Minutes-PC 1970/06/29~ ~ : ~
' .
~. ; . City Hall ..:•-
Anah~eim, California
; June :29,' 1970
A REGITLAR MEETING"OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSZON . !
-. , ~
` REGULAR MELTING - A regular meeting of'the Anaheim CiCy Planning Commisaion vas called
t
' ~
; ry~
~ aA~
o order by Chairman
Raw3i~d atr ~2•~~0~~~0~~o'clock P:M., a`quoriim being
,present. . /~° 7i,.rc. /~,-o~' i
~~~:
r .
_
:, PRESENT• CHAIRMAN PRO TEM. .HerBst.. s ,¢ .
`~
CHl1IRMAN Rowland:(entered the Council Chamber at 2:03 P.M•. and ~
r
assumed the chair). :
: .`
a=.
- COIIl~iISSIONE[iS; Allred, Farano (entered the Council Chamber at 2a 10 P.M )
; ;~y
,
Gauer, Kaywood,,Seymour.
. ~
ABSENT - COI~ASISSIONERS:, None. ~ ~:
1 7;
(
~:
P~S~T - Assistent Development,Services Director: FConald Thompsott ~
;
;
- , Aasistant City Attorney: " John Dawson ;
,
i;
;
Office Engineer Representative:
Robert Jones• :
;;:;
,Zoning Supervisor: Charles Roberts `
Aasistant 2oning Supervisor: Malcolm Slaughter
Planning Coa~ission Secretar M~,y
'
y: Ann Krebs.
PLEDGE OF ~•~<
~
ALLEG792iC,~ - Commissionei, Herbst.led in'the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
c;
~~
APPROVt4L~ OF - The Minutes "of the meeting of; June 15 1970 were a
~ ~ ' PProved with the
~THE 1"L[~GBS following corrections on motion b
Com
issi j~`
~ ~~
~'
.
y
m
oner Allred, seconded by
Co~issioner Seymour, and MOTION CARRIED:
Page 5182, paragraph 5,"'Office Engineer Representative: Robert Jones"; i
-:
r = r
pa
agraph 7, edditional correction: Page 5180,.paragraph 1,
Commissioner Kaywood offered Resoltuio
No
~~ 'Y
~
n
. PC70-93.. .
Page`5209, paragraph 7, line 2, "td~o rats for each human being:in ~~ ~~
Orange County: . . ° ~
;
;
SPECIAL STUDY.'- Com~riissioner Kaywood requested that`the staff prepare a special study
LINCOLN•AVENUE for Lincoln Avenue between'Brookhurst St
e
t
n
;
~
f~
~,
~~
r
e
o
the eaet and Knott
Avenue on the west to determine poasible land uses for the properties
nd
~
.
a
~
reco~end same to the Planning Commission.
~
~.~;
CONDITION1L.i1SE - CONTINUED PUgLIC HEARING. CENTRAL ASSEMBLY OF GOD, ERNEST L. FRIEND,
PERMIT N0. 1180 PASTOR-PRESIDENT , s ",
'i
, 1026 South East Street, Anaheim, Celifornia, Owner;
requesting permission to ESTABLISH A PRE-SCHOOL NURSERY AND A D~AY ~
`-
SCHOOL ON AN EXISTING CHURCH SITE, WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED
SIDE YARD AND RFAR YARD SETBACK
n
r ~
o
prope
ty described as: An irregu;.arly shaped parcel
of land consisting of approximately 1.5 acres; having'a frontage of a
roximat
l
f
174
'
pp
e
y
eet on
the east si~de of East Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 380 feet,
-and being located approximat
3
ely 1
2 feet north of the centerline of Turin Avenue, and
furthes described as 1024 South East St
t
ree
. Prop~rtq presently classified R-A,
AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
_.- , _
Subject.petition was continued from the June 2, 1970, meeting to allov time for the
petitioner to submit revised plans inco
i ~
rporat
ng the suggestions made by the Commission.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property,
uses established in,close proximity
the existin
zoni
a
d '~;
,
g
ng,
n
the proposal, noting that
subject petition had.been continued from the June 2 mesting to allow the.petitioner time
to"revise plans mor~e in kee
ing
ith'
s
e
p
w
the
ugg
stipns made by,the Commission; that these
revised`plans.indicated the boqs' shop building was now proposed within 5
o
-
feet
f the
south property l~ne and 240";feet from the front property,line; thaE'although the plans
were revised,_there still wa~s a:need fo
the ori
a
r
gin
L waivers - however,'these plans did
provide;'for adequate_fire,protection with the water source being provided by a public
hydrant which Ehe petitioner
w
'
'
s
ould install
in the EasE
Street parkway adjacent to the
; driveway;:and that the Co~ission still would have to determine whether or n
t thi
p
o
os
o
s
r
p
al would be'appropriate in the area and whether.Ehere was justification to waive the
required side yard setback. -
5213
. .!.
f
~ ~ y
r. .
~ - - ~
I MINUTES, ~ PI,p,NNING C01~Il~fISSION, June 2~1970 ~ 5214
CONDITIONAL USE - Reverend Ernest.Friend, agent for~the petitioner, appeared before the
PERMIT N0; 1180 , Coa~ission.and noted that the dey achool.and nursery were nat tied
into_the use of'the proposed building; thaG their main interest was
`- to build the boys' shop at the present time so that th~e young boys
would have an interegt and:be.taken off of`the street; that the requirement of a setback
of 18 feet would:resnlt'in a loss of considerable parking, as.well as blocking the entrauce.
to:.the parking area; and that the revised plans took,care of the fire protection problem.
No one,appeared in opposition Eo subject petition.
THE AEARING WAS CLOSED..
~Couffiissioner Herbst was of the opinion ths;. no evidence was preseated that a variance
frnm Code requiremenEs was riecessary°since the property had considerable'land between
the~exi,sting building and the various property lines.
Cormnissioner Seymour noted that Pastor Friead had indicated that if the building were
relocated 18 feet from the side or rear.property lines it would adversely affect the
parking and requested that a furtlier explanation should be made.
Reverend Friend, indicating;~ou'Lhe plans, noted that there existed large pine trees which
were not indicated on the plana - however, theae were very large trees on both sides of .
the driveway; and a sharp tura had to be made to the parking area, and it was their intent
to retain.theae trees.
Rev..Friend, in~response,to'~urther•Coamitssion questioning, stated that this building would
be a permanent facility; that they planned to blacktop the present parking area which was
now only`a dirt area between the existing and or.oposed buildings; that they were concerned
that children might run in front of vehicles crossing from the proposed building to the
church, aud development as proposed wouid give them m~re room; and that the only tools
proposed`Por this building were.tools allowed for small boys and would not consist of any
power toolss. Furtliermore, it was proposed to have windows only on the south and west
sides of the building..
Co~issioner Farano entered the Council Chamber at 2:10 B.M.
Further discussioa was.held by the Co~ission as to co~ents made by the agent for the
petitioner and tlien inquired of staff wliether or not the location of the building further
' to the north would meet with Fire Department regulations.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that-the Fire Chief had advised them that a
distance of 250 feet from the fire hydrant would not create a prob~,em in servicing the
property in the event of a fire.
Co~issioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC70-107 and moved for its passage and adoption
to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1180 in part, denying the waivers
requested on the basis that subject property was more than adequate in size to provide for
Code setbacks; that the petitioner had not submitted evidence that a hardship would result
if said waivers were not granted; and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book)
Prior to roll call, Reverend Friend requested permission to give the Co~isaion additional
information,which was granted by the Chairman, and stated that the proposed building would
be adjacent to the parsonage locs~ted aoutherly of subject property - therefore, no one
would be affected, and that the neighbors were very friendly - thus he could see no
problem being presented by them as to possible noises emanating fr~m the propoaed structure.
On roll call the £oregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COI~fISSIONERS; Allred, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Seymour.
ABSENT: COrlliISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: CO1~IIfISSIONERS: Farano.
Reverend Friend then asked for clarification of the motion; whereupon the Commission
advised him that any proposed structure on subject property would have to meet Code
setbacks.
Reverend Friend noted that this might be rather an ewkward situation for the congregation, 1
and he was not at all certain whether this building would be constructed. However, they
did lack building facilities.
The Commission then noted that the proposed building could be located..nea= the other
buildings already located on the property rather than being completely separated. '
t,
f .._
~
~ ._~: .-
~
EL~ ~ *'g~ 1Yr' ~'~ .. ~ ~ F~~~h.{'" ~i ~-~ ~~~'~a.... £ ~ +a~ 'v.~,x„~.tiK' ~~:~,X.y~t`~yaA."j~ r ~ ~' '~ rS+ ..~~ ,Y' v . iE'~ ~ l.
*k'H -r ,,'r J.7_~~..'Tw <i~: r2 ~,ge•D ,c -.7W.N$~ ~ ~ ~ ~"~3 0 ~ r5~, p ~'i "
~ . ~ , ..5~ i r: AS~,t~' :s , r:d~u -~ ~ 5.~7~' r,. r- j e. ( . ~ ~a _
v_~~rr ~1 . _,~~t,o~'qi, ~~~~ ....,~~Fi° ~~~~~ri~' a .'e~xP r {4~`4`' ~tr r -.'h ; ~£ ~r `z
f
~ ':.. ~ . ~ . .,
~ ~ ~ ... ~ .. ' .
~ ~ ~
~` MINUTES,'.CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June.`29, 1970
~-.
R ; 5215
~ ~ RECLASSIFICATION - C.ONTINUED PUBI;IC HEARING,
NO 69=70-50 A~ANSON R. AND AAZEL M, L•OUD, P, 0. Box
~'r~ 2039,.Pomona,.California, Ownera; STATE-WIDE INVESTORS, INC,, 443
~~'~ East Wardlow Road, Long Beach,;,Califomia A ent•
~,~,~ VARIANCE' N0, 2171 as: Portion A c;A rectangularly`shaped parcel of;-landeconsistingbof
4~~ - '~ ' approximately 1.Z acres,._having a:frontage of aFproximately 130 feet
~y,~~ ` on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, having a maximum depth of approxi-
X'~t mately 595 feet,' and being,located approximetely 280 feet weat of che centerline of
. ,.
'~~'~ Stinson:Street;-and Portion B,- A rectangularly shaped parcel of land.consisting of
~{.~-~ approximately 1;8 acres, having a frontage of approximately Z32 feet on the south side
s~~,,, of Lincoln Avenue, having a maximum,deptk oE.approximately 601 feet, and being located
~,; approximately 420 feet west of the,centerline of Stinson Street azd being contiguoua to
the-westerly boundary'of Portion A, and further described as 2704 West Lincoln Avenue.
~ Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL CONJMERCIAL, ZONE.
- REQUESTED CL.ASSIFICATTON: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE (PORTIONS A AND Bj.
~. REQ'UESTED VARIANCEs` WAIVERS OF (1) ,MINIMIIM IZEQUIggD SIDE YARD SETBACK AND (2) ME~7(IMUM
' BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESLDENTIAL
'; USE, TO ESTABLISH A 50-UNIT APARTMENT C~MPLEX (PORTION A ONLY).
Subject petitions were contiaued from the meeting of June 2, 1970, to allow time for the
`" petitioner to submit revi6ed plans.
~~
A,letter was read to the Commisaion from the petitioners requestinS an additional four
~
weeks to resolve problems in the redesign of, the project.
Coamiissioner Allred offered a motion to continue Petitions for Reclasaification No.
69-70-50 and Variance No. 2171 to the meetCng of ,7uly 27, 1970, to allow the petitio~er
additional time to prepare revised plana. Coum~issioner Herbst seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
~y, , ~
VARIANCE N0. 2I80 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. MARY SCALZO BAILEY, c/o Chuck Chandler,
Attorney, 608 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Owner;
AD ART, INC., Tom Dunovan 14365 Firesto Bo
~
~
California, Agent; requesting WAIVERS OF 7, ~ ne ulevard, La Mirada,
~~~XIMUM PERMITTED SIGN DISPLAY AREA AND
(2) PERMITTED SIGN LOCATION TO PERMIT A FREE-STAI~PDING SIGN on property described as:
An irregularly'shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 85 feet on the
east.side of Harbor Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approximately 600 feet, and being
located approximetely 710 feet north of the centerline of Freedman Way, and further
described as 1570 South Harbor Boulevard. Property preaently classifLed C-R, COIIIlERCIAL-
RECREATION, ZONE.
Subject petition aras held over fram the June 15, 1970, meeting Lue to a tie vote.
Chairman Rowland noted that Commissioner Farano was the only one absent at the last
public hearing regarding subject petition.
Commissioner Farano noted that he was aufficiently acquainted with the area and had read
the minutes in detail - therefare, he felt he was qualified ta vote on subject petition;
however, if Assistant City Attozney John Dawson felt the hearing should be re-opened for
evidence from the petitioner, then perhaps this should be done to make any action he
took legal. ~
Mr. Dawson stated that since Commissioner Farano had indicated he was #ully aware of the
evidenae, that it would be withir. his right to vote on subject petiCion.
Chairman Rowland requested the Co~ission Secretary to read the ffrst motion on which a
tie vote occurred wherein Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to approve Petitioa for
Variance No. 2180.
On roll call the foregoing motion lost, with voting as follows:
AYES: COI~AiISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Kaywood, Rowland:
ABSENT: COI~AfISSIONERS: None.
Co~issioner.Allred offered Resolution No. PC70-108 and moved for its passage and adoption
to deny Petition for Var3ance No. 2180 on the basis that a sign of this size would only
add to the sign clutter existing in the Cou~ercial-Recreation Area; that the Sign Ordinance
provided for adequate eigning of subject property; phat approval of subject petition would
perpetuate and encourage further Sign Ordinance deviations; and that the evidence submitted
by the petitioner as to actual size of the parcel was insufficient to grant favorable
consideration since the petitioner had derived a measure of monetary return for the
frontage of the restaurant property. (See Resolution Book)
~ _ __ . _ _ _ _„_;- ,» -,.,, . _
~ ~ . . ' ' . . . 'L i ..~
MINDTES, C~TY PIANNING COI~AiISSION, June 29~1970 ~
5216
1~L~IRIANCE N0~ 2180 - Prior to voting, C~missioners Gauer and Herbst noted that a technical
(~C~ntiniued) ., problem existed.since the petitioner had a'aather smal.. frontage and
was being depxived:of the signing_requested because of this - although
'. ' the rear Yortion, if Eaken ae ~he.frontage of the property, would
p~ermit's,tgning; as,proposed.;' and that the propos%ed si;~ing vould rtat add €urther harm to
the eign;'problem existi*g`in the Co~ercial-Recreation Area.:
~Chairman Rowland noted that the Sign Ordinance #unctions as a~:iltiple of the frontage of
Che property; that eubject property originally consiated:of a large portion - however, the
f=ont.85?feet was cut off '£rom the original parcei for the resLauranE, and although this
might b'e a valid conaideration, the petitioner realized a financial return for this
property which negated a right to coasider future sign size.
~ Co~mmissioner Allred noted tha't it was his feeling approval would compound an already
untena~le sign situation,even though, at the present time, notlaing could be done to
alleviate this problem, .
On roll call the foregoing resolution.passed by the following vote:
AYES: COI~BSISSIONERS; Allred, Farano, Kaywood, Rowland.
NOES: CO1~AfISSIONERS; Gauer, Herbsc, SeymQUr.
ABSENT: CO1~AiISSIONERS: None.
CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED,PUBLIC HEARING. CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH~ 2780 East Wagner
PERMIT N0. 1183 Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; REV. ARTHUR R14`sEg, 27g0 East
Wagner Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requ.e~sting permission to
EXPAND AN EXISTING CAURCH COMPLEX TO INCLUDE ADDI'~ION OF A 440-SEAT
SANCTUARY AND A PRE-SCHOOL ,NURSERY WITH WAIVER OF MAXIMUM PEgMITTED BUILDING HEIGHT on
property described as: An 3rregularly shaoed parcel of land having a frontage of approxi-
mately 115 feet on the south side of Wagner Avenue, he~fng a maximwn depth of. approxi-
mately 690 feet, and being lacated apprcximately 140 feet east of the cenEerline of
Marjan Street, and further described as 2780 East Wa~aer Avenue. Property presently
clasaified R-A,.AGRICULTURAL, ZONE,
Subject;petition was continued from the June 15, 1970, meeting to allow time for the
petitioner to submit revisecY plans.
Assistant 2oning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter rsvieved the location.o~ subject property,
uses established in cloae pr.oximity, existiag zoningyrpurevioue'zonin~ action, and the
proposal, noting'that the seviaed plans now proposed a sanctuary to be Tocated in a
north-south directi.rn behind th~ existing Sunday school buildinp; that the educational
facility would be built at the present locaCfon o~ the house and garage; that the side
of the proposed sanctuary would be 293~ feet from the R-1 properties to the weat and
would be 19 feet high at this l.ocation, which would require a 38-foot setback; that the
revised plana would present less of an intrueion and visual barrier to the residences
than was originaily proposed; and that th¢ Co~ission would have to determine if there
were sufficient justification to grant the 4-foot encroachment into the required side
yard setback.
No one appeared to repreaent the petitioner. --~-----~-~-"' -- ~
Mr• Don Roush, 994 Marjan Street, appeared before the Commission and advised them that
he_had been out ,o£ town for the past four days - therefore, he did not know if the
petitioner had made an attempt to contact him, but none of the neighbors had_~_h_~;-------
contacted, nor had they seen the revised plans and requested this lse coiitinued until
all interested persoas had a chance to reviest the...revised plans and make a decision.
- P
Chsirman Rowland directed Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts to review the lans with the
i opposition outside of th~`Council Chambers, and 3ubject petition would be considered
I latar in.the meeeing, at which time it was hoped the petitioner would be present.
~ (Se~-page 5221).
i_
CONDITIONAL USE - pUBLIC HEARINig, CAggIg p. MC CLURE, c/o Leonard Smith Real Estate,
PERMIT ::J, 1187 125-D South Claudina Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; Leonard
Smith, 125-D South Claudina Street, Anaheim, California, Agent;
requesting permission to ESTABLYSH A PLANT NUgSERY WITH RELATED USES
AND WITH WAIVERS OF (1) MA}~IMUM pEgMITTED STRUCTURAL HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF A SINGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZpNE ANp (2) MINIMUM BUILDING SETSACK on property described as: A
rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of appr~ximately 155 feet on the
south side of Lincoln eivenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 170 feet, being
l~cated approximateZy 450 feet west of the cent~erl3ne of Cliffrose Street, and further
5'~t ,~i't'sx,c'""'u'1T +ra ~rI~ ...~ "~`"~Y r~/ ~jc`Z`~.Y ~ 9 '#`~- f . .a~.in '.~y 'Y'~""*'I; 4:~ ti
y~ : y ~ W . F ', 'k , C ~i S i '~Y` ~q G .S ~ . T W .r~ y L7' 1 ~ ~i _ "
:"~~T~kfiI'u,'^ '`~F Z ti ~'~2 ~a-. ~~fc.r ~~ ~. ~.> t~~roR'A~~ },`~i' r~t'~ o ~~ ~C ~ .r' . t,4 F a r =~
S.{A.A{.Y, mK~i ~L~~~~ .l.^' rfl 4..~ :Y .,P
. . - .' . . . . . . ~~
. . ._.. . ~ ~ ' . . . ~ ~.~~ . ~ ~ +
MINUTES, CITY PLANN.CNG COiIIiISSION, June 29, 1970 5217
CONDITIONAI; USE - described as 1650 East Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified
PERMIT N0. 1187 C-1, GfiNERAL CObQfERCIAL~ ZONE,
(Continued).
Assistant Zoning Supervieor Malcolm Slaughter r.eviewed the location of
subject property, uses esGabl3shed in cloae proximity, and the proposal
to establish a plant nurserq having tWO buildings, one a 1,000-square foot sales office
proposed on the east aide of the proper~y.and a 2~b00-sqaare foot lath house propoaed on
the southweat corner of sub~e~t property; that the'exiating 540-square foot building
preaentlg located on the property would be incorporate3 within the lath house; that the
petition~as originallq submitted and adve;tised requested waivers from the building height
and setback - however, the petitioner, upon being contacted, had stipulated'to relocation
of the building so as to meet Co3e requirements.- therefore, these waivers were no longer
necessary; that the use proposed would seem to be appxopriate if conducted in a manner
compatible with che surrounding siagle-family reaidential.land uses - however, the C-1
2one provides that a plant nursery maq be permitited subject to the conditiona that all
areas devoted to outdoor storage of other than plant materials shall be adequately screened
: from view by a masonry wall and the storage aha~:1 not ea;aeed the height of the wall and
ehall be limited to botanically-relaCed materials; and ~+}[et..upon review oE the plans, the
elevation of the screan fence indicated slump-stone pilasters with chainlink fencing -
however, this would be insufficient to screen non-plant materials. Therefore, the Planning
Commission may wish to make a finding to this effect so that the petitioner was aware of
the zoning reqnireme~t. Furthermore, the plane indicated a parking area for delivery trucks
at the extreme easterly end of the property, and given the residential use of the C-1
zoned property, it would appear that this area could be located elsewhere so as not to
dis~urb the residents of this area.
Mr. Leonard Smith, agent for the etitioner a `t~
P , ppeared before the Commission and noted
that he had been unaware of the fact that a lath house was considered a full structure -
however, he would stipulate to withdrawal of,the two waivers advertised, and the building
wouid be located in accordance with Code requirements; that they were aware of the require-
meat uf screening of non-plant materials, but they felt the office building would be
sufficient for screeining purposes; and that if the Cownission so desired, he_would .
stipulate to screeaing in accordance with Code.of outdoor storage.
~ ~' ;' `
Commiasioner Kaywood inquired whether or not the driveway proposed along the east property
line could be relocated so as not to diaturb the reeidential uses to the east.
Mr. Smith replied that the only trucks uaing that driveway would be small, one-ton trucks
which would be delivering non-plant materials, and thaE he would stipulate this size
truaks would be the maximum utilizing that driveway.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Co~isaioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC70-110 and moved for its passage and adoption
to grant Petition for Conditional Uae Permit No. 1187 in part, with waivers having been
withdrawn by the petitioner, and aubject to stipulation by the petitioner that no more
than one-ton trucka would be utilizing the easterly driveway, and that all outdoor storage
devoted to other than plant materials would be screened with a masonry wall as required
by Code, and subject to conditions, (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing reaolution.was passed by the following vote:
AYES: CONAfISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seqmour, Rowland.
NOES: COI~IISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COrIliISSIONERS: None.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLI~ HEARING, SHELDON GOLISON, 1505 Beachcomber Drive, Seal Beach,
PERMIT N0. 1188 California, Owner; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A PRIVATE
EDUCATIONAL CLUB AND CHILDREN'S OUTDOOR DAY CAMP WITH OUTDOOR
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES FOR CHILDREN on ~roperty described as: A
rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 50 feet on the
south side of Orange'Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 212 feet, and be:ng
locatad apprnximately 203 feet west of the centerline of Magnolia Avenue. Property
presently claRSified C-1, GENERAL CODQSERCIAL, ZONE.
Assistant 2oning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property,
uses established in close proximity, and previous zoning action on the property wherein
~riginal deed restrictions limiting the property to business and professional offices
only had been deleted in 1967 by the City Council, with the further deed restriction
establishing prohibition of sale of alcoholic beverages on the property; that the
petitioner was proposing to establish a private aducational club and day camp for
:•.7 C-c -
~ . ~:
. . ~ . ~ ~ . . . ' . ~ ~ ~ . . . ~ ~
MINUTES, CYTI" PLA7~INII~ CO1~RiISSION, June 29, 19'7Q
5218
CONDITIONAL.USE - children on.the property, having a maximum of 60 children on the~site,
PERMIT N0, 1188 with 4 employees; that Yhe •~acility wou13 be conducted in a proposed
(Continued) 2,100-aquare foot building located behtnd the parking lot providing
5'parking spaces and immediaEely behind the building would be a 4,500-
square foot'area devoted to ~lay:yard, sand box, etc., said play area
being adjacent ta the R-1 property to the southg ~hat.the petitioner in~icated the children
would be picked up by school bus and brought to the facility and delivered to the schools
and to the homea; Ehat the si'te would be enclosed bq.a 6-foqt high, chainlinlc fence along
the east.and west'property lines; that the plans did not reflect parking spacea for the
buses nor ~;es the landsc~ping oropoaed adequa'te,':~t the Commission might wish to requ~Lre
upgrading of the landscaping and providing cffN~street bus parking spaces in the event the
use was deemed appropriate; and that the Planning Co~iesion would have to datermine
whether the use with the many children proposed would be detrimental to the adjoining R-1
( uses.
~
Mr. Sheldon Golison, the petitioner, appeared before the Co~ission and noted he was not
aware that the laadscaping,proposed did not meet Code requirements - however, he would
st,ipuZate to providing landscaping in Accordance with Code req~irements if it were within
reason.
Mr. Golison further noted that the proposed operators of the Dolphin Club, Tom and Jane~
King, ~~ere unabl~ to be present to present in detail the propoaed operation - however,
t,hey had s~ta~rted ~this type of facility twelve years ago when Mr. King was Director of
Pe.rka ,and '8ecr,estion in 3.os Ange2es and a swi~ing club was started, but due to the n.eed
for day +c~r~ faciaitfes, th3s was included in t:~e awi~ning club; that the.children ware k
picked n.p by bua bet~sneeu 6:30 and 7:30 A.M.'so that working mothers could get to work on
time, that the chi'ldr~n raaged in age from 5 to 12 years and were tranaported to school
from this facility and were again picked up after school and brought to the facility and .`'"~
later returned ta th~air homes; that in 1968 a§urvey had been made of the Dolphin Club in ~~:~':
Los Angel,es and it was determined thaC 50% of the mothers with school age children worked;
that class game~ we.re rwught; that children were assiated in their homework, and that ii
th3s type of facility were nat available, these children would be on the streets; that
during ~he aucomer monkhs the children were taken on educational field trips, sports events,
etc.; and thst th~x~+ vere not on the premises the majority of the time; and that this type
of ~aci7lity opereted under the regulations of the Department of Social Welfare.
Mr. Golison, in response to Commiasion;questioning, stats~d there were certain guidelines
and requirementa for sdhool facilities s'uch ae this vhich had to be met, such as minimum
amount of play area and buildiag space per chiYd~ etc.; that the children would range in
age from 5 to 12'yeara,and no nursery achool age`children were planned; that the buses
used to transport the children would be driven from the homes of the teachers and parked
in the parking spaces proposed during the time theyr Were not used for transportation;
and that it was contempYated to have Cwo buaes which were approximately 22 feet in Tength,
seating r•pproximately 25 children.
Commissioner Farano co~ented that thia was the largest sand box he had ever seen.
Mr. Golison replied thet in the public achools the play areas ~rere paved, and they were
proposing that all play equipment be locaEed in the sand area ~rhich would be leas harmful
in the event the children fell; that children would remain at t!:-e club until a
8;30 A.M. when they would be delivered to their respective schools and would beppickedtupy
again at approximately 3:00 P.M., to remain at the club until approximately 6:00 P.M.;
and that the facility was not proposed for retarded children. t`
The Commission noted that the petitianer had indicated buses wouldtbe parking in the spaces
allocated~for employee parking, and if 60 children were proposed fdr the facility, the two
buses proposed would be inadequate to pick up 60 children and transporC them.
Mr. Golison replied that the buaea could take care of 25 to 28 children, and under norma,l
conditions the fac+_lity would not be operated at maximum capacity, and that a total of
4 employees was a requirement ef the State Welfare regulations.
Chairman Rowland inquired as to the uses proposed for the building when children were not
in school in the facility; whereupon Mr. Golison stated that this was considered "down
time" when repairs and renovation took place; that the facility operated 2e a day camp
during the au~er months, but most of the time was spent away from the facility on trips.
A showing of hands indicated 16 persons preaent in opposition to subject petition.
Mr. Michael Alford, 2617 Westhaven Drive, appeared before the Coa~ission in opposition
and noted that after the neighbors had received the legal notice regarding the proposal,
a meeting was held to determine whether ar not the use would be appropriate for the area,
and Yt was determined that all were in opposition as aitested by the petition signed by
47 property owners, most of whom reside within 300 feet of subject property; that the -
~ ` ~ . ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CO2~fISSION, June 29, 1970
5219
-CONDITIONAI. USE - proposed uae.vould be detrimental to the peace, herlth, safety and
PERMIT Na. 17RR ,general welfare of th~ neighborsp that.the noise factor would be a
(Continu=d) very impoYtaht one.sinice a number of the residents in this area were
under a doctor!s care.and vere required to have complete?quiet, of
whith the.neighbora were cognisant; thtt the use of the property
shou,ld be more in harmony with ~the,reatdeqtial uses, such ao a profesaional office building;,
that r::ey took aX~eTlent care of their;ch3idren and did not permit them to plap or`run in
the street --therefore, he wondered.~there theee childrea .~ould be coming from; that their '
children'played'.in the.par& in this ar•ea and were alway~ uader supervis~on; that they were
not against day campa per se, but this faci~ity~should.be locsted at a site better suited
tt-an the:proposed area;. that he could not visuelize busaing 26 ~children in the small mini-
buses - therefore, the pasking proposed would~be inadequate and loading and unloading
wouI-d be done;in the street, which `tould be a haeard to the-,e3~tildren going to the elementary
school on the north side of Orange Avenue; as well as the children attending this facility;
that the architectural`deeign of the>building wae not aeathetically desirable for this area
where homea were considerably more eTrpeasive and had s'heke roofa; and that if'this facility
aere propoaed foir welfare recipients,. the reaidents in this area were not in that category -
~nd then Ynqdired whether these children saoold be supported by welfare.
Co~issioaer Farano nated that from his interpretation of atatements made by the petitioner,
thp only interest the Depertment of Social Welfare had was to insure that children were
provided the minimimm needa and guidelinea.
Chairman Rowland noted that a great many of these types of facilities would take care of
welfare children and, therefore, this facility would be subsidized to a certain extent.
Mr. Alford further noted that it was difficult to imagine any af the neighbors in his area
being in the poverty-welfare category; that he had looked for 18 months for a home before
purchasing in this area; that his neighbor was under a doctor's care due to extreme tense-
ness and nervous condition, and as a result noises in the entire area were kept to a
minimum to allow the neighbor the quiet atmosphere needed; and that he did not feel the
neighborhood'warranted the proposed type of use-although they weae desirous of having the
property developed, it should be something more harmonious that would be an asset to the
area.
~ .~ox.~.eQ~ ~~~~J
Mr• Haa Pe~eraen, 2642 Westhaven Drive, ap eared befo~ the Cou~ission, noting he was
President of.the Magnolia School Diatric , that the were o
buses and cars backing onto Ora.nge Avenue acroBs ehe streetpfromdan~elementarysschool
having a 750 student enrollment aince this would be a very definite hazard to the children;
and that in the event this use was approved and established but ceased to operate for some
reason, it would be difficult to imagine the property being used for ot:~er than law-grade
uses because of the limited si~s and deaign. Fnrthermore,.he had discussed with members
of the board the proposed use,'bht they did not have a formal letter drafted in opposition;
however, this would be done if the Commisaion so desired.
Commissioner ,t~tywood i quired whether or not the neighbors had oppoaed the service station
site; whereup~~i Mr. Pe~eraen replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Jerry Tanner, 608 Verona Street, appeared be~~ore the Commission and noted that as a
realtor it was his opinica that approval of this chYld care center would reflect in the
lower values for properties in this area, especially thoae homes which woald back up to
the use since the noises from many children p'~aqing in the p2ay area would affect
prospective purchasers who woUld:qoC.payfihesame~-pr,ce•eince Lhe use would be less than
desirable, thereby reduci~g the values established on these adjoining properties.
Mrs. Don Pe~ersen, 2642 Westhaven Drive, inquired whether or not L1-a e:ementary school
would be required to absorb the children from this facility or would they be bussed out
of the area.
ThE Commission noted that in all, likelihood the children would be bussed to their respec-
tive schools in the districts in which their homes were located.
Mr. Golison, in rebuttal, apologized.because the representative who was no~. present could
answer the questions in statements made by the opposition better than he could; that the
children who would be using this facility would be under constant ~upervision by trained
personnel and were not people receiving welfare money; tlaat the Dolph~n Club wo••:3 have
children Erom varying economic backgrounds, from the low :~o the high salaried parents;
that the facility would not only•serve working mothess.but mothers who might have other
public services and volunt~er activities; that the purpose uf the requirements of the
Social Welfare Department was to set up rules and regulations and criteria to operate
this type of facility; that children from the general area would be attending the club
since the facility was placed in an area which could serve four elementary schools; that
these facilities were operated on a partial ownership with local people, many times
educators having training in allied fields being ~perators of a Dolphin Club in ccnjunction
~
!~ ... ,~ . "~r.~y !p~`~~ .~{tyt F: ~ ~ jY ~ }t}~~ ~~' ~ ~f~ ~ ~.'~£" ... 'x Y f .i ^,,~ttTr ~'r5 , ~ "yt! Iro~'s"wz"' ~`. ~.SLJ.. ~'t_' ~} d _~.~,.i_ .
SG,c~''sr~ :~. „it, ~,~ ,4~5. K n X ^p.,. ~'..`^r 'C 4'~- ~ .~L3'~- ~ P s ~
~ `'~~ , x 4;.v,.x. _ ~ t r~ . ~" '4, •1 - . .. ~ ~ . '
' . ~ ' ~ ' ~~ ~ . . ~ ~ .. ~ x~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 29, 1970 ~ 5220
~ ' CONDITIONAL USE - with their regular work activities; that the school syatem realized
PERMIT N0. 1188 there was a need for this type of facility where supervision,.etc.
(Continued) were available; that:the backing of buses into the Rtreet would not
be attempted since they were providing a turn-around area in accord-
ance with Code requiremen£s; that the.property opened 3nto a service
atation site, and a reciprocal'agreemant was available for eccess over the service station
property since he owaed the'property; that the.proposed use was considered a very light
commercial use in any.coffiunity where•the Dolphin Clu"b had been established in California
and other facilities have located even in-an R-3 area - therefore; propoaing it in a
coawercial zone would:not be'detrimentaT; that es far as the:type,of construction, this
would be!of textured blocks-`and would not have a co~ercial appearance but would be of
an insEitutional appearance on the frontage:and would not be,garish in appearance; and
r that stores .could be developed.on the property under the existing zoning, whish would not
be as attractive'as.the-proposed structure.
Chairman'Rowland noted:a question had been raised as to the possible uses that could be
established on the.remaining.property since this would be cutting up a very large parcel
into three very small parcels and inquired whether the petitioner had plana for develop-
ment of the balance of the,property.
Mr. G8lison replied that he had none, and he had no prospective users of the property.
Commissioner.Allred noted that the size of the remaining parcel on Magnolia Avenue would
be only 70.by 150 feet and would be a very small parcel, and,it would be difficult to '
meet Code:development requiremente, particularly since required parking would be extremely I
difficult to provide, and the 63 by 212-foot parcel on Orange Avenue would be faced with
a`similar problem, and that subject.and the adjoining C-1 property could be developed in
a much better manner than dividing into three small parcels since, in all likelihood, a
shortage in meeting parking requirements would result.
Mr. Golison replied that he was in the developmept business, developing small parcels with
small buildinga, thereby keeping the inveatment costs down; that Chere was a greater
market for smaller.developments than for large facilities, and this was-the kind of problem
he constantly faced,:and parking was always provided in accordance with Code; that he had
acquired tlie service'station site at the time the service station was erected; that.the
property was originally zoned with deed resfrictions as to apecific uses, and after a
number of years of.attempting to develop the property, it was necessary to have the deed
restrictions removed and as a re§ult the service station was developed.
Co~issioner Farano noted that a 2,100-square foot building together with a 4,000-square
foot sand box'did not seem to be a.n appropriate use in this area; that this appeared to
be a day school to him; that he wae concerned. with the manner in which the balance of the
property would be developed; that the size of the building with the varying agea of
children would be difficult to manage since the children would not be outdoors a11 of the
time; and that he could not see how four persons could manage the varying groups in play
and studies. Furthermore, something more consistent with the single-family residential
uses should be projected for subject property, and then inquired what manner or means
was proposed to give all this supervision in the many age groups at play.
Mr. Golison replied he did not know the answer but wished that the representatives of the
Dolphin Club were preaent to give more exact answers and asked that subject petition be
continued until the representatives would be available.
Commissioner Farano atated he always recognized requests for continuances; however, after
- listening for forty minutes to both pros and cons on the proposal and reviewing the plans,
there was no justification for a continuance.
Mr; Golison stated that after having been advised at lunch time that the representatives
would be unable to be present, he felt he could adequately present the proposal and answer
the questions the Commission might have.
Chairman Rowland advised the petitioner that, in his opinion, the Commission had been given
a very clear picture of the activities and the proposal, and t:.e residents in this general
area had given very specific opposition on the psoposal, and unless the operator could
answer any specific queations, he•couldisee no reason for granting a continuance. Further-
more, the Commission's primary concesn was one of land use as it related to the neighbors
and not specifics:a's.•to operation of the facility.
Mr. James Staaley, representative of the Dolphin Club, appeared before the Commission and
indicated he was available to answer questiona.
~
Commissioner Farano inquired as to the manner in which the day school would be operated
since,it was projected to have up to 60 children ranging in age from 5 to 12 and providing
^ only a 2,100-square foot building together with a 4,500-square foot sand box in view of -
:~
~ ~
•,~D^' i r- . -cS?a . k^ .;it:r^ ~~t! ' ~~~4,"_3`°'~1~ ..,.~.. .r:y Ps-4 1.4F i::^~'M. D~a- ,ti `r ~ r
~ . r +~
. .. ... . . .:.: ....,. _
, . . - ~ . . ~ . ~ . . . ~ . ~~~
_~.., .. . ~ ~~ ~ ' . ~ . ' ~ . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .
MIN[T`PES, CITY,PLANNING CO1~iISSION,. June 29, 1970 5221
CONDITIONAL USE - tihe fact that the Co~isaion would have to consider land use as well
~ERMIT NO 1188 as other consideratione, and inquired how the petitioner intended to
'(Continued) : ~.maintain ite compatibility with the ei:ngle-family homes surrounding
' subject property.
Mr. Stanley replied that the Dalphin,Cluh was a day care center which picked up and'
~ 'delivered children C3~ their:~r.eapective homea and achools; that they,had different groups
of children coming at`;different times of the day since.some finiahed school at 1:00 P.M.
and others fin3shed clasees later; that.swings were~sviYilable'for differenE ages; that
_ plastic toys,.coloring''materials, handball,,deckball, etc., were provided; that children
played iri small"groups, and the outdoor space meE~ the minimum established by the State
Welfare;Department;.that the educational.activities indoore were crayon work and super-
vision:as to studies; and the:children.also reated on their own palleEs; that they drew
'childre:i::from four or:five elementary schools in a diatrict, end the,ages ranged from
the lower to the upper>`age,;.general~y divided about 50-50; thet on an average day 20 to
30 children could play;.outdoora - however, little would be done in the morning prior to
attending.classes since so little time would be available, and that in the-su~uer the
children'had_field trips to Disneyland, the zoo, etc., and the faciliEies would be used
very little during the summertime except as..a meeting plr~e.
The Commission iaquired whether or not the facilities would be uaed for outside activities
not related to the school, such as dances, etc.
' Mr. Stanley replied that the time was needed to refurbish these facilities because of the
age of the children, and came from ten years in operating 'other facilities; that they had
learned a'great,deal:abouC'children, anu when they had begun this facility, they felt they
knew everything there was to know about children.
Mr..Golison advised the Commission that although the plan did not indicate it, there was
a:20-foot easement across the southerly portion of the property so that eccess would be
less difficult when,the property to the weat Was developed for commercial purposes.
Mr. Slaughtea•noted tHa~G staff had recommended a different verbiage for Condition No. 1
than normally, and this was necessary to'alleviate a pedestrian problem for the small
portion~remaining that would be uadeveloped.
TIiE HEARxNG WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Sey~rtour noted that both sides of Che isaue as it pertained to subject
petition were complete; that he concu=red there was a need for the proposed type of
facility -,however, the location proposed was lesa than'desirable.
Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC70-111 and moved for its passage and adoption
Yo deny Petition for Conditional.Uae Permit No. 1188 on the basis that the use would not
add Eo the environment of the area but wuuld, in fact, be a detriment; that parking was '
insufficient since none.was.proposed for the buses; that a better use could be made of the
property, such as professional offices, which wouid be more compatible to the neighborhood; ~
and that the area involved was insufficient to meet the needs of a maximum of 60 children ~
varying in age to provide e~sraper envi~onment which would not affect the adjoining ~
propertiea. (See Resalution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, HerUst Ka ~
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. . Ywood, Seymour, Rowland. ~
~ ABS~NT: COrAtISSIONERS: None.
CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that the opposition and residents
PERMIT N0. 1183 to the west of subject property had reviewed the revised plans and
(Continued) had a request to make of the Commisaion to continue subject petition
until other property owners affected by tha revised plans could
review them.
Mr. James Thayer, designer of the proposed project, appeared before the Co~ission and
inquired whetfier or not the adjacent property owners were present.
Chairman Rowland noted that the residents had met with Mr. Roberts in the corrid~r; that
the Coa¢aission had given the petitioner two weeks' time in which to resolve these problems,
one being to revise the plans and the other being to present the revised plans to the
neighbora; that the oppoaition had spent twb hours at the public hearing at this meeting,
and if a continuance could be handled in the corridor, the Commission was ready to hear
an explanation.
",;_'.~
~ --
r.., ~ . ~~:~~ . ;~: ~-~
`~ ' ~ ~ ~
' ~.~ .
~ .• MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June,29, 1970 ..- ~
5222
CONDITIONAL,USE_. Commissioner Allred noted that.from the evidence`presented to the
+ PE[tMIT N0: 1183.:. Commission;.as well as the revised~plana, he was ready to voEe on
;(Continued) subject;.:petition:-.
r~ ' Mr.,Thayer indicated he was not aware he was required to present the
~ revised plans to the.neighbors, and~that he had met with the:neighbors in the hallway .
~. - ' after the'last public:Hearing:
-~
~ Mr.;~Roberte noted.that when he_•had discusaed`;the reviaed plans with Mr. Roush'and the -
neighbors vho woald be affecfed ttiey;felt;.tHe-revised-plans should be pre;ented at a-
y meeting•so that other:neighbors would have an opportunity to co~ent on the =edised plans.
' : ~,~ y .
Mr. Thayer'asked for the Co-~ission's`reaction to the revised plans at this hearing.
Mr.;.Roberts then'noted;that-the revised:plans would still require a waiver of the height
since the:4=foot encroachment,was still proposed; and if:Mr..Thayer.felt this 4-foot
" difference could`be taken care of withoat the waiver, then the:Commisaion could act
accordingly. _ .
Cummissioner Herbst inquired.as to.the height and distance of the exiating building from
the West property line:
Mr. Roberts stated thaE the existing building was l$ feet from the west property line and
was 28 feet in height.
Co~issioner,Herbst then noted that:the petitioner had complied with the recommendations
_.. .of the Cofmaission as they pertained to the plans.~xce~t that he,did not present the revised
plana to the neighbors.
Mr::Thayer noted that there had been complairits about.noises from basebalL games on the
church property -.-however, Ehis could be resolved by playing the games elsewhere.
The~Co~ission then inquired whether or not the petitioner.planned to use the parking
facility for baseball games; whereupon'Mr. Thayer'stated that originally it was planned
to have a.drive alon the west
8. property line;'that it was intended to retain the avocado
trees if at'~all possible;`.and that siace access drives were proposed from Rio Vista Street
on the revised plans, this reduced the number of parking spaces which also resulted in
reducirig the number of seats`in the sanctuaiy, and,gamea could be played elsewhere, not
on the.property.•
The Co~nisq~on"then requested that the opposition present their further objections since
all were present at the last publir hearing.
Mr. Roush noted for the Commission that when the original church facility was built an
18-foot setback was approved; that children could not play in their own back yarda because
of.football playing, as well as horseshoes - one having been thrown and almost hitting a
child at play on the other side of the wall; that although the designer indicated land-
scaping was praposed when the setaining wall wss inatalled, the weep holes were blocked
up, and since then Ehey had promised the property oHners this problem would be taken care
of, but to date_nothing had been done and inquired if there were some`recourse the resi-
dents had to correctthis problem.
The Co~ission stated this was most likely a civil problem and onP which the Commission
could not resolve since their only concera was land uae.
The Co~issian inquired wiiether or not the reaidents had any objections to the revised
plans:
Mr."nvush replied that these were better than tk~e previous plans, but the waivers were
still required,,and if the petitioner would stipulate to meeting Code, there would be no
objectiona to the propoaed facility:
Co~issioner Seymour inquired of the petitioner whether or not he would stipulate to
providing landscaping in-the area originally proposed for the drive; whereupon Mr. Thayer
atated they planned to.relocete the existing avocado trees along the west property line,
and he would stipulate to proyiding landscaping in that area where a£ormer driveway was
proposed, if at all reasonable.
Mr: Roberts noted that one of the major concems of the single-family homeowners was some
form of protection, such as trees or shrubbery adjacent to the parking area - cnerefore,
the Commission might wish ~o require this to the south of the parking area.
Commissioner Herbst noted that the petitione~s in the past had made stipulations - however,
they hed been digressing from their original stipulations.
~ ~ 'r
~ i
~
~
I
i
i
;
i --
~
; _.-.
I-
I
Ii .;:......
i \
.~ 1C
9'~ ~ _ ~ ~ _ . .
'- MINt1TES, CITY PLANNING COI~AIISSION, June 29, ,1970 5223
~ CONDITIONAL~~USE - THE?HEp,RZNG~,WAS CLOSED,
. „PERMIT.:NO:'i1183.,.': -
(Continued) • Co~issioner'Kaywood inquired wfiether or not there was any add2tional
fencing that could be.placed on tap of the"wall that would deter the.
balls from"going over the wall into the:neighbors'''yards.
Commissioner Seymour noted that'if planting.were required with trees of substantial size,
this';would be th e needed;;protection for the:R-l,homeowner'si
' Commissioner Faraiio noted that.he, Iiaving' been•absenC at.tHe previous heering, had reviewed
in detail,tfie minutes of.Che previous.public,hearing'and felt he could:vote on subject
~ petiEion at.this;';hearing.'.
: Co~issioner HerbsE offered Resolution`No. PC70-109`;and moved for its passage and adoption
` to grsnt,Petition.,;for Conditionel Use Permit No. 1183, subject to conditions and in
accordance with-revised plans,:together with the requirement.that trees sha1L be planted
on"20,=foot centers along:;.the west properCy line arid perpetually;maintained of sufficient
height.to;provide,the.necessary protection for the "single-family homeowners, as stipulated
` to by.the.`petitioner. (See;Resolution Book)
On roll call the~foregoing reaolution was passed by the following vote:
- AYES: COMMISSIONERS: :Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour, Rowland.
; NOES:- Q01~4IISSIONERS: .!Farano.'
ABSENT: CO~IIfISSIONERS: None:
RECESS - Chairman Rowland declared a recess at 3:45 P.M.
RECONVENE - Chairman Rowland reconvened the meeting.at 3:57 P.Mr, all
Co~issioners-being.present:
r CONDITIONAL'USE - PUBLIC FiF,ARING. HARMATZ & SHOEMAKER ENTERPRISES, INC., 617 West
t PERMIT N0. 1189 7th Street; Los Angeles, California, Owner; BRENT ENTERPRISES, INC.,
~ Robert E. Owens,'16731 East Arrow'Highwey, Azusa,-,California, Agent;
requeating permission to ESTABLISH A COIN-OPERATED CARWASH HAVING
i BOTH'SELE-SERVICE AND AUTOMATIC FACILITIES, WITH ACCESSORY GAS PUMpS on property described'
`• ' as: ~A rectangularly shaped paicel of land having a frontage of approximately 125 feet on
the south side of Ba11 Road, having a maximum depth,of approximately 200 feet, and being
located approximately 535 feet east"of the centerline of Walnut Street. Property
j resentl
p y classified C-R, C01~4tERCIAL-RE¢REATION, ZONE.
f
` ' Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the'location of subject property,
~. ` uses established 3n close:proximity, previous zoning action on Ehe property and the
proposal to establish a coin-operated carwash with accesaory ga$ pumps on subject property.
~ Mr. SlaughEer, 3n reviewing'the evaluation of the propoeal, noted that the proposed car-
; wash was on a portion of a larger parcel under coammon ownership, and if the Co~ission
i deemed the use'appropriate, they might'wish to consider relocation of the carwash adjacent
to the existing service station site at the southeast comer of Walnut Street and Ball
Road which'would'concentrate automobile-related uses near the intersection and leave the
balance of the property to be developed within the zone established on the propertq.
Howeder, this would,present a problem in that subject petition would have to be continued
to allow time to advertise a change in locetion of the use.
Mr. Slaughter also revtewed the plans of'development, noting the deviations from the Sign '
Ordinance as the plans pertained to flags and banners - however, the petitioner had i
indicated it would be no serious.problem if they were required to remove them; thLt if
subject~.peEition:were approved, the project could be enhanced with considerably more
lands'caping since'.it was proposed in the Co~nercial-Recreation Area; and that the prime I
consideration before the.Commission was one of land use and its appropriateness adjacent
to a.single-family subdivision since noise problems, increased traffic, and lights could `
be defrimental to the residential environment esteblished to the north, together with the {~
fact_that if;might detract from'the desirability for hotels, motels, and office buildings i
generally anticipated for this area and which the General Plan had encouraged.
i Mr. Eli Hernandez, Planning Consultant, E1 Monte, appeared before the Commission represent- ~
: ing the agent for the petitioner and noted that as a former planning director in Southern ~
California for fourteen years, he was cognizant of the Planning Commission's problems in ~
considering subject,petition; that Brent,Stephens & Owens.had attempted to provide a ;
'compatible use with the proposal before the Commission and planned to spend $100,000; '
that it was;.their,intent to comply with the site development standards of the Co~ercial- E
RecreaEion Zone; thar they had been working with the staff to resolve many problems which i
~ ~'
- ~... . - --'- a.:.~., .x. .~. n,rS~,'~s '~Tt~'~+jp r~ -i ~xTn '^'°'.jY:~"""~ -
.:t~~
h ~" ~~
\N
"K ~~ ~ .. - . ~ . . .
j~. ~
~ . . .. . . . ~ . ~ . . .
` MINUTES, CITY PI~~NNING COMltISSION, June 29, 1970
~C ` _. , 5224
~ CONDITIONAL USE - might be_apparent, tliat additional.landscaping had been added and the
, PERMIT N0:"1189 trash storage areas had been relocated;<and that the required showings
m (Continued) for granting a.conditional use,permit had been met - therefore; they
` `. ' felt tl~~ proposed;development complied with every requirement of the
x ~ Anaheim Municipal.dode: -
a ; , _ _ .; :
t Mr• Hernandez, in reviewing;the five isaues raised by staff on the proposed development,
noted that: 1):re3ocation of the facility adjacent to the service sCation site - they were
not desi:i~ous at this poinC in timecto do this; 2) they would remove the pennants or flags
from the'~~3rying'area.- however, it.was their. desire to retain thoae on the carwash are;a
Eince this.was:part,.of the maEif~of;a castle, but if Code would not permit these flags or
.gennants,.they would comply with the Sign Ordinance; 3) thsE landscaping was proposed along
tHe north boundary of subject property,and for a depth of 75 feet a 6-foot wide planter was
proposed.for both the east and west sides 'of the'properEy lines, as well as iromediately
adjacent to the east and wesf,'sides of,the carwash area - therefore, it was their ooinion
that adequate landscaping was provided, and if additional landscaping were required, this
would hamper the aacessway; 4) the:possible.noise problem as to additional cars which
cnuld emaaate from this-facility would be no greeter than the noises from 22,000 vehicles
per day on Ball Road; and the vacuum ~quipment t~ouid be at the rear end of the property
and was not of a high noise level but would.be similar'to home equipment, and the distance
to the neaiest home would be 30~ feet'on the north side of Ball Road, thereby making the
noise problem almost negligible; and 5) it was his opinion the use would be compatible
with the Commercial-Recreation Zone uses and would provide a service to Lhe area, particu-
larly since a travel trailer park was proposed to the east and south of subject property,
and many people traveling would like to get rid of the dirt.accumulated on their trip,
and this would provide an easily acceasible £acility for campers. Furthermore, they would
not be providing other usual service station auto accessories, tires, batteries, etc.
Mr. Hernandez, in reviewing the colored renderings posted on the enst wall, concluded by
stating it was'his opinion.~-he proposed use would be compatible with the Commercial-
Recreation Area a.1d that they had met all the requirements of the conditional use permit
and C-R site development standards, and that Messrs. Brent, Stephens and Harmatz were
present in the Council Chamber to anawer any further questions.
,
A showing of hands ~indicated six persons.present in oppoaition to subject petition.
Mr: Mark Savage, 953 South`David Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition
and stated that all of the people he had contacted were opposed to the proposed use; that
the Cosnm~roial-Recreation Area and`subject property in particular were suitable for hotels,
motels and restaurants and not as a carwash facility; that ten service stations-already ~
existed on Ba11 Road between Harbor Boulevard and Euclid Street, with an additiona7, service 'y
station now under construction - therefore, there was more than adequate faciZities for
8as needs for.vehicles; that the report failed to mention the debris that might be strewn +
on the property, eventually going 3nto the street and creating a cluttered appearance;
that operations of this type seemed to be a meeting place for undesirable youth gangs,
and at other similar facilities the police had to be called to quell disturbances, and if
a similar situatian occurred at this facility, this would be detrimental eo the peace,
health and safety of the adjoining residential uses; that if a carwash were deemed a
desirable use in this area, it should be located ad,jacent to the service station site; and
that discussions with the operator of the service station indicated it was difficult to
make ends meet during the off season of the year. ~
Mr. Dan 0'Farrell, Director of Real Estate Development of Wrather Corporation, appeared
before-the Counnission and noted they had begun development of a trave~ trailer park to
the southeast and contiguous to the Harmatz-Shoemaker property; that they were unaware
! of the proposal until last Friday and because of this,they would appreciate no decisiun
on the proposal until they had discussed the matter with Harmatz and Shoemaker as to a
ger.eral plan for the area and until they had discussed with the City staff and representa-
~ tives of Disneyland as to a general plan for this area for Ball Road between West and {
Walnut Streets.
Mr. Charies Dargen, representing Disneyland Enterpriaes, appeared before the Commission
and sta~ed he concurred with the request made by Mr, 0'Farrell in the sense that legally
their property was not immediately adjacent to subject property and they also had not been
aware,of the proposal until this date, but their position, generally speaking, was
basically the same as Mr, 0'Farrell's and the Disneyland Hotel, but as to opposing the
carwash per se or land development, they had no objections. However, in light of the fact
thal• 0'Farrell & Associates had been having meetings with many City staff aad private
people as to land development, a continuance to allow 0'Farrell and his group time t•o
discu;ss development wit:h the i~ediate property owners and to draft an overaJ.1 plan, or
at least a plar, more uaderstandable, on what could be developed in this area would be
advisable.
<~
S<„
~~ - - oz - _:,+r; ,:A?~;f'~k'k' . ...'rS'.a+w.'"~ -
~'v~ . . ~~ ~"'" ~,-~y~ . .~ ^' ! .^R . E.~'
,~~ ~.~ .~. .. ... ~ ~.~ . ~ ~ ~. . . ..
MINUTES; CITY PIANNI:IG COMIfISSION, June 29,.1970 -
; 5225
" CONDITIONAL USE - A-letter`.of oppoaition from Mr.°and Mrs: Elio Ronconi was read to the
PERMIT N0, 1189 Commiesion at the request of Mrs. Ronconi by the Commission Secretary,
(Continued), who also`noted that a'petition si
' received. 8ned by.57 persons in opposition was
In rebuttal, Mr. Hernandez stat~d that this was not a service station;~thst they were also
concprned as:to the housekeeping operationa of this facility -,}herefore, this could be a
condition of approdal wliich would give.the City a tool.for revocation of tlie conditional
use permit; and:thaE'he would take exception.to the statemeat made that a carwasfi was a
poor~land use.
Chairman Rowland inquired whether or siot the petitioners wer.e in agreement to a continuance
to allow;.time to meet atith Mr.:O'Farrell and the Dianeyland representative regarding the
overall plan of development of the.entire parcel:
Mr.~ Hemaadez replied.that his commente were mede as they pertained to the opposition
presented, and nn ane from'Disneyland had opposed the proposed facility until this date.
Co~issioner Gauer inquired that since Mr. Hernandez had been in planning for fourteen
years,,how wouZd the proposed developme~~-t affect development of the balance of the property
Yn this~area since there were two service stations already in the area, and Anaheim had
70 service stations now closed - therefore, how aould this facility appeal to people of
the adjoining properties if the carwash.were established.
Mr. Hernandez replied that aince the property was owned by Harmatz and Shoemaker and they
felt this use was desirable,as owners they would not'want any development which could do
harm to.development of the balance of their property.
Commissioner Farano inquired whether or.not Harmatz and Shoemaker owned the service station
site at the southeast corner of Ba11 Roed and Walnut Street; whereupon Mr. Harmatz replied
that this,was sold off from the main portion of the property.
Coa~issioner Farano further inquired that if a customer came into the service station to
purchase gasoline, would that customer be served.
Mr. Frank Brent appeared before the Commission and noted that the tenants would have the
gasoline pumps there but would also man the automatic carwaeh operation; that the auto-
matic operation would be available`24 hours a day, whereas the gas pump area would be in
operation 16 hours a day with an attendant.
Mr•.Brei-t further noted that they had been in the carwash business for five years; that
'they also.were in the construction business for twenty-two yeara, manufacturing equip-
ment and buildings; that they had done considerable reaearch before they proposed this
facilify; that other types of carwashes generally coat in the vicinity of $20,000 to
$25,000, whereas the proposed carwash would cost $100,000, and this would not create any
depreciation of value in the area; that~they had aever knorwn of any other facility having
88~8 problems; and that this facility was designed to be compatible with th~ Disneyland
theme.
Mr. William Harmatz, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and noted
that he and Mr. Shoemaker felt this was a goo:! land use, and that he would request that ~
the Commission render a decision at this her,r3ng rather than continue it; that they had ~
owned this property for eight to nine yeara; that the proposed facility would be a '
considerable distance from the residential use; that although the Commission had approved
a trave~ trailer paik for this property, it had been deuied by the City Council - yet the
City Council had approved the property contiguous to the southeast for a travel trailer
Park.~
Mr. Charles Bouton, 957 South Salem Street,.appeared before the Commission and noted that +
although it might appear to the petitioners that the proposed carwash was a desirable i'`
thing, it was far from desirable as far as residents in this area were concerned, and J~
they would be primarily affected by this proposed uae, an3 then in response to Commission ;
questioning, stated that they had also opposed the service etation site.
~
TAE HEARING WAS CLOSED, j
Chairman Rowland noted that since one of the owners of the property requested that the i
Commission make a decision at this meeting, action should be £aken. ~
Commisaioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC70-I12 and moved for its passage and adoption ~
to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1189 on the basis that Che proposed use
would project a service station operation in the center of a block which was contrary
to the service atation standarda; that the proposed uae would have an adverse effect on
potential develapment of the adjoining properties for commercial-recreation uses; that
~ ~ .. "' .
~ MINUTES, CITY PI~ANNING-COMMISSION,.June 29, 1970 ~ 5226
~ CONDITIONAL USE - the proposed use would 6e a 24-hour.operstion and would have a
~ ~; PERMIT N0; 1189 ;~ deleterious effect on Ehe-single-family reaidential en4ironment
(Continued) ' to Ehe uorth ~anfi wesC; Etiat a tiigher and better use could be proposed
.. ;, 'for the,property which woulP..be less harmful than;the;proposed use;
and.that the proposed use`would not be in harmony witH adjoining'
± land uses,and the tourist-oriented land~'uses:already established in.this general area.
(See:Resolution;Book)
On roZl ca11 the`foregoing resolution:was passed.by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONEKS: 'Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour, Rowlaad.
`, ~NOES:. , COPIlIISSIONERS: ~None.
ABSENT 'COI~SISSIONERS: :. None.` ': ~
Commissioner Seymour noted.that since Variance No. 1178.was granted in 1960,and the use
` was riever exercised, termination of:this petition was in order.
' Coc~issioner Seymour offered,Resolution No. PC70-113 and moved for its rassage and adop-
tion!xo t~rminete all proceedings on Petition for Variance No. 1178 on the basis thst
the use approved.under said petition was a use that was granted by matter of right in
the C-R 2one which had been establiahed on the property already. (See Resolution Book)
Prior, to roll call Commissioner Farano inquired of Mr. Harmatz whether:or not he was
desi=ous of,`having this Sariance terminated, which would allow a 1200-unit hotel to be
, built on.subject property.
Mr: Harmatz replied that he would prefer ~hat this be maintained on the property for the
present time'.
; Zoning.Supervisor Charles Roberts advised,Ehe Commission that the variance was for the
esCablishment of a 1200-unit hotel aad.did not have any waivers, which was a uormal thing
under vari:ances - however, in 1960, the.property in the Co~ercial-Recreation Area was
' all~zoned R-A, and any development-in the area was required to have approval of a variEace;
therefare; if any.,development plans were proposed for the properEy; it would be necessary
for':the.staff to review the.plans in order to determine whether any waivers would be
' needed, and,subsequently a variance would have:to be advertised:
Commissioner.Seymour noted that since they had never exercised the variance 3n ten'years
and since the Commercial-Recreation Zone on the property permitted hotels and motels,
there;:appeared to be no reasan for hesitancy in terminating subject petition since the
Commission wes not depriving the petitioners of a privilege previously granted.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMNiISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour, Rowland.
NOES: COD4IISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COIIIlISSIONERS: None.
Chairman Rowland noted it would be advisable for the Commission to analyze all carwashes
on the basis that these be considered similar to service station sites and perhaps be
located in a similar manner-since the City did not permit service stations in the center
of a block, this would be a similar thing that could be applied to c:azk+ashes.
Mr. Roberts-inquired of the Coa~i§sion whether or not this would be establishing a
Commission policy which the staff would use to advise any future grosgects for this
type of facility.
Chaiiman Rowland noted that the staff should do a study on this to determine whather or
not an amendment to the Anaheim Muaicipal Code would be in order.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. ALLEN A. AND LILLIAN A. POSNER, 1565 Flippen Circle, I~
N0. 69-70-66 Anaheim, California, Owners; HAL MARKS, Building Engineer, Roam 1311, l
for Pac3fic Telephone & Telegraph, P. O. Box 524, San Diego,California,
Agent; requesting that property described as: A rectangularly shaped
parcel of land located at the northwest corner of Katella Avenue and Humor Drive, having
approximate frontages of 300 feet on Katella Avenue and 295 fee[ on Humor Drive, be re-
classified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-1, GENERAL COPQtERCIAL, ZONE.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property,
uaes established in c2ose proximity, and.the proposal to reclassify the property ta the
C-1 Zone to establish a 19,000-square foot, single-story office structure housing 124
traffic operators and associated equipment; that the building plans proposed an attractive,
well-designed and weli-landscaped building on the site; and that the use proFosed was
~~ . ...
,:,
_ _ . .s~'
~!31 iry.1{_~ ~.~/`~ ~~} j~V~s T~{ . h i.' li
l~
k 3 h ;
~ .n ~
` ~ ~t
~ ~
' ~ ~~ ~
~ " ~~
.
' /`
~
..
;;MINUTES, CITY• PL.~NNING ti01~ff'[ISSION, June 29,,.1970
5227 ~
~~
, r . ~ , _
` ~,,
RECLASSIFIQ4T•ION permitted in the C 1 Zone ~~
-N0 69-70 66
' :.. y :~ '•~ ''
, ' .
-
~
y ~
. .
. -
rZ ,
(Continued)' Mr ;;Hal Marks, agent-for the petitioner;'.indioaEed his'presence and> . .
~vailability to aaswer questions:' ~~
?.~No oae>a~araz~r~3 ;:>,~ ~++w~.,y1tion to:`subject petition.
f .~_u~' ' ~ . .
,;~HE HEAR~,".-r~: ?~F~35 t ::-,-~5 'x'~`,
Commissioti ~~rr~t;; ~~~ered Resolution`No PC70 114'and moved for its passage and adoption '
;to reco~nend,.~to Cna?Ciey Council.,that Petition:;for Reclessificatian;No.
„
69=70-66 be
.
,
'appro~ed, aubject to condiCions ;;(See.Resolution Book) !` " '
On ro13 call 'the foregoing;resolution was passed by the following vote:
'`AYES C01~4IISSIONERS, ~ Allred, Farano, Gauer,;.Herbst,`Kaywood,. Seymour, Rowland.
`NOES
I '
COMM
SSIONERS. None
..
,
.
ABSENT: CO1~tISSIONERSi None ,
, :, .
' . ~~
,
,
, , . t
`z~
, ; .
RECLAS5IFICATION PUBLIC HEARiNG DOMINIC.C. ETCHANDY, 570 North.Dwyer P1ace, Anahei.m,
NO 69-70 6
'' '
'
a ~
k
e
5
~
C
lifoinia, Owner; ANACAL,ENGINfiERING, P: 0. Box 3668;.Anaheim,
' ~`~
= '• '
Califoraia,'Agen't; p;ropeity described asi~ An i;regularly siiaped
2 ~~
~ARIANCE N0.
183 parcel of lend corisisting,:of approximately 13:acres'•located`south and
= ' '`:
east;of ttie southeast corner of'Orange and"Wes
tern Avenues
;having
'
~ ~
.
,
;•TENTATIVE MAP.
:OF
;:approximaLe frontages'of 265 feet on Ehe south side.of -0range Avenue
T
TRAC
N0. 7241 ~ and,474.feet on [he esst.side of.Western~Avenue. 'Property .presently
, ... ~
., ', classifiPd r, AGRICULTUR.4L, ZONE.
~
~
~: ~~
.
: ~
.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION .;R-2-5000, ONE FAMILY, 20NE.
r
`~
;
:, ; t._ ,
FtEQUESTED VARIANCE: ,WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED.BUILDING SITE WIDTH TO ESTABLISH
A 75-LOT SINGLE-FAMILX TR.9CT. .
` _~~
~,
~~
-.. . ` . . :;
;; , +~
TkNTATIVE TRACT REQUEST .SUBDIVISION OF.,SUBJECT PROPERTY INTO 75 R-2-5060 20NEID LOTS.
:
' ~'~
~
,..
::
: „'
_ . ~ • •
.
,. ,
, .... , ~ .
...,.. .:., _... .
,.,
;
~.,,
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaugtiter reviewed the
location of subject pro
ertq ~;`
,
p
,
uaes established in close-proximity, the,previous zoi-ing action:on'the property in-1969
at
h
,
.
w
ich time;'a 348=unit multiple=family residentisl developmeas-was denied by both the
Co
s
n
~
mmi
sion a
d City.CounciY; that':the proposal:would subdivide the property into 75
R-2=5000,'single-family
iots with str~
t
s '~`
.
e
acces
being provided from Western end Orenge
Avenues and a:'one-half width street as an a
s
e
cces
ro
d to Orange Avenue and.to the Reid
Park.site;.that the;General Plan designate+d tfii:s a
e
r
-m
i -
r
a fo
low
ed
um and medium density,
and~the
proposed zoning would be co
i
t
n
it .~;
:
ns
s
e
t w
h this; and.thet the 7200-square foot lots
were samewhat.isolaEed due to the.park and §chool sites,: as well as the Orange County
`F1
d ;',;
oo
Conkrol;channei - therefore, it.would seem Co be +.~propriate thab R-2-SOOO zoned
lots could,be considered favorabiy: ~
;
~~
;,
Mr. Slaughter'further noted that the City of Anaheim would pay the coat of street paving
and curb and gutter constru
ti
fo
h
e 5
c
on
r t
e
asterly half of Street !'G" which would be
located on Ehe City;park site. '- '
,
Mr. Helmett Stolpp,.representing Anacal Engineering, engineers of the proposed tract,
• ,indica[ed his;presence to answer
ue
io
s j: -
q
st
n
.
After the Commisaion'reviewed the.development plans uader the variance, the_Commission
I inquired the reeson for the
d
o d
~
nee
t
eriate from the minimum lot width permitted in the
R-2-S~00 Zone.
~
~
~ r
.:.
., .. .~. ~...: . • ;
~.~
,.. ~ . : . . .. .
Mr„ Stolpp replied tl:at.when the tracc was originally designed, the layout was somewhat
different and"they'kad not tak
in
ons y '_
~~J~,
en
to c
ideration the provision of a street adjacent
to the park site on;the east;,"that che originai tract proposed 78 lots h
vi '
a
ng 50-foot
i widths - however, upon meeting with the,City engineeria~ steff, they had requested that
this street be placed-along'the east bo
d
(.;.
un
ary - therefore, a loss of three lots was
incurred, as well as-tt!e eight lots being less than the minimum SO-foot width.
Co~issioner Herbst.noted [ha[ owners of property were required to`provide streets when
the.property was developed fro
ci
l
r
m ag
cu
tu
al to a more intense use, and only a half-width
street was required along the east p
o
e
t
e
r
p
r
y lin
.
Mr. Stolpp replied that all other requiremencs.of the zone request had been met, and
'although other properties hsd be
n r
e
equired to have the 50-foot width in other parts of
the city, each dedelopment plan should be judged on its own merits.
. . .
~.:' ,.
i •__-`:
~ `: ;:
, = rn . - F ._ .. . _ . vr.~a y+,~sok•~maaF•~i+7~TC.~i"`'s' . .'AZ~'g.'r`l~t. 'S~f ~"~~Y,t:f~'CA 7~' i., ti7'
s r:7s ` = ~ ~
, 4.. .:,
.~ 1 -'; . .: ,~ ~. ., ~4
7 ~ ' ~ , 4
. .:. ., . ., ~~, ~~ .' .
~ MINUTES, CITY PTANNING COMMISSION, June 29,:1970 522g
~
; RnCLASSIFICATION - The Commission ther, inquired whether o= not the.Interdepartmental
~ ° NO b9 70 65 ' Committee recommended or sequesCed tY~aE the street be provided,along
c the east p'roperty 1ir.e, and if this were'so; then the request for .
~ VARIANCE N0; 2183 ~ waiver of the eight lots was necessaiy."because of~ttiis request.
~ ,..,. _ : , _ ...
~ : TENTATIVE MAP OF : Mr Stolpp replied•in the affirmative. ,
r. _ •TRACT N0. ~7241 . ~ ~
° (Continued) ~` Commissioner Herbsf noted;:that'in-order. that Code would.be-met.as
, to lot widGh,;approzimaEely three or four more lots.would be lost:
r ` Commissioner Seymour inquired as to the thinkin of,,the ori inal .
8 g proposal for 78 lots
and._the iequest that a half-street be.require'd along`the east'prop'erty;line`adjacent
- ~ , ,
to the• park': . , , ,
v, ..; °. , ' ~
,
`: 2oning.Supervisor':Charles Roberts noCed that Ehe InEerdepartmental Committee thinking in
requiri~eg':the half-widCh:street was to`pzovide access:to the•paik.site and to provide a
`; moie,open;space e:evironment. _ _
Cliairman:•Rawland rioted thst the;froetage of only eight lots was requested for waiver;
; however, the`size of the:lots was §till a minl.mum of S,OOO square`feet.
" Mr S,~ ". ' ~ , .
~. Smeltzer 952I:R8itdom Drive, Superintettdent of the~~~ S h ol District,
'. appeared.before the Commission and aoted.tha:.it was their opinion ~the'.proposed develop-
? ment~:was'a.good plaa'- however',`Che concern of the'school was to;!-provide some form of
. ,..
`. pedest"riari access:to the`school-site through'one of the loES or along the easterly
. border of L'ot 61:since a rather 2engthy walk would iacur to`,Western Avenue'and,then to
the'school;siEe if this:were not:provided.
Chairman Row2and no.ted that bre~ks through lots separating:two homes were somewhat diffi-
! cult":both from the community and children viewpoint,:and child=en'using_these'_facilities '
` could;creaEe a problem for resideines abutting the.accesswey.-:therefore,.he,would suggest
• Ehat some;form of access be;provided on the.park site adjacent to-the easterly property
line,' approximately.from.tne cul~de-.sac or.half-knuckle street southerly.
Mr .Roberts~noted that:the Commisaion;might.wish to make this a£inding Yn the resolution '
' in;Ehe' event sabject reclassification was_.appioved. -
Mr..Jack.McLean, 310 Roseoay Street, represeni:ing Orange County Development Company,
~ proposed developers of~the pr~perty, appeared before the.Commission and stated:that the '
Commnission was'quite familfar with their other developments; that the homes builf on ;
these lots would be 1,600.te 2,000-square foot homea ranging.in price from $32,OOU~ to '
$35,000;" end that Ehey could provide said pedestrian accessway along tHe.southeasterly part I
of subject property, end then, in response to:Chairman Rowland's question,:stated he
would stipulate t~ providing sidewalk improvement aince this would benefit the children
proposing to live in the development. :
No one appesred in opposition to subject petitions.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC70-115 and moved for its passage and adoption
to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 69-70-65 be
approved subjec~ to conditions ard the st3pulation that the-petitioner would provide
aidewalk improvement in the even: the City dedicated that sidewalk strip for access to
the Reid School to.the south. (See Resolution'Book)
On ro12 ca11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMTSSIONERS:. Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, 3eymour, Rowland.
NOES:. dOMMISSIONERS: None. .
A&SENT: COMMISSI~NERS: Nor.e.
Commissioner'Seymour no[ed that since the proposal for a heavier density had been denied
at a previous public hearing end one of tNe findings of.the Plmnning Co~ission's resolu-
tion,was recouanending tha[: R-2-500Q zoning be established on the property, together with
the fact that the.Orange t;ounty DevelopmenC Company offered to build an excellent single-
family subdivision which, in his es[imation, was the type of development that the R-2-5000
Zone'was created for; and co accommodate be[ter traffic flow and access to the park, the
reduction of the original number of lot~ by three to accommodate provision of better
open"aiz and circulation, as we11 as access to the park site to the east, the variance
was deeme@ appropriate.
Commissioner.Herbat inquired whether or not under the original tract all the lots were a
minimum of 50 feet or were some under 50 feeC.in width.
) : :. "M'"`~y„a~"T .: p..4sL~'trl2w5TY'd .S'Ar~` Y^ Z,~"~S`~*.','=2 FF? .a'-'~'R ~(~ ,. r:-3
.~~ ":,, w ~ :i
Y~ `~ ~
~ ,` ~. 1 ~-~ ~k ~'~ - ~' . . . ,
MINUTES, CITY PIANNING'COI~IISSION, June.29; 1970 5229
4 ;: •.. . , - ,:. . ' ,
f RECLASSIFICATION '.: Mx:~Slaughter adviaed the Commisaion t?~.3t the'original tract submitted
. _ ,.
~ NO '69 70 65 provider for a minimum of`SO-foot loEs'; howeder,,because.of side-on
° :_ .~: lot-problems, the;;proposed subdiyision was submitfed and:-staff
VARIANCE N0 2183 recommended,.tha~ cons<deration:;b`e given.to the~waiver reQuested. '
'~ 'TENTATIVE MAP OE ~ Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. aC70-116 and moved for. .
~ TRACT N0.-:7241 its:passage,-.and.;adoption.~~.'to grent Petition for Variance No..2183,,
K(Continuzd) sub~ject to,;condifi'ons,,on the:~asis t6at.waiver,of the loE'-size'was
a • . Y ~~ P
" ' deemed necessar u'on =ecommendation:of the Inteidepartmental;Co~nittee'
- -. that~<`a partial st=eet be.provided along.the:east.boundary:o:f subject
property ard to proqide for elimination of,'side-on.:lot problems. ,:(See Resolution Book)
'. On roll call the foregoing resolutioa wae passed by the foTlowing.vote:
AYESi COMMISSIONERS `Allred,.Farana, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood; Seymour, Rowland.
NOES: r:CONAfISSIONERS:..-;None.,: _
'. ABSENT.: :COMMISSIONERS;. None.
~ " Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to:apprave Tentative Map of Tract No: 7241, suliject
to conditioas.as follows, seconded by Commissioner.Ferano,;and.MOTION CARRIED:
~ 1 That the.approval of,.Tentative Map of Tract No. 7241 is:granted subject to the
~ compleCion of Reclassifi.cation:No.•69-70-65,and Variance No.' 2183.
~ 2.'That should this subdivision be developed as more than.one subdivision, each
k <subdivision tiiereof`sheil be submi:tted"in tentative foim foi approval.
~ " +.. , _ -
3 That'in'accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wall shall be
constructed on'ti:e west prope=ty_;line separating loC Nos. l througlt.6 and 74 and 75
i • end Western Avenue and•along the north propertp line,-seperating 1ot Nos. 14 through
19..and.Orange Avenue. Reasociable landscaping, 3ncluding irrigation facilities,.
~"sha11 be .installed in the.ur.cemented por.tion of the arter,ial highway parkway the
full distance.of said.walls, plans fo= said landscsping`to be submitEed Eo and
,, subject;to:the approval of-the Saperintendent cf Yarkway Maintenance., Following
installation'and acceptanceT_the.City of`Anaheim shall assume'the responsibility
for maintenance of said 2andscaping. .
4. That all lots within this tract stiall be served by,underground utilities.;
5. That street names shall be approyec~ by.the Cicy of Anaheim:prior.to approval of
a final tract map. _.
6. That:the vehicular access rights except'et street and/or alley openings to Western
and Orenge plvenues shall be'dedicaEed .o the City of Anaheim. ~
7. :That drainage of subjecE tract shall be disposed of in a¢;anner that is satisfactory
to the CiCy Engineer ar.d the -0range County Flood Control District.
8. That a,5-foot chainlink fence be provided along the south side of the Orange County
Flood Control channel.
CONTINUED
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING (READVERTISED). GERALDINE E. ROTH, ET AL, P. 0. Box R,
N0. 69-70-25 PlacenCia, California, Owners; JEFFREY H. MILLETT, 1303 West Valencia,
Fu2lerton, California, Agent; property descrilied as:_ An irregularly
VARIANCE N0. 2142 shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 90:2 acres, having
approximate frontages of 3,100 feet on La Pa1ma Avenue (future) and
TENTATIVE MAP OF , 3,780 feet on the-Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way,
TR9CT N0. 7137, ,having a maximum depth of appror.imately 2,200 feet and being located
REVISION N0, 1 ,approximately 2,E00 feet east of the cenCerline of Imperial Highway.
; Properto preseatly classified COUNTY A1, GTsPtERAL AGRICULTURAL, DISTRICT i
~~
"REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R=2-SOOO, ONE-FAMILY, 20NE.
?, REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIREU LOT WIDTH.
TENTATIVE TRACT REt~UEST: SUfiDIVISION OF.SUBJECT PROPERTY INTO 451 R-2-5000 ZONED LOTS.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slanghter reviewed the location of subject property,
uses established,in:close proximity, and reasons for previaus continuances for the past
several months, noting thaC the petitioner was requesting pre-zoning of subject property
prior to annexation to the City of Anaheim; that the petitioner had indicated they were
making application to IAFCO-and hoped to appear before that body; that this property was ~
\ . , ~''.
~
mi{ ~;~' .,.~~~ ~.-*~ ~,~~~:~ ~ '. ~~.~"~ ~~ ~~ ?s~~2`~ rH'~' i '~ ~5ti . ~' S~ }- ^ ' ~..
~!r, ~v ~ ~. f ~~~ t ~~. r .Y ;~ s'~ } . l,f i3 r ` a S;; ~" ,:.
~ ' .
. ' ' ~ ... . . .. ' . , . ~
. . ~. . ~ ~ ~ . ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COiTISISSION, June 29, 1970 5230
RECLASSIFICATION - indicated as being appropriate for a regional park on the County
N0. 69-70-25 Master Plan;`that LAFCO had previouslr:denied r..inexation of this
parcel to_the City of Anaheim - howe>er, the applicant was requesting
VARIANCE N0. 2142 a re-hearing before that body; and tL•at due to the rossibility that
the property might not be approved fnx annexation to the City of
TENTATIVE MAP OF Anaheim, based upon LAFCO,'s previous'ection,, it was reco~ended by
TRACT N0..7137- staff that`subject petitions be continued untiL August 24, 1970, at
(Continued) which time the City would hade been informed as to whether the
property would be annexed to the Citq of Anaheim.
Mr. Gilbert Kraemer,.836 Alta Vista, Placentia, appeared before the Commission, stating
he represented the landowners,involved and xequeated~clarification of the reason the
~ staff was recommending a continuanae.
Chairman Rowland noted that due to the fact that the City was faced with so many problems
and loopholes as it perfained to the Loca1 Agency Formation Commission on possible annexa-
tion to the City of Anaheim, the Co~¢ission was not desirous of taking any unnecessary
steps until this annexation problem had been resolved.
Mr. Kraemer stated thaC they had worked with the staff for about a year and desired
approval of subject.pe~.ition subject to annexation so that in the event the annexation
took place, develogme:it would not have to wait unhil further zoning action took place.
Furthermore, the proposed annexation. would be entirely different from that originally
submitted to I.AFCO in that two 90-acre parcels were being submitted for LAFCO's
consideration.
Mr. Jeffrey Millett, engineer of the proposed development, appeared before the Commission
and noted,their reason for continuances prior to today's hearing was because of the in-
decision of the location of Fairmont Boulevard; however, this had been worked out with
staff and the County as to the alignment, and he had presumed that all other problems
had been resolved except that of annexation.
Comm;.,.; ,ner Herbst noted that.there t~as another problem to consider, and that was the
possi'~,~lity of a regional park being developed on subject property, and since no decision
had been submitted by. the Orange County Board of Supervisors, the Cormnission was hesitanC
to take any kind of action,
Mr. Millett advised the Co~ission that he had d~scussed the proposal with Stuart Bailey
. of the Orange County Planning Department, who had.stated in a letter that since subject
property was,contiguous to Anaheim, it would be a logical annexation.
Chairman Rowland noted that the Commission was not desirous of considering pre-annexation
petitions, especially in sensitive areas.
Mr. Kraemer then inquired whether or not a letter to that effect could be suUmitted to
them for reference purposes.
Assistant City Attorney John Dawson advised both the Commission and the petitioners that
either a letter or resolution by the Planning Commission setting forth their hesitancy
in discussing or considering pre-annexation zoning action in sensitive areas could be
drafted, especially those ~reas adjacent to the City of Anaheim, and that this action
was being taken due to the previous deniala by LAFCO on annexation actions involving
property contiguous to the City of Auaheim.
Commissioner Farano offered a motion to continue Petitions for Reclassi.fica•tion N~•.
69-70-25 and Variance No. 2142 and Tentative Map of Tract No. 7137, Revision No. 1, to
the meeting of Auguat 24, 1970, in order to allow time for a decision on annexation of
subject property to the City of Anaheim. Co~issioner Seymour seconded the *notion.
MOTION CARRIEp,
GENERAL PLAN - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PIANNING~COMMISSION, 204 East
AMENDMENT N0. 119 Lincoln Avenue; to consider an amendment to the ~Circulation Element -
Highway Rights-of-Way and Arterial Streets and H.ighways Map of the
Anaheim General Plan, changing the classification sf Manchester Avenue
between Orangewood Avenue on the north .:ad the south City limits from
a secondary highway exception to a collector street exception.
Asaistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the proposal to amend the Anaheim ~
General Plan, Reaolution No. 67R-376, ?;rterial Streets and Highways Map and the Highway
Rights-of-Way Map designating Manchester Avenue between Orangewood Avenue and the south
City limits from a secondary highway exception to a collector street exception, noting i
that Manchester Avenue was a frontage road along Che southwesterly side of the Santa Ana ~~~
Freeway; that the City of Orange and the State Division of Highways were proposing to
E -~,r, ~+n. s.X~~.'tuw~+c~:.7'x~, ~ .,:n..~4,it < ~~..:. ~ .`~.~
_ ,~ , r,~,
~~ -
~s ~ S ~
x,~ di/ ~'
~ MINUT~S, CITY PLAIVNING COtIlfISSION, June 29,~ 1970 •"_''
>.
.:
~, :. :. ; ~- 5231
GENERAL PLAIJ revise the;Chapman Avenue Santa:Ana.Freeway interchange by, extending
A-*iENDMENT~NO 119 State College Boul'evard over._tT~e freeway to:the'existing Manchester
~ (Continued) Avenue, souCh of Ghapman,;Avenue;.that;the City of;Orange was also.
„~ : proposing;to re route Mancheoter Avonue~to acco~odate constr,uction of
~ ; '- 1~l,State College ~Boulevard overcrosaing,.and the City of Orange had
~ requested arterial highwsy fin&i~..ing .through:the..County.of;Orange,iwhich.would-require:.that
Manchester~AvAnue:carry the eame desigiiation;in both the City_ of:Orange.and tfie,City of
~ Anaheim,;that no,change;in 8~-+euatreet•cross-section was proposed; and:`that the;Anaheim
~ Traffic Engineeriiig Division had atated thaE;with~the completios~`of the State.College
~ BouTevard'overcrossing,~,fhe~existing Chspmen;Avenue:`off ramp and the-.Arangewood Avenue
~ on-ramp would be'eliminaEed, resulting:in.considerable~reduction in.Eraffic'on ttiis seg-
ment,of Manchester,Avenue to approzimately 6,000 v~hicles;per day; which could be accom- I
modated by'a collector street.
' No one~appeared in'opposition to subject amend~ant, '
THE;HEARTNG'WAS.CLOSED. :-
,., ,..
Co~issioner Kaywood'offered Resolution No. PC70-117 and,aoved for ir:s passege and
adoption to~recommend to the CiEy.Council thaC General P1an.Amendment No. 119 be approved,
amending the.Circalation Elemeat'of the Anafieim General P1an, Highway Rights-of-Way and
Arterial St=eets and Highways Mep, changing Manchester Avenue from Orangewood Avenue on
the.north to the.south"City limits from a aecondary,exception to.a collector exception.
(See`Resolution Book)
On roll call'the foregoing resolution.was passed by the following vote:
AY+°~: COMMISSIONERS; ,~Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbat, Kaywood Se
- '. NOE ;' . COIIl~fISSIONERS: ,None. . ymour, Rowland.
ABSENT; COPIISISSIONERS: None.`
STREET NAME CHANGE - PUBLIC HFARING. INITIATED gY TA6 CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, 204 East
.DOVER.CIRCLE,TO, Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim,,Califoznia; to consider a street name
DORSET CIRCLE change for pover,Circle located in a new tract north`of Ball Road
and'east of,East?Street:
Assisfant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Sleughtar revie~ted the location of the propoaed street
name change, noting that,two,other atreets in this;general area,-south of'South StreeE and
west of Stste,College Boulevard,-boa~ the'nAaeg of Dover Street and`Dover Place, and since
the distance,separating the three streeta was sma11, in order to avoid confusion to both
the general public and the post office, etc. it was
short cul-de-sac street in a nev tract having only twoestr~ucturesthat the relatively
be'changed to-Dorset Circle; that the property ownere and tract developerehadnbeencupied
advi§ed of the problem and the fact that the Commission was considering a street name
change, and they had agreed to renaming of Ghe street to a name selected by the City
staff.
A showing of hands indicated four peraona preaeut in opposition to the proposed street
name change.
I4r. Robert Sharp, 1062 Dover Circle, appeared before the Commiasion in opposition and
preaented minutea of an emergency meeting of reaidents on Dover Circle (copy on file
with petition), said mtmieea.indiaeting the opposition by the six residents on Dover
Circle to a street name change and the fact.that the developer had also signed said
petition, together with a petition addressed to the Planning Commiss;on requesting that
the name Dover Circle remain and no street name change be approved by the Planning
Commisaion.
2oning Supervisoz Charles:Roberts noted for the Commission that in.order to expand on
atatements made by Mr. Sharp, when the initial,investigation was made as to the possi-
bility:of changing Dover Circle to another name, the developer had been contacted, who
et =~'~t~tir~e expressed no concern as fo the poasibility of a street name change, and that
only one other,person reattkd ou~:Ghe,atreet and this person indicated no objection -
however, subsequeat to Lhe adverL+isemeut in the newspaper for a atreet name change, there
were addiEional people purchasing their homes who evidently had not been advised a street
name change was in.the proceas.
Mr. Sherp noted that he had con[acted the property owners on Dover Circle as to whether
or not City repreaentatives had contacted them end had received a negative answer.
Furthermore, in diacussions with Mr. Williamson of the Development Services Department,
he had been informed there were five complaints regarding the similarity in names, as
well as a complaint ~from the poat office - however, it was his opinion this was an
arbitrary action and requested it be withdrawn, but Mr. Williameon advised him this
, .
_ - - .r - t °~ ~, .•;i^~?nc ' ;7"-...!.~``~.ar e~~
~ ~ffV ..~~ _. " . ~ ~ . isy
~. ~ . w=
MINUTES, CITY.PLANNING.COt~iISSION, June 29, 1970 ~"
-. -5232 ,:.
-. ;_ t
STREET NAME CHANGE had already been acheduled for.'public hearing - therefore, any ~
DOVER CIRCLE TO opposition and any consideretion would have to be presented to the
.~
DORSET.CIRCLE Planning Commission at the public hearing. .~
, (Continued) ;4~,
. . Commisaioner Herbst no d there s a" istinct difference in the x~
, names of Dover Circle °"'~
' the.posaibility of a.problem reaulting if the;_latter`portion~of~theename wereldropped;i~e r
siamely~ "Circle", r'bhere ,the ~post; 'office or. public facilities~ . aucH as ~~
department,,`could:become confused since there`already existed.a DoverpStreetaandfarpover ~~~
Place. .
_ ii '
Commiss~r ICa d noted that in Che 'event o a f re, ~ uat the `matter of a~bu~.~"~~ ~
j ~
~ delay.~ the ifference in saving-a hame en a street were not properly identified . ~
as to whether it was Circle,'Avet~ue, or:Street or Place, this C~e t~ difference. '
. ~
-. bc~.F~ Yn._ ~"~
Mr. Roberts.further read a letter to the Commiasion from.Mr: McFie, Postmaster of the
Anaheim Post:Office, in reaponse'to a legal.notice:sent by the staff, concurring with (
the proposed street name change: T;;
:
~~• ~
THE ~HFARING WAS CLOSED. "'
. . . ' . . . . .. . . . . 4::1,
Commissioner,;Gauer;offered Resolution No. PC70-118 and moved for its passage and adoption
to recommend to the City Council that Ehe name Dover Circle remain and'not be changed.
(See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: x
AYES: COI~fiSSIONERS; 'Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Seymour, Rowland. z'
NOES: COI~AiISSIONERS• :Kaywood. '~
ABSENT:. COMNiISSIONERS: None. ~~,'
. . . .. . . ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ . _ : ~ , .. ~ ~ rr~.:
. . . . . . . , . . . . . . ?;;
STREET,NAME CpANGE - PUBLIC HEARING, INITIATED BY TI~ CITY.PIAIVNING COP4IISSION, 204 East ~;
GARLP:ND STREET TO ' Lincolri Avenue, Anaheim,.California; to conaider a street name change <,;
SYMPHONY STREET - for Garland`Street located in Tract No: 6686, north of Orangethorpe
- Avenue.generally west of Kellogg'Drive.
Assiatant Zoning Supesvisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed for the Co~ission the fact that a
street_name conflict existed between two:non-connecting atreete in two adjoining:tracts
located north'of Orangetr.orpe Avenue and weab of Kellogg Drive, one being`an east-west
atreef'which served'a number of homes and was named.Garland Street, and_a new Tract No.
6686 adjoining Tract No.:6561 having a north-south atreet also naned Garlend Street; that ~~
this stub sEreet presently served one residence and was designed for eventual extension
ir_to.undeveloped property to the south; and that the staff had contacted the owner of the
single-family residence and adviaed him of the problem and had asked for'street name
suggestions, the name auggested being Symphony Street, and the staff recommended that
Garland Street running south from Holbrook Street be.renamed Symphony Street.
No one appeared in opposition to subject street name change.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Cormaisaioner Farano offered Reaolution No, PC70-119 and moved for its passage and adoption
to.reco~end Eo the City Council that Garland Street located south of Hclbrook Street,
north of Orangethorpe Avenue and west of Kellogg Drive, be renamed to Symphony Street.
(See Resolution Book) '
- On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:..
- AYES: COMMIS~IONERS: .Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst,. Kaywood,_Seymour, Rowland.
NOES: COMt~iISSIONERS: None. `
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
AMENAMENTS TO TITLE 18, - CONTINUED pi]BLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING
ANAFIEIM MUNICIPAL CODE COhII4ISSI0N,•.204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California;
proposing amendmenta to.ChapteLS 18.13, R-H-10,000, Residential
Hillside; 18.16, R-A, Agricultural; 18.18, R-E,.Residential
Estate; and 18:20, R-0, One-Fsmily Suburban, Zones pertaining
to the jceeping of animals; and Chapter 18.64, Conditional Uses.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter noted for the Commission that at the
April 20, 1970, public hearing, at which time Chapter 18.04 - General Provisions - Use -
Keeping of animals for domestic and.co~ercial use in residential zones - and Chapter "
~ , . , -
~ ` ' , ; ' ~ . ~
~ ~'
MINUTES, CITY PLANN.ING COHII~fISSION, June..29,.1970. 5233
' AMENDMENTS TO TITLE;18, 18 08 - Definitiona`of coop~.corral and privaEe stairle - were
ANAHEIM-MtJNICIPAI.>CODE •rPCO~ended;,for ameadmeat~to *_?ie dit 'C
- . y ouncil,,the sEaff had
(Continued) irzdicated~thef if thoee,amendmenEs were approved then further
' avendments to'the r'e'sidential aections of the Anaheim Municipal
-< ,'Co~e would have to be made, and tHat•a public hearing had been
"held on Mav:18, at which Eime the st~ff,requesEed continuance of the propoaal in order
i: to allow the=staff;time to make';further'study on the.rproposed amendmente:
,No one appeared in.opposition to subject:amendments.
`~,THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.'
c`.Commissioner Kaywood offered'Resolution`No. PC70 120 and moved for its passage and adoption
'to recoffiuend;~to,the.City Gouncil„8mendments to;:Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code,
ChapEera 18:13, 18:'16, 18:18, 18:20 and;18.64.in accordance.with`Exhibit "A!' on the,basis
that previous amendments;pertaining to the'keeping of'animals in'the General Provisions -
IIse 'section of the;Anatieim Municipal Code necessitated~further'amendment to the resi-
dentiel zones, thereby eliminating possible conflicts,and provide for clarity of'
'inEerpretation (See Reaolution-Book)
On roll,call'the foregoing resolution was passed by,;the following vote:
rAYES: COMI~2ISSIONERS: .Allred,.Faratu, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood,.Seymour, Rowland.
~NOES: - .COMMISSTONERS.:: None. `
' ABSENT: COMNIISSIONERS;;`None. :
`REPORTS: AND:. .'. _.: ITEM N0. • 1
RECONafENDATIONS _ VARIANCE N0. 1110 - Request-for a five-year.extension of
time to continue a one-operetor beauty.shop at 411 Velare
Street.:
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, existing
zoning;.and the fact that'the variance-was approved.in May, 1959,for a.period"of one
~,year by'the Planning Co~ission with the.condition that no sign be displayed; thar. Cwo
previous five-year extensions of time had been granted,.the most recent one expiring
June'16, 1970; and Ehat investigation by!staff~indicated no.complainta had been received.
Commisaioner Farano was of.,the opinion thet subject petition should be set for public I
hearing to'determinerwhetfier or not there.would-be objections.to the continued use of
sub3ecl• property'foi a one-operator beauEy shop: ~~
i
Aftei further discussion by`the Co~ission relative to the'fact that no complaints had '
been,received, that the operation.was similar;to that which had been approved in 1959, ~
and the fact that_.inspecEion of these.types of facilities was not a Health Department
regulation but by ttie SEate Board of Cosmetology, setting the petition for public hearing
was deemed unnecessary.
Commissioner Seymou; offered a motion to grant a five-year extension of time for the
',operation of a one-operator,beauty shop approved under Variance No. 1110, said time (
extension to expire June 16, 1975: Co~issione; Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION I
CARRIED. (Commissioner Farano voted "no';)
_ 1
_ - . -
ITEM NO.. 2
VARIANCE N0. 1372 (R. E. Wtlliems~'- Request for extension
, of time - Property located at 1829 South Mountain View
i Avenue.
_
~ Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that the petitioner was requesting an additional
extension of time of one.year to:permit the continued use of an existing residence for
the establishment pf an office and outdoor storage of equipment and vehicles at 1829
South.Mountain View Avenue; that`the last extension of time'expired.on June 26, 1970;
- and~that because of the fact that a large banking establ3shment would be u d
n er construc-
tion in a short.time, the.use presently esEablished would not be complementary to said
commerciel use.
Commissioner Herbat offered a motion to grant a one1year extenaion of time for the use
of property`at 1829 South Mountain View Avenue under Variance No, 1372. Cormnissioner
Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (Commissioner Farano abstained from
voting) ~