Loading...
Minutes-PC 1971/12/29f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~., T : Ci~y Hall ~ ~ Anaheim, California December 29, 1971 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was MEETING called to order by Chairman Farano at 2:00 P.M., a quorum being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Farano. - COMMiSSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. PRESENT - Deputy City Attorney: Bill Hopkins Of£ice Engineer: Jay Titus Zoning Supervisor: Charles Roberts Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Don McDaniel Ccmmission Secretary: Ann Krebs PLEDr,E OF - Commissioner Gauer led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the ALLEGIANCE Flag. APPROVAL OF - Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to approve the minutes THE MINUTzS of the December 13, 1971, meetinq, seconded by Commissioner Gauer and MOTION CARRIED, subject to the followinq corrections: Pg. 71-779, para. 2, line 5: approved two tracts (not three). Pg. 71-783, para. 3, lines 4-6 should read: "advent of the wigs; however, she had no objection to the child care center." Pg. 71-785, para. 5, line 2 should read: "the parts were display-mounted on pegboard wired for display, and...." Pg. 71-795, para. 4, line 2 should read: "Petition for Reclassification No. 71-72-24 be denied, and then withdrew the motion." Pg. 71-795, para. 5: delete. RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. DONAT,D R. AND BEV's^RLY A. TAYLOR, N0. 71-72-6 6161 Santa Ana Canyon Road, Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting that property described as: A rectangularly- shaped parcel of land consisting of three lots aad having a frontage of app,roximately 110 feet on the ezst side of Western Avenue, having '. a maximum depth of approximately 275 feet and being located approximately 550 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road, and further described as 850 South i Western Avenue, be rec~assified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE to the R-3, ~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. f Subject petition was continued from the meetings of July 26 and November 1 ' and 29, 1971, to allow time for the petitiones to submit de~elopment plans. ~ ~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject ! property, previous reasons for continuances, and the finding of staff that the petitioner was submitting a letter requesting withdrawal of the proposed reclassification since he intended to construct three single-family homes on i the property. However, this letter had not been received even though by a ! telephone conversation with the petitioner he had indicated this would be ~ done, and upon contacting the City Attorney, he had indicated that based on the phone call, staff could prepare a letter for the file to this effect. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to whether or not subject petition should be ~;eYmitted to be withdrawn or whether it should be con- tinued until such time as the petitioner submitted said letter, and upon „ 71-799 FC .. _ . .. .. . . .- . .. . _. ~. . , ~ ~ ~~ . . ` '} i i• ~ ~'~._ ~.1 1 ; f ~, . _._._-- 1 r -:,.. :;.,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,"' MINUTES, CITY PLANNIN,r, COMMISSION, December 29, 1°7i %1-800 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-6 (Continued) ~ , . its conclusion, Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to grant permission to the petitioner to withdraw Petition for Reclassification No. 71-72-6 on the basis that he planned to develop subject property with three single-family . homes under the original Reclassification No. 62-63-40. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. i#r ', , - ~' ~ ;~ .;; ~ • .~et l ' ~ ~ ~ . - i,i;;.s:i TENTATIVE MAP OF - OWNER/DEVELOPER: COVINGTON BROTHERS, 2451 East Orange- TRACT N0. 7448 thorpe Avenue, Fullerton, California, Engineering, 1782 West Lincoln Avenue, SuiteEHR.Anaheimr California. Subject property located on the south side of Ball Road, approximately 280 feet east of Belhaven Street, containing approximately 10 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 34 R-3 zoned lots. Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the lccation of subject pr~perty, uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action on the property, and the proposal, noting that the developer requested a two-week continuance in order to revise the tentative tract map in accordance with suggestions made by staff. Mr. Gerald Burns, Vice President of Covington Brothers, appeared before the Commission and nated that their request for continuance was necessitated after a meeting with staff, which indicated a number of problems in the developmettt of the tract. Therefore, the two-week continuance was needed to prepare a new tract map. Commissioner Allred offered a motion to continue consideration of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7448 to the meeting of January 10, 1972, to allow time for the submission of a revised tract map, Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. I40TION CARRIED. CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. MABEL ANN YORBA, 5521 Santa PERMIT NO. 1281 Ana Canyon Road, Anah~im, California, Owner; VELCE INVESTMENT COMPANY, 1128 East 6th Street, Suite 7, Corona, RESTAURANT IN CONJUNCTION~WITH•AASERVICEeSTATIONgWITHmWAIVER OF THEAFREEH A STANDING SIGNS IN THE SC 20NE AND TIME LIMITATION OF LIGHTED SIGNS IN THE SC ZONE on property described as: .4n irregularly-shaped parcel of land located at the southwest corner of Imperial Freeway and La Palma Avenue, having frontages of approximately 150 feet on Imperial Freeway and 180 feet on La Palma Avenue. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Subject petit~on was continued from the meeting of December 13, 1971, to allow the petitioner time to submit revised sign plans and for staff to further investigate the easement right-of-way adjacent to Imperial Freeway. Assistant Zoninq Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to establish an automobile service station with the restaurant constructed above said station; that access to and from the station and restaurant was proposed from two drive approaches along La Palma Avenue and across a drive approach to Imperial Freeway; that 51 parking spaces were being provided on the site; that the revised plans indicated the elimination of the original 255-square foot, 48-foot high, free-standing sign containing the identification of the T~Ya~;~ service station and the "TOp Deck" restaurant, however, until just a few minutes ago he had been unaware of the fact that the applicant was still proposing the monument-type sign on the corner since it was his understanding that all signing would be accommodated by wall signs. Mr. McDaniel then reviewed the evaluation as set forth in,the Report to the Commission regarding the Scenic Corridor Overlay 2one and concluded by stating that in reviewing the title report, althoucjh the finding in the Report to the Commission indicated that said ingress and egress rights had been relinquished across Imperial Freeway, subsequent informstion had indicated that th~ ingress-~ egress rights were not relinquished. Therefore, the praperty had access to the' freeway. ~ i ! ~s•'•' ~ .. ~ ' ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . t , ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Decembzr 29, 1971 71-801 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1281 (Continued) Mr. Goetz, representing the .petiti.oner, appeared befb,re the Commission. Chairman Farano requested that t~e agent confi~ne his res~arks to the revisions rather than reviewing the entire proposal whiclz'Y,ad bpen heard at the last public hearing. Mr. Goetz then submitted both colored an~fl black and white sketches of the proposed wall sign, noting that the sign would be a mounted sign on the top of the roof adjacent to the area thaC was used for hiding the kilnbill portion of the roof. Commissioner Gauer inquired about the proposal to have the low sign; whereupon Mr. Goetz stated that they ~ere not proposing a rotating sign, however, they now were proposing a 7 x 14-foot monumented type of sign that would be a maximum of 10 feet from grade and be about 3 feet from the ground, being a 3 total of 98 square feet. Furthermore, it was his feeling it was a rather ~ small sign. Commissioner Herbst inquired why didn't the petitioner propose a maximum sign of 4 x 6 feet since San Francisco had now limited the size of their signs to 2 x 4 feet. Mr. Goetz replied that they needed some type of identification, therefore, the monument type sign was proposed. The Commission noted that there was a sign on the top of the building which should be adequate for signing, and the Scenic Corridor Zone did not permit free-standing signs. Commissioner Seymour noted that the SC 2one stated there should be no free- standing signs, and when the Commission had spoken with another gentleman at the last public hearing, he had stated there would be no free-standinq signs, which meant that the proposed monumented sign was still considered a free- standing sign. Commissioner Herbst then noted that waiver "a" was still necessary according to the Code definition. Mr. Goetz stated that they had no identification as to the name of a restau- ~ rant, namely, "Top Deck", and since they were a small company, they were requesting some direction from the Commission as to the type of signing, and i then reviewed another type of sign that might be considered by the Commission. Chairman Farano noted that this would be considered a wall sign, and he would consider that more favorably, however, he would not consider approving a ~ free-standing sign. ~Mr. Goetz, in response to a question by Commissioner Kaywood, indicated where they proposed to place the words "Top Deck" on the proposed sign. Commissioner Seymour stated that the only thing he was interested in was that the petitioner conform with the sign requirements of the SC Zone, regardless of the lettering or size, and that would mean no free-standing sign. Mr. Goetz then stipulated to providing only the wall sign and deletion of the request for a free-standing sign. Commissioner Seymour further noted that the Commission was also concerned with the fact that the petitioner was requesting a conditional use permit in the M-1 Zone, even though this was a C-1 use, and since it was a C-1 use, the petitioner should meet the landscaping requirements of the SC 2one as they pertained to C-1 uses, namely, a 14-foot landscaped setback rather than the 5 feet proposed, and for landscaping in :~xcess of that proposed along Imperial Freeway since the St3.*.e had indicated they would permit landscaping of their property so that a 20-foot landscaping strip could be provided. However, to require the property to set back any farther from Imperial Freeway would be unfair to the petitioner, therefore, by taking subject property line and landscaping 20 feet, this would include some of the State's property. i ~.-' - . -. _ . . ~ __ _~ _ -.~~ - 'y d L , ~ ~ ~ MTNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 29, 1971 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1281 (Continued) ~ 71-802 Mr. Goetz indicated that the State had informed him thep would not allow him to plant landscaping - only the City could request this permission from the State. However, if this permission was granted by the State, he would stipulate to landscaping it in accordance with the Commission's request. Commissioner Herbst then noted that landscaping should be in accordance with the requirements of the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone as it pertained to the C-1 Zone, provided, however, that the State granted permission for the property owr.er to develop landscaping on their property. Mr. McDaniel noted that based on the submission of revised plans rather than permitting withdrawal of waiver "a", the Commission might consider it more appropriate to deny this waiver since revised plans indicated otherwise. Mr. Goetz then reviewed the type of material that was proposed for the top of the building on which the proposed sign would be attached. Commissioner Seymour noted that there still was another problem to resolve, and that was the ingress and egress from the Imperial Freeway, since those properties at the southeast, northeast, and northwest cor~ters of this inter- section did not have access to Imperial Freeway, and then requested clarifi- cation of staff as to whether or not this accessway could be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. Office Engineer Jay Titus noted that in checking the deed, it indicated there was a 30-fcot accessway reserved to the property owner. Commissioner Seymour noted he wanted to be sure that the acc,~ss was not taken to Imperial Freeway from this restauranti and service station. Mr. Goetz noted that he had no way to deed this property to the City of Anaheim since he purchased it with this accessway; that he did not want the easement, however, and woulc? suggest that perhaps the City might condemn this, but he could not block off the access since there was an easement to the property to the west. - ~,~ Mr. Titus stated t:~~t as a point of clarification, there were two things to consider: one was a 30-foot wide access to sub'ect ~ there was a 14-foot easement which was an access to aroperty and, in addition, ~ adjacent property to the west, and this 14 feet was within theS30~footeaccess- way, and unless an alternate access easement was provided, this access could ~ not be closed off. Commissioner Seymour inquired whether or not this 19-foot easement had been provided to give access to a landlocked piece of property prior to the extension of La Palma Avenue to the Imperial Freeway, and if this were so, then the access easement was not necessarp. Mr. Goetz replied that the accessway was used everp day~ Chairman Farano then inquired whather or not Mr. Goetz would relinquish this access easement. Mr. G. Richard Winder, 1477 South Manchester Avenue, appeared before the Commission and noted that they had spent some time with City Engineer James Maddox and Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson regarding this easement; that the easement had existed as~d had been used since 1929, providing access to three parcels which were landlocked and which were not owned by Mrs. Yorba; that there was no access from these parcels to La Palma Avenue unless Mrs. Yorba granted another easement to La Palma Avenue, and if it were granted, this hould cut the Yorba property approximately in half; that he did not know of any service statio~ located at arterials that did not have access to the two streets, therefpre, he could not see any reason why access could not be given to the Tmperial Freeway; that the State had tried to obtain this from Mrs. Yorba for some time; and then reviewed other street access for service stations that he had obtained throughout the city. ~"aaa~ ^ . , .. 0 ~ ^~~ ~ ~ ~ MINUT~S~ C=Ty p~,ANNING COMMISSION, December 29, 1971 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1281 (Continued) ~ 71-803 Mr. Winder further noted that access from Imperial Freeway could not be gained because of a center median strip preventing northbound traffic from entering the easement, and the motorist would have to go to the intersection of La Palma. Avenue and Imperial Freeway, however, motorists wanting to go back onto the freeway could take access from this accessway to imperial Freeway. Commissioner Allred noted that if La Palma Avenue increased in traffic volume, a similar median strip might also occur on La Palma Avenue. Mr. Winder replied that if the access were removed to Imperial Freeway, this would be a hardship for both the service station and the restaurant, and if it were not granted, the petitioner would terminate all proceeciings on the proposed use, a use that was very necessaxy at this ~ntersection. Further- more, the access rights for those properties on the opposite side of Imperfal Freeway were granted in exchange for a proper alignment, and he haai obtained this information from the State. Mr. Frank Gover~le, representing the "Top Deck" restaurant, advised the Commission that the wall signs would be on the front and the rear of the building, THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC71-245 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1281, in part, denying waiver of the free-standing sign, subject to conditions, deleting Condition No. 10 on the basis that removal of this access would create land- locked parcels and that development of the landscaping shall be in accordance with the C-1 (SC) Zone landscaping requirements. (See Resolution Baok) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vot~: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMN.ISSIONERS: Rowland. RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. CITY OF FULLERTON, 303 West NO. 71-72-24 Commonwealth Avenue, Fullerton, California, Owner; JACK ROYER, Municipal Utilities Manager, 303 West Commonwealth Avenue, Fullerton, California, Agent; requesting that property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of 'land consisting of approximately 4 acres being northwest of the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Harbor Boulevard with frontages of approximately 425 feet and 182 feet respectively, and further described as 1029 North Harbor Boulevard be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE and C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE to the C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, 20NE. Subject petition was continued from the meeting of December 13, 1971, to allow time for development plans to be submitted and for the State architect to be present to answer Commission questions. Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed t~e location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action on the property, and the reason for continuance, together with the fact that the revised plans indicated construction of a Department of Motor Vehicles office building being 16,700 square feet in size, having access to La Palma Avenue via two 30-foot driveways and access to Harbor Boulevard via a 30-foot drive- way, with the remainder of the site being shawn as parking area; that one of the primary concerns of the proposed use involved the amount and location of on-site parking, and based upon the area depicted on the plan, approximately 156 parkinq stalls could be provided ~n the property for the 16,700-square foot building, or one stall per 103 snuare feet of building, while the exist- ing Department of Motor Vehicles facility further west on La Palma Avenue provided 87 parking stalls for a 5,400-square foot buildina, or one stall per 62 square feet. ' ~ ! _a. ~ 1 ~~ , I ~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 29, 197~. 71-804 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-24 (Continued) Chairman Farano noted that the public hearing had been closed, and unless the Commission requested it, the petit;nner should confine his remarks to the development plans. Mr. William G. Vasvary, Director o£ the Planning and Building Department, City of Fullerton, indicated that the State Architect, Mr. Don Reath, would present the revised plans. :~:: - ~ Commissioner Kaywood noted that at the previous public hearing it was indicated there were 11,000 square feet in the proposed building, however, sta£f now indicated there were 16,700 square feet and inquired why the discrepancy. Mr. A1 Whigham, Manager of the Department of Motor Vehicles of Anaheim, in response to Commissioner Kaywood's question, stated that at the last public hearing staff had indicated there were 11,000 square feet, however, ne had made the statement there were 16,000 square feet. Commissioner Kaywood then inquired whether or not this would account for the difference in the number of parking stalls since staff had indicated 200 parkir_g stalls originally. Mr. Whigham replied that if he could recall, he had quoted between 150 and 175 parking stalls. Commissioner Y,aywood noted that staff had indicated over 200 parking stalls in their report. Commissioner Gauer inquired as to t:~e number of parking stalls there were at the present facility; whereupon Mr, h'higham replied there were around 80 spaces. Commissioner Seymour then inquired how many employees were anticipated to serve this new facility. Mr. Whigham replied that there was a total of. 60 employees - 40 being full time employees and the balance being intermittent employees on call in the event there was considerably more work than the tull-time staff could handle. Commissioner Seymour then inquired whether the 60 esaployees would be the maximum every employed at this facility. Mr. Whigham noted that they presently had 60 employees. Commissioner Gauer inquired as to the n~umber of employee parking spaces that would be needed - 60? Mr. Whigham replied that there would be no need for 60 parking spaces since some of the women emplopees rode together. Therefoz•e, the maximnm that would be needed was 40 to 45 parking spaces. Commissioner Seymour noted that the point he wished to bring out aad which he was more specifically concerned with was the garking requirements - if Mr. whigham stated there would be only 60 employees, since this number was employen at the present facilities, he would question this same number of employees would be at the new facility, particularly since the old facility was only 5,400 square feet and the new facility was trebled to 16,700 square feet - why the need for trebling the space witk: the same number of employees? Mr. Whigham replied that a portion of this additional space would be storage; that the present building, when they first opeaed, had only 40 employees, however, they now proposed more storage, and lobby space was also needed. Commissioner Seymour noted that nis question then was, was there any plan in the back of Mr. Whigham's mind to employ 80-90-100 persons in this new facility? , .. - . ~ -' _ ''~ - _ ':ias~' _.a~ .. ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~~ :~ ..~ ~ . i!~ , ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 29, 1971 RECLASSIFICATION N0. 71-72-24 (Continued) ~~ 71-805 Mr. Whigham replied that he.did not know, but Southern California was growing, as the Commission was well aware, but what the number would be and their ability to obtain employees was another question. Commissioner Seymour then noted that in relationship to the storage, Mr. Whigham was stating that he was having additional squarE footage because of the need for storage - then take out the square footage storage area - what amount of square footage would remain, 5,400 square feet compared to what? y-~._'' Mr. Whigham replied that they would have public restrooms in this building ~ since it would be State owned, while th~ present one was only leased; that ~;: they would have two additional people employed as investigators, however, they were presently working out of the Santa Ana office because of the lack „ ~ of space for them to have their offices in the present facility. a Commissioner Seymour iioted that if someone sat down and planned a 16,700 square foot building to handle an ultimate "x" number of employees who would ~ provide "x" amount of service, he was certain someone had done this, there- ' fore, the question that appeared foremost was, what would this building hold employee-wise since the Department of Motor Vehicles representative stated they planned to provide the same level of service and no more employees than presently employed - then there would be an adequate number of parking spaces, but in the future and in relationship to the square footage of the building - three times the size of the present building - it was implied that the same level of service would be provided in the new building as was presently being ' 'i provided. Mr. Don Reath, architect for the State on the proposed devel~pment, a.ndicated there would be a larger lobby and more area for the same servic~es - in other words, 15 to I6 feet from the counter to an exterior wall under present conditions, with people standing outside waiting their turn to be served indoors, whereas this building would grovi.de more indoor space for a waiting area, lobbies, employee rooms, public restrooms, etc. Commissioner Seymour then inquired wh:~ther it was the State's intent that the level of service would not increase past that presently existing. Mr. Reath replied that the employees would have more square iootage in which to work, and it would be more funct,ional. Commissioner Seymour noted that the question was, did the State plan to provide a greater volume of service in this new facility? Mr. Reath noted that in the past where a building would become crowded as the present facilities were, then the plan was to either add to the existing facility or build a new building. Chairman Farano noted that one of the concerns of Commissioner Seymour and what h~e was attempting to determine was the fact that there was quite a problem with the existing facility - that it is a terribly congested area - the present facility and building and parking area was a, real traffic problem to any of the public who would have use of that facility, and the Commission was concerned with the present ~acility, and where the spzce was now proposed to be trebl~2. with only double the number of parking spaces - t_:~is would be fine if there was no plan to offer other *han the same level of service, but if there was .:a1 intent to increase the level of service, then the same situ3tion would arise and the City would again be faced with the same problem that presently existed in the facility at Euclid and La Pa].ma, and the Commission was trying to alleviate this problem. Therefore, was there any way that the State could assure the Coanission or stipulate to, or have as a condition in the event subject petition were recommended for approval, that they wculd not employ more than "x" r,umber of people in this facility. Mr. Reath replied that hn could not guarantee this because, for examole, the Santa~ Aaa office was only three years old, and a two-story addition had to be built to handle the increase in business. .~ = _-~-~-~`:.~„-. : ~ ' ~ ^ r ~ •' ( r~ , .' i `J ~ ~ -. MINU~ES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 29, 1971 71-806 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-24 (Continued) Chairman Farano noted that the Commission was fully aware of what happened .-- to commercial buildings - employees of a building as planned would provide . a given number of parking spaces based on a given number of square feet, and • as business grew and volume increased, the space shrank, desks were doubled ' up, and before one knew it, there would be the same number of square footage as previously provided, but the parking had not increased commensurately. The Commission did not feel this facility could stand that type of employee increase because adequate parking was not being provided under the present set-up. ";".~!! Mr. Reath responded that it had been his experience with the Department of ~; Motor Vehicles that when an office necame so cramped for space, placing too ~:~ many employees in a building, they had a choice - either a new building had to be built if the existing building could not be expanded or expand the ~~~ existing facility; that they did put ex~ansion into a building in the design ;; on sonie sites and in others not, this being only if the department stated that was all they intended to build, and if they needed more space, they would build another building elsewhere. - Chairman Farano noted that perhaps the Commission could add a condition to ~ approval of the reclassification 19.miting the number of employees in the "~~ proposed new facility. Then if the State planned to enlarge the facility or increase the number of employees which would give them some reasonable lati- ' tude as far as the expansion was concerned, if the State then exceeded this, ;~' they would have to file for a variance. ;i, Mr. McDaniel indicated that this would r~ very difficult to enforce. ~6 _ z ~ f ,,kc : Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that he could not see how the City could force the Department of Motor Vehicles to meet a specific condition, telling them they could not add employees since the State would do what they pleased, parking-wit.e. iandscaping-wise, whatever, and he could assure the Commission of this because every State building he had visited recently, it appeared the State ignored all local parking codes, etc.; that he had visited many State ~uildings during the past year, and the parking problems were ho.rrible; that in many of the cities the State buildings were not new, but they still had ignored all local parking code requirements in many of thPir buildings - bPCause they have a problem, thcy keep adding employees, and he had seen cars stacked five 3eep, eight feet apart, and to move a vehicle from its parking space was virtually impossible, and he could take the Commission to many of these sites and show them this problem, and this was the point that the Commission was concerned with, namely, the continual growth of the State facilities, which was understandable because the State was growing and many people needed to be taken care of, but when one could see thi~ facility going in on one of the busiest intersections in Anaheim, not the buslest but one of the busiest, projecting this type of traffic into this intersection with this type of development, the Commission woadered whether this was the proper place for it - if it was, would this facility have, or would they add to a parking problem - could additional property be obtained to take care of this need, if needed. Maybe now the parking was adequaL . but what would happen later? Mr. Reath noted that the State had made a number of studies, and, for instance, in Santa Rosa where additional parking was necessary, they :~a3 constructed a parking garage because additional land was not obtainable; since this was an ideal location for the existing facility, they were not desirous of relocating. Chairman Farano inquired whether or not from a legal standpoint, was it true that the City could not enforce their ordinances if a condition of the reclassification limited the number of employees - couldn't this be enforced - not policing but enforcement of the 2oning Ordinance? Deputy City Attorney Bill Hopkins advised the Commission that it would be very difficult to enforce as indicated, particularly as to the hiring of additional employees. ~ , s ~ :.-._ _ ~ - r_ .__. ..,,..._,-__.... , ::s-. . .;, . . .... - . . . ° - . . , . . .. ~ . r~ ..... .• ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ . .::,L , . .. .. . . . _ ` . .. , ^ ~ 1[•>yl ~. . . ' - ---- --~~..,...~ ~ `~ y ~ • MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 29, 1971 71-807 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-7~-24 (Contin~~d) l, Commissioner Kaywood wondered whether this wouldn't also depend upon what type of people that were employed - if they were strictly clerical help, this would not necessarily mean an increase in the number of people this facility would be serving; although it would take up more employee parking, it might not affect tiie number of vehicles coming in every day. Chairman Farano noted that since one portion of this could not be enforced, how could one expect another portion to be enforced? _ w.,. +_~ ; Commissioner Kaywood observed that additional employees might not have any- ~;- -~': thing to do with the increase in thc number of the public being served. ~;: ~~ Mr. Whigham stated that a who would drop off and great deal of the work was brought in by dealers pick up in a few days as many as 50 items. Tnis ~auld ,i be handled by t'^a clerical he~p which could mean an increase as Commissioner s ~ Kaywood stated, either through the mail or dealers bringing in and later picking them up. ^ Chairman Farano indicated that he had been in favor of the proposal at the last meeting, and he expressed his position then; that he s±ill thought this particular use would be less,objectionable than C-1 for the front portion and R-3 for the rear portion and weuld have less traffic patterns and problems incurred with this type of use; that he had had personal experience with the existing facility trying, far example, to obtain an off-the-road vehicle license where the vehicle had to be inspected, etc., and he had had to park on La Palma Avenue, almost causing two accidents trying to mcve this vehicle, driving around the block, and he would like to see it leave its present % location and perhaps locate on subject property. It would be a great spot *~ for it from the standpoint of easing the present problem, but he was not in .; favor of creating another monster at the proposec' location since it would be { even worse at this intersection than the present loca,tion. ;;~~ Mr. Whigham inquired whether or not the Commission had receive~ a report from ~j~ the Traffic Depa~tment regarding the count at both intersections since the j count at the Eu~:lid-La Palma intersection was considerably greater than that _~~ at Harbor Boulevard and La Palma Avenuej that they had no intention of causing '?! a problem, but that they normally drew from a five-mile radius and whatever i ~ was in that five-mile radius would be their business. ; Chairman Farano noted that it was inevitable that a problem would be created '' because the first of July, 1972, all off-road vehicles would have to be licensed, whether towed or trailered and checked for muffler and smog arrest- ors, and he could see people with hundreds of dune buggies pulling them into , this facility to get them inspected, and that would create quite a messy - problem. Mr. Whigham replied that they wouln not be at the new location the first of : July. ;; ~ Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether there was additional space to the west owned by the City of Fullerton that could be utilized for additional parking. Mr. Vasvary replied that the City of Fullerton had no intention of giving up any more of their property since the balance of the property would be needed '',I to operate the water facility. Furthermore, the State facilities in Fullerton had been very cooperative throughout their dealings, and although their ordinance did not apply to them, and they could do as they wished if they wanted to do as they wished, they would not be before the City of Anaheim; ` that the y(DMV), too, wanted to cooperate with the City of Fullerton which had been done in that they had gone out and purchased three to four lots for an _ employees' building. ` Commissioner Herbst noted that there was one major point of concern that he wished brought out, ar.d that was the plans presented indicated a 10-foot ~ strip of landscaping adjacent to the 6-foot masonry wall which was adjacent to the single-family residential homes to the north of subject property; that the City needed some assurance as to the type of landscaping that would be a installed adjacent to these single-family homes - what type of protection *' i ~ { f ; {~. ~.~.1 ~:~ ~ . ... ' . ~ ~ . . . .. .~ . . / ~~. . ' . . ~ . . ~ ., . r'+L~ . .. - . . ` , ' ~ . ~ ; i -- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ , MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMNiSSION, December 29, 1971 71-808 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71~72-24 (Continued) these residents would have because the plan indicated there were three rows of cars stacked up within 10 feet of the sinqle-family property, cars that would be idling, starting, or stopping. Mr. Whigham replied that in their present faci?ity there were six to seven cars at maximum, even though the plans indicated they were attempting to keep the parking away fram the wall. Commissioner Herbst noted that if the cars were stacked up in this area, the poor residents whose homes were located only 25 feet from this wall where cars were idling snd inquired what kind of a smog protection was the State planning for these people, or would they be subjecting them to some smog that was unbearable - what did the State plan in the form of landscaping along the wall which would protect the people since this was the only area that was critical as to residential uses; and that high plants and high-rise trees should be provided, giving these people the best sound anc smog buffer possible. Commissioner Gauer indicated that the landscaping department. of the City of Anaheim should be able to give the State the type of landscaping that would provide the best protection. Mr. Reath indicated that one agency of the State dealt with how much could be spent on landscaping, and that was the Department of Finance. Many times cities wanted specimen trees planted, and it was not in the budget. Commissioner Herbst inquired whether or not sufficient money had been budgeted :.~ to do the proposed type of 2andscaping; whereupon Mr. Reath replied in the .~ affirmative. ~ Commissioner Seymour inquired in reference to the layout since the architect was present - why did they orient the project so as to create the greatest ;~~ traffic flow abutting the single-family homes rather than flipping it over '''~ and placing it on the southerly portion of the property? ~ <~ Mr. Reath replied that they had a problem of mixing vehicles with pedestrians, ~-' and they had tried to get the drive-testing area completely separated in order ;') to reduce the possibility of anyone moving from a car to a building, passing `' through the drive~test area, therefore, the plans before the Commission lent ,; themselves very well, and in their experience to get the stack-up lanes against the exterior of the property around the building to start the drive test, conducting the back-up test at the back of the building, then out the back way off the property. Commissioner Seymour note~i that he could understand their reasoning for the proposed plans since this would be an advantage to them, but the single- family homes to the north would catch ~he brunt of the involved traffic probleA~, odors, and noises from idlinq cars and cars leaving the premises. Mr. Reath replied that this was true, but he had seen some near misses where fellows being tested hit the throttle instead of the brake and someone walked in front of or behind the car into the building, and if one had seen that once, he could appreciate the design of this facility and the safety of it. Commissioner Seymour noted that he could aapreciate that, but he would not ~,~. want to have his residence behind that smog, noises, etc. ~~,: '+ Commissioner Herbst noted that the plans indicated a 20-foot landscape strip v. along the west side adjacent to the wall and inquired whether there was any "~ reason why that 20 feet could not be along the north where it would be adjacent to the homes. , Mr. Reath replied that the back-up testing was done in this general area, ;, and they preferred to keep the back-up area away from the wall, particularly when someone jumped the curb the landscaping would act as a softening factor ~ before they backed into the wall, but there were tzmes when people coming into the carport having a registration problem or to get a vehicle license ~-;1; who would not be in the testing area, therefore, they would like to keep ,,_.~t ,J. !,r ,,~~~ ~ r . - - . ~ , . . .._ .._ .~ _. . w.,. . . ..:.,:._ . r~ . . ... . . '~~~-~ . - . . . . . ~ . _ __. _ ., . ~~ ~c:;l~ ..... . . .~ .. ' . . ~ . . ~ ~ .. ~ . .. ' : ~r.. . . ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 29, 1971 71-809 RECLASSIFICATION N0. 71-72-24 (Continued) these people away from the test area - this was the main reason for having the parking test area to one side. Commissioner Seymour noted that in the access from La Palma Avenue the motor- ist would have to drive completely through or transverse the entire piece of property in order to get to the building. This would be particularly true where someone was checking for other than a driver's test or an inspection. Mr. Reath replied that this motorist would park on the lot, go through the building, go through the written por~ion of the test, and then he would be directed to get his car and enter.the stacked up lanes by color. Commissioner Seymour then inquired whether or not any of the vehicles would go directly to the stack-up lanes. Mr. Whigham replied that no one would go directly to the stack-up lanes; that at the existing facility they had a sign which indicated that this was the "end of driving test" - then the driver of the car could park his car, enter the building, have his picture taken, and then exit from the premises without getting into the stack-up lanes. Commissioner Gauer noted one big advantage in discussing this, the City would get additional parking in this area for La Palma Park an3 there would be available parking since they have to provide parking for their employees - he was sure the strip af land adjacent to Horace Mann School, which would r.ever be used except for parking - was available since it was not big enough to construct any building on it, and if the State had to purchase land for parking, this probably would be available to them; that he was against the proposai originally, but the layout presented would be accepted if they could solve some of their present problems that they had at Euclid and La Palma, such as more parking, better building so that people won't be stacked in the building - therefore, he could see a reason for wanting to enlarge or increase the size of the building; and then inquired whether the representatives of the State would stipulate to the City using their parking area for stadium events at La Palma Park on Saturdays, Sundays, or days when the facility was not open. Mr. Reath stated that this had been proposed in other citias, however, the State did not want to take the responsibility of other uses of their facili- ties, and the gate would be closed and locked to any public parking. Commissioner Gauer then noted that this knocked out that advantage, and the City would not qain anything by this facility. Commissioner Kaywood inquired about the mature specimen trees that presently appeared on the property - would these be preserved and included in the parking area? Mr. Reath replied that the drawing was prepared without a survey being made as to the location of the trees, but it was the St~te's policy when there were existing trees on a site to save as many as possible, and they would do that in this in~tance. Commissioner Seymour noted that even if the Department oE Motor Vehicles was inclined to make some agreement to trade off parking for La Palma Park on week ends, he felt this would be a very poor trade; that this was a poor development, not necessarily a poor use per se, but a poor development as it was planned, and his feelings for this petition since he found it very difficult to believe that the level of service presently extended in a 5,400-square foot building would not increase in a 16,700-square foot building, trebie tne size, and if it was going to be that way, the State should recon- sider the type of monuments they were building; that he was very much con- cerned with the parking - parking in the present facility was one for every 62 square feet of building, while the new facility was proposed with one space per 103 square feet - instead of .improving the situation, this proposal was deteriorating the parking provision; that the manner in which the project was laid out was such as to be extremely detrimental to the single-family residential properties to the north, those groperty owners living in those residences would bear the brunt uf the negative side of this type of development_ , '~ - . i` r o ~ . MINUTES, CITX PLANNING COMMISSION, December 29, 1971 _ ' RECLASSIFICATIC'i NO. 71-72-24 (Continued) ~ ~6: y 1 ,c ~ ..`~ f ~ e:. ommissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-246 and moved for its passage nd adoption to recommend to the City Council disapproval of Petition for :eclassification No. 71-72-24 on the basis that the peta.tioner was not provid- ng parking in accordance with Code req+sirements for the size of the building; .hat the increase in size of the building would indicate an increase in mployees and visitors, however, the proposed parking would not accommodate ~ny increase in employees, and the petitiener's agent would not stipulate to o increase in the number of employees to assure that the parking ratio would ~e comparable to the number of employees; that the use would have an extremely tetrimental effect upon the single-family properties to the north with stacked ~ehicles, idling motors ~taaitinq their turn for examination, and the emission ~f smog and odors; and that the proposed use of the property at this busy ntersection would increase the tra~fic hazards considerably more than if .ocated at a less traveled intersection. (See Resolution Book) ~rior to roll call, the Commission discussed further the possibility of :onsidering revised plans, relocating all vehicles to the south side of the ~roperty away fzom the si.ngle-family residents. Commissioner Seymour was of the opinion that he would be in favor of the revised plans, but there was anoth~r problem, and that was the level of service, and he would have to be assured that the level of service would not be any greater than that level of service presently extended at the present facility, and he found it hard to believe that it would not happen since he could see no reason for moving from a 5,400 to a 16,700-square foot buildinq, treble *_he size; that maybe when they open._d up, their level of service would be no greater, but one could :aee what was gning to hapoen - the same thing that had happened at the present facility - when there was no problem in the beginning of opening up the facility at La Palma ?,venue and Euclid Street; that if these two problems could be solved, then he would be more in favor of the project, but the way it was presently structured, parking for La Palma Park or no parking, he felt that would be a very poor trade; and that he did not even feel this was a proper incentive. Commissioner Kaywood stated she would like to make an analogy as far as space was concerned - the best example one could present was the Anaheim City Hall built for a city of 4,000 people, and if one were to build a building three times as big just so that people could have work and breathing room, it would not mean that the facility was going to expand, certainly not expand three times the present operation, which would create the same problem. Commissloner Seymour stated that he felt then that the applicant should be willinq to stipulate or provide the Commission with some type of assurance that they would not exceed the present number of employees, however, they were unw111ing to do that, and the Anaheim City Attorney advised the Commis- sion that if the Commission tried to enforce some type of stipulation, that the State would walk all over the City. .~ Comnissioner Kaywood stated she felt that the proposed use might have more employees who could be handling the mail, orders, or other type of business that would not bring in more cars daily.- Chairman Farano noted that the reason he was.in favor before was because the front part could be used for C-1 and the rear part for R-3 use, and these two different uses could create a more difficult, unpredictable traffic pattern compared to:;the vroposed use, but he was not sure that this was a valid reason because if the City wanted to, they coul~ impose restrictions on private developers to fight against extreme traffic pattterns, but in this particular case, this could not even be done - the City could impose the condition, but if the State did not want to abide by the condition, there would be no condition; that the City could - with a private developer - control the trafflc pattern so that it did not become a heinous problem, and in this particular case the Commission could require it, but in spite of that, he felt the proposal was a better use than R-3 and C-1. ~ 71-810 On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ,,y ( ~~''- _: , ~ . . . . . - ---_~ . . .. . ~ . ~ . .. . . - : ,_~ . .. . . I - . . ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 29, 197.1 71-811 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-24 ~i;ontinued) AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Kaywood. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. STREET IdAME CHANGE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, to cpnsider a st_reet name change for Santa Ana Canyon Road easterly of iustin Avenue extending to the Newport Freeway to be renamed Riverport Drive. Subject streFt name change was continued from the meeting of .December 13, 1971, to allow staff time to work out with the interested parties as to the agreeable street name for said street. . Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of the proposed street name change, noting that the developer of Tract No. 5222 ~ 1 ha3 proposed the name Riverport Road as the portion of the street within this tract; that residents living in the area objected to the name on the basis that it would be confusing with Riverdale Avenue; and that on December 21, 1971, the City Council approved the final tract map No. 5222 and, at the same time, approved the street name of Valley Forge Drive for that portion of the street within the tract. Based on that action, the name for that portion of Santa Ana Canyon Road as shown on the map extending approximately 500 feet east of the centerline~o~ Tustin Avenue to its present termination be changed to Valley Forge Dr~,ve in order to conform to the street name in the tract map aPproved. =; ? No one appeared in opposition. - <)~ %<! THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ ,l Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No, PC71-247 and moved for its passage { `1 and adoption to recommend to the City Council that the street name for Santa ~ Ana Canyon Road located approximately 500 feet east of the centerline of Tustin ' ~ Avenue be changed to Valley Forge Drive to coincide with the street name for the extension of the street through the tract to the east. (S~e Resolution ,.;:; Book) , ~~~ ± On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the follo~,•ing vote: ~~{~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano '~ NOES: , Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. I CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. COLLINS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, David S. PERMIT NO. 1282 Collins, General Partner, 1077 West Ball Road, Anaheim, Califor.nia, Owner; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A PRIV~._'z FZECREATION CENTER INCLUDING LIVE AND FILM ~ ENTERT}1INMENT, pUBLIC AND PRIVATE DAI3CING, aND OTHER RECREATION AND ENTER- ~ TAINMENT ACTIVITTES on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately one acre located at the soLthwest corner of Adams Street and Broadway, having frontages of approximately 225 feet on Adams Street and 34 feet on Broadw~y, having a maximum depth of approximately 455 feet, and further described as 1430 West Broadway. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT tNDUSTR2AL, 20NE. Assistant 2oning Supervisor Bon bicDaniel reviewed the location of aubject property, uses established in close proximity, and the request to establish a private recreation center including ~„ive and film entertainment, public and private dancing, and other recreation and entertainment activities, with the getitianer proposing to re-establish the dance hall and recreation center on this property; that the plans indicate the provision of 73 parking stalls; that there was no indication tl:at the stalls would be paved nor was there sufficient landscaping provided on the submitted pians; that the Commission was undoubtedly aware that this particular property had been used for a dance hall for many years - as a matter of fact, no record of its initiation could .~.. ~ ~ . . ~ . . ~ . -- --_~-a~^37<+a ~..e~ ~r~^:.~:;.: ~,t'. ..... _ . q_~~; , . .. . . . .. , . . . ' [ ' . . i ~~ _ t ~ C) (~ ~~, MINUTES, CzTY PLANNYNG COMMISSION, December 29, 1971 71-$12 CONDITIONAL USE PFRMIT NO. 1282 (Continued) be obtained; that approximately one year aqo the dance hall and meeting hall use was discontinued and the premises were used until June 1, 1971, as a storage facility for the Anaheim Post Office; that in attempting to re- establish th.e dance hall use, subsequent to the post of.fice moving out, the owner was a.ivised that with the discontinuance of the nonconforming use (the dance hall), all future usss would have to c.onform to the current use regu- lations of the M-1 Zone unless a conditional use permit was approve3 to establish the dance hall as a legal use; that since the usual procedure in establishing a use as a legal vse, the petitioner would have to meet the site development standards of that particular zone in which the use was located, however, the proposal could not conform to these standards, particularly since there were insufficient parking stalls, 73 stalls being provided and ~ 185 stalls being required; that the plans showed no dedication of Broadway to its ultimate width of 45 feet; that the dedication and improvemer_t of Broadway would eliminate 5 ieet of the proposed 7 feet of landscaping along Broadway; that 10 feet of landscaping would be required along Broadway after dedication, and, furthermore, there was a sign within the ultimate right-of- way that would have to be relocated; that the Commission might also be con- cerned about the provision of an ingress-egress easement to the southerly or rear portion of the property which was designated as parking area; that Adams Street hhicn bordered approximately one-half of the prnperty on the east did not extend to this parking area; and that if subject peti_ion were approved, the Commission might wish to have the easement agreements reviewed by the City Attorney's office prior to the commencement of the permitted activity. However, the primary question before the Commission was whethei~ or not this long established use should be continued, and if so, should it be continued as it presently existed without providing the appropriate site development standards of the M-1 Zone. ~~ one person indicated his presence in opposition. :; !~ Mr. David S. Collins, one of the owners, appeared before the Commission ,.; indicating they were in concurrence with the recommended conditions; that .! they had sig:~ed a lease that upon the effective date of the lease and when ~ the conditional use permit was approved, thirty days after that date the ~~ front lot would be paved and the rear lot wonld be paved within six months; that they would agree to dedication on Broadway, except they were desirous =~ of retaininy the sign in its present loca~ion until Broadway was improved; - ~ that in rea`erence to Condition No. 5 of the recommended conditions, they had obtained from the Superior Court approval o£ the removal of the fence on i Adams Street, which was abandoned, the court feeling that they had the right - ~":~ to use Adams Street until final determination as to ti:e easement rights could be made since there were some technical problems irvolved; that access to the parking could be provided either from Adams Street or over their property by removing a portion of the patio fence, however, there was a pepper tree which _ would cost close to $1,000 to rem~ive it, said tree being over 75 years old , and was a very beautiful tree, tl:us he would hate to be required to remove this tree; that the injunction by the court might be contested as to the access being changed to require access to the rear of the parking area since the easement agreement technically may never be possible to be obtained, therefore, Condition ho. 5 would be difficult to meet. Commissioner Herbst inquired as to the type of functions that was proposed other than dances - would it be something like the old Harmony Hall days? Mr. Collins replied that they were going toward to the western type songs with some dancing, some contemporary dancing since young people wanted this; that a dance was to be held the following night, which would be a benefit danae for the March of Dimes, but to operate this building for seven days a week as a dance hall was impractical, therefore, it could be used for an art show, etc. - this was the reason for broadening the uses that would be permitted, and someone had even asked him whether a convention could be held in this facila.ty. Chairman Farano inquized where the petitioner proposed to park all the cars that would be at these events. .... __.,,.___ ___ ._. -.;, - .~. .. . - ~ . _. . . -' . ~ . _ .. _ .. . . , .. rf .. ~. . ~ ~ . . . ~ ~ ~ .. '. _ _ ._~ t ~ .,... l _.. i . ~ i I ~'' O ~ ~' MINUTES, CzTY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 29, 1971 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1282 (Continued) - __ ~ ~ ~i 71-813 _ , Mr. Collins replied that there was other pz:;,-r„-;~~;. _~. ch~ neighborhood, hom- ever, they did not want to purchase any adc'- ~ r; ,; ~F ,~; ~:-•~rty until they had obtained appro•~al of the conditional use pr ~~;;?.:-., ;a:~ ~~71y, they did not ., have the demand for parking within the ind~,.~• ~-x,~_. , ' ing could be •~'•w ~'here on-street park- provided at night, it was not ~n~':.:;«., ,:::,~~ ~~,~zver, if this operation became successful and they had beec, •.:a .,t,,'.:. pa-operty because they were fenced out of c.heir rear '~9 use their rear additional parking in this rear area. Yard, they could provide ' _ {„. ~ Chairman Farano inquired whether or not Mr. Collins would stipulate to provid- ~ .l" ' ing additional parking if a parkin :'~, ~ g problem arose, a * .~lt Mr. Collins replied he would make every effort since he would be the third ~ party, but that the question should be directed to the person who would be ~ signing the lease to operate the facility. Commissioner Gauer inq:lired as to the use of the Southern Pacific property; whereupon Mr. Collins stated that said property did not even have a curb break, and they would not want to use it for parking for their facilitv. Commissioner Allred inquired as to the maximum capacity for Harmony Hall; whereupon Mr. Collins stated that the maximum was 800 people, however, with that number one could not move around, and the maximum they had had in the past was approximately 500; that they had received permission •~~ use the parking in front of the Shipkey place where 24 spaces were av~..ilable; that in the lease they required the operator - a young man who was the manager - to samennightnafterSaniavent ta1pickrup~trashdinhthewentireearea andbneighborhe ~ ""hood and along the streets, and except on Thanksgiving week end this had been ~ cleaned up, and complaints had been received for Thanksgiving week end and ~ they had cleaned it up themselves. , Mr. Rob~rt Holland, 439 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, attorney representing } Alvin and Ida Rhors, owners of the property adjacent to subject property, ~ appeared before the Commission and stated that he also represented the Rho3rs in their litigation with Mr. Collins, attd as Mr. Collins had stated, the superior Court had granted a preliminary injunction requiring the fence to be removed, however, the court did not tell them the basis for granting this injunction; that Mr. Collins had stated that this injunction might be con- tested, and this was true since the main trial would be heid several months away and it might take several years to resolve this litigation; that Mr. Coliins had stated he could obtain access to the rear portion from his property; that Mr, Co2lins had also stated that it would cost $1,000 to removQ the tree, however, in court he had quoted an $800 figure; that the area in which the use is now located did not have sufEicient parking and did not lend itsalf to ~ a dance hall; that Mr. Cnllins had also stated Mr. Shipkey had permitted him to use his property, however, Mr. Shipkey had advised the Rhors that he had I never granted permission to Mr. Collins for parking on his property; that the ~ 73 parking stalls included~property to the rear, and access could only be gained through the area where the fence was presently located; that in February, 1 1970, the City Council abandoned the rear portion of Adams Street, and after a title search by the Rhors, they had installed the fence, and since the pur- i chase of this property, the Rhors had been in litigation with Mr. CoZlins as to the right to use their property; that having 500 persons attending an affair at this place with only 73 stalls would be indicative that inadequate parking was being provided; that even before the fence was installed people parked all over the area on Santa Ana Street which curved to the north and became Hessel Street, people would park on both sides of this street when a dance was held, which created a severe hazard, and an ambulance company had a difficult time gaining access; that the other uses established in this area a?so haci problems getting through this area; that the Rhors had tanks underground as did two storage places east of Hessel Street and there were many other tanks also aho~•e ground; that if a fire occurred in this area, the fire trucks would be unable to get in there because of the illegal parking by those attending the dance, blocking the access, which could create considerable havoc to the Rhors; that the Rhors had contacted occupants, tenants, and owners who had signed petitions indicating their opposition to approval of subject petition, and of all those who were contacted, only one person refused to sign the petition, stating that ~ ~ __ _ ~i-''_. ~ i ~^ +~.-_ , ( --- F' , , ~. ~. ~. - . ~• ~• ..: . r. . ~ ; i .' ~ ~-1 1 i `.s ;:•i .•' .i ` =~ % `. V V ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISS20N, December 29, 197i 71-814 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1282 (Continued) Mr. Collins was a customer and also attended the same church, and some of the reasons for the opposition were: 1) gasoline was stolen, 2) parts were stolen off of cars, 3) rocks were thrown through windows, 4) orange groves were used as public toilets, 5) refuse and aebris would blow onto the Rhor's property - even narcotics were found after a dance, and 6) bottles, cans, and bricks were thrown onto the street and it was an unsightly mess after a dance; that if this use were located where there would be adequate parking in accordance with code, there would be less opposition; that the Rhors had ccmplained to the Police Department, who had told them that the Planning Commission could only request a review; that the Fire Department was requested to advise them as to the type of access required and whether the building could be made to conform to the Building Code; that Mr. Collins had stated he purchased the property in February or March of 1971, and before that it had been used as a post office, and since Mr. Collins was a sophisticated real estate bruker, he had testi- fied in court that he knew what a nonconforming use was, therefore, he could not state that he did not know about the nonconforming use since he knew this was an M-1 2one; that everyone, as far as he knew, conformed to the require- ments of the M-1 Zone, therefore, the Commission should require subject Property to also conform - whether used as a dance hall or not - this had ncthing to do with the litigation which was only to determine whether or not zccess to Adams Street could be obtained from subject property over the Rhor's property, and even if the Commission approved or denied the use, the court action still was pending. Mr. Holland, in response to a question by the Commission, stated that only a poxtion of Adams Street had been abandoned. Chairman Farano noted that those signing the petitzon of opposition had addresses considerably distant from the immediate area; whereupon Mr. Holland stated that the property owners did not reside on their property or use tlie land since this was leased by other tenants. Chairman Farano noted that the petition did not indicate these were owners ' of the adjacent propPrties in the area, and he wanted this clarified. Co~nmissioner Kaywood inquired why the fence was erected in the first place; wher~eupon Ms. Hollan~ stated that the fence was placed there because after a t.ttYe search whiah indicated the Rhors owned the property, right of access over their property was not permitted. However, the judge had indicated he did nmt aqree. Commission.er Kaywood inquired why the Rhors had denied access to the Collins propexty to the south; whereupon Mr. Holland stated that the Rhors had closed the access to the zear portion s~nce it would have meant granting permission to have access over their pr~pel•ty to the Collins property. Mr. Collins, in rebuttal, stated that mnst of the statemeats made by Mr. Holland were also recorded as testimony in court. However, he was not aware that temporary use of the property negated a nonconforming use. Chairman Farano noted that this was more pertinent - the right to use the facility as a dance hall had been negated by permission of the post office use. Mr. Collins stated that the type of use proposed for this facility was a recreation that was really needed in the community, even though some of the tenants at these facilities were r.ot always on their best behavior, and he was aware of the Police Department complaints since they had even complained themselves; that they felt they had solved this difference by having suffi- cient people to control the crowds in this facility, and mast of this problem occurred before he had taken place, and as to the trash problem, he felt they were presently taking care of that problem; and that the operator of the proposed facility would be Michael Finesoto,~aho was approximately 23 or 24 years of age. 1 l1 _ - -- tl~' ,iL' u':r- -s - , ~ , _~ ~ ~ ~ ••::.._, . i r i , ~ ~~ '~ I ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMI:~SION, December 29, 1971 ! 71-815 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1282 (Continued) Commissioner Gauer in uired whether or not the mana er would a { q 4 ppoint security ~ guards and how many7 ,, Mr. Collins replied that there were five ~iO mainly on subject 4uardsninside and three outside, property, however, they did patrol wherever people parked their cars; that they made an attempt to prevent gatherings of qroups of people in and around this general area where it would appear trouble could arisa. -. , .,;_.. Commissioner Gauer note@ that this trouble had occurred before, however, if ~ ~', { the petitioner was aware of the „a f this would a Problem a._,. ::as taking proper measur~s, then [ ppear to be less of a problem. , ~ ,}: `;,j i ~ t Mr. Collins noted that in the beginning they had been told not to have a uniformed guard since this would discourage attendance at the various functions. However, they found out this was contrary to the experience they had had since they had had both uniformed and armed guards as well as plain-clothesmen. Commissioner Allred inquired whether or not there was a way the petitioner could comply with the parking requirements if subject petition were approved; whereupon Mr. Collins stated that they would have to purchase property across the street or double-deck their existing parkinq. Commissioner Allred noted that the City even require~d churches to provide adequate parking. , Commissioner Seymour noted that Mr. Collins had stated there was no parking problem, and that he would find additional parking if the parkinq problem got out of hand. However, the Commission was seeking assurance of the same, therefore, would the petitioner agree to a time limitation for the use, and when a request was submitted for an extension of time, the staff could present a report on whethex or not there had been a critical parking shortaqe and whether or not the petitioner had resolved this parking problem; whereupon Mr. Collins so stipulated. Commi»sioner Kaywood noted that the petitions of opposition indicated the use of th~.s building was a nuisance and inquired how many patrons came from outside of the city; whereupon Mr. Collins replied that he did not kn.ow how many were local patrons, however, he knew there were a number from out of town. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Farano noted that the Commission was basically concerned with land use, even though there was a risk of creation oE a public nuisance because of the way people conducted themselves - this would be true whether parkir.g facilities were provided off the property or on - what most people needed was a wey to get to the premises, walking the streets, etc., and he was not too sure the public nuisance aspect and the way people conducted themselves was not too much more than a police problem, but he did not feel the Planning Commission should enhance or provide the vehicle for the creation of a public nuisance; that he was more concerned with the extent to which a:.mergency vehicles were restricted or prohibited in the performance of their function in the event of an emergency on these and other properties in the area and the extent of the congestion prevalent due to street parking, therefore, he wanted and would like to submit this to the Commission for their consideration whether or not the final decision of subject petition should not be postponed several weeks so that the Commission would have some opportunity to view, witness, and observe the effect of a rather large gathering since Mr. Collins mentioned the March of Dimes was to be held on December 30, using this facilitp for a benefit, and he further understood that some of the top names in the entertainment field would be present, therefore, he wondered if the Commission could detail the City's enforcement officer to witness the manner in which this was to be conducted. Commissian~er Herbst concurred whcleheartedly with the statement. Commissioner Farano then stated that he was not against the use, but from the standpoint of a public nuisance, i~ was the concern of the Commission, and ~' ' . .. "~ ~ C _a. , _ ; ..f , ~ ~ '1 • ' ~ a.~ . ?~~... ~' ..~l.: ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COb3MISS20N, December 29, 1971 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1282 (Continued) ~ 71-816 the Commission's basic concern was still land use and the parking require- ments, therefore, if the Commission was tn create a situation that would be absolutely unlivable a.^.3 dangerous to the public hea~.th and safety of the area in which the use was located, than the Commission should review this. Commissioner Herbst noted that since eviZence was presented by Mr. Holland representing the oppnsition that there had been police problems, the Commission should r.ecommend to the staff that they find out what type of police problems had been experienced in the area, to have the Fire Depart- ment give a report as to the safety factor involved, and make a decision based on good sound planning as far as the people in the area were concerned since the use of the preperty at this point in time should be a temporary one on a yeai-to-year basis. Commissioner Gauer inquired whether or not parking was being considered; whereupon Commissioner Herbst stated that perhaps the March cf Dimes event on December 30 would give the Commission a feel in the area, if someone was present to look at the situation and see what was happening and submit a report to the Commission. Commissioner Allred noted that he had passed by that facility when they had functions, and the people parked anywhere - it didn't make any difference where they parked, they just parked all the way to Loara Street, and this was just while he was trave~ling along Broadway; that he was not against the use if the petitioner could provide adequate parking since youngsters needed some place to go, and they did not necessarily stay home or roam the streets - the idea was fine, but the petitioner should provide parkinq, and he did not care to see parking everywhere which would be blor•.=nq safety or emergency vehicles, therefore, he, too, felt that staf£ sh::.d obtain Police and Fire Department reports on emergency aspects. Zonir.g Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that t~.e various representatives of the Safety Department would view the property for the week end. Commissioner Farano noted that he would like to have those making the investi- gation to be present at the Commission public hearing to present their evidence verbally. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to continue consideration of Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1282 to ±he meeting of January 24, 1972. (After further discussion regarcing the extension, staff advised that evidence and reports could be submitted for the next public hearing,) Commissioner Seymour amended his motion to continue the petition to January 10, 1972, to allow time for staff to review the manner in which the petitioner resolved parking at the benefit for the March of Dimes on December 30, as well as the event on December 31, to allow time for both the Traffic Depart- ment, Police and ~ire Departments to submit reports regarding the safety f.actor and historical data regarding any problem that might have occurred. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the mo~ion. MOTION CARRIED, The representative of the opposition in3icated to the Commission that he wanted to be present for said hearing, however, he was scheduled to be in court that day and requested a change. Chairman Farano noted t'~at the hearing would not be reopened, and the only evidence that woul:d be considered was that presented by stafi, RECESS RECONVENE - Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to recess the meeting for ten minutes. The meeting recessed at 4:00 p.m. - Chairman Farano reconvened the meeting at 4:15 p.m., Commissioner Rowland being absent. o .-~, ~ ~ ~ . ~ , ' ~ l~°J ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 29, 197Z 71-817 VARIANCE N0. 2318 - PIIBLIC HEARING. IMPERIAL LAPJD TNVESTMENT COMPANY, 1900 Century Boulevard, Atlanta, Georgia, Owner; __ BRUCE C. ARMSTRON6, Vice President, Imperial Land - Investment Company, 435 North State College Boulevard, Anaheim, California, ,.. Agent; requesting permission to ESTASLISH A STORAGE YARD FOR MOBILEHOMES, ,,, MODULAR HOJSING UNITS~ EpATS~ TRAIiERS, RECREATIONAL VEHICLES, AND CAMPERS IN THE R-A 20NE on pruperty described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel c~E land consisting of approximately 7 acres having a frontage of approximatel,y 1,100 feet on the south side of Miraio„a Avenue, having a maximum depth of _. ~ approximately 400 feet, and being located between the Orange and Riverside :...~,._ -~,:.... Freeways. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. •.: Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject ~ property, uses established iti close proximity, and the ~ ~~ I as set forth in the Report to the Commission, to ether Wroposal and evaluation :; i that in previous approvals of camper and trailergstorage1lots thedCommission _ + had required the installation of a"dump station", therefore, it might be +: appropriate to require such a facility on this property also since recreation vehicle: were to be stored here. Mr. Bruce Armstrong, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed what was proposed for subject property. Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that since this was such a poor place for the use, even though it was only temporary, he would not consider subject petition until plans for landscaping the storage area were submitted, due to the fact that this was the entry to Anaheim's prime industrial area, and unless the petitioner could provide the minimum of the standards required in the M-1 2one, the Commission should not consider it, Commiss~oner Gauer was of the opinion that the M-1 2one requirement of a 6-foot masonry wall ,vould not properly shield viewing this storage area from the Miraloma Avenue uverpass. Commissioner Herbst noted that in coming over the overpass this storage area would be viewed as the first thing entering into the industrial area, there- fore, if it were landscaped in a manner which the Commission had previously permitted instead of a 6-foot masonry wall, together with providing parking stalls for each trailer rather than parking them in a haphazard manner, this use could be compatible, however, he did not want to see this appear as a junk yard at the entrance to the industrial area. Mr. Armstrong stated that this property was an eye~ore in that area, and he had asked for a time limit for the use until the economics improved to permit development. Furthermore, in the conditions of approval in which the staff recommended installation of street improvements and fire hydrants, since they did not intend to operate this as a business and the land would only be rent- ing for $100 a month on which mobile units would be stored for about a week at a time, th~s requirement would be extremely difficult to comply with; and that he had no intention of leasing the property since he planned to use the property in the future. a. ~ `,. . ~ ~: ',akc '' Mr. Armstrong, in reply to a question by the Commission relative to the types of storage proposed, stated thaic if someone wanted to park his camper or boat on the property, he would permit such parking for approximately $10 a month since many areas in the County did not permit street parking of these vehicles, and he wanted only an 18-month period of time for the use. Commissioner Allred indicated that the Commission was desirous of having landscape screening, however, the street improvements and fire hydrants could be a condition that could be met later, and that the petitioner was receiving a monetary gain from this, regardless of the amount involved. Mr. Armstrong then inquired as to the type of landscaping the Commission was desirous of having - would this be trees along the fence; whereupon Commis- sioner Allred stated thati staff would indicate what was required. Mr. McDaniel stated that in the past the Commission had required slatted fences, trees, and shrubbery with irrigation facilities for maintenance of said landscaping, ~a ! I ~i -~ - ~ "~g-c _ ~~ . • - . . , } j ~ ~ , ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLP..NNING COMMISSION, December 29, 1971 :~ 71-818 VARIANCE NO. 2318 (Continued) Mr. Armstrong indicated there was no water or utilities on the property. Commissioner Kaywood inquired as to what would happen in case of a fire in one of these units that was being stored; whereupon Mr. Armstrong stated that i.t would be the responsibility of the owners of the vehicles. However, he would agree to cooperate with the staff in attempting to landscape this in the manner in which the Commission was desirous of having, provided this was continued, however, there were others in this area who stored things without benefit of walls or landscaping. Chairmzn Farano noted that if screen landscaping was not provided, he would not consider voting on the petition, even if there was a building with out- side storage, since the M-1 Zone permitted outdoor ~torage. Zoning ~dupervisor Charles Roberts noted that the M-1 2one did permit outdoor storage, but completely enclosed, and that Mr. Armstrong may have referred to some of the facilities of which the staff was fully aware, and they had been attempting to get Beverly Transfez and J. W. Burke Construction Company to meet the standards of the M-1 Zone. Commissioner Gauer observed that subject property was limited in the types of uses that could be permitted, even though it was of good size the State had destroyed the possible good uses to which this property could be put and were continuously making mistakes when they placed these parcels on the market for sale. ? Mr. Armstrong noted that although subject property had a resolution of intent ,"i to the M-1 Zone, he did not feel this was the proper use for the property, and ;~ it was proposed to have either a restaurant or some commercial type of build- ;=1 ing that would offer more beauty to the propprty. , :1 _, :} Commissioner Alire3 indicated that if this was a compatible M-1 use, the i Commission might consider it. •-~ Commissione~: Seymour noted that the petitioner had a right to present different plans; whereupon Commissioner Allred stated that this would not insure the ,i petitioner that the Commission would approve them. , Chairman Farano indicated that he did not want to mislead the petitioner that ~,~ the Commission would grant the variance for a temporary use, even though ~" landsca in P g plans were submitted. Commissioner Herbst inquired whether or not the Commission could grant a variance for a temporary use; whereupon Mr. Roberts stated that it could be granted for a given period of time, and the reason why a conditional use permit was not processed was because the use was not permitted in the R-A Zone and the petitioner did not want to complete the M-1 zoning requirements established by the resolution of intent on the property. Commissiuner Seymour offered a motion to continue consideration of Petition - for Variance No. 2318 to the meeting of January 24, 1972, to allow the petitioner time to submit landscaping plans which would indicate the manner in which the petitioner proposed to screen the use so that it would not be :,~ objectionable. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. j ~ Mr. Roberts noted that consistent with the past Planning Commission action, he would assume that the Commission would require the landscaping treatment f~ around the perimeter of the property and would also require irrigation facilities. •,^ Mr. Armstrong indicated that there were no facilities, and to construct sewer £acilities would aost the petitioner $15,000. * { eeemms~s-, ~nmaaaa~~an~ae ~ ~ biINUTES, CITY,PLANNING COMMISSION, December 29, 1971 ~ 71-819 VARIANCE NO. 2319 - PUALIC HEARING. EDWARD F. ROSS, 924 North Euclid Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting WAIVER OF THE PARKING SPACE LOCATION AND tQINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES TO PERMIT OPERATION OF A CHIROPgp,CTIC OFFICE on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land located at the northeast corner of Euclid Street and Catherine Drive, having approximate frontages of 100 feet on Euclid Street and 55 feet on Catherine Drive, and further described as 924 North Euclid Street. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. -" Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject ,,, property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to continue the use of the existing residential structure for a chiropractic office; that the petitioner had been a tenant in this structure since July of 1969; and '~~ that the plans indicated four arkin st area along C~therine Drive, wiPh min~malalandscapingdshownhalongx1bothtCatherine Drive and Euclid Street. ~ ;i 'j 1 - -i ~~ _i i 1 ,~ ,*~ i~ Mr. McDaniel, in evaluating the proposal, noted that a minimum of nine off- street parking stalls would be required by the Anaheim Municipal Code, while the applicant was providing only four; that this would appear to be a sub- stantial deviation in the parkiny requirements; that the Code would require that the parking be provided to the rear of the structure, however, due to the limited rear yard area and the virtual inaccessibility for vehicular traffic, it would appear that the onlg logical place for parking on the site would be within the front yard; that if the Planning Commission determined that there was justification to permit the requested waivers, it might be desirable to require that a landscaping plan be submitted indicating the maxi- mum possible area within the front yara ci,a~ ~ould be devoted to landscaping; furthermore, it might be desirable to require the applicant to construct a 30-inch high, decorative masonry wall immediately behind the landscaped area along Catherine Drive to provide additional screening oE the parking area from the residential uses on the south side of the street; and that in making a determination as tc whether there was ;nstification for approval of this variance, the Planning ~cmmission might wish to consider the long-range effects that this progerty ;~ould have upon the residential neiqhborhood to the east, thus some type of wall and landscaping treatment could probably reduce the adverse effects of the commercial parcel uoon the R-1 properties. Mr. Edward Ross, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission, r.oting that he had been the lessor of the property when the property owner was iorced to sell the property; that he had purchased it, and since that time there had been no parking problem, which had been the case when the first variance had been submitted, wherein six parking spaces at that time were proposed, two of these spaces being in the garage, however, he now intended to use i•he garage for storage space; that the chiropractic business did not hava the same problems as a medical office wherein the physician's patients backed up in the waiting room if the doctor was called to a hospital; that a chiro- practor worked by appointment 988 of the time, therefore, there wou13 be no ,~ parking problem; that there would be minimal landsca + f provide a landscaping plan; that he had already installed tl:e~masonryewall to • { to the east and was willing to provide a 30-inch wall on the south property line; and then presented a list of patients as part of his testi:nony who indicated that there was no parking problem in the numbers of times they had been treated by him. Dr. Ross also indicated that his secretary and several of the patients were present in the event further testimony was needed to si~bstantiate the fact that there were never more than three vehicles on the property when they visited the doctor. Chairman Farano noted that he did not object to the secretary presenting evidence, but it was not necessary to have patients present evidence, and any evidence presented should be pertinent to the factors involved. Commissioner Herbst inquired whether or not Dr. Ross had indicated he was wi111ng to construct the low fence along the front property 13ne, and that he would add additional landscaping in order to upgrade this property. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 29, 1971 VARIANCE NO. 2319 (Continued) ~el 71-820 __ 5 Dr. Ross stated that he would agree to the fence as well as some landscaping since this would be beneficial to him, as well; that the original owner had ~ an overcrowded condition, having three businesses located in the structure 1 .,, at the time he took over the ownership. Since that time, the other two $ - businesses had moved out, and he had the only business; and that at times he had an associate doctor working with him, but there were no other uses established on the premises. ,~ h~ Commissioner Kaywood noted that Dr. Ross, according to the plans, had two ~ consultation offices, two treatment rooms, and an office, as well as a waiting ~ ~~ room. ~ Dr. Ross replied that he had one associate doc:or who would be leaving in January, however, another one would be replacing him shortly; that although ' ~ there might be two doctors at one time, there was only one secretar i ~I ing for three cars; that there was on-street arkin Y. account- ~ .in the ad'acent P 4, and sometimes thev parked ' "< ~ parking lot by the restaurant, however, this was not always ; ti done, particularly when they did not have office hours they parked in their own _ parkiny area. Commissioner Kaywaod observed that Dr. Ross and his associates were parking ~ ' at the Chicken Pie Shop bacause the did not Y have sufficient parking on the premises; to which Dr, Ross concurred. ~ No one appeared in opposition. ;;'~:~ ~. ` THE HEAR~NG WAS CI~SED. i Commissioner 5eymour inquired of staff, when they computed the parking, did this include the garage; whereupon Mr. McDaniel stated that since the apglicant had indicated they were using this for storage purposes, the garage square footage was included in the calculations. Commissioner.Allred noted that the residence was being used only as an office, not a combination of residential and office use. Commissioner Seymour observed that in considering the variance, whatever was done to the property W~ould be an improvement, and perhaps the doctor's busi- ness demonstrated he did not need the necessary or normal parking, such as was required of a medical practice, therefore, some consideration could be given to the required spaces indicated; that Dr. Ross had indicated that at times he had an associate, however, the majority of the time he was the only prac- titioner; that the petitioner had stipulated he would provide the 30-inch masonry wall and had already installed the wall to the east; and that he would provide some form of land.caping. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to•approve Petition for Variance No. 2319 on the basis that the use had been established in this facility for several years, and the owner was now also the tenant of the property, thereby limiting the use to one use, as stipulated. F~irther discussion was held by the Commission as to the motion and the proposal in which the Commissioners indicated that in the past where residences were being used for commercial purposes, the Commission had required that the facade of the building be changed to represent a more commercial appearance; and that the property owner should submit plans for both the facade and the pronosed landscaping, even though it was recognized that the required parking for the zone could not be met. Commissioner Seymour then inquired of Dr. Ross, in light of the comments made by the Commission regarding the change in the facade and providing landscaping plans, would the petitioner consider a continuance for the submission of these plans; whereupon Dr. Ross stated that he would be willing to accept a continu- ance for a minimum of six weeks in order to determine whether or not it would be economically feasible for him to change the facade of the building and for the submission of plans both for the facade and for landscaping. 1 ~' . ~'~w., . - ~~ ._ i „- . ~ ~ ~ , ' . . . ~ ~ ~. : ~ i ~ V ~\ ~ i ! i 71-821 ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 29, 1971 VARIANCE NO. 2319 (Continued) Commissioner Kaywood indicated that since the variance went with the land, the ~~~ use could change and a regular physician might use this facility wherein there ~ would be a need =or ten parking spaces. Commissioner Seymour withdrew his motion of approval and offered a motion to continue consideration of Petition for Variance No. 2319 to the meeting of February 7, 1972, to allow time for the petitioner to submit revised plans indicating a commercial facade for the building and for the submission of lannsaaping plans. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. VARIANCE NO. 2320 - PUBLIC HEARING. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, 225 Bush Street, San Francisco, California, Owner; R. B. COUCH, Standard Oil Company of California, Western Operations, Inc., 444 West Ocean Boulevard, Long Beach, California, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF THE PERMITTED MAXIMUM NUMBER AND MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN AND REQUIRED LOCATION OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land being the southwest corner of Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue, with respective frontages of approximately 175 feet and 150 feet, and further described as 1801 South Harbor Boulevard. Property presently classified C-R, COMMERCIAL-RECREATION, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close :roximity, and the proposal to upgrade and modify the existing service stacion on subject property in addition to providing new signing; that the applicant was proposing to remove the long-familiar giant man from this intersection and~replace it with a free-standin, sign; that other signs that were being proposed were under the csnopy signs and canopy facia signs, each of the two canopies containinq three siqns; that the City Attorney's ' office had determined that the canopy-type signs were to be considered as free- standing signs, and by indicating signs on both pump islands under both canopies; and on the facia of each canopy, the applicant was providing six signs in addi- " tion to the free-standing sign at the'co•rner; that the pump island signs would ~ be 42 square feet in area, and the canopy facia signs would be 36 square feet ~ in area, while the free-standing sign at the corner would be 30 feet h~gh and ~ 86 square feet in area; and that the Commission would wish to determine whether ' the prooosed signing would be consistent with the standards envisioned for the i Commercial-Recreation Area, especially in light of the recent concern of the Commission and City Council regarding signs and service stations in che Disneyland area. Therefore, the Commission might wish to determine the effects of the proposed amortization program o^ signs in tne area and the results in this particular instance. Commissioner Allred noted that staff h~~i,indicated the sign was 30 feet high, however, it would appear it was 40 feat high. - Mr. McDaniel stated that the height of a sign at this location, according to _ the Sign Ordinance, would permit a height equal to the distance to the center of the street, r~r 60 feet in this instance. Mr. R. B. Couch, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted they proposed to place lighter boxes with the name sign on the canopy; that with these new signs they were doing away with the red, white and blue ;: ~ motif identifying Standard Oil service stations and were using blues, whites, ~~ and earthen tones; that the fin signs normally located above the canopies were also being eliminated, with the sign being placed at the corner. 's Chairman Farano inquired whether or not the petitioner would be willing ta hold the height of the free-standing sign to 25 feet if other signs were approved, since, by right, in the C-R 2one a 60-foot high sign was permitted. y'~ Mr. Couch replied that he did not want a 60-foot high sign, and if the ' Commission wanted to have a specific height, he would suggest that the property ` be flagged with members of the Commission present in an automobile to determine at what height the sign would be visible as one was driving down the street. *' .+(~c i ; ~. . , .,. . . ~ - -: : ~ . . , !~ ;i f ~! _ p~' ~ ,-r ~~ . <. i~ ~. ~ ~ ~r t. t ~ G' ~ ~ ~ r 5S, « _ ~ ~ `a~! : ~ ` .~ t ~1 .~ MINUTES~ CITX PLANNING COMMISSION, December 29, 1971 71_g22 VARIANCE N0. 2320 (Continued) Commissioner Herbst noted that he had taken particular note of the Standard Oil Company stati.ons who had been upgrading their stations, and many of the signs were not over 15 feet in height and other signs that were less than 15 feet in height, and when one rode down the road were pefectly visible, more than those that were 60 feet up in the air. Mr. Couch stated he would agree with Commissioner Herbst 1008. Commissioner Herbst continued, stating he also noted some of the stations did not have the word "Standard'~ on them, nor the chevron, and ta him these signs were r.iuch bett~er in appearance, with just one free-standing sign, than the other stationts having signs posted in every direction; that the oil companies had a very bad habit of thinking the motoring public was not intelligent enough to see the signs and placed signs and insignias on everything they could, there- by ruining thE~ appearance of their buildings with all of these signs and insigr~ias; that the word "Standard" on the pole sign was sufficient to identify it as a Stan:iard Oil station - no one would take it for any other station - why was i± necessary to have tne word "Standard" over everything, making it one large billboard •- this also a,n.pZied to.Shell Oil Company and Union Oil Company stations - it ruined the aesthetic value of the buildings that had been designed and were basically very attractive buildings, when signs were not placed all over the buildings, and the oil companies in the past had been the worst offenders of all sign ordinances throughout the country, projecting signs 65 to 70 feet in the air, ruining the city's aesthetics, taking a corner and plastering it with billboards, price signs, give-away signs, etc., clutter- ing up the entire community; that Standard Oil Company had a very goo3 start here to do something quite attractive at one of the heaviest-traveled corners in Southern California - Katella and Euclid was the heaviest-traveled corner in Anaheim, and with ten million people visiting Anaheim each year, why didn't Standard Oil do their best at this intersection. . Mr. Couch noted that this was their standard design. Commissioner Herbst stated that he knew it was the standard desiqn, but he also knew this did not mean anything to'the City of Anaheim, and he wanted Standard Oil Company to know how he felt, and as far as Standard Oil w~s concerned, they had a chance to make this a showcase. Mr. Couch stated that this was what they had attempted to do, even though the Commission was of the opinion that these signs were not acceptable - but first he would like to review their reasoning behind the signs proposed - and then proceeded to do so, noting that what Commissianer Herbst had stated was true, and it was common in the oil industry, however, they had a problem ia policing their own dealers, but they did not provide any place for signs on the build- ings since the pole sign should be a stopper, and they wanted the building to remain unobstructed. Commissioner Kaywood remarked that she had visited the Standard Oil station referred to by the City of Fullerton, however, she felt that the station appeared to be overdone, and it was her o~inion that this location at Katella and Harbor should be a showcase station. No one appeared in opposition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Seymour observed that Commissioner Herbst had referred to a 15-foot high sign which he considered a monument sign that would be set in rock; that he had also seen this treatment and did r,ot see why it could not work on ~ubj~.^t property rather than a rotating sign. Mr. Couch inquired as to the specific station Commissioner Seymour referred to; whereupon Commissioner Seymour stated it was the station in Mission Viejo. Mr. Couch then neted that they had several stations with signs similar to that described by Commissioner Seymour in Seal Beach and Laguna Niguel, however, he felt the monument-type sign would not be proper for this location at Katella and Harbor because it would not give good wisibility. `€j; -. ~ ''~..-_~.. r ~ ~~~k .. , . - . ; , .. ~ ~ ~. . .. is - _ _ _ &,~~' ~t,~ .. . .. . . . ~_ . ,. .. ~ . . . . . . . .. e ~ . ~ ~ ' . iI - _ - / ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 29, 1971 VARIANCE NO. 2320 (Continued) :~ 71-823 Discussion was then held by the Commission a~ to the type of sign that would be acceptable and at an acceptable height. Mr. Couch stated that there would be no reason to have the sign higher than 30 feet because of an existing pine tree at the Jolly Roger Motel. Commissioner Seymour noted that the Commission was aware of the fact that the petitioner could, by right, have a pole sign, and perhaps the canopy signs miqht be approved provided that the height was considered for the pole sign. r''-::-r: Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that the Commission was bargaining for ~ seven free-standing signs and could be setting a precedent since the City '~ Attorney ruled these were free-standing signs, it would be a poor bargain if ~~ ~ the Commission did set a precedent, and the Commission was onl to determine Y _.~ whether or not they should permit the number of signs proposed within 300 feet. i i Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether or not the cigns would be 300 feet apart ~ if a roof sign with the chevron was removed; whereupon Mr. Roberts stated that '~ this still would not be 300 feet apart. Commissioner Herbst inquired w:iether or not a continuance would deter cpnstruc- ~ tion of the service station; whereupon Mr. Couch stated that they would not be held up since the lighter boxes could be installed with or without the chevron, and the roof signs were at the determination of the Commission. However, they did want a rotating, hallmark sign at this location for proper identification, and the monument-type sign would not do this. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC71-248 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2320 on the basis that approval of subject petition would establish an undesirable precedent for similar requests for mass signing of other service stations throughout the city; that the City was presently studying an amortization program for nonconforming signs throughout the aity, a.nd particularly in the Commercial-Recreation Area, there- fore, to approve signing on subject property, as requested, would be incon- sistent with the program that may bring all signs into conformity with the Sign Ordinance; and that under the present ordinance, subject property could be signed adequately t~ alert potential customers of the location of the service station. (See Resolution Book) ~~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was nassed by the followinq vote: ~~~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. Commissioner Allred left the Council Chamber at 5:20 p.m. VARIANCE NO. 2317 - PUBLIC HEARING. BRUNSWICK CORPORATION, 59 West Washington Street, Chicago, Illinois, Owner; RICHARD G. REINJOHN, 453 South Spring Street, ~725, Los Angeles, Californ3a, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF PERMITTED USES TO ESTABLISH RETAIL SALES OF POOL TABLES AND RELATED EQUIPMEI3T IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING WAREHOUSING FACILITY on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approxiAately 5.6 acres located at the northeast corner of Lewis Street and Howell Avenue, with respective frontages of approximately 360 feet and 961 feet, and further de~cribed as 1620 South Lewis Street. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject =" property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to establish retail sales of pool tables and related equipment in conjunction with the existing warehousing facility; tnat the applicant indicated there would be no physical change in the existing use or structure to permit this activity; that j there was adequate parking provided to accommodate an incidental retail sales use of this nature; that the warehouse and distribution facility had been established on the property for some time; and that it would appear that the ~ :' incidental retail sales of pool tables and related equipment would not be ' .~e : ~ -. 3 . ._. . :. ._. ., . _ . - _ . . '} - _ .-. : - ~ ~ ~ ~.¢ _ ~1 ~ , ~. .. ~ - ~ . .. V ~ MINUTES, CITX PLANNING COMMISSION, December 29, 1971 ~ ' 71-824 ~ i VARIANCE NO. 2317 (Continued) ,. particularly deleterious to the area. xowever, the Commission would wish to determine the pc.ssible long-term effect of allowing this kind of retail activity, in the in&ustrial zone. 4.- _: .~,> - ~ ,t ~ ' I . . , ;~ ~,~ ? =~ ~ l. 's; j4 ,,4 F' ;,, ; {;w~...' .. ~ ~ ~ i i'; Mr. Richard Reinjohn, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that tne BrunswicY, facility at this location was a very large one, encompassing a'large warehouse space as well as office space; that they were merely asking for retail sales in their pool table equipment and pool tab~e iccessory eruipment since they had wholesale sales of other equipment as well is the pool tables; that they did not anticipate more than three sales a week, ind there would be no changes to their facilities; that they had ten times the imount of parking they needed, and all they wanted to do was use a small portion ~f the office space to show their pool tables and equipment and sell them when- :ver people came to visit their facility and were desirous of purchasing the :quipment, because in the past, when they had wholesale sales only, they would iave to refer these customers to some other facility, which might not neces- sarily be within the imm~.diate area, and it was felt this was not good public :elations, even though some of the local distributors would handle one or two >f their tables, they might not necessarily be the types of tables these people +ere desirous of purchzsing; and that they did not anticipate any £lood of :sstomers, but just wanted to satisfy the visitors who wanted to purchase a :able. No one appeared in opposition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Seymour inquired whether ar not the petitioner would have any objection to a time limitation, such as two or three years, in order to insure that there would be no parking problem; whereupon Mr. Reinjohn said they had no opposition to that and so stipulated. Commissioner Kaywoo3 inquired whether or not they anticipated any people purchasing this equlpment for their own homes; whereupon Mr. Reinjohn stated that this was possible, but they would not be advertising the fact that they had them on sale - they just- wanted to have the ability to sell them when people came to their warehouse. Mr. McDaniel advised the Commission that Condition No. 4 would require that subject property be served with underground utilities and inquired whether or not the Commission wished to have this a condition of approval if subject petition were approved. Chairman Farano indicated tnat since this facility was in business for some time, and since there was no alteration to the existing facility, he could see n;~ r~ason for requiring this condition. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC71-249 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Vari.ance No. 2317 on the basis that this would be an incidental use to the maja~ use; that the business had been there for many years and since no alterations were being proposed to the existing facility, the requirement of underground uti2~;:t.es would appear to be ur.- warranted, particularly in view of the Eaat that t'ti° petitioner would have only a very small amount of sales, and subject to conditio~~, deleting Condition No. 4 and adding a time limitation of three years for the use with an option to renew upon application to the Commission and receiving apgroval. (See Resolution Book) On roll ca11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland. -., ~ . ~ ~ ~. ~. " . ~ . _ . ~~ . rf . _ ; . . - .. , ~ ' ' . : . . ' . ~ ' .a. , ..._. ~ .. . ..._: ... :~ _ ; . .. ' . . . .~ .. . - . .I ~ / , .. . . . . . ~ ~- ... . ' . . ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CxTY PLANNIN~ COMMISSTON, December 29, 1971 71-825 REPORTS AND - TTEM NO. 1 RECOMMENDATSONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1063 (C. M. McNees) - Request fur extension of time for use - Property located on the north side of Katella Avenue immediately west of the Katella Avenue-Santa Ana Freeway overcrossing. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action on the property, noting that the Commission established a condition of requiring a yearly review to determine compatibility of the use and the associated parking in order to determine whether a public hearing was necessary to approve continua+.ion of the use or whether it cuuld be continued on the basis of an extension of time; that two one-year extensions of time had been graated thus far, the latest expiring on October 29~ 1971; and that the Development Services Department had contacted the Police Department, who indicated there had been no police problems at this location. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to grant a one-year extension of r.ime, retroactive tc October 30, 1971, said time e:ctension to expire Qctoher 29, 1972. Commissioner Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM NO. 2 SANTA A:?A CANYON FLOOD CONTROL PROBLEM Commissioner Seymour noted that the City Council could use further documenta- tior, of the flood problem in the Santa Ana Canyon with a breakdown of less than the 100-year and project flood conditions to determine what degree of damage and problems could occur. Therefore, he would suggest that staff contact the Army Corps of Engineers to further delineate not only those properties subject to a 100-year storm but to delineate, 70, 50, and 30-year storms; and that it would be his hope that if this could be developed, this could provide the City Council with the latitude they were ceeking in their determination of what could be developed in the canyon. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to direct staff to request cf the Army Corps of Engineers to supply the City of Anaheim additional information on the flood hazards in a 70, 50, or 30~year storm in order to assist the Planning Commission and the City Council in their consideration of any further requests for development in the Santa Ana Canyon. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 3 DOUBLE-FACED BILLBOARDS AT IMP~RIAL AND RIVEFSIDE ~'REEWAYS AND LA PALMA AVENUE. Commissioner Seymour noted that from information he had received there were two double-faced billboards constructed by Carter Company in county territory ~~ at Imperial and Riverside Freeways, and it was of great concern to himself and the Commissi~n; that such a monstrosity was being constructed at the same time that the Riverside Freeway was approved as a scenic highway by the State. ;~ It is very unfortunate. VF«' w, : ~',. ,~,. : . ~c: '.~-; Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that they convey the Anaheim City Planning Commission's concern and opposition to approval of any billboards by the County of Orange in the Santa Ana Canyon, particularly since the State had just designated th2 Riverside Freeway through the canyon as a scenic highway; that in order to maintain the Scenic Corridor tne existing billboards should be removed, and any future requests for bill- boards in the Santa Ana Canyon be denied in order to preserve thi.s area as a Scenic Corridor as designated by the State Division of Highways. Chairman Farano further suggested that the staff address a letter on behalf of the Planning Commission to the Grant Corporation requesting them to voluntaril,y ; cooperate in maintaining the Scenic Corridor by removing these billboards in ~ the canyon wh~ch contained their advertising for the proposed Anaheim Hills development. Commissioner Herbst seconde3 the motion. MOTION CARRIED. + t., _. , r~ i.. ._ - '"''` ` ~ . . '~ ` . ~ , J ~ _ I . - ~.. ~ 1 1 ~ ~` - ~ . . `~ 1 ~ -- - - ~ ~ ~ ~~ ' ~ . : --= ~--~,` - ~V' ~ MINUTES, CITY ?LANNING COMMISSION, December 29 1971 , 71-826 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Continued) ITEM NO. 4 WORK SESSION << ` Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Co~amissi ` on that had been set up for January 8, 1972 at 9 00 a work session , : a.m. for a field Anaheim Hills, as well as an updated report of Anaheim Hi check of the lls General Plan. '' Commissioner Farano offered the conference room of Gl b ~~ o al Van work session. Lines for said ADJOURNMENT - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to adjourn the meeting to January 8, 1972, at 9:~0 a.m. for a work session reQ3rding the Anaheim Hills General Plan. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 5:42 p,m, Respectfully submitted, ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Cammission t<;;.' `: ', ::; ~mw~c.c3 :~a.r--. l ~~ l ~ S ~=e""~,, ~ wYyr.~+- . . . ~~'4 ~.' ~ . , 0 r •}' ~ _a~ ,