Minutes-PC 1972/02/23^
u
~.
~
City Hall '
Anaheim, Califor:.ia
February 23, 1972
A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEI_M CYTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was
MEETSNG called to order by Chairman I'arano at 2:00 p.m., a quorum
being present.
PRESE'~'T - CHAIRMAN: Farano.
- COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour.
ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Allred.
PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Ronald Thompson
Deputy City Attorney: Frank Lowry
Office Engineer: Jay Titus
Zoning Supervisor: Charles Roberts
Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Don McDaniel
Commission Secretary pro tem: Lee Burgesa
PLEDGE OF - Commissioner Rowland led in'the Pledge cf Allegiance to the
ALLEGIANCE Flag.
APPROVAL OF - Approval of the minutes of the meeting of February 7, 1972,
THE MINUTES was deferred to tha meeting of March 6, 197'.
ARr.A DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATE~ BY THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING
PLAN NO. 109 COMMISSZONj to consider circulation and access for
properties on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon.ROad
between Imperial Highwsy on the west and Solomon Drive
on the east.
Planning Technician John Anderson reviewed the location of the study area,
noting that it is located in the Santa Ana Csnyon Scenic Corridor, bordered
by Imperial Highway to the west, Santa Ana Canyon Road to the south, the
extensi~n. of Solomon Drive to the east, and by California Division of Highways
properties along the Riverside Freeway to the north.
Surrounding land uses existing or anticipated include to the east, adjacent
to the study area, a proposal for a 143-1ot;'R-2-5000 residential development .
for which a tentative tract map has been approvedj to the south across Santa
Ana Canyon Road are a small property with a resolution of intent to R-3; a
future site for an Orange Unified School District high school and a~roperty
in aqricultural use which will probably develop residentially= and to the
north~ some or all the California Division of Highways properties between
the study area and the Riverside Freeway may become surplus and available for
development. ThE State indicates that they have no immediate plans to declare
the properties excess, however.
The Santa Ana Canyon Road Access Point Study limits access to 11 points.
Santa Ana Canyon Road is designated as an expressway on the Anaheim General
Plan.
Mr. Anderson presente3 two exhibits, "A" and "B"• Both exhibits have an addi-
tional access poinC to median break between adopted Access Points 6 and 7.
Exhibit "A" was recommended sliould Mr. Rinker not concnrrently develop the land~
locked parcel between the proposed shopping centes-,rand Imperial Highway.
Exhibit "A" has the landlocked parcel served by.a,'th:ree-phase extension of a
54-foot;~.i'de street with a 1-foot holding strip along the easterly and north-
erly boandaries of the proposed shopping center. Phase one (orange) would ~
extend. from the additional access point straight to the northeast corner of I
the proposed shopping center. Phase two (yellow) wou,ld extend northwesterJ.y
72-65
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSZON, February 23, 1~72 72-66
AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 109 (Continued)
from the termination of phase one, along the proposed shopping center boundary
to serve any California Division of Highways lands declared surplus. Phase
three would extend westerly from the termination of phase two along the north-
erly boundary of the proposed shopping center to serve the otherwise land-
locked parcel.
=":~`tibit "B" was recommended should Mr. Rinker concurrently nevelop the land-
_:::ked parcel. Exhibit "B" has only the extension of a 54-foot street with
a 1-foot holding strip alonq the easterly boundary of the proposed shopping
center. The street would begin at the additional access point and terminate
at the northeast corner ~f the proposed shopping center.
In either exhibit, the recommended street alignment would allow a convenient
tie-in to both the circulation of proposed tracts to the east and south.
The school district is not interested in such a connection.
Mr. Bob McQueen, 4821 McKinnon Drive, appeared before the Commission and ques-
tioned development on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road and noted that
another traffic signal would be necessary if a left-turn lane is installed;
that=two points of access are close togethert and questioned how children were
to get into the school qrounds if the school does not have access and has
stated that they are not interested. Traffic from the shopping centez and
future tracts would be great.
Mr. Barry Rinker, developer, advised the Commission he i~ agreeiwith
Mr. McQueen that the proposed location was r.ot proper; that it was far more
proper to have it where the median is currently broken and provide an access
at a future time into the school even though they feel it is not needed at
this time. He indicated he was not in favor oE Exhibit "A".
Mr. Bill Wakey, attorney for Mrs. Maag (owner of property adjacent to the
study area? advised that Mxs. Maag had previously viewed the exhibits and
approved of Exhibit "B".
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Mr. Jay Titus, Engineering Division, advised the Commission that a study
would be necessary relative to signalizationJ the area was close for two
signals and 9.t was not necessary or feasible for two; that the tract to the
south of Santa Ana Canyon Road will have access if appsoved by the Commission,
but there are two streets to the east through an existing tract. Further,
that he could not make any comments as to the sahool's future plansi that
all development plans are in process for the school site and access would be
from Imperial Highway.
Chairman Farano inquired whether traffic could be more easily handled as far
as the subdivisions on the south side connecting with the subdivisions and
commercial area on the north side; there are two streets oppoaite each other,
and it would ~e easier to control the cross traffic and ingress and egresa
by such a fashion.
City Traffic Engineer Ed Granzow advised it was to a better advantage to have
siqnals evenly spaced, ~idway between the two existing access poii~tss that to
be too close to Imperia' ~iighway at the eas°.: the existing traffic cauld back
up and caase a problem at that location, he indicated only one siqnal..
Further, that any road~ ~.y :~o•±~_~ have to ramp up with sufficient distance in
order to store vehicle_ on a level area rather than at an uphill grade. The
radius is primarily for right turns; the roadway is about 2,000 feet. A
signal should be located midway between the two access points; that access
point shown on Exhibit 109 would have to be a signalized intersections and
any access point will have to be at some time in the future as the traffic
develops.
Commissioner Rowland noted that the access point shown on Area Development
Plan 109 would have to be a signalized intersection, the westerly portion
of this area development plan being lower than either Imperial or Santa Ana
Canyon Road; and that a great portion of that property would have to be
devoted to stacking area.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 23. 1y~2 ~Z-6~
AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 109 (Continued)
Mr. Granzow stated ihat the •:oadway would have to be brought up to grade
before you could enter the Santa Ana Canyon Road, and it wauld have to have
storage space for the amount of traffic you determine would be generated as
a result of the development, otherwise thPre would be vehicles standing on a
grade and starting out from grade, which would be a difficult situation.
Mr. Rinker advised the service st;~tion is at grade and the road is also at
qrade, then it drops away, several car lengths, about 200 feet; that all
parties cou2d be served by allowinc~ a cut through here, to bring this road
out here it can parallel the line of the school propertyr the road would be
ad.~acent to the school property whe:i they want it in the future.
In answer to a question fzom Commisiiioner Gau°r,,:Mr. Rinker advised there
was no chance of an entrance on Imp~:rial; that from this point on it is
fenced. Mr. Rinker's proposal in serving the property is vastly shorter.
Discussion by Mr. Rowland that ele•ven access points have been approved by
the State Division of Highways, County and City of Anaheim, and that now
Mr: Rinker is requesting an addition which would be number 12 (6a).
Mr. Granzow advised the curb cu'c into this dsvelopment would be synonomous
with Lincoln Avenue - Tustin B~ulevardt thac an arterial highway has unlimited
access in most cases= that an expressway access is limited to certain given
points, and the roadway is ~fljacent to the expressway= a freeway has no at-
grade access to the freeway only by means of rampst that to create an access
of this nature would be :•elegatinq Santa Ana Canyon Road to something like
Tustin Boulevard - Lincoln Avenue - Brookhurst Street, it would no lon~ler be
an expressway but an arterial highway. If access is considered at thi:s
location, it would have to be brought up to the point where you would.have
storage entering and provide s'~ight distance for the vehicles leaving lthe
access point; a place where the vehicles don't take a sudden drop in turning
off the highway and into the access points.
Commissioner Kaywood asked Mr. Rinker if the State property were declared
surplus, how would tt!is property be reached? He replied, either by angling
a street northwesterly along the rear property line of the proposed shopping
center as in Exhibit "A", phase two (yellow) or by extending the Exhibit "A",
phase one (orange) street straight and northerly across the tdaag propezty.
Mr. Rinker stated that he had requested information from the State if they
intended to surplus the property aad had received a negative replyt that he
aould see no possibility of its being declared surplus - if it were declared
surplus, the best use would be for a park site because it would ha~ve no
effective use behind a shopping center. Mr. Rinker stated ha did include a
potential access easement across his property.
Commissioner Seymour inquired of Mr. Granzow if the proposed tract to the
south of Santa Ana Canyon Road and its access point, would it be his recom-
mendation that a mediau cut be moved so that it would, in fact, create access
and signalize at that intersection.
Mr. Granzow replied that 1/8th mile is what is considered minimum distance
for signals. If this is the location that the access point would be deter-
mined to be most beneficial, the opening would have to be moved. It would
not serve where it is shown on the map.
Mr. Thompson stated if the street were to be moved westerly as Mr. Rinker
proposes, it_may well necessitate a variance for property to the south side
of the Santa Ana Canyon Road. If you were to pick up 16ts to the school, you
would have a lot si2ing on the zoad and the applicant would have to apply for
a variance. The school has in£ormed the staff that they do not want the road,
and if he were to put the road along the school boundary, it might not be
considered a good utiilization of the property because you would have a street
that has only single lots and probably get poor lot yield on the pzoperty to
the east as well as the developer would have considerable additional expense
in putting in streets where you can only subdivide them on one side.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 23, 1972 72-68
AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 109 (Continued)
Mr. P.inker stated that the length of the street to which Mr. Thompson referred
is at the very most 200 feet and maybe a little less. The very expedient of
carryinq the street for this short distance, it would only be 100 feet in:
or~~r to provide a potential access would be good planning and it would have
t' effe~t of movinq it in thia direction as the Traffic Engineer suggests
and leaving the median and the break that it now is.
Commissioner Rowland stated: All you have to do is move one street 200 feet in
orde•z to accommodate Mr. Rinker's site plan to develop a portion of the
propeztyj in order to do that you influence the R-3 property, the schaol
property, and Mrs. Maaq's property. The State property, the landlocked parcel
which you propose to serve by anothar acceas wh~.ch I deem danqerous and
substantiated by remarks of the Traffic Engineer, so the move of 200 feet
would affect five parcelsf so that Area Development PYun 109-A puts the burden
of developinq a marginal piece of property squarely on Mr. Rinker's shouldera
to the best interests of all the reat of the property involved. Our Genaral
Plan calls for a regional or community shopping center at this point, this
giece of property is not phyaically cagable of supporting the development
which is proposed here. I know it is our job to expedite the development of
everyone's property as much as possible, but by the very nature of this body,
we are supposed to consider the entire area. The proposai before ua, Area
Aevelopment Plan 109-A, although far from perfect, is the best way to handle
it. We should not inject equatinq Tustin Boulevard with Santa Ana Canyon
Road unless we want to change the designation from a limited access circula-
tion element to a freeway access circulation element.
On that basis, Commissioner Rowland offered Resolutinn No. PC72-32 and moved
for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that'Area
Development Plan 109, Exhibit "A", be adopted as being a logical means of
providing limited access and circulation. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONE1tS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymott+-.
COMMISSIONERS: None.
COMMISSIONERS: Allred. -
RECLASSIFICATION
NO. 71-72-21
VARIANCE NO. 2310
~
CONTINUED PUBLI~ HEARING. RINKF,R DEVELOPMENT CORPCRATIONJ~
p, O. Sox,2218, Anaheim, California, Ownes~s property
described as: An irregularly-ahaped parcel of land con-
sisting of approximately 15.8 acres being the northeast
corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway, with
frontages of approximately 1,035 feet on Santa Ana Canyon
Road and approximately 544 feet on Imperial Highway.
Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 2nNE.
REQUESTED CLAS6IFTCATION: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, 20NE.
REQUESTED VARTANCE: WAZVER OF (1) PERMITTED SIGNS, (2) TIME LIMITATION ON
LZGHTED SIGNS, (3) LOCATION AT THE INTERSECTION OF TWO
ARTERIALS, (4) MINIMUM FREEWAY BETBACK, (5) MINIMUM
LOCAL LOT SETBACK, (6) SETHACK AREA LANDSCAPING, (7)
NINIMUM TNTERIOR SETSACK~ ~8) MINIMUM LANDSCF.^".: AREA
DIMENSION~ AND ~9) MINIMUM NUMBER OF REQUIRED.PARKZNG
STALLS TO PERMTT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SHOPPING CENTER
AND AN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION.
Subjact pet~tions were continued from the November 29 and December 13, 1971,
and daauary 24,;1972, meetings at the request of the petitioner in order to
a11ow time to resolve access problems and to advertise an area development
plan.
Chairman Farano advised that the public hearing had been closed and any furcher
conaideration depended upon the outcome of Area Development.Plan 109.
~
...
~
MINUTES, CITY PL~NNING COMMISSION, Februarp 23, 1972 72-69
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-21 AND VARIANCE NO. 2310 (Continued)
Commissioner Herbst stated that in light of the adoption of Area Development
Plar. 109, Exhibit "A", that the plan of Mr. Rinker's would not be suitable.
Mr. Rinker stated: That the type of access noted in Exhibit "A" was useless;
that with zespect to thQ State parcel, he had requested of the State whether
they had any intent of declarinq this area surplus, and theix reply was that
it was an operating right-of-way for the Ozanqe 5reeway, and khey had no
plana at this time to declare the property surplus. He further stated it
was his inteat to -ome before the Commission at a later date, at his expense,
and realign the street to bring it into Mrs. Maaq's property in the event
either property does not develop commercially~ that the acceas he showa to
the property is the logical way to get into its that they have adequate access
and intend to develop it. In the event it is not developed by him, the same
access would be suitable for any other developer= it would allow the property
to go forward and be put to productive use. Mr. Rinker stated that he had
two objections to the conditions: landscaping tbe center median of Santa
Ana Canyon Road has not been required of any other devel~per and is an unfair
requirement; the other condition calls for reciprocal parking aqreement be-
tween ourselves and the State, it is not a feasible requirement; a co-parking
agreement is an extremely complex document, it entails hours of use of two
different pruperties, type of use and deqree of maintenance of landscaping;
one developer may not want a parking lot swept at all, and another developer
may want it swept daily; one type of use may have three times the parking
required as another use. The service station is at the only ?ogical place
on the access. Regarding landscaping coverage as compared with across the
street, our enqineers have found that we are landscaping 288 of the parking
area without including the SAVI channel, whereas across the street 4.58
landscaping of the parking area. Santa Ana requires 3$, Buena Vista 5$,
Costa Mesa 3$. with the SAVI channel, our landscaping would amount to 41$.
2oning Supervisor Roberts advised that the landscaping has been a requirement
of all tentative tract developers~ that the Yorba Shopping Center was required
to install the same amount of landscaping.
Mr. Rinker stated that if the Yorba Shopping Center was requized to do so,
then he would also landscape the median strip.
Commissioner Seymour noted that the area development plan is the result of
trying to deal intelligen~::ly with Mr. Rinker's property; that it seems as
though the entire problem, or at least 80$ of the problem, is around the
State property on which Mr. Rinker has an option. If the Commission has to
rely on the fact that Mr. Rinker cannot assnre them he is going to develop it,
it must be looked at the way it is, that commercial c:evelopment there would
not be adequate or appropriatet additional access point to the west that the
Traffic Engineer says would be hazardous. The other problem is the alternative
of access in Area Development Plan 109, Exhibit "A", which the Commission just
appruved. Apparently Mr. Rinker's unwillingness to make the center conform
with the area development plan that is going to provide an additional access
to Santa Ana Canyon Road, I see no alternativc other than to recommend denial.
A piece of groperty as large as this should be developed without use,.of ,the
typical tricks to the trade granting ea m t ba n~.~ rth across the
property and inadequate access po'i,nwtss~~~~:~ ~be~~ ed ~n difficult
pieces of property to 3evelop. Tcye acreage is 38 acres, ~ s'~o'fa~ly unfeasible
and illoqical to any that we have.
Chairman Farano stated that it has been his experience that the letter Mr.
Rinker received from tho State relative to the northern piece of property,
the property was declared not to be excess today; Impezial Highuray is still
a freeway right-of-wayy that a high-speed ramp should be proposed at this
location.
Commissioner Herbst stated: Mr. Rinker is asking for two access points; in
my mind this property does not lend itself suitable fo:. a shoppinq center;
it would open one point that Santa Ana Canyon Roa3 has been designed as a
high-speed roadt every person along Santa Ana Canyon Road is entitled to the
same treatmentt they would have to have access from their house; there would
be many public hearinqs on this; if we are going to allow these two access
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 23, 1.972 72'7~
RECLASSIFICAiION NO. 71-72-21 AND VARIANCE NQ. 2310 (Continued)
points then we are going to have to change the des3gnation of the road which
was approved by the State, or open it to commercial aleng Santa Ana Canpon
Road.
Cort~missioner Kaywood stated that she could see no reason Mr. Rlnker ahould
be asking for another access point.
Commiasioner Seymour offerad Resolution No. PC72-33 and moved for ita passaqe
and adoption to recommand to the City Council denial of Petition for Reclaasi-
fication No. 71-72-21. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kay~. ~d, Rowland, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nor.e.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred.
Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72-34 and moved foz ita passage
and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2310. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Fazano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, 4owland, Seymour.
N9ES: COMMISSIOfiERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred.
VARIANCE NO. 2318 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. IMPERIAL LAND INVESTMENT COMPANY~
1900 Century Boulevard, Atlanta, Georqia, Ownerr SRIICE C.
ARMSTRONG, Vice President, Imperial Land Investment Company,
435 North State College Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Agents requesting
permission to ESTABLISH A STORAGE YARD FOR MOBILEHO1~fES, MODULAR HOUSING UNITS,
BOATS, TRAILERS, RECREATIONAL VEHICLES, AND CAMPERS IN THE R-A ZONE on property
described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consistinq of approximately
7 acres having a frontage of approximately 1,100 feet on the south side of
Miraloma Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximate2y 400 feet, and beinq
located be*_ween the Orange and Riverside Freeways. Property presently classi-
fied R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE.
Subject petition was continued from the December 29, 1971, and January 24,
1972, meetings for x'urther study as to buffering techniques.
Chairman Farano advised that a le~ter had been received from Bruce C. Armatrong l
of Imperial Land Znvesta+ent Company, Suite 8, 1900 Century Boulevazd Northeast,
Atlanta, Georgia, requasting application for Variance No. 2318 be withdrawn.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Seymour, to
withdraa Petition for Variance No. 2318. MOTION CARRIED.
VARIANCE NO. 2306 - CONTINOED PUBLIC HEARING (READVERTISED). PAOL J. KNAAK~
1751 Southeast Skyline Drive, Santa Ana, California,
OwnerT RONALD A. MC LEOD, 9833 Zinnia Street,`Fountain
Va11ey, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A USED CAR LOT
AND A NEW ?-ND USED RECREATIONAL VEHICLE SALES CENTER WITH WAIVER OF (1) MINIMDM
REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK LANDSCAPING, (Z) pERMITTED USES, AND (3) PERMITTED
OUTDOOR USES on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land
located at the northeast corner of Brookhurst Street and Lincoln Avenue, havinq
frontages of approximately 154 feet on the east side of Brookhurat Street and
105 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, and further described as 2181
West Lincoln Avenue. Property pre3ently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL,
ZONE.
Subject petition was continued from the November ~9, 1971, and January 24,
1972, meetings to allow the petitioner time to submit revised plans and to
readvertise the requeated uses.
~
~
u
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, r^ebruary 23, 1972
~z-~i
VARZANCE NO.. 2306 (Continued)
Mr. Paul LaJoier 9681 Random Drive, Anaheim, was present to answer questions
of the Commission.
Chairman Farano asked the petitioner why the used cars have not been removed
from the corner of Brookhurst and Lincoln as he had been requested.
Mr. LaJoie replied that the variance was apparently misunderstood by the
Planning Commission or staffs that he had written the petition for variance
and did request the sale of used vehicles and felt the Commission had not been
deceived by his partner.
Chairman Farano stated that at the time the applicant's attorney was present,
the applicant had been instructed to remove the vehicles from the parking lott
that observation by the Commission and staff indicated the lot has continued
to display used autos, clearly in violation of instruction, and requested to
know why.
Mr. LaJoie indicated he and his partner felt they were deceived by the City of
Anaheim; that they had paid their fees and stated their business and were
issued a license, and money had been accepted by the City of Anaheim; further,
that they have been licensed to sell used vehicles, cars, trucks, used, every-
thing which goes along with recreational vehicles; that he is restricted when
he cannot take a vehicle in in trade; that competition will run him out of
business.
Chairman Farano stated that at the first public hearing the peti.tioner was
notified a business license did not carry with it the zoning requirements that
are needed to operate any businesst the fact that he is given a business license
does not give him the right to operate a business.
Mr. LaJoie stated that when they went into business at subject location, they
were misinformed. At-the suggestion of the Mayor and City Attorney they went
into business at that locatian; they were told it was ckay to operate at that
location; that three calls have been made to the planning office to be sure
of the approval, and have invested $B0,000 and intend to spend $200,000 to
comply with all requirements. Mr. LaJoie agrees with what the Commission and
staff are doing, but when you sell a S10,000 motor home, you have a hard time
convincing the buyer that you are goinq to be at the location and in business
tomorrow. Mr. LaJoie indicated that he has association with a firm in Dallas.
Chairman Farano stated that Alan G. Orsborn, Development Services Director,
was in the audience, and the Comaission would appreciate his comments since
there is some fe~:ling from the applicant that he has been misled; that it is
appropriate foz the applicant to conduct a used car business on this lot; and
that instructions to obtain a variance do not convey permission to operate a
business.
Mr. Orsborn advised that the application was brought to the attention of the
Development Services Department by Mr. Ron McLeod, and that Mr. McLeod had
been advised be£ore he even put one vehicle on that property that the zoning
was not permissible for that uses however, that Mr. McLeod had beaieqed Mr.
Orsborn in light of the fact that vehicles were on order, to give permisaion
to at least store the vehicles until such time as an application that would
provide suitable zoning, if the Commission took favorable action, was zeceiv,ed;
that in an endeavor to be helpful, Mr. Orsborn made an error in judgment, made
administrative approval contrary to Code and contrary to Commission inatruc-
t'tons in the past, and authorized Mr. McCleod to gtore the vehicles. Mr.
M~~Cleod indicated to Mr. Orsborn that he was in association with a national
concern with a theme-type operation for their various sales lots; that he was
prepared with plans to ,qo ahead with $10,000 worth of improvements. In this
instance, the City endeavored to help a man based on what he told as fact.
Mr. McCleod came in subsequent to thia first visit and informed us he had not
y~t filed an applicatian for variance, however, he did promise to do so. We
found he was storing used vehicles on the property and that he was selling
used cars. He was ordered to get them off the property since it is out of
zone for that purpose. He was told to get rid of the used cars immediately.
~
~
~
MINUTES, CTTY PLANNING COMMiSSION, February 23, 1972 ~2'~2
VARIANCE NO. 2306 (Continued)
Subsequent to this he informed the Commission he had been given permission by
Mr. Orsborn to sell used cars on the property. This is not true in a,ny shape
or form. OLviously Mr. LeJoie qot the same erroneous information that Mr.
Oraborn d33. It is unfortunate that 7his matter has occurred, but Mr. Orsborn
did grant approval (administratively) in an endeavor to be helpful. Mr.
Orsborn stated he could not recall having met Mr. LeJoie.
Mr. LeJoie advised he was psesent at the second meeting with Mr. McCleod in
Mr. Orsborn's office, and that he had informed Mr. Orsborn they could not
survive unless they had used cars. The wording on the variance was changed
befcre it was submitted to the Commission. Mr. LeJoie advised the Commission
that there was no deception. He further advised that Mr. McCleod and he ware
no longer in business together, and that he was endeavoring to buy the store
(Hansen's Furniture Store) adjacent to the lot and submit a package dealj that
he has been trying to contact hi.s principles in Dallas. Mr. LeJOie stated he
would like an opportunity to get the plans into Mr. Orsborn's office and show
him what it was going to be.
Commissioner Seymour stated that it appeared the Development Services Depart-
ment had been contacted in October, 1971, to esteblish the use; that the
petitioner must have had something in mind and wondered why it had taken 4~t
months to come up with a plan.
Mr. LeJoie stated he was really not too sure that the variance would be granted,
not sure what the Commission wanted in the way of plans.
Commissioner Farano addressed the Commission, requesting information as to
da.sposition they wished to make of this petition today, whether to continue
until a later date or hear it on its merits.
At this point, Commissioner Farano read from the variance application completed
and filed, which did not state the sale of used vehicles, and advising the
anplicant that the Commission had been misledt that if he wished to sell used
cars, it must be specified.
Mr. Orsborn advised the Commission it would appear Mr. LeJOie is endeavoring
to get the papers in order and under the circumstances, perhaps the Commission
would like to give Mr. LeJoie benefit of the doubt and opportunity to come
back in two weeks with some concrete evidence that he is prepared to comply
with the codes and ordinances oE the City of Anaheim; that he is interested ir.
cooperating and doing what is right. It would seem unfortunate if Mr. LeJOie
were penalized because of what Mr. McCleod indicated to both Mr. LeJOie and
the Commission.
Chairman Farano stated he had no objection to this matter personally, however,
he would not agree to any kind of a continuance unless a condition is made
that the used cars will be removed today.
Mr. LeJoie stated he would not agree to this condition.
Chairman Farano, in answer, stated he was not going to assiat an individual or
a yroup of individuals who outwardly refuse to cooperate with the laws of the
city; that if the petitioner wants to agree with that condition, he would cast
his vote to give him (the petitioner) as much opportunity as he needs to put
together a package so that he can receive a fair hearing.
Mr. LeJoie questioned how the Commission could allow him ta keep the recreatlon-
al vehicles and remove the nsed cars - why he should not be told to remove
everything.
Chairman Farano stated that permission was to store vehiclest he would not
condone violation of the directives from this Commission or deviation from the
ordinance; the attorney that appeared before the Commission was the applicant's
attorney. and whether or not he conveyed the information to the petitioner was
not known.
Mr. LeJoie advised he had received a written notice and was prepared t•~ go to
court on that issue.
~
...
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 23. 19~z ~Z-~3
VARIANCE N0. 2306 (Continued)
Coaimissioner Herbst stated that there are other recret^.tion vehicle lots in
the city, and they are not allowed to sell used cars~ that under the circum-
stances, since Mr. LeJOie did not wish to conform to city ordinance, he would
recommend denial.
Commissioner Kaywood stated she did not seel there haA been good faith demon-
strated, a 60-days continuance and a four-week continuance with the apecific
anderstanding that the used cars would be removed. Following this latter
directive, Commissioner Kaywood noted that prices wera paintad on theointed
shields and flags were flying on the antennas of the vehiclas. She p
out that access on Lincoln was bloc)ced, which had been brought to the atten-
tion of Mx. McCleod three months aga, and he fail~d to rectify the situation,
and nothing has been done.
Chairman Farano stated to Mr. LeJoie that i£ he was willing to concur in the
removal of the vehicles, he was ready, willing and able to give him the benefit
of the doubt and forqet this discussion and get on with the merits of this case,
to give him a good hearing and work with him on this project. However, if
Mr. McLeod refuses to abide by the ordinance of the city, the Commission can
only presume that he concurs with Mr. McCleod.
Mr. LeJoie stated he could not get rid of $12,000 worth of cars; it was a
matter of economics. -
Chairman Farano stated that Mr. LeJOie has already been allowed somewhat of
an t~dvantage over other property ownerst that he would not continue to go along
with the violation that exists, however, should he wish to store recreational
vehicle~ on the property pursuant to permission qranted by Mr. Orsborn, he
would agree with it, however, he would not condone use of the property for
used car sales.
Commissioner Rowland noted it might be out of order; he would like to personal-
ly view the plans that Mr. LeJoie has brought in order to give Mr. Rowland an
o~,portunity on Y:ow Y:a might vote; that he was looking at the cozner and the
surrounding 3and use~ aad what is proposedt that there might be something in
the plans ~.o a].loN e continuance and help for the petitioner to get in opera-
tion and ungrade the corner to provide the city with an asset.
Chairman Farano inqui.red of Deputy City Attorney Lowry whether the Commission
would be allowed a degree of latitude to view the plans,{and was advised by
Mr. Lowry that he could see no reason why this could not be done; that the
petitioner should be given every benefit of the doubt.
The Commission reviewed plans submitted by N._. LeJoie.
Mr. LeJoie advised the Commission he was tryinq to negotiate the sale of any
automobiles that had been taken in in trade, used camper and recreatior.al
motor homes, travel trailers, etc.; that the new application would elim•~.nate
used cars. The reason for the used cars was to get the package together; it
was a matter of expediency to lease the corner when it was available aiid to
help pay the rent; unfortunately, people do not buy motor homes in the winter,
but they do have them serviced. Mr. LeJoie indicated he was not repairiag
vehicles at the present time. The entire parcel of prooerty he was dealing
with (furniture store next door and back parcels) amounts to 3.8 acres and
would cover additional frontage along Lincoln Avenuc.
In response to a question £rom Commissioner Iierbst, he was advised that 30
days was needed to dispose of the used cars.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to conkinue the public hearing for 30
days. as stipulated to by the applicant, subject to the applicant t.ryinq to
enlarge the property according to plans and dispose of all used cars on the
property in 30 days.
Mr. LeJoie advised that the time of construction should be 70 days; that he
wanted to be in the location for the start of the season, which is about the
mfddle of May.
~
MINUTF.S, CITY PLANNING COMMISST_ON, Fsbruary 23, 1972 ~2'~4
VARIANCE N0. 2306 (Continued)
Commissaoner Seymour seconded the motion, stating he found it totally impossible
to conceive that it has tst:en the applicant 4~ months to come up with a build-
ing or plot plant that he would go the extra step, but 30 days from now he did
not want to see another sequest for continuance.
Chairman Farano stated that to allow Mr. LeJoie 30 days to remove the cara is
tantamount to condoning past actions, and he would not condone the intentional
refussl oE compliance with the ordinance; that 30 days is an excessive times
that time should be in the form of a deadline to comply with the ordinance of
Anaheim and ahould nat be more than five days. Further, that 30 days was
givinq the applicant time to sell the cars, and that is what he was not supposed
to do.
Commissioner Seymour noted that Mr. LeJoie has an investment in the used auto-
mobiles, and it would result in an economic loss to him not to sell them.
2oning Superviso't Robei':s advised that March 20 is the Planning Commission
date neareet to the 30-days recommendation; that in order to be heard on that
date at a public hearing, the vari.ance must be advertised on the 9th of March,
and st.aff must have the plans four or five days prior to that in order to pick
out the waivers and analyze the plans, w'hich means that the plans should be in
the Zoninq Division at the very latest by March 3.
Mr. LeJoie stated it would not be 'oossible to have the plana available by this
date.
Commissioner Herbst restated his motion to stipulate a continuance of variance
No. 2306 for a period of six weeks, to April 3, 1972. MOTION CARRIED.
CONC:TIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC AEARING. COLLINS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
PERMIT NO. 1282 David S. Collins, General Partner, 1077 West Ball Road,
Anaheim, California, Ownerj requesting permission to
ESTABLISH A PRIVATE RECREATION CENTER INCLUDING LIVE AND
FILM ENTERTAINM£NT~ PUBLIC AND PRIVATE DANCING~ AND OTHEk RECREATION AND
ENTERTAZNMENT ACTIVITIES on property described as: An irregularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of approximately one acre located at the southwest
corner of Adams Street and Broadway, having frontages of approximately 225.
feet on Adams £treet and 34 feet on Broadway, having a maximum depth of
approximately 455 feet, and further described as 1430 West Ssoadway. ?roperty
presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE.
Subiect petition was continued from the December 29, 1971, meeting to allow
the various City departments time to ob~erve the proposal first hand and
report back to the Planning Commission, and from the January 10 and 24, 1972,
meetings for the petitioner to review the requirements of the Fire Marshal as
to cost for compliance.
Chaizman Farano advised this wa.c a continued public hearing to determine i£
the economics of the situation would warrant spending the money to bring it
up to the fire code.
Mr. David S. Collins, 1077 West Ball road, owner, advised the Commission that
there remain some questions that must be answered, and that unless ther.e are
some other majos +tems, he proposes the following changes since the Harmony
Park Dance Hall h~s been operating very successfully. The following refer to
interdepartmental conditions if approved:
1. That the owners of subject property shall deed to the City ef Anaheim a
strip of land 45 feet in width from the centerline o£ the street along Broadway
for street widez~ing purposes. Mr. Collins requests a 30-day extension ~f this
condition in order to draw the deed and get it registered.
2. ThaE trasli storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
platis on file with the office of thp Director of Public Works. Mr. Collins
requests a 30-day extension to fill this requirement.
~
~
~
MIT*7T''- CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 23, 1972 ~2'~S
CONDITIONAL USE PER_+IIT NO. 1282 (Continued)
4. That the final parking plan shall be approved by the Development Services
Department, and any landscaped areas in the p.arking area shall be protected
with 6-inch high, concrete curbs, and concrete wheel stops shall be provided
for parking spaces as required by.the Development Services Department. Mr.
Collins requested a 180-day extension of this condition, stating that they
have been operaEing with the ex~sting parking lot, and he is agreeable to
paving i" however, more time is needed.
5. That the applicant shall furnish to the City Attorney'.s off~ce satisfactory
evidence of iiigress and egress easements ovez the easterTy property (presently
known as Adams Street) to the parking areas on subject property. Mr. Collins
requests a change in wording since there is current litigation on the property,
and he will demonstrate that there is access to the rear parking whether.it'3s
on Adams Street or off Adams Streetf that there is legal accees and he can
develop 23 feet of access to the rear; that he would demonstrate to the Zoning
Administrator that there is adequate access. Should any conditions become
impossible, Mr. Collins stated he would ha•ve to shut down for a determination.
6. That the existing structure shall be brought up to the mir.imum,standards
of the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building, Plumbing, Electrical,
Housing, Mechanical and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Anaheim. Mr.
Collins read a letter from the Fire Marshal.
Chairman Faran~ inquired if Mr. Collins could comply with all the T.nterdepart-
mental recommendations if the application were approved within the 160-day
period, to which Mr. Collins replied that he would comply with the exception
of sprinklers and parking within the 30-day time period, and would want addi-
tional time in redeveloping parking. Mr. Collins indicated he would like
permission Lo operate the facility during the 180-day period.
Commissioner Kaywood noted that there were only a total of 73 parking'spaces
available, and 'rlr. Collins advise3 that 185 wt:re required, however, there was
not sufficient property to install the required num:.er. The capacity of the
hall is 816j that if the capacity is over 306, then the present requirements
would apply; if more than 816 persons, the d~ors w_ould be shut and the ticket
office closed uutil someone leaves.
Mr. Gordon Pearson, 418 North Lemon, appeared in oppobition. Mr. Pearson
represents the owner and developer c,f the induatrial tract imme3lately sou'.h
and east of the subject property. Mr. Pe~rson atated that parking is their
main concern, together with trash conditions. He stated that tenants in the
industrial park are unable to get inta their property because of vehicles
overflowing from the Harmony Park, and requested that approval of this permit
be withheld until Mr. Collins could relieve the parking and trash situation.
Tenants are being misused, business-wise and trash and litter-wise; breakinq
and entering and vandalism has increased in tne area since the dance hall has
been in operation.
Mr. A1 Rohrs, operator and owner of the petroleum distribution plant next to
Harmeny Park, appeared in opposition. He stated there was considerable trash
at the site, particularly the past weekend, broken glass and bottles. He also
sta*.ed that at the firgt hearing Mc. Collins had stated this would be a clean
and wholesome entertainment. At this point; Mr. Rohrs passed a poster to the
Commission which was a nude figure of a woman with the word "Sweathog". ~se
Mrs. Val Perez (property located on the corner of Santa An3 and East Central
Park) appeared ln-a~k~s~he surroundir..ereiose~~edisrsugee*owels~eetcekiand t
3ance at Hasmony g P P y ~ f
filth and litter, bottles vomit, articles of clothin , hey
should nut be subjected to this.
Mr. Collias advised the Commission there is no nudity at Harmony Park; that
he has been concerned that people have been parking in the area; he has
attempted to have crews clean up and has hired commercial parking lot sweepers
but not on a reyular enouqh basist that apgarently there is not a good enough
~ ~ ~^
MINUTES, CITY PI,ANNING COMMISSION, Febsuary 23, 1972 72-76
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1282 (Continued~
jcb being done. Mr. Collins said he would F~Z~.3qe to do his utmost to keep
the parking at the Hall onlys that the ownez ^t.' the adjacent property where
people are parking thair cars has a perfect right to have autos towed away;
that he had put up barricades to prevent parking ~n adjacent property. Mr.
Collins stated he did now knaw how he could do anything but say to Mr,.
Pearson that he was distressed about the problems it is difficult to control
the behavior of patrons when they are not on his property.
Mr. Bobby Phillips, Fire Marshal, City of Anaheim, advised the Commission he
made an original inspection on January 6, an3 invited the State Fire Marshal's
office to make the same surveg, and they found the conditions to exist now as
on January 6. They recommended that there be no more use or public assembly
until the conditions a.re met; that a life hazard exists on the premises.
Commissioner Herbst inquired of Mr. Phillips, that in view of the Fire Depart-
ment need for ?.ccessibility to the other buildings, would the Fire Department
have access because,of parkinq of cars down the street, and Mr. Phillips
answered that there was access to the hydrants, but it would be a hindrance
if cars are parked on the street.
Commi~sioner Rowland stated that most of this area is really out of the
Planning Commission area oE considerationJ the biggest problem has been on
the basis of management and not really on land use; an operation in the area
that management is not able to handle apparently to the satisfaction of the
entire neighborhoodj that it is very seldom that management has come into
Planning Commission discussion and has been the basis on which they make their
decision. The one case that he can think of is the South Bay Club Apartments
that were brought in under size and minimum standards because of a management
techniqce; that they have demonstzated to be successful; that this was the
only other time that the Planning Commission considered management as'a criteria
for making planning conside.rations, that normally being the consideration of
Council. The life hazards that are demonstrated by Mr. Phillips and by people
who have appeared in opposition are probably more "DOes the Council want this
activity in this area at this point in time", this is a Council consideration.
Is parking adequate7 Activity compatible with the industrial and mixed area?
Commissioner Gauer stated that there is trash spread all o^ver the place and
no acceptable place to put it; a certain amount of circulation must be taken
care of; how much of the buildinq is overloaded with people. There are rules
and regulations of single-family homes that only allow so many people; if
this operation is overloaded with peopie and the hall has to be.shut down from
selling tickets, people will mill around outside and create a problem, too.
Commissioner Herbst stated that many of the management problems result from
the lack of parking, size of crowds.
Commissioner S~ymour stated to Mr. Collins that at the first hearing Mr. Collins
indicated that iE parking should become a problem he would do his best to work
it out; this is now a very real problem. He asked Mr. Collins the possibility
of leasing a vacant lot that can be converted to parking and get the parking
out of the industrial area. Mr. Seymour. stated that the use was good, but the
trash and parking were critical.
Mr. Collins advised that there are only three parcels near subject property:
one is not available, the second has a building on it, the third is too small
a lot - the matter has been investigated.
Commissioner Seymour noted that to solve the parking problem, maybe 95~ of
the trash pro~lem, as well, would be solved; the disparicy of parking, 18S
recommended and 73 being provided, and asked if perhaps Mr. Collins would be
able to provide perhaps 50 parking spaces.
Mr. Collins answered that if the Commission wished to make this a condition
and grant a little more time, it might be possible, but when he approaches a
property owner tlte price can create a problem.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 23, 1972 72-77
CONIIITZONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1282 (Continued)
Chairman Farano agreed that management is not a concern of this Commisaion
but rather land usej that management problems are very definitely in the
realm of considerat:on of the Commission, and that the code ia cl^ar with
reference to a conditional use permit, which states that the "size of the
area required for full development of such uses, the nature of the traffic
problems incidental to their operation, the effect ~uch uses may have on
adjoining land uses and on the growth and development of the +~rea in which
it is proposed to locate any such use or uses, that iti is impzactical and
detrimental to the peace, health, safety and qeneral welfare". Further,
that the nature of the activities affect this body and is within the realm
of the Commission's consideration. Further, that it is clear that during
the hearing the information that has been transmitted as far as size of crowds,
manner of use, activities, the pr.oposed use and continued use does not meet the
showing; does not meet the general health and welfare of the area. Mr. Farano
further stated that if Mr. Collins could get more parking, he would not solve
one problem if it is not adjacent to the subject propertys that crowd control
is difficult; manner o£ management; that crowd control b~comes more difficult
with this age group; the operation and seoaration from adjoining parking does
not make crowd control easier, and he will never be able to control it unless
he has his own police £orce equal to the size and capability of that which the'
City of Anaheim would supply or make available to accomplish that end.
Commissioner Herbst stated that in light of the present conditions and the
report from the Fire Department, although he was very well acquainted with
the problem and the fact that we now have an automobile for everyone who qoes
to a dance, he would recommend denial. If Mr. Collins can take care of the
additional parkiny to meet the code requirements and all regulations t~ hold
a public assembly, he can apply for a conditional use permit at that time,
however, on the recommendation of the Fire Department, this use should be
stopped immediately.
Commissioner Gauer stated that the City Council is the body'who has the power
to continue this operation from the standpoint of both Police and Fire Depart-
ments; that he does not believe there is anything wrong with the dance hall
use unless it becomes a nuisance to all the neighbors and caus~s hazards which
are not yoa3 for that area.
Commis~ioner Herbst o£fered Resolution No. PC72-35 and moved for its paseage
and adoption to de;1y Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1282. (See
Resolution Sook)
On roll :all the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer. Herbst, Kaywoud, Rowland, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. MARIO F. AND DIXIE L. SANCHEZ, 511 North
PERMIT N0. 1291 Hampton Street, Anaheim, California, Ownersj requesting
permission to ESTABLISH A CHILD DAY CARE NURSERY FOR SIX
CHILDREN IN CONJUNCTION hITH AN EXISTSNG RESIDENTIAL USE
on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a
frontage of approximately 60 feet on the west side of Hampton Street, having
a maximum depth of approximately 134 feet, and being located appro~,:imately
570 feet south of the centerline of Crescent Avenue, and further described as
511 North Hampton Street. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE.
Chairman Farano inquired if there was anyone present in opposition, and two
persons signified their presence.
Subject property is located on thz west side of Hampton Street, approximately
570 feet south of Crescent Avenue and is presently zoned R-1. Surrounding
land uses include single-family residential homes. The applicant is presently
utilizing the existing residence as a home and £or a child day care center.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 23, 1972 ~Z'~8
COND.T.TIONAL USE PERMIT_NO. i91 (Continued)
Mrs. Dixie L. Sanchez, 511 North Hampton Street, the petitioner, adv~:sed the
Commission she has been licensed by the State of California for day care
service in her homei that a 1200-square foot addition has been constructed
and a 15x30-foot patio has been installed, together with permanent play equip-
ment. Mrs. Sanchez advised she is now licensed for four pre-school aqe
children, 3 years old an3 up. Should the variance be granted, the State of
California will allow her to have 10 children in her home.
Mrs. Joyce Bergman, 514 xarcourt, Anaheim, appeared in opposition and presented
a letter in opposition. She stated that the neighbor next door to Mrs. Sanchez
offers a baby-sittinq service alsoj that when they suspect the social worker is
coming, thay switch children to each other so as not to have too many; that
foul language was used by children.
Mrs. Sanchez indicated that ehP never knows when a social worker is going to
drop in; that what her neighbor does should not affect her; that none of the
neighbors in the area closest to ner made any co~plaintst that a police officer
lived on the same street and she indioated any complaints to him, and she was
sure he would have let her know. Aer home is open to investigation at all times.
The hours are 6:30 a.m. until 6:00 p.m.; that she takes care of 3 children plus
4 of her own; that if granted the variance, she would be entitled to 3 more; and
that she is licensed for childre~i 3 years to 15, but prefers the pre-school age
child.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commission discussed whether "6" includes one's own children and the defi-
aition of child nursery which states that "a child nursery with 6 or more
children requires the approval of a conditional use permit".'
Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry indicated tha'_ one would not count one's own
children in determining the number, therefore, Mss. Sanchez was entitle3 to
6 in addition to her own children. However, it would appear that Mrs. Sanchez
could take 5 children and not need a conditional use permitt at which point
Mrs. Sanchez was advised she could withdraw her application for conditional use
permit since she indicated 5 would be satisfactory to her.
The Commission advised Mrs. SanchEZ that if further research by the City
Attorney's office resulted in another opinion that a conditional use permit was
needed, that readvertising would be done at no expense to her. However, the
$75 paid for the conditional use permit was not refundable.
Mrs. Sanchez withdrew her application.
Commissioner Seymour offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kaywood, to
withdraw Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1291. MOTION CARRIED.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HE?~RING. TONY JULIAN, 2780 West Lincoln Avenue,
PERMIT NO. 1292 Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting permission to SERVE
ON-SALE BEER IN A PROPOSED DINING ROOM IN CONJUNCTION WITH
AN EXISTING DELICATESSEN WITH WAIVER OF THE 3-FOOT LAND-
SCAPED SETBACK on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately .5 acre, having a frontage of app.roximately 100 feet
on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately
220 feet, and being located approximately 250 feet east of the centerline of
Dale Street and further described as 2778 [~est Lincoln Avenue. PrepeY:y
presently classified C-1, GEt~ERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
Chairmar. Farano inquired if anyone was present in the Council Chamber in
opposition aad received n~ response.
Subjc•ct property is located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, approximately
25G feat east of Dale Street and is presently zoned C-1. Surrounding land uses
include vacant C-1 proper.ty to the north aaross Lincoln Avenue, a mobilehoma
park to the east and south, and a single-family unit to the west in the C-1
Zone. The applicanL is proposing to construct a dining room addition to the
existing delicatessen on subject property and is requesting permission to serve
beer in conjunction with the propo3ed food service in the dining room; the
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 23, 1972 72-79
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1292 (Continued)
applicant's plans indicate the fleletion of the 3-foot landscape requirement
alonq Lincoln Avenue and the provision of 22 parking stallst 21 stalls would
be required. The exiating dwelling unit on subject property would remain ana
be usad as a residential structure.
Mr. Tony Julian, 2770 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, owner of the existing
delicateasen on the premises, was present to answer questions fur the
Commission.
in answer to questioning by the Commission, Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon
McDaniel answered that the pictures of exiating signs would indicate that the
signs meet Anaheim code.
Mr. Julian advised an existing lighted sign was 4 feet high, 10 feet longt the
smaller sign underneath was 2 feet high and 8 feet long; there is a wall siqn
and a sign on the front of the building.
In discussion, the Commission was advised that this particular sign did not
require a~ermit from the Building Division (refesring to the painted 7-Up sign
6 feet wide on the building); that if it were not in accordance with the
signing ordinance, it could be painted off.
Mr. Julian indicated he would comply with the sign ordinance.
Relative to the waiver for landscaping, Mr. Julian indicated the reason he was
asking for the waiver in the front of the building is that people driving into
the area and getting out of their cars would step into the lands~,a ng .~
was not possible to keep anything growing in it, it was an eyesore~iere w
be a planter across the front which would be more than 2$ of the parking area.
Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72-36 and moved for its passage
and ddoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1292, noting
that the applicant stipulated to landscaping as shown on the plans and that
signinq on the property will confo~m with the city ordi.nance. (See Resolution
Book)
On roll call the foregoinq resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSZONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Alired.
VARIANCE N0. 2331 - PUBLIC HEARING. MENASHA CONTAINER CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA~
Norm E. Koski, 601 East Ball Road, P.naheim, California,
Owner; raquesting WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED SIGN HEIGHT TO
CONSTRUCT A MONUMENT-TYPE, FREE-STANDZN~ SIGN on property described as: A
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 30 acres having
a frontage of approximately 1134 feet on the north side of Ball ttoad, having a
maximum depth of approximately 1398 feet, and 'oeing located between the Southern
Pacific Railroad right-of-way and the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad
right-of-way and further described as 601 East Ball Road. Property presently
classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE,
Chairman Farano inquired if anyone in the audience was in opposition and
received no response.
Subject property is located on the north side of Ball Road, east of Anaheim
Boulevard between the Southern Pacific Railroad riqht-of-way and the Atchison,
Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad riaht-of-way, and is presently zoned M-1. Surround-
inq lan& uses inclu8e vacant industrial propexty to the norths developed indus-
trial F.roperty to the east, south and west. Subject property was reclassified
to M-1 in 1952s the applicant is pzoPasing to conatruct a 5-foot high, free-
standing siqn which will contain approximately 80 square feet of area to be
located approximately 147 feet behind the ultimate right-of-way line of Ball
Road and in the approximate center of the frontage along Ba11.Road.
~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COrIMISSION, February 23, 1972 72'80
V-ARIA~NCE- ~NO-~., 2331 ~Continued)
Mr• ~~~~~~,~as~ -~~'-^-~for~ enasha Containers, 601 East Ball Road,
Anaheim, advised the Commiss on that the proposed sign would be 95 feet behind
the curb line and there would be no problem with traffic.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC72-37 and moved for its passage
and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2::31. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Sey~our.
NOES: COMMISSIONE~CS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred.
Gommissioner Rowland left the Council Chamber at 5:30 p.m.
VARIANCE NO. 2334 - PUBLIC HEARING. KEYSTONE SAVINGS & LOAN. 14011 Beach
$oulevard, Westminster, California, Owner; ARTAUR L.
OSOWSKI, Green Mansion, Inc., 551 North Euclid Street,
Anaheim, Califorx~ia, Agent; reques~ing WAIVER OF PERMITTED SIGNS TO PERMIT A
FREE-STANDING SIGN IN THE C-O ZONE on property described as: An irregularly-
shaped parcel of land bounded on the east by Euclid Street, on the north by
Crescent Avenue, and on tr~e west by Fairhaven Street, having a maximum depth
of approximately 280 feet and further described as 551 North Euclid Street.
Property presently classified C-O, COMMERCIAL OFFZCE, ZONE.
Commissioner Farano inquired if anyone was present in the CounciZ Chamber in
oppo~ition and received no reply.
Subject property is located at the southwest corner of Crescent Avenue and
Euclid Street and is presently zoned C-O and developed with an office building.
Surrounding lan3 es~include a shopping center and restaurant to the north
across Crescent ...anue, a reyional shopping center to the east across Euclid
Street, an office building and single-family ur.its to the south, and sinqle-
family dwelling units to the west across Fairhaven Street. The applicant is
proposing to construct a 24-square foot., 10-foot high, free-standing sign
along the Euclid Street frontage.
Mr. Arthur Osuwski, 9531 Bryn Mar Drive, Villa Park, applicant, advised that
the existing sign on the south wall is to be removed; that the height of the
free-standing sign could not be more than 7~S feet because it.is only 7 feet,
4 inches to the. underside of the existing sign and to the un3erside of the
overhang it is 8 feet, 9 inchesr that the variance ia for the'free-standing
sign, and it is difficult for people to recognize the business, from the park-
ing lot and driving north and south.
Mr. Osowski advised the Commission that he had endeavored to get part of the
sign from Keystone Savings & Loan Association and the owaers (but he was
denied permission). There is a free-standing sign on the property on Crescent
which was established prior to the ordinance and would now provide for another
free-standing sign within 300 feet of an existing free-standing sign.
Commissioner Seymour noted that the major tenant does not provide for people
who lease some of the premises, and the major tenant takes up all the signing
available.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72-38 and moved for its passage
and adoption to deny Petition for Varianr.e No. 2334, stating that to allow the
petitioner this variance would be extend3ng a privilege that has been denied
others; that the Commission has a policy in thi.s regard, and the major tenant
could give the applicant sign privileges as one sign should state all tenants
in thc building. (See Resolution Sook)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSZONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: N~ne.
ABSENT: COMMZSSIONERS: Allred, Rowland.
• 9- ~ •
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Februar^ 23, 1972 ~2-81
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. CLARENCE WAGNEk, 622 South Sunklst Street,
NO. 71-72-31 Anaheim, California, Owner; ANN T. MADZSON, 600 South
Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Agents property
VARIANCE NO. 2333 described as: An L-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 7.8 acres having a frontage of approximately
TENTATIVE MAP OF 422 feet on the east side of Sunkist Street, having a
TRACT N0. 7754 maximum depth of approximately 636 feet and being located
approximately 910 feet south of the centerline of South
Street. Property presently cla~sified R-A, AGRICULTURAL,
20NE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFIC ATION: R-1~ ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF (1) MINIMUM LOT WIDTH, (2) MINIMUM FRONT
SETBACK, (3) MAXIMUM PERMITTED WALL HEIGHT TO
ESTABLISH A 33-LOT~ R-1 SUBDIVISION.
TENTATIVE TRACT A~Q UEST: DEVELOPER: ADAM GITTELSON, 272 South Rexford Drive,
Beverly Hills, California. ENGINEER: ANACAL
ENGINEERING COMPANY, 222 East Lincoln Avenue,
Anaheim, California. Subject property is proposed
to be subdivided into 33 R-1 zoned lots.
Chairman Farano advised that the applicant had requested a continuance for two
weeks, until March 6, 1972.
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to
continue Petitions for Reclassification No. 71-72-31 and Variance No. 2333
and Tentative Map of Tract No. 7754 to the meeting of March 6, 1972. MOTION
CARRIED.
REPORTS AND ~ ITEM NO. 1
RECOMMENDATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1262 (Kampgrounds of
America, Inc.) - Request for approval of revised
plans.
Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel advised the Commission a request had
been received £rom the petitioner for approval of rev±sed plans for Conditional
Use Permit No. 1262. Subject property is located at the southwest corner of
Ball Road and West Street and was approved by the Planning Commission on
October 4, 1971, for a 221-space travel traile~ park for recreational vehiclea,
which action was sustained by the City Council on October 26, 1971. The previ-
ous plan indicated 110 spaces of 600-620 square feet; the present revision also
proposes an identical number of spaces exceeding the 800 square feet require-
ment. The major difference between the proposed revision and the plan original-
ly approved is that accass to the 60-degree angle spaces is provided by 20-foot
driveways rather than the 25-foot drivewaysf however, the proposed plans comply
with the minimum requirement for corner cut-offs, thus permitti_ng adequate
access to all stalls. Previous plans provided for distribution of trash areas
at convenient locations throughout the park; the revision provides for trash
bins near the central recreation area. The Streets and Sanitation Division has
indir.ated that this is satisfactory due to the proposed method of management
trash pick-up. Tn other respects, the plans are substantially the same as those
previously approied.
Commissioner Se~•mour offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to
approre revised plans submitted in connection with Conditional Use Permit Na.
1262. MOTION CARRIED. ~Commissioners Allred and Rowland were absent.)
ITEM NO. 2
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1240 (Charles and Phyllis
Eichler) - Request for an extension of time.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel advised the Commission ihat a request
had been rece-ved from the petitioner for an extension of time. Subject
property is '_~cated on the south side of Orange Avenue, approximately 427 feet
west of Western Avenue. The request is for a one-year extension of time in
order to select another building contractor, obtain materials, and complete
construction. The subject conditional use permit, permitting the establishment
of a nursery school in an existing single-family residence, was approved on
J~ine 27, 1971, subject to conditions, but the use has not commenced as yet.
There have been no previous ex~ensions of time requested.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 23, 1972 72-82
ITEM NO. 2 (Continued)
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to grant an extension of time, to expire
Decembes 28, 1972, for Conditional Use Permit No. 1240, seconded by Commissioner
Kaywood, and MOTION CARRI~D. ~Commissioners Allred and Rowland were absent.)
REPORTS AND - ITEM NO. 3
RECOMMENDATIONS RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-30~ VARIANCE NO. 2327~
AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS. 7617, 7730 THROUGH
7739`- i.c+quest for approval of revised plans.''
Assistant Zoning Super•visor pon McDaniel presented the proposal of the devel-
oper, noting that the only siqnificant change in the plans was the drainage
channel that previously was above ground is now in a pipe under the groundt
that from a land planning standpoint, the only significant change was the
elimination of the four side-on lots.
Commissioner Herbst stated that one of the main reasons for denial of this
reclassification, variance and tentative maps was the density; that he was
concerned about the 5000 square foot lotst and that the Commission had not
recommended approval of any 5000 ~auaze foot lots south of the Riverside
Freeway.
In discussion, the Commission noted that in addition to its recommendation
for denial of the R-2-5000, they had recommended approval of R-1 zoningt that
although the side-on lots were considered undesirable, that they had not been
the reason for the recommended denial.
Commissioner Herbst stated the Commissior. should recommend to the City Council
that the Planning Commission still determines the density too heavy, and still
recommends subject property to be developed to R-1 density.
Commissioner Kapwood further added that the Commission had taken a field tsip
on February 23, 1972, viewed various R-2-5000 developments throughout the city
and could Eird nothing to recommend them in any way; that particularly where
there were large homes on the lots that they have created problems, and to go
into a virgin territory and to create such a problem without any reason, rhyme,
or hardship whatsoever is to create a potential slum in the city.
Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to deny
the revised plans. MOTiON CARRIED. (Commissioners Rowland and Alired were
absent)
ITEM NO. 4
ORAN~E COUNTY USE PERMIT 3248 - Request to permit the
establ:shment of a model home complex, temporary sales
office and siqns in connec.tion therewith for a period
of two years for first sale of dwellings in Tract 7413
in the R2 (2.000) (Conditional) "Group Dwellings"
District.
Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon MeDaniel presented the Orange County Uae Permit
3246, noting the location of the property as being on the east side of Fairmont
Boulevard approximately 250 feet north of Esperanza Road, in the southeast Yoiba
Linda area, and that the Orange County Planning Commission would conduct a publi
hearing on March 2, 1972, to consider the eubject request.
Ir. discus~ion, the Commission noted that the City of Anaheim does n~~t issue
permits to allow off-site tracts advertising signs for tracts in aitjacent cities
or in county territory.
Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the
Orange County Planning Commission be advised that the City of Anaheim has no
objection with the proposed use as it would generally conform to the land uses
permitted in Anaheim's immediate areas however the developers should be advised
that the City of Anaheim would not allow off-site signing within the city to
advertise this complex in caunty territory. Commissioner Gauer seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED. (Commissioners Allred and Rowland were absent.)
•
r
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 23, 1972 ~2-83
ITEM N0. 5
ORANGE COUNTY CHANGE OF ZONE 69-2? - Initiated by the
Oranqe County Planninq Commission, proposing that five
parcels of land comprising 18 acres Iocated on the south
side of Santa Ana Canyon Road approximately twa miles
east of Imperial Highway be rezoned from 80-AR-10,000
"Agricultural Residential" and 100-C-1-10,000 "Loca;
Business" Districts, to County CH/35 "Commercial
Highway" Distric~.
assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson briefed the C:••-!.s•;..
on the past actions o£ this zoning case, noting that when it was pre!~~~~ t',-
heard before the Orange County Planning Commission that both the Anahr:_:. :.,~
Council and Anaheim Planning Commission had recommended that it be denieu,
however, it was never heard by the Orange County Board of Supervisors due to
access problems. Since 2~ years had elapsed since Anaheim's recommendation,
Supervisor Ralph Clark felt it should be referred back to the City of Anahe.im
for consideration at this time.
At the time th~s case was heard before the Orange County P1?nning Commission
they were informed by the applicants that the City of Anaheiu~ had granted
commercial zoning on adjacent properties and the applicants further advised
the Oranqe County Planning Commission they could not understand why the city
had granted commercial zoning on t:hese properties and were recommending denial
of commercial zoning cn their prop..rties. It should be noted that-none of
this property is in the City of Anaheim and that any commercial zoning in this
area has been approved by the County o.f Ozange. The total commercial acreage
within the imu~ediate area of ZC 69-29 would comprise some 19 acres and in trie
previous opinion of the Commission and Council, it would constitute strip
zoning that would create acce~s probl.ams as wQil as being deleterious to the
surroundisg land uses since the Ana:ieim General Plan depicts a need for only
3.5 to 5 acres of neighborhood coma~ercial. ---- -_ . _ -,- .---
Coemissioner Seymour offere8 a motion, seconwad by Commissioner Herbst, to
recommend to the City Council that the Hoard of Supervisors be forwarded a
letter and the record be corrected to indicate it was not the City of Anaheim
who had granted zoning on properties within this area but Orange County; and
that the City of Anaheim reiterates its or?qinal position that the propoaed
zoning be denied. Motior. carried. (Commissioners Allred and Rowland were
absent.)
The Commission discussed holding a joint meeting with the City Council on
Monday, February 28, 1972. in the Council Chamber for the purpose of reviewing
the R-2-5000 2one, and requested a letter be addressed from the Anaheim
P].anning Commission to the City Council.
ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner
Kaywood offered a motion to recess the meeting until
7:00 p.m., Febraary 28. 1972, seconded by Commissioner
Seymour, and MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~~~C.~ ~.iCiti't./ "2'~R'~
t~
Lee Burgess, S retary pro tem
Anaheim City Planning Commission
LB:hm
O R r, O MICROfILMING SERVICE, INC.
101G Lacy F.e 776~3220
An:~ne~m. C.~;,torn~a