhie ~~the proposed use would be more appropriate than on subject property.
(See Resolution Book)
On ro11 caT1 he foreg~1 ng resolution was passed by the following votes
~' AYESs COP4t SSIONERS ~'IAllred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywoo~? Se
~ NOES: COhAI SSIONERS~i None. , Ymour, Rowland.
ABSENT: COt~fISSIONERS(j Farano.
CONDITIONAL USE - P,~IC HFARING. CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH, 2780 East Wagner Avenue,
PERMIT N0, 1183 ' eim, California, Owner; REV. ARTHUR RAMgy, 27g0 Eaet Wagner
A ue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requeating permission to EXPAND
AN EXISTING CHURCH C EX TO INCLUDE ADDITION OF A 440-SEAT SANCTUARY AND A PRE-SCHOOL
NURSERY WITH WAIVER ~ MAXIMUM pERMITTED BUILDING HEIGHT on property.described as: An
irregularly shaped p el of land hav3ng a frontage of approximetely 115 feet on the south
side of Wagner Avenu ~ having a maximwn depth of approximately 690 feet, and being located
approximately 140 f east of the centerline of Marjan Street, and further described as
2780 East Wagner Av e. Property preaently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
Assistant Zoning S rv~sor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property,
usea eatablished i loae proximity, previous zoning action on the property, and the
proposal to estab a 31-foot high structure having a pre-school facility and a 440-
seat sanctuary wi ~ n 15 feet of the west property line where single-family homes were
developed; that sanctuary was proposed to face the future Rio Viata Street alignment;
and that additio parking would be provided to the rear of the structure. Furthermore,
the petitioner i cated tHere would be no windows provided in the westerly wall of the
building so that r viaual intrusion into the single-family residences would "on+cur.
Mr. Slaughter a
h noted that ataff originally analyzed the plans in lighti of the Code
w
ich required
of the bound
i t no building used for church purposes may be erected wiChin 15 feet
f
ar
property, provi any resiidential zone - however, the R-A Zoae, the zone on subject
that the height of an
st
diatance of sai y
ructure shall be equivalent to one-half the
tr cture f~om a boundary of any residentiel
of the Code wer
Th zone, and if this section
p 1 ed, a•fi2-foot setback would be required based on the height proposed
erefore, the
I8.16.050(4-a), f
1 .
, ss on would have to waive the latter section of tl~e Code, or Section
it ~ re deemed the proposed development would be appropriate to the area.
Mr. James Thaye ~
~ 5312 Campina Drive, Misaion Viejo, designer of the propas ed facility
'
appeared before
1' ,
C
ission and presented a colored rendering of the proposed addition
noting that in
to th
f ,
th City granted permiasion to erect a church structure - however, due
e
act tha
the precise ali masG r plan had not been submitted and approved at that time adace.'~~•-•
t
the Cowniasion f n
Rio Viata Street was not known, the proposed expansion was before
con9 deration; that the
some time; that pre-school facility had been in operation for
ch ch sanctuary proposed had been so designed so that the church
traffic would en ~
dential an exit from Rio Vista Street to minimize noises away from the resi-
uses to
property line; a we ; that the present entrance to the parking area was along the west
et it was th
i
i
~
were approved ai c e
r
ntent to improve Rio Viata Street if subject petition
h property along Rio Vista Street whict. had been dedicat
d t
th
City was heing nse
the Cit
re
i
d e
o
e
s driveway and would continue to be used for that purpose until
y
qu
re d edication for street improvement.
Chairman Rowland no at the ouly major problem regarding this petition was the height
of the building ad~ n t
th
i
was two-atory, if o
e s
ngle-family homes; that although the present building
t f, poaed plans were chan
ed to r
d
th
g
e
uce
e pitch of the roof, this
waiver of the height g t not be auch a problem.
Mr. Thayer stated thi ch nge in the pitch of the roof would change the aesthe~ics of
the building. ~
Co~issioner Herbat n ed hat the exiating building was located 20 feet from the westerly i
property line, wherea he proposed addition would be ~nly 15 feet from the weaterly
property line, using uc higher building having a steeper gitch, and then inquired '
why consideration wes t iven to turning the building so that the length of the building
would bti in line with e ength of the parcel. ,----•--
;
~ :
- ~.:~a" ~
- ` ~ _ ,.
~ S 3.Cr~~ i
~ ~~• ; - } ~ ' ~'•~r ` '
_, V"~.''- .,r.~, 1~' ...: -.. . ~.. ~ . .. . ~.~\ . ~. -~ ~ . . ~ .
~~
+f.
~~
~
';'~'xcd 3+.tyr; ~ 1 ,r~ ~ ..:t+,
a _
~ + ~, ,
:::: , .: -_ -, .,
- ~
y. 5
. . . . . . . _ .... .._ .-. _-. ,- ..~ ~7
. . . .~ _ . . . . . ~ . -. ~.. . . . ~ . ~ .
MINUPES, CITY-PIANNtNG CODIIiISSION, June.15, 1970_ 5199
COAIDITIONAL USE ,- Mr. Thayer replied that this would be aesthetically impossible.
PERMIT N0. 1183
(Continued) Chairman Rowland noted that the Co~ission was~~primarily concerned
with the :~~L~,ea; homes i~ediately ad jacent to sub ject property on
the west, and it was the Co~ission's duty to protect the privacy
and-residential integrity of these homes since this building would psesent a rather
undesirable appearance to these residents.
. Mr. Thayer_replied that,the view from the residential homes would be better with a broken
rooflirie, and to,shift the building around as auggested would make the building leas
desirabl'e aesttsetically; however, the buildings raight be located cloeer together. Further-
more, if the buildinga were flopped, there would 1-~ a probl~ of a building setback from ~
Rio Vista Street.
i
~
The Cocmisaioa then atated that they felt turning the building would be more acceptable '
as to granting waiver of the setback. on Rio Vista Street,than permitting the height ~
I • proposed adjacent to the eino+~_family homes. ;
;
The Commiesion nor,eu that the entranae still could be from Rio Vista Street evea though j
the building a-ere flopped and located closer to Rio Viata Street, while still meinteining j
the aestherica which the designer was so intent on retaining - thus both buitdings would
have acce~e to Wagner Street also. g
)
:Ir. Don Rqush, 994 Merjan Street, appeared before the Commission in oppoaition and ~
presented a petition signed by 60 pereons, also in opposition, noting that aftex viewing
the plana proposing a 31-foot high structure within 15 feet of the aingle-£amily homes,
it would be too close from a fire hazard position; that the resideats along the west
property line were desirous of retaining tl~eir privacy, view and wind current so that
the peaceful, serene atmoauhere would be the same as they preaently enjoyed; that the
parking,problem ahould be carefui3y studied since a eanctuary seating 440 persons would
need adequaCe parking and proper turning radius from the parking area; and that the
location-of t.he proposed building would be detrimental to the residential iategrity of
the area - hwever, if the atructure were relocated farther east and met the building
code-requirementa, as well as providing ample parking, there would be less opposition
from the•.aingle-family residents.
A shoWing of hands indicated 6 peraons present in oppoaition to the proposed location of
the structure.
Discussion vas held between ~rhe•petitioner and the Co~isaion regarding the posaibility
of a continuance for the petitioner to have time to determine a better means of locating
the structure to guarantee eome measure of light, air and privacy for the single-family
homea to the weat; whether or not a waiver for encroachment along the easterly setback
line would be required; and then inquired of the staff whether or not the conditional
use permit was atill necessary.
Zoaing Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commtssion that a church was pexmitted in
the R-A Zone subject to approval of a conditional uae permit, and the waiver requested
from the height was in addition to allowing the church; however, in order to determine
vhether or not a variance would be needed if the building were relocated, plans would
have to be submitted before a determination co~bld be made.
Aseistant City Attorney John Dawaon advised the Commisaion that if a waiver from the
setback along the east property line were required, this would mean the petition would
have to be readvertised.
Chairman•Rowland then noted that the staff had a clear picture of the Commiesion'e
concerns, and the petitioner ahould review theae problems with the staff prior to the
next public hearing.
Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to continue consideration of Petition for Conditional
Use Permit No. 1183 tn the meeting of June 29, J.970, in order to allaw time for the
petitioner to submit reviaed plans indicating the relocation of the atructures so that
the height encroachment along the westerly property line was reaolved and for staff to
determine if a variance would be neceseary along the east property line, which would
have to be readvertised. Co~iasioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
a ~
~
.x.
~ -. ,~,
~ ~ ~
::i J ., L~s;:.. . . . . .
-MINUT_ES~ CITY;PLANNING COI~AtISSION, June 15, 1970 5200
'CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HFARING. CHRISTINE 0'DONNELL, 10304 Clancey Avenue, Downey,
: PEHMIT N~.'"1184,' Califoraia; Owner; MARCEL MOYNIER, 2125 South Harbor Bonlevard,
Anaheim, California; Agent; requesting permisaion to ESTABLISH A
•` '' BUSINESS ACTIVITY THAT IS LIMITED TO PERSONS 21 YFARS OF AGE OR
OLDER~IN AN E&ISTING ON-SAI.E LIQUOR ESTABLISE~fENT on property described as: A rectangu-
larly shaped,parcel of land-having,a frontage of approximately 120 feet on the west side
::of Hdrbor Boulevard`, having'a"maximnm depth of,approximately 273 feet, and being located
appro5timate1y.335 feet south of'.the centerline of Orangewood Avenue,.and further described
as 2125 South:Harbor Boulevard.,.. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, and
C 1,~GENERAL..CdMMERCIAL; ZONES.
Aseiatant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property,
uses.•eetablisfied in cloae proximity, and the proposal to change tche licensing classifi-
-~cation as-set.forth in the.6Ycoholic Beverage Control regulations from incideatal on-sale
alcoholiis bevereges to on-sale general for public premises, and no one leas than 21 yeara
•'of age~would be permitted in the building; that th+~-dtisting cocktail lounge was approved
~' under'Vaiiance No. 1283 in 1960, and subsequent to this the petitioner had sold the
operation to'another individual who operated the business as a restaurant with food -
however, the petitioner ~aas now re-purchesing the property and intended to operate it
under the original variance classification as a cocktail lounge; and that the Planning
~Co~ission would have to determine whether the proposed use was appropriate for the area
and whether any conditiona ahould be imposed so as to insure compatibility with the
sncrounding land uses.
Mr. Marcel Moynier, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Co~ission and noted
their onlq reason for requesting a change in the license was to operate the facility as
a cockteil lounge with the incidentaL sale of £ood, rather than as a restaurant as the
preaent license was classified, and this was necessitate3 by the fact that they could
not afford waitresses and a chef #or a regular reataurant, and the State required a
complete meal to be served with the preaent license; that under the proposed license
they would be unable to accommodate families or children under 21 yeara, although they
ati11 vould be serving a form of food, auch as steak sandwiches and hamburgers; and that
the door would be posted, indicating that minors under 21 would not be permitted.
A letter of opposition was read to the Commisaion from T. J. Ward;(copy on file in the
petition).
~ Mr. Moynier, in rebuttal, stated that it was not hie intent to operate a pool hall, and
the form of entertainment they proposed at the present time would be.Ml:dda~qEa~tlt~^tlarictng.:
~a+~n:~:a operation in this facility for the past six years, and tfieir only change
~ as to operation would be the method of serving food.
THE ~ICRDfG'WAS CLOSED.
The Co~ission inquired whether any complaints had been regiatered with the City of
Anaheim regarding the type of operation; whereupon Mr. Moynier atated thaC he had been
in this businesa for 23 years and had never had any convictions for the operationa he
ran.
Co~niaeioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC70-100 and moved for its passage and adoption
to gnan't Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1184 on the basis that the petitioner
hed formerly operated this businesa in the same manner as he now proposed; that the aerv-
ing of food would be incidental to the serving of alcoholic beverages; that the petitioner
atipulated he would meet all Code requirements; and that this would not he eatabliahed as
a pool hall. (See R:solution Book)
On roll call the fore~oing resolution was pasaed by the following vote~
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred.
ABSENT: C02~4IISSIONERS: Farano.
, .. ;:~;,;
~
~ :
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1970
`,ti
_ _ . =€:
~
<:.;.;:
5201 ''
VARIANCE N0. 2182 - PUBLIC HEARING. A, H. SHIPI~Y, INC,, 420 West Lincoln Avenue,
Anaheim, California, Owner; ARTHUR H. SHIPKEY OR JAMES MORGAN,
420 West I.incoln Avenue, Anaheim, Califomia, Agents; requesting
WAIVER OF PFRM~TTED IISES IN THE G2 ZONE TO ESTABLISH A TRUCK TIRE SALIIS FACILZTY WITH
OUTDOUR SLRVICE on property described as: A recEangularly shaped parcel of land having
a frontage of approximately 75 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, having z maxi.mum
depth of approx2mately.141 feet, and being located approximately 200 feet east of the
centerline oE~"Harbor Boulevard, and further deacribed as 419 and 427 West Lincoln Avenue.
Property prec~ently classified C-2, GENERAL CO1~iERCIAL, 20NE.
Co~issioner Allred left the Council Chamber at 5:05 P.M.
Asaistanti Zoning Supervieor Malcolm Sla;~~,hter, reviewed the location of aubject property,
ueee established in cloae proximity, and the request to establish a truck tire sales
facility.within the existing structure, having outdoor servicing on G2 ~+oned property;
that the petitioner presently conducted an automobile tire salea facility on the south
side of Lincoln Avenue in the same block; and that the petitioner proposed to remove the
existing 4-foot masonry wall adjacent to and parallel with the 16-foot alley to the north.
Mr. Slaughter further noted•that the primary question before the Co~ission was the
compatibility of the proposed use with this general area since it would appear to be a
use normally establi°hed in an Yndustrial area, particularly the aervicing of trucks;
that it would have to be determined whether or not this would be an aswet to the area
and whether outdoor repair work would be desirable from an aesthetic viewpoint to the
downtown area; whether or not the use adjacent to residential uses located to the north
would be compatible with the likelihood of the uae of noisy tools needed for repair and
tire changes on large trucks, which could be expected to geaerate substantial amounts
of disquieting noises; that the problem often encountered with tire operations was the
storage of old, disposable tires removed from the trucks, and one method of controlling
this would be the construction of a 6-foot masonry wall to enclose the rear area of the
property in the event eubject petition was approved, since this would help to alleviate
any unsightly appearance of the operation as well as act as a atorege area for the old
tires; and that if this 6-foot wall were required across the rear Froperty line, it
would preclude access of the vehicles into the alley since a mixture of truck and resi-
dential traffic was undesirable from a traffic hazard stand~oint.
Mr. Art Shipkey, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Coa~iesion and advised
the Commiasion that ther~ was no opposition from the Gulf service station to the east;
that an office building existed to the west, and across the alley to the north, Mr. Charlea
Weber, 117 North Helena Street, had indicated no opposition to the proposed uae; that
Mr. Lewis Bailey, 114 Harbor Boulevard, to the northweat, also indicated he would not
oppose the proposed use; that the proposed operation would be a supplement to the existing
tire operation on the south side of the street; that this would not be primerily a truck
operation since only 10% of their buaineas was trucking business which would not be done
off the premises wherein tires were diemounted, repaired and remounted; and that it was
recognized there would be noibe involved, but it would be no more than an air gun in
operation.
The Co~ission noted that a co~ent was made that Mr. Bailey did not oppose the proposed
development; hwever, there were four apartment units on that property, and these tenants
could oppose the noise, and although the petitioner had indicated only 10% of their
businesa pertained to trucks, because of the size of the trucks involved, this location
would be most uadeairable for the proposed use.
Mr. Shipkey noted thnt only occasionally would they handle semi-trailera since thEy did
not encourage thia type of business, and only when they were unable to get out to the
vehicle in the field were they brought in for tire change.
The Co~ission vas of the opinion that the size, shape and location of the property did
not lend itaelf as a desirable area For "sigs" to be serviced.
Mr. Shipkey stated that tne "riga" could enter from Lincoln Avenue and exit t}~rough the
alley if he vere permitted to remove the existing 4-foot masonry wall. Furthermore,
Mr. Weber informed him it was very difficult for him to get in and out of hi•a garage
which had access from the alley abutting subject property due to the fact that.the wall
on aubject property was an obstruction.
The Co~ission then inquired in what manner did the petitioner propoae to have these
"rigs" gain accese to the street since the alley was only 16 Eeet wide - did he intead
that the rig drivers traveree the alley to Chartres Street aince making a right or left
turn into the alley would be extremely difficult. Furthermore, evnn if the petitioner
had only one rig of any eubstantial eize, this could presenC•a veryrcomptex~aad~hazardous
traffic circulation problam. ~
,: ~~ ~:- ~
„;, ,. '
'.~
.~ , _ _ _. _
~. _ . .. , ....~: .. . . -.. . _.
,~.;;~, , , /~
.;. ,`f~j . ~. , .~ ~ ` . . . ''.~~~ ~ ~ ' ~-~-"~,"_"'".~ .
' 4 r -, : L . ^-~ .
a' . .. . ~ . , .- .~ ~ ~ } j~'~...
;~. 5 ~ .. . . . . . . ~ r , . .
4~ rMINUTES, L'IT1( PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1970 ,' r' S202 :
t ~, ''t ',' ~. ~ :
~ - ~i3~`ei-:n~i~ -~~ ,
.~VgRIANCE.NO..>2~82 - Mr. Shipkey replied.that the rigs now backed into Linaoln-Avenue from
`r~ (Continue~i) the south side operation, and it was their intent to.remove~a~building
+~ ~ on the south side so that easier access could be gai~ted~to,~0ak'Street,
thereby eliminating the need•for-backing into a main•Eho=ongt-fere:'`
~ ~'Co~issioncr Herbst felE he :douil~? not vote to permit trucks being serviced on;subject '
propertq because of the difficult maneuverability of large trucks auch as tihoae on high-. >
`.ways~fhese~days.which ranged.from,50'to 60 feet in'length which would have'-Lo::'eait to an
?alleq„aad then to a loca2 street: `
~-Mr. Sl•lipkey stated there would b'e a minor amount of thi"s work done on the premises, and
he'did not feel there would be a problem as expressed by the Co~niasion.-
'~.'.'.,Y . ' . . , . . . . . . . , . . .
Co~iasioner Gauer noted he resided on Helena;Street where sutomobdles were par.ked.;on
~.both sides because the bank employees had nu parking available to'them on;the premises;
that he wae sure trucks would be unabTe to maneuver into that street becsuse of;~heee
:p~~Jtled-care,,`and visibility would be extremely difficult because of the.perked~aars;
both'from the standpoint of other vehicles being driven on the atreet•or peopl'e'waiking
~acrosa the atreet, and even w~ithout the possfbility of large rigs in the a3+leq~or"street,
he,had to be extremely;careful due to the poor visibility with so many parked,:ca~s:'~-
'Mr. Shipkey.concurred there would be a xight maneuverabiliey situation - however;+''he was
•`also desirous of alleviating the problems they had at their presettt operatioa since their
: employees also parked on the streeC due to insufficient space on the property;'arid`the
~ proposed.uae of the property might be a temporary measure of relief.
-0hairmen Rowland inquired as to the petitioner's interpretation of a.Cemporary solution;
~whereupon Mr. Shipkey replied this would be appr~ximately ten yesra since he felt in ten
yeara they no:longer would have the tire atore, but at the ~resent time they could not
afford to establish their business in larger quarters elsewhere.
Mrs. Ohrietina Schmitz, 11576 Hamlin, Hollywood, appeared before the Commiasion in opposi-
tion and_stated she was the owner of an apartment complex at 205 North Helena Street;
`,'that she.vas opposed to the proposed industrial uee of subject property in'such close
~pr~ximity to.reaidential uses in this general area s~nd felt large t~uclcs as was discussed
'had no~.place on narrow alleys or atreets in this area.
Mr. Henry Bosch, 1340 East Dana, ^~ange, owner of xhe two-atory building at the southeast
corner of Helena Street and Lincoln Avenue,'appeared before the Conmiasion in 'opposition,
stating that 1) a major interest of the Planning Co~isaion was for the goad of the City
, .:as a vhole and particularly'to protect the economic viability and vita~lity of the central
buainess district of the Anaheim city core; 2) the improvement of mauy of the existing
propertiea in this downtown area and initial investment in nei,. financial and profeseional
facilities, auch as the Bank of America and Home Savings & Loan, was proof of the vitality
ia the minda of potential investora and of Anaheim's continuing role as a city of regional
, scope and influence; 3) the i~nediate area of Harbor Boulevard and Lincoln Avenua can be
aeen to be the activity node of thie development - it was also the major•entr.y* into the
` central business diatrict; 4) comparison of this image as it was being developed; and a
`truck tire sales facility ~ith outdoor servicing proposed at the major entry~to.:the central
:"biieiness district having viewed six other such busineasea located in or_s~;2he,edge of
other cities in this general area, and the general visual diatinction~~~fl4terent
'nature. of a proHtable and well-run tire dealership was Nirtually the same~ei~fiiRCas~tance -
' stacks, piles and rws of old tires, miscellaneous equipment, service facili'ties+'for cars
end trucks,'noise of operation, trucks and automobiles parked in a iarge expan'se of dis-
,`colored:~blacktop awaiting their turn to be serviced or picked up, and tihfe si2uafion
conld be,readily observed at the exiating facility on the south side of the`~i00; plock.of
-LincoIn_Anenue, east of Herbor Boulevard; 5) the provision of tire aervicing of trucks
vas an 1d'dnstrial activity, and the expansion of the existing facili-ey wtth,track;services
'.ran coun~er to,the face shoron in the area of the office and commercia~ values of~invest-
,ments of several mi7.lion dollars by the rehabilition and new construction in:this general
area'since the visual appearance, odor, noise and traffic hazard inherent im.the~operation
~, st3fies~future inveatments and would definitely reduce the value of the surrounding com-
mercial"propertie$; 6) the plan for the revitalization o£ the Center City Area of Anaheim
~presented by.the Urban Renewal Committee stated "visual blight::a1~11e;.had negative effects
on inveatmeat climates and on.communitq values"; 7) that he felt coafident that the City
Planning~Coomission also agreed with the statement, and that it would not be their desire
to present this image at the entrance of the major access into the central.business area
and expansion in this asea; 8) that once a variance of this type was granted, it became
• difficult and evea embgrrassing to deny.a request of,some future petitioner ~tho might also
be attempting to lover zoning requirements; 9) on this particular site it was of great
importance to note that the cross-atreet trafEic between the two facilities of this
dealership vould combine irith the increaeed number of trucks to and from the area, which
wuld further aggravate the heavy traffic congeation on Harbor Boulevard and Lincoln
Avenue - that such an increase in sidewalk, truck, and auto movement and increase in
r;r.v :!,rf.,,
~_
~~
: . ~' ~ ~ '
MINUTES, CITY PTANNING COMMISSION June 15, 1970 5203
,
, _ ~
VAR7ANCE.NO,~ 2182 = points of vehicular•conflict would greatly increase the safeEy hazards
(Continued) of the many„students in the high school",,junior high scfiool and
parochial-school in:this"immediate~:vicinity; 10) and that in conciu~
sion, he felt:;the truck tire snles ahould be Iocated in an industrial
area and noE:permitted to be locaEed in e•C-2, General Commercial, Zone at the very
entrence of ;the central business<district;.where even though the'income:of one firm may:
posaibly be:increesed, it would:drastically decrease;.the value of the otHer-properties in
_ :
'th~ area, and;it was his belief that the;,foregoing.stateinents were so vital.to the future
development and growth of Aneheim!s central'buainess district and.Ehe protection of other
property owners.in this,area that-.he would.respectfully request that subject petition be
denied. . ° , , • ,, .
Mr. Mark Metzler, owner of property at 314-316 West Lincoln Avenue, appeared before the
Coamisaion in opposttion and atated he concurred in the statements made by Mr. Bosch;
thet he had.,had experience`in a similer operation of a tire distributorship, and this
type of operation:was.not a proper use'to be.located in the'downtown area; aad•:that he
had spent considerable money to renovate the front of his existing building:and felt
other property owners would:also;3mprove their buildings if!the trend to upgrade the
do~.ntown area_were maintained. -
Mr ~:-ipkey, in rebuttal, stated,that adjoining property owners had a right to request
denial~- however, he did,not anticipate`'moving from this area in the 3~ediate future;
that the truck aervicing portion of the business was only minor and would not hurt any-
thing;'that'he did not anticipate this would be noisy and dirty; and that theq would be
upgrading the,property they propoaed to uae. •
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
;Ciwinoan Rowland noted that he had sequested some time ago that the staff include copies
of the petitions in'the Commiasion,'s packets ir.. which the.petitioners set forth their
~ proof of hardehip.when.variances were requested from the Anaheim Municipal Code.
Mr. Roberts advised the Chairman that this would be taken care of with~•the next packet
sent to them..
Commis3ioner Seymour noted that this particular;use proposed in the C-2 Zone did not
conform with the'work.done to 'redevelop the.downtown area, but would further expand the
uae and would not only alo~,. down thz redevelopment but would set it back considerably.
Gommissioner.Seqmour offered Resolution No. PC70-101 and moved for its passage and adop-
tion to deny Petition for Variance No. 2182 on the baeis that the propas ed use would be
detrimental to the redevelopment and updating of the Center City Area; that the proposed
operation would be hazardous to the many school children in this general area from trucks
and automobiles since viaibility would be poor; that the propoaed use of aubject property
was induatrial in character and would be incompatible with the exiating cooanercial•uses
established in the area.
Prior to roll call, diacuseion was held by the Commission, and Chairman Rowland noted
thPt the oppoaition had presented numerous valid findings, and if sub~ect petition were
appealed, theae remarks ahould be msde part of the findings of the opposition.
Commissioner Herbst noted that trucks of the size vh~ch presently use the highweys were
too large to have easy access and exit from the property, and the size of the parcel was
insufficient, and the uae would be detrimental to thn area.
Co~iasioner Gauer noted that it would be totally imposaible for trucks to traverae these
narrow^streets, such as CypreAe, Chartres and Helena Streeta, particularly since workera
in this general area parked their vehicles on the str~ts, making visual aighting of
pedestrisns considerably hazardous. Furthermore, that although the petitioner contended
that only 10% of the business would be with large aemi-trailer trucks, a':eirculation
probi~m woiild~:ieault.if:theee large vehicles took acceas to and from the property through
a 16-foot alley used by residential traffic to a narrow, local residential street.
Commiesioner Seymour requested that the fin.dinga by Co~isaioners Gauer, Herbat and
Rowland be made a part of his maf:ion. Thus, Commiastoner Seymour's motion of denial was
on the basie that the proposed use of subject property was ;~nduatrial in character and
would be incompatible with the existing commercial uses established in the area; that
although the getitioner cantended that only 10% of the businesa would be with large semi-
trai~er trucks, a circulation problem would result if these large vehicles took accesa
to and from the property through a 16-foot alley used by reaidential traffic to a narrow,
local residential street; that the proposed operation would be hazardous to the many
school children in this general area due to automobiles, trucks and due to visibility
being poor; tliat the proposed uae would be detrimental to the redevelopment and upgrading
of the Center City Area. (See Resolution Book)
__ _....~ :,,; i ,;.
.. ,
:;; ~
., . ~ `. _
AYES: COrAfISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour, Rowland
~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
,;- ,. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. JOSEPH F, GRANT, 4662 Howard Street, Los Glamitos,
PERMIT N0, 1185 California, Owner; requesting permission ta ESTABLISH A CHILD NURSERY
`''- AND PRIVATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION WITH WAIVERS OF (1} MINIMUM
~ REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK AND (2) MAXIMUM pERMITTED SIGN AREA on
Y^ property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approxi-
,;,:,;'~~„ mately 220 feet on the north side of Thornton Avenue, having a meximum depth of approxi-
~`'`~'~ mately 135 feet, and being located epproximately 180 feet east of the centerline of Knott
Avenue, and further described as 3441-3435 Thornton Avenue. Property oresently clasaified
' R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
;=~7
;~ AseistanC Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property,
'' usea established in cloae
,,~ proximity, and the proposal to establish a child care nursery
and private educational institution with waiver of the required front setback and maximum
'~ ~ ermitted si
~` P gn area, noting that aubject property had been developed with one single-
~~ family residence and a nuruber of small buildings; that the petitioner was proposing to
~' develop the four lots as a child nuraer and
~ y private educational insEitution starting
;~; with approximately 35 students, eventually hoping to have as many as 150:~.children; that
~ the petitioner was proposing a rather larbe, 3U00-square foot future classroom and office
structure - however, for the preeent, the applicant propoaed to use the three amaller
~ buildinge and the existirig residential structure for five classrooma; that the future
`_~~~-'~ classroom building was proposed to set back only 5 feet from the front property line,
~~;:;~x whereas Code would require a 2S-foot setback in the R-1 Zone; that the petitioner was
~~'y~sl also proposing a 6-foot high, chainlink fence in the fron.t yard of the existing R-1
,,;~^';~~ residence, whereae Code would require that any such atructure be a minimum of 25 feet
rn~, behind the front property line; that a 32-square foot, free-etanding siga was also pro-
;~~r poaed to advertise the school - however, the R-1 2one permitted only a 1-square foot sign;
~~=~~ and that a parking area and playground were propoeed to be located on the most easterly
%',`;,':'~~'~.~~ lot, with parking provided adjecent to Thornton Avenue.
,~
7~ Mr. Slaughter, in reviewing the evaYuation of the proposal, noted that the primary deter-
'''~~~ mination before the Commisaion was whether or not the proposed use would be deairable in
`;L~~=° a predominantly single-family area, particularly in view of the fact that the applicants
'~`2;~~ proposed to develop the achool having 150 students which could project a substantial
s;\Ir'~ traffic increase into this basically low-density residential area, together with truck
~ traffic wfiich could be expected to deliver supplies to the school; that given the
`:';';: exceseive amount of traffic which could reasonably be expected, this application deserved
w~r~:~ serious consideration because of the noise and andeairable aspects of this type of
:~~;.,;~ operation; that if it is determined that the use was appropriate, the Commiasion might
~:~ wish to consider requiring the development to be done in such a manner as to present the
,,~ least impaat on the area; that 6-foot masonry walls should be provided to offer some
protection to the aurrounding land areas; that moving the future classroom structure to
:,;~~~ the required R-1 setback line would seem to preaent lesa of an intrusion into the basically
R-1 area than the propos&1 of 5 feet; and that eince a large amount of traffic was con-
;;;~%; templated, the Co~ission might also wiah to require a swing-type drive so that parents
~~~ bringing their children to school would be able to pull off the public street and make
a~loop back to the atreet. Furthermore, the Coa~ission might wish to require extensive
';~;;~ Iandacaping within the ro osed
,_,,~ p p parking areasso as to make them appear more residential
,.. in nature.
Mr. Joe :rant the !
, petitioner, appeared before the Commis sion and noted he did not realize
a 25-foot huil:'.1ng setback existed on the street and, therefore, he w8~lrld withdraw said ~
waiver and would comply with the setback of the R-1 Zone. Furthermore, the programs they
proposed ware aimilar to Ehoae in operation in which his wife who had taught school for
fifteen years at Loa Alamitoa was thoroughly trained; that he was also a achool princiral,
having 900 studente and 41 teachers; that his wife would operate the proposed facility; I
that the property to the north wae a school bus parking area, and because of this, he '
felt there was no need to provide for a 6-foot masonry wall along the north property line.
Co~nissioner Kaywood inquired as to the hours of operation; whereupon Mr. Grant staCed
that the hours would be from 8:00 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. for regular nursery achool classes.
~~'I~ Cou~issioner Seymour expresaed conoern regarding the number of teachers who would be
~1 employed if the student enrollment reached 150 students and inquired as to the number
~`~, that would be employed.
~.
w
M1~~~,~,~ s~'w . W""'t ~rp~ ~~' ~C ~,~,4'4y ~ a ry~'t"43 .~~rol' ~.,.s'~ ~ : ~'~.~'~ +,~ ,r~' 11~ s r . ",~yR.~F
3W
~ ~' ..rY.~ ~ n,. t ts1.t; Swi.A ~'tv~ ,~Tr;~' ` ~~'"r.C ~3'..~t~?~S-' ~ ~"~` ; '-t ~~3 ~~
, h :) iic,. i, y ~A.'-. iti e s~i'dpr}'~'` t t 5 ~ ~jr~ _ r. 4
.. ~~ . . . ~ ~ , . ~ . ~ . .
~MINUTES; CITY PL•ANNING COI~'Il~tISSiON, June 15, 1970.
5205
CONDITIONAL USE - ever reach that mexim~ capacity.
PERMIT NO,: `1185
(Continued) A petition of oppasition from residents along Thornton Avenue, signed
by 14 persons, was preaented to the Coa~isaion, their basic concern
being the uneightlinese of the existing buildinga and the fact that
a commercial vent~re was proposed.into a primarily residential area.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
' Commiaeioner Gauer'expressed concern that approval of aub'ect petition would begin the
breakdown of the residential integrity of•the.area; that:traffic generated from this
~ particular uee would be considerable, and although,the use propoeed was commendable, it
was in the wrong area even though the Hansen Elementary School existed to the north of
aubject property.
Commisaioner Gauer offered Reaolution No. PC70-102 and~mwed for its passage and adoption
, to deay Peti=ion for Conditional Use Permit No. 1185 on the basis that the approval of the
propased;.use would establish an undesirable coa~ercial use in a residential area; that the
proposed uee would increase the traffic on local reaidential streete; that the City of
Anaheim had many homes fronting on arterial streeEa that had been determined to be
appropria~te for conversion to coum~ercial uses, and the proposed achool facility would be
far'more appropriate at one of theae locations than within a single-family subdivision;
and that granting of the conditional use permi.t would adversely sffect the adjoining
land uses and would be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of
the citizens of the City of Anaheim. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COrIlfiSSI0NER3; Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour, Rowland.
NOES: COTfMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENTt COMMISSIONERS: Alf=ed, Farano.
VAR~NI?E"NQ,,:~2181 - PUgLIC HEARING. CREDIT DATA CORPORATION, 1761 West Katella Avenue,
.._ Anaheim, California, Owner; SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL BANR, 312 West
5th Street, Room 901, Los Angelea, California, Agent; requesting
- WAIVER OF MAXIMUM FREE-STANDING SIGN HEIGFIf ou property described as:
A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at the northeast corner of Katella Avenue
and Hnmor Drive, having approximate frontages of 285 feet on Katella Avenue and 295 feet
on Humor Drive, and further described as 1765 West Katella Avenue. Property presently
clasaified C-1, GENERAL COPQiERCIAL, ZONE.
l~saiatatft Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property,
usea eatablishad in cloae pr,:-ximity, and the proposal to erect a 44-foot, 10-inch high
free-standing sign on the premises; that the existing roof sign would be r_. ,ved, and
i the_6e!$ht of the sign was governed by the fact that an R-1 tract existed to the east
I and R-3 property to the north - therefore, the request for waiver of the aign height.
Furthermore, the Code would restrict the sign height to a maximum of 30 feet due to the
30-foot half-width of H~or Drive, and the sign as proposed would not conform to two
specific requirements of the ordina:~ce, and the Planning Commiasion woald have to determine
whether there wae justification for the approval af the vari&nce for a sign of this height
at this location.
Mr. Nei1 Oleon, 4815 Clara Avenne, Ccvina, an employee of Security Pacific National Bank,
appeared before the Co~iasion and noted that as a result of the merger of Security
National Benk and the changing of the namc to Security Pacif~c approximately one and
one-half yeara ago, the exiating branch on subject property was one of the laet branches
bn which the sign was to be changed; that presently the sign was located on top of the
building, and this sign was higher than the sign°propoaed to replace it; that the sign
was 250 square feet in copy size, and they were requesting to replace this sign with a
130-square foot copy aize sign, or approximately one-half, and thie would be in keeping
with the other aign reduced on the front of the property. Furthermore, since he had
juat completed re-signing 400 brsnches in California, reducing the total. area of these
signs by approximately 50%, thia would be in keeping with the mood or the Anaheim Planning
Co~iasion - however, the particular problem facing the re-sigrifng o:. subject property was
the fact that there was no frontage on which to place the sign and still maintain the sign
wfthin the Code requirements; that they recognized the existing sign could be remodeled
and the word "Pacific" added to it, buk it was felt this would present an unattractive
eign, and they would prefer to reduce t~e sign, removing the roof sign and erecting the
propoaed free-standing tower aign.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
TAE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
~r"c~a' ~ ~; ~' " ~.~
~:F < . o' ~~;~~'+.~.
. ~ . . . . , , 1'.'~~ . ~ , , ' . + . Q , . . . -
. . . _ .,. , _~: ~ ~~,
~: : . . .. -. . - ~-- - -- -
..C. Y
. ~~4~ . . . . ~ ~ . . - .
~C~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING.CO1~fISSION,'June 15, 1970. 5206
VARIANCE N0. 2181 - Commissioner Seymour.noCed that due-to the fact that the petitioner
(Continued)..; sEipulated the existing roof sign would be removed and the square
footage of the new sign would be lesa than the existing sign, the
~ proposed'signing would not.b~e detrimental'or set a precedent for.
' waivers,of the Sign Ord.inance: :
• Co~iasioner Seymour,offered::Resolution No. PC70-102 a~d moved for its passage and adoption
to grant'PeEition for Variance No.;2181 on the basis that the proposed,aigning would, in
effect,;be:reducing the aquare footage of the existing sign and would not be detrimental
- to the aiea nor..would;it be setEing a precedenE for waivera of the Sign Ordinance, and
subject'to;conditions. (See Resolution Baok) `
0'n roll'"call~the foregoing reaolut+ ~as paeaed b'y the following vote~
~ ~
AYES: COPASISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour, Rowland.
; NOES:. CO2~Il!1ISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT.: COlYA1ISSI0NERS: Allred, Farano.
_ RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HFARIN,. JAMES D. AND LONEAL A. HORTON, 604 East Oakmont
N0. 69~~70-63 ' Avenue, Orange, Califomia, Owners; TED MORIARTY, She11 Oil Company,
'1136 North Brookhurst StrEet, Anaheim, Califomia, Agent; property
VARIANCE N0.<2184 described as: Percel 1- An irregularly shaped parcel of land
located at the southeast corner of Lakeview Avenue and McKinnon Drive
with frontages'of approximat~ly 133 feet on Lakeview Avenue and
approximately 184 feet on McKinnon Drive,;and Parcel 2- An irregularly shaped parcel of
land having a frontage of mpproximately 144 `feet on the south side of McKinaon Drive and
a aaximum depth of approximately 114 feet, the'westerly boundary being approximately
270 feet'east of-the centerline of Lakeview Avenue - Parcel 2 being adjacent to and
immediately east of;Parcel 1. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE,
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COM1fERCIAL, 20NE (PARCELS 1 AND 2)
REQUESTED VAR7ANCE: ESTABLISH AN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION WITH WAIVER OF THE
REQUIRBMENT~,THAT A SERVICE STATiON BE LOCATED AT THE INTER-
SECTION OF 14]O HIGHWAYS DESIGNATED AS MAJOR, PRIMARY OR
' SECONDARY HIGHWAYS .(PARCEL 1 ONLYj.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberta adviaed the Co~nisaion that a letter was on file from
the agent for the petitioner requeating that aubject petitions be continued to the
meeti.dg of July 13,:in order to allow time for completion of a feasibilitq atudy which
would allow them to provide more extensi'.ve facte for the Commission's consideration.
Chairman RoWland inquired wtiether anyone was preaent in opposition, and a showing of
hands indicated 14 persons :Cn opposition to subject petitions.
Chairman Rowland then noted that requesta for continuances were generally granted with
the submission of substantia,ting evidence that the continuaace was warranted.
Mr. Roberts further advised the Commiosion and the intereated peraons that the agent for
the petitioner indicated there was a posaibility that subject petitiona would be withdrawn,
although this was not a firm fact.
Co~iasioner Gauer offered a motion to continue consideration of Petitions for Reclasai-
Pication No, 69-70-fi3 and Variance No. 2184 to the meeting of ,Tuly 13, 1970, to allow
time ~or the petitioner to complete a feasibility atudy, Co~issioner Herbst seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUL'D PUBLIC HEARING. BERNIECE PAULINE MEIERS, 3041 Miraloma
PERl~T N0. 1171 Avenue, Anaheim, C~lifornia, Owner; HOWARD J. MEIERS, 3041 Miraloma
Avenue, Anaheim, California. Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH
A CO1~IIfERCIAL STABLE FOR THE BOARDING OF HORSES on property deacribed
as: A rectangularly ahaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 4.25 acrea, having
a frontage of approximately 290 feet on Ehe narth aide of Miraloma Avenue, having a maxi-
mum depth of approximately 640 feet, and being located approximately 990 feet west of the
centerline of Kraemer Boulevard, and furthcr described as 3041 Miraloma Avenue. Property
presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
Subjecr petition was continued from the meeting of May 18, 1970, to allow time for the
ataff to obtain additionai data regarding th~ possible adverse effects oE the fly problem
and for a representative of the Orange County Health Department to present evidence.
•~,, .,.
- ~ .i
~ ,,:: ~ , - ~* ~~: ,
~ ~ 4.~/
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1970 5207
CONDITIONAL USE - Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location
PERMIT N0. 1171 of subject property, uaes established in close proximity, adding
- •(Continued) that subject petition was continued from the May 18, 1970, public
hearing to allow time for the staff to obtain additional data tegard-
ing the possible adverse effects the proposed uae would have on
surrounding properties, particularly as it pertained to fliea, and for the representative
of t-te Orange County Health Department to be present to diacues health problems. Further-
more, this representative wa$ present to g£~~e his presentation and to answer Co~ission
qseations.
Mr. Kenneth Birkbeck, repreaentative of the Orange County Health Department, Environmental
Health Diviaion, appearecl before Ehe Coumiission and noted that approximately 250,000
chickens were located on the Olson Ranch to the west of subject pxoperty and between
50,000 and 60,000 chickens were on the ranch to the east of subject property, and a horse
stable was naw proposed to be located between these two chicken ranches; that he could
see no objections to permitting a horse stable 3n this general area~ that there were
about tvo million people in the State of California who owned or rode horses, and when
their environment is controlled and routine inspections were made, it was possible they
could be kept next to a tract of homes such as the one located at Orange and Knott Avenues,
owned and operated by a Mr. Gross; that he had been inspecting this facility for the past
four yeers, and only a fence-:reparated the horse ranch from the homes located adjacent to
the ranch, and during th.c time no complaints had been received from reaidents in that
area, nor was there any complaint from the shopping center or schoel nearby; that there
would be no reason for complaints if sanitation requirements as to fliea and manure were
properly taken care of; that the basic reason why no complaints were received was that
if a facility werz maintainpd properly in accordance with the rules and regulations set
forth (copy on file with this petition) by the County E~vironmental Health Division
requiring that horse atables be cleaned daily and manure removed from the premiaes -
which broke down the fly breeding cycle - and with an operation as proposed, this could
be handled very well; that there was one thing he could suggest to the Commisaion to
require if the vasiance were approved - to require that they comply with the rules and
reguiations set up by the Health Department, and if they do not comply, the variance
could be terminated - this had been done innumerable times, in fact, he had just written
a 72-hour notice to an operator at the fairgrounds which had startad three montha ago,
and Yf this operator did not straighten out his situation, they would be claaed down
within 72 hours.
Co~iasioner Herbst inquired as to the frequenyo uf inspection of an operaCion similar
to that proposed; whereupon Mr. Birkbeck replied that under routine inspections they
attempted to make inspections every three months; that he covered the entire county on
all horse eatablishments, and if necessary, he could make inapections weekly. However,
if he determined that the operation was a clean operation, such as Dieneyland, Mr. Gross,
and Bill Geier's horse stables, they would need an inspection only eqery six months since
they operated in the same manner, regardless of inepection. However, there were others
which had to be inspected weekly because of the individual make-up of the operators.
In addition, t4e establishment of a horse atabie in this particular area, between 300,000
chickens, with the Olson Ranch having 250,000 and Bill Rogan 50,000 to 60,000 and other
ranches on Red Gum StreeC with 50,000 and on Coronado with 90,040, there would be no
increase of flies ora fly problem ia that area.
Commisaioner Herbst further noted that at the last public hearing a representative of
the Orange County Food Service expressed conaiderable concern about the increase in the
number and type of flie~ aince horse fliea were entirely different from chicken flies.
Mr. Birkbeck replied that when the Orange County Food Servi.ce moved into their facility
he was inspecting chicken ranches; that he had talked with the representative and had
received a number of complaints; that it was true that during certain seasona of the year
there would be a great increase in the fly population becauae of weather conditions, rain,
humidity, temperature changea, etc., and at theae times they asked the ranchers to spray
heavily,and•remove,the manufe daily, if•pos"sible. Furthermore, approximately a year ago
theae chicken ranches were having considerable problems becauae of the rains, eepecially
the Olson Ranch, and t1a~+ Olson brothers had a program where all manure was removed on a
weekly basis for the :W,000 chickena, having three men perform this work an ~ continuing
basis. However, at that time they were bogged down because of wet weather, d:.a an increase
in the fly production reaulted - however, when they were able to get into the area, the
fly problem abated quickly.
Mr. Birkbeck further noted that if all the livestock in the world were gotten rid of, '
the:+°; would still be a fly problem from •^-~ refuse, and thia was borne out by the
experi•ment thet wss made two yeara .ago r'~e County of Orange and the City of Orange
where they t.~,ked Che larvae from 50 dif`-- ~t hbmea,~25 having disposals and 25 without
disposals, and the flies':producefl in resi aL backyards irom average :~omes and not °
sluma produced 220 larvae per week from ~ ,~,: having disposals and 430 larvae from thoae
~aithout disposals per garbage can, with each homa having from three to four garbage cans.
~ `K} h~.:rh,.:
r`"` f .n. ~
~ .. ' . ~:.,., • i~~~„~.
. t.~.~.. . ` ~~~ , ~ ~ . .
,. - - - - -~ ' - ' - -- --- L .- - - - -- • ~ .1.. _ - .. . : •
lt.C. . _ - r:f;. .:.st ti t.~t-.~
y;~" .. . . . . •
~ ~ ., - ~ ~ ~ ~~ . ~ . . ~ ~ . ..~ ~ - .
MINDTE5~ CITY YLANNING COI~iiSSION, June 15,.1970
5208
CONDITIONAL USE - This, alone, was'.proof that from one's own home 1,000 to 2,000 larvae
'PERMIT NO.. 1171 would`be produced.weekly;'that from one dog dropping 150 larvae were
,(Coatinued) produced, so if.one noted the n~ber of dogs runaing loose, there
sti1L would be a fly problem - therefore, one could not blame the fly
problem on agricultural facilitiea but on our daily living environment,
Mr. Birkbeck then reviewed an incident which happened.in the City of Fullerton wherein
complainta were~received`regarding the fly problem where no animals were within a mile -
; how~yer, the flies were tracked down to the:.Country:Club where they had piled all their
grass clippings into a bin, and the Fanea,fly, the type of'fly found in chicken manure,
.was breeding profuaely there because this'fly preferred chicken manure and grar,s clippings,
and•-ipon inapection of theae grass clippings it was found them literally inundated with
maggots - therefore, one could say that if:an operation were under controZ there would be
lesa,problems with flies from_a horse stable, and with routine inspections he did not
expect any:more-fly production 3n that area than presenEly existed.
~ Chairmen Rawland then co~ented that from statements made by Mr, Birkbeck he would assume
that he felt there would be no fly problem ae to the propoaed operation, and the Commission
would have`to look elaewhere for some type of problem.
Mr. Birkbeck replied that there would be no problem; that he inapected 188 equine facili-
ties.in the County, one having 150 horses within 300 yazds•of President Nixon's home;
furthermore, he would make the atatement that subjest property was a proper place for a
horse stable because of a sieed,for this type of facility,and stables that were well
maintained were an a~aet to an area.
Mr. Birkbeck then distributed a copy of the inapection form which was used on all of their
routine inapectiona for the Co~isaion's review.
Com~isaioner Seymour inquired.as to the method of controlling a dust problem, to which
Mr. Birkbeck replied that the dust control was part of thn_ir regulations - that there
were several ways of controlling it, the principal one in the operation Mr. Meiers
proposed would be similar to others that he had aeen, and that was the use of "rainbirds"
on the top of the fence, and just before people started to exercise their horaes, theae
rainbirds would be turned on for approximately one hour, which would completely wet.•do~,m
the exerciaiug area, thereby no dust problem would result.
; Commissioner Seymour further noted that since Mr. Birkbeck inspected 188 of theae facili-
tiea, what was the most cormnon type of fencing enclosing these facilitiea.
Mr. Birkbeck replied that the best type of fencing, in hia opinion, =-aince horsea
"cribbed" conaiderably,•the chewing of wood - since he had seen horses in one day chew
through a two-by-six, metal portable corrals bolted together in sections were ideal,
laeted a long time and were not offensive to the area in which they were located, and
thia type of corral, he would suggest, should be required becauae if the operator ever
planned to move his operation these bolted fences could be unbolted and loaded on a
truck to be moved to another area.
Mr. Birkbeck further noted that I.ake Forest, a housing development near E1 Toro, was
building stables for 150 horses for their community and theae operations were all going
on in the area - it was one of the biggeat industriea and was something that Anaheim
should look into for the future as to their proper location, and the need would continue
aince the Board of Supervisors had iecently approved a dedicated hiking and riding trail
between Costa Mesa and Big Bear Lake, a total of 102 miles; that another hiking and
riding trail was locate~9 h~ving access from Villa Park through the mountains to San Jnan
Creek where seven park^ tv~r.e being constructed for motorcycles, dune buggies and horses.
Commissioner Herbst inqui=~d whether the horaea were brought to the corrals from existing
paths, or were they trailsred in.
Mr. Birkbeck replied that it would depend upon where the-•horse stablea were located;
that he knew of one woman who was asking for permisaion to use the o1d railroad track
to go up through Villa Park; and that thp proposed facility was not more than one-half
mile from the Sanka Ana Riverbed vhere the riding trail to Big Bear Lake was located.
Co~isaioner Kaywood inquired what was used to control flies - was DDT or other chemicals
used.
Mr. Birkbeck replied that the best solution would be "elbow grease" and sanitation since
any cht,aical uaed the flies would eventually become iumune to, and by* control of 99-9/10%
of the f;,iea, the one fly left would have a future generation that would be very difficult
to kil: ~ith chemicals, so he would say the best thing would be good sanitation which
would get rid of the fiy maggots or places where flies bred and laid eggs,
y,nw~.ea.e+c - - -
r~.. M
i . F ~ s ~ ~ ~'~~
_. . ... ... . .. • . ~. . ._,... . ,_ .. .. ~ . . . . ~ . . _ . _ ..
~y s g~ ~~ `Yy-tii' r '-~.: ~.,.r9 ~~. ~ tt ~''z 4"4c.'a4~`~ ~ yd4 zy 't~ T . ; +T r ~ r s ~ - t
'~•~,~,s" "~"~` 8'--~r :^ t~ ~Y#~~': ~ t~,. ~~~ ~ .~ f.:' +~i ~~~-.w,' ~ ~'y.rys,? q 4.~.r ~' ~ '7'fr ,y ~ ~" ~
io~~~ - ~.K ^''/'.+~.1 X ! '! ;^ _ ,
~ . . . .. . . - . . '_.~._.~
'~~ ~: ~ ~ . ... ~ ~ ~~. ~ '. ., - ~ .
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CO1~AfISSION, June 15, 1970. 'S209
CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. K~nneth Bryant, attorney representing the petitioner, appeared
PERMIT N0. 1171 before the Co~ission:and noted that at the Commission's suggestion
(Continued) the applicant.had looked into the possibility of truck farming for
- his properfy but found thaE the average rentals in the area wouZd
be approximately $l00 per acre per year, Cotaling`abqut $500+ per
year:- however, his taxes on the five-ccre percel preaently were $2,GOO, and it would
be very difficult for him to convers,'co farming. Further~ore, he was one of the very
few property ownera wh~:had a sign for more than a year on ti;~ land indicating that his
property was foi sale, and'he would be very willing to sell his property for industrial
purposes.
In response to Commission questioning, Mr. Bryant atated that the asking price for the
property was the market,price.
Mr. Bryant also noted that the petitioner would stipulate to the portable corral-type
fencing suggested by Mr. Birkbeck.
The Commission further noted that at the previous public hearing a time limitation for
the particular use had been discusaed and inquired whether or not this had been giv~
any furL.her conaideration by the petitioner.
~ .
Mr. Bry~nc replied that the best protection for the City as to time limitation would be
when the area was ready for industrial deveTopment since the taxes would necessariL~ go
up; and the adjoining property owners would sell their property to industrial users,;
and considering the fact that the proposed operation was cleaner and a better and higher
uae, he would request that no time limitation be applied to the proposed use; that,the
chicken ranches enjoyed an unlimited time, whereas the proposed use would be a bet~r
use of Ehe property with less animals and limitation would penalize the petitionerY:;
However, if the Commission.insisted`upon an estimeted time, he would suggeat a mia 'um
of ten years in order.that the expense involved in improvement of the property cou~.be
amortized. ,,.,~;,
;, ,
Mr. Lew Copea, owner of the Copea Baking Company at I509 Kraemer Boul.evard a ~,
before the Commiseion and noted hia bake ' pp~r ~1
ry was not too far from~the proposed atab "
that although they had exterminators at their facility they still had a fly probl rt'`
that they'had been having a very difficult time with the flies, and it was the fir `
time in thirty-five years.of operation that they had to spend so much money for fl'
control purpoaee and were purchaeing the fly apray in 55•~gallon drums to destroy~the
fliea; that he 3id not know which was the lesaer of two e~ils - chicken or horse flies;
that he hed seen customers in the bakery walk out becauae of a few flies, even after
every attempt had been made to exterminate the fliea; that there were rats in the field
near his building which added to their problem aince in their business it was neceasary
to police the premiaes conatantly; that in construction of a bakery, they had to have
steel and iron conatruction below ground to keep the rats from boring from below into
the bakery since once they entered a bakery plant, the operation could be condemned by
the Health Department overnight; that he was in symgathy with the petitioner since he
was in a similar position wherein his bakery suddenly became surrounded with homes; and
that he urgently requeated that the Commission give careful consideration to the indus-
tries already established in this area, especially the food industry, by not compounding
an already existing fly problem.
Mr. Birkbeck advised the Commission that the matter of rata mentione b Mr. Cop was
a never-ending one since there were two rats for each human bein~3'n~`}t~t ie ld
suggest that Mr. Copea call the Health Department to make his complaint so that proper
measures could be taken to solve the rat problem; that many of the rata in this area
entered the buildings through the roof, and it made little d~fference whether one mas
in the doRmtwn area or in an industrial area, buildings would have to be inspected
and then the building made rodent-proof since many of the rata were tree rats, especially
in palm and eucalyptus trec~s and orange groves; that many of the buildinga in Santa Ana
had to be mad~ rodent-proof, eapecially where bakeries and restaurants were concerned;
and then cited a rat problem which Dieneyland had and the steps taken with the planting
of poisoned food and traps, and since they had meintained this program of rst conkrol,
they had caught only one rat in the past year.
Mr. Norman Altee, repreaenting the Orange County Food Service, appeared before the
Commiasion representing both the food service and the land owner and noced that one
additional co~aent to the co~ents made at the previous pubiic hearing was the fact that a
horse fly was considerably larger than a chicken fly; that his company had a show-place
facility as to cleanlinese and was the most modern plant weat of the Mississippi; and
that their main problem was when potential customera came to view their operation there
was always some comment about flies, and although thPy had a very vigorous program to
get rid of the chicken flies, they did not know what they would do to get rid of the
horse fliea aince both were detrimental to the buainesa.
..., /2'--~„~
.A r
,: : ..
~~
.._ .. 4-.: . .- . _ ~. ~ . ~ ~ . . . - ~ ~
_. , .: ;. . ~... ~ :.~
~ ' ,'. ,, ,:
'~ . ~ , ~~.
MINUTES, CITY PIAIrNING COMlfISSION, June 15, 1970 `5210
CONDITIONAI. USE` -'THE.HEARING WAS.CLOSED.
' PERMIT N0. 1171: ,
(Continued) Commisaioner Gauer noted that he hed asked for infozmation to be
submitted.regarding placing these_properties"into an agricultural
- ' preserve;.however, he had.been informed.that in order'to obtain
relief from the.tax rate, one had to sigr,::a ten-year contract to keep the land in a
preserve:
_
Zoning Sugervisor.CSarles Roberts advised the Commisaion that the staff had checi;r_d-
with the Oraage-County Assessor's Office"and hed`:been;addised that the'only vehic'!a
aysilable for relief,from taxee was:through the agricultural preserve contrqct which
had.to be made with the County for a period of ten years, and if the contraCt were
violated`within"said ten yeara, back taxes would be assessed, and that the staff had
inveatigsted,one percel of land prior to its being assi$ned to an agricultural preserve,
end subsequent ratio_of taxes, tbe difference being that• in the ag;icultural preserve
texes:were only one-quarter of:the original tax rate, and that the parcel that had been
`investigeted„was etill.an'oraage grove.
~Commisaioner Herbst inquired as to what measure of protection Would be mede to the
"rietropolitan Water D.epartment easement on the west property line.
Asaiatant City Attorney John Dawson noted this was.an underground water pipe.
Mr. Slaughter'noted that the area map which the Commission had was in error, and that
the Metropolitan Water District owned the property in fee but it did':not necessarily
mean-there was an underground water pipe there. .
Mr. Roberts, in response to questions by.the Co~nission in regard to the fence proposed
on.both the north and east property lines, stated the petitioner had intended to erect
a height and type of fence.similar to that already in existence on the north property
line.
Mr. Hovard Meiers, at the request ef the Commission to answer questions, stated that they
preaently had 4C;-0OO chickens on their property;"that the-owner to the east had at least
40,000 and to the west 100,000, and further west an additional 100,000.
Commiasioner Herbst.inquired whether or not the petitioner would meet the M-1 Code
requirements as they pertained to structural setback on Miraloma Avenue and landscaping
requirements.
Mr. Meiers inquired whether or not the Commiosion was desirous of having the same type
of landscaping:wh3ch the Orange County Food Service had and if so, it would be a waste
of money since the landscaping would be'torn out when the,property was developed for
industriaL'purpoaes. Furthermore, one would have to be foolieh to want to be'~a farmer
working 12 to 14 houra a day inatead of aitting back and waiting for a check to come
iZ each month - however, the proposed operation would be somewhat better than a chicken
rauch, but he did not feeL the Zand would develop to its gor.zntial in industry very soon,
and that if tlie property did develop, he would be the first'•to try to sell his property.
The Cos~ission noted that it would seem nardly likely an industry would tear up all the
landacaping and then have to spend an additional amount of money to replant it when the
landsceping was already availaBle.
Commissioner Herbst noted that if the owners of the several parcela of property on both
sides of aubject property vould band together and combine their propertiea, they would
have a better chance of the property developing industrially than if each parcel were
sold individually. However, to expect one parCel surrounded on two sides with chicken
banchea to be picked up for development by a manufacturer would be facitious since the
manufacturer would have to.close down the operation because of a fly problem attacking
the workers - therefore, he would suggeat that the petitioaer's best chance for saieabiTtty
of the psoperty would be to.combine both the Olson property and the Bert ltogan ranch•.
with subject property so.that a better development could be made, getting rid of the
chickens in the interim.
i
Mr. Meiers stated that most of the land was held by speculators waiting for the land to t
develop, and he would rather sell his property to industry than work it as a farmer, ~
aad tha•~ his neighbors had not been approached, and they did not want to give their f
property away after having paid the high taxes and worked so long for their property. '
Furthermore, even with properties that were developed with orange orcharda it was im- i
possible to pay the taxes - however, the poultry ranch did pay for the taxea on his
property.
Commiasioner Ksywood inquired as to the ~-°~ -
whereupon Mr. Meiers replied that the landtinithis1generalgareacwas~roine forpe25Y000
~ 8 $ .
, ~.s` '`f , ~ ' .-.4 '-I'l r :.:~ 'r , ,z~-. ~, ~..~K ~ ' `~ ` a ~~~ ` ~; * r ~-:~ r :
. ,: . .,< .. .
-.. . .. . :, . .
~ ? ~ i~y ~~` £ S " ' ~t b ., r c . ,~` - ~
T . , ~.: . .,".. / : ~ .:.6?:-"r q . ' .v- a .. , c~"'` - S '
.. " .,._ ..~.-rt. _. _ ,,...:~.a . _.,.--r:L' .~.~: .',~: . ' ~~. :~~,
.~ ~ ~ ~ ~, .. _ ~ ~ ~ - .~ ~
MINfTLES, CITY PLANNING COIYAfISSION, June 15, 1970 5211
I CONDITIONAL USE - to $30,000 per acre, and they were askin
g $30,000 to $35,000 per acre.
PERMIT N0. 117L Furtherniore, he would have to have more than five yeare' time for the
(Continued) use of':the property.for.a horse stable because of the cost of improve-
ments recommended by staff and those which the Co~uisaion might add.
The Commissi'on concurred that the use proposed would get rid af 40,000 chid kens, and a
horse ranch vas a better use than.the existing use, and that interim uses had to be found
for theae properties projected;for industrial purposes awaiting development in order that
some measure of relief from tax`:costa could be derived.
Commissia~ter Seymour offered Resolution No. PC70-104 and moved for its passage and adoption
to grant Eetition for Conditional Use Permit No. llll for-a period of tett years, subject
to reeo~ended.conditions by:the Interdepartmental Committee and requiring that the
etructural ;setback and landscaping along the south property line be in conformance with
the eite development standarda of the M-1, Light Industrial, Zone and be comnpatible with
- exiating•:industrial development in the area; that a 6-foot masonry wall bE constructed to
the rear of the required 50-foot setback along Miraloma Avenue; that a minimum 6-foot
high, metal, portable corral-type fence be provided along the north, weat and eget property
, linea; that maintenance of the prop~ ed ~acility ahall be in conformance with the require-
ments of`the Orange County Health Department, Environmental Control Division; that iEr.the
PeQ~a3'odies••ie'qise~'ted •an radflfitional period of time after the expiration of said ten years,
a request: to the Planning Commission and/or City Council could be made for their considera-
tion; and,:thut granting of said uae was based on the fact that the propoaed use was an
interim use.for the property until industrial development occurred, and that evidence
preaented by the r,epreaentative of the Orange County Health Department revealed that
fewer fly problems would result from a horse'stable than were genereted by existing
chicken ranches if Health Department regulations were met. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vate:
AYES; COI~fiSSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour, Rowlend.
NOES: CO1~fISSIONERS; None.
ABSENT; COI~ASISSIONERS: Allred, Farano.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HFARING. INITIATEB BY THE CITY PLANNING CONAfISSION, 204 East
N0.~69-7~0,_62 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; pro,posing that property described
as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land havirtg a frontage of
approximately 120 feet on the east aide df Lemon Street, havin~ a
maximum depth of approximately 202 feet, and being located approximately 220 feet north
of the centerline of &all Road, and further deacribed ae 1130 South Lemon Street be
reclassified from the G 1, GENERAL C01~4IERCIAL, ZONE to the R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL,
ZONE to establish the most appropri~te zoning for subject property.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject ~roperty,
uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to establish R-3 zoning on an exiat-
ing 24-unit apartment complex, said rezoning being the result o£ a Commission directive in
order that a masonry wall might be constructed between the existing developed eo~ercial
uaea to the south and to enable the existing apartments to have'the bet[efits and protection
which the 2onin~ Ordinance provided for reaidential uaes which were not available with the
exiating commercial zone.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THE HFARING WAS CLOSED,
Co~issioner Kaywood offered Resolution No. PC70-105 and mnved for ita passage and adop-
tion to rec~o~end to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 69-70-62 be
approved subject to dedication along Lemon Street for street widening purposes, $2.00
: per front foot for street lighting purposes, and 15C per front foot for tree planting
purpoaes along Lemon Street to be accomplished at auch time es major redevelopment of
the property occurred. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: CO1~AfISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour, Rowland.
NOES: COr4iISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COlAfISSIONERS: Allred, Farano.
`~~'~° .
~~r zv r.
~, - ~1 3 . 1. ~'+' x ~~~~:X-:'~
.. _ ...,. ... , u . . ~:!'~ ...`n . ~ . . .. . . ~~' ... ~ • . .
, . .; - _ ;.. __. . _ ,~~_ .
, f•1
' ~ ~ da
'X Y±22Y'~"(S - -..~(~L . . . . . . . `~ . . . . .
;MINUTES, CITY`-PLANNING COMMISSION;_Juna:15,.1970 'S212
RECLASSIFICATION -~ PUBLIC `.HEARING. INITIATED, BY -T~ CITY PLN.NNING CONAfISSION, ,204 East .
~ NO 69-70 64 ~; . Lincoln Avenue, ~Anaheim, California;. propoeing `W¢±esb~?te~tr~R-~4, :.:." '
;A6BICULTURAL, ZONING on property described as:~ An irre~gularly shapesl
e •' `parcel of land:consisting`of approximate2y 80 ac=es lor.ated generally
south•:of Eapeicanza Road arid'east of Imperial High~aay and.havirig approxiaate frontager~ of
2,740 feet,or Esperanza Road, 1,500 feet`'on Imperial Highway, aa~1 2,80b feet on the north
.. 'side~of the Seata Ana River.
~isaiatant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaup'~ter noted for the Commission the location of
' subject, property consistisig of approximately 81.acres, the petition befng initiated to
establ~iah.City of Anaheim,zoning•on property.that.was annexed to the City of Anaheim
on vhich a reclas.sification petition was pending to the C-1 and R-3 Zones for a portien
of subject property`and R-A for a`portion on whxch a•347-unit`mabAle ho~e park was
proposed.. :
No one'appeared in oppoaition to subject petition.
~.THE`HEARING WAS CLOSED;
Commiasioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC70-106 and mov~,~i for its ps.assrxP and adoption
to reco~end to the City Council that Petition'for Reclae~ification No. 6'~i-~0-64 be
approved unconditional2y. (See`Resolution Book)
Oa roll call the foregoing;resolution was passed by thca fo'Llat~ing vote:
AYESe i:02~iISSIONERSr Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour, Rowland.
NOES: CO1~Il~lISSIONERS ; ` None.
ABSENTs COIAfISSIONERS: Allred, Farano.
REPORTS AND . - ITEM N0. 1
RECOI~IlIENDATIONS CONDITIObTAL USE PERMIT N0. 1163 - Review af tevised
plans.for motel. .
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberta presented reviaed plans for Conditional Uae Permit No.
1163 to the Planning Coa~ission, noting that •aubject getition had been denied by their
body and subsequently appealed to.the City Council, said petition scheduled ta be con-
sidered~',by..the City Council on June 16, 1970; and that the plane had b~en somewhat chat;ged
wherein the need for'Ehe waiver of khe maximum buil~iing height was deleted through re-
designing'the complex and moving the buildings~ to the easE.
Mr. Roberta then reviewed tha findings of Reaolution No PC?~-~;a ~•hiich set f.rth additional
reasone for denial other than the height of the structvxe. The primary sesson,e for denia°..
being the undesirabl'e effect upon the living environment,of the adja~ent single-family
residents; waiver of the required frontage on a publi•^ street; general unattractive design
Which had the appearance of a substandard apartment pro~ect; incoavenient perking design,
since it was not located adjacenC to the motel units; and the adverae ef.fect the use
would-have upon the adjoining land uses.
The Co~ission reviewed the revised plans and the information submitt~d by staff and
diacussed the basic reasons for the original denial of the petition. Upon uonclusion of
this diacusaion, Co~issianer Herbst offered a motion to advise the City Council thet
the revised plana differ only slightly from the original plans, and that the Ca~ission
vas of the opinion that the units would atill be substandard apartments; that tll? land
uee was too intenaive for this general area; and that the Planning Co~ission reaffirmed
its original deniel as set forth in Resolution No. PC70-70, adopted unanimously by the
, Co~ission on~May 4, 1970, Co~nisaioner Gauer aeconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJO~JRNMENT - There being no further buainess to diacusa, Commiseioaer Herbat
offered e motion to adjourn the meeEing. Co~isaioner Kaywood
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 6:50 P.M.
Rebpectfully submitted,
c~2~-~c/ ¢~~
ANN RREBS, Secret ry
Anaheim City Planning Commisaion