The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1967/07/06^~, ~ r • 7 ~ j~ ~~~ ~A fi . ~ + .. ~,, . i ; Y ' ~ T l f ~~ ~ .~'* 4~' ' 4JJ S t J~ ?~'r ~t~1 '" > Y ri . •rt F~ ~ F y '~~ ~Y ~.. t~ y? '~ , ~a t~yS ~, ( e2 I A J . l ~ . _ r i:; . ~ ~ ~'''~;'~ .1 t 4 t { ~ I ~ '~5~.~; . ~ s . i~' 4 c1 r ! d :r } t f Y ' ~ ~ ~ 3 ~r ~ ' '= :.'. .; ' „ S ' ~ ~i~t i ...e ,i ~ ~ ~, _' ~;~~~ }" i, :ti ` t "S r : ~ ~; t ' ~t F ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ..a r 6 i~ r ~ . ~ , ~ 4 :. ; ~ ~ ~~ +~ ~ R .. ~ ~'~ ,~ f r<< ~ ~ y b ~1 ~ > ,~, ~ ~ ~ ~ i ' ~. ! ~ " Ytf~ t ~ 4 ~ 1'1Y~ {] (t' ti" i ~ t ~ '''~4~"~~ - *''~ { . S~. , f~ . ~ C y~ a. i~ t~ - ~ S } . i' ~ie~°3" y , m S _ ti ~~E ~ a ' ? ~ .. .. ,:,. : „ . .. _ .. . y , i ~ R~~ ~~ 'T' ~S !; ^L' ~~ f ~ x , ~ ~ - _ _ .. '. .y :;~, _ x ~ ~' _ >~ r ~ - _ . at J f ~ L ( ~' , L { ~ ~~~ } ~ .. : ,F L}~ =, t ~ ~ ? Y ~~ ; ~ Y+~ x ' ~ ~' t ~ i ' . ` - , f r r ~ ~ {~ .i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ ~ : : - ' '' ~~~~~~ ~ t , ,:: ~:, .. .- , , 4_ :ti . . ,. . . ., ~ , _. . . .. . . . . , ~ . . ... _ _ .. . . , .::a'`.!~:~~~,, :~ `, ~ , ~. : ~,: .,.,; ~; ~ i. :z%; ~'; ~ ~ ~; ~ _ :~ ~r. f~ ~ ,. ~ ~.+C:v!:a~~!sT:~~'{'r+~~.~:;<t a.'~t~..:,3=, ~< ~._. J.. ~o ~~,tf'C'~~~y, ~,~~•+`a1y~b,~-~~k ~~,X?~,'(t ~ ~ t]'it"rs ~ ~,, ~~'*Y s t ,: f h r -M "FC s . ,ff~ ~{ 'Q~'~,~ fn.f:: ._; ,. - ~ . . . .. .. . ' ~ . . ' ~\ ~ .. . . ~ ~ . . . V City Hall . Anaheim, California July 6, 1967 ~A.:REGULAR MEETING OF Tt1E ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning.Commission was called to order by Chairman Camp at 2:00 o'clock P.M., a quorum being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Camp. ~ . - COMMISSIONEf'S: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland. ~ ABSENT. - COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. PRESENI' - Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompson .~ • Planning Supervisor: Ronald Grudzinski . ~ Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts Office Engineer: Arthur Daw ' Assistant Planner: Charles Roberts , ' Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs INVOCATION - Reverend Murray Morford, Pastor of the First Church of the Nazarene, gave.the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Gauer led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF - The Minutes of the meeting of June 19, 1967 were approved as submitted THE MINUTES on motion by Commissioner Gauer, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, and MOTTON CARRIED. VARIANCE N0. 1859 - CONTINUED PUBLZC HEARING. JERR'~ MARKS, 2144 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; R. L. COONS, 111 West Elm Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting a variance to PERMIT A 20,000-SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE WZTH ROOF PARKING TO BE LOCATED AT THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF THE EXISTING HARDWARE FACILITY, WITH.WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK AND (2) MIIJIMUM PARKING SPACE SIZE on prop:erty described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land (approximately 150 feet by 332 feet), the southerly boundary of subject property being approximately 136 feet north of the centerline of Hiawatha Avenue and the northerly boundary being approximately 510 feet south of the centerli:ie of Lincoln Avenue, and further described as 2144 West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified P-1, AUTOMOBILE PpRKING, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the meetings of March 13 and 27, April 24, and May 22, 1967, to allow time for the petitioner to submit revised plans. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that a letter had been received from the agent for the petitioner requesting that he be permitted to withdraw the petition because of inability to finalize building plans. Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to terminate all proceedings on Variance No. 1859, as requested by the,petitioner. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIEDe CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ANAHEIM TRANSPORTATION CENTER, 1571 West ~ PERMIT N0. 949 Katella Avenue, Suite C, Anaheim, California, Lessee; RAMBERG 8 LOWREY, 2127 North Main Street, Santa Ana, California, Agent; requesting per- mission to ESTABLISH A TRANSPORTATION CENTER WITH RELATED OFFICES IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PROPOSED RESTAURANT WITH ON-SALE LIQUOR on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 300 feet,on the south side of Katella Avenue and having a maximum depth of approximately 500 feet, the westerly boundary of subject property being approximately 660 feet east of the centerline of West Street. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the meeting of June 19, 1967, to allow time for the ~ petitioner to submit revised plans of development which would resolve circulation problems. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson reviewed subject petition, the location of subject property, , the uses established in close proximity, and the Report to the Commission, emphasizing that it was the Interdepartmental Committee and Development Services Department's opinion that the ` 3502 ;. .: ~; 1-~ ~ ~ ~..! MINUI'ES, CIIY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 6~ 1967 3503 CONDITIONAL USE - proposed use must be a totally independent facility, self-contained, PERMIT N0: 949 and in no way dependent upon continuing access easements across the (Continued) Convention Center property. Mr. William Biel, 401 West Eighth Street, Santa Ana, attorney represent- ing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that subject property was being leased from the City of Anaheim; that his client held options to lease from the City for the proposed development; and that the architect would explain the technical changes of the developmento Mr. Don Ramberg, 2127 North Main Street, Santa Ana, architect for the proposed transporta- tion center, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the concept of the project and presented colored front elevations, noting this would be an airline transportation sales office and service location for airlines and eirport coach services to'pick up and discharge passengers to and from Los Angeles International Airport and the Orange County Airport; that a restaurant and cocktail lounge were also being provided, and that they were completely in agreement with the Report to the Commission in that the facility was designed to function within the boundaries of the proper'cy'; that all the difficulties originally presented by the Staff had been resolved; that tfie frcant portion of the property provided short-time parking for discharge and pick-up of passengers, and adequate rear parking and circulation were provided for buses. Furthermor~~ i:hey were providing for two controlled entrances to the Convention Center, subject to negotiation with the City Council; said entrances would be controlled by the City and would serve as an important element in the circulation and•. operation of the Convention Center. Mr. Ramberg, in response to Commissior. .~~cionirn;., stated that it was felt patrons and clients would not come to the facility . park their cars for a two to three-day span because it was the desire of many of the j..-,ople to use the bus, thereby eliminating use of their private automobiles, and that one of the principal uses would be from the conven- tion trade who would be coming in b,y plane and would have no local transportationo Mr. Ramberg also noted ti:at it was hoped eventually that the proposed facility would eliminate the Disneyland Hotel transportation center; however, if the public demanded this facility be retained, it would be a supplemental facility to that being proposed. The Commission inquired as to the route buses would take upon leaving the transportation center, whereupon Mr. Ramberg stated that buses could make only ri9ht-hand turns 9oing to Harbor Boulevard and then to the freeway, or turning right at Harbor to Convention Way~ on- to West Street, and then at the intersection of West Street and Katella Avenue, make a left- hand turn, traveling west to the Los Angeles International Airport. ~ No one appeared in opposition to sub5ect petition. TF~ HEARING WAS CIASED. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC67-143~and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 949, ' subject to conditions and the finding that approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 949 did not in any way commit the City to provide access to other areas, and that the proposed transportation centsr should be a totally independent facility, self-contained, and in no way dependen~ upon continuing access easements across the Convention Center property. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: ~MMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: WMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENI': COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. Commissioner Rowland left the Council Chamber at 2:20 P.M. RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. G. BARTON HEULER, 220 West Cypress Street, N0. 66-67-75 Anaheim, California, Owner; CARL E. NELSON, 1000 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; property described as: A rectangularly VARIANCE N0. 1890 shaped parcel of land containing approximately 2.32 acres, located on the north side of La Palma Avenue and having a frontage of approximately 428 feet and a depth of approximately 240 feet, the easterly property line being approximately 845 feet east of the centerline of Euclid Street. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-0, COMMERCIAL OFFICE, ZONE. '~rii'{ e/T4 :~ .~~' y`j^ f5~`h '-~' u,'~. rs-i~. Yt ~~(` ''~d`~' i~~.1y`~rt f a'.,~.~ 4 y hl ~y ~ !..- :a AC ~ c~"~i~~l .Mp1}rv ,n ~n ~„ ~',`z ~ ry,S b`~ V~ y F. i Si ~4ry7.t r~` f.;F• ~~ t t ~:, i ~. f~ ' '~ .ar.~ 3 t..~t> ,t.:> {~. ~ ^~ ~ . • . ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CAMMISSION, July 6, 1967 3504 RECLASSIFICATION• - REQUESTED VARIANCE: PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MEDICAL OFFIC~ N0. 66-67-75'. ' ' FACILITY, WITH WAIVERS OF (1) OFF-STREEI' PAR~CING REQUIREIV~NTS, (2) BUILDING HEIGHT AND SETBACK, VARIANCE NOo.1890 AND (3) REQUIRED NUMBER OF REFUSE STORAGE AREAS. ' (Continued). Sab3ect petitions were continued from the meeting of June 19, 1967, to allow time for the petitioner to review the parking study with the single-family property ownera in opposition, and for the Staff to study the multi-story perking requirements as they pertained to other cities having similar types of buildings. Zoning-.Supervisor Ronald Thompson reviewed sub~ect petitions, the location of subject property and the uses established in close proximity, and then reviewed the Comparative Parking Standards Chart that compared subject petitions' parking proposal with that of• the Cities.of Alhambra, Buena Park, Covina, Fullerton, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Jose, Santa Ana, and the Urban Land Institute, and then noted that the Staff had con- ~ tacted a number of physicians at the medical center on La Veta in the City of Orange who had indicated there was no parking problem at ~his time as far as that medical facility was concerned. Dr. G. Barton Heuler, 221 West Cypress, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that the Staff had made a number of comparisons in the Parking Standards Study; how- ever the parking requirements were all unique in their own facilities because of the types of inedical and auxiliary uses each building would have. Furthermore, the parking study made on the La Veta medical facility in the City of Orange would be comparable to that being proposed under subject petitions, and it was noted that at no time did that facility approach full capacity.of the parking facilities. The Commission inquired whether or not the petitioner had visited the Santa Ana faciiity, whereupon Dr. Heuler replied he had not consir~ered this fac3lity since the proposed develop- ment would be similar to that of the La Veta medical center - as a matter of fact, almost an exact duplication. Commissioner Farano ques+.ioned at length the petitioner regarding various studies made on parking requirements and facilities in other cities in order to ascertain whether or not the proposed medical office facility should qualify for the weivers rvquested. The petit'roner further stated that many of the ph.ysicians did not work a full six-day week; therefore, their patients would not be visiting the facility, and cited, for example, his brother who worked only three days a week. Mrs. Barbara F3urot, 1137 North Crown Street, appeared in opposition and noted that most profeseional people practiced more than three days a week, and she was opposed to waiver of the,parking requirements since the residents adjacent to subject pro~erty already had parking problems with the Assistance League and the mortuary, and to permit waiver of park- ing for. a third use would compound an already untenable situation and su9gested that more parking be required, rather than less parking, and her investigation of the La Veta medical center indicated there were more than one patient at a time - as a matter of fact, there " would be a number of patients, depending upon whether or not the physicians were seeing their patients at the times scheduled; that it was an exception rather than the rule that physicians would take Sunday and Wednesday off - it seemed more likely they would take a two-day weekend; and that parking should be provided for the possible maximum load of patients. 'Ihe petitioner, in rebuttal, noted that the majority of golfers'on Wednesday were dentists and physicians, and this break in the middle of the week was necessary because of their heavy days of seeing patients, and that the in-depth study made on the La Veta medical facility'indicated Monday and Friday were the heaviest days. Considerable discussion was then held by the Commission relative to.the various types of professional facilities which might need more parking facilities than was proposed, and the comparison made with the La Veta medical center, whereupon the petitioner noted the proposed facility would be owned and operated by the physicians and dentists who would be'using the facility. _ Mr. Thompson nated for the Commission that the Staff had on two separate occasions made a>survey of the La Veta medical center to note to what extent the parking facilities were being utilized, and it was noted on one occasion that it was only one-half full, and on another•occesion only two-thirds full; furthermore, upon contacting several members of the,facility, they had indicated the parking lot was never full to capacity - however, the staff of the La.Veta center was more concerned with ingress and egress since this was a long, narrow parcel and parking was some distance from the building. However, this would not be the case as far as subject petitions was concerned since the parking was much better related to the building and ingress and egress would be much less a problem. sx ~t..,;;.d`•'•$`s' ,~ y.; Y F~, .y, J2'~ q ~ ~~ac ~ ~ ;,.~ ~ ,. ~i '~ ~~ ~~ . .,a, 1 .:d'.^ .. .. w , .~ . ..~ ., ~.. ~.~. k . ~ . . ~ . ~ . . . ~~ ._. ... ». ~.~ '. . fF5 ,. .~'= . , ., J .~. . : .. ...'~~ ~ . ~ ~ :y ` r ~" ~ .. . .. ~ . ~ . .. ' . ' ~ ~ ~ y, ~ MINUTES,.CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 6; 1967 " 3505 RECLASSIFICATION - Chairman Camp'noted that the request for variances was based on the ,NO: 66-67-75 . fact that the City of Anaheim did not have code requirements for the ` proposed type of facility; consequently, the waivers seemed to be 'VARIANCE N0. 1890 much more pronounced tha~'if actual parking requirements for.this (Continued) type of fecility were in the zoning code. ~ Commissioner Farano expressed grave concesn that parking would not be provided adequately to:serve all the needs, even thuugh paiking'"studies had been'presented indicating that a similar type of'facility,.which was,27%;belo.w the requirement of the Anaheim Municipal Code; had more than adequate parking. . THE HEARING WAS CIASED. Commi.ssioner Allred offered Resolution Noe PC67-144 and moved for its passage and adopt3on, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recommend to.the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 66-67-75 be approved, subject to conditions and the finding that if in the~future the proposed medical facility reverted to another use, that the parking requirements should be subject to the Anaheim Municipal Code at that time for any re-use. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Camp. NOES: ODMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst, Rowland. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC67-145 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1890, subject to conditions and the finding that in the event the future use of this building reverts to another type of use, the parking requirements should be subject to the Anaheim Municipal Code at that time,for any re-use. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing res~lution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Mungall, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst, Rowland. CONDITIONAL USE ,- PUBLIC HEARING. HARRY BASSE, 2781 East Wagner Avenue, Anaheim, ~ PERMIT N0. 952 California, Owner; ANN MADISON, 866 South Harbor Bouleyarda Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A CHURCH AND SUNDAY SCI~OL AND PERMIT THE USE OF AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AS A PARSONAGE on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approxi- ' mately 115 feet on the south side of Wagner Avenue and having a maximum depth of approximately 690 feet, the westerly boundary of subject property being approximately 140 feet west of the I centerline of Marjan Street, and further described as 2781 East Wagner Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICIJLTURAL, ZONE. Commissioner Rowland returned to the Council Chamber at 3:14 P.M. ;,-;t~i :-a Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson reviewed subject petition, the location of subject property 'and the uses established in close proximity. Mrs. Ann Madison, agent for the petitioner,,appeared before the Commission and noted that the proposed development of subject property would generate less noise and traffic than eny bther use which might be conaidered; that the traffic flow would not go through the surrounding residential streets since Rio Vista Street abutted subject property; that Finding : No. 7 of the Report to the Commission indicated the alignment of Rio Vista Street had not been determined, and in the event Rio Vista Street was not abandoned and the street was widened and'improved, the petitioner requested use of this area for parking until thei.mprove- ment and extension took place; and, further, inquired whether or not Condition No. 9 could be made "subject to final building inspection" so that the reading of the resolution or ordinance would not be held up until such time as the bonds were submitted to guarantee these improvementso Mr. Thompson noted that no ordinance would be read on subject property because a conditional ' use only was requested, and the only thing that might be held.up would be the building permit;•however, it was his understanding that the Right-of-Way Division of the Engineering Department would have these forms to the petitioner shortly after the Commission's considera- tion of this pet:tion, if approved. _ . . . _ ~ , 5~ +, ~ a. : °~.. L ~ g: . ' ~ ~ ~ > v MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 6, 1967 3506 CONDITIONAL USE r Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that if Chz Commission PERMIT N0. 952 ~ favorably considered subject petition, it would not become effective (Continued) within 20 days, and within two weeks of that date the Right-of-Way Division would have the.easement deeds and bond forms filled out and sent to the property owner, and it was his assumption it was hardly likely the building permit would be issued prior to that time. Mro Thomp•son also nated that subject petition was different than a reclassification, and it would`depend upon how fast the petitioner moved to meet the canditions; however, when an ordinance was read, there was a 30-day referendum period to which the agent for the petitioner must have been referring. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. . T!-lE HEARING WAS CIASED. Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC67-146 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 952, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CAMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENI': COMh7ISSI0NERS: Herbst. VARIANCE N0. 1891 -?UBLIC I-~ARIiyG. BALL-LOARA, INCORPORATED, 606 South Euclid Street, • Anaheim, California, Owner; ALBERT FIEDLER, 606 South Euclid Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to EXPAND AN EXISTING SIGN, WITH WAIVERS OF (1) PERMITTED SIGN LOCATION AND (2) MINIMUM SIGN ELEVATZON on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 70 feet on the east side of Euclid Street and having a maximum depth of approximately 117 feet, the southerly property line of subject prope•r':y being approximately 345 feet nozth of the centerline of Alomar Avenue, and further•described as 606 South Euc13d Street. Property presently'claseified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson reviewed subject petition, the location of subject.property, and the Report to the Commission, noting that the existing sign was non-conforming, and it would be up to the Commission to determine whether or not the non-conforming use should be extended. , Mra Albert Fiedler, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that the existing sign was too small to accommodate the number of lessees of the building; that it was necessary to have additional signing because of the competition to the north and south; that the building was too close to the street and the lessees were denied~adequate advertising except for one large, one-face sign, and they were proposing a two-face sign which would be non-rotating, and no flashing lights or arrows, black and white in color and which would be lit from dusk iantil 11:00 P.Ma; that the existing sign was three years old; and furthermore, in response to Commission questioning, noted that the existing sign was inadequate to properly identify the existing lessees. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE E~ARING WAS CIASED. Mr. Thomgson noted the existing sign was 33 square feet and the overall height was 20 feet; that the proposal was to more than triple the existing sign area for the purpose of identi- fying two additional tenants, and that there were several ways to adequately sign the property and still remain within the Sign Ordinance requirements. Considerable discussion then was held by the Commission relative to the possibility of requiring revised plans which would be more in con£prmance with the Sign Ordinance, or whether or not the petitioner should be required to comply with all requirements of the Sign Ordinance in signing subject property. Mr. Thompson, in response to Commission questioning, noted that although the square footage could be increased to 140 square feet of sign area, there was sumewhat of a problem regard- ing the height since the Code limited the height to 25 feet within 300 feet of the R-1 2one, and there was R-1 development adjoining subject property. ~ - ~~ ~:~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~~ ~ ~~ ~~ . MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 6, 1967 350Z, . . . . ' . ~ . . . . . . . ~ ;:~~; ,';i:ai ''li . . . . VARIANCE N0. 1891 - The Commission then inquired of.the petitioner whether he would prefer ~y' (Continued) submitting revised plans more nearly conforming with Code requirements ' r7~~'' , rath er than po"ssibly receiving a denial by the°Commission, whereupon ~~'z Mre Fiedler requested that the Commission postpone their deliberations ` ;~ until revised plans could be submitted. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for Variance ;~a . No. 1891 to the meeting.of July 31, 1967, to allow time for submission of revised plens. ~; Commissioner Farano seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.. s . z: VARIANCE N0. 1893 - PUBLIC HEARING. MAX PROVISOR, 959 South Knott Avenue, Anaheim, ; California, Owner; requesting'permission to CONSTRUCT A BRAKE SHOP ,~; AND TRAZLER AND VAN RENTAL AND STORAGE FACILITY HpVING pUTDpOR STORAGE ` ~ IN AN EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER on property described as: An irre ularl sha ed 9 Y p parceT of ~ :~ land lyi:ng north and west of a parcel of property located at the northwest corner of Ball a'a Road and Knott Avenue and having frontages of approximately 140 feet on Ball Road and '~'~ approximately 200 feet on Knott Avenue. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. . ` ;~ Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson reviewed subject petition, the location of subject property ; and uses established in close proximity, noting that the p.roposed use was not a permitted use _.~ in the C-1 Zone, but was permitted by right in tne M-1 Zone, and that if outdoor storage was '?,~ approved,. construction of a 6-foot masonry wall enclosing the storage should be required. '~ ~ . a Mr. Max Provisor, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission,noting that his original plans had indicated enclosure for the trailer and there would be a small storage area behind ;.~~ this area;.however, the trucks would be stored in the open; that these trucks:were U-haul' : ' ?~ trailers and trucks and no semi-trailer trucks would be stored on this pxoperty; that he . ~~ had develo ed the sho in center three P PA 9 years ago, and during this time it.had never been "'' ;:~~ completely filled; that he had lost a considerable amount of money due to the fact that` this sfte was a less desirable commercial site, even though he had developed this for ret~il ~~ stores; that it was difficult to obtain tenants for the'property and developed aubject s, property due to the fact it was in close proximity to a railroa,d; and~•thet if sub~ect peti tion were approved, this would'assist'the service station:lessee adjacent,to 'ubject'~property ° ?~~• since he was having difficulty in maintaining this,station: Furthermore, in response to' ',~~.' Commissiorr questioning, Mr; Provisor noted that although future buildings were indicated <?k, , on the plot plan, due to the fect that he was unable to fully lease the existing'building, ~~ no plans were anticipated for future expanaion. G~ `{ Commissioner Rowland 1'eft the Council Chamber at 3:40 P.M. ~~.~ Mr. Provisor, in response to Commission questioning, noting that if a fence was put along ~~ the Ball Road frontage, the prospective renters of the U-haul trucks and trailers would'not krow where they were located, and that he would not rent space for travel trailers - just the concession for the U-haul trailers and trucks. The Commission further inquired as to the number of cars that would 5e stored, waiting for service at the brake shop, to which Mr. Provisor stated that only four cars would be stored inside the building, and that there were more than enough old cars around the service station,; and he was not desirous of having any old cars around his new shopping facility; that the . existing restaurant was in operation - however the pizza parlor had ceased to operate be- - case they were bankrupt; and thet of the 23 stores available for leasing, only 4 were operat-i ing presently. Commissioner Rowland returned to the Council C'hamber at 3:45 P.M. Mr. D. W. Roper, 716 South Kenmore Street, appeared in opposition, noting that he was the owner of the service stetion property; that he had sold subject property to the petitioner; that he was of the opinion the proposed use would be detrimentaL to the s~oppi;ng-center; that the petitioner occupied five of the stores he indicated were vacant; tha; he was opposed ' to rezoning subject property to M-1; and that he was also opposed to the storage and sales ~ of trailers adjacent to a shopping center since he was of the opinion a use much more com- patible with the existing uses in the area would be less detrimental and would be more help- , ' ful to the surrounding area. Furthermore, the operation of the service station, in.his opinion, was successful since the operator was pumping approximately,25,000,gallons of gasoline per week there. Mr. Roper, in response to Commission questionin9, stated that if the use were appxoved, outdoor storage could be for anything the petitioner desired - other than just the trailers that were presently being proposed; furthermore, the number of Lrains along the railroad right-of-way was only two, and years ago when this was the Pacific Electric, many trains ~ passed by the area during the day, and there was only a single track - therefore no damage 1' could be claimed from train traffic. ~` '~"{'~F~.ti~9"~~~+~F~fr't~~~~ a3R,"u.,~tl „{~~~T~twh'Sa~;,,r~''"S3Y~ ~~~° iH 1 r;l,..'n~i"Yr~.1? ..tk.,' 's3 .`.i .:,+SN -_.,f-,~+ ~ .r. / ~ ~ ~. .. : ~ . , ,., _ "' _."'_..__'__. .. .,.~(.~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ \~~ ~ MINUTES, CSP~ PLA;JNING COMMISSION, July 6, 1967 <';,<~ 3508 VARIANCE N0. lt3 ~- In rebuttal, Mr. Provisor noted that they were proposing only a maximum ~ ~~ of 16-foot long trailers and trucks and a maximum of 1~ tons; that the ~ ?~ storage of trailers on service station sites was limited to ten; and ~ they had been op'erating under a similar franchise with the Richfield service station on the `<~ south side of the street; furthermore, subject property had been vacant for four years, and ;;~ it was his feeling that the proposed use of the property would not be competitive with the ~ service station but would be helpful. Mr. Provisor also noted that Mr. Roper had attempted ~ ;~ to obtain the U-haul trailer lease; however, the lessee of his service station did not y qualify - therefo're, it was his opinion he was now opposing subject petition because of this. ''~ Mr. Roper stated he was not aware the operator had not qualified for the U-haul•franchise. THE HEARING WAS CIASED. ,. Discussion was he]d by the Commission relative to whether or not the brake shop snd storage of trailers and trucks would be helpful or detrimental to the area since some of the uses were in the industrial use characteristics; that if subject petition were approved, screen- ing, such.as fencing similar to that along the freeway, should be required of the storage space abutting the commercial facility to the north; and that the'uses of subj=ct property should be oriented to Ball Road rather than Knott Aver.ue since all the commercial uses were oriented to Knott Avenue and no ingress and egress should be provided to the brake shop and storage facility. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. Pi,67-147 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded-by Commissioner Farano, to grant Petition for Variance No.~1893, on the basis that this would be a U-haul and small truck rental facility; that the petitioner had stipulated that the trucks would be a maximum of 16 feet in length and 1~- tons; that.no semi-~railers would be s.tored there; that in addition to the recommended conditions of the Report to the Commission the petitioner should be required to provide a chainlink fence with louvered screening,similar to that along the freeway, along the north property line tb properly shield the storage of trailers and trucks from the commeicial uses to the north. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Mungail, Campe NOES: CAMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: CAMMISSIONERS: Herbst. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. VARIANCE N0. 1894 - PIJBLIC HEARING, ANGEIA ZABY, 1401 East 51st Street, Los Angeles, California, Owner; COX NEON CORPORATION, 1711 Bluff Road, Montebello, California, Agent; requesting permission to EXPAND AN EXISTING FREE- STANDING SIGN WITH WAIVER OF MAXIMUM PERMITTED SIGN AREA on property described as: An "L" shaped parcel of land lying south and east of a parcel of land located~at the southeast corner of Katella Avenue and Harbor Boulevard and having frontages of approximately 240 feet on Katella Avenue and approximately SO feet on Harbor Boulevard. Property presently classi- fied R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE, Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson reviewed subject petition, the location of sub,ject property and uses~~established in close proximity, as well as noting that the existing sign consisting of 350 square ieet was approved under Building Permit No. 1931 on March•13, 1967; that no zoning action was required since the sign was interpreted as conforming to the Sign Ordinance; that the-existing sign was 53~ feet in height, having the main part of this sign located above 31~ feet; and that an additional 60-square foot, chanqeable copy sign was located 10 feet above ground, and a liberal interpretation of the Code permitted two sign panel portions with a 15-foot separation - however, the petitioner now was proposing t,~ fill in the 15-foot open- ing which would result in a sign area of 648 square feet, not~'including the ironwork and decorative features on the top of the sign, which would be an additional 126 square feet - or a total of 774 square feet. Furthermore, the Staff's computation of the area of the exist- ing sign favored the petitioner since a more literal interpretation of the Code would have required consolidation of the sign panels, and that a second free-standing sign was located on the Harbor Boulevard frontage. Mr. Richard Cox, designer of the sign and representing the agent for the petitionpr, appeared before the Commission and submitted colored renderings of what was proposed. The Commission, in reviewing the proposed plans, noted that if sub3ect petition were approved this might set a precedent for requests for larger and higher signs in the Commercial- Recreation Area along Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue, and since many work sessions were held prior to the adoption of the Sign Ordinance, at which time the repxesentatives of the sign companies were present and had stated they would be able to comply with the . ~..~,,. - ~!--' ~. :h~~y,r '` ~ d ....".rS~rM, i.~~. ... . .. i~._. ,~ ,~. .~.. ., ~~~. _ . . . , . . „ . .. .. . . . .. , . . ~ . ~ . . . . . .. . . . . . ~ ~ ~ . 4~• '. l .:C' :~.:~ - ~~ ~ ' . _-.__ tle ij , .~~„~ ",F'{ h; ~ '.~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 6, 1967 3509 ~ ,,_~ VARIANCE N0, 1894 - existing Sign Ordinance, no evidence was submitted that would indicate (Continued) any consideration of waiver of the Sign Ordinance since no hardship ~ was proven. `; :,",.., Commissioner Rowland requested an explanation as to why the ironwork on the existing sign - was not computed in the overall square footage of the sign, to which Mr. Thompson stated +:hat because of distances between the ironwork, the actual sign and the changeable copy sign, it was interpreted that these would be accep±able under the existing Sign Ordinance. Commissioner•Rowland was of the opinion that since the 5ign Ordinance was quite liberal, a more Titeral interpretation of the sign requirements should be made rather than favoring any sign that was coming before the Building Department for approval. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. A letter from John Swint, designer, reviewinq various portions of the Report to the Commission, was read by the Commission ~ecretary. TI-~ HEARING WAS CLOSED. During the discussion held by the Commission it was determined that the Sign Ordinance as written~and adopted was quite favorable; that a firm stand should be taken whereby a peti- tioner-requesting a variance from the Sign Ordinance should prove actual hardship; that signs as they appeared on Harbor Boulevard were so misleading and obstructive to newcomers to the City that no one could find a specific site if he wanted to; and that granting of the many variances compounded the precedents being set for larger and higher and wider signse Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC67-148 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to deny Petition for Variance No. 1894 on the basis that no hardship was proven or shown that the petitioner would not be granted a right which was enjoyed by adjoining property owners, and that signing should be in accordance with the Sign Ordinance. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: ,COMMISSIONER$: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES:. COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENTe OOMMISSIONERS: Herbst. VARIANCE N0. 1896~-~'PUBLIC HEARING. CRAIG JEWETT, 1303 West Valencia Drive, Fullerton, ~ California and IMPERIAL HOUSEHOLD SHIPPING COMPANY, INC., 2809 Columbia Street, Torrance, California, Owners; JOE LANE, 1335 West Valencia Drive, Suite G,,Fullerton, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A BILLIARD , PARLOR AND PIZZA PARIAR P1ITH ON-SALE BEER (PORTION N0. 1) AND TO PERMIT A PARCEL OF LAND HAVING NO FRONTAGE ON A DEDICATHD STREET (PORTION N0. 2) on property described as: A rec- ~' tangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 218 feet on the north side of Orangethorpe Avenua and having a maximum depth of approximately 365 feet, the easterly' boundary of subject property being approximately 182 feet west of the centerline of Orange- thorpe Park and consisting of Portion No. 1- the southerly 222 feet of subject property, and Portion No. 2- being the northerly 143 feet. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Zoning 5upervisor Ronald Thompson reviewed subject petition, the location of subject property , and the uses established in close proximity, and further noted that Conditional Use Permit I No. 549 was granted, subject to conditions, in April of 1964, to permit the establishment of an office building, restaurant, and cocktail lounge; however, this petition was never exer- cised; furthermore, subject property was proposed for subdivision into two portions with a i- household storage company.utilizing the rear portion and having access through a 30-foot ! perpetual easement through the center of the front portion ta Orangethorpe Avenue; and that M_ the Commission would have to determine whether or not the proposed billiard parlor and pizza parlor on the front portion,should be permitted in the industrial azea since subject property ; was one lot of an industrial subdivision on which a number of buildings already had been ~, constructed. ~ Mr. Joe Lane, agent•for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that the I petitioner had owne~l-~subject property for approximately three~years; that during the inter- ~ vening time he had attempted to develop the property - however-these proposals were never i consummated; that the°rear portion of subject property has now-bean•conveyed to a storage facility which would~not be similar to other transfer and storage-van companies since storage would be on a long-term basis - therefore a traffic problem would not exist; that the front t' a'~r` ~x ... f ' ~y( _ rv ;i lm~~f i~A~' ~q,ty`y^ ~ 1.~ ~j$~1F:`X~~r^~5r~~~Y' o-.~,r _,y ~°-cr ~Y ~. _ ~ys~ ~} s ~ ~ -~:~r:+'rzJ 5 ~ k 't z ~.`~~~ ,r 1 x Yk ~ w y. ix ;. r~,' f'; ~ IJ. r~ ` ~y,` ,~ 5 'v ~ . . . .. ~ ~ ~ . . ' . ~ . ~ . ~ ~ '; ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 6~ 1967 3510 ~~ ~ . . ~. . .. . . . . ( ..~ ~ ' VARIANCE N0. 1896 - portion was now being considered for a billiard and pizza parlor; that '(Continued) upon discussio~~ with the storage company, they~were agreeable that the ~ proposed easement through the portion fronting•on Orangethorpe Avenue would not be detrimental to their use; that hg would be the proposed developer of the billiard and:pizza parlor; and that, in his opinion, it would not be detri- , mental to the existing.uses in the area_ in which it was proposed to be located. ~ Mr. Lane, in response to Commission questioning, noted that the Imperial Household Shipping j Company development wes not contingent upon granting of subject petition since ttie petitioner ' had.already conveyed titTe to the rear portion of the parcel. • '~ ~ The Commission furth2r~~inquired of Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts what type of control ' could be imposed to~°irrsure that youngsters under twenty-one who°would be patronizing the ' billiard`and pizza parlor did not obtain any alcoholic beverages, since the entire area had ' an open appearancee i Mre Roberts noted•-that persons under twenty-one years of age•would-not be permitted in the area which sold~al~coholic beverages; however, the proposed~pizza parlor could be compared with the "Me-N=Ed•'-s~•Pizza Parlor" where beer was served in th~~mixed-area in con3unction with the serving of pizza - however, there were further regulations as they pertained to pool hallse The agent agreed~this cauld be a valid question, and when the-~tenant asked him to build the proposed facility, he-visited Belmont Shores where they operated-a°-similar type of facility and spent a considerable amount of time in observing this operation•to determine whether or not this contral of under-age persons was feasible, and upon completion of this investigation, he was convinced that there would be adequate control to separate the under-age persons from the regular'adults. The Commission discussed at length the existing operation in Belmant Shores, the sale of beer to under-age persons, with no ~eparation between the two facilities, and th? need for adequate safeguards. Mr. Thompson again noted for the Commission's consideration that•the•basic question was one ~ of land use and whether or not the billiard and pizza parlors were an appropriate land use , for the industrial area. j 3 The Commission noted that although owners of the rear portion were in agreement with the eases ment this would not preclude a change:in use to' a,machine shop with trucklease parking which would increase:the traffic'flow'consid'erably and create hazards.for the parkingJ~area of the billiard and pizza parlor. The agent noted they~would be foolish to attempt to control the°rear portion; however, the ! Commission noted that t~he reverse was also true~ whereupon th~-agerrt noted that the petitioner' could have.retained-cantrol of the entire parcel, developing it in accordance with the M-1 requirements and still`problems could occur. Chairman Camp noted that the proposed easement was improperly lo•catecl, and in order to be effectiver since the Pablic Utilities Commission would not p-ermit•access roads within 100 feet of the railroad•right-of-way, it would be necessary to relocate the access easement and drives through the-billiard and pizza parlor parking facil~i~ty~by possibly "flopping" the layout projecting the building for the west portion of the property to alleviate any problems in the flow.of traffic or parking. The Commission further noted that subject and adjoining properties were in the M-1 Zone, and the use proposed was more commercial in nature. Furthermore, there ~ould not be any control to prevent the teenagers from going through the industrial area to the rear, and vandalism could occur since these buildings were not policed at night. The agent noted that Orangethorpe Avenue was developing as a commercial street rather than an.industrial street; that a survey had been made of the surrounding industrial firms who had indicated interest in the proposed billiard and pizza parlor; and that he was convinced the proposed use would not be:detrimental to the area. Mra Thompson again noted that the prime consideration was one of land use, and if the Commission deemed the proposed use compatible to the industrial area, the Interdepartmental Committee for Public Safety and General Welfare would probably want a different type of easement sucfi as one along the easterly property line where no conflict would occur with the traffic flow through the parking area; that the easement was necessary since the M-1 Code would not permit subdivision of subject property unless adequate easement provisions were provided for the rear portion; and that the easement should be a perpetual easement for the rear portion. ~ . ~ V MINUTES, CITY.PLANNING COMMISSION, July 6, 1967 3511 VARIANCE N0. 1896-= The Commission inquired whether or not the rear portion had been (Continued)• committed by the petitioner and whether or not the exact point of . entry had,been determined. ' The agent, in reply, noted that an 18-foot easement had been givea;-however, this was not acceptable to the Citya Furthermore, the easement could be relocated if the City deemed it advisable, and that the proposed location was made in order to comply with parking requirements'of the City. Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that he had-sev~ral meetings with the petitioner regerding the separation of the parcel to the north;°and at these meetings he had informed the.petitioner that the only thing not acceptable to the City relative to engineering requirements was the fact that the proposed easement could not be construed . as having frontage on a dedicated street, and nothing else was discussed. Mre Craig Jewett appeared before the Commission and••in response to questioning stated that the storage company did not object to the easement being relocated~to the east, and'tfiat it might be shifted eas'..-=siy about 20 feet - however, this would rednce the parking by about 15 cars, but this rE..~ .`ion could be made up by placing more parking in the front setback. Chairman Camp inquired as to the method which could be employed to make the proposed ease- me~~t a perpetual one in the event the Commission considered sub3ect petition favorably so that the easement would run with the use of the land. Mr. Roberts adviser~~the~Commission that this perpetual easement would have to be submitted to the City Attorney's Office for review prior to recordation. Mro Daw advised the Commission that a parcel map would be reqaired~for the division of the property if subject petition were approved; however, the Engineering Division would not have any opposition to the easement. ~ r : ~ ",:S\ ~f .. .~'..: fi~,~y '~.1~ : a~',~ ~ ~~ jl ;,' 1~ I >;~ ~ r'~ i'~ ;~~ • ~r,~ • ~ad_3. ;":'~;~ :W Mr. Jewett noted that he was aware the proposed development was not acceptable in its present form; however, he had an agneement with the tenants subject to the granting of subject peti- tion and inquired whether oz not the Commission would consider this an acceptable use. The Commission indicated their answer could not be given at this time. Mra William R. B1oom, 420 South Beverly Drive, Beverly Hills, appeared before the Commission in opposition, noting that he was the corporate owner of the industrial tract known as ~ "Orangethorpe Park"; that he had sold the petitisniar one of the sixteen lots of this sub- division; that he was still the owner of twelve of i;he lots, and-six•or seven buildings had ~ been conetructed so far, with an investment of over $500,000; that the proposed use was commPrcial in character for the front portion and did not serve the needs of the industrial development there; that~he was not opposed to the split of the property provided all was developeci for industrial purposes; that when the industrial tract had been developed, no waivers were requested;~~and the tract was being built in conformance with the Code require- ments; that he and several persons present in the Council Chamber-were there to protect their investments in~the industries already located there and-were opposed to granting a proposed commercial-use-of the industrial property - however~, they were not opposed to industrially related commercial uses, such as restaurants, banks, motels, or office buildings which would ser've the industrial development existing there; that•the beer parlor and pool hall would not enhence-the value of the industrial property;-that-subject property was basic- ally surrounded by industrial development, and to permit the prop~sed use alon9 the Orange- thorpe Avenue frontage'would be detrimental to the continaed°development of the industrial tract; that the subdivision of the property had a cul-de-sac~to~the-rear of these lots, and teenagers could ut'rTize th'rs street as a raceway and coaid'tarn-~to•vandalism; that when the petitioner previousfiy~re~qaested an office building, restaurant;=and-cocktail lounge he did not oppose it based on~the fact that the use was complementary to-the area; that he xepresenteo all of the owners of the parcels which had been developed for industrial purposes who were all in opposition to the billiard and pizza parlor; and then requested that the Commission deny the requested use of the front portion of subject property. The Commission inquired of Mr. Bloom what specifically was detrimental about the.proposed billiard and pizza parlor. Mr. Bloom noted that the Code required the petitioner had to prove the use would not be detrimental to the adjoining land usE, and it wasn't the opposition's position to prove that it was; however, the uses were not compatible since they did not complement the estab- lished industrial uses; that vandalism could occur since many teenagers would be in the area and this could diecourage industries from developing the balance of the lots. ~ . _.. _ 'r ; . _.~._.~~- ____ ... _ . _ _ .___..__ - _ v- • ,~. . • _ . ~ W MINUTES, CITY•PLAIVNING OOMMISSION, July 6~ 1967 c~ S ' ~ -+~ -- -- .,,,ti\ cR ~ \ ~i ~ . 3512 I ~ VARIANCE NOa 1896 - Mr. Bloom also noted, upon questionin9 by the Commission, that there ~ (Continued)~ were five complete buildings on the property that he owned and there were~five undeveloped lots; however, the balance of the lots were developed with buildings ranging from 12,000 to 21,000 square feet, ` and one building°was a multi-story building, and that one lot immediately to the north ` of the petitioner's property was developed and others were.in the process of being developed. The ~ommission'inquired of~Mr. Bloom,.as an industrial developer would he feel recreational facilities as sucki did not enhance his property since Nortronics had a rather large recrea- : tional facility. ; :;,? Mr. Bloom noted that.a maximum of 200 men would be employed in Orangethorpe Park which could not be compared with the thousands Nortronics or Autonetics had employed, and from his obser- ~:'~:; vation, there would be no time at lunch to patronize the proposed development, and most men would go home immediately after finishing work. ~ _~ The Commission also inquired whether or not a bowling alley could be considered acceptable y; to the area, whereupon'Mr. Bloom noted this would be more in keeping with recr.eational ;:.1" facilities than the proposed use, and it was his opinion that the proposed use did not .ti;~ serve the area bat wovld have clients from outside of the area which it proposed to serve. ~ 4 However, he was~jvst~as concerned with the possibility of vandalism by young people since many of these~stxvct~ares had almost solid glass fronts and doors and could be broken and the buildings entered, with further damage being done. Mr. Jewett, in•re3~attal, noted that the proposed billiard parlor would not be comparable to ~=' other pool halls; that this would be a$300,000 investment with stats league competition, and if he did rtot fee~l this was appropriate for the area, he would not have•proposed it. Further- more automobtles~wotal~d~have to leave the premises, turn left on Orangethorpe, artd then left again in order to enter the industrial park,which seemed hardly likelye THE HEARING WAS CIASED. Commissioner Gaver•felt he would like to give more thought to the proposed billiard and pizza parlor~-~~~to-investigate other facilities in the nearby cities and-receive an unpreju- diced report regarding this type of operation, as well as revised plans-to provide the ease- ment so that it would not cut through the center of the parcek since this would be necessary, subject petition should be continued for submission of revised plans indicating relocation of the easement for the rear portion, regardless of the ou•tcome of the frontage portion. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for Variance No. 1896 to the meetin9 of July 31, 1967, in order to allow time for submission of revised plans and for further study of the proposed commercial facility. Commissioner Allred seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Camp left the Council Chamber at 5:23 P.M., Commissioner Gauer assuming.the chair. RECLASSIFICATION -~PLIBLIC HEARING. ANNIE TORRES, 3435 West Ball Road, Anaheim, California, N0. 67-68-1 Owner; M. S. BERNARD, 615 West Eighth Street, Santa Ana, California, Agent; requesting that property described as: A rectangularly shaped -parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 85 feet on the north side of Ball Road-and having a maximum depth of approximately 366 feet, the westerly property line of subject-praparty being approx=mately 265 feet east of the centerline of Knott Avenue, and further descx~'rb2fias 3435 West Ba~l Road, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-1;-G~IERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE to permit the expansion of an existing medical office located immediately to the west of subject property. Zoning Supervisor°Ronald Thompson reviewed subject petition, the location of subject property ; and the uses estatrlished in close proximity, together with the Report~to the Commission, noting that develapment-plans had not been submitted with the petition; however, the peti- j tioner had indicated•development of the property would be in accordance with the C-1 Site Development Stanctards;~and that approximately 220 feet of vacant land•existed behind the ~ ara e which would~ rovide for ade uate arkin of sub ect i 9 9 A 9 P 9 J property as well as provide for additional expansion of the medical facility's parking. •` Mrs. Pat Berg, 11951 Brookhurst Street, Huntington Beach, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that the medicai building was immediately adjacent to the west of subject property, and they had insufficient parking and, therefore, subject property would relieve the parking problem of the medical facility, as well as utilization of the 1,400-squaxe foot block building for a physician's office; that there was sufficient ' room to provide ingress on one side of the house and exit from the other side; and that the t reason for requesting C-1 Zoning rather than C-0 was to permit use of the present. structure without a conditional use permit. r . a~ - ... ,:'rR'` , . .; _ - ti , ,• ,~„ , + ~.N. R~ .,'SL ~ . . . .. . .., . . ... . . . ... , f•L^~ `s,'~ ~j,~'+'~ .._. y y.~ ~, n'n pa 5~2 "r'~ ~+ uai"c ~ibru.v ja. ,6t h ~ ~+ ~ 1.` ~, +, _, uv y . ~.v~e~'~++K:7~c vey6 r~.',~ .:~ ^F !l1Y~ f ~ '~ ~ . . . ~ . . . ' . . _ _._~_ ~ :.^'. ~ ~ ' MINUIES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 6, 1967 3513 I;. RECLASSIFICATION - The Commission nuted that it would have been a great help to them if N0. 67-68-1 plans had been submitted indicatin how arkin would be ~ 9 A 9 proposed for (Continued) the existing facility. ~;~. Mrs. P. H. Young, 920 South Knott Avenue, appeared•b~fore the Commission ~~ and noted t}rat•subj~ect property abutted her property at the xear and inquired whether a wall !~;~~ or screen-lands•aaping would be required adjoining the R-1 property aince the apartments ~°r:~?~ developed in•.tire area had been giving them considerable problems already. "';.`;~~ z~ The Commissi•on a~dvised Mrs. Young that one of the requirements of the G1 Zone was a masonry X~ wall and scrEen landscaping between the commercial and the residential uses. ;;~~~'a~ THE HEARING WAS CIASED. Commissioner~Rowland offered Resolution No. PC67-149 and moved for its p-assage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi- fication No. 67-68-1 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CAMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Mungall, Rowland, Gauer. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Herbst. RECLASSIFICA?ION - PUBLIC HEARING. CHARLES AND MARIETTA DAVIS, 329 North Resh Street, N0. 67-68-3 Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting that property described as: A parcel of property located at the southwest corner of Harbor Boulevard and La Verne Street and having frontages of approximately 62 feet on Harbor Boulevard and approximately 109 feet on La Verne Street~ and further described as 857 North Harbor-Boulevard, be reclassified from the R-2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE, to est~blish a small convenience market. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson reviewed subject petition, the location of subject property and the uses established in close proximity, noting that the grocery store was established as' e non-conforming°use under Variance Noe 156 in 1951, at which time it was'indicated that thisl had been a non-cvnforming use in existence for over 20 years; that the petitioner was pro- posing to replace•the old building,which was badly damaged by a recent fire, with a new structure;•and that-commercial office uses were established'to the south o'f subject property -! therefore; th~e-proposed use would be compatible. Furthermore, the petitioner had submitted a request to°the City Council requesting that he be permitted to proneed with the develop- ~ ment of his•~prop~rty at his own risk, subject to approval of the rezoning,which the City Council had~granted°on June 13, 1967, subject to the applicant submitting a letter holding the City harm?ess in the event the rezoning application was not approved. ~ Mr. Charles Davis, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and stated that the grocery store had been in operation on subject property for over 40 years; however, he was concerned with the request for dedication of an additional five feet along the west- erly property line for alley widening purposes since the balance of the alley was only 15 feet wide. Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the petitioner and the Commission that a 15-foot wide ' alley was inadequate to handle two-way traffic, especially since commercial uses would be utilizing the alley adjacent to subject property because the vehicular access rights to Harbor Boulevard would have to be dedicated to the City of Anaheim, and access to subject property would have to be either from the alley or from La Verne Street. I Mr. Thompson also noted that as the area became more intensely used, and since the area was in a state of transition, as properties developed for commercial or heavier residential ' uses, the alley would be widened to the 20-foot width required, and that the requirement of street light and street tree fees was necessary because they had never been collected previously, although lights and trees were in the area. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. f THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissi~one~r-Mungall offered Resolution No. PC67-150 and moved for~its~passage and adoption, seconded by~Commissioner Farano, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi- fication No. 67-68-3 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll ca11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Mungall, Rowland, Gauer. NOES: C~OMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: CAMMIISSIONERS: Camp, Herbst. ~ ~ ~ Y ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY.PLANNING COMMISSION, July 6~ 1967 3514 RECLASSIFICATION - The Commission'Secretary advised the Commission that subject property N0. 67-68-2 had been incorrectly advertised; therefore, a public hearing could not be held on this date, and the petitioner and his agent had been VARIANCE N0. 1892 informed of such, and the petitions would be rescheduled for the July 17, 1967 meeting. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue consideration of Reclassification°No.`67-68-2 and Variance No. 1892 to the meeting of July 17, 1967, to be correctly advertised. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ;~ RECLASSIFICATION•-- PUBLIC HEARING. JANE MARIE CARPENTER, 1172 Cherry Way and HOIWARD N0. 67-68-4 FREISS, 1162 Cherry Way, Anaheim, California, Owners;~GORDON FITZPATRICK, ' 1123 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; property described VARIANCb N0. 1895 as: A rectanguTarly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approxi- mately 241 feet on the east side of Cherry Way and having a maximum depth of appr~ximately 115 feet, the northerly property line of sub3ect property being approximately 280 feet south of the centerline of Romneya Drive. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: I'0 PERMIT 7E~ DIVISION OF IWO EXISTING IATS INTO FOUR iATS, WITH WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM IAT WIDTH AND (2) MINIMUM IAT AREA. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson seviewed subject petitions, the location of subject property and uses established in close proximity, together with the Report to the Commission, noting that the large R-A parcels on both sides of Cherry Way had 'a resolution of intent approved for R-3 zoning under Reclassification No. 55-56-46; however, none of the properties had been developed under this reclassification, and the Commission might wish to consider initiating R-1 zoni~g for the remainder of the properties on both sides of Cherry Way. Mr. Gordon Fitzpatrick, agent for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and noted that the large parcel which had considerable vacant space growing with weeds would be develq~ed with single-family homes, which would be a considerable improvement for the street~ and that no plans'were"presented; however, the development would be.in accordance with the R-1 Zone. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions. TI-IE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC67-151 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi- fication No. 67-68-4 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: OOMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Mungall, Rowland, Gauer. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ', ABSENT: WMMISSIONERS: Camp, Herbst. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC67-152 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1895, sub~ect to condi- tions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votec AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Mungall, Rowland, Gauer. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENTe COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Herbst. Commissioner Rowland ~.`fared a motion to direct the Staff to initiate a reclassification petition from the R-A to the.R-1 Zone for those properties on both sides of Cherry Way on which a resolvtion of intent to the R-3 Z~ne approved in Reclassification No. 55-56-46 had been approved, but which had not developed as such. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. . ... . - .. ;_. :.,.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1% MINUTES, CITY PLpNNING CpMN-ISSION, July 6~ 1967 3515 ~:. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING, !-~NRY STEINBRINK, 506 South Revere Street, Anaheim, NOo 61=62-44 California, Owner; WALTER STEINBRINK, 516 South,Revere Street, Anaheim, ~ California, Agent; property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel CONDITIONAL USE of land having a frontage of approximately 130 feet on the south side PERMIT N0. 953 of Santa Ana Street and having a maximum depth of.approximately 121 feet, the easterly boundary of subject property being approximately 160 feet - west of the centerline:of State College Boulevard, and further described as;1922 East Santa Ana Street. Property presently classified G1, GE'NERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE (DEED'RESTRICTED TO SPECIFIC USES). REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: DELETION OF DEED RESTRICTIONS IN ORDER TO PERMIT A ~ COIN-OPERATED CARWASH. REQUESTED OpNDITIONAL USE: TO ESTABLISH A OOIN-OPERAI'ED CARWASH~ WITH WqIVERS OF: (1) REQUIRED FAONT LANDSCAPING, (2) REqUIRED INTERIOR LANDSCAPING~ (3) REQUIRED SCREEN LANDSCAPING, AND (4) REQUIRED 6-FOOT MASONRY WpLL. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson reviewed subject petition, noting that the C-1 zoning for subject property as granted under Reclassification No. 61-62-44 required the petitioner to record deed restrictions on the property, limiting it to 27 specified (but fairly extensive) uses; howeverf the coin-operated carwash was not a permitted use - therefore the netitioner was requesting that the Mayor of the City of Anaheim be authorized to execute a written consent for the removal of deed restrictions imposed on the aforementioned property, as requested originally by the City of Anaheim; that the C-1 Site Development Standards required the construction of a masonry wall where two-thirds of the property was opposite single- family residential zoned property; and that the Commission might wish to consider whether or not the•ase proposed, with its inherent noise, lights and traffic, might be detrimental in view of• the location of the proposed carwash immediately adjacent to the east of single- family zoned and developed property, and to the south, across the street.from single-family zoned property. Mr. Walter~Steinbrink, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission, noting that it was proposed to remove the deed restrictions in order to allow the proposed coin- operated carwash. The Commission inquired of Mr. Thompson whether or not removal of the deed restrictions was necessary to permit the coin-operated carwashe Mr. Thompson noted that there were 27 specific uses, and a carwash was not one of them. The Commission further noted that in the requirement of the City of Anaheim for the recorda- tion of deed restrictions, it must have been determined that other than the specific uses would be detrimental to the residential environment surrounding subject property; therefore, the carwash would also be considered detrimental. Mr. David Webster, 601 Marjan Street, appeared before the Commission, noting-that he would be developing the proposed coin-operated carwash; that the hours of operation would be determined by the City for this particular area - however, some of the carwashes operated 24 hours a day; that during the past four years since he had established carwashes in Orange County, there was no objection from the Police Department regarding traffic congestion or juvenile problems, and since subject property was adjacent to a service station and would be set back intn this area, this would be considered a more appropriate use. Furthermore, in response to Commission questioning, he noted that Mr. and N{rs. Henry Steinbrink and Mr. and Mrs. Walter Steinbrink lived immediately adjacent to the west of subject property behind the 6-foot masonry wall; that the building could be oriented toward State College Boulevard so that a less ob3ectionable appearance would be presented to the single-family homes on the north side of Santa Ana Street - however, the requirement of a 6-foot masonry wall would not be feasible because of a 30-foot access easement along the west property line which served the commercial uses fronting on State College Boulevard. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions. , 1'HE HEARING WAS CIASEDo ConsiderabTe~discussion was held by the Commission relative to whether or not a 6-foot masonry wall should be required, or whether screen landscaping shoulo be required, and whether or not the proposed use of subject property under the C-1 regulations would be compatible to the area. ~~~~~.~:}~ ~~~ r4 t~A~{ y u ~;~ ~~ pt,~~~~ ~>>~,;~~~f3~ ~ 4'L h i~.: ~ r a I ~".~,~~..... . . , ,.. , ,.... ~ .~_..~ .. _ ~~).,. : ~"., .. .. ~ . . . . . ~ . . ...__. . . . - ..-. . - '* \ ,...~' ~ . . . ~ . ~ . MINUTES, CITY PI:ANNING COMMISSION~ July 6, 1967 351b RECLASSIFICRTION - Mr. Thompson advised the Commission that the G1 Site Development N0. 61-62-44- Standards required that a wall be constructed with screen landscaping where commercial uses were across the street from residential uses in CONDITIONAL•USE order to protect the residential environment of the area; however, in PERMIT N0. 953 this instance, it might be detrimental to require the wall because of (Continued) the 30-foot access easement for the commercial properties which had no access to State College Boulevard and were required to project their ~ traffic to this 30-foot easement. Commissioner Rowland was of the opinion that this particular site was not suited for auto- motive activity because of the residents across the street to the north and to the west; that this was the third time subject property wes under consideration for removal of deed restrictions•;~that the conditional use permit for the establishment of a service station had been denied by the Commission; that automotive related commercial activity should ~ot be p.ermitted to-back up or front on residential uses; and that,in his opinion, the request for removal of the deed restrictions should be ~isallowed. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC67-154 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recommend to the City Council that the request for execution of a written consent to removal of deed restrictions be disapproved on the basis that the specific 27 uses were established as a pxotection of the single-family residential environment to the west and on the north side of Santa Ana Street; that the proposed use would be an automotive oriented facility which was not desirable and would be detrimental to the residential character of the area because of its inherent noise, light and traffic; and that the proposed heavier commercial use should be confined to a more intense commercial use area or industrial area, rather than adjacent to residential uses. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Mungall, Rowland, Gauer. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Herbsta Commissioner•Allred offered Resolution No. PC67-155 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by,Commissioner Mungall, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 953 on the basis that the proposed use was too intense for the area in which it was proposed. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Mungall, Rowland, Gauer. NOES: CAMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Herbst. • ADJOURNMENT FOR DINNER - Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to adjourn the meeting for dinner. Commissioner Farano seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 6:00 P,M. RECONVENE - Chairman pro tem Gauer reconvened the meeting at 7:33 P.M., CommissioneTS Camp and Herbst being absent. GENERAL PLAN - CONTINUED PUBLiC HEARItdG. INITIATED BY TIiE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AMENDMENT N0. 96 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, to consider an amendment to the Anaheim General Plan in the general area bounded by South Street on the north, Ball Road on the south, State College Boulevard on the we:,t, and Sunkist Street on the east. Subject General Plan Amendment was continued from the meeting of June 19, 1967, to allow time for the agent for the petitioner of Conditional Use Permit No. 948 to be present since the proposed amendment would affect said property. Assistant Planner Charles Roberts reviewed General Plan Amendment No. 96, noting that it was presented in its entirety at the meeting of June 19, 1967, and was initiated as a result of the filing of Conditional Use Permit No. 948 for the establishment of a mobilehome park considered as a multiple-family reei4=ntial use having dwelling units greater than the General Plen reflected; that the past aciion by the Commission and City Council indicated the land use should be low density residential; and that the Commission might wish to con- sider reaffirming the General Plan as it stood with low density residontial uses, or amend it to reflect a land use change in its symbology; however, in the intervening time when the General Plan was adopted and the present time, all requests for a density greater than the ,S s~'~._ ~~i ~r ., 4f~.} ~~c~+' ~`A~~ it t'~~] s14 F ry~';.c r s4~~x ~.3~Y jc ar. ~: y.." 'A~ ~, s i . ' . ~ . ~ ~ ~' ~ . . ~ . . ~ ". ~ . ~/ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CAMMISSION~ July 6, 1967 3517 GENERAL PLAN - Plan reflected was opposed by both the Commission and the City Council, , AMENDMENT N0. 96 as well as homeowners in the area, at which time the Council indicated ~' (Continued) this portion of the City of Anaheim should be set aside for single- family residential uses only, and the proposed request was not consist- ent with the policy. Mre Roberts further noted that if General Plan Amendment No. 96 was considered favorably, there were•-six alternatives prepared by the Staff indicating low-medium density and medium density for 20 acres, 30 acres, and 40 acres in the general vicinity of said General Plan Amendment. ~ Discussion was held by the Commission relative to whether or not evidence should be submitted for Conditional Use Permit No. 948 prior to the Commission's action on General Plan Amendment No. 96. After completion of the discussion it was determined that Conditional Use Permit No. 948 should be heard concurrently with General Plan Amendment No. 96. CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ETHEL L. WAGNER, 2201 East Wagner Avenue, PERMIT N0. 948 Anaheim, California, Owner; LEONARD G. SMITH, 125-D South Claudina Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to construct a mobilehome park for adults on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land containing approximately 30 acres, located on the north side of Wagner Avenue, having a frontage of approximately 670 feet and a maximum depth of approximately 1,280 feet, the westerly property line being located approximately 670 feet east of the centerline of State College Boulevard. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTUAAL, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the meeting of June 19, 1967 due to serious illness in the immediate family of the agent for the petitioner. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson reviewed subject petition, the uses established in close proximity, the location of subject property, as well as the Report to the Commission, noting that serious consideration should be given to the three.areas in which single-family subdi- visions had been established based on the policy statement of the General Plan, and that.the proposed trailer park would have an effect on the existing development in the area since this was a more intense use of the vacant land; that mobilehomes were similar to apartments as far as traffic was concerned, although they were permitted in the R-A, R-3, C, and M Zones - however, it was suggested that since mobilehomes had a low-medium residential characteristic, they should be established in the areas which were designated on the General Plan for low- medium uses based on present land use policies of the Commission and City Council as reflected on the General Plan. Mr. Thompson further noted that a letter had been received from the agent for the petitioner requesting continuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 948 to the meeting of August 14, 1967, in order to revise the plans so that they would more nearly comply with suggestions made by the Development Services staff, and that the letter had been received after the Report to the Commission had been prepared. Mr. Leonard Smith, a9ent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and requested that the Commission recognize his request for continuance of subject petition for the sub- mission of revised plans since it was his feeling the land use for the area was appropriate, and the recommendations made by the Staff had merit since the original pldns he had proposed to submit reflected a less dense use with considerable landscaping adjacent to the single- family residential uses, and that the original plan would have compliec~ with the proposed Trailer Ordinance; furthermore, it was his belief that if a trailer park was an appropriate land use for this area, it should be of first-class quality. Commissioner Farano inquired whether or not the revised plans would change the density, to ~ which Mr. Smith indicated he was not aware that this would make a change since the original calculations indicated an 8.3 density - however, the Staff's review of the plans indicated 11.6 dwelling units per net residential acre; that if the landscaping were placed as required,! and the distance between trailers was increased, this would naturally mean a reduction in the j number of spaces proposed. i i Commissioner Farano further noted that from his observation, one of the considerations the ~ Commission had~was a General Plan Amendment to determine whether or not the characteristics ! of the area had changed to warrant consideration of the General Plan Amendment, and that he ' was of the opinion that every petitioner was entitled to as much time as possible for the submission of revised plans. Commissioner Gauer noted that at the public hearing on June 19, the Council Chamber was completely filled with persons in opposition, and the continuance of the conditional use permit was predicated`on the fact that the agent had requested continuance due to illness in the family; however, since the Council Chamber was again filled with persons waiting ' to hear the Commission's action on the General Plan Amendment and the proposed trailer ' park, ~ , : . ,~'s~ r n 'fi ^x. H . ~ 1 ... } r : c ' ...~r ~~ F.'`:t~ ~. L h~ E y ~ 8 J r 2 ar ~,. ) ~~~ >~~ cr -`;+tc~ s ~.;~ ..~.~ :;_~ ~ _ ~~.~, g~~~.-.f.~.,i ~.l.~t. r. ~ .,..~,.. ~ ~.. . ., , ,'~` _ . .. . . . . ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLPdvNING COMMISSZON, July 6, 1967 3518 CONDITIONAL USE - requested that the City Attorney's representative, Mro Roberts, indicate PERMIT N0. 948. whether the Commission could continue or deny subject request. (Continued) Mr. Roberts noted that if it was the Commission'S desire to consider the General Plan Amendment and continue the conditional use permit, this could be done. Considerable discussion then was.held by the Commission relative to whether or not both the General Plan Amendment and the conditional use permit should be considered as one, or whether the Commission should take action or. the General Plan Amendment. 'i€~.~ Commissioner Rowland noted that in fairness to everyone present in the Council Chamber to "`"'"~ Mr. Smith and his client, the techniques expressed by Mr. Smith regarding the reduction of ;~`;~ the density with more landscaping was unnecessary since it was mose important that land use '`~''~~?~ be considered rather~than whether or not a change in plans would make the trailer park more '`'`~ compatible; and any delay in the Commission's decision would work a hardship on the agent as well as~~the•persons in opposition to subject petition; furthermore, it was his opinion that the area in•which subject property was located was the last completely single-family R-1 area. in the community, and the 29+ acres would be developed as single-family homes and would be ~ more compatible with surrounding uses. Commissioner Farano noted that he doubted very much whether the petitioner or his egent could revise the plans materially to make them more acceptable; however, it was his opinion that any request for continuance should be honored. Commissioner Rowland indicated that it was his opinion that both the General Plan Amendment and the conditional use permit should be heard concurrently in order that the petitioner might not claim the application had been prejudged because of action taken on the General Plan Amendment at a prior hearing. After further discussion pro and con as to separation of the General Plan Amendment action and continuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 948, Commissioner Allred offered a motion to hear General Plan nmendment No. 96 and Conditional Use Permit No. 948 concurrently. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. On roll call, all Commissioners present voted ~~aYe~~ Mr. Smith then edvised the Commission that he wished the Commission to withdraw the petition from any further consideration by the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Allred offered a motion to accept withdrawal of Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 948 by the petitioner. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MUTION CARRIED. Commissioner~Rowland offered Resolution No. PC67-156 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded•by Commissioner Mungall, to recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amend- ment No. 96 be disapproved on the basis that the alternatives presented did not reflect the existing general land use policies in the area or development of the area, and that proper- ties in the general area of General Plan Amendment No. 96 be designated as predominantly low density residential in character. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CAMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Mungall, Rowland, Gauer. NO';S: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Herbst. REPORTS AND - II'EM N0. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS Orange County Tentative Map of Tract No. 4632. OWNER: ROBERT C. AMY, JR.,, et al, 125 South Claudina Street, Anaheim, California. ENGINEER: Stephen ' W. Bradford, 125 South Claudina Street, Anaheim, California. Subject tract, located between Yorba Linda Boulevard and Orange Drive in the Yorba Linda Area on the east side of Liverpool Street and containing 2.1 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 10 R-3 Two-Family District lots. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson presented Orange County Tentative Map of Tract No. 4632 to the Planning Commission, noting that the petitioners were proposing the subdivision of ' property located on the east side of Liverpool Street between Yorba Linda Boulevard and Orange Drive into~l0 R-4 Two-Family District lots; that the average lot widths were 72 feet and the areas were 9,360 square feet; that the property was to be developed with duplex, two-family residential structures; and that Liverpool Street was a 930-foot long private street; however the Orange County Planning Department staff had indicated that this was proposed to be dedicated to the County. .~ __ . _. _.. ._ _..... ,. :. ~ . ~ ~ _ MINUTES,. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 6~ 1967 - REPORTS'AND - REGOMMENDATIONS r ITEM N0. 1(Continued) Commissian~~~Mungall offered a motion to recommend to the City Council°that . County<Planrri~~g Commi`ssion give favorable consideYation to Tentative Map of sub3ect.to•t}ze--~cation of'Liverpool Street prior to actual development. . Farano seconded tt~e-motion: MOTION CARkIED. .:ITEM N0, 2 .. ~ 3519 the Orange Tract No. 4632, Commissioner ~ Orange County Tentative Paz•cel Map No. 899 - Located south of Crescent Drive, approximately 1,40C~ feet east of Peralta Hills Drive in the Peralta Hills area, County E-1 Zoning (minimum one net acre estates). Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson presented Orange County Tentative Parcel Map No. 899, noting that although the Commission had directed that these be handled administratively since subject.property was within the Peralta Hills Annexation, it was felt that the Commission and City Council should be aware of this Map. Mr. Thompson noted that there were three parcels proposed with 20-f~not access easements to Crescent Drive and all would be located within 400 feet of Crescent Drive; that the City of Anaheim's-minimum standard private access road width in the hillside area was 21 feet; and that such private access roads required the recordation of a mutual ingress and egress easement agreement by all property owners concerned. Commissioner Farano offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that Orange County Tentative Parce~l~,Map Noe 899 be approved, subject to recordation of a mutual ingress and egress easertrerrt-agreement by all property owners concerned for the proposed private access road. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. • T•7EM NO. 3 Orange County Conditional Permit No. 1314. Petitioner - Agent Myron F. Schilling and Tom M. Hess, Inc., P.O. Box 9098 Cabrillo Station, Long Beach,;California, requesting permission'to grade and'remove earch from a 26-acre parcel of land located et the northeast corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Linda Vista Street in the east Placentia area: Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson presented Orange County Conditional Permit No. 1314 to the Planning Commission, noting the location of subject property and the proposed excavation of earth to leveT a hill. Mr. Thompson also noted that on May 25, 1966, the Orange County Planning Commission 9ranted Use Variance No. 5711 for the establishment of a 146-space mobilehome park on a portion of subject property. Discussion was held by the Commission, and at its conclusion Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange County Planning Commission be urged to consider the fact that the petitioners o£ Orange County Conditional Permit No. 1314 were proposing to level a part of the terrain by gross land removal and movement, and the petitioners should be encouraged to conform to the existing geography of the land as nearly as possible. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 4 ~ Orange County Use Variance No..5932 - Requesting permission to construct a 3-bedroom and bath addition to an existing residential dwelling located on the south side of Walnut Street, approximately 300 feet west of Taylor Street in the Atwood Area (M1 Light Industrial'District). Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson presented Orange County Use Variance No. 5932 to the Planning Commission, noting the location of subject property and the proposed use, indicating ~ that i't was n legal, non-conforming use established prior to the present industrial zoning on subject property, and the Staff recommended that subject petition be received and filed. Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to receive and file Orange County Use Variance No. 5932. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. '`~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 6, 1967 ~20 REPORI'S AND , - ITEM NO. 5 , RECOMMENDATIONS Reclassification No. 61-62-120 (Ducoff - 311 South State College (Continued) Boulevard) - Consideration of a iequest to amend deed restrictions limiting use of the.property to business and professional offices. Zoning Supervisor~Ronald Thompson presented a report to the Commission regardin9 Reclassi- : fication No. 61-62=120, requesting amendment of the deed restrictions limiting the use of subject property to business and professional offices only, in order to permit use of subject property~for.a dry cleaning pickup station. (Copy submitted to the City Council as well.) Discussion held between the Commission, Staff, and City Attorney's representative is summarized as follows: , I 1. Establishment of guidelines for the proper administration and determinatiorr , as to whether a residence qualifies for: a. "Limited commercial use of a residential structure"; or _ b. "A~full range of commercial uses". 2a Approval of the use of converted residences without limitation would open "Pandora's Box" which would not be in the best interest of the community, unless the structures conform to all requirements of the C-1 Zone Site Development Standards and Title 15, Building and Housing, of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 3. Necessity to interpret the G1 2one literally, in order that "limited commercial uses of the residential structures" will prevent general commercial use without definite safeguards of these structures, such as complying with Title 15, and all the Site Development Standards of the G1 Zone for full range use. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that in order for the residentia~ structure to qualify for the full range of C-1 uses, the,structure must; meet all.requirements of ?itle 15; Building"and Housing, as well as all of the requirements of the Site Development Standards of the Gl', General Commercial, Zone, and that the Planning Commission cortcurs with the Development Services Department's evaluation.and.conclusions regarding "permitted-uses" where;residential structures are utilized for 'commercial purposes. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 6 Termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 657 - For the establishment of a coin-operated carwash at the southwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Citron Street. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson noted that in the Report to the Commission on June 19, 1967, relative to Variance No. 1879, which was approved by the Commission for the establish- ment of a small commercial shopping center at the southwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Citron Street, a recommendation had been made to terminate Conditional Use Permit No. 657; however, this was not done, and it was recommended that this be accomplished at this time. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC67-157 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to terminate all proceedings on Conditional Use Permit No. 657. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Mungall, Rowland, Gauer. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENI': COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Herbst. ITEM N0. 7 Consideration of a review relative to sign ordinances relating to signs of converted residences. Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts inquired of the Commission whether or not they wished to entertain a motion for tne Staff to review the existing Sign Ordinance relating to signs on converted residences in the C-1 Zone. , , - ; .; , .. , _, _ . }~' ~.i ~ ~ . .. ~ ~ . . ~ . ~ ~~ . ' ,-~: . .~.. .. .~.. . . . . . Y/ . MINUTES, CITY. PI:ANNING.COMMIS8ZON, July,6, 1967 3521 , ~~ :REPORTS AND ' . ~ RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 7 (Continued) ~ , . , . .:. _ ~ Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to di'rect`t;:e Staff to review that portion of the iY~ Sign Ordinance relative to::signs permitted;,on converted residences in the C-1 and C-0 ~~~-.~~ Zones based on the fact'that-numerous petitions were being received for utilization of ~ existing r:esi~de~nces ,in the G1 Zone,•,with variances being requested for a full-rarx~e C-1 ~ ~ signing. 'Commissioner Allred seconded.the"motion.' MOTION CARRIED. ~ ~ ' ~ -. , ~ ADJOURNN~NT -•There being no iurther:business to discuss, Commissioner Farar.o offered a motion to adjourn-the meeting. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~~ The meeting adjourned at 8:52 P:M. ;r: . '-~'~ Respectfully submitted, ,r, ~". ~ ``Ni~ ' ~~~~~~ / `~~ j,:.~ F. ,V KREBS, Secretary ~. Anaheim City Planning Commission u;i -,; ~'~; ~ ,. ~ ~ti ~i ~,s . . . ~ ~ . ~ __....._ ~. ~~.:~..;: ~r~- .,.m ... . .,a.~ r~.._. .,..;,~ . _.. ,....- ~,:.. , ,~.. ~ . , ' i' E'~,'.~ . . . . • j.:".' ~~- i ~ ~ . ' . I ~ ~ y23k~` F~1 '~ ,y5r~ ~~"~~ r~f ~ -~.~>.%~i ~~'~.'(~~,~n L at~',~ ` t wF I , ~ . . . ~~, y ~ "'.-ry r .n^ `~r 95 ~r~~ i ~ '~, ly }~,7`~*~~a'~ ~~ r+"fi ~ ~Y~ ~' iS•,rWti"~ ~gi ~rm 1 ~~.s~K, '`~~''Lx~; f~ ~ e . r ~:~c N y ~i~» d~""'`r~". h ~' ~w ~`t~'r`-tiu ~v"qy.'~'~'`~1''1~r. r 4 ~r, v .wn~ ~ .r ~, ^4~. t,~ • ~y S~ ~ K ~~~ i ~kq, -d''~ ~'~~~ry~~,~ ~~,'~ '~~ ~~,i!~K&~,,.,~~~ n~t~ ;~, ~~'~4~~~~~'~,ar ~~~.1.7~~`~.-,w~~'. ~ '`~.~~ k.4{~_2r*'4~'~ }~4'~'" tVa'r'~n'4y ~. ~ rex~ k3iT'~ 4~~~ ~ ~7tt 5~~$~~~fE ~~F ~v'"4~ .~ '~~,~, Yv u 2 r vh ia Z y ' y ~:'~~ ~ "~i'~ Y~~,~ ~'.S?!~J~ ~~~~' ~~~~. 1~~~~~~~. ty~~w_~}~~t~xy~~s . . +' ~ .'i•4Y'~ ~ k'~• M. - +_~4,~' ~~y~~~~17+~~~F~~~„`Ji~~,~f~~°'~.~~~Y~ ~S . ~ K i. A} J~ :' ~STC'~~li P cd4.E'~~~ °l~ .~.Y ~~.1.~"-w'...`'la~' ~``~'`FO~~.~;. ~~ ~ ' >i , ~.`}t~'~SS ''t `~'' ~'~, kr~ ~'~~'U' N' ~+'4 ~'~i~`y2' g ~~ t 2:• ~~, ' a~, ~ , s ~~+~~~~~~~~~~~'~" ,~ ~~~'~'~`~ ~~r ~ ~~ ~ oi 'M`0'a.`.~r e r~ s a -*lse~~; r 1r ~+4 ~;,a 7'~'+~ .~i .. +`~ .Ra,{ ~^z r`M ~~rr l~~~~.~'<~i~.,ql'"~aY~~ y,"` AK AJS~'Z~+M„.~'/~ r~!. ~~ ~~y+~ 'a . . ~~Syr^+3 r '"{~ r,~4 t'¢ ~~~~'.r' ! wt~r S 1 ` 7 _ ~ y, - j ` 3a~a {'~2~~~, ~1 - ~~,'~.~.i'M~, ~, k i~ Y~et„r~~~ :}r ~ p ` Y+t+n:t~ ka;lr{~'f~r'~ ~ ~~ ~~' w~+.T~'`x'~ ~s~^X,~~,:~,.~'t'.~a~'~~~u~"'„'4`ltri~~'~ i ~> ~~a-tN a~ ~s,,,q~ ..'~}`:~ '~"t ~' ~S k~ .N ~ ~~ ~ T~~,~{k~' ~~fir'~ ~kc.c'A ~~~ ~}~ t}C~ F }~ p+ ~ ~ ..`Y`~i r'~'~ tt~ : ~~ i ~ t~~S. r c c e ,!'<~r, y7~ { J ~~p~~ .~ +. '1r * 1~ f n ~t~y e i ~t~ a~~ r ^'"L f tt . ~~}rk.`w ~~ C V ~..~ C~ 5~yF ~ .fP-l"l t d "~'i~~+~~~~~b(vt~~~" ~ ,~ ere '~~+~~~ ~1e~~~~ ~ ~~5~•~'T#r'~~~,~~~ '~ ~~tis~ ~,~t~ ~ t a> ~ ~ ~.. ~; . ~ ~~ ~ ~~y,'~r~,r, , "p ~~~~ ~xr~~ u ~x 4 . ~( ~C ~. ~ ~ j~ ~~a}i-~~'r tr '4> ~.~1 z t ~, ~ k ~'Y ~.. Sx~~,~ fY'AY~hll4 ~%~,' Y~t 5i~'F~r. ~..~F4~„'iDf iG ~,,. 47 t./- f 1~'~ tY~i.'~'+1~' ~'t~ 4l -a y 4 ~ i~ ,~ ~ ~ a Lf ~s a ( - .`'°,~~'t,i~~~ ~. T'~4b.s~~ r .~ i ~i r t ~ , ~g+2 ~1 Y .. . ;,.w... . ~ .. _.:..~r. r~_ 3'...., .,~L<T~.r.. '. ?' _ xy . .:.> ~ "r~S~ . c(t .,t:ar F, s" y c i. s ... * w. a-.. y }~'_., 1 z ~~~;. ~ t t . . 1 t . i ~ : 1~ h ~ . ! ~~r y .5A ~ , 1 . ~ f J A ) ' l ~ ' 'S~ f 1 ~ ~ F .. t p. ) i ; Y Y t :J ~ } r / 1 ~ ~a Y ; ( ~ V ~'~ ~ 7 1 y C ! Y 4~-. {~ ~'~' ~ ~5 ` ' 'S. / 5 ~ _ . f ~ L ~- s t <~ ., s .I t ~ ~ 1 _ r. Z . ~ i . " ' . ~ . 'y f ' i. Y ~ . '.' i \ } Y~ y . r ~ f~ ., r . r,. •~ i ~ : i i t . : ~ ~'. R~ ~ . zt i i , ~ . . : :• ~ ~: . I E I ~ h M, ~ ~ ~ y : t ~ ~ - ~ { r ~`.~ 5 i, : E 4 `. =~ ~ , ` ; s '.. ~'~ ~ ~ 1 h ~ ~ s ~. I + `' ` t ' < r ~' ' , b, ~: , \ ~ Y ~ ~ . , :_ .. A ~\ a .i! S ~ t T _. ( ~ , 1 . ~}. .. y ~ .. S t a ~ ` r ~ ! ' .' ~ ~. i Ff ' s` ,i ` ~ ~s r < - ~ ' a, ~.7 S < i. ~ ~ 'L 7 ~ :: .f ~ i~ I ~ i •. ~ ~ ~ f{ ~ A.~. y '.) A 1 ~L4J ~f ~ '. .. 4 p ~ `- } ' ~ 4 f ~ _ 4:~1 j F 'r' 4 ~ . . . r ~ '.1:~ ~ ~ Y .. t 1 ~l ' i ~ ` \ ~ 1 ' 5 7 t '.4 ; l } `, J A _ ~• t i I 4. . ` ~A ~ . .'I ( ! 1 , ~ ~ . .. j -, , . , ~ . . ..~ .,-. - ' _ ~ ~:~~ -~ .,. . ' - i -~ .. ._ :!:. ..:. ,. , '~'~~ ~~ . ~. .,.. .'~-. ..:. . .. . . ,_ '.: ~, t~ ` 1 \ y ~;. ~ ~ ~ fi v~ ' 3 S li i 1 . I . .. . . ~ . . r . ,. . . . . . .. . . . . ~ ~ . . . . . 1` . , . . . .. ^ ~ . .. , .. . . .' : .. _ .. .~ ., . . .. . . . . . . . .. , ' . . . _ . .. ., .. _ , _. ~ J ~ ~ ? 1 ~ ~ ~ _ . . .. 1 iu ` y ~,k / . . . . .. -~~+~ * ~~ 1 , . .~ ^ ~ . ~