Minutes-PC 1969/11/171~'~!':;.`.'~~iJ',~v,~+`_~',:y" x :~..7 5 ar . n~y 'S,^ . l.<ef ~~/~il'~f,~f'~ r.,'~~ J' Yit 6x F~M ye.! .,i,C' .. t ~...H ! 3 ... ..( ,s5..r~
S+ ..~^ry .)~ ~:. G~ _ a 4 4' i~. ~ ~` .~ ; ~ 1 ~1 ~~ ~ 1 ] ! 4 f t/ ! [ ~, t' /~' Y
r
. ~ , Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ . ~ . ~ .
~ City Hall
Anaheim, California
November 17, 1969
• A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR ME~TING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called
to order,by Chairman Rowland at 2:00 o'clock P.M., a quorum being
present.
PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Rowland.
- COMMISSIONERS~: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom.
ABSENT~ - COMMISSIONERS: None.
PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Ronald Thompson
Assistant City Attorney: John Dawson
Office Engineer: . Jay Titus
Zoning Supervisor; Charles Roberts
Planning Comnission Secretary: Ann Krebs
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Allred led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
APPROVAL OF - Approval of the Minutes of thc: meeting of November 3, 1969, was
THE MINUTES deferred to the meeting of December 1, 1969.
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBIC..HEARING. THE MC CARTHY CO., 1U94 South Marengo Avenue,
N0. 69-70-15 Pasadena, California, Owner; GEORGE SANT, 1094 South Marengo Avenue,
Pasadena, California, Agent; property described as: An irregularly
VARIANCE N0, 2126 shaped parcel of land coRSisting of 20 aczes located on the south
side o£ Santa Ana Canyon Road, approximately 450 feet west of the
TENTATIVE MAP OF 'centerlfne of Mohler Drive and having approximately 900 feet of
TRACT N0. 4777 frontage on Santa Ana Canyon Road, said parcel alsa having appruxi-
mately 850 feet of frontage on Del`Giorgio Road. Property presently
classified COUNTY R•1-8000 and R-1-10,000, SINGLE-FAMILY RESI'DENCE,
DISTRICTS.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-L, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTLAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF MINIMfTI~i LOT WIDTH TO ESTABLISH 21
78-LOT, SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION.
TENTATZVE TRACT REQUEST; Subject tract, consisting of approximately 20 acres of Land
located southeast of Santa Ana Canyon Road, west of Mohler
Drive, is proposed for subdivision into 78 R-1, One-Family
Residential, Zoned lots.
Subject petitions and tract map were continued from the meeting of September 22, 1969
to allow time for the petitioner to resolve the numerous problems involved in annexation
and dPVelopment.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that a letter had been received
from the agent for the petitioner requesting an additional four weeks of time to resolve
the numerous problems involved in both annexation and development of subject property.
Furthermore, since said request had been received in time, the st~ff had mailed a letter
to surrounding property owners advising them that subject request had been submitted,
and that the Commission usually honored these requests.
V Chairman Rowland inquired whether there was any oppos:;;~on present in the Council Chamber;
whereupon several persons indicated their presence, and une person stated that altliough
~ they did not reside within 300 feet o£ subject property, their homeowners associacion
would like to be advised if further continuances were requested, and that if sny future
petitions were considered in the Santa Ana Canyon Area in this general vicinity, thai a
legal notice akso be mailed them.
Chairman Rowland advised the interested oppositi.on that the statf would "ne glad to advise
them if they would give their names and addresses to the Zoning Divisiun.
4895
4,ry~fi
' :' ?~
r,
,"!b,'
v
:,ti
~l
r
~.;~
;<:~
':i' ~~.
_ f
,, ~
~;.~ :: ,~; r ;. n
, , , ~
~
~
t.:~
4896
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIO~N, November 17, 1969
RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Farano offered a motion to continue considerat~on of
N0. 69-70-15 Reclassificaeion No. 69-70-15, Variance No. 2126, and Tentative
VARIANCE N0..2i26 Map of Tract No. 4777 to the meeting of December 15, 19E9, as
TENTATIVE MAP OF requested by the petitioner. Coamiissioner Allred seconded the
TRACT N0. 4777 motion. MOTION CARRIED.
(Continued)
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, GEORGE COLLMAN, 16651 Yorba Linda Boulevard,
N0. 69-70-8 Yorba Linda, California, Owner; JEFFREY MILLET, 511 South Brookhurst
Road, Fullerton, California, Agent; requesting that property described
as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at the northwest
corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Kellogg Drive, said parcel having approximate £roncages
of 340 feet on Orangethorpe Avenue and 76S feet on Kellogg Drive, be reclassified from
the COUNTY Ai, AGRICULTURAL, DISTRICT to the CITY OF ANAHEIM C-1, GENERAL COMMEFCIAL,
ZONE.
~',;; .;i Said petition was continued from the meetings of August 25, September 22, and October 20
+: ,
1969, in order to be considered as a part of the total package of development for both
,;,.
" - .-{;
1 the east and west sides of Kellogg Drive, north of Orangethorpe Avenue, and to allow
time f
f
h
_
or
urt
er study on the proposal.
~ RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, GEORGE COLLMAN AND HORACE MORLOCK
16651
,
N0. 69-70-10 Yorba Linda Boulevard, Yorba Linda, California, Owners; JErFREY PSILLET
3~
' ~ 511 South Brookhurst Road, Fullerton, California, Agent; property ~
,t~; VARIANCE N0. 2121 described as: 14 acres of land located on the easc side of Kellogg
Drive between Orangethorpe Avenue and Woodwind Lane, consisting of
S " three portions: Portion 1- A rectangularly shaped parcel of Iand
i
,
,
t s
tuated at the northeast corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Kellogg Drive, said parcel
ti~, 1,:,.; having 150 feet of £ronCage on both streets; Portion 2- An irregularly shaped parcel
t
. of land situated north and east of Portion 1 and having approximately 620 feet of fror.tage
.:
~" ._;;`
'"'
~ on Kellogg Drive and approximately 429 feet of frontage on Orangethorpe Av~nue; and
:
~':
:
~ Portion 3- A rectan ularl sha ed arcel of land situated at the southeast corner o:
8 Y P P
~~
. Woodwind Lane and Keliogg Drive, said parcel having approximate frontages of 264 feet on
E~{
r Kellogg Drive and 630 feet on Woodwind Lane. Property presently classified COUNTY A1
,.~:;,,..w
~.~ ,
GENERAL AGRICULTURAL, DISTRICT,
~
~
+t
~ REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: PORTION 1- C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, 20NE;
' .~ PORTION 2- R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; ZONE; AND
r;',:.';;~;„;:.j..~ PORTION 3- R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY, ZONE,
,~ REQUESTED VARIANCE: PORTION 3 ONLY - ESTABLISH A 23-LOT, R-2-5000 SUBDIVISION
~}
:~ , ;~ WITH TWO LOTS SIDING ON AN ARTERIAL HIGHWAY.
-5
~ ~ubject petitions were continued from the meetings of September 22 and October 20, 1969
~ ,
to allow time for further study on the proposed type of zoning, its implication as to the
G
;
,, eneral Plaa and for
, possible readvertisement in the event the requested zoning is
changed.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that the agent for the petitioners
in Reclassification No. 69-70-8, Reclassification No. 69-70-10, and Variance No. 2121 had
again submitted a letter requesting additional time since he had not submitted the revised
plans and legals in time for advertising for this hearing.
Commissioner Thom offered a mo~.ion to continue;'consideration of Petitions for Reclassi-
fication No. 69-70-8, Reclassification No, 69-70-10, and Variance No. 21.21 to the meeting
of December 1, 1969, in order to allow time to readvertise subject petii~.ions with the
new requests. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIEll.
CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF HIGHFlAYS,
PERMIT N0. 1126 DISTRICT 7, P. 0. Box 2304, Los Angeles, California, ar.d HOLSTEIN
ENTERPRISFS, INC., 170 East 17th Street, Costa Mesa, California.
Owners; HOLSTEIN ENTERPRISES, ''.lC., 170 East 17th Street, Costa Mesa,
California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A PRtVATELY OPERATED PLAYGROUND
PARK AND RECREATIONAL FACILITY on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel
of land consisting of two parcels approximately 2.3 acres in size, Ic:cated at the north-
east corner of the Riverside Freeway and Riverdale Avenue, having approximately 87 feet
of frontage at the westerly end of Alderdale Avenue, and futCher described as 4101
Alderdale Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, and R-2-5000, ONE-
FAMILY, ZONES.
~ ~ : `/~w 1 i u;~ +~ :`;:~, r~,~.
r~.
~
r~~~~~ ~ O ~ `/
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 17, 1969 4897
CONDITIONAL USE - Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission. that the
PLRMIT N0. 1126 agent for the petitioners had submitted a letter noting they were
(Continued) ' still interested in pursuing subject petition; however, their final
plans were not formalized.
Co~issioner Thom o£fered a motion to continue Petition for Condicional Use Permit No.
1126 to the meeting of May 18, 1970, as requested by the petitioner, Comm3ssioner A11red
aeconded the motion: MOTION CARRIED. Couu~issioner Farano voted "no",
I t~
~4~
f, y
~
Commissioner Farano, after discussion with the Assistant City Attorney John Dawsor. as ~~
to the length of the continuance, stated if sub ect ~ -`~''
j petition were controversisi the ;':;+'J~
oppoaition would have forgotten about it, and upon being advised that the Commissi.oii ;`.:'~,~z~
could continue a petition up to a year if a request were received, he withdrew his ':`;~
vote of "no".
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. COSMO TAORMINA AND BOB BABAJIAN, 512 East Vermont
PERMIT N0. 1142 Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; TRANSERV, 1231 Blue Gum Street,
Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to EXPAND AN EXISTING
TRUCK SERVICE STATION AND STORAGE YARD INCLUDING THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
OF A RESTAURANT, WITH WAIVER OF THE REQUIRED 6-FOOT HIGH MASONRY WALL on property des-
cribed as: A rectangularly shaped parcel o£ land consisting of approximately 8.7 acres,
having epproximate frontages of 628 feet on Blue Gum Street and 607 feet on Coronado
Street, being located at the northwest corner of Blue Gum Street and Coronado Sireet,
and fuxther described as 1231 Blue Gum Stree[. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL, ZONE.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, uses estab-
lished in close proximity, and the request to expand the existing, nonconforming trarsit
and transportation equipment storage yard which would include the future establishment
of an enclosed restaurant and waiver of the 6-foot high masonry wall to permit a 6-foot
high chainlink fence.
Mr. Roberta reviewed previous action on subject property, noting that it was developed
while under the jurisdiction of the County, and upon annexation to the City of Anaheim
had been zoned M-1 - however, the uae was an M-2 use and, therefore, considered non-
conforming; that the petitioners had submitted buildings plans which prupoaed expansion,
and as a reault of this, the staff had advised the petitionera that a conditional use
permit would be necesanry since the use ~~as nonconforming, and the expansion would chen
be further nonconforming; that outdoor uses were permitted in the industrial zonea -
however, all auch eitea ~~ere required to be encloaed with a 6-foot masonry wall, said
wall to be to the rear of zhe required 50-foot atructural aetback adjacent to arterial
highways, which was the designation of Blue Gum Street and to the rear of the required
5-foot aetback on a local atreet, the designation of Coronado Street; that the petitioners
were propoaing to inatall a 6-foot high chainlink fence and plane indicated the inatalla-
t:;~n of a LO-foot landacape atrip adjacent to the highway right-of-way line on both
Blue Gum and Coronado Streets.
Mr. Roberta, in evaluating the proposal, noted that although the M-1 Zone was establiehed
on subject property upon annexation into the City during the past three years, develop-
ment of thia facility was not in accordance with the aite development atandards of the
M-1 Zone, auch as atructural aetbacks adjacent to highways, required front and interior
landscaping, masonry walls, etc., and as a result of this, the physical appearance of
the facility was conaiderably inferior to the appearance of other industrial establish-
ments that have located in the Northeast Induatrial Area; that as a result of the pro-
posed expanaion, the staff felt this would be an excellent opportunity to upgrade the
development in line with City policy and standards Long establiahed for industrial
deve2opments. Furthermore, in addition to the request for waiver of the 6-foot mas~nry
wall, the Commisaion might wish to consider the need for tall landscaping along Che
perimeter of th? property to screen the trucks and other equipment stored on the premises,
and such screening would appear to be particularly desirable along the west boundary of
subject property since the Orange Freeway started its elevation as it passed this parcel;
and thet the truck storage area was not paved - therefore, the Commission might wish to
determine whether the encire area should be paved with asphalt to avoid duat probLems
for the existing and future neighbors.
Mr. Walter Chaffee, attorney, 131 West Wllshire, Fullerton, appeared before the Commission
and indicated he represented the petitianers, as well as the owners of Transerv, Richard
Ray and Lawrence Wood, and then asked whether or not Commissioner Farano would be dis-
qualifying himself from voting. '
;':~-:,.; After discussion with his clients, Mr. Chaffee noted that he had been miainformed as to
i Co~issioner Farano's connection in that they thought he had been a former tenant.
f
> ~~~ l^~',r f~'' ,~yJ~Y`-'~ i4M1 ;,Y IPY } y~i .~ ~y{~ Y Tf dM`'._
~~~~5,~~~~~ ~ "~~ ~ ~~~ ~'~b`~~~J~N~I~'tS?'~
~x~1P
T y-. r /
•;
' i'
~
.TJ'Ny`L'IP V,
r~
,
~
~
~~:
.
Y '•~
„
~ ~
'~
\/
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 17
1969 -`~~~
,
4898 r i::i
CONDITIONAL USE - Commissioner Farano noted he wanted it on the record that if therE
PERMIT N0
1142
r ~
.
we
e anything improper about any statement he would make, he wished
(Continued) t `
`:
~`
o sCate that at no time had he been a tenant of the owners, nor
was th ,
;
.-.»=',
ere any relationship, either past or present, ia the use of
the ;1~~
property to which he would have any'connection, '_%-_°
Commissioner Farano then noted that he now planned to abstain from any discussion -
however
he
u ~
,
,
want~
to have the statement made by Mr. Chaffee relative to his disquali-
fying himself from participation clarified at th
b
i ,
~
e
eg
mting.
~
Chairman Rowland noted that if Commissiuner Farano abstained from participating in the
discussion
h
__
,
e would be depriving the Commission of his expert opinion in this field, ;"„,~
Commissioner Parano then noted that he would prefer
under the circ +
,
umstances, to abstain;
how.:••er, he did not want to feel that he was being unfair to th
' ~
e applicants or to him-
se
, and he would reserve his abstention until the end in order to fulfill his obli
a-
tion as a C
i
g
omm
ssioner.
Assistant City Attorney John Dawson advised Commissioner Farano that he could abstain
at any time
and
d
h
,
un
er t
e circumstances a mistake had been made, and; therefore, there
was nothing legally involved t
o prevent hi~n f_rom participation.
Mr. Chaffee continued by stating that in reviewing the Report to the Commission they
could take is
'w
t
sue
it
i some statements made since the property had been developed for
approximately five years
and at that ti
,
me was a conforming us~ under the jurisdic~ion
of the County, and it was their feeling the use
was still a confurming use; that the
facility was a tr.ucking service station in the M-1 Zone - however
th
ff
,
e sta
disagreed
with this interpretation, and rather than disagree about it
the
wa
t
d
d
~.
,
y
n
e
to
o the
proper thing and brir~g the property up to the standards as soon as possibie; thac the
five-acre
a ~;r;
v
caut parcel woul~l be asphalted at such time as they planned to use it; that
curbs, gutters
etc
would b
k
,
.
e ta
en care of; that the waiver of the 6-foot masonry waLl
was requested since ic was felt this was not
necessarily a storage area - however, s~me
trucks were placed on the grounds
although there
a '
,
w
s no need for this to be done; that
the landscaping proposed along [he westerly property line would s
eem to be appropriate
to some extent - however, one of the advantages of this ex
os
p
ure was the location being
easily identified to truckers; that total landscaping was ver
y expensive, with trees
ranging at $100 per tree - however, there was no objection to plantin
fa
g
st growing
trees of smaller size; that as he understood it, street dedication had already been
accomplished
a
d
,
n
sidewalks had been waived, and if this were not so,,then he was i;ow
making a request for this wai
ver since sidewalks had not been required in the indus-
trial zones. Furthermore, Condition No
6
wher
i
b
.
,
e
n
ringing Che building up to Code
was requesced, seemed to be somewhat incongruous because of the fact th
h
a~ t
e building
was only five years old and met the County code requirements at that time.
Mr. Roberts advised the petitioners and the Commission that waiver of [he sidewalks in
the industrial a
rea would have to be made by the City Council; that since the buildings
were erected while under the jurisdictio
f
h ~
n o
t
e County, it was not deter•mined if all
buildings met the Building Code.
Office Engineer Jay Titus, in response to Commission questioning, stated that in the
industrial ~
areas the City would pave the street; however, the property owners would be
required to pay for it. ~
~
The Commission discussed the possibility of rcquiring aluminum slats interwoven in the
chainlink fen i
i
ce proposed by the petitioner so that a completely enclosed appearance
would be presented since after visiting the area
h ~
9
, t
e Commission was of the opinion
this was a"junk yard" where old cars, campers, and general junk were €
stored, and ~his
should be cleaned up and the area completely enclosed.
Mr. Chaffee replied that there was na reason for the storage of equipment, tires,
batteries
etc. butforthe tr
k ?
,
uc
s only, and that the petitioner preferred to have land-
scaped screening to requiring the enclosure.
The Commission advised the petiCioners that in addition to the required landscaping
the aluminum slats inter
i ~
,
woven
n the chainlink fence would be more desirable.
The Commission also noted that those areas which were not asphalted could be treated
with some sodium chemical
hi
h I
w
c
could compact the graund to keep iC from spreading dusC.
Mr. Chaffee noted thaC the Commission could remove these five acres from the proposed
use and prohibit an
t
y s
orage of any kind until actual usage of the property was accom-
plished - this, then
would resolve th
d
,
e
ust problem.
"~~~y. . . _ _ _ _
.~~. ,.. .... . .. . ... .. .
T~.
. ~ - .hv C~'7`?r''~.4;':~~':w;:
~ .., i.. _... , ~ . . . . . , ..~ ~ ., , _~ .. . .
,Fr 2._ ~ ti ,~~~ t ':a
~.
,
~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 17, 1969
gratified to hear that the Commission had visited subject propertyeto~seeathehconditionY
of the property; that she was appearing be`ore the Commission to request that the 6-foot
masonry wall be required, this being based on past performances of the use of subject
property which was a junkyard; that at the time of annexation they were not required to
construct Che masonry wall but were permicted to put in the fence, and since the Commission
was fully aware of the appearance of the existing facility, her next reason for requesting
the 6-foot masonry wall was based on the fact that the slot-type fence would be insuffi-
cient since these large'lrucks could back into the fence and completely demolish it -
whereas a block wall would be sturdier; that they had been storing various items on the
rear of the lot- dismanted vehicles, old tires, and old cars which did not run - and
approaching this facility from La Palma Avenue, Blue Gum Street or Miraloma gave a very
unsightly appearance to the entire industrial area, and in order to be able to interesc
potential purchasers or lessees of their own proper~y, some form of enclosure was necessary
and the 6-foot masonry wall was a much more effective means of screening this facility;
that although they considered the rear portion of their propercy as only the rear, it was
the front of their owsi property (Hill property) and presently only a wire fence, not a
chainlink fence, was erected; that requiring landscaping would screen this unsightliness
from the front of their property -[herefore, she recommended that specific requirements
as to acreening the facility in its present condition be made by the Commission in order
that adjoining properties would not receive detrimental effects, deterring any possi:~le
sales of the adjoining properties.
U
4899
~ryM,~~
~r
~ ~~
;
CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. Pete Fletcher, 1193 Blue Gum Street, appeared before the Commission
PERMIT N0. 1142 in opposition, noting he was the owner of the property directly acros.
(Continued) the street from subject property; that originally he had thought he nad ~-''
a 10-year lease agreement with the petitioners for their property, but
when Che truck haven went in, he was requested to relocate, and he relocated across th~
street from subject property; that the Planning Commission advised him he could nat operate `I
his business unless a 6-foot masonry wall was constructed to enclose the outdoor storage
facility, anc! the City held up approval of and provision ot electricity for his facility
for four months until the 6-foot masonry wall was constructed - therefore, he could see
no reason for granting a waiver of the wall for the petitioner since other facilities :n
the industrial area were also required to construct said wall.
Mrs. Edward Hill, 2755 Coronado Street a ?
, ppeared before the Commissior, noting that she
and her husband owned property adjoining subject property to the t• h
; Mrs. Pete Fletcher, 1193 Blue Gum Street,..appeared before the Commisaion and noted that
{y since they were required to construct a masonry wall and no hardship had been proven chat
'i said wall would not be required on the petitioners' property, she could aee no reason for
permitting them to erect a chainlink fence when adjoining M-1 propertiea having outdoor
atorage were required to have the masonry wall.
1j
~ Mr. Nick Taormina, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commieaion and rioted that
:.~ Mr. Fletcher did not have a lease for his property, and out of the goodnese of his own
~{ heart, he had permitted him to uae the groperty, which was an old home and had been used
as a lumber yard; that the Ci[y of Anaheim had required Mr. Fletcher to remove lhe tires
from outdoor display-therefore he had relocated on the opposite aide of the atrect, and
_; eaid property which he had used was atill vacant, and he had no intention of using it.
~; Mr. Taormina noted that as far as Mra. Hill's praperty was concerned, thA fre~way was
> a between their property and Mrs. Hill's property; that when they had first constructed
~ the exiating facilities, they had met the County's requirements and dedicated properCy
~ and had bonded for the street improvements - therefore, he felt they had met all the
G requirements imposed by the County and recommendations of the City of Anaheim.
~
Mr. Karl Sator, representing Tekform Products Company, 2780 Coronado Street, appeared
before the Commission in opposition and noted that their property was a Pive-acre parcel
Co the south of subject property; that their building was the first one developed in this
area; that they were not in opposition to the proposed expansion - however, theq requested
that the Commission require them to develon in accordance with the site developmenc stan-
dards of the M-1 Zone since their company - Tekform - had been required to conform with
the M-1 standards; that the entire area was in a run-down condition, and the trucking
company was the major offender; that a 6-foot masonry wall should be required with lar.d-
scaping in the setbacks; that parking of the vehicles on che undeveloped, 5-acre parcel
should be prohibited unless it was blacktopped - this request was due to the fact that
considerable dust was emanating from this facil?:• and was harmful to their highly
technical operation; that they had some very sophisticated equipment in the operation,
and any minor amount of dust almost ruined it - therefore, the Commission should not be
granting any variance from the M-1 Zone.
~' Mr, Max Lein aAr, 24322 Santa Clara Street, Dana Point, appeared before the Commission,
,,,~. '• noting that ^as the owner of the property northeasC of subject property; that when he
y had cons'truct^^
's building he had been required to dedicate land and construct a street
and could no[ , up the facility until the curb was put in, which cos~ him $5,000 and
''~
__ _ __.._ ____ .
, -
-•••• t~, C -- __.~ ~~
~'~_. ....."Y.... ...~ . ,- ~ . . ~' ~:~ ~~ ' ~ ~ ".' : . ~ . ~ ' ~ -. 1,~ T.+ I~g
. ~ . ,~ .. . , ~
.. ' , ... . -.. . . . ~ '. ~ . ~ - ~ ~. ~ . ~ . ..
:-~ '.
`l~
~ ~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 17
Z969 .
,
4900
CONDITTONAL USE - was a hardship on him since this was in the County but wou3_3 have to
PGRMIT N0
1142
,
meet City of Anaheim standards; that he was desirous ~f steing subject
(Continued)
ro
p
perty improved since he had been subjected to considerable dust:
during the
ast
i
p
s
x months, which emanated from subject prope:ty;
that they presently used the five-ac
re porcion which they stated was
not being used and were leaving from there evesy nignt; that he had b
een required to
provide a 50-foot building setback - however, the building on subject property was r
set back the
ot
i
.
requ
red 50 feeC, but was onlp a 10-foot setback; that he was losit~g money
in an attempt tu sell his
propercy which was now vacant oecac:se of ~he r~a-down co~idiCior.
of subject property; that if the petitioner
were only required to construct a 6-toot
masonry wall, this would give him a privilege tha~
as
w
riot afforded him when he was
developing his property si*.ce they would still be operacing with
i
un
mproved stree~
frontage - therefore, he would request that the petitioaers be required co hav
im
rov
p
e streez
ements in the same manner as other properties in chis area as a conditioa of
approvai of the
expans.oa, Furthermore, when sub'ect
ago while ur~der the ] property was improved five years
~
a
t
t ~
and at that time the
City
of
AnaheLm
hadC
P
p
Y
h
e
d
recommended
to
che
County
that
ail
requirements
of the M-1 Zone should be
i
h
~
met
n
is instance.
Mrs. Hill again appeared before the Cocmnission aud noted ~hat if the owner of subject
property claimed a chainlinlc fence had beea constructed, the type of fencir,g on tne
property was far removed from her iuterpretation of a chainlink fence - being oniy small
stakes on which wiring was hooked on and was not as strong as the fence she had conscructed
around her dog run.
Mr. Richard Ray, one of the owners of the truck service and storage~ard, appeared bafoce the
Gommission and stated that as to the compla~_nt of Mr. Sator regarding dust emanating from
subjecl• property and the exisCing street - they were prepared to ir.scall the curbs and
gutters whenever tne CiCy requested this; however, because of the difference of opiu~on
as to .-.he exact: Location, installation of curbs and gutters was held ici abeyance, and
that in *_he last een days che City of Anaheim 1»d advised ~hem the exact locaCion of
~he curbs and gutters - cherefore, within the next few weeks they would be irstalled.
Office Engineer Jay Titus advised the Commission chat it would take from Chree [o four
mor.tha before the City would complete the pavement between the curbs and gut~ers and
the existing street width, ar.d then inquired of the agent for the petitioners wnether
or not the curbs and guc[ers were proposed For the entire parcel along Blue Gum and
Coronado Screets.
Mr. Ray replied thac Chey would only install the curbs aad gutters on that porcien oeing
used, and that portion of Che property that would be utilized would also be asphaited at
the same time - however, since they were not certain as to the exact locacion of the
service station, they would have to wait until the pr.ecise alignment was es[abiished.
Mr. Titus advised the Commission that it was Che Engineering Division's recommendation
that both streets be improved at this time.
The Commission then inquired as to what the petitioner meant by differences of opinion
between the Citp and the County; whereupon Mr. Ti~us stated that the County must approve
all gas tax funds for improvement of arterial stree[s, and since there was some question
as to the designation of both Coronado and Blue Gum Streets, street cor.struction had
been delayed - however, agreement had been reached as to whether or not these streets
were arterials.
Mr. Chaffee further noted, in rebuttal, that he did not think the opposition was fuliy
aware of the recommendations by the staff as to upgr.ading the streets wherein curbs and
gutters.would be construcced if subject petition were approved; [ha~ the proposed
expnn;:3,oT, wouTd provide for storage facilities for some of the things now scored outdoors,
whic:, w~ll considerably upgrade the property; that the former Schrader property now owned
by Mr.' T.~?nfelder was approved by the County after their facilities were approved; and
that since Mrs. Hill's property was only vacant land, he could see no reason for requir-
ing a 6-foot masonry wall - therefore, he saw no need to construct a 6-foot masonry wall
along,property that was not developed, and their main request for waiver of the masonr}
wall.was for the northerly and westerly property lines.
%THE HEARING WAS CLOSLD.
The Commission inquired whether or not anything was proposed for Orange Street as depicCed
~ on the map, westerlq of Btue Gum S[reet.
Mr. Titua advised the Commission he was not positive of the designation, but he tFought
perhaps it was a local street.
,~;, ~~, t
y. . . .. . ._...
~ - ---- -
..a ,
_ .
y 1 ^
. . ~_ '.' '., ... .,~..~ .~. ~~ ~l ~~
. ;~ '~_ ~ ~;
` ~~,f ~ ~ . _ t
~ v ~Ati~En .raar~W:~: ..'MarX+.:n.+~+ z_......- .~.,.~.'r~ ..7 . , ~:. , ~ s._. ~: :~ -i ,. _~ : . -' - ---- _ _ - ' _ . - - - a*,~' - _ _ ) ..
_-_ ~_ _ _ _ _~ - _ -__ ~ .
~{ v~rr~'~a ga~rc.~ y~.x ~~~~r~ x. ~'- E '~~ , r',~` ~'~s ,?'Nf~~ ~x ~ ~-a,~+~,.~ :,t ~ ; , , ~ ~. ,;~~.,,,
ot'.:; a ~~'"` ~ ,
~ ~ 4~
MINUTES, CITY PI•ANNING COMMISSION, November 17, 1969 4901
''' CONDITIONAL USE - The Commission then inquired whether Orange Street woald be extended
PERMIT N0. 1142 in the future to terminate at the freeway,
(Continued)
Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that Orange Street at one time
extended westerly of Blue Gum Street - however, i~ was now abandoned
and the half-widths were reverted back to the individual owners on both sides af said
former street.
The Commission f~~r:•4er noted that the proposed expansion and the existing use were an
acceptable use for this area- however, the petitioners should be required to comply with
the M-1 site development sC~ndards just as others who were developing in tieis area had
been required; that the matter of dust was of utmost importance since the City had
required other penple developing in this area ta control their dust in similar situations;
Chat where any storage area was proposed outdoors, the City had required a 6-foat masonry
wall to enclose the facilit;~, and if subject petition were approved withou_ requiri~~g the
enclosure, the petitioners could store anqthing they desired and [here would Chen be no
regulatic;is to coatrol undesirable appearanres with the existing or ar.q future use of the
property. Therefore, since the petitioners had not sub~itted concrete evidence of whv
subject property should nat be completely enclosed for outdoor storage, this waiver shouid
not be gran~ed; that wherever vacanc land was being used, even on a temporary basis for
storage or access, a sodium type solution should be spread across this properLy ta compac~
the dirt and reduce the amount of dust emanating - however, a barrier sho~'_d be erected,
which could be of temporary natur~ to deter any vehicles ftom using the u~used portton of
the property which had not beere paved until such time as the petitioners determinE the
ultimate development of ch~ propercy.
3
~.
~ Mr. Roberts advised tha Commission that some temporary barrier could be erected to keep
th
~ e trucks off the unpaved portian of
would the property which generated dust, and this barrier
~,
~
r appear to be adequate - however,
the use of th from previous observation of the petitioners and
~
,
?
~ e property., they had been
acres
hi
h using almost the entire parcel, includir.g the five
, ,
,~; ~a
c
the petitiorers had stated were not being used.
Further discussion was held by Che Commission relative [o the 5-fooc masonry wall beir.g
required fcr the entire periphery of the property and whether or not the 5-foot wa:l
should be a decorative wall with landscaping along the strzet frontages, with the possi-
bility of:a chainlink fence having aluminum slats along the west and north property Iines
since the existing, so-called chainlink fence was no more than a"hog fence" and was the
most undesirable sight from the adjoining properties; that all the portions of the property
proposed to be utilized a[ this time should be blacktopped and a barrier erecced tc~
separate the portion chat is blacktopped and the unused portion which would remain an-
developed; that a trucking operation was not the best appearing operation in any area -
however, chey did need a facility, and the industrial area was the proper location for
tEiis type of use, provided tha[ they maintained the esthetics of the area.
,;~ Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC65-229 and moved for its passage and adoptiun
, to grant Petitioa for Conditional Use Permit No. 1142, waiviug in part the requirement uf
`+; a 6-foot masonry wall along the west and north property Lines - hawever, a 6-foot masonry
,F;; wall to the rear of the required setback and landscaping in the required setback as
~, ~c"~,~ required under the M-1 code be pravided along Blue Gum Street and Coror.ado Street, except
~: that said masonry wall shall be developed along the nor~h and wesc boundaries of the pro-
posed service starion site; that a 6-foot chainlink fence with aluminum slats sha21 be
~' ~ constructed along the west and north property lines; thac the entire area of subjecr.
property except structural locations and required landscaped areas shall be paved prior
~ co utilization of the property for the purposes granted under this conditional use permit;
~ ,r and Eurther provided that an~ portion of subject property that was not to be used or
~, $', developed for the activities granted herein not be paved until such use of the area was
~,,,',,,y *, contemplated, Furthermore, that a temporary barrier suf.ficier.t to prevent ~he movemenc
~'„c~ of trucks and other vehicies from paved areas to unpaved areas shail be constr~cted along
~-, f the boundaries sep~rating said paved areas from said unpaved areas to preven~ the crEation
~":~'~~~"'~:;1 of a nuisance due to dust. (See Resolution Book)
~?.^.., <.~f
Prior to eoting on subject motion, further discussior was held by the Commission relati~e
to requiring landscapin3 aiong the freeway boundaries and whether or noc landscaping
would be adequate; whereupe.^. Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that the 2'/, interior
landscaping applied to the parking areas which were not enclosed and did not applp to
the facility that was required to be completely enclosed.
Cormnissioner Herbst was of the opinion that regardless of the type of Iandscaping required
along the west boundary line, because the freeway was elevated at subject property, the
landscaping would be superficial and would not sid in screening from view subject property.
Commissioner Allred no[ed chat the trash transfer station developed approximately four
years ago by the Councy had planted five-gallor. cans of various types of landscaping,
I ~Y
- „ . -
. ,:. ~s.Jr' ~ w_:: .~ ~~ ' ~ ;: . . .. .., ... .. .,.. , .-- .: ~,
.~-~-. ~ ) ` . . . !",+. +q,~
'~ , .... .. .' , . , • ' ~ _~~~.~, ._.:.,~,,. •v. i ~f,'~y;'.i'_T-T"x:.
, , . . .. . . ._ . _i., ,.. - ... .. _. . . . . . . __~i~ ... .
L ~1 +. ~a a~".: .,-,~k.~,
C) ~~ , f~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 17, I969 kgp2
CONDITIONAL USE - and in viewing it very recentYy, the landscaping had growa so densE ~hat
PERMIT N0. 1142 one wouid never know the use existed there. Furthermare, within a:;ather
(Continued) four Co five years this faciPity would also not be visible from the
stadium to the south. •
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foliowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbscr Thom, Rowland,
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COA411SSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Farano.
-^=';;;e,;' CONDITIONAL USE - POB:,IC H~~RING. CALTFORNIA DRIVE-iN THEATRES, INC,, i41 South Rooertson
_'.~:
~ PERMIT N0. 1144 Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, O:caer; WILLARU POOL, 12550 Bruukncrst
~;:` StreeC, Garden Grove, Caiif•ornia, Agent; requesting permissio~~ .o BSTAII-
,ti;`' LISH A DRIVE-IN THEATRE TO BE UTILIZED PERIODICALLY AS A SWAP MCET.
~ ,. FACILITY, WITH WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF A WALL TN THE FRO~'T
,~r SETBACK, (2j 6-FOOT HIGH MASONRY WALL ENCLOSURE, (3) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FREE-STANUI~G SIGNS
~ (4) MINIMUM DISTANCE BEIWEEN FREE-STANDING SIGNS, (5) MAXIMUM SIGN AREA, AND (6} PERMITTED~
~~ LOCATION UF FREE-STANDING SIGNS on property described as: A ~anhandle shaped parcei of
land cansisting of approximat~ly 7.5 acres, having approximate frontages af 350 feet on
_ State College Boulevard and 50 feet un Orangewood Avenue, being located south and east
of a 765 by 522-foot parcel at the southeast corner of State College Boulevard and
~~ Orangewood Avenue. Property presently classified M-I, LIGHT INDUSxRIAL, ZONE.
,~. , ,,:
;~~'`; Zoning Supervisor Charles Rcoerta reviewed the location or subject prapert~, uses escab~
lished in ciose proximi[y, and the proposal to Establish an additional drive-in th~atre
;~'
~~ in conjanction with the existing one ir. the City of Orange; that the existing Cit, of
I,
?~ Orange drive-in had 1,118 car s aces and 9i0 addi[ional s aces were p ti
P p pro osed for t..e new
,::>Yy facility; that two different movies would be shown on two separate screens - however,
eatrance to both facilities would be from its present en:ranceway located at the iaeEr-
,~r7„~,' ~:,,+,i section of Anaheim Boulevard and State College Boulevard in the City of Orar.ge; that it
~''{~
"~ was further propoaed to have two additional exits iocated on ~tate College Bouievard
'°
FG
' from sub ect
j property, together with an existing exit accessway located along the east
zt `: side of s~bject property to Orangewood Avenue; that approximately one-third of the TtEWLY
~ proposed drive-in theatre would be located in the City of Orange; that upon contac~ing
,, ~~ the staff of the City of Orang~z Planning Department, they had indicated drive-in tl:esCres
- were permitted in their industrial zones, and aince the existing drive-in theatre had
~ caused iio particular problems to them, they could foresee no apparent difficulties with
:
i the present proposal as il•pertained to the drive-in theatre portion of the request; tha:.
,
c; the new screen structure would be located in Che northwest corner of subject prop~rtv
near the pzoposed exit to State College Boulevard, and a portion of the back side of
~ this acreen would be ut.tl.:zed as a 2400-square faot free-standing sign; that to the
- ,`:~, northwest of this acreen, acrosa an exit road, the applicants were proposing to erect a
480-square foot free-atanding sign which would act as a marquee-type sign for advertising
of the dif.ferent movies to be presented; that plans also indicated a 20 to 30-foot highr
metal feuce would aurround the property on the west and north sides, with a 6-foot high,
f.
' chainlink fence along the easterly boundary adjacent to the exit road to Orangewood
Avenue; that 16 or more feet of front landacaping was proposed along the Scate Coliege
~ ~
; Boulevard fronta pp q
ge; and that the a licants had indicated that in addition to the re uested
•~ drive-in theatre use, they proposed'to use the facility for swap meets on a periodic basis
`~ since [he exiating Orange Drive-in Theatre already carried on this type of activitv.
;r ;~ Mr. Roberts, in evaluating the proposal, noted that aithough at first glance the use
w; proposed appeared to be appropriaCe to the area, particularl.y in light of the long exist-
~~...,,,,:r~ ing Orange Drive-in Theatre located itmnediately to the soutn, upon closer anaiysis of: che
'' area there were three
w ' , problem areas which might concern the CommissiQn, r.amely, 1) an R-I,
~ sittgle-family residential tract was Located in the County directlp west of subject propercy
~~ t, and the proposed theatre screen structure would be located almost immediately adjaceut to
~ : State College Soulevard; that thia proposed screen would be 76 feet high and 110 feet
{ wide, and the Co~nission would be concerned about atiy detrimental effects such a struc:.ure
~ could have on the R-i tracc 1~3cated in the County to the west, particulariy in light of
~:-~-~% the fact that a 2400-s uare foot si n would be su erim osed on this strccture. Furtiier
~~~~ ~~`-~:'~ 9 8 P P
~r more, the Commission might wish to question the appropriateneas or necessity of sc:ch sig~:-
ing in view of the existing sign located to che south which had freeway exposure; 2) L•has
; at times, critical traffic concentrations could be created, particularly durit!g the su;nmer
;: ;;, months during the baseball season when Che drive-in movies and baseball gsmes could 6egir.
and end at approximately the same times during the evening;and 3) it was not the polic_; ef
~::'< the City to permit "swap meets" within the City, and a request for such a use was dis-
*,' approved by the City Council sevEral years ago at the Pacific Drive-i,n Theatre Ioaatzd on
,.,;~;;,: Lemon Street on recommendstion of the Citq Attorney and the City Manager's OfFice, a::d
~ that the Anaheim Police Department had indicated P,he swap meet type activity opened the
~ yl
s:t'
~::~
`;~
,~~:r;
_~;
~ ~t.;,
:~
~:i
;~
~
a `~
;;'s;~'
.,':,:
~~~ ~~.~+r:
';
t~d
~
~ _
~ s
iF;~~-''"f~~~~' ~' . ... . ~ 1,~ w ~: '~ x ~ .- ~~ry' .:~
, . . . _ . . .,. . . ~ . ~. . . . .. , . _` ~ . . . . i
~~~.,.` 3 +2 Y, n 3"` } {~° Y~ ~ "~~~*_~ 4 Cj~r.'+"nr 1^'y `~~ y~ Y .C ~ '3vYm` i '4~R `~Y.^ K ^" . -,3'n,~ ,
'C ~,.~. ~ ''~7
,~:~ ~r> .,.i,.~~ ~ c~ ?~~t'•,.,Y.,,~'rf. s1k~ +rr" y~,. `,s1~ y.. x r
i'
.. .. ~ . . . . . . . . . . ~
.. .. ~ . ~ . , ~. . ~ . ~ ~~ 1 .
d.,/
MINUTES, CITY PL.ANNING COMMISSION, November 17, 1969 4903
CONDITIONAL, USE - door to the sale of stolen merchandise and was e~etremely difficulC to
PERMIT N0. 1144 investigate and police. Furthermore~ disc~ssiens by staff w.ith memoers
(Continued) of the City of Orange Yolice Department iadicated corxurrerce wi;h the
Anaheim Police Chief's opinior sirae they indicated they i;ad 'nad mar.y
such problems with the swap meet activities that have been carried o::
in the past at the Orange Drive-in Theatre facility.
Mr. Roberts further noted that City Council iulicy No. 526 governing metal buildings or
structures in commercial and industrial zones, a~ a result oE the proposed 20 to 30-•foot
i~igh,metal screening walls, wauld have to be considered, and the Coimnission might wish
to question the petitioner as to [he proposal to erect one of these screening wails in
the ulti~~gte righc-of-way of State College Boulevard near the Ci~y of Orange boundat•p,
Furthermore, the Comnission might also be conceined about the adequacy of a chair,:~ink
fen~e only 6 feet high alang the eastern perimeter of subject prupert~r, ar.d thac ti.e
Commission might wish to require, if subject petition were approved, Chat the applica:i±•s
plant rapidly growing~ L-sil trees adjacent to Che rear of the proposed movfe sctaen i!~stead
of permittir.g the requested 2400-square foot sign witho;~t ar~y scree:iir.g, ci,ereby aidizg ia
besulifying and screer.i::3 thzs structure from the surrour.ding area.
Mr. Don Griffin, architect, 8081 Stanton Street, i3uena Yark, apgeared beioze ~he Commissier
noting that his firm had worked for the past several years with the drive-ir. taeat.re; tnat
several represencatives of :he Pacific Drive-in Thearres were present co answer quEStioris
which might arise; [hat the proposal was generallq as the stafP presented in Che Reporl
to the Commissior.; that the setback aLong Sta~e Ccllege Boulevard was 15 to 16 £eer from
the ultimate right-of-way, and it was planned to comply with ~hat requiremer.~; wi~ereupon
Mr. Roberta sta[ed ::hat in the M-1 Zune it was required to have a 50-faet setback for
str.uctures.
Mr. Griffin, in reviewing the Repor[ to che Co~mnission, Finding No. 1, Paragraph 2, ?age
6-c, reia~i,.;2 to constructioa of the screening walls in Che ulti~re Ce r3ght-or-wa.Y, was
advised by Mr. Roberts ~hat in reviewing rhe plans, it appeared thac a portior. uf the
proposed metal fence would 'oe in the right-of-way - tt~x.refone, tha staff was unacle ~o
determine what was praposed.
Mr. Grif~in then scated that no portion of the fence would 'oe in th2 uLtimate right-of-
<way in t~ie posicion Mr. Roberts had indicated cn the plan, ar.d the balance o£ tha fence
would be in the City of Orange. Where the conEusion may have come was due to the fac~
that the ultimate right~of-way differed between Che two cities.
Mr. Griffin then reviewed the proposed applicatiun and presented colured renderings
relative to the addition of a second outdoor theatre screen, and ttated thal considerable
study had been given to the lacaCion of the screen so that 3t would least affect adjoi:aing
~ropercies. Farthermore, its Location would also pruvidg far a better circulation pat~ern
wherein the patrons could exit 2n a logical fashion; thac che aumber of cars in ch~ Orange
Drive-in Theatre portion had been reduced by approximately 350 ~~ars, and this radsction
would be reflected by an increase in the proposed new theatre area; that the advancages aP
developing the proposal was to provide a combined entry traffic system wherein peopl~ coald
make l-heir decision whith screen to view,and exit from both facilities would be handled in
two separate patterns; that in the design of the circulacion pattern tha~ had ~aker, in~o
account the traffic problem and lights from the stadium, and it was felt tt~ere wouid oe n~
problem in any traffic flow.
Pir, Griffin further noted that there was a proposed realignment oi State College Soul~vard
and Anaheim Boulevard which would project State College Boulevard in a aifferEnt manner
and relieve the possible traffic hazards which the staff had indicaced, and the locatien
of the proposed new screen would result in a minimum amount oF lighting problems wl•:lcn
would not affect the neighboring uses; and that although an additional exit was preposed
on State College Boulevard, this would provide for only right turns and would nu*_ inter-
fere with Che traffic flow coming southerly.
Mr. Griffin further noted that the signing as pruposed would have an attractive appearance
along State College Boulevard which would display current features, whereas the oth~r sign
would be an identity sign similar to the one already in the City of Orange; that th~e
backlighting on this signing would be a soft color; that the fence proposed was of ine~al
fabrica[ion and was planned to be 30 feat in height so as co protect the adjacent pr~per-
ties, as well as the patrons, from commercial streec lights; that the propoaed activit~;
would remove the problem in the future where existing manufacturing uses operatina all
night w~uld not have tiarmful reflections or noises which might intrude in the residar.tial
uses.
~ ~
~
ti
~~~..~ :~'~~,4y
' ~~,~'u~'.~k
1~
z
~~,
.~
::.t~
~ ~~
( SaNi
~<: The Commission noted that a 6-iooL• masonry wall was required in the M-I Zune to the rea
of the required setback which was 50 feet along
State College Boulevard; r
whareupon Mr. '
-
': Griffin stated that it was proposed to have ~.he mecal fence so that the same design w~ul
d
° be carried through from the r,'ioining facility, .
, .
;ry
~~
., ).
>
. ,~
-- - ~ , _~
,
~
., r~ ~
; 5 ~ /
~ +,'~
*~f. 1~
/
r
' ~ ~
~ . . . . . . _.i . . .. ' . . . . . .
.
.
~-4
..
r-. _ _ - -
O . ~
' MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMI~fISSION, November 17, 1969
r-
V
49Q4
CONDI'PIONAL USE - Mr. Griffin further noted that in the signing with the traFfic pat;erri
PERMIT N0. 1144 proposed around the entry, it was essential that the patrons see r.~~e
(Continued) attrection before arriqing at the entry since once he was on the site,
he could then make hi.s choice of the two movies heir.g displaz•e.•~6; ~nst
the redesiga of che ticket booths in their new lc~cs~ion wauld reduce
the number of cars standing in line and would be on the site awaiting their tarn Co
enter the faciiity; that the box offices were open w`~r_•n cars began to arrivc.
Mr. Griffin, in reviewing the signs again, stated that r.lthoueh the one appeabed to be
rather large, it was not ou[ of proportion since it was the szze of the scrFen, ated by
providing the identity, this would take care of the rear of the screeningi t:hat subject
property had a rather large frontage around the entire parcel, although onl}~ 34? Leet
were in the CiCy of Anaheim - therefore, the signing would be appropria~e.
Mr. Griffin, in reviewing the proposed "swap meet" activiCy, stated it was curren:.•Ly in
operation at the existing che.~tre site, and it was not ~.anned ra expand into suUjecc
property - however, it was in[ended L-o use the Anahcim facility ~portior. for parking
purposes as overflow, and the request for approaal of the swap meet facilities was a
part of this petition. Furthermore, ic was E,Ianned Co upgrade the entir~ develupmen~,
both within the City of Anaheim and the City of Orange; that consider2u)+ l~ndscaping
would be planted; atid that iC was his opinion the Cicv would U.e well pleased with the
proposed use. TC was also noted that the recommendatlons of ~he l:-,terdepactmer.ta2
Committee for Public Safety and General Welfare w;:re generally ,;s ~hey anticipated,
and representatives were available in the event [t~e Coimnission had any furCher quescic.~s.
Commissioner Far3no then inquired as to the ca~acLt:y flf L•he existing dit.v~: [n [heacre =n
the CiCy of. Orange; whereupon Mr. Griffin replied ~hat the capacit~ was 1,~80.
Commissioner Parano tioted that with the proposed capacity, this would mean over 2,000
persons.
Mr. Griffin replied that Che existing theatre when c~yised would have 1,i18 spaces, and
the new theatre would have 910 spares, and that the present City of Orange facilicies
were reduced in order to provide for better ~irculacion.
Mr. Norman Harvey, 11732 Cypress Street, Orange, appeared ~oefore the Commission in
opposition and stated that his properr..y was iimnediately acros.s from subject property;
that the swap meets now being held at the City of Orange Facility have been vert anncying
with haranguing through loud-speaker systems which were on at all times ar.d seemed to
grow louder as the meet progressed, and this was most snnoying to the residenLS acrass
the street Prom this facility.
Chairman Rowland advised Mr. Harvey that any cot~pl~int 's~C had relativ~ to the existi~g
swap meet should be presented to the City of Or~nge.
Mr. Harvey replied that if the Citp of Anahei:a did not establish specific criteria,
this type of swap meet couZd alsu come into the new facility. Further~aorp, [here wss
an additional problem of traffic, and he knew from experience, si.nce many cimes ht was
unable to gain entrance to his residence due to the lieavy tr.aff.c,, at:sl with the prop~std
increase, this would increase the traffic hazard when State c;ollege Boulevard and Anaheim
Boulevard were reaLigned from Chapman Avenue; that it was anticipated tnat Stale Coliege
Boulevard would go over the freeway from Orangewood Avenue and thereb~~ eliminatE ai~c
possibility of traffic on State College Boulevard since it was his i:nderstanding tl~ere
would not be a two-way road buc would present only one-way traf'fic, an..t this undezstand-
ing of it came from the fac~ thae the County had contacted him relative Lo his properc~-
and how it would be affected; and that presently when the patrons of the facilit? exiced
both to the north and south, this t.raffic increased and became very heavy when tb.r- base-
ball season was in progress, making it almost untenable Co gain any rest during [he late
evening hours.
Mr. Harvey then requested that the proposed locations on State College Bouie~~ard, boci~
as to exits and entrances, be pointed out to him, which was done by the staff..
Mr. Gus Cordigan, I1621 South State College Boulevard, Orange, appeared before Lhe
Commission in opposition, s6~ting he resided directly across from subject propzrt~, ana
he represented the residents affected by subjert petition; that [hey appreciated tha
commercial aspects of the proposal and anticipate commercial zoning for their propert~~:
that they had endorsed M-1 zoning more than ten years ago for this immediate vicinity;
that the existing swap meet held on the Orange Drive-in Theatre property was exr.remeiti~
nois~, and to propose its extensiou into the property to the north would compound r_his
undesirable nuisance because the n~ise Prom the loud-speakers affec~ed L•he healt:li of
the residents and ma~le them exl-remel;~ nervous and was degrading to the tuture use _~f
Cheir property - therefore, he would recommend that iE suUject pe[iCion wEre apprev~:d.
that Lhe swap meet reaquesC Ue denied.
~ ~;
I `~
1'
j ;'i
f ,~
, ~7.~. ~i:l:n. V .. .. .... ,- .
~.~~S.ln: _ ~ r
1'
.
~,
~ ~ t
... ...:. ~ ..~.~._ ~..r"r- ..... ~.-..... ........n.i '~..'-:..... .::'. . .. . .. - , •~~.. ~A
IY."'4 "F.-Y TH1~ .` flT :~~tY S. [
J ~_
~,
1/
V
:~,iC1i "Y '~.i
1 4
~9
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSTON., November 37, 1969
CONDITIONAI, USE
PERMIT N0. 1144
(Continued)
proposed develo{
4~05
- Mr. Zorenz Merkle., I1637. State r;ollege BoulevaYd, Ora:ige,, appeare4
before the C~mmi,saion and statc~d that when the theatre was firsc b;xiYt
it was zather s;:r?etive - howeve,•, it's ~~resent appearar.ce is depress-
ing, and ro ;;eri!+.'-_.~ ~ 30-foot high fence dfrectYy across the street from
the sing~,c••fs>ii'zy •homes would be the most undesirable aspect of the
imenC .
M'r. Griffin, i~n rebuttsl, nr.atcd that in conjunction with evidence of che p~ti~iontr as
ta traffic probl~cns, tter±; had utilized professtbna~I Calent of traffic engi.neers and hao
coordinated these 3tudle,~with the CiCy of OrangE since the majar portion ;sf the de•;eYap-
ment would b~ in those ai~,as; that every cunsiderat:on was given to thE traffic pr,oblem,
and it was the opinion af the professioanls that th~; solution had been found to this
traffic problem; that ~:he major traffic tie-up wo~:ld be generally ?a; t~e ,su:~rniag ar,d
afternoon - therefore, the thegtre would not be a contributor ta t+ni~ tc~,~+;.~ flo,~~; t:~a;.
every attempi; had bee.n made to design the facility with good rircul~ti,~,--n; that ;:~~ g=nar•a7.
appearance ~t the faca~fe wouTd be oreatly, iwproved; and that ic w~c ct~ei.: intenc tu upgrade
the entir~e ~r~rimeter in r_onjunction with this portion of the petician.
Mr. Gri.fin, in resp~ilse [o Commission questioning reiative to whe^l~er or not it was the
petitioner's intent .to upgrade th~- facility within the CiCy of Orat.,;e in any way, stated
that there taas ~i, coor.dinated effort to ,provide circulation between the Cities of OrangE
:~nd Anaheim l;~, dediaate the necessary pro~±erti.es for realignment of that area, ar.d this
would requ?.re the petltioner to improve ct;e frontage, together with lar.•dscaping and
painting; ~hat thece was aome difference of opinion es to what would happen ~n tne over-
pass - however, fz•om his understanding, ~t would car,ry Craffic Aver "the freeway from
State Co~lege Boillevard, and at that timee it would be weaterly of their propertp; tha~
a aervice road r~ight be provided if thfs happened, and this would g~eatly aTieviate the
traffic probiecn now anticipated by the op~position; and th,3t the entire area wo;:id ba
greatly imprc,ved both frmn_ ~he standpoinP: of potential ind~stry and commercLai usaa.
Furthermore, the enti:e sr.:-~tage in £ron.t of the ncw theatre aection would be set back
20 feeC,
~q ~j Commiasi.oner AllrEd noted that he was requesting verffication as to ttr•: ,realignment oi
~ ~ State C.ollege Boalevard in the City of Ors~,,ge - as to whpn chig would he c~ympleted;
r~-s1 whereur~on Mr, ~riffir. atatEd he .could only answer that 3t woinld be up co the State to
r d~cide: the locat~an n£ the overpasa when t~e realignment of Sta~e Co11Ege Boulevard in
, ~ k~~ Orang~: would. oTCUic,
.~
'~~ *:r. Griff;i~1 notei9 thac they further inte:nded to u ,
'Y `, fencEi and u4~grading the landaca in to pgrade [he facade with ~n.nting of the
~ : p g provide continuiiy of the er.tire parcel - however,
, }; Chere~ would be no landecaping in front of the City of Qrange fence, b;:t there were already
~,: : _-;;+ some treea iocated there.
~i
~S Aeaiatant City Attornpy John Dawaon inquirgd :ahether os not the petLtioner would stipulate
~, that ths lights of Che aCadium would not be aFfecting the proposed new drive-in faciiity;
~ whereupoi~ Mr. Griffin etated they would atipulate there would be no objection to the
pV atadium liQhte ei,nce the location of the new ecrecen took thie ineo _onsideration.
'~`. Mr. John Wool3r~y,attorney repreaent±ng the peti.tioner, asked that clarification be made
~ of I~r. Dawaon'e sta~ement; trhereupon Mr. Dawson etxt~3 t„at his s;atemen! for atipula~ion
i was directly oniy to the new acreen and theatre portion under consideration since the
,,_, Y..~ City ha8 already•negotiated for the old facil.ity.
} ~'; Co~it,sianer Herbst tl~en iaquired whether or r.~~ ;,}~fa would be considered a City ox Urange
hue~uesa aittce all the moni,ea would be taken ~.n the City of Orange ar~ parking ~wou~,d b, ir.
~.
y the City of Anaheim.
~ i
,,I Mr. Dawaon atated that ~ince the moniea were 1;eing taken in tls.• City of Orange, it would
Lrq aesumed this was a City of Ora^.ge busin~~ss venture - however, he would have to fLr;:her
~ 'r;} research th3s to determine rhe lega.l aspecCs.
s
~
~ ~ Commisaior,er Herbst noted that none of the entrances to the theatrea wa.s irom the City
~ N f
S~~ F~ o~E Anaheim• Cherefore, he doubted very much that this cuuld be considered sn Anah~im
- ventur~e.
~
~ Commissioner Gauer was ~f the opinion that he could not see why the drive-in theacre
i Y should be con~e~'ted into some other business venture, and he would be adverse Co appc•oving
~ ? a swap reee: if subject petition were approved for the expansion of the thea~re based uFon
statem~nts made bf the Anaheim Pulice Department.
~:,.:..- . : ,- ' _
(~ J ~
. MINUTES, CITY PLP_NNING COMMISSION, November 17, 1969 . 4906
CONDITIONAL USE - conditional use permit, these facilities could be used for parking
PERMIT N0, 1144 purposes.
(Continued) ~
Co~nissioner Farano again referred to a letter from the Chief uf the
Anaheim Police Department as to his recommendatian that the swap meet
request be denied and inquired whether or not department heads could make sach recommenda-
tions,
Mr. Dawson advised the Commission that department heads often made recommendations to the
City Council; therefore, there was no reason for de.ying their making recommendacions Co
the Planning Commission.
Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that at the time the staff was preparing the Report }~~'
;;c:
to the Commisaion a request was made to the Anaheim Police Chief to submit a lel•ter
indicating his viewpoints as they pertained to a swap meet in an outdoor theaCre.
Commissioner Thom noted that if there were some concern regarding lighcs fram the scadiv.m,
was it not also possible landing lights from planes at the metroport if it were located
at the stadium property could also be a problem to the theatre.
CoRrtnissioner Herbat offered Resolution No. PC69-230 and moved for its passage and adaption
to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1144 on the basis that since the tickeC
booths and refreshment stands for both the existing and proposed drive-in thea~res would
be within the City of Orange, this could not be considered an Anaheim business - thFre-
fore, Anaheim would not receive revenue from the use of the property located ia the City
of 9naheim; that subject property wa. located in a prime industrial area, and approvai
of a drive-in theatre may have a l•:rimental effect upon the future development ef adjacent
industrial property; that [he proposed use would be deleterious to ~he residential livirig
environment of the homes located in the County, across the street from subject propertp.
by subjectir.g these residents to increased traffic congestion and the a~cendant noise and
the bright lights from the proposed sign that would be almost five times the size permitted .
by the Anaheim Municipal Code; that in the past the existing drive-in theatre had not bEen
maintained in an attractive manner; tha~ requests in the past to utilize dr:.ve-in Cheatres
for swap meets have been denied on the Uasis that such uses creaced serious polir.ing
prcblems in tY.at they provide an ideal area for passing stolen merchandise; and that che
Anaheim Police Chief had recommended that the swap meet portion of the request be denied.
(See Resulution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by Che following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONFRS: A.llred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland.
NOES: CO:IMISSIONLRS: Ptone.
ABSENT: COMMIoSTONERS: None.
~?~;~~ESS - Chairman P..~wland declared a ten-minute recess. The meeting cecessed
at 4:!U Y.M.
RECONVENE - Cha.irm~n Rowland recon~ened the meeting at 4;20 P.M., all Commissioners
bein~; presenc.
~ONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. BELMONT SAVINGS & LUAi~, 5200 East 2nd S[reety Lo.lg
PERMIT N0. 1145 Beacr, Californiay Ovmer; LE RCY ROSE ASSOCIATES, 1711 Wes~mont Drive,
Anah~iR, Cai?f~rni•a, and Community ;,ystems Consultants, P. 0. Bux 10383,
SaNCa Ana, Califorr.ia, Agents; rrquesting permission co ESTABLISH A
i-STC~Y, 242-BED GENERAL HOSPITAL WITH :JAIVE1t OF THE MAXIMUM BUILDIN~ HEIGHT on proper[y
described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3.5 acres,
having a f~onta~e of apFroximately 375 feet on the west side of Lakeview Avenue, having a
mar.imum depth of approxim~:ely 478 feet, and being located approximately 370 feeC north
of the cenCerline of Riverdale Avenue. Praperty presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL,
20;?ii ,
'Loning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, uses estab-
liQhed in clo.se pr~ximit~~, existing zotting, ~nd the proposal to establish a 7-s[ory,
242-bed hospital, and that subject property was a part of a large area annexed inzo the
City, known as Peralta Hills Annexa:tion No. 2 in 1967, wherein a resoluciun of intent
to es=ablish R-1 zoning on the property was approved by the City Council in July, 'L967
(Reclassification No. 67-68-13).
~~fi Mr. Roberts fuzther noted that the Anaheim General Plan-1969 indicated this area as
r,~,~ ,' ~ approprial•e for low der.sity uses, with a neighborhood shopping center in the viciniC.p
~ of tha inr.ersE;.tion of Riverdale and Lakeview Avenues; that the use proposed appeared
?"`~~ to be appropriare for Che location on the basis that the ultimate: population prejECL•ions
1 f' ~
1. ~. •
..;~r.~ « ~~.~. ~,~.r. .
~ ~ , ~ ~... " . " _
, ., ..,:: . ... .., ,..
.
~3~ ~~3 _ _ x ~v:. . , ,. ., ~;.. . ` -. . . :. ~! w
'~
~ 4 ~.~
~ - _ . : -,. ,, ,.
~ ~ ~
MENUTES, C.ZTY PLANNING COMMISSION N b
';~
4 ; :..
, ovem er 17, 1969 ::90'r'
CONDITIONAL USE -£or this area indicated a definite need for a general hospital to
PERMIT N0, 1145 serve the medical needs of this population; that Lakeview Ave+~ve
(Continued) was proposed to be one of the two north-south arterials crossing
the new route of the Riverside Frzeway and the Santa Ana River becween
ttie ~:,c!~w~~ti and Riverside Freeway int~rsection a.nd Imperial Highwa;;;
that there would be an inCerchang~ system between Lakeview AvEnue and the Riverside
Freeway southerly of the Lakeview-Riverdale Avenue intersection; and chat the Genera~,
Plan indicated a small commercial center in this vicinity - therefore, the propoaeri
general hospital was.basicall~ a commercis~.l use and would act as a nucleus for additionai
co~ercial-professional and commercial use~: in this immediate area.
Mr. Roberts noted that the Commission would wish to carefully analyze these factors
prior to their final decision as to whether the proposed use was, indeed, apprapriate
to the area, and confinement of this proposed facility and any other future ccmmercial
proposals to those propeccies located at the northwest corner of Riverdale and Lakeview
Avenues wouid be essential to maintaiaing the overall low density, residential incegrity
of the rest of the area; and that spot co~ercial zoning of any type for parcels other
than those located within the specific boundaries could prove to be deleterious to the
existing and future singie-family development of t',,s5 area east of Lakeview Aver.se and
south of Riverdale, as we11 as west of the proposed project. Furthermore, in ordQr to
further proCect surrounding properties and to enhance the site itself, if subject petition
were approved, the Commission might wish to requira that in addition to the reqLired 6-
foot masonry wall along the west property line, tree screen landscaping on 20-foot cencers
be provided adjacent to the wall to provide effectual screening; that ample landscaping,
iacluding a large x-umber and variety of trees be provided throaghouc che site, with pians
to be approved by the Devel,opmen~ Services Department; and that alI mechanical eqeipment
which migt~t be located on the roof tops be architecturally screened from pubiic view,
as well as signing of the facility to be tastefully done and in coniormance with the
Sign Ordinance.
E Mr. Roberts, in coaclusinn, stdced that the petitioner should be advised ~hat grades had
~ been established for Lakeview Avenue, and in the event sub'ec~
] peti~ion were approved,
spECial consideration should be given in the design of the project to eliminace the
possibility of sigh[ distance problems at the exit onto Lakeview Avenue.
Mr. Gordon Br.icken, repzesenting Communiry Systems Consulcants, appeared before che
Commission and noted`he was present to advise the Coimnission of the reasoa for selec~ion
of subject property, and that the architect would presen~ the balance ~ the proposal,
' noting that three major impact proposals which limited the proposed hotaital to the site
as depicted ir the.Hill and Canyon General Plan were that Lakeview Avenue would bE one
of the two major north-sou[h arterials with 106-foot right-of-way~ Eour-lane highway;
that Riverdale Avenue would be a secondary highway; that this interi~ection weuld 'pe
immediately adjacent to the new alignment of the Riverside FreewBy, and this was une
aspect fo; acceptability-which was adequate access; that the General Plan indicated
this generul area with a commercial symbol which would allow a quasi-type commercial
area; that the cormnercial development dispersed throughout the area would be fur the
convenience of the people living in this area - therefore, it was Cheir feeling r'ni~t
the proposed hospital would be compatible with the philosophy of the Hill and Canyon
General Plan and the total project; that the population of this area would be 114,000,
and it was anticipated that the total need for the ent;.re area would be approximacely
250 beds; that there *aere L•wo other hospital sites projected - one on Chapman Avenue
in Orange and the other one on Esperanza in Placentia - however, the need exis~ed in
thia area presently because of the considerable growtl~ of the area; that they presencly
estimated Che need of 84 to 120 beds wliich would be built and the balance would be
completed when the need was presented; that hospitals were ~ompatible with other com-
mercial office uses - however, this type of facility would set che pattern of the
commercial uses for the area with better quality commercial uses than a neighborhood
shopping center.
Mr. Bricken noted thac the building site was selected to take advantage of the General
Plan and the proposed. residenrial development to the west would be the first to most
logically develop; that the location of the structure at the northeast end of the
property with only access to Lakeview Avenue would be more of a shield of the heighC
from the residential uses; and that the key which would make this area lies in the fact
that the street pattern indicated in the use would thus be compatible wi~h the General
Plan.
Mr. LeRoy Rose, architect of the proposed developmenc, appeared before the Commission
and noted that several years ago he had submitted a request for a hospital on Jefferson
Street - however, this was located in the industrial area and the Commission determir,ed
this was not the logical location for the facility, but they did express an opir.ion there
was a need for a hospital in this general location, and that ~he same people who had
propasedthe hospital in the industrial area were also the same people now proposi:g
subject hospital.
I
$`4:y`~~!--~~5"~';
N » y ~ '~`%" ~ • ~ ~ ,y,r ~-5'K ~".~~' ~ , ~~~ ~_~,.,,.~P ~~'Ey {~~,p~x~?'~"~,` i`~ ~7~,~ ~v+ ~..: ~.Ky '?~ ~r'~. ;.x P ,r :: ~ ,y.:_
~ ~~ ~~7 ~ ~f~
~~
~ .. ~ ~~ : . ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 17, 1969 4908
CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. Rose, in reviewing the proposed project, stated each toiaer section
PERMIT N0. 1145 would have 36 beds per floor with nursing facilities in the center cor.e
(Continued) and the rooms on the perimeter; that the main floor would house the
~~ surgical. pediatrics, etc, facilit-ies; thac due to the fact that Lakeview
Avenue was proposed to span the Santa Ana River, the srreec would rise
i,.^ almost immedi.ately adjacsnt to subject property, and the hospital would afford a shield
to residential development t;r the south from the bridge site; that Lskeview AvEnue wosld
` act as a connector between the Yoroa Linda Freeway and the Riverside Freeway; that it was
proposed to have an entirely Spanish theme for the structure, with emergency faciliti~s
~ from Lakeview Avenue and visitors' parking to the rear or to the west; and that he was
available to answer any further questions the Commission might have.
~ ~ _,
~~;;~~;r~~ ~" The Commission inq~iired whether or not all the land presently under option would be
'$;~ utilized; whereupott Mr, Rose stated that subject property, although only advertised
• a for the northerl ortion a rectan ular ~
Y P , g parcel, was actually L-shaped; tha_ there would
zF ` be more room for expansion westerly; that it was y p
i,~ 5~ presentl lanned to construct a sheli
,,_ of five stories and finish the interior as it was needP~; and tnat nothing was anticipated
~ - for the undeve~oped area - however, it could be utilized ~~r professional type services.
k
_ ~; Mr. Bricker., in summarizing the statements made bp himself and Mr, Rose, sta~ed tnat Che
;~; ~. proposal would be in conformance with the General Plan; that the site selected was so tfiat
I~ ~~ it would not affect the single-family homeowners already located in this area; tha~ the
Ir;' ,;~ design standards were the best; and that all conditions reco~mnended for a
, acceptable to them. pproval were
~~ Mr. Roy Menc;nza, 339 Starfire Street, appeared before the Commission and st~ted his reason
~` for appearing w.:s because the neighbors were not informed of the
proposal; that he was
,'~~t speaking for them, and quite a few were quite confused since at the time of annexation
,: cheq were asaured the entire area would be re[ained for low densitq residential use, and
" since these aingle-family residents had not been informed, he was requesting that subjec~
, 9',
~ petition be continued in order that the single-family homeowners might get an opportunit~
~:+ to fully review the p2ans aiace only the portion on the northerly L-shaped parcel was
,,..,,1~ projected for the hospiCal; that the enlongation of the L-shaped pazcel which exCended
, , southerly to Riverdale Avenue would vitally affect the R-1 homeowners on the south ;ide
,_. ,,;,"j of Riverdale Avenue.
Chairman Rowland noted that the legal noticea submitted to the property ownera was a
eervice by the City but was no[ a requiremenc by law; that the property had been properly
posted and advertiaed in the ne'aspaper; and that it would be at the discretion of the
Commiaeion Ca del•ermine whether continuance of sub,ject petition wea warranted.
Mr. Tom Lindley, I9I9 Sherry Lane, Santa Ana, appeared before the Commisaion, notir.g he
repreaented the people who owned the property adjacent to the hospital aite who had
:.ndicated no oppoeiCion to the propoeal.
= THE HL~r~RINC WAS CLOSED.
.~i Diacueeion wae held by the Commiasion ae to the request for continuance in order to ailow
time for the homeownere to review the plans to determine whether or not they were in
? oppoaition; thet the propoaed hoapital was more than 600 feet from the south side of
Riverdale Avenue: and that theae reaidents would not be affected either by the height or
,; the propoaed hospital.
Co~nissioner Camp :hen noted that he wlshed to clarify for the opposicion that sir.ce the
property on the elongation southerly to Riverdale Avenue had not been advertised for
public hearing, nothing could be developed on the property until another pu5lic hearing
was held - therefore, only the hospital site, which was the northerly 375 feet, havir~g a
depth of approximatelq 478 feet, was presently under consideration, and anp futnre requests
would also have to be presented to the Planning Cormnission for che types of uses which
might be projected since the propertp was presently zoned R-A, and there were very Iimi.~ed
uses which could be placed in the R-A Zone.
Commissiuner Farano offered Resolution No. PC69-231 and moved for its passage and adop[ion
to grant Petition for Canditional Use rermit No. 1145 on the basis that it was decermiiied
the population projections for the Santa Ana Canyon area indicated a need for a general
hospital facility to serve the needs of the people of this area, and subject ~o cot:ditions.
(See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: CGMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland.
NOES: G~.)MMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
i=~ #~
`~
~
.~
•y 1
. 'f . ... _ -, ,. .. .. . _ . ~ . . ~ , ..
r
O O
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 17, 1969
; K~t- r ~.~' ^"4+
~ _ ~
~J
4909
CONDITIONAL USE - The Commission advised the opposition that if they wished to appeal the
PERMIT N0, 1145 Commission action, they could either file the .required $50 appeal fee
(Continued) or contact a member of the City Council who then might se= this for
public hearing at their discretion.
VARIANCE N0. 2136 - PUBLIC HEARING. FREDRICKS DEVELOPMENT CORP., 524 West Commonweaith
Avenue, Pullerton, California, Owner; FEDERAL SIGN & SIGNAL CORP.,
3C36 South Oak Stree_, Santa Ana, Ca$:~.fornia, 9gent; requesting
WAIVER OF THE MAXL+SUM SIGN HEIGHT TO PERMIT AN EXISTING 25-FOOT HIGH, POLE SIGN TO BE
RAISED TO 40 FEET HIGH on property described as: A panhandle shaped parcei of land
consisting of approximately 8 acres, having approxima~z Fronr.ages of 400 feeC on "a Palma
Avenue and 250 feet on State Col2ege Boulevard, being °:~cated north and east of a 277 bc
372-foot parcel at the northeast corner of La Palma t~~ence and StaCe College Boulevard,
and further described as 2021 East La Palma Avenue. Property presently ciassified C-1,
GENERAL COMMERCIAL, 20NE.
"'~ - Zoning Super•risor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject pruperty, uses esia~-
~. } lished in close roximit
p y, previous action on signs for the existing shopping center, and
„ `. the varianr_e granted in January, 1969, for waiver of permitted uses in the C-1 Zane in
ir', 1 order to establish the existing Goodyear facility,
Mr. Roberts note@ the proposal was to elevate the existing 25-foot high, free-starding
sign advertising the Goodyear facility an additional 15 feet, for a total heighC of 4lT
feet; that the existii~g sign was now located on the La Palma Avenue frontage, immediately
€ s adjacent to the newly constructed facility and was in conformance with Code provisions of
the Sign Ordinance which required a 25-foot height where a sign was within 300 feec of
residential properties, and since an apartmert development was iimnedia[el~ across t•he
street, with single-family homes immediately to the south of the R-1, the 25-foo~ sign
f, ,.~~ would be required, and from the evidence submitCed with the application, there did not
appear to be a valid hardship; that photographs taken from both the east and west along
La Palma Avenue indicated the sign was easily readable at the present hei,ght, and if a
` ;~ hardship did exist, the hardship was created when the sign was located in its present
,•,~ position; and that if the sign were relocated further west on the property, the rather
s;;.,.,~{t large structure would not tend co give a blocking effect.
Mr. Clay~on Adams, I412 Donacy Street, Anaheim, appeared beFore the Commission, stating
he was the operator of the existing Goodyear tire and baCtery shop for which subject
request was proposed; that since Crees have been planted in the parkirg area and wouid
grow as they maturec~ this would block the motorists' view of the existing sign; that the
colored slides presented by the st2ff could not have been taken more than 75 feet from
the facility; that the Geadyear s2ore was not visible from State College Bouievard and
could be seen or.ly within the La~r 75 feet driving westerly on La Palma Avenue - therefore,
he felt this was sufficient evidence that a hardship existed.
The Commission inquired why Goodyear Tire Company should be given a privilege not afforded
other businesses in this genec•al area; to which Mr. Adams replied that the Goodyear Tire
people had a good name and they were atter..pting to bring additional business into a
shopping cenCer that was in i~eed of additional business; that the Texaco station at the
northwest corner of State College and La Palma Avenue was permitted to have a 40-foot
high sign; and that the parking lot, as well as the parkway, already had trees plaRte,d
which grow ~c heights which would obliterate the exis[ing height of the sign.
The Commission advised Mr. Adams that the City had an ordinance which wouid protect o~her
people, and the closer a co~nercial use was established to a residential use, the small2r
the sign and the lower the height would be~ and the farcher away said commercial uses were
from residential uses, the higher the sign would be permitted; that others in this shopping
center had requested higher signs, and to permit one coimne_cial enterprise to have high
signs would opun up "Pandora's box" to requests for "the sky is the limit" in height of
signs.
M;. Adams stri~ed that the sho,ping center had a marquee adver[ising the difEerent stores
.`in`the shopping center and was Located on State College 5oulevard.
The Commission then inquired why the Goodyear Tire Company could not al.so be adve.rtised on
said marquee, which•aould give the exposure required for S[ate College Boulevard; that at
the public hearing granting the Goodyear Tire facility a discussion was held relative to
the types of signs proposed, and it was poir.ted out by the petitioner that they felt the
2.ocation of the Goodyear facilitp was the best after numerous studies, and that si.gning
could be accomplished in accordance with the Sign Ordinance - now it seemed addi[ional
problems were occurring.
Mr. Adams noted that when the sign was erected he had objected to i~s location ar.d the
height since he felt the height and size of the sign and its location were ir.adeqLate to
,'
k ...?•'r
,
_. ,,... .::: ' 1.:: , '- ' :~;._:9. --.~,~c....'. ..
~ Q ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 17, 1969 49f0
~ VARIANCE N0, 2136 - provide proper exposure to the public for this new facilit~ - therefore,
he felt this was a hardship since the sign was not visible for more than
75 feet from the east on La Palma Avenue and not at ali on State Coilege
Boulevard.
1he Commission noted that the Goodyear facility was located in a shopping center that had a
specific decor in w!iich the key sign was integrated, and if subject petition were approved,
this would be granting a privilege not afforded the other cormnercial ventures in this
shopping center, and since the petitioner had not submitted concrete evidence or hardship
because other stores in this shopping center were required to meet the same code stipula-
tions, granting subject petition would be granting a privilege not afforded others.
Mr. Adams noted that the Texaco sign was 40 feet in height and was easily visibie from
the freeway.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THE HEARING WAS CLO~ED.
The Coimnission noted that the Texaco Company was not faced with the same control as subjecc
petition, and this was the fact that it was not across the street from residential uses
but had coimnercial on three sides and a future high school site on the west, aad that the
existing sign was readily visible to motorists.
Commissioner Alired offered Resolution No. PC69-232 and moved for its passage and adoption
to deny Petition for~Variance No. 2136 on the basis that there were no exceptional or
extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property or its intended use that did no:.•
apply generally to the property or uses in the same vicinity and zone; tnaC a resta~ianc
in the same shopping center in which sub3ect siga is located previously requesl-ed an
increase in height of their sign, but both the City Council and Planning Commission denied
the request on the basis that this would establish an undesirable precedent for similar
requests from alI lessees in this shopping center; that identification of subjec[ proper~y
could be accomplished if the State College Boulevard exposure were desired by incorporating
ano[her sign in the shopping center identification sign; and that the petitioner submitted
no evidence that a hardship was created by the application of the Sign Ordinance, (See
Resolution Book)
On roll ca11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COPShiISSIONERS: Allred, Gamp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland,
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENTc COMMISSIO*TEkS: None.
VARIANCE N0. 2137 - PUBLIC HEARING, ALICE EMERY, 9.18 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim,
Califcrnia, pwner; K,B,C., INC., 2365 Westwood Boulevard, Las Angeles,
California, Agent; requesting permission to EXPAND A LEGAL NONCONFORM-
ING USE WITH WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM SETBACK ADJP,CENT TO A MAJOR ARTERIAi. HiGHWAY, (2)
MINIMUM nISTANCE BEIWEEN BUILDINGS, AND (3) MIN.LMUM OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL-LEISURE SPACE on
property described as: A rectangularly shaped pa:se~ o; land consisting of approximately
7,716 square feet, having a frontage of approximately Si~ feet on tae C~gr side of Anaheim
Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approximately 1'?~' fe~t, being located approximately
265 feet south of the centerline of Vermont Avenue, an. £urther described as 918 South
Anaheim Boulevard. Property presently classified C-1, t,:'~"7E?,AL COMMERCIAL, ZONE,
Zoni,~g Sapervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the locatio~, of subject property, uses estab-
lished in close proximit3, and the proposal to add a ic~urth unit to the existing three-
unit apartment structure, said unit having'an area of a~r,pruximately 825 square feec;
that the existing structure was presently seC back 12 feec from the ultima~e rigi-t-oi-way
line of;Anaheim Boulevard, and the new addition would be locai~ at the same setback
di§tance;'that although all but one of the properties on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard
between Vermont Avenue and Lorraine Drive were zoned C-1,, the majoritp had been developed
for multiple-family residential uses since formerly the C-1 2one permitted such develop-
ment; that the requested expansion of the nonconformir.g use on subject pruperto would,
therefore, appear to be apprqpriate if ehe requested waivers were deemed valid; and chat
the Planning Commission might be concerned with the requested waiver for minimum
recreation-leisure area per unit as a result of the proposed addition, which would redvice
the recreation area to approximately 60% of that required by Code. Furthermore, since
all but one of the parcels on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard between Vermont Avenue and
Lorraine Drivz were developed for residencial uses, the Commission might wish to direct
the staff to investigate the desirability of initiating R-3 zoning on these properCies to
avoid further variances if and when these residential uses were eupanded.
~
,~
y;~
(-
~
~'
E
'~ :t. F;
; s a ;t'; * ,,:'e ~ ~
.. . . .. - ~ '~~ ~.
~* ,..
: ~.:>
O ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 17, 1969 49Yi
VARIANCE N0. 2137 - Mr. Jerry Arnold, agent f.or the petitioner, appeared before the
(Continued) Commission and noted that all the existing buiidiags were set bac.k
15 feet - however, if the street were widened, the existing strccture
and the proposed structure would not encroach, and that ic was his
opinion that the minimum required recreation-leisure area was provided for.
Mr. Roberts noted that the agent for the petitioner might be referring to the Suilding
Code - however, the recreation-leisure area was a zoning requirement; that this waiver
may not have been noticed at the time of filing of the petition, but in analyzing cne
plans for the Report to the Commission, this waiver was found.
Mr. Arnold then stated that in accordance with his figures, there was more than 800 square
feet of recreation-Ieisure area.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
~,, ',i
Ik'~: THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
i::~~
~'~ Chairman Rowland noted that the a ent for the
g petitioner might not have noted that the
` Code requirement stated the usable recreation-leisure area, not necessarily open space,
'' ~ and this could have been his problem - however, it made no difference whether thz building
- was attached or not, it was totally impossible to provide this recreatioa-leisure area if
the fourth unit were permitted to be constructed.
Commisaioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC69-233 and moved for its passage and adoption
r:, to deny Petition for Variance No. 2137 on the basis that approval of subject petition
would expand a nonconforming residential use in an area planned and zoned for commercial
development; that the petitioner by proposing an additional unit on the property would be
reducing the usable open area used for recreational purposes to only 60% o~ the required
, *; recreation-leiaure area and would be creating an overdeveloped parcel; that the petitioner
;~ did not prove a hardahip exiated in the uae of aubject property to warrant favoreble
~ conaideration of eubject petition; and that there were no excepttonal or extraordinar,y
,`~ circumetances or conditiona applicable to the property involved or to its intended use
~ ~
'- that would apply generally to the property or class of uae in the eame vicinity and zone.
`~ ,~ (See Reaolution dook)
?~ ~~ Prior to role call, continued d.iacuesion was held by the Commisaion relatiue to the pro-
~ ;~ poeal and the motion before the Commisaion.
aTi~. ~.~ ..
~ ~
{.
~,, r; On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
~S 9
~^ AYES: CO1~AiISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Rowland.
, ~ NOES: C01~4IISSIONERS: Farano, Herbat, Thom.
~r,~K, ABSENT: COD4fISSIONERS; None.
VARIANCE N0, 2138 - PUBLIC HEARING. ROBERT M, THOMPSON, 921 South Gilbert Street, Anaheim,
California, Owner; FOREST E, OLSON, INC., 1959 Eaet Lincoln Avenue,
Anaheim, California, Agent; requeating WAIVER OF THE PERMITTED USES
IN THE R-1 ZONE TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING MEDICAL OFFICE FACILITY INTO AN
EXISTING RESIDENCE ON AN ADJACENT R-1 ZONED LOT, WITH WAIVER OF THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF
PARKING STALLS on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land consist-
ing of approximately 6,120 square feet, having a frontage of approximately 60 feet on
the west side of Gilbert Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 102 feet, being
located approximately 460 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road, and further described
as 921 South Gilbert Street. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL,
ZONE.
Zoning.Supervisor Charles Roberts xeviewed the location of subject property, uses estab-
lished in close proximity, and the request to expand an existing medical facility located
southerly of subject property, with waiver of the parking requirements of the C-1 Zone.
Mr. Roberts noted that the proposal was to utilize an existing single-family residential
structure as a medical administrative office, clinical laboratory, and storage area in
canjunction with an existing medical office facility located on properties to the south;
tlaat the applicants indicated there would be one full-time employee and one part-time
employee utilizing the proposed facilities in the residential structare, and thaL• two
parking spaces were proposed in the existing attached garage, whereas Code would require
five parking spaces for office-professional uses.
z
k:;
;
:t
i
• 3
; ,~
i ;
~
~
~:
~1
a
~3
:a
,,
Mr. Roberts then noted that "A Study of the Problem of Residential Homes Fronting on
Arterial Highways", which was prepared by th~~ staff at the request of the Planning
Cou~ission and City Council agproximately twc~ years ago, said study having been adopted
by both the Co~nission and the Council, considered 2~121 homes and 17 areas were -
a~,'
..: , -
t .
~ ~ *~
,
, .. ~_ -. +~
~A
~ L
~`~ 1 h+~
~ ~~ .~. ,,.~. .. -.... ..., . .r~
i ~S'w.~h~.f.~..~ .. i a . _ /.. . _. _ f . . ... .. . ~. ~ , ,. . ,
~ f I
~ '
CU C~ ~
- MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 17, 1909 4912
VARIANCE N0. 2138 - determined to inevi~ably convert co caimnercial uses - however, subject
(Continued) property was not in one of thase 17 areas, and t.here appeared to be no
valid reason for coffinercial conversion of suoject property; that tl~ere
were two reasons for not considering these particnlar properties for
potential commercial conversion, namely, that Gilbe;~t Street in .this arra was pr~jected on
the Highway Rights-of-Way P'lan as being an exception collector street with a half-width af
only 30 feet, and land uses north of the existing medical center on che west sid2 of
Gilbert Street as well as .north of the existing hospital on th~ east side of Gilbert Street
had been established as single-family residential tracts - therefore, the Plan~ing Commis-
sion must determine whether there was evidence of ,a hardship to justifq approval o£ ~his
request, and the Commission, in making this determiaation, would also wish to co-esider the
proba!aility of future similaz requests for office uses for other sing:e-famils homes
;; . located in this are~ if subject petition were approved, and the effects such encroachments
;~ ~ might ultimately produce in an area which was basically single-family residential in
;
' character,
~~ Mr. Roberts further noted that tne Commission, if subject peCition were approved, might
- wish to give additional consideration to the requested parking waiver; that althuugh the
~ applicants have indicated only one full-time employee and a part-time employee, only two
!~ spaces were provided on the site, and if the structure were ever to be utilized as an
~• ~ ac'tual medical office Eacility rather than an administrative facility, on-site parking
would be insufficient - therefore, the Commission might wish to have the petitioner
stipulate that the use would be restricted to an administrative medical office ra~her
than a practicing medical office facility.
:?'-: -?':;,; Mr. ,T. C. Bralley, representing th~ agent for, the petitioner, appeared before the Commis-
•'s sion and noted that the medical office facilities Iocated i~nediately to the suut'ri were
;.. ~°= desirous of purchasing subjecC property to be utilized as a storage area and smalilabara-
F r1~: tory, as well as an office operation, which would relieve the main office structure; that
:~.,-.;,.Y~ there was no intention to have employment wherein parking would be required simi3ar to
,~ that required at cammercial office buildings; that it was only the intent of Che proposed
;„,.,,;.:~~~ purchasers [o remove the three existing uses noted beforehand to subject property.
.!
y~ ~~: The Commission inquired of the agent whether or not a laboratory already existed ir. Che
~ rJ medical facility to the south; whereupon Mr. Brawley repliEd in the affiranative.
~ .
' i
~t`'.'"'~E,~ . Mrs. Robert Lafollutte, 920 South Bruce Street a
V ~, , ppeared before the Commission in opposi-
~.,t tion, stating hEr properCy abutted subject property to the west and requested that a
,~r - 6-foot masonry wall be constructed between subject proparty and her property to the west
r~ ~a~ if the Commission considered subject request Yavorably; that a causeway was located between
° " her property and the medical facility Co the south, which was very hazardous and most
~'a unsightly; that only a fence separated her property from subject property and had been
~ erected by the previous owner of the properCy - however, in her estimation, the proposed
~~ use of subject propert~+ was not desirable since the use could be detrimental to the living
~' environment of the area; and then, in response to Cormnis sion questioning relative to the
w~, manner in which the medical facility maintained their property, stated the causeway was
on the medical facility property, and they permitted the weeds to grow up to four feet in
' height, and when they became too unsightly, she and her husband went over on the medical
~~ facility property and cut them down; that innumerable times the medical facility kept
~ their doors open where electical apparatuses are in operation, and thi.s was an invitation
~ ~ to sma11 children to investigate which was a very hazardous condition since childrea were
not aware of the hazards of electricity; and that because of the past history of u~atidi-
r' ness of this facility to the west of the building itself, it made the proposed use undesir-
r`- <:~ able since this could be further encroachment of conanercial uses which would sn~rround her
~~''~ y property.
Mr. Jack Grube, 917 South Gilberc Street, appeared before the Commission, noting his
property was i~ediately to the north of subject property and inquired whether or not
the operation of this commercj.al enterprise on subject property would extend into the late
evening hours since he would be opposed to it if these lights would be disturbing to the
families after retiring.
Chairman Rowland advised Mr. Grabe that if subject petition were approved, the Commission
had no con[rol over the lights being on all night long.
Mr. L. E. Shook, 905 South Gilbert Street, appeared before the Commissi.an and expressed
opposition to waiver of the parking requirements and the use of the property for commer-
cial uses without having the property reclassified.
Mr. Bralley, in rebuttal, stated that there was a masonry wall between subject property
and the medic:al faciFity to the south; that he concurred that weeds would be a prablem
to residents of the area and was sure the operators of the medical facility were unaware
of this; that holes that were knocked into the walls were done to rewire the facilities;
.y ,4,.7 " ~%...
O ~ ~
MINUTES, CTTY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 17, 1969 4913
VARIANCE N0. 2138 - that the medical facility stated they would construct a 6-foot masonry
(Continued) wall if requ=red - tiowever, they felt they would maintain the appear-
ance of the structure as a residence.
THE HEARING`WAS CLOSED.
Discussion was held by the Coimnission relative to the proposed request, it being noted
that in approving "A Study of the Problem of Residential Homes Fronting on rlrterial
Highways" after s2veral years of study by the Planning Commission and public hearings
before the Coimaission and City Council, no evidence was submitted that further commercial
encroachment should be permitted into this residenti.al area, and tha~ there was no reason
to consider favorably subject petition.
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC69-234 and moved for its passage and adoption
to deny Petition for Variance No. 2138 on the basis that approval of the proQosed variance
request would, in effect, be tantamount to approving coimnercial zoning in this reside;~tial
area, and such approval would set :~,a undesirable precedent for additEonal reqcests for
commerci.al uses uf single-family homes fronting on arterial highways, which, in curn,
would have a deleterious effect upon the established residential integrity of this area;
that subject property was within one of the number of areas considered for potential
conversion in ':4 Study of the Problem Qf Residential Homes Fronting on Arterial Highways"
adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council in 1467 - however, said study as
adopted indicated that those residential homes fronting on the west side of Gilbert Streec
between Sall Road and Stonybrook Drive should be retained for residential ases, ar.d that
approval of the proposed request would be contrary to this policy statement; cha~ there
were no excepl•ional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property
involved that did not generally apply to properties in this same vicinitq and zone; that
the requested variance wo~ld be materially detrimental to the public welfare and injurious
to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which s~bject property was
located. (See Resol~xtion Book)
On roll call the foregoi.ng resolution was passed by the following vote•
AYES: COMFiISSIONERS: allred, Camp, Farano, Ganer, Herbst, Thom, kowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMIIISSIONEkS: None.
VARIANCE N0. 2139 - PUBLIC HEARING, JOHN AND ANNE KRAJACIC, P. 0. Box 3716, Anaheim,
California, Owners; requesting WAIVER OF PERMITTED USES iN THE R-A
20NE T0 PERMIT THE STORAGE OF TRAILERS, CAAIPERS, AND BOATS ON THE
REAR OF SUBJECT PROPERTY described as: A rectangularly si~aped parcel of land consiscing
of approximately 1.5 acres, tiaving a frontage of approximately 108 feet on che sa~;:h side
of Lincoln Avenue and Piaving a maximum depth of approximately 598 feet, being lo~t~led
approximately 570 feet east of the centerline of Dale Avenue, and further describ~d as
2760 West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
2oning Supervisor i,harles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, uszs es~a5-
lished in close proximity, noting that a variance was granted in August, 1957, co allow
the establishment of the exi.sting motei on the frottt 222 feet of subject property; tt~at
the petitioner proposed to establish a storage area for boats, campers, trailers un the
rear portion of the property which measured approximately 375 by 120 feet and which was
also undeveloped.
Kr. Roberes further noled that the petitioners had been u~ilizing the rear portion of
their property for the requrested use for some time, and it had been brought to ttie ac:en-
t3on of the Zoning Uivisiorn - therefore, the staff sdvised the petitioners chat in order
to legally continue ~his use, a variance would have [o be filed and approved.
Mr. Roberts, in reviewing the evaluation and findings of the Report to the Commission,
iioted:that the use of the rear two-thirds of subject property as proposed was an excel.ient
interim use since the City had long discoui~aged parking of such vEhicles and boats on
p'ublir streets or in residential front yard areas; that the property was ideally 1ccaLed
for such a,use in relation to the surrounding land uses, with an apartment complex co t~~e
north, across Lincoin Avenue, a three-story motel under construction to the east, Che
Orange County Flood Control channel to the south, and a mobile home park to the wesc.
Furthermore, normally outdoor storage uses in the City required the installation of a
6»foot masonry wall surrounding the storsge area, and the plans submitted by rhe peti-
tioner indicated said walls exist along the west, south, and east property iir.es -
however, the Commission might wish to consider requiring the installation of L-ree scr.een-
ing on 20-foot centers adjacent to ~he walls on the east, south, and west propertv tines
co further screen the proposed use fr,om the residentiai or semi-residenCial uses locaced
on three sides.
r)a
3
-:a
~!`~ i
i: ~
;;L
~i
:~
` s;s=?
i ,~
,~,
I ~!~
i. ;:;~
,~e~
:~
't
1 ~;` ~ ~,~ . Q
'~ MiNUTES, CIrfX pI,p,NNINL: COMMISSION, ATovember 17, 1969
~ ;w i~ ~7; w r,r.,~r :.,~, ,.-.-t,,;
~ .
__ . _._.~' ~__„-~.•...':
cj
4914
BARIANCE N0. 2139 - Mr, John Kragacic, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission
(Conti;nuedj and noted [~hat owners of the trailers and boats stored their vehiclea
on the orogerty and generally removed them once or twice a year; =hat
they hau never had any complaints from adjoining property owners as
to ~tfie storage, and dus~ was kept down by oiling the storage area; and that since owners
, ~f txaiL'•ers,. boats, etz, werE~ unable to park their trailers or. their own properties,
~- there was• ~ definite need fdz the use as proposed.
C'hafrman. Rowlan-d~ advitred xhe petitioner that the Co~nission was concerned only as tu
whether ~,r not khe ~se was appropriate for the area.
'"~ Mr. 1~g~ajacic ~tated that they had 14-foot trees all around the properLy; that subject
'~ pro{~ert,y back~~ up to the flood control channel, and the only reason for sub'ecC
'~-'u ~ petition
;,,~ ~aas to make it a legal use although it had been utilised for almost ten years for said
. use.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. '
Mr. Krajacic stated he had another statement to make - namely, that tl~eir taxes were
increasing each year, and during the past year had increased fro:m $1,~000 co $2,100;
that he was hesitant to spend an additional $6,000 to pave the pa~rking area since it
was their intent to enlarge the motel as soon as the tight money situation eased up
somewhat.
Commissioner Farano inquired as to tbe number of spaces available for storage purposes;
whereupon Mr, Kzajacic said there were approximately 140 spaces - however, onl,~ 40
traiYers were presently stored on the property, and it ~~~uld be assumed that as the
City's trailer ordinance was enforced, additional renters would be utilizing ris facilitp.
Furthermore, the campers were cleaned up prior to being stored there - therefore, ther.e
was no need to have a dump station.
Discussion was held by the Cortanission as to the appropriateness of the use of subject
property, it being noted that the property was enclosed on three sides with a 6-foot
masonry wall, and the petitioner was reducing the dust problem by oiling the unimproved
area.
Chairman Rowland inquired as to the reason for subject petition being filed; whereupon
Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that the Zoning Enforcement Officer in his insrectfon
of various areas of [own had noted the illegal use of the property.
Cou~issioner Camp offered Resolution No. PC69-235 and moved for its passage and adopcian
to grant Petition for Variance No. 2139 subject to the Interdepartmentai Committee
recommendations, (See Resolution Book)
Discussion was held by the Coimnission relative to the need for a sewerage dump ~zation
as well as having the drives and travelways blacktopped and areas where the trailers,
boats, etc. were to be stored should be treated with a sodium compound to eliminate
weeds and dust. Upon conclusion of this discussion, Cownissioner Camp requested that
two additional conditions be attached to his original motion, namely, "That a sewerage
dump station shall be provided on subject property" and "That drives and travelways
shall be blacktopped and that the area where travel trailers and boats were to be stared
shall be treated with a sodium compound to eliminate the weeds and dust from affecting
adjoining property owners , and further subject to a finding that subject property is
determined to be a good location for the proposed use and would provide additional
storage space needed to encourage people to park their trailers, campers, and boats at
locations other than in the front yards of residential lots,
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: CONAiISSIONERS: None.
Coumiissioner Rowiand left the Council Chamber at 5:40 P.M. Commissioner Herbst assumed
the chair as Chairman pro tem.
rs> >
~
! ,
~ a,,
~ 'fi
~ "q '
~~` h ryr>', H
~ t P ~ e. -~qr "y~'S7.1! I .~.* ^~Nl "i7¢ ) ..~G'1 S ~ N . ~ ~.L°~ / ; a~~ ~
!' ~:. Y .~... - ..
P
~',
, ~
~ ~
"I
` "
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMTSSTON, November 17, 1969 49Y5
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. POHLMAN ENTERPRISES, INC „ 2333 West Liucoin Avenu~,
N0. 69-70-24 Anaheim, California, Owner; WILLIAM S. PHELPS, 914 East Katella Avenue,
Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that property described as;
`~,~. ' A rectangularly shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3
acres being located approximately 335 feet east of the centerline of Gilbert Street and
approximately 266 feet north of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue and having access to a
proposed cul-de-sac street running northerly from Lincoln Avenue, be reclassified from
the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDEATIAL, 20NE,
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location ef subject property, uses estab-
lished in close prcncimity, and the proposal, noting that the portions to be reclassified
-;t~•' would include a 60-foot wide, proposed public cul-de-sac strzet and the rear 413 feet of
y ~:•w~
~, ,,~_~: an existing parcel, leaving two parcels on either side of the cul-de-sac streec and
r`' fronting on Lincoln Avenue, for which the applicant indicated a future request for ~-i
~' zoning was contemplated; that although it was not specifically required as part of the
~~: petition, development plans for the rear portion of the property were submitted with the
_ request in which it was proposed to establish a 91-unit, one and two-story apartment
~~~ complex with entrance to the complex being provided by the proposed cul-de-sac streeC
~=.` ~ from Lincoln Avenue; and that an analysis of the plans by the staff indicated that no
variances from the site development standards of the R-3 Zone would be required. Further-
~' more, the Preliminary General Plan-1969 indicated subject propezty as being appropriate
for medium density residential uses, and several recent projects similar in nature to
this one had been approved or developed along Lincoln Avenue.
'~ Mr. Ailliam Phelpa, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated
~;.
~~~ .~ he concurred with all staff reco~endations - however, the requirement of a 64-foot street
seemed not to bE jcstified since this would be only a:~.'10-faot street cul-de-sacing ineo
the R-3 property.
'; Office Engineer Jay Titus adviaed the Commission that in the ~ast, where similar types of
cul-de-eac atreets were propoaed, a 64-foot wide atreet was required; however, the City
- had also approved 60-foot atreets, but this occurred only where single-family homes were
~.~ proposed, and when higher denaity or cou~ercial uses were projected on both sides of the
street, the 64-foot width was requested, and then cited exaaples of aimilar streets being
;~ required - one being eeat of Dale and one just west of Dale Street, north of Lincoln
-~ Avenue, as well as Belmont Street on the weat aide of State College Boulevard, northerly
,~ ,,. of Ball Road.
> Mr. Thomas Allen, 25.35 West La Palma Avenue, proposed develciper of aubject property,
~' inquired ae to the paving width of a atreet; whereupon Mr. Titus replied that where a
~ 60-fooC zight-of-way was dedicated, the etreet would be 36 feet wide, curb-to-curb,
~ and whers a 64-foot street was required, a 40-foot curb-to-curb width atreet was required.
,,~
Mr. Sherrill ,Pohlman, or.~ oi the owners of aub ject property, appeared before the Commission and
-'~.~'~, mted through all the proceduree in zeviewin and filin aub ect
c 8 g j petition he had been ur.der
the impreseion that a 60-foot width for dedicaiion purposee was all that was needed, and
the builder wae to inetall all the neceasa.ry etreet improvementa; however, when the Report
to the Commiesion wae mailed to him, he wae eomewhat eurprised that an additional 4 feet
for the street was required, and thie had created conaiderable probleme as far as che
family wae concerned and as it pertained to the traneaction; that in diecusaions with
members of the etaff they had been advised the 60-foot street was all that was necessary.
~
~ Mr. Roberte adviaed the Commieaion that although the plana had been submitted witn the
60-~aot street, when the plana were reviewed at the Interdepartmental Coa~ittee meeting
;~. it wae determ~ned that a 64-foot wide atreet was needed.
Mr. Titus concurred with Mr. Rabert's statement, stating the reason for requesting che
64-foot •atreee was because of co~ercial uses proposed on both sides of the street, as
well as h~gh denaity reaidential having access from the north through said streei.
Chairman g~o tem Herbst advised the petitioner that the City would not require a specific
street whic,h would not benefit t::~ property owner, and since both commercial and high
density resv.dential were proposed to utilize said street, the need for a 64-fooc wide
street was apparent.
Mr. Pohlman s'taXed that all [he requirements of the zone had been met by the design of
the plan, and` in order to obtain final inspection of the street portion, they would have
to file a paYc,e~9l map because the property was less than one acre.
Co~issioner Cacv,p inq~uired of staff whether or not there would be any problem in reducing
the parkway since Sai~l street would cul-de-sac only into the R-3 portion by 2 feet on
each side, therP,bry providing for a regular 40-foot roadway and fully paving the parkway
except for tree w~kls.
- ~ : ~"~S1
-+~1~7^',~~~ ~T^..~.'~„" xwz ~r,"~Tc'rwc.r'~ ' r~r~a ,~, ~ ~i ~, rr ~, ' ti "( „ "~ k
i' x(*.~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ f
- - ;' i . . _ :r.=. . _ . . .
- ~~ ~ c~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 17, 1969 491
f 1~
__.,~ `'~FF ~f "`
1 ~F
~ ! ~. :~~"~~C
RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Titus advised the Commission that this could be done with Fu11
~. N0, 69-70-24 sidewalks and tree wells since reducing the parkway would create tao
«, ,.~' (Continued) narrow an area for the landscaping.
;:,::=: _
` Commissioner Camp then noted that since said street would serve only one development, he
~~~ could see no reason for having full 12-foot parkways; however, he could see a need Eor
,:':,:;.~ the full width of the roadway,
:;~;M~.~,
No one appeared in opposition Go subject petition.
~Y THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
,,~" Commissioner Camp conmented that this was ane of the few plans that had beer. presented to
~:;~~;~^,~ the Commission which did not have waive.rs from the site develo
~ pment standards of the R-3
"e Zone, and that he coula see no reason or;probiem in having fulY concrete sidewalks Gith
~'; tree welYs for the discance uf the cammercial portion - however, the cul-de-sac poreiun
of che street should be develaped to normal City of Anaheim street standards.
`s' Cormaissioner Camp of£ered P,esolutio~ No, PC6.4-236 and moved for its passage and adoption
~ to recommend to [he City Coancil that Petitian for Reclassification No. 69-70-24 be approved
1 subject to conditions, amer,ding Gondition No. 1 to require dedication of a strip of land
,'I:, 60 feet in width along the propased street to include a staadard ~0-foot radius cul-de-sac
~` and 25-foot radius property Iine return to Lincola Avenue, safd b0-foot streec to have a
40-foot roadway and 10-foot parkways Fully cemented e~ccept [ha~ tzee wells shail b2 provided
.,..,,4 at 40-foot centers, and that the cul-de-sac portion o£ t~he streer_ she11 be developed to
normal City of Anaheim street standards, (See Resolutdon Book)
..:~<
`~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
,:,,
_: g:~:
~j;'..:''''.?;~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Alired, Ca~;+. Farano, Gauer, Thom, Herbst.
~ NOES; COMMISSIONERS: Nore,
~ ,,,;;~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland.
CONDI'PIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. JOHN B. THORP;E, 10342 S~ad,yridge D~rive, Santa Ana,
PERMIT N0. 109 California, Owner; requesting ~MEP<'~PTENT"TO PERMITTED USES UNDER THE
ORTGINAL APPLICATION TO INCLU~E THE SAL'E OF BEER OFF THE PR~IISES;
property described as; A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having
a frontage of approximately 112 feet on the west side of Brookhurst Streec, having a
maximum depth of approximately 366 feet, being located approximately 300 feet soul-h of
the centerline of Orange Avenue, and further described as 623 South Brookhurst Street.
Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subjec.t property, unes estab-
lished in close proximity, presen.t use on the property, and the request for amendment of
the permitted uses under the original action under Conditional Use Permit No. 109 approved
in April, 1961, to allow the sale of beer off the premises, said beer to be seld a~ the
time delivery of food orders was made by the truck, and that no beer would be soid on the
premises from the truck or in the existing walk-up restaurant.
Mr. Roberts noted that in the application for amendment to the original approval, ar.excerpt
from a letter had been filed with the petition in which it was stated thac beer was not
to be sold at the loca[ion; that the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board scated that the
license, if issued, would cancair, a restrictive clause prohibiting the sale of beer at Lhe
above address; that their only need for a license and approval was to faciticate the sale
of beer from the home delivery trucks; and that these trucks were to take pre-ordered food
to the home, at which time the beer would also be delivered.
Mr. Roberes, in reviewing the evaluation, noted tha~ although off-sale beer was permicted
by.right in the C-1 2one, due to ,the uniqueness of this request, wherein ic was proposed
to sell the beer from a delivery truck rather than from the st~ructure located on the
property in question, the staff consulted with the City Attorney regarding this reques*_,
and the City Attorney determined that in light of the unique aspect of the proposal and tne
fact that the use presently permittec] on subject property was graated by a cor.ditional use
- permit, it was in the best interests of the City and the surrounding neighborhood to re-
advertise an amendment to the original use permitted under the conditional use permit -
therefore, the Commission would have to determine whether the proposed expansion of the
existing walk-up restaurant use was a valid one as stipulated to by the petitioner, and
that if subject request were approved, the Commission might also wish to require develop-
ment in accordance with sice development standards of the C-1 Zone, namely, a minimum
3-foot wide landscape sCrip adjacent to the Brookhurst Street right-of-way ar.d 2% in[erior
parking area landscaping with trees.
~ `~.
, r ~ r c ,-:~
~~ ~ V
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 17, 1969 4917
CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. John Thorpe, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission a::d
PERMIT N0. 109 stated he had been operating this facility for the past nine years -
(Continued) however, competition was growing, and he was now attempting a new
approach to garner more business, that being home deliverq of orders
by trucks from which the beer would be sold at the time of delivery;
that in applying to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board for a license, he had been
informed that the City would have to approve thi~ before a license could be granted;
that he was not anticipating selling much beer - however, this would be an added induce-
ment to persons requesting home delivery; and that the A.B.C. license which wouYd 'ne
granted would not permit on-sale beer on the premises and would be so delineated on the
license.
`~ Mr. Roberts advised the Commission Chat the walk-up resta~.ant had been developed prior
~ ~ to the establishment of C-1 site dP+~alopment standards which would require a 3-foot wide
,..._ , planter area along the Brookhurst Street frontage, as well as ~% of the parking areato be
u+;,':;:;';,~~ landscaped with trees.
~~: ;~
~? Mr. Thorpe advised the Commission that the entire froat area was cemented - however, they
' y£, did have a planter area adjacent to the building in which considerable landscaping was
; 1, already there, and that when the conditional use permit originally was approved, they
were required to place landscaping in addition tn a decorative masonry wall.
f
The Commission inquired whether or not granting the additional use would permic the sale
,, ~; of beer.
, ~
~: Assistant City Attorney John Dawson advised the Commission chat the City Attorney had
,~ ,,,.,:~, ruled that this was the method by whic h to proceed in order to qualify for the reques~,
:, namely, the readvertisement for amendment to the permitted uses on the property, in order
~,,`F74, that adjoining property owners might be advised of this change.
;~::^. , t•
+ No one appeared in oppositiott co subject petition.
~ `
a
'~~;,' jz~ TI~ Ni'sARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Allred expressed concern that any child could telephone for an order of tacos
and a six-pack of beer, and if the delivery man were only a twenty-one year old, there was
no reason for his not delivering this to a minor.
Commissioner Thom offered Resolution No. PC69-237 and moved for its passage and adoption
to permit the sale of beer off the premises in conjunction with pre-ordered food for
delivery to homes by truck; however, the site development standards of the C-1 Zone need
not be complied with since the use proposed would be a very minor addition to the exis~ing
use, based on a finding that the petitioner stipulated that beer would not be sold on the
premises, 623 Souch Brookhurst Street, but would be sold in conjunction with iood orders
delivered, and that the A.B.C. Board would include a restrictive clause in granting the
license which would prohibit the sale of beer on subject property, ;~nd subject to the
condition that beer shall nat be sold on the premises but shall b~z nold only in conjunction
with delivery of prepared food at the customer's home as stipulat~a to by the petitioner.
(See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, FRrano, Gauer, Thom, Herbst.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: A11red.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; Rowland. ~
GENERAL PLAN - PUBLIC HEARING. IiviTIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COhAfISSION, 204
AMEDIDMENT N0, 116 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing an amendment
to the Circulation Element of the Anaheim General Plan changing
the designation of Coronsdo Street between Blue Gum Street on the
west and Kraemer Boulevard on the east from a local to a collector
streeC.
Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson reviewed for the Commission the
reasoning for proposing a change for Coronado Street from a local street to an industrial
collector street and noted that the designation industrial collector street was a new
terminology; that the County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways indicated Coronado S[reet
to be a secondary arterial, and if the proposai to change the present status of said
street from a local to an industrial collectorstreet were approved, the County would then
remove Coronado Street from its Master Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways foliowing
the upgrading of this street, and this mutual action would then bring the Master Pian of
Arterial Streets and Highways of both agencies into conformance; that by upgrading
~~
,,
~~: _.__'~
, .., . .. _._,, ,. ,
~:.'~ ' .;y
~ ~J
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 17, 1969 4918
GENERAL PLAN - Coronado Street to an industrial collector street was warrante?
i~MENDMENT N0, 116 because it was a rti~augh street between two secondary stree~s.
(Continued) namely, Kraemer Boulevard and Blue Gum Street; that traffic vaiumes
were forecast to average 5,700 vehicles daily in the future, and •
although this was somewhat below the volumes of a secondary highway,
it was sufficiently above the capacity of a local street to warrant upgrading it to an
indusCrial co?lector street; and that by this reclassification, this would then give a
right-of-way of 64 feet and a roadway of 52 feet which would be adequate to handle fu~ure
traffic loads,
No one appeared in opposition to subject amendment.
~~ TNE HEARING WAS CLOSED,
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC69-238 and moved for its passage an3 adoption
to recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amendment No. 116 be approved, amei:ding
the Circulation Element of Che General Plan by reclassifying Coronado Street as an
industrial collector street from a local street. (See Resolution Book)
On roll calt the foregoing resolution was p~tssed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; RowlRnd.
!
GENERAL PLAN - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204
AMENDMENT N0. 117 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing an amendment
to the Circulation Element of the Anaheim General Plan by amending
the designation of Blue Gum St:eet between Miraloma Avenue on the
south and La Jolla Street on the north from a secondary to a
primary highway.
Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson reviewed for the Commission the
background and history regarding the proposal to amend the designation of Blue Gum Street
between Miraloma Avenue and La-Jolla Street from a secondary to,a primary arterial; thae s
ehe County s Master Pl~n of Arterial Highways indicated Blue Gum Street to be a primary
arterial, and if,the proposed amendment to the Circulation Element were approved, the '
County Road Department would then amend its Master P1an of Arterial Highways to designate ~
B1ue Gum Street south of Miraloma Avenue to La Palma Avenue as a secondary highway - ~
which would be in accord with Anaheim's present designation, and'Blue Gum Street between ~
Miraloma Avenue and La Jolla Street to a primary highway, and this mutual action would
then bring the Master Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways of both agencies into con- ~
formance; that upgrading of Blue Gum Street between Miraloma Avenue and 1a Jolla Streec
was warranted because Blue Gum Street acted as a feeder between the Orange Freeway and ~
. Orangethorpe Avenue, as well as the industrial developments along Miraloma Avenue; and
that the forecast for traffic volumes on Blue Gum Street were 14,000 to 16,000 vehicles
per day between Miraloma and La Jolla and 25,000 to 27,000 vehicles per day becween ~
La Jolla and Orangethorpe - therefore, reclassification of Blue Gum Street from a secondary
highway to a primary highway was logical because this street was a key link for the indus- i
trial development between the western portion of the Northeast :ndustrial Area and the
Orange Freeway. ~
No one appeared in opposition to subject amendment. ~
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. '
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC69-239 and moved for ir.s passage and adoption
tc~ recommend Co the City Council that General Plan Amendment No. 117, amending the designa-
tion of Blue Gum Street between Miraloma Avenue and La Jolla Street from a secondary
highway to a primary highway, be approved. (See Resolution. Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, :klerbst, Thom. ~
NOES: COMMISSTONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland.
. . . . . ~ _ _ . ~ '~` 4 ~ ~.
"'~'~- o~rn o-
0 ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 17, 1969 4919
AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18, - PUBLIC HEARING, INiTIATED BY ThiE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAI. CODE East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Californfa; to consider amendments
to Title 18, Chapters L8.37, C-R, Commercial-Recreation, Zone;
18.38, C-0, Coamiercial 'Office, Zone; and 18.40, C-1, General
Commercial, 2one, to establish suto rental agencies in said zones
by conditional uae permit.
'~,
? Zoning Supervisor Cha.r.les Roberts reviewed for the Commission previ~us action taken by
the Commission on auto renta3 agencies as a primary use in the C-R Zone rather than as
an accessory use, at which time the Commission determined that the Code should be amended
to permit suto rental agencies as an accessory use in conjunction with hotel and motel
complexes in the Cotmnercial-Recreation Zone only, and by conditional use permit in con-
,~ junction with other uses in the Commercial-Recreation 7one.
~ 5„ Mr. Roberts further noted that the Coimnission also determined that the C-0 ar.d C-I Zones
'~ should also be amended to reflect auto rental agencies as a conditional use rather than
~ ~ as an accessory or primary use.
The Commission inquired whether or not this then would permit suto rental agencies in
conjunction with service station facilities; whereupon Mr. Roberts advised Che ~oimnission
that if the C-R 2one, Section 18.37.020(B-18) as depicted in the Report to the Commission
were not amended, limiting it co hotel and motel complexes only, then it should be
permitted as an accessory use with service stations - Cherefore, this section of the Code
was recommended for amendmenc, and the conditional use permit section (C) would then
permit suto rental agencies by conditional use; and that Section 18.38.040(2-C) and
Section 18.40.060(j) would be amending the conditional use permit section of the C-0 and
C-1 2oaes, establishing auto rent&1 agencies as a conditional use.
No one appeared in opposition to subject amendment.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED,
Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. PC69-240 and moved for its passage and adoption
to recoimnend to the City Council that Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter
18.37, C-R, Co~nercial-Recreation, 2one, Section 18.37.026 - Permitted Uses, (B) Accessory
Uses, (18) Auco Rental Agencies limited to hotel and motel complexes on1y,,Subsection (C-~13)
permitting auto rental agencies in other than hotels and motels by conditional use. -
(See Resolution :iook)
On rot_1 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the follawing vote; ~'
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Ruwland.
Commission~r Camp offered Resolution No. PC69-241 and moved for its passage and adoption
to reco:aunend to the City Council that Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipai Code, Chapter
18.38, C-0, Commercial-Office, Zone, Section 18.38.040 - Conditional Uses be amended by
the addition of Subsection (2-C), Auto Rental Agencies. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland.
Commissianer Camp offered Resolution No. PC69-242 and moved for its passage and adoption
to recoimnend to L-he City Council that Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Cha~,ter
18.40, C-1, General Commercial, Zone, Section 18.40.060 - Conditional Uses be amended by
the addition of Subsection (f), Auto Rental Agencies. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS; None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; Rowland.
w°k' ~S~:r~91t::•csv.'~''~~+r.,~,+su~'«~'i+'~"~~,~~i iY ~ ~~,'~+rc,+ ~i'~ ' _.~..~,f,~'~~.- ';C .{ y ~";s"c! "^~ _ ~ Y':-; .. .
' v ~
~~y,
T' ~ . . . - . - . ~ ~ ~ .
.
' 1
„ ..
~ ~
.~ ~ ' ~
~. '~ : - ~ . ,~/
. . , "
~
~: ,
` MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 17
19b9
,
4920
x
~`' REPORTS:AND - ITEM N0. 1
'
a, RECOMMENDATIONS CITY OF PLACINTIA USE PLRMIT N0, 69/28 -
' ~
Joe Martinez - Request for permission to hoase
two horses in the P-M District located at 202
~ East Orangethorpe Avenue.
~ Zoning,Supervisor Charles Roberts presented to the Commission City of Placentia Use Permit
No. 59/28'requesting permissio
h
" n to
ouse two horses in the P-M, Planned Industrial, Zone;
that:subject property was approximately two
blocks
.
east of Melrose Street in the City of
>Placentia, and approximately one-quarter mile from the Cit
of A
h ;;
`~
y
na
eim boundary, south of
Orangethorpe Avenue, and noted that said re
quest was necessary because the P-M Zone did
; not.permit maintenance of horses. 'i
The Commission determined that they had no comnents relative to subject petition and
directed the Commission Secretar
t
d
i
y
o a
v
se the City of Placentia that the Commission
thanked them for their notice but had
no co~mnent either for or a~ainst the petition.
ITEM N0, 2
ORANGE COUNTY USE VARIANCE N0, 6343 - Lloyd G. Castleberry -
Request for continued use of property located at [he
~
nartheast corner of Cherry Street and Van Buren Street in
Atwood for auto repair and wrecking yard.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts presented to the Commission Orange County Use Variance
No: 6343, noting the locatio
f
n o
subject property, existing zoning, previous action by
the Orange County Planning Commission since 1955 whe
i
f
re
n
ive use variances had been
approved, the first two for a three-year time limitation; the third f
f
'~" or one year; the
ourth for two years; and the most recent approved in 1964, which allowed the enlargemenC
and continued use
.
~ Mr. Roberts noted that suto wrecking yards are a
Permitted outdoor use in the City of
Anaheim's M-2 Zone but wo
ld
u
re uire a
Furthermore, the Anaheim Municipal CodePwould requirenai6if
t
ym
n
7
.
oo
masonr
wall
enclosing
th2
entire storage area, whereas the petitioner was proposing an 8-foot high masonr
alon
;
he
ll
r
h
r
g
t
y wa
no
t
e
ly property line and the northerly 27 feet of the westerly property
with the remainder of the
p
e
,
pro
erty
nclosed with an 8-foot high galvanized fence. In
addition, since Van Buren and Cherry Streets
d
were
esignated as local strees, Code would
require'a 5-foot fully landscaped structural setback alo
l
a
ng
oc
l streets.
Commissioner Thom offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange County
Planning Commission be urged to a
pprove Orange County Use Variance No. 6343, subject to
enclosure of the entire proposed outdoo
~ r use with a minimum 6-foot high masonry wall, and
that a minimum of 5 feet of landscaping be provided adjacent t
V
~ o
an Buren and Cherry ~
Streets, Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM N0. 3 ~
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1063 - Request for
an extension of time - C. M. McNees - Property
located on the north side of Katella Avenue
adjacent to the Katella Avenue overcrossing.
2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts presented a request from the petitioner for a one-year
extension of time for the use of the pro~erty located on the north side of Katella 9venue,
i~ediately west of the Katella Avenue freeway overcrossing, for a hall for variety shows, '
lectures, meetings, dances, etc., with on-sale alcoholic beverages in an existing ~
structure, said conditional use permit being approved by the Planning Commission October 7,
1968; at which time a one-year time limitation was granted wich review by the Planning i`
Co~nission at the end of that time to determine whether or not parking as developed was ~
adequate to serve the needs, whether a new public hearing should be set, and if not, ~
whether an extension of one year to permit the uses should be approved,
M
Mr. Roberts noLed that the staff had contacted *_he Police Department relative to subject
property, and they had indicated no police problems existed with the ~
and a subsequent field inspection indicaced no a arent Present operation,
Division was contacted relative to any changes durin theroblems; that the Engineering
dedication for street widenii~ g Year as to the ultimate street
g purposes - however, no'changes had occurred - therefore,
dedication was not warranted at this time, and as a result of all of these investigations,
staff recommended that a one-year extension of time be granted,
Co~nissioner Thom offered a motion to granC a one-year extension of time, to expire
October 29, 1970, to permit continued use of property approved under Condit3onal Use
4:'.',
~'IRI . ~ ~ , . „
~;~Ry+~- Y `:,; y~s.k; ~ ~~ f k ~ ~ ~'4 f-a~ ~.` .. ~y'~~~~
~ " ~~
~ O
c~ i
,a
~
~ ;,~
MINUiES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 17, 1969 4921 '~~
r
REPORTS ANB ;,.;
RECOMMENDATIONS. - ITEM N0. 3 (Continued) ~ "`
1
•
Permit No. 1063 for a hall for variety shows, lectures, meetings, dances, etc., permitting >=
~
~~
on-sale alcoholic beverages in an existing structure, on the basis that evidence submitted ''""'
by the staff indicated no police problems existed; that dedication for street widening -~
purposes was not needed at this time since no change had occurred in the area to warrar.t '°~~,+:
dedication at the present time; and that it was not necessary to set said petition.for `'~~
public hearing as was set forth in Commission Resolution No. PC68-301, dated October 7 F
,
1968. Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ,,'~
ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to diacuss, Commissioner Camp
offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Coaanissioner Thom
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 6:12 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
ANN KREBS, Secretary
Anaheim City Planning Commission
f„ ~
~'^~~(
'%"~
"4:.r, ~: :~^:j: