Loading...
Minutes-PC 1965/09/13City Hall Anaheim, California September 13, 1965 A REGULAR MEETING OF TI-IE ANAI-IEI~d CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mungali at 2:00 P.M., a quorum being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Mungall. '~ - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland. ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Perry. PRESENT - Zoning Supervisor: Robert Mickelson Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts Office Engineer: Arthur Daw Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs -. Planning Department Stenographer: Carolyn Grosg INVOCATION - RevErend Darman Buttram, Pastor of the Town Church Assembly of God, gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Gauer led the pledge of allegiance to the flag. APPROVAL OF TI-]E MINUTES - The Minutes of the meeting of August 30, 1965, were approved as submittedo i~~ !i ~~ :~ CUNDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. CITY OF ANAI-IEIM STADIUM, INCORPORATED, 125-D South PERMIT N0. 750 Claudina Street, Anaheim, California, Leaseholder; LEONARD SMITH, PRESIDENT, CITY OF ANAI-~IM STADIUM, INCORPORATED, 125-D South Claudina Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH ~ A MULTI-PURPOSE STADIUM FOR AThII.ETIC AND OTI-1ER ENTERTAINMENTS, TOGETI-IER WITH RELATED USES TO SERVE SAID STADIUM, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED T0, THE SALE OF FOOD, ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, AND OT!1ER MERCHANDISE, on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of Zand of approximately 134 acres, with frontages of approximately 1,410 feet on the east side of State College Boulevard, and approximately 1,300 feet on the south side of Katella Avenue, the northern boundary of subject property coinciding with the southern boundary of the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way, and further described as the Anaheim Stadium site. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Mro Leonard Smith, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated he was available to answer questions, since the requzsted use was already under constructiono No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE I-~ARING WAS CLOSEll. ,a . Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 1764, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage ~ and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 750, unconditionally. (See Resolution Booka) On roll call the foregoinj resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowlancl. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Perry. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC !-IEARING. WALT DISNEY PRODUCTIONS, 500 South Buena Vistz Street, PERMIT N0. 752 Burbank, California, Owner; WRATI-fER HOTELS, INCORPORATED, 270 North Canon Drive, Beverly Hills, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A ONE-STORY ADDITION TO COFFEE SHOP AND A NEW HOTEL SERVICE BUILDIPIG, INCLUDING RETAIL SHOPS, on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land of approximately 28 acres located at the southwest corner of Cerritos Avenue and West Street, with frontages of approximately 1,260 feet on Cerritos Avenue and approximately 1,260 feet on West Street, and further described as 1441 South West Street. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZOi.E. _~~~p_ , ~ ~_..~ , ---- ---- .___ . _,: . _... __ . . ,., _ ._. ' ~ T ' -_ 5~.:~."'°.: : f'~~. , . F MINUTES, C7TY PLANDIING C~MMISSION, September 13, i965 2;21 R: ~:~8'~ CONDITIONAL USE - Mr, Ho R. Harrison, attorney for the agent for the petitioner, appeared PERNIT NOe 752 before the Commission and stated he was available to answer questions (Continued) since, in his estimation, the petition was self-explanatoryo Zoning Supervisor Robert Mickelson advised the Commission a letter of approval had been received from the property owner of the multiple-family development to the west of subject property. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE I-~ARING WAS CLOSEDo Commissioner Camp entered the Council Chamber at 2:10 P.M, Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 1765, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Perr.:it Noa 752, subject to conditionso (See Resolu':ion Book,) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed ty the following vote: , AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland~ Mungalle NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENT: COMMISSIONeRS: Perry. ABSTAIN: COMA7ISSIONERS: Campa CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC (-~ARINGe LEO FREEDMAN, Lessee, 2018 Coldwater Canyon PERMIT NOo 735 Drive, Beverly Hills, California; 0. L. CHANDLER, 901 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Caliiornia, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A 22-STORY, HIGH-RISE OFFICE BUILDING on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land located at the southwest corner of Freedman Way and Manchester Avenue, with frontages of approximately 230 feet on Freedman Way, approximately 447 feet on Manchester Avenue, and approximately 201 feet on Haster Streeto Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE, Subject petition was continued from the meetings of August 16 and 30, 1965, to allow the petitioner time to submit development plans, and at the reGu,est of the lessee, ~ Mr, Byron Gitron, represen±in9 the le=_see, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the revised plans, noting that instead of 22 stories oriyinally proposed, the plans now indicated i8 stories; that his client was aware that the Commercial-Recreation Height S:andard Guide- line indicated any structure being proposed for the location indicated on the plans would permit a height of 220 feet, whereas it was proposeo to build 234 feet, and since subject property was nearer the edge of the 220-foot baL•nd:ry, it was felt the Commission mig5t grant this'slight deviationo Zoning Super:isor Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that as nEa~ as the Staff could determine, the height plane should be 202 feet, subject to final grade level and setback; that there was no indicati.on in the plans which could guide the Staff, and the percentage of difference calculated by the Staff might be over, depending upon the final ~radeo Mr. Citron stated the plans were drawn to maximum because the property sloped off near the Manchester Avenue side to a~proximately 220 feet, but it was quite possible the structure would measure more than 200 to 205 feet~ ;I ~ Mi, Mickelson stated that the northwest corner in relationship to Disneyland was 200 feet, ~~ whereas the southeast corner of subject property was perhaps 235 to 240 feet, and since ~ j there was a considerable difference, the exact height could not be dEtermined unless the • ~ exact location of the structure was indicated. f, j '' In response to Commission questioning, Mr. Freedman stated a si n was be located between the two towers but would not 9 Proposed which would ~. ~ project above the tcwers, and would be similar in appearance to the Crest Hotel sign. ~~ Discussion wa: the~ held by the Commission relative to the difference in the number of ?• proposed parking spaces which was dependent upon whether the structure woold be utilized ,'.~~ ~ gional offices or if ;` for corporate headquarters or re , general offices were proposed, since there would be more local traffic with general offices than corporate officese :a , '~ ~dro Citron then stated he did not thiiik the parking requirements would be as high as '~ - , !; indicated on the report to the Commission. and the parking structure proposed could be * increased b, an additional story if the Commission required it. 'y~ "ax ~ MINUTES, CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION, September 13, 1965 2722 CONDITI~NAL USE - A letter from Disneyland regarding the proposed height was read to the PERMIT N0~ 735 Commission., (Continued Mr, John Wise, representing Walt Fo Disney Enterprises, appeared before the Commission and stated he did ~iot have time to view i,he plans to determine the location of the str~ctLZe, but from ~iiscussion held by the Commissior,. the i petitioner, and the Staff, the proposed s;:ructure miqht well be 34 feet cvei• the m~r.imum allowed in the Commercial-Recreation Hp?ght S;,andard Guideline;that it w.as his understand- ing that when the City adopted the guideline a•y..ar ago, the height ~iandard was on~y 35 feet, and the petitione~ was now proposing a devia;.ion from the guideline of 34 feet ove~: the , maximum permitted, a considerable increase to that which could be approved a year ago; and - furiher, that it was his understanding the height standard o~idr:line would be *e~•resenting .--~~~ the maximum permitted in the area and inquired when the height ii~trusion wou"i: er~99 since # , it was becoming quite expensive to plant ~<~nds~aring screen to the east an: eouth c:f ~<`.he park~ and plans were drawn to meet the permitted neights of the guideline stands-•4 t~~ tl~ck ~I~ out any outside intrusion into the Disney3and pa_•ke , Mr~ Wise also stated it was his understan~l.:.aq that any de~•eiopment of the freew~~., frcntage ~ properties was continge~t upon tt~e use being Estabiisn?c :c° national 3nd interiiacional headquarters, and, in his opin~on, the pror~os~o ~+ructure would be a deviation ~rc~ 'ne ' _ Commercial-Recreation Area poiicy a.op;ed by tnE C~,imission and Cit;• Coun~ilo ~ Mro Freedman stated it was his opi.iion that it was not the intent of tl~e statemerit in the policy for the establishment of offices along the freew~y fro~.tages to be ~orporate or regional offices onlyo The Commission then explained the basis for limiting offic,e use alon9 the :reeway properties, noting that when offices were used for corporate or national headquarters offices, there would be little commercial traffic injected into the Commercial-Reci•eation Area other. ~;an in the morni.ng and around 5:00 A,M,; that general commercial offices would have a fiaw af traffic all through the day, and sir:c~ a tra:fic problem already existed i.n the Commerciai-Recreation Area, it was necessary to limit the commercial office-type structures on the freeway front- ages in the Commercial-Recreation Areao Mr> Freedman stated that the Casualty Insurance Company had the County offices c~f the Chamber of Commerce ir. their structure and indicated the Casualty Insurance Company ~vould ; rent to anyone< _ It was also noted by Mro Freedman a visual ir.trusion existed with the Disneyland Hrtel, as well as several of thr features of Disneyland iiself, and if the representatives of Gisney- land were interested ir. meeting ~nd o=tting answEr~ regarding thE proposed project. he would be glad to talk with themo The Commission advised Mro F^eedm.~n that as -~ result of height studies when the Uisneyland Notei request originally came in, they were required t, reduce ±he strt:ture considerably; '• that Disneyland had planted :andscaping which now almost covered ~ny intrusion of the hotel y sign; that other cities also had similar height :imitations; and that a hot~l proposed for ~ the northeast corner of Ball Road and West S+.ree' •rva; required to reduce fro~:~ 22 stories to 15 stories~ 4 ~ TE-~ F~ARING WAS CLOSEDo Mr~ Mickelson advised the Commission that a statement tie had roade previously regarding t~ie height guideline was in error, and instead of a 230-240 ieet range, he shouid have stated a ' 200-225 feet range when compared to the guideline, i Commissioner Camp stated he wished to clarify for both Disneyland representatives and the ~ petitioner that when the Commercial-Recreation policy referi•ed to "nati~nal hea~qua:ters" ~ or "regional offices", it did not necessarily mean a specific 21I~51 had Lo apFiy and k~~ild the structure, but that the commercial office buildin9s should be occupied substariti.ally in part by headquarters and regional offices. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Nco 1762, Series 1965-66, anc? ~•~oved fr_: its passage and adoptior.. seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petitinn foi• Co:.ditional 'l~e °ermit Noa 735, subject to compliance with the height standard guidel~ne which shail r.ot vary more than 5% from the recommended height for a structure on subject p:•operty, and conditions~ ,, (See Resolution Booko) ; Considerable discussion was held between the Commission and the Staff relative to administer- , ing the approved height limitation, since the department had adhered to the height. standards and did not allow themselves to approve anything which deviated from the adopted guidElineo *' ~ ~ I MINUTES, CIT'Y P~ANNiNG COMMISSION, September 13, 1965 2723 CONDITiONAL l~aE - Mre Mickelson also asked the Commission to stipulate the exact height PERMIT NU~ ?~g +~oy had granted. (Continn~.d )w i~ .•esponse to Commission questioning as to whether or not the proposed structure could be placed on subject property ~nd still comply with the hright r.<Laic.ard yuideline, Mr, Mickelson stated it could be pl.aced on the prope~rty. tut noi i=, t,hc? ex~ct spot where the petitioner proposed, and tha± the Staff ha;i never concerned t'rar.~sr:ves on the height of any tuilding but what height was permissible from the finish~~d grade ?;v~>1 in the Comme:cial-Re;,,•eation A~ea since the R-A Zone p~.rmitted only 35 feet, t.he he:i;!it standard guide~ine perm:tted 75 ;c~t, and that any de~iation from the 75 feet would be requested in a waiver thzr~gh a petitiona n ~T : Commi.:;sioner Rowland then amended his mution ±t, SL~LE 'CFtui t. in auy s~ he p::~opo;ed structure, inciud- 9 gns, penthouses, and materials to s:,i•,!o tro;n vie~v auy aircor.~it_.aning facilities ~a ~:h~e roof of th:.+ struc.iuie, shall ne construci.~~ so ~ e ~ot to exceed the m.~::im~;:n height ~`, pP*suitted in the Commer:.ial-Aecreation Height Standard Guideline established a;+ nolicr ~y the C,ommission and City C;ouncii for subject property; furthe~r, that a finding be rt:a~Q ~;,~t the r~roposed use of the structure ce~ld be classi'ied as meeting the Commercial-Rer:rea::,,n Are:a policy for office~ tuildin,s along the freewa} frontage, a~d that the 620 parkinc ~paces pror~osej was deemed to be adequate `or the proposeo u~eo ^~' On roll call the forega'ng resolution was passed by tt,e foll~wing voie: !iYES: COMMISSIONERS• Allred, C:.mp, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Mungalla NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~ ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS: Perryo COND?TT;;n..!, USE - PL'nLI~ f~ARINGo LEO FkEEDMtiid, 2018 Ccldwster Canyon brive, c'everiy Hills, PERMIT t•l~o 755 California, Owner~ BYRON Co CITRON, 612fJ West 6th O1.reet, Los Angeles, Califc;;iia, Agent3 requesting nermissi~n to ESTABL_;H FIVE T}iREE-ETORY HOTEL 9UiLDINGS WITH RESTAURANT on •~ronerty described as: A rec:tangularly shaped parcel of land 505 feet by 974 feet tr size ~nd cor~taining approximately ll05 acres, the ~Nestern boundary of said property being apprc;;im~i~ly 660 feet east of the centerline of ~farh~r Boulevard, and the southern boundary o: said property being approximately 205 feet ~i~>i;h of the centerline of Freedman Way, ar,d further described as Noo 11 Freedman Wayo ,~' Yr~,~ert r_ ,. y pxesently classirieu , ~~, p(,RICI,!.TURAL, ZONEa _g~: Mro Ayron Citron, agent for the petiti~inery appea:ad before the Gommissicn and noted it was propcsed to have 250 ad~itional rooms to the existing hotel, and the proposed addition would ; be in the form of five three-story si.:UCi.~r{'S in an "I" shape, seporated from the existing i hotel by a 10-foot space, and that ti:e excess parkiny would be avai.table for use on Parcel B, in r.eviewing the proposed ree~:urant, ~+,~•. Citron stated all disposal P3C'.li.*.ies would be below the groundy not visible, and nould be lifted by hoist to the disposal t~~ckse P?ans were re•~iewed by the Commission~ No one appeared in opp~~ition to su~je~.i. peti;.io-,> I~ TE'.~ I-~ARING WAS CLr;;EDa Comm;ssioner Allred offered P,2;oiution No, 1763, Series 1965-66, and mo~:ed for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to gre~t Petition for C,;nditional Use Perm~t No~ 755, subject to conditionso (See Resolution Book~) ~ On roll call the foreooing resolution was pz;.,ed by the following vcte: ,~i AYES: CO!:~MISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Mungallo ~ NOES: COMMISSIONEF.S: Nonea A13SEIJT: COMMISSIONERS: Perry~ ~) ~ ~ ' VARIANCE_N0~ 1733 - FUBLIC HEARINGo RICHARD C~ PRICE, 12545 Elmview Drive, Riverside, California, and/or WILLIAM Le PRICE, 1045 Sierra Madre Villa, Pasadena, California, Owners; requesting WAIVER OF REQUIRED DEDICATED SI'REET ~~ FRONTAGE FOR ~IVISION OF LAND~ Pxoperty described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land 4~ c:i approximately 303 acres, the northeasternmost point of subject ~ distance of approximately 290 feet from the centerline of Peralta Hi1lsrDriveengPropertyum ti~i _ prasently ciassified R-E, RESIDENTIAL ESTATE, ZONE, ' ~, f ~+ „~tt MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Septembex~ 13, 1965 2~2q VARIANCE NG~ 1733 ~ Mr. Richard Price, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission (Continued) end reGuested consideration of a two-week continuance in order to resolve problems with •~he Development Services Department~ Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to continue considera''~n of Petition for Variance Noo 1733 to the meeting of Septembez• 27, 1965, in order to resolve problems which had arisen regarding the division af subject propertyo Commissioner Camp seconded the motion~ MOTION CARRIED~ CONDITIONAL USE - PiJBLIC HEARING~ JOHN J~ K,~~WIN, JRo AND JFAMNE M~ KERWIN, 2007 Vista ~ - PERMIT N0~ 753_ Cajon, Newport Beach, ~alifornia, Owners; R~VEREND ARTHUR N~ RAMEY, -~-~~ 544 South Eider Street, Anahrim, California, Agen~; requesting permission ~ to ESTABLISH R ~~1ISSION IN AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUC:TURE WITH WAIVER ~~ ' OF REQUIRED PARKING AREA S?;,NDARDS AND REQUIRED NUMBER OF SPACES on property dec.cribed as: I. A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 111 feet on the south side of South Street and a depth ~f approximately 159 feet, the northeast corner of subject property being approximateiy 250 feet west of the centerline of State College Boulevard, and ~ further described as 1906 East South Street~ Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ' ZONE~ 1 ~. Mr, Pzter Fox, represent:ng the agent for the petitioner, appeared beFore the Commission and • stated it was their intent to establish a tempor3ry meeting place; that the total land was insufficient to construct a permanent structure; and that if the Commission desireci, gravel v.~.;id be placed in the parking areas~ In response to Commission questioning, Mr~ Fox stated it was their intent to occupy the proposed structure as a mission fo* two years; that t:~e area in the f:ont was pr?sently covered with grass and a sma~l grove existed to the rear, which trees would have to be removed to provide adequate parking Mrs, Jear~ne Kerwin, one of t.he petitioners, stated the grass was heavy turf, and with water- ing would revive and become a lawn again; ttiat a chainlink fence existed along the west , property line and was heavily landscaped with a hedge; and that ttie east and south property :ine=_ were commerciaily zened, ;~ N1r, Fox continuec, in response io Commission questioningY that at th:r present time there _,i. were 13 to 15 famiiies, and the past Sunday service had 73 persons in attendance, including children~ ~~ Mr, George Hunt of Torrance, Chairman of the Mission Church, appeared before the Commi,sion ~ and st3ted it had been found from past experience that missions outgrew their faciliti=~s i within two years because of the ir,crease in membe~ship; that it became necessary to construct an adequate; permanent facility for the church; and that his oiganization would be financially ~ responsibie for the program of the pi•oposed mission. No one appeared in opposition to sutject petition TF~ HEARING WAS CLOSED ~ Discussion was held by the Commission reiative to utilization of the turf-covered lawn :or parking purposes - whether this would te adequate ~- one Commissione: noting that the City was presently ~sing a similar type of temporary parking facility adjacent to the Anaheim~- Fullerton Courthouse facilities~ Zoning Supervisor Robert Atickelson advised the Commission that a similar situation occurred in the City at the Union Hall which rarely had an overflow in iheir parking area, ano by a ~ signed agreement r+ith the representatives of the uniony :f a nuisance by reason of dust i existed, they a~reed to oil or use other materials to reduce the dust~ Mrs, Jeanne Kerwin again appeared before the Commission and stated that campers and trailers were parked on the rear property, and it was never difficlilt for them to drive out, even in x•ainy weather, because the composition of the ground was such that it never became muddy> Continued discussion by the Commission was held, and it was noted that it would be a pre- requisite to approving subject petition that in the event a nuisance existed by reason of the dust, the petitioner would be re~uired to gravel, blacktop, oil or use chemicals to redur,e the dust nuisance in the parking area~ , ~ C~mmissioner Rowland offered Resolution No, 1766, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage ~ and ador~io~~, sPCOnded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noa 753, subject to the requirement that if the parking area became a nuisance by reason ~ of dust, that the petitioner gravel, blacktop, oil or use chemicals to red~ce the dust nuisance; further, that the use be permitted for a period of two years, and upon expiration ~ . MI[JU1ESy CITY PLANNING COMN:SSION, September 13, 1965 272g ~': ~~~ ~~~ ' CONDITIONAL USE - if it was necessary for z time extension~ the petitioner make his request PERMIT N0~ 753 known to ttie Commission> (See Resolution Booko) (Co~tinued) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CGMMISSIONERS: Ailred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Munga119 Rowlando ~OES: COMMTSSION~RS: None~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Perry, CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HcAI~ING~ JOF~J B~ PENNINO, BERNARD PENNINO, JOS~PHINE PENNINO, PERMIT NOo 757 AND LORc~AINE C~ LA SORELLA, 7429 Via Amorita, Downey, California, Owners; COMA~RCIAL PROPERTIES REALTY, i7061 East 17th Street, Suite 6, Santa Ana, California, Aqent; requesting permission tc ESTABLISH AN AUTOMATIC CAR WASH WITH WAIVER OF LOCATION REQUIREMENT FOR A FREE-STANDING SIGN, on property described as: A rectan9ularly shaped parcel of iand with a frontage of approximately 228 feet on the south side of Katella Avenue, the western boundary of said property being approximately 890 feet east of the centerline of Haruor Boulevar.d~ Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONEo . Mr~ John Pennino, one of the property owners, appeared before the Commission and stated that an analysis of the Commercial-Recreation A;ea indicated an automatic car wash service was not available to visitors, ar~d that Mr-, Harvey Miller, present operator of an automatic car wash in Garuen Grove, was the !rost approDriate person to handle the proposed automatic car wash, and M•r~ Miller was availabie to answer any tecf~nical questions the Commission might have, Ntr~ °ennino also p~esented a letter f:om the owners of the Little Boy Motel located within approximately 100 feet of subject propertyy indicating their approval of the proposed use, Mr~ ciarvey Miller, 13220 tiarbor Bouievard, Garden Grovey appeared before the Commission and reviewed tne proposed structure, noting a large rendering was being submitted to the Commission for their review; t!~at the development would be a prefabricated building w:th a stone front and metal canooies; that the hours would be from 8:30 A,M~ to 6:00 PoM~seven days a week, and all activity would completely cease by 6:30 PoM~; that the structure was so oriented that the ~ noises would project to Katella Avenue to reduce any ~ossibie noises to the motels on either ; side of subject property; that no automotive service was propose~, other than the sale of _, gasoline if the owners of the cars being washed so desired their gas tanks be filled; that - only one main d:ive was baing proposed; that the washing of 25 cars per hour would be the average for week days, with doubie the output on S=_turdays and Sundays; that the flow of traffic would not be detrimental to traffic along Katella Avenue; and that although 22 park- ing s~alls were indicated, there ~~ould never be more than three to four customers on the lot at one time - this would require the automobile owners to remain on the premises until the cars were washed~ Mr, Miller then reviewed the request for the waiver of the free-standing sign, stating it was necessary because only one drive was proposed, and a sign was needed to indxcate where the entrance to the car wash was located; further, ±;~at indications from several motel owners in the area, upor a personal check, were that the proposed service was a necessity in the Commercial-Recreation Area~ it was also noted by Mr, Miiler that since the automatic car wash was a prefabricated structure, it could be readily removed without being demolished and relocatea in another area, at such time a~ the property owners decided on a more intense use o! L~> property~ Mro Grant McDermott9 owner of the property adjacent to s:bject property, requested a stipu- lztion be made by the petitioner that noises would not emanate from the operation be',Neen the hours of 8:00 P.Mo and 8:00 N,Ma E~~~ Mro Miller then stipulated to the Commission the hours of operation would be 8:30 A~M~ to 6:00 P,M~ THE (-IEARING WAS CLOSL-D~ Com^:issioner Herbst offered Resolution Noo 1767, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Nn, 757, subject to waiver of the location of a free-standing sign, the stipulation of the petitioner that hours of opera~ion would be 8:30 A~M, to 6:00 P,Mo, and conditions~ (See Resolution Book~) _ On roll call the foregoi~.~ resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ AYES: COMMISSIONER~: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Mungallo rtx NOES: COMMISSi:1NERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Perry~ F MINUTESY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September i33 1965 2726 ~ ~ •~~ ~~~ F CONDITIONAL USE -• PtJBLIC 1-~ARING, DINKLER MANAGEA~NT CORPORATIONy 201 East 42nd Street, ?ERMIT N0~ 754 New York 1?, New York, Owner; CHARLES BOXENBAUM, 9350 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hil.ls, Californiay Agent; requesting permissicn to ESTABLISH A SERVICE S:ATION AT THE INTERSECTION OF AN ARTERIAL AND A LOCAL STREET WITHIN 75 FEET OF A RE~TDEN?IAL. STRJCTURE IN THE R-A ZONE, WITH WAIVERS OF: (1) REQUIRED 6-FOOT 'rVALI. BEIYVEEN C-1 AND R•-A ZONES; (2) NUhBER OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS; (3) HEIGHT OF A FREE-STANDING SIGNy (4) LOCATION OF A FR@E•-;;TANDING SIGN; AND (5) DISTANCE BEIYJEEP7 A FREE- STANL~ING SIGN AND A ROOF SIGN, on property described ~s: A rectangul~:ly shaped parcel of land located at tne southwest corner of Euclid 5treet and Gienoaks Nvenue, with frontages of approximately 135 feet on Euclid ~treet and approximately 150 feet on Glenoaks Avenue~ Property piesently classified C•-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE~ Mx~ Charles Boxenb3um, agent for the petitionery appeared before tt~: Commission and stated the adjoining proper±y owner to the south having the R-A parcel had vacated the property and moved to Pa1m Sp*ings and had signed a lessee for a pe~iod of 65 years, proposing to operate a restaurant, and that the petitionez was proposing to construct a Shell service station on subiect p:opert~., In response to Commissicin questioning, Mr, Ted Moriarty, representing the Shell Oil Company, appeared before the Comnission and s±ated the single sign permitted by code would not provide _. adequate visibility fo: the traffic flow:~g south, and without a high sig,, said busin~ss would bypass the proposed station because the R-A parcel north of subject property was un•- developed, and subject property would :equire to set back farther than t.he northerly property; that it was determined by actual iocation from a boom truck where said sign would be visible to the traffic; that the rotating sign was not sufficient to advertise the service station properiy; that the Shell Oi: Company did not particularly care to place the proposed sign on subject property uniess it was ansolu±eiy necessary 5ecause of the cost; that the Shell Oil Company const:ucted few moduiar signs, and that the p:oposed sign was deemed necessary- The Commissiur. exp=essed conce~n th:it =ince the adoption of the Sign O~dinance so many nf the service station requests coming in we*e requesiing waiver of tLe Sign Ordinance, and at the time the Sign Ordinance was d:afted, the operators of sign companies had been contacted, and it was determined the exis*_ing Sign Ordinance w~s or.e they could live with; that more ~ re4ues±s had been received for waive= of the F~eigh± of the sign and the n~mber of signs than ever before, 3nd it would be a ~~olation of tne Sign Or.iinance to consider granting said waivers of signs., , Mr: Moriarty then stated *he Sheil Oii Ccmpany did nct have a la:ge, free-•st~,nding sign in _ the City of Anaheim, that it was their intent to cooperate with the City regarding the Sign 0*dinance, but it was felt that subject property needed the proposed sign in order to operate efficienily~ Cons~derable discussion was then he:d by the Commission relative to the proposed sign and its compatibility with adjoining p:operties on the east side of subject pro~erty, and the , multiple-family development to the west. It was further noted by the Gommission that the petitioner was proposing to construct a service station at the intersection of a l~~al street and an arterial street, which was contrary to the Commission`s previous policy on location of service stationsy and that more consideration should be given as to its loc~±ion rather than the si9ns bein9 proposed: A letter from the Gramercy Park Owner's Association, a non••profit organization of owners of the multiple-family development to the west of subject property, was read to the Commission, noting tF,ay were requesting that the proposed service station biend in with the existing comme^cial and residential surroundings of the area.. TFL NFARiNG WAS CLOSED_ Com~nissioner Rowiand offered Resolution P7o., i768, Series 1965-66, and ~.:oved for its passaye and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to deny Petition for Conditionai Use Permit Noo %54, based on the fact that it was not the Commission's policy to permit service stations at the intersection of a local street and an arterial highway, due to the fact that the traffic generated would create hazards to the traffic on the local street, and that these would be incompatible to *.he residential use adjacent to them, (See Resolution Book~) On roll .all the foregoing resoli~tion was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Row]and, Mungall., NOES: COMMISSION~RS: None. ABSENT: CCMMISSIONERS: Perry~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 13, 1965 2~27 ~ECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC I-~ARING~ MARILYN J~ PALM, 890 Rancho Circle, Fullerton, ~!0~ 65____ _____66-40 California, Owner; OSCAR F~ SCHULTZ, Box 4228, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that property described as: A rectangularly sh~.ped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 57 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard and a maximum depth of approximately 110 feet, the southern boundary of subject property being approximately 95 feet north of the centerline of Water Street, and furtner described as 555 South Harbor Boulevard, be reclassified from the R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE, to the C-1, GENERAL COMA~RCIAL, ZONE9 to ESTABLISH AN ANTI~UE SHOP IN AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE~ Mr~ Oscar Schultz, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted an ' - area development plan made of those prcperties fronting on the west side of Harbor Boulevard T~~ between 'N;ter and Santa Ana Streets were already covered by an area development plan, and ~ , the reason for not requesting CLLO Zoning was because antiaue shops were ~equired to have ~omeone liv~ng on the premises in order to obtain adequate insurance~ , In reviewing the recommended conditions of approval, Mr~ Schultz stated that if any widening of the existing alley took piace, the school should dedicate the extra five feet, rather than the singie, narrow lots fronting on Harbor Boulevard who already were required to dedi- cete access rights to Harbcr Boulevard, Zoning Supervisor Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that dedication for extension of the alley to Santa Ana Street had already been made by the school, said dedication being the required.20 feet for a dedicated alley - this would then provide for ingress and egress between two dedicated streets so that access rights to Harbor Boulevard could be made: Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No_ 1769, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage anti adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reciassification No~ 65•-66-40 be approved, subject to conditions~ (See Resolution Book:) On roli cail the foregoing resolution was passed by the foliowing vote: AYESe COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Mungall: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None, ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Perryo _'- VARIAAICE NO.. 1734 - Pl1BLIC I-~ARING. DONALD D FORBES AND SOLOMON KANDEL, 12191 Harbor _ Boulevard, Garden GroveY California, Owners; LEE ELECTRIC SIGN COMPANY, 633 Paula:ino, Costa Mesa, California, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF MAXIMUM F~IGHT OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN on property describ?d as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at the no:theast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Monterey Street, with frontages of approximately 265 feet on Lincoln Avenue and approximately 246 feet on Monterey Stzeet, and further described as 2265 West Lincoln Hvenue: Property presentiy cla=_sified C•-1, GENER4L COMAgRCIAL, ZONE , Mr~ Robert AdamsY agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Ccmmission and reviewed the proposed sign req~est, noting that because of the differen:e in grade level, it was necessary to project t.he proposed sign at the size indica±ed, and that it was proposed to have a two-story building on subject property - therefore, tt:e sign was necessary In response to Comm.ission questioning as to the purpose of having <a 55•~foot s~y,~, t':c ;yent stated the petitione*s had a similar sign in Costa Mesa and were c?~~~us of maintaining the pattern of their operation wherever it was located, ~~~ The Commission were of the opiniun the petitioner had not proven a t~ir~9ship existed if subj~ct petition were not approved, based on the fact that visibilic~~ of a lesser sign would be considerable from both sides of the street as well as to cnc;oir.ing traffic; that the hzight and size of the sign were out of ,roportion to what was perm:tted by the Sign Ordinance, and the Sign Ordinance did not intend to have signs seen in either direction for a half mile or half way across town, Mr~ Louis Dragicevich, 2265 West Poik Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject petition, stating his property was immediately to the north of subject property; that. a letter had been submitted by Chaplain G~ Paul Keile:, 201 North Monterey Street, which was indicative of the feelings of all the property owners in the area, and requested that the letter be reado Zoning Supervisor Robert Mickelson then read to the Commission the letter of opposition _ from Chaplain G~ Paul Keller and Mrso Adelaide L, Keller~ ~ . Mr~ Dragicevich then stated the Y proposed sign w~uld be detrimental to both the commercial and the residentiai integrity of the area and wouid tend to decrease the value of the residential properties immediately adjacent to the proposed sign~ l:t c t MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOP!, September 13, 1965 2728 VARIANCE NO.. 1734 - THE I-IEARING WAS CLOSED~ (~ontir.ued ) Commissioner Herbst offereci Resolution No~ 1770, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to deny Petition for Variance No~ 1734, based on the fact that the petitioner had not proven a hardship; that adeauate visibility of any siqn within the limits of the Sign Ordinance would be available; , and the proposed sign would be detrimental to the property rights of the adjoining property L owners~ (See Resolution Book,) 6 On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Mungall~ ~iT~~ NOESe COMMISSIONERS: None, _2 ~ ~ ABSE~rI: ~OWuIISSIONERS: Peri•ye I, ~~ RECLASSIFICATION •- PUBLIC [-IEARING. NEWPORT BALBOA SAVINGS 8 LOAN ASSOCIATION, 3366 Via ,~I N0._ 65 66-38_~_ Lido, Newport Beach, California, Owner; DONALD D~ FiARW00D, 3355 Via ~ Lido, Newport Beach, California~ Agent; req~esting that property i described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of ! approximately 250 feet on the west side of Magnolia Avenue and a maximum depth of approxi- I, mately 200 feet, measured at right an9les to Magnolia Avenue; the northern boundary of I subject property is coincident with the southern boundary of the Orange County Flood Control j District channel, and the southern boundary of subject property is approximately 528 feet north of the cen*_erli~ie of Lincoln Avenue, be reciassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZUNE, ~'~~ to the C•-2, GENERAL COMIuIERCIAL, ZONE. Mr~ Donald Harwood, agent for the petit.ioner, ir.dic-:ted his presence to answer questions. i I In response to Commission questioning, Mr. 4arwood stated the savings and loan association ; could only sell the property, but could not build on it- therefore, any development plans would have to be submitted after sale o.' the property; that after their original reyuest I for zoning was made, the Zoning Divisicn advised him the C-I Zone would allow for sufficient development of the uses in the area:. The Commission indicated it had been the policy of the Commission to require plans, where- ,.I ' upon Mr, Harwood stated the G-1 Zone had site development standards which would co~trol ~ _~ any development of the property. ~ Zoning Supervisor Robert MickPlson advised the Commission that it had not always required .~ plans in the commer.cial zone, but the Staff had encou~aged s~bmission of plans of any ~ prospective petitioner: Furthe:, that the site development standards in the C-1 Zone ' would possibly make planned developmen± of the property acceptableto the Commission, '•; ,j No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. 1 1 TNE I-!GARING WAS CLOSED Mr: h4ickelsor~ advised the Commission that a letter from the petitioner to the Ccmn:ission i ieiative to cancellation of ceed restrictions was on file, but since deed restrictions were initiated by the Co~nci;, the Commi~~:~n might wish to make recommendations to that body relative to deed restrictions, . The Canmission was of the opinion the C-2 Zoning requested by the petitioner was too intense fer the uses established - namely, the pri.vate grade school and high school and ~ church facilities to the north, west and south of subject property - since restrictions 'j ; could nct be required in the C-2 Zone as a matter of right, and Lhe C-1 Zone was a more ' compatible zone to the area~ I ~ Commissioner Camp offernd Resolution No~ 1771, Series 1965•-66, and moved for its passage i and adoptian, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for R=classification Noo 65-66-38 be denied for C-2, General Commercial, Zone, • based on the fact that the zone was too heavy for the adjoining properties and wo•~ld be incom- patible to existing ~ses ir, close proximity; however, the Commission recownends to the City Council the approval of C-1, General Commercial, Zone3 subj?ct to conditions~ (See Resolution Booko) ;; On roll ca.ll the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~' AYcS: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, .:amp, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Mungall~ ti • NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~ : „e~ AASENT: COMMISSIONERS: Perry~ ~ , MINUTES, CITX PLANNING CUMMISSIONy September 13, 1965 2729 CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING~ MARVIN L. AND DOROTf~A Aa STREIFF, 7033 Oakdale Avenue, PERMIT N0~ 756 Canoga Park, California, Owners; EDWIN C~ SACKETT, 928 Scuth Webster Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; reyuesting permission to ESTABLISH A CAT BOARDING FACILITY IN AN EXISTING STRUCTURE on property described as: An irreguiarly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 64 feet on the east side of Webster Avenue, with a maximum depth of approximately 300 feet, the southern boundary of subject property being approximately 330 feet north of the centerli.ne of Ball Road, and f~rther described as 928 South Webster Aver.ue~ Property oresently classified R-A, AGRICULTUP.AL, ZONE~ Mr~ Edwin Sackett, agent for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and stated they - lived on subject property; that the proposed use was for the boarding of cats while their owners were on vacation; that the City of Anaheim did not offer the p:oposed facilities; that the structure was presently in existence, and in response to Commission questioning, stated that in order to avoid any noise from the cats they would be I~oused entirely within the btilding; that the nearest residence was 84 feet from the proposed building, to the south, and a vacant lot existed to the north; and each cat would be individually caged, Zoning Supervisor Robert ,Mickelson advised the Commission subject property was part of the Webster Avenue Resolution of Intent to reclassify to the R-3 Zone with 18 dwelling units _ per net residential acre, and that the property to the north had a conditional use permit for the establishment of a planned residential development, and upon completion of said PRD according to the plot plans, one of the structures would be within 40 feet of the proposed cat boarding facility~ A letter of opposition from the property owners of R-3 development to the~ east of subject property was read to the Commission~ TFiE HEARING WAS CLOSED. It was noted by the Commission th3t a dog kennel existed in close proximity to subject i property, to wnich Mr> Mickelson replied the dog kennei was in existence at the time the ! property was annexed inta the City from the County - therefore, it became a non-conforming ., use,. Commissioner Ailred offered Resolution Noo 1'72, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 756, subject to conditions, (See Resolution Booko) .i On roll call the foregoinq resolution was passed by the following vote: I "I AYES: CO.MMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Mungallo ~~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nor,e. 1 ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Periry~ ~, ; ~~ ' E~ ` CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING~ M~ K. AND M. L, TEDSTROM AND J~ R~ AND A. B, PRICE, ~I ` PERMIT N0~ 758_ 9G0 North Broadway, Santa Ana, California, Ownersy MORARM INVESTMENT ~~ ' COMPADIY, 833 Dover Drive, Newport Beach, California, A9ent; requesting ~ permission to ESTABLISH AN AUTOMATIC CAR WASH WITH GASOLINE SALES on ~ ~ property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at the northwest corne: of Euciid Street and Glen Avenue, with frontages of approximately 242 feet on ~. Euclid S treet and approximately 130 feet on Glen Avenuea Proper~y presently classified ~ C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. F ~ Mr~ Victor Morgar., agent for the petitioner, appeared before the ~u«unission and reviewed . the proposed development, noting the development would conform with tt~e existing Sign ~ ; Ordinance; that the proposed car wash was designed by the same pers~n in the petition ~ previously considered by the Commission,on West Katella Avenue; that the projected lights i on the tops of the pillars will be lighted at night until 11:30 P,Mo and would provide ~ needed lighting for that area; that landscaping woul~ be ~.nstalled as indicated; and ~ that the nearest abutting property was vacant and the r~~arest building was almost 300 feet from subject property, No one appeared in opposition to subject petition~ P ~; THE F~ARING WAS CLOSED~ '~ - Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No~ 1773, Series 1965•-66, and moved for its passage ' and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit ~I ', No. 758, subject to conditionsy and the stipulation by the petitioner that the proposed + ~~ sign would conform with the Si;~ Ordinanceo (See Resolution Book~) Pp~~ ~ ~' I ~ f ~:t : NINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 13, 1965 2730 CONDITIONAL USE - On roll call the foregoing resoiution was passed by the following vote: PERMIT N0~ 758 (Continu?d)~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Mungall NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Perryo RECESS: Commissioner Hlired offered a motion to recess the meeting for ten minutes~ Commissioner Camp seconded the motion~ MOTION CARRIED, The meeting recessed at 4:00 P,M~ .+~A RECONVENE: Chairman Mungall reconvened the meeting at 4:10 PoM., all Commissioners ~ with the exception of Commissioner Perry being presento CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC IiEARING. JON~ F. AND MARIANNE MURPHY, 1233 Nutwood Street, PEP,MIT N0. 759_ Anahei~s California, Owners; ELEANOR MANION, 1309 South Brookhurst Street, Anahe:m, Caiifornia, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A PRIVATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION WITH WAIVER OF MAXIMUM AR.EA OF A FREE-SIANDING SIGN iocated on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of -. land with a frontage of approximateiy 102 feet on the west side of Nutwood Street and a maximum depth of approximateiy 415 feet, the northernmost boundary of said property being approximately 390 feet south of the centeriine of Ball Road, and further described as i233 Nutwood S*_reet: Property presently ciassified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Mr: Jack Rogoway, r?presenting the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission aid reviewed the lecation of the proposed schooly noting that subject property was chosen a,te: considerable research; that in view of the Commission's previous action on sign requests, the waiver request was being withdrawn, and the proposed sign would be in con- formance with code requirements; that although the adjoining property owners did not indicate any opposition, he was aware there would be opposition; that the proposed use would not be a wed9e to *ecla,sify the adjoining properties for commercial or multiple- family resider,tial purposes; that the proposed use was permitted in the City's "R" zones; ~ that the school would not be in conflict with the adjoining property because the west side backed on an elementary scF~ool play yard, that a junio: high schooi existed to the east, ~ and the proposed school was to be lor,ated on ihe rear or west end of subject property; ~ that the agent and operato: of the school would be residing in the existing residence , which was set back 200 feet from any existing residence along Nutwood Street; that because _ of the location of the proposed school; no noise would emanate from the area to create a nuisance; that comme:cial development existed to the north of 3 por±ion of subject property; that the proposed schooi was not a day care type nurse~y, but actually held classes for children from kindergarten through ~ixth gr~de; and that the agent; M:s~ Manion, wouid be operating the school simiiar to the existing operation on Brookhurst Street, south of Ball Road, said facilities now having grown too small for it= present. operetion. Mrs„ Eleanor Manion, agent for the pet?tioner, appeared before the Co~nission and stated ~ the classes would be held from kindergarten through sixth grade and that she planned to start with 60 students, but the maximum number of students the proposed facilities could accommodate wouid be 100; further, in response to Commission auestioning, Mrs~ Manion i stated she did not anticipate enlarging the school for more than 100 students, and any proposed enlarging of the operation wo~ld be several years in the future. I , It was also noted by Mrs. Manion that several schools and a playground ex.isted in closa proximity to subject property so that the proposed use wo~ld be compatible; that the ~ existing driveway would be used for delivery and pick-up of the school children; that she would reside ir the existing residence;and that there would presently be ;our teachers and 20 students per class, Mr, J., Fred Hebdon, 1872 West Castle A~•en~ae, appeared before the CoR~ission in opposition and stated that although he lived more ttian 3C0 feet from subject property, his neighbors requested he represent them in opposition since it was their feeling the proposed use would be detrimental to the residential integrity of the area; that the Francis Scott Key School was 1,000 feet from the residential development, and the Katella School was still further away; that the high school was ~:~o some distance away, but that the proposed school would be a commercial enterprise in a residential area; that there was a rumor to the ef~ect that the present school was not in operation; rurther, in response to Commission questioning relative to whether or not he felt the propos~d school would be an encouragement for future development of the R-A parcels, stated there was no commercial development on Nutwood Street; that no signs advertising any commercial development were visible on the street; and that the proposed use might bring multiple-family development and commercial development into a single-family residential environment.. ~ _ .. , _:..._.,+ • - . y=-~- MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 5eptember 13, 1965 273i CONDITIONAL USE - Mrs, Robert Jay, 1867 W~st Castle Avenue, appeared b2fore the Commiss:on PERMIT NO_ 759_ in opposition and stated the existing s~hool had a l~:ge play a*ea in (Continued) the rear for nursery child;en, and it w~s her hope the ~ommission would not approve a similar use on subject property,• Mrs. Earl Brown, 18?8 West Castle Avenue, appeared before the ti~mmission in opposition and stated the petitioner ~ndicated she w~!~ld ex.pand within a f~w years, and if this were so, she would need additional access to t},e school from N~twoad Street, to which she objected since this would mean commerciai traffic utilizir~ a residen*.ial =_~reet.. Mrs, N~rry Waik, 1873 West Castle Avenue, app~ared before the Commission in opposiiion and stated her family had lived ir. Anaheim for twEtve years and ~~ad moved from the area in whicn the Chrysler olant was located because this was other than a residential use of the area, and ai±er cor. °derable searchinq for an area which they felt would allow them to have the privacy of : residential 3:eay they se]ected their present home, and that the proooseu use wouid be an inf_ingement on this privacy„ In rebuttal, Mr. Rogoway stated the school was still in operation on Brookhurst Street and had been for seve:al years, and if subject petition were approved, the Brookhurst Street school would be closed because of the relocation; that the school as presently proposed was at maximum capacity of i00 students, and if any expansion took place in several years, a new petition would have to be filed, at which time the Commission could require adequate ingress and egress to and from subject property; further, by code the p^oposed school was a permitted use afl any "R~' zone, and property owners could always petition for different uses than were established on the property; that at the beginning of the F.ea:ing he had withdrawn their request for the sign waiver and st3ted the petitioner wo.uld comp?y with the maximum code the Sign Ordinance allowed; that no commercial appearance would be noted from ±he str.eet frontage bec~use the existing home wa, ,~lready located 100 feet from the front property iine; th~t the street improvements wouid be made for subject property, such as c~ibs, gutieis, ~nd other improvements; and that tne adjacent property owners did not voice any opposition when the petitione° presented the proposed pians~ Mrs: Jay 3gain appeared before the Commission and expressed the opinzon tha± no opposition was indicated by the adjoining pzoperty owners because tt,e proposed use would be an enter- ing wedge fo: a change ~n '.he exi;tinq res:der,tial. integTity of tne area for those large parcels zoned R A. THE f',EARING WAS CLOSED. Discus=ion w3s held by the Commi~sion who noted for the opposit:on that schools were permitted in the "R" zones and were r:ecessary and desiratle as simiiar uses sur,h as ch«.;~hes.: 1ih:jTies and fire stations, and that the petitioner w3s not proposing a zone change but a use; ar.d as such, the City had the chance to view ail developments for their compatibility with the adjacent development of the area, a~d if any rezoning action took place, all property owners would be advised of anv action; fu:ther, permitting the school on sub;ect property did not necessa:ily justify granting multiple f<~mily development or commercial zoning for the R-A parceis, and that schools were locate:~ in East Hnaheim in the t,~art of residential areas and no commerci3l encioachment had taken place Commissioner Rowland offered Resoiution No 1774, Series 1965•~66, and moved foz its passage and adop*_ion, seconded by Commissioner Nerbst, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Pezmit No. 759 for the establishmant of a private educationai institution only, since the petitionez• had withdrawn !tis request for waive: of the maximum arey ~f ~ free-standing sign; furt'~er, that any additional expansion of ±he existing use wouid require the submission of a new conditionai use permit, and subject to conditions (See Resolu±:on Book.) On roll call the fore9oing re=_olution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Rowiand, Mungall: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Perry. VARI~NCE N0~ 1731 •- PUBLIC ~AP,ING. ALFRED A,. HOLVE, 1314 North Sequoia Avenue, Lindsay, California, Owner; RAY STOBER COMPANY, P, 0. Box 2377, Gardena, California, Agent; requesting permission to WAIVE i-~IGHT OF A FREE•- STANDING S?GN AND TI-IE MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN A F.;~~~-SiANDING SIGN AND A RxiF SIGN ort property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at the northwest corner of Katella Avenue and Euclid Street, with frontages c' appreximately 125 feet on Katella Avenue and ].15 feet on Euclid Street, and further described as 10971 Euclid Street-. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Septenber 13, 1965 2~32 VARIANCE N0, 1731 - Mr> Marvin Stober, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the (Continued) Commission and reviewed the proposed sign waivers, noting that the existing signs were outdated, and it was proposed to install the free-standing sign and roof sign which, in addition to advertising the product, would provide lighting for that intersection; that the sign itself was 44 square feet, and the height waiver was dependent upon the location of the signo In response to Commission questioning, Mro Stober stated his company was aware of the City°s 2g-foot height limitation, but felt a property right was being denied subject property since the Texaco station had a 30-foot height sign with 200 square f~et, that the Richfield station at that intersection had a 27-foot sign, measured from the bottom of the sign, and tne Standaad Oil Company had a slightly less height sign. Concern was expressed by the Commission that the oil companies were attempting to construct signs that would be located above that of thei~ competitors and inquired whether or not the petitioner felt the height of a sign was a necessity~ Mra Stober stated the heiqht was determined because of the speed of the traffic along Katella Avenue, and the~ sign must be visible far in advance for the people to pull off to obtain the services> The Commission were of the opinion that signs as permitted by the City could provide adequate visibility along either street, to which Mr~ Stober replied that a number o~ trees locked out the view along Euclid Street~ The Commission expressed concern that ~onsiderable study and research with the billboard and sign builders was made, and at the time the Commission and Council passed the Billboard and S3gn Ordinance, all requirements were acceptable to the billboard and sign builders, but ali of the waivers of sign requests seemed to be coming from the oil companies~ Mr, S*.ober stated there was some doubt the proposed sign might be located within 300 feet of a residential area, this being the reason for the req4est for waiver of the height ofthe sign. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition: THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDa In response to Commission questioning, Zoning Supervisor Robert Mic~:elson advised the Commission that upon scaling of subject property on the aerial map it was determin~d there was a distance of 249 feet from the sign to the edge of the residential property; there- fore,tbe request for the sign height waiver was required: The Commission was of the opinion that the double roof signs could not comply with code requirernents if the free-standing sign were permitted, whereupon the petitioner stipulated to removal of the roof signs: Comm_ssioner Rowland offered Resolution No> 1775, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Variance Noo 1731 for the waiver of the maximum height of a free-standing sign and denial of the request for minimum dis~ance between a free-standing sign and a roof sign; further, that the free- standing slgn would be permitted only provided the petitioner removed the proposed roof signs, anc. conditions~ (See Resolution Book~) On roll call the fo:egoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYES: COMMISS?ONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Mungall~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~ ABSENT: COMMISS?QNERS: Perry, ~ i &ECLASSIFICATION - PIfBLIC HEARING. TAYLOR-DUNN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, 2114 West Ball Road, ;, N0~ (~5-C~6-39 Anaheim, California, Owner; property described as: A rect~~ngularly shaped F` ~ parcel of land with a frontage of approxim~tely 220 feet on the south side ~[ARIANCE N0. 1732 of Ball Road and a maximum depth of approximately 430 feet, the western ~ boundary o' said property being approximately 900 feet east of the center- line of Brookhurst Street, and further described as 2114 West Ba12 Road, s• Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. ~~ REQUESTED CLASS1rICATION: C-1~ GEIJERAL COMA~ RCIAL. ZONE~ E~~ ~ ~ REQUESTED VARIANCE: TO PERMIT AN EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING USEo ,~1 - 1y *. Mro R, Davis Taylor, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated '~ the existing development had been at the present location since 1949; that although they ;~ i were proposing expansion of t.heir manufacturing facilities, they were not in a position to I F MItJUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Septembe•r 13, 1965 2733 RECLASSIFICATION ~ relocate in an industrial area, but if business expanded to a point N0~~~5~6~_39____ where it was necessary for further expans~on of their property, the existing sheet metal buildings would be demolished and the property ~ARIANCE N0~ 1732 developed for commercial purposes~ (Continued) A coloreci rendering of ~tie proposed exp3nsion and its location was viewed by the Commission~ Mrs: W, W~ Doller, 2144 West Ball Road, appeared before the Commission and inquired whether a six••foot masonry wall would be constructed on the west boundary of subject property~ ~•••^=~~ It was noted by the Commission that s~bject property was not immediately adjacent to ~ her ar;.el but was ~~ , P just an expansion on their existingFaoperty, extending easterly from ~ the existing structures - therefore no requirement of a block wall would be indicated ( ' because subject property did not abut upon her property.~ P' ~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Zoning Supervisor Robert Mickelson reviewed the non-conforming use whicn had been _, estabiished while the property was under the jurisdiction of the County and noted parking had been calcu:ated on the basis of industriai use of the property rather than commercial use, and that when the older buildings were removed for the develop- ment o# the property for commercial land use, in additionel 31 parking spaces would be required, and there seemed to be adequate area to p:ovide the parking requirements. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution ~o: 1776, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to *ecommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No, 65-66-39 be approved, subject to conditions, (See Resoiution Book.~) On :oll call the foregoing resolution was psssed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIO~'ERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Mungall. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None, ABSENT: COMMISSIO~~ERS: Perry~ _~ Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1?77, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage _ and adoptior,, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to grant Petition for Variance No~ 1,32, subject to conditions: (See Resolution Book:) On roli call the foregoing re=_o?utior, was passed by the following vote: AY2S: ~~OMMISSIONERS: Ailred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Mungall~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: iJone. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Perry~ RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC i-lEARING~ INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East ~. 65 66_41____ Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing that property described as: An irzegulsrly shaped ai•ea of land consisting of approximately 16 acres, located in the southwest portion of the Jolir.son Annexation, as described in Ordinance No, 2i47, the southern boundary of said area being coincident with the southern boundary of the Santa Ana Vallev Irrigation Canal, and bounded on the north and east by Tt•act No 5409, the southwestern point of said area being approximately 1,600~feet east of the intersection of the Riverside Freeway-Newport Freeway interchange, and further described as Tract No~ 5000 and that portion of the Santa Ana Valley Irrigation Canal-within said Johnson Annexation, be reclassified from the R••1, UNE--FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the R-1, ONE-FAMILY RcSIDENTIAL, ZONE FOR THACT 5000; R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE FOR TI-IE SANTA ANA VALLEY IRRIGATION CANAL PORTION~ Planning Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski advised the Commission that the memorandum to the Commission indicated the proposed permarent zoning for that portion of the Johnson Annexa- tion which was not already reclassified by petition for reclassification was be~ng proposed; the Johnson Annexation was located between the Santa Ana River and the Santa Ana Canyon Road, easterly of the junction of the Riverside and Newport Freeways; that all but a fraction of the land was developed, or was in the process of development for single-family homes; and that the remainder three-quarters of an acre was utilized as part of the Santa Ana Valley Irrigation Canal~ , _ ? * °I ~ ~. F MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 13, 1965 2~~q RECLASSIFICATIt7N - It was also noted that interim zoning had been established by urgency N0. 65-¢6_~1 ordinance in June, 1965, and that both the Anaheim General Plan and ;Contirrued) the nearly completed Hill and Canyon General Plan indicated low density residential development for the entire annexatior,; further, that the recommended zoning of R~1 for that portion known as Tract Noo 5000 and R-A for that portion known as the Santa Ana Valley Irrigation Canal was consistent witn the General Plan°s proposalso No one appeared in opposition to subject petition•. THE NEARING WAS CLOSEDo ~"~~ „ Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noo 1778, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage ~ , and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that permanent i~ zoning be established for t;.a remainder of the Johnsan Annexation as indicated in Petition for !' Reclassification Noe 65-66-41~ (See Resolution Booko) I On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Mungallo NOES: COMMISSIONERS~ Noneo ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Perry~ REPORTS AND - ITEM N0~ 1 RECOMN~NDATIONS Orange County Conditional Permit No~ 1202 •- Requesting permission ~o establish a stepping stone and lawn curb manufacturing and concrete batcti plant on an approximate 4,3 acre s?te in the M-1, LIGFfI' INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT located on the east side of Fee Ana Street approximately 330 feet south of Orangethorpe Avenue, Assistant Zoning Supervisor Ronaid Thompson presented Orange County Conditional Permit No., 1202 to the Commission, indicating that said petition had been continued from the meeting of August 30y 1965, in orde: to allow time for a report from the Development Services Department, and for the Commission to make a field inspection to determine the compatibility of the proposed use to the area in question, _' Mr~ Thompson stated that the Orange County Pianning Department had been contacted relative _ to the proposed use and it was dete:mined from the discussion that the large acreage was necessary because the manufactu~ed articles had to be laid out to dry, and that access was gained to subject property through a 30-foot easement to the property. It was also noted that the CoT~ission may wish to consider recommending to the City Council that the proposed use be limited to the area south of La Palma Avenue extended, in the area presently occupied by other excavat~on and sand operators, because the use was basically an outdoor M-2 use~ and wouid tend to be detrimental to futu:e development of the M-1 area due ta the very nature of its dusty and noisy operation.. Discussion was held by the Commission as to whethes any excavation was to be done by the petitioner, and asked Mr~ Thompson whether this was covered in his conversation with the County. Mr~ Thompson stated that no excavation was anticipated, only the manufacture of the stones and the concrete batching plant was proposed, Commissioner Camp offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange Caunty Planning Commissior be urged to require that any concrete batching operations or the manu- facture of bricks and stepping stones be Limited to that area in the northeast industrial area south of La Palma Avenue, extended, in close proximity to other sand and gravel opera•- tions, uue to the fact that the proposed use was basically an outdoor use in the City of Maheim`s M•-2, Heavy Industrialy Zoneg further, that the use might be incompatible with any light industrial use which might be proposed for those properties in close proximity, due to excessive dust, dirt, and noises generated by the proposed use~ Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion~ MOTION CARRIEDo ITEM N0~ 2 Peralta Hills Annexation No: 2- Subject property bounded on the west by Peralta Hills Drive and on the c;•3st by the existing city limit ; boundaries of the recently annexed Yorba property, and on the north by tne Santa Ana River, _ Planning Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski presented Peralta Hills Annexation No~ 2 and reviewcd * the requtst of the City Council ir. referring the Peralta Hills Annexation Noo 2 to the Planning Commission for report and zecommendation, noting that the area concerned was located "~ in the Santa Ana Can on• that the Y, proposed annexation was generaily bounded by the Johnson ; .: _ . ___,.~..__.~_ .. .__. .. .. .. . ..._ - - ,..,,,,,,,,.~ ---- ~ . _ _.,. _ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 13, 1965 2735 REPORTS AND RECOMN~NDATIONS - ITEM N0~2 (Continued) . Annexation on the west, the Santa Ana Rive: on the north, the Yorba Annexation on the east, and the Nohl ranch on the south; that the area was within the realm of the proposed Hill and Canyon Ger.eral Plan; that the area gf~nerally consisked of two types of land use, acreage estates in the southern portion or hiily area of the annexation and relatively fiat, vacant land i~ the northerly portion ~vhich was presertly being developed for singie-family home sites; that the area presently repxesented the only unincorporated area south of the river between the Johnson Annexation and the Yorba Annexation; that the filling in of the gap , was logical and desirable and would discourage the creation of an unincorporated peninsula -.T:~~ of land which could resuit in another "Gaza strip" (the unincorporated strip of County territo:y west of Brookhurst Street); and that it would establish a uniform municipal ~.~s , boundary3 making the pz~ovision of municipal services to the :esidents an easier task~ i Fj~ Mr•, Grudzinski further stated the Peralta Hills Annexation ;!n~ 2 was recommended by the t l Staff as a logical expansien of the City of Anaheim~ ~ u~ Discussion was held by the Com~iission relative to whether or not adeouate signatures from ~i property owners had been received favoring the'proposed annexation~ It was determir.ed the i! City Council requested the Commission's attitude relative to their position on the proposed j~ annexation before any turther cons~derati~n by the Councii would be made~ r :I. ~`1 Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Peralta Hills Annexation No~ 2 represented a logicai expansion of the City of Anaheim's boundaries as ,~,`~ they presently existed~ Commissioner Camp second=d the motion~ MOTION CARRIEDa ~ ITEM NO, 3 ~ Revision to Service Station Minimum Site Development Standards~ ~i '~ Assistant Planner Marvin Krieger presented the *ecommended emendments to the existing ,~ Service ~tation Minimum Site Development Standards, noting that the revision was made in order to present a more clear and concise standard ior dAVelopers of service stations to ~ follow; that he had cont3cted the major oii companies relative to the standards; and that from the data the standards weze revised as presented to the Ccmmission~ J ~! Considerable discussion was held relative to enforcement of the Service Station Minimum F'~ _ Site Development Standards within the City; tha~, in the landscaping paragrapn regarding '-1 ~ submission of landscaping pians on private property to the Supe.,intendent of Parkway ;.~ ~ Maintenance, this should be deleted since this was nc~t on City property~ It was noted by ~~ the Staff tnat usually the oniy critical area tr.e Superintendent of Farkway Maintenance `! reviewed was to maintain the plantings at a height ~ahich would not be detrimental to on- ~ coming traffic at an ir.teisection; tnai the service station operators be notified in some ,~ way of the requi_ed standards for service stations in the Ci.ty since the oil companies '~ did not advise the prospective operators of the requirements; and that perhaps at the time a husiness license was issued, a copy of the standards could be presented to the ~ i iicensee. ~ Zoning Supervisor Robert Mickelson advised the CoRUnission the Department had been attempt•- ing to establish a program :or handling complaints relative to code violations by service EI ~ statior. operators, but sz~ce there had been such an excessive turnover in personnel, the i program had never gotten under way, Commiscioner Camp offered Resolution ~o~ 17795 Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Ailred, to recommend to the City Couricil that an i i amendment be made to the Service Station Minimum Site Development Sta~dards as depicted 1 on Exhib_± "A", revised, with amendment being made to the preliminary draft of the general informatien concerning automobile service stations ty the deletion of Sentence 2 of Para~ i graph 4, e~titled "Landscapiny"~ (See Resolution Book,) , On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed t,y the following vote: ~. I AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Al:red, ~:amp, Gauer., Herbst, Rowland, Mungall~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Perryo c :~ il , -~ ~ ~:j~ i i ~ - _ ~ ! '~ ~ i MTNUTES, CITY PiANNING COMMISSION, September 13, 1965 2736 ~ REPORTS AND - ITEM N0~ 4 ~ RECOMIu1ENDA-IONS Review of a revision to the R-E, Residential Estate, Zone,. i Planning Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski presented the most recent draft of the revision to the R-E, Residential Estate, Zone, noting that any questions which the Commission might have would be answered by Assistant Planner Marvin Krieger~ It was noted con~iderable verbage had been removed from the present zone as printed in Title 18; that referral to the maintenance of birds and animals for domestic, non-commercial use was being removed, and Section 18.04,020 of the general section would be revised to in- clude this section; and that reference to home occupation in the R-E Zone was also removed from the zone and placed in the definition section entitled 18,08~390, Home Occupations. It was also noted that the proposed draft of the R-E Zone was reviewed with the Board of Realtors, the Chamber of Commerce - Zon?ng and Pianning Committee, and the Peralta Hills homeowners Committee, together wiih the I~terdepartmental Committee for °ublic Safety and General Welfare, and the draft as presented to the Commission reflected all the suggested changes by the aforementioned bodies. In reviewing the R~-E Code, the Commission questioned the necessity of indicating in the site development standards the minimum size dwelling whi;,h could be erected on the property: Development Services Director Aian Orsborn advised the Commission that considerable discus- sion had been held et the Staff levei regardin9 the square footage permitted on the varying lot sizes, and it was his opinion the Commission should consider elimination of this because this was transgressiny on the private rights of a property owner to build on his land~ Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that the sections goverr~ing Chapter 18~08, Home Occupations, sub-paragraphs (dl, (e), (f), and (g) might be difficult to enforce, and suggested to the Commission that he might review both proposed amendments to Chapters 18..04 ard 18.08 from a legai standFoint. Commissioner Camp :ecomrrended that if the Staff was considering redrafting of the various zones, when tne proposed draft was in such : form for presentation to the Commission that the City Attorney`s office be requested to zeview the entire draft in order to determine whether or not the o_dinance, if adopted, could be enforced, and those sections which could not be enforced be eiiminated prior to the Comr.iission"s consideration. ConJnissioner Rowland offe:ed a motion to set for public hearing Amendment to Title 18, Chapter 18~04, General Provisions •- Use; Section 18_08,390, Home Occupations; and Section 18.,18, R•E, Re~idential Estate, Zone, said he3ring to be heid September 27y 1965 Commis- sioner Camp seconded the motion. M~TION CARRIED. ALITOURNMENT: There being no further business to discuss, Commi:sioner Camp offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Ailred seconded the motion MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 5:55 P~M: Respectfuily submitted, C/~~L. i! _~ Li C <^'_~ ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim Planning Cortur;ission *~ ~ : 1: ~~ ~~' F' .__ srs ~ ~