Loading...
Minutes-PC 1969/12/29~:;"` :;~x~' :~ ~ , 1. ~ ` ~ ~ ~`d" . .i .l.. City Hall Anaheim~ California December 29~ 19G9 ~ A RF,r`,ULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - 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 - CHAIRI~IAN; Rowland, - C01~41ISSIONERS: Allred, Camp~ Gauer~ HerUst, Thom, ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Farano, PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Ronald Thompaon Assistant City Attorney: John Dawson Office Engineer: Jay Titus 2oning Supervisor: Charles Roberta Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Pat Brown Assistant Planner: Ee Jolin Graichen Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Camp led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, APPROVAL OF - The Minutes of the meeting of December 15, 1969, were approved as TI~E PIINUTES submitted on motion by Commissioner Herbst~ seconded by Commissioner Gauer~ and MOTZON CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC IiEARING. LEWIS R, AND JUDITH E, SCHh1ID~ 1401 Smoke- N0. 69-70-5_ wood Drive, Santa Ana~ California, Ownera; GEORGE L, ARGYROS, aRNEL DEVELOPr~NT COi~IPANY, 17411 Zrvine Boulevard, Suite D~ Tustin~ California, Agent; requesting that property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a Erontage of approximately 225 feet on ti~e west aide of State College Boulevard and an approximate deptli of 150 feet~ sub~ect property being approximately 350 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road, be reclassified from the R-3~ t3ULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE to the C-1~ GGNERAL COrII•fERCIAL~ ZONEa Sub~ect petition was continued from the meetings of July 2II and September 22~ 1969~ to allow time for the petitioner to consummate acquisition of additional property and for the preparation of plans~ as well as an opinion from tY:e City Attorney relative to approving a reclassification petition subject to development in accordance with precise plans. Assistant 2oning Supervisor Pat IIrown advised the Commission that another letter had been received from the petitioner's agent requesting further continuance to the .Sarch 23~ 1970 meeting since they had no precise development plans and were atill in the process of obtaining a major tenant for the property, Commisaioner Allred offered a motion to continue consideration of Reclassification No. 69-70-5 to the meeting of t:arch 23~ 1970~ as requested by the petitioner to allow additional time to submit precise plans of development and to obtain a major tenant, Commissioner Dierbat secunded the motion, AfOTION CARRIED, ~CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC IiEARING, JOSEPIi AND GRACE RO:iO [~17D FRED AND ALICE P$RMIT.NO. 1143 SOTOhfAYOR~ 744 North East Street~ Anal~eim~ California~ Owners; ~~ ' requesting permission to EXPAND AN EXISTING CHILD CARE NURSERY on property described as; A rectangularly snaped parcel oE land having a•''frontage of approximately 75 feet on the east side of East Street and a maximum deptl~ of,approximately 258 feet, and being located approximately 32U feet south of the center- line of La Palma Avenue. Property presently classified R-1~ ONE-FAPiZLY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE. Sub~ect petition was continued from the December 1~ 1969~ meeting in order to allow time for the petitioners to resolve several development problems in which the Commission was concerned, {~ 1 j ~ :~ j p - i ~ ! :f ~ ~ 1 ~ s~.;sr .,~p~zx~p,&~~~ ez, ~}t'~ ~ ^~` ~,.o- r~ ~r erkw. -r xg..,i p I~ < .~.:f~'v ;,''rtbyY~ u -'f~.. -- in~.s~ ..~.,~,~..: ,,~.~ :., ~ ~ ^ i ) ...~ MINUTESo CITY PLANNING COM~i1ISSI0N~ December 29p 1969 4952 ;CONDITIONAL USE - Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of ~ubject PERMIT N0, 1143 pro;.;:rtyp uses established in close proximity, and psevious zoning (Continued) action on the propertyp noting that tlie reason the petition saas --~ conrinued tivas in order to allow time for the petitioners to'•reaolve i~';' " development problems alsout=~vhtcH_:~the~~'Comraission liad expressed concern, Mr. Brown noted that the staff had met with tlie petitioners to discuss these problem areas~ ' and the results of the meetin were: - g (a) tlxe applicants preferred to retain the parkin~ as indicated on the plans submitted - namely~ two parking spaces on the sautn side of tl~e pro~erty ad~acent to the garage structure and two tandem parking spaces on tile nort2i side , ~° of the property located on the concrete stri ~" structure would necessitate o enin u the P9 and to provide parking at the rear of the 49~~ converted to an additional sclool facility forathe9children~Wandhthis wouldtbe very ~~~' expensive and would eliminate badly nPeded room, Furthermore the j^ "' although tliere would ~~ six stafP members ~ petitioners stated that ± parking spacesp only four would Ue drivingPcarsnt~thereforeolonlycfourtspacesVwouldiue r~ '3 required at this timeo and of the four spaces provided~ two were still tandem parking, -' which had never been permitted Uy the City in the pastp and that the petitioners had ~ -~ agreed to obtain a written agreement from the service station owner at the soutlieast ' corner of La Palma Avenue and East Streetp ~ahiclz would allow them to park on his facility ', .~' as had been done in the past; (b) although the applicants had understood they had had final building and zoning inspectionso upon contacting tlie Building llivision the staff ,,: had been advised that no final inspections had been madc~ - tlierefore, if sub~ect petition i were approved, it should be conditioned upon final buildi:~s;~ plumbinge and electrical inspections for the reaidential structurea tlie garage~ and che storage facility which ~~'~ was recently constructed to the rear of the p y ;;, or additions; o pro ert in addition to any new structures (c) the City Attorney s office had confirmed the fact that mutual use of ± batt~room facilities by children of both sexes under six years of age was permitted by the State Educational Code; (d) the concern of the Commission relative to the proposed ' `4 expansion of students t, ,~ would~indicate tliis would be a permanent rather than an interim ; use, and site development standards for such a use should be requiredo i,e,~ a G-foot ; masonry wall enclosing tl~e site on tlie north, easto and soutl~ perimeters - however~ the i ! petitioners had indicated ttiis would create a great deal of financial hardship at tliis i ~ time and requested that this condition be waived; and (e) tiie concern of ti~e Commission ~J relative to traffic conflicts on ~ast Street due to the increase of students~ to which ~`i the petitioners indicated that on no given day would they average more tlian 45 students ~Y ry~: at the schoolo and drop-off periods would occur over a two and one-half hour time span from 6:3Q A,M, to 9;00 A;M, and pick-up would occur over a three-hour period, namelyo t~ ~? 3:00 P,i•1. to 6;00 P,i1, p ~ and that the Traffic De artment had indicated no accidents had a occurred because of possible traffic conflicts from subject property anto East Street, , Dfrs, Grace Romo~ one of the petitioners~ appeared before the Commission and noted that ; at tliis time~ becausE of the recommended conditions presented by the staff~ tiiey had ; decided to wait until they we~e more financially able to meet these conditions - sucli ,~ as tlie 6-foot masonry wall - and that several montiis from no~o they iaight be in a better position to meet these requirementsa C4airman Rowland inquired of the petitioners wliat lengtli of time would be needed since ; the Commission could continue subject petition or approve sub ect : a certain time limitation for the completion of the conditions, Petition establishing ~ ~ 3rs, Romo replied that ti~ey had been unaUle to obtain an a~reement from the ot~ner of tlie Shell Oil statioii regarding additional parking uliicn iaigiit be needed fer the teacl~ers $ Uecause he was out of town for the holidays; and that in order to meet the wall require- ment~ they would need time until t!ie su~amer months - however, before applying for the = building permit which prompted suUject petition~ they had made application witi~ the Bank f ,. ' of America for a loan~ and these payments would start in .IanuaryP 1970, ,. . x ' Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted for the Commission that they could continue subjecC petition to a certain time~ or the petitioner could ~aitlidra~a subject petition - tiowever~ ~r~r,{1~ a new filing fee for a public l~earing would Ue required if tliis were doner and the f, tioners in the future decided to go through with the proposed increase in students,Peti- ~1 # ~~~ :; "` .•ir~ Roberts then inquired of the petitioner what specific conditions created the financin y;;~ problem, which conditions they were desirous of dela in for com letion ~ ~?~' Y s P purposes, ~ a Mrs, Romo replied tl~e 6-foot wall requiremento since they were financially unable to expend . '7 ; $3~000 for the wall, r ; Dir, Roberts advised the Commission thaC in the past this requirement had been made a R: condition of approval since the zone did not have site development standards, and the ~: only way conditions could Le applied was tl~rough a conditiona l use ermit 1 if the Commission felt the requested use was appropriate and the wall was necelssary~ea ~ t: (:. , ~~ ~ ` ra ~ ''" ~ ~ ( ~.'~'~~ ' .~ ~, ~~,~. , ~ ~ y , ,+i.. , ~. . . . _ Q. ~ ~ .I MLNUTES~ CITY PLI~NNING C02~fISSION~ December 29, 1969 ~ ~ :~ 4953 CONDITIONAL USE -.bond could be posted to inaure installatioa within a given cime PERMIT N0. 1143 _~p'l~+~'~jt:•;,, (Continued) The Commisaion noted that their body and the City Council had determined those propertiea fronting on the east side of East Street between Wilhelmina and La Palma Avenue were appropriate for multiple-family teaidential development; therefore~ the requiremen~ of a wall,along.the north and south property lines might not be necessarye However~ 'the wall along tlie east propercy liae was necessary because of the single-family homea abutting subject property, Furthermore, the Commisaion need not continue subject petition but could reaolve this by requiring a wall to be conatructed within a certain timee Mra, Romo adviaed the Commiasion that it would be to their advantage to eract tlie wall on three aides of thei~' property< • No one appeared in opposition to sub~ect petitione Discuasion was held by the Commiasion relative to the r~anner in which the requirement of a wall should be made and inquired of Mre Roberts the exact procedure, .:~ Mr, Roberts adviaed the Commisaion that since the petitioner was desirous of increasing the enrollment immediately~ to attach a condition to a specific time would mean thia condition would have to be met.prior to approval of operation of the facility - there- fore~ a bond would have to be posted within a given time and a further requirement that f~' the wall be erected within an additional period of time, ~~~ '~ THE HEARING WAS ~LOSED, . ;,;r , ~ Assiatant City Attorney John Daweon adviaed the Commission that ineofar as the extra ;`r;: :'~ parking on the service etation property was concerned~ since the petitioner was unable "~ to obtain an agreement due to the operator being out of town~ the Commiasion could take ~~ action by requiring that the parking be provided or said agreament be provided within a _ "~; : given time period, Diecusaion wae then held by the Commisaion relative to a bond being poeted to insure inatallation of the 6-Eoot maeonry wall within a year for the.north~ south~ and east property linea~ and after completion of the diacuasion it wae determined that although the petitioner had indicated a deaire to erect the 6-foot masonry wall on all three aidea, it would be neceasary as a requirement oE approval of sub~ect petition to construct the wall only on the east propezry linep and that a bond be posted to insure that the wall on the east property line was erected within six months of granting subject petitiona Commissioner Allred offered Reaolution Noe PC69-255 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No, 1143 subject to conditions~ with the added condition that a 6-foot masonry wall be constructed along the east property 11ne and that a bond to insure the installation of said wall within six months shall be poated prior to issuance of a building permite (See Reaolution Book) On roll call the foregoing reaolution was pasaed by the following vote: AYES: C0:4IISSIONERS: Allred~ Camp~ Gauer, Herbst~ Thom~ Rowland. NOES: CO~iMISSIONERS: Nonea ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Faranoo AREA DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING, INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COIII~lISSION~ 204 East PLAN N0, 94 Lincoln Avenueo Anaheimo California; proposing to consider an amend- ment to Area Development Plan Yo, 94 to investi~ate various alterna- tives for providing vehicular circulation for the medium density residential area south of Ball Road and east of State Culle~e Boulevard, :` ;;ti h ';;; ~;;: Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat IIrown noted that items 3 and 4 were interrelated in light of tha fact that developmc,;nt of that portion of the p,roperty weat of Belhaven Street south of Ball Road did not project development in accordance with the area development plan~ and that the Commission had directed that the area development plan be readvertised and the - staff prepare alternatives to the Alterii8tg~r~$:.no}a:<~fffe~~~;ea Assiatant Planner E, John Graichen reviewed for the Commisaion Area Development Plan Noe 94, ^.oting that the City Council on the 21st of May~ 1968~ at the time General Plan Amendment No. 31~ Exhibit D~ was adopted also indicated a change from induatrial to medium density residential uses as being moat appropriate for that area located between State College Boulevard on the westp Sunkiat on the east~ Ball Road on the northo and a line drawn parallel to and approximately 660 feet sout•h of the centerline of Ball Road on the eouth; ~~ ~ zrr~ i _ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLluYNING COPL~fISSION, December 29i 1969 495v AREA DEVELOPPIENT - tliat at this same meeting the City Council also aFprc-red .1rea ~i:celop- PLA,Y N0, 94 ment Plan Noe 94~ Alternate B for the same areap ahi~,li plan pr: ~c:ed for (Continued) a north-south street (Belhaven Street) between State College soulevard and Sunkist Street southerly of Aall Road for a distance of approxi- Amendment No, 31; thatean eastfwesttstreet1i0mesa AvenuearwasaalsoVed in General P3an westerly from Sunkist Street and terminating inga cul-de,sac just eastPofedbutnnot~inter- secting~ State College Boulevard - said street was to be 50 feet wide and included land- scaping and a 6-foot liigh masonry wall and was to be located entirely within and along the southerly boundary of tl~e land designated by General P]sn rlmendment :Zoe 31 tor medium density re~identzal uses; tliat the purpose oF this street was to provide for internal - ven3cular circulation for those properties fronting on 13a11 Road and to link this internal ,~ ':`~`~; system with an adjacent arterial system - furthermoree Omega ~lvenue was planned to act as ;,';~ an open and landscaped buffer and transition area between the industrial uses to the south _ and the multiple-family residential uses to the nortiip minimizing the traffic and environ- 'y~ mental conflicts betwesn these two areas; and that two alternatives nad been prepared by -`;~j the staff., ~ .' Alternate Noe 1 was essentially the same de&ign as Alternate II of the area development plan t except that Omega Avenue was proposed to extend through and intersect vitl~ State College Boulevard rather than terminating in a cul-de-sac - this would allow direct access to 1; State College Boulevard instead of diverting all internal traffic to Ball Road or Sunkist r Street, The advantages of this layout were that traffic desiring to travel on State College „~ Boulevard, especially to the southwest and northwest areas of tiie City~ would have a more ~ ' direct route to travel with relief of possible congestion resulting from turns onto Ball ' ~ Road and Sunkist 5treet. It would also perrait propertiea west of Belhaven Street to hace ,~' more direct access to another arterial street without having te drive through residential ~ areas to the east and north on local streetse Mr, Graichen noted that the Traffic Engineer had indicated the location of this inter- sect3on ~aidway between 2ia11 Road and Winston Road~ approximately 6G0 feet in either direc- tion, would not Ue undesirable from a traffic standpoint - however~ left turns from Omega Avenue onto Scate Colle~e Boulevard could create minor traffic conflicts iahich could be alleviated through a cliange in dfvider desi~n: Furthermore~ ~lternate No, 1 would provide the same walled and landscaperi Uuffer as well as transition strip between the residential and industrial uses as proposed by Alternate B, Alternate i~o,,2 was tlien reviewed by Mr, Graicheno who noted that it was desi~ned to permit private drives instead ot a public street to accommodate ingress and egress for tiie 10-acre parcel located immediately west of 13elhaven Street; that traffic generated from this parcel would have access to Ball Road and Belhaven Street~ so a public street located to the scuth simply to allow access would not be an absolute necessity for this parcel; and tliat ~ahen comparing Alternate No~ 2 to Alternate B and Alternate No, 1, it would aeem tliat traffic from the large parcel at the souCheast corner of Ball Road and State College 13oulevard once it was developed with either commercial or residential uses~ would have little reason to use the proposed Omega Avenue wliether it was cul-de-saced or noc since direct arterial access could be accomplished from this parcel to I3a11 Road and State College Boulevard, Mr~ Graichen further noted that the 10-acre parcel of land located at the soutlieast corner of State College Boulevard and Ball Road had been granted permission under Conditional Use Permit No, 610 to establish a motel, restaurant, and commercial stores - however~ said conditional use permit was technically null and void since it officially expired o~ J.uly 1, 1968, Therefore, if either Alternate B or Alternate No~ 1 were a a retroactive extension of time by ti~e City Council on ConditionalPUseePermit~Nai~GlO~~iE requestede should be the requirement of the property owner to dedicate to the City a 50-foot right-of-way and to construct tl~e proposed street~ wall~ and landscaping along the southerly Loundary of said property~ :~fr, Graichen~ in summing up his conclusions, stated that the Traffic Engineer had indicatec: an average daily traffic flow to and from the ultimate levelup:ueut of all medium denslt~ resi3ential properties in t!ie area under coiisicieration to be 7,500 trips, ~oitli a peak period of 300 trips per iioura It was furtlier estimated that about 6U% of tiie trips into and out of Ciiis residential area could be diverted to Omega Avenue after the traffic on Ball Road reached an intolerable density; that since the Traffic Engineer also liad projected an average daily trafFic floca for Ball Road by 1980 of 38,500 veiiicles~ easterly of State College Boulevard, if these projections proved to be true~ tl~en both Alternate 3 and Alternate yo. 2 would tend to restrict these large trafEic flows since vehicles generated from the apartment developments would have to travel other streets, i,e., Belhaven or Sunkist Sereets and 1~a11 Road before rear.liing a north-south primary Uigi~way - State College Boulevard - and by.requiring State College Boulevard-bound traffic to use the 13elliaven Street-Ball Road intersection, traffic volumes and conflicts would greatly increase at tiiis one point, creating an undesirable and inefficient circulation paCCerne o ~ w ..~~ '"sp'P'e i'~ ~?k"~-'~y~r~ '~"• ~ J'' Erf~~ '~ f< o .a' s F 7 #,~ ~' ~ "r,~ a~r~ u.~ d" -t ~c - r s~- ..,r- _; l~t ~ ~ ,~ „ } ~J f 1 ~ .. ... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~~ 1 ~ ~ . ~ ~ . ~~ ~ ~ ~ 4~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMt3ISSI0N December 29 1969 t4 ~ ~ ~ 4955 y C ~ AREA DEVELOPMENT - Another factor to considero D1r, Graichen continued~ ~vas providing Z ~~ PLAN N0, 94 adequate water drainage from subject properties since the natural >~"~ 9' (Continued) drainage flow was to the southwest~ and the extension of Ome~a Avenue ~• to State College Boulevard could provide the most practical means to y carry off the drainage from the medium density residential properties since surface water would be abl to fl ` 3'~ e ow more easily to the future storm drains planned for State College Boulevard~ and use of a public right-of-Wa would creat f ~ ~r ' y e ewer problems for the.City than if an attempt were made to use drainage easements over private ro er- ~ ,w, :: p p ties to the west and south of Belhaven Streeta •-~~~,' f Dir, Graichen concluded by stating that the buffer-transition strip between the reaidential s ~ and industrial uses in Altnrnate B and Alternate No, 1 would still be required although s ch ~ ,.; ~s , ~ ~ u provisions for a buffer were not included in Alternate No, 2~ but could be required if said alternate w ~ ~ x ere approved - therefore~ the deciding issue before the Commisaion in addition Co drainage should b hi h ~ ~ `'~ e w c plan would provide the most direct and easiest access to arterials with the least traEfic conflicts d i s, l~ an st ll circulation, provide for adequate internal , -. J ~ Chairmaa Rowland inquired of Pir, Graichen whether or not the Traffic Engineer had sub- mitt d ?~ e statistics for State College Boulevard comparable to those statistics indicated for Ball Road ~ ~ ~r : < i Mr. Graichen replied that he did have the statistics, namely, that tlie present avera e dail t f , , r ; g y ra fic flow for State College IIoulevard was 32~OOOo and by 1980 would be reduced { to 30 000 d b ~ '.j ~ ue to the fact that the Orange Freeway would be constructed and uae of said freeway would be utilized b r ~ ~: y through traffic, ~~ - ~ Chairman Rowland then noted that the increase of traffic on IIall Road could be attributed to on-ram tr ffi Y' ' ::, ~~;; : i~`, ,rr. p a c to the freeway, -~y ~ }, `~ ~` Commissioner Gauer expressed the opinion that the existing Alternate 33 in effect on Area t ~{ Development Plan Na, 94 did not seem to provide the intent of the street due to the fact +~ ;~ that it was cul-de-saced at State Colle e Boulevard and traffic would still have to be ~~' ~~ routed easterly or northerly from the property under consideration for reclassification ~r i westerly of Belhaven Street, ~ a ~zK f; Mr, Robert.Kottman~ Production Manager for Pacific Scientific Company, 1346 South State ~ ~,~}.~ College IIoulevard, appeared before the Commission and noted their property was located ~~, ;~ at Winston Road and State College Boulevard; that at the previous l~earings of tbe area ~ 2 i development plan and the General Plan amendment, the main purpose of the cul-de-sac was ~ ' to provide a buffer and open space between tlie residential development approved and the ~ " industrial development projected to be developed south of the study area; that he urged ~ , r~ the Commiasion to retain the buffer strip as originally adopted by the City Council - ; namelyo tl~e 6-foot masonry wallo structural setback~ dense landscaping~ and if neceasary~ ~ r; the 50-foot wide street; however~ he would like to give some pexsonal observationa as to ~.C; the traffic problems which already exiat on State College Boulevard as they pertained to i ; the employees of his company - that roughly 80X of the employees made a right-hand turn, ~ S, although their destination was southbound~ since it was almost imposaible to cross traffic ' ,; to enter the southbound lane of State College Boulevard; that although a storm drain ~ improvement was proposed in a few yeara~ at the present time State College Boulevard had = a very difficult drainage prob2em~ and to propose intersecting State College Boulevard ~ ~ with Omega Avenue and using it for surface drainage would aggravate an already very ~ difficult dzainage condition; and that his company's primary concern was to retain Che ,~r,~ buffer stripe ~ ~s Mx, Rottman then iaquired on Alternate No, 2- with industrial development already ~ ~, occurring immediately south of the properCy~ what were the plans for landscaping and ~~ M~'~ buffering, The Commission advised Mr, Kottman that any development that occurred would be required to provide the same type of buffering as presently required, Chairman Rowland then inquired of .4r, Kottman the specific type of buffering he felt was most.desirable since the preaent one required a paved street~ a wall~ and landscaping~ `and he wanted to know which of these three was most important. Mr, Kottman replied that distance between the two uses was the most important - therefore~ building setback from the property line~ as well as the landacaping and wall~ would be needed, ,ir. Odra Chandler~ 608 South Harbor Boulevard, appeared before the Conuaission and stated he was one of the leaseholdera~ together with Doctors Maier and Harstead~ on the property southeast of the sostheast corner of State College Boulevard and Ball Road, and he also ; .: ~ >~ :ssk~j ~ w-: t ~ ~ ~ ~~ • E~ *fINUTES~ CITY PLANNING CO2IISISSIO~, December 29p 1969 4956 '=;~' AREA DEVELOPMENT - represented tlie property owner~ I•irs, Dominguez; i1~aC titiey wer~ un- PLAN NOe 94 ___ alterably opposed to the existing Alterdate B and t?ie propose~ (Continued) Alternate No, l; that they were not opposed to Alternate Noe 2j ~tiat the regresentative of Pacific Scientific Company verified ths reason for their opposition~ namelyo the number of vehicles which left the company°s property to State College Boulevard and Ball Road - therefore~ he could see no way for additional vehicles gainir_~ aeaess to State College Boulevard from Omega Avenue; that the dividing line bet~veen idinston Road.and tize proposed road (Omega) was approximately the same distance.as from the proposed /Jmega Avenue to Ball Road; that if tne proposed road had any value~ it would be to the properties on either side of Belhaven Street = however~ it would be of no benefit to them in che development as they proposed for the property they leased; that the landacaping strip required was for the benefit of the industrial property to the south, and it was his opinion that industries should be required to provide it rather thaa the properties to the north; that the dedication of a 50-foot strip of the property in which he was interested would entail considerable expense not only for the land but for the improvement of the street; and that in the past the City had experi- enced poor circulation~ especially in the Commercial-Recreation Area - however~ the study area alrea~?y had two access points - Ball Road as an east-west access and Belhaven Street as a north-south streetD and at such time as Sunkist Street extended southerly to Howell Avenue' this would provide an additional access to an arterial, Mre Chandler then inquired whether or not the City had any infon:ation as to the construc- tion date of the freeway, Sf;i'; ~` Office Engineer Jay Titus advised the Commission that the latest information the Engineer- ~ '~! ing Division had was that this portion of the freeway would be placed for bids in 1970~ , ~; with completion of this freeway portion within two years, 4 ~j Pir, Chandler.then further observed that the City recently aettled a condemnation proceed- 1~ s~, ings suite'~in"which the property value and compensation had increased due to surrounding , ,~~ development, Assistant City Attorney John Dawson advised the Commission and t•ir, Chandler that this ruling would be appealed to the higher courta, Mr, Ralph Jensen~ representing Apollo Development Company, developers of the property to the west of Belhaven Street and the zoning>request which prompted readvertising the area development plan and preparation of alternatives~ noted for the Commission that their comments were still the same as had been presented before the Commission at the December 15! 196) public hearing on the reclassification proceedin~s in that the street was originally required to provide a buffer between the industrial and mu.ltiple-family residential uses~ and this was done in the,proposal they had preaented, However, the public dedicated street was eliminated aince they propoaed to provide their own circulation through private drives~ whereas the cul-de-sac street could not provide thiso and the engineer of the pro~ect would make further comments regarding the traffic flow, ~tr, Jensen then noted that the problem of drainage of subject property was being worked out witii ttie industries developing to tl~e south of tlzeir property; however, he could not agree with the staff's comments regarding l~aving a public street provi.3e proper drainage - therefore, they would urge the Commission to consider Alternative No, 2 as the mos't logical plan to provide the necessary buffer and still provide circuls:ion for these properties, Furthermoree an additional item for tlie Commission°s consideration was the fact that a 50-foot street was all that waP required under Alternate B adopted Uy the City Council which did not conform with the standard street widtl~ of even a local street in the City of Anaheim and substantiated the fact that the street was used for a buffering purpose; therefore~ conaideration of intersecting State College Boulevard would necessitate a greater sCreet width than 50 feete and when the freeway was constructedQ Alternative Noe 2 would serve to ~enerate tlie flow of traffic to the freeway rather than to State College 13oulevard~ which already was handling considerably more traffic than was anticipated witliout permitting intersecting of Omega Avenue with State College Boulevard and creating more traffic liazards with vehicles making right-l~and turns only, i•ir, John Getten~ Engineer ~aith lJilltamson 6 5chmid~ Civil Engineers~ appeared before the Commission and noted that he was an ettgineer ~oith ttie County of Orange for the past eight years; that there liad Ueen considerable discussion regarding tlie traffic around State College Boulevard and Ball Road as well as increase and decrease of traffic flow from the study area, and based upon his opinion' this would depend entirely on ti~e type of development for the property at the southeast corner of State College Boulevard and Iiall Road; that in itis opinion this siiould be developed for other than residential uses because of its high type commercial potential; tliat the duties of the Traffic ~ngineer were an exact science encompass- ing large areas and should nat be concerned with an area as small as tliat proposed with the number of vehicles which this area would generate; that signalizing for the two arterialso namely State College Boulevard and 13a11 Road, should be accordin~ to State requirements of a minimum of 1,200 feetp whereas in Alternate No, 1 signalizing misht be injected within 600 feet of an intersection; that Ball Road and Sunkist sl~ould be signalized at such time ~ - °y'-t ^i ,.'.i~; `.'r,E n ,3~"s,'.:,r~- i ~ - y ~ `C_.~ . `.~J MINUTES~ CITY PLANNI:IG C0~IISSIONo December 290 1969 4957 AREA DEVELOP~NT - as Sunkist was extended southerly; that spacing of signals at specific PLAN N0, 94 intervals ws~ necessary in order to permit local access from properties , (Continued) to the arterials; that tl~e existing traffic at the intersection of Ball {'~;i;,;' Road and State College Boulevard could be likened to the amount of r traffic now experienced at Lincoln Avenue and Beacn Boulevard and ,;±rp,..,: Tustin and Katella Avenue in Orange! ~•~herein the saturation point had Ueen reached in y', these areas; that although prn,~,eations had been made that traffic would be decreasing on Tustin Avenue wizen the freeway ~~ent ino this was just a temporary measureg and when com- mercial development occurred~ tiie volume became higher than that originally experienced; that if signalizing occurred at Belhaven Streete this still would give sufficient space ^ between two signals at either endo Ball Road on the west and Sunkist on the east~ to give ;,~ local residents from these properties opportunities to enter tlie mainstream of the arterial ~~„E` " traffic - howevero any consideration of signalizing at Omega Avenue ig said street inter- , <3 '' sected with State College Boulevard, would create considerable traffic conflict; that traffic flow on Alternate No, 1 would provide movement only to the north on State College ~g Boulevarde even though the Traffic Engineer had indicated that the islands could be re- : : designed to facilitate mocement across State College Boulevard - this would be extremely ~~. ~ difficult due to the volume of traffic on the street and the speed of the traffic a~ well - therefore~ a very small percentage of the people would ateempt to make a left-hand turn onto State College Boulevard, ,:,. ~ - ;, :Ir, Getten further noted thaC as a planning traffic engineer it was important to know what the ultimate development was planned for the southeast corner of State College Boulevard . and Lincoln Avenuet and if the existing conditional use permit to allow a motelo restaurant ' aad small shops was no longer in effect~ then any commercial traffic proposed through a ' ~ residential area would be undesirable, FurtI~ermore9 althougla I4r, Jensen had mentioned the ~~ solvin~ of the drainage problem! since Foremost and hfcl:esson were developing the propezty ~ to tt~e south they were making arrangements with them to have drainage throush tI3eir x property~ and it was his opinion a public street ~oas not ti~e best manner in ~ahich to ~~ '"~ handle drainage of subject property~ and that it should be the prerogative of developers .~ and uwners of the property to provide and regu2ate the drainage from their property, ~F~ ~~ ~ir. Sam Leahyo representing the Soutiiern Pacific Railroad~appeared Uefore the Commission y~, ,+~ and noted that although they owned no progerty immediatel,y adjacent to the area under c~ ? consideration, approximately a year ago h.: had attended all of the roeetings when the ~~ ~ _ ori~inal resolution of the property was adopted reclassifying the property from industrial ,,~ 'q,~ to residential usese and at that time *_iie City Council had determined that Alternate B of Yur ,~} Area Development P1an No, 94 was the best for properties to the north and provided adequate p ~' buffering for the industriai properties to the south, liowevero as owners of industrial <7 ;{ properties in the City~ they were not concerned with the proposal for subject pro ert but ~ ~ were vitally concerned with the provision of suUstancial buffers between industrial and ~j residential uses; that it was h3s apinion that any additional traffic filtered to State ~ College 13oulevard was not necessary - howeverB the developers of tt~e properties sliould , ~}~ be required to establish a buffer zone Uetween the residential and industrial uses in ~ order to alleviate the many complaints which might Ue presented to the City due to noise~ ~ ~, dust~ odorso hours of operatione etca wliich would be emanating from tl~e industrial ~ properties to the southe The Commission then noted for interested persons tiiat all alternate plans presented by the staff would include ti~e buffering as originally required under Alternate ]3~ Pir. Chandler advised tlie Commission that they were dealin~ with people of different walks of life in tlie development of tiieir particular property and were negotiating with a larse financial institution for the construction of a higli-rise building to accommodate their expnrt department, Fur[hermore' tlte Commission was fully aware of tite manner in which apartment residents parked their vehicles on the street ratlier tiian in the off- street parking area requiLed under tlie Code, ~fre A, J, Schuttel owner of property in the study area, appeared before the Commission and stated that one heard all the time aUout requiring tl~e owners of residential proper- ties to provide the buEfer zone beCween the indusrrial and the residential uses - howevero he could not see any reason why the industrial owners could not provide the same tqpe of buffering~ and that when the reclassi,fication oi the property owned by his daughter nad been considered by the Commission~ the Commission itad not considered extension of Omega Avenue~ and this was passed by the City Council and was a plan developed (dreamed up) in the Development Services Departmentt and he was not sure whether Omega Avenue would ever exCend t:~rough to Sunkist Street~ THE A~ARING IJAS CLOSED, Commissioner Her~~st noted that he had made the original suggestion to liave a stxeet on the soutiierly boundar~ of t:i~ seudy area at the time General Plan Amendment Noe 31 was approved so that [here would Ue some type of a building separation and buffering area _1 f ,:~: : ;,:~ .~;,i ~s t - -~ _,.'J :~',,:: ..._ , .. x ~ w ~ ~:; . ~ ~ `~ '. . . tiINUTESo CITY PI,ANNZNG COPfMISSZON~ December 29~ 1969 4958 AREA DEVELOPMENT - between the industrial and residential uses; that:the action taken PLAN N0, 94 by the City at that time was the first time propezty zoned Uy the (Continued) City for industrial purposes had been reclassified.~or residential purposes; that the representatives of industries attended these public hearings both before the Conmission and the City Council in large , nu*.,bers to present their opposition to this reduction of the buffering~between the industry and.~which.they had enjoyed by considering encroachment into an area whiah~ for a number of yearsp the City had assured industry would be retained for industrial purposes; tliat ,,.~~ because of the many protests of industries the suggestion of a street along the southerly , boundary of the multiple-family residential uses should be required~,wliich provided some buffering but was not the same as that which Ball Road offered - a 106-foot wide street ~'' - together with a 50-fout building setback of industry aad a 15-foot setbacl; of the resi~ ~,r, dential uses to the north - compared with Alternate B wh3ch required a b5-foot structural -~: ,..' ~"'~~' ~~~~ setback from the south property linep or a 50-foot wide street ~ a 10-fooi _strip of land- ~; ,y;. sca ~ g Y ,~; p n ge and a 15-foot bu ildin setback from said street for an structure on the north side of the street; and that the Commission did not consider Che area development plan at +~ the time the General Plan amendment and reclassification of the Talt property had been y~ presented before the Commiasiono ~ Commissione: Herbst further noted that traffic along Ball Road would increase greatly `,:;`; after the Orange Freaway was constructedn whereas traffic on State College Boulevard would decrease; tl~ereforeo the Commission ahould consider providing adequate circ':lation ' at this time since hy 1975 it would be too late because of the rapidity with ahich the ~` properties were now developing along tlie souti~ side of iiall Road; that from plans presented ?a; it appeared that the developers of the apartments were not giving any consideration to the '~ traffic flow from the apartments to be developed or in the process of being developed on " tiie south side of Sall Road since they intended to liave the flow of traffia.going only to ~;~: IIall Roadp whether by the way of Belhaven or Sunkist Street when the latLer.street extended a~ southerly of Ball Road - thus increasing the traffic conflict for Ball Roado and Alternate ~ No, 1~ proposing intersecting State College Boulevard by extending Omega Avenue throughp ;,~ would be a far better solution to fi_tering traEfic from the multipie-family residential i~ development to another arterialt and that as planners of tlie Cityp the Commiasion must ~~ take a long-range view of any change in circulation for this area to provide for adequate ~'~% circulation when the entize south side of Ball Road between Sunkist Street.oa the east and ~~ State College Boulevard on the west designated on the General Plan for multiple-family J C~ . . . ' . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . ~. ~~ residential uses was developed, ~ Commissioner Gauer was of che opinion that extension of the east-west street (Omega Avenue ra to State College Boulevard would not be desirable sinne no one could predict the manner in~ ,y;.~ which traffic would flow, Commissioner Herbst noted that since the north-south street (Belhaven Street) terminated approximately 650 feet south of the centarline of Ball Road, and 6-£oot masonry walls were required~ the east-west street then was needed to provide an alternate access for the southerly portions of the area designated for multiple-~.family residential purposea~ aad the intent was ,:o retain iJi»ston Road for industrial vei~icular circulation,.discouraging residential use of the streeC to provide an alternate way out of the residential properties by using Sunkist Street and then Winston Road to gain access to State College Iioulevard since it was impozt?nt to keep the two types of traffic~ residential and industrial~ separate since vehi. • s being driven to and from work created traffic conflicts with the industrial traffice Chairman Rowland proceeded :o review all of the data presented up to this time~ noting that all the property easterly from Belhaven to Sunk.ist Street was co~nmitted to.multiple-family residential development; that the parcel to the west of IIelhaven Street now,had a reclassi- fication pending while long-term leases for commercial development for tl3e.:westerly parcel located at the southeast corner of State College Boulevard and Ball Road .~ere claimed to be in effect; that if the east-west street intersected State College Boulevard, this could inject commercial traffic into the residential area which was not desirable - thereforee the prime consideration before the Commission was circulation ~or ttie 600 feet immediately west of Belhaven Street, Chairman Rowland further noted that although Councilman A, J, Schutte indicated the City Council was constantly being placed under pressure for zoning the industrial properties~ this was something all City Councils had to Uear; Chat tlie industri~$ developing in the Southeast Industrial Area had also brought pressure in which they requested.xhat if a change from industrial to residential uses were proposedo then industry should be given a protective buffering area to insure that undesirable noises, liglits~ odors~ dust~ etc, emanating from the industrial area would na~t be a point of contention or conflict~ creating complaints by the residents in the residential area; and tliat although comments were made about proper- ties still under the jurisdiction of the Countyt the City had no control over what the County dido even thougli recommendations were made upon their request, ~~ ~ ~ ~ 4954 MINUTESo CITY PLANNING COI~SISSIONp December 29B 1969 h:..~ . s u a 4~r;j w~: ~~,,.,,: , AREA DEVELOP~lENT - Commissioner Gauer noted that the devel.opers of the property immadiaCely PLAN N0, 94 west of Belhaven Street had provided ar. acceptable development wi.tli (Continued) adequate circulationo as well as the necessary buffering desired by industry~ and there was no gvarantee that motcrists would use the east- west sCreet to gain ingress and egress to the property if tllis weze d' •eloped, Chairman Rowland inquired whether cr not Alternative No, 2 p:ovided for tiie continuation of the buffering area which Commissioner Iierbst insisted was very importanta Zon~ng Supervisor Charles Rcberts advised the Commission that the same buffering technique would still be requiredp and if no street were required, then the distanc~ of building i se~backs should lie equal to the distan~e of the street as p.-eviously requiredo togetlxer with tlte 6-foot masonry wall and laa~scaping< Commissioner Gauer noted from staff°s commenzs that it would appear the conditional use permit approved for commercia2 buildings and motel and reataurant on the southeast comer of State College Boulevard and IIall Road had expiredo and there was no indication when or how this property would be developed; that in Itis opinion requiring a cul-de-sac street was not in the best interes= of thdse properties to the west of Belhaven Street; and that it was noC desirable to mix the apartment traffic with any com.~nercial traffic which might be ~enera.;ed by the development af the southeast corner of State College Boulevard and Ball Road, Commissioner Flerbst noted that the shopping center at the intersection of Harbor Boulevard, Orangethorpe Avenue and Lemon Street in Fullerton had circulation of traffic around the entire shopping area~ and apartments were located to the south of this large shopping area whP:ein both commercial and residential traffic used this street - however, tl~is circula- tion ?attern within the shopping center and around che center was extremely well planned so that a minimum amount of commercial traffic used the street in front of tiie apartmentse Commissioner ilerbst furtlier noted there would be problems created by intersecting State College Boulevard coith the east-taest streeto but sinr,e there were no concrete plans far development of the Dominguez property~ until this occurredp then perhaps a traffic signal could be required when and if one ~aere needede : Commissioner Camp then noted Chat one of the ideas which seemed to have been overlooked wa§ when the compleEion of the Orange Freeway occurred, traffic would drop on State ColLege Boulevardo buc this would be only a temporary measureo and when all properties in this general area were developedo the traffic would again increaseo as well as increase on Ball Road - however0 to consider signalizing the east-weat street and State College BoulevardB which was only 60U feet from a major intersecLion, would be very hazardous and could be likened to an alley having access ta an arterial wl~ere only right turns were safe, and when traffic was filtered to Ball Road~ the first street entering it would be located 1~300 feet from State College Soulevard and 13a11 Road intersection~ which then would be a better intersection for signalizing,giving tra£fic coming fYOm th~if~nt development westerly time to gain access to Ball Roada Furtherniore, if commercial development occurred on the Dominguex property, there would be no aeed for th~ east-west street by that property because they would have access from the property to e~Lther State College Boulevard or Ball RoadD and if the east-west street crere intended as an arterialf it would not have been approved for a 50-foot wide street - it ~aas only intended to be part of the buffering requested for ti~e :Lndustrial properties which~ in his opinianF still had tlie same right to zequest this buffering regardless of wiietlier a stree*_ was required or private accessways were proposed~ Therefore, he would recommend considerati~n of IiavinR traffic exiting to Ball RoadQ Belhavens or Sunkist Streec rather than having access to State College Boulevard, i•Ire RoberCS tiien noted that several of the Commtssioners l:ad brouglit up a very important and interesting point regardin•,>, tlie Uuffering eEfect betwceu industry and residential uses; however~ no mention was made for tiie Domin~uez property at the soutlieast corner of State College IIoulevard and Ball Road, wliicii was proposed for cummercial uses~ Chairman Rowland noted that he wou13 assume industry would expect Clie same buffering trevt- mento and then inquired of ~Ir, l:ottman whether ~t not they ~aould al~o require the bufferins treatment far. tliat poztion just mentioned. rire Kottman advised tlie Commission th~zt as long as tUe pcoperty .had tl~e required walls~ provided sdequatie parking and building setback to minimize the possible noises emanating from industryt they would be satisfied taith that type of bufferin~, :iz, ^.oberts then inquired wiiether the C,ommission Wauld consider a huffering area having a minimum of 10-foot widCh oE landscaping adjacent to the wall and a~l structures being located a minimum of 65 fest from the south property line Eor the Dominguez property, and at the same 'sa ~ ~~,~ - . - ~. w ~ ~ ` AA ~ ~. .:~ ; ,. ,: ~•• , ~ ~ ^µ K r 4 ;,:; _ ~n. < : "~----:,::; ~ ~ ~~ °ffNUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMFSISSION~ December 29~ 1969 49G0 AREA DEVELOPMENT - tirae retaining Omega Avenue extending easterly from Belhaven to Sunkist PLAN P10. 94 Street~ with the same 10-foot landscaping strip immediately adjacent to (Continued) the required 6-foot wall. The Commission concurred that this was correct. Commissioner Gauer offered Re.solution No. PC69-256 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that an amendment be made to Area Development Plan i~o. 94~ adopting,Alternate No. 2 to replace Alternate B and requirin~ all properties located • for a distance of approximately 660 feet south of liall Road to provide a b-foot liigii masonr~ wall~ 10-foot strip of landscaping~ and a 65-foot building setback for those properties located between 13elhaven Street on the east and State College Boulevasd on the west~ and that the extension of Omega Avenue easterly to Sunkist Street be retained with the same buffering and landscapin~ treatment of a 6-foot masonry wall~ 10-foot landscaped strip~ and a minimum 65-foot building setUack from the south property line.. <See•l;esolutiqn Book) . ' . . On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CODPiISSIONERS: P11red~ Camp, Gauer~ Thom~ Rowland. NO~S: COrIl`fISSI0NER5: Herbst, ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; Earano, RECLASSIFICATIO~ - CONTINUED PUIILIC HEARING. ALBERT S. TOUSSAU~ 6672 Richfield Road~ N0. 69-70-29 Anaheim, CaliEarnia~ Owner; APOLLO DEVELOPhIENT CORP., 1104 East 17th Street~ Santa Ana, Californi~~ Agent; property described as: Portion VARIANCE N0. 2143 A- A rectangularly shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 4.8 acres~ having a frontage of approximately 344 fezt on tlie soutii side of Ball Road~ having a maximum depth of approximately G07 feet, and being located approximately 660 feet east of the centerline of State Collese Boulevard; and Portion Ii - An irregularly shaped parcel of land consisting of apgroximately 4.2 acres, having approximate frontages of 186 Feet on the south side of Ba~l Road and 457 feet on the west side of Belhaven Street~ having a maximum depth of approximately 607 feet, and being located approximately 1,004 feet east of the centerline of State College Boulevard. Property presently claseified R-A~ AGRICULTURAL~ 20NE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3~ ~NLTIPLE-rAi•fILY RESIDE,iTIr1L~ ZONE, .~~ REQUESTED VARIANCE: PORTIONS A AND !3 - WAIVEIZS OF (1) hIINIAfiTt~I DISTANCE BETWEE;I $ '! BUILDINGS AND (2) NU-I3ER OF ;•1AIN 13UILDINGS PER IIUILDING ~i SITE~ TO ESTAIiLISH A 220-Wi IT~ TWO-STORY APARTi~IENT COIdPLEX. ~ ~' Subject petitions were continued from the meetin~ of December 15~ 1969~ to allow time for e,~'~~"{ the staff to present possible revisions to Area Development Plan No. 94, to advertise said .,~ plan~ and for the petitioner to consider possible redesign of subject development as well as to resolve drainage problems connected with the project. ~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of sub'ect established in close J property~ uses ~, proximity~ and the reason for continuance, noting that Area Develop- s ment Plan No. 94, havin~ been amended~ the plana as originally preaented were in con- ~ formance with the requirement of a 65-foot building setback, 10-foot strip of landscaping~ , z and a 6-foot nigh masonry wall~ and that circulation was being provided by means of private „~ access drives; furtliermore~ the petitioner had indicated lie was making arrangements for providing for drainage of subject property with the industrial properties to tlie south. ~.;. ~ `~! Chaznnan Rowland inquired wnetl3er or not there were any changes in those lans ~, at the previous public hearin P presented : g; whereupon Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised tlie ,,.~ Commission the plans were not changed. F ~ The petitioner's representative, t~fr. Jensen~ indicated his presence and availaUility to ";,::A_: ,~ answer questions. The Commission Seoxetary read a letter from the Neville Chemical Company regarding botii items 3 and 4 relative to the poseiUility of encroachment into the industrial area and requested that the buffering promised by the City Council between the residential and industrial properties should be maintained, and no residential traffic sliould be filtered j into tlie industrial area - therefore, they urgently requested that all previous commitments made by the Council as to buffering and elimination of conflicting traffic flows be honored, THE HfiARING WAS CLOS~D. ~~ Z~ ~ F 4 . , 1 . . o. .. _ .. -~ . . , .. ,. . , . . . . . , . . , . . . ,a. 1 :: ~ `^;,~~'r~~ ~ ~ ~1INUTES ~ CITY PLANNING COAII~IISSION~ December 29 ~ 1969 t; ~ ~._ ""__ ^'.~'P '1i ~ ~` ~ F: ~ ~ ~.:;i 45u1 ' ' RECLASSIFICATION - Mr, Roberts advised the Commission tl~at since Ai:ernate No. 2 of ` NOe 69-70-29 Area Development Plan No, 94 was ~dopted by the Plannin~ Coimnission, thase conditions set forth in the Report to t'ze Conmission iocre no VAR7ANCE NOe 2143 longer applicable and would have to be modified, dlletiug reference (Continued) to Ome~a Avenue as it pertained to subject properCy; i~owever~ plans ' as presented did conform with the recommended 4lternate No. 2 in `:;:i;~ which Che required 6-foot masonry wall was proposed~ the 10-foot strip of landscaping along tue soutli property line was prr,vided~ and all Uuildings on ' subject property were set rack a minimum of 65 feet from the soutli property line. ~' Assistant City Attorne ~ ; along the westerl Y oiin Dawson advised the Commission tliat.the easement having access ~ y portion of Fire Station No, 7 would tiave to be '"~ redevelopment of this large agricultural parcel now quit claimed since tiie ~~` the easement was no longer necessary - therefore, anPadditionaleconditionrforatienquitd ~ claim for said easement should be a requirement of the Commission's recommendation oE approvale i x ;j L, hir, Roberts then noted for tlie Commission tlzat said condiCion could read~ "That tl~e o of subject property shall delive wners r to the City of Anaheim an executed quit claim deed foz all interests that they may now have or ma l t 1. y a er acquire in the City-owned property upon which Fire Station No, 7 is located", ; Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No, PC69-257 d +~; an moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No approved~ subject to tl~e "69-70-Z9 ~f , tie recommended conditions~ deleting reference to Omega Avenue requiring a modified knuckle be constructed , ~ ~ at the area where Belhaven Street intersects with Omega Avenuep and the additional condition that an e mitted - ~~ xecuted quit claim deed be sub- to the City of Anaheim regarding access to Cit Station No Y'owned 7 ro ~ ti~ , p was located, perty upon which Fire (See Resolution Book) r ~~ t `' ,t On roll call tlie foregoing resolution was passed Uy tlie following vot t ~, ^ e: AYES: COi~AfISSIONERS; Allred~ Camp~ Gauer~ ilerbst~ Thom~ Rowland NOES; COl~IlfISSIONERS: N ` ' ~_,... ;~i , . one, ABSENT; CO~fISSIONERS: Farano, Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No, PC69-258 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No, 2143~ subject to conditior.so (See Resolution Book) On roll call tl~e foregoing resoluCion caas passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: A11red~ Camp~ Gauer~ Thom~ Rowland, NOES: CO,AfISSIONERS; Herbst, ABSENT: COhII•iISSIONERS: Parano, TENTATIVE t•fAP OF - DEVELOPER: W, E, KUYPER & N, POKRAJAC~ 231 Carolwood SCreet, Arcadia~ ( TRACT Np_ , g_ 019 California, ~NGTNEER: W, E. KUYPER~ 14427 .Toanbridge Street, Baldwin Park~ California. Subject tract, located on ti~e soutiieast corner ~f 31ue Gum and Coronado Streets, consisting of approximately nine acres~ is proposed for subdivision into 14 t•I-1 Zoned lots. ' Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat llrown revieNed the location of subject property~ uses established in close proximity~ and the fact that subject property was zoned :~[-1~ LIGHT INDUSTRIAL~ ZONE in April~ 1969 and Conditional Use Permit Noe 1104 was approved to estab- lish a fabrication plant~ heavy metals, with saaiver of material of wall enclosing outdoor use at ttie same time; that suU~ect property was proposed for subdivision into 14 ~- lots with a 64-foot wide local industrial street extending easterly from Blue Gum Street in the southerly one-third of the ro ert j 1 zoned P P y~ stub-ending at its easterly perimeter since the ~ Interdepartmental Committee had indicated the desirability of said street and location because it would provide internal circulation for two-thirds of the properties in said map; that the staff in later discussions with the Traffic Eng.ineer received his concurrence that said street irould be useful and further recommended that this street at the easterly terminus either be stub-ended or provide a hammer-head cul-de-sac in the event properties to the east developed - that the street could then be extended; hosaever, a standard circular cul-de-sac would inhibit further extension of the street easterl sub3ect property had dedicated a half-width o£ 50 feet for Blue Gum Streettprior oetl~eof construction of Blue Gum Street while the property was still in the County - however, since the Highway Rights-of-lJay - Circulation Element of the Anaheim General Plan has desi~nated Blue Gum Street as a secondary highway with a 45-foot half-width, the Interdepartmental Committee suggested that the property owners request an abandonment by tlie City of 5 feet of land from Blue Gum Street Uack to suUject pro ert , uPon requect to the City Council, obtain waiver of the sidewalk requirementtsub~ecC toYno permanent plantin~ or improvements within the area reserved L•or future sidewalks, ' : ~~ :..~,ait.~_ ,'::; .r." •i`.~ . - - . . o c~ c~ MINUTES. CITY PLANNING CO*3t4ISSI0N, December 29~ 19k3 496'. TENTATIVE rfAP OF - Commissionez Gauer offered a motion to apgr~ve ':entative ~tap uf TRACT N0, 5019 Tract voe 5019~ seconded by Commi.~sioner Iizrbat and :lOTI01i ~^:~.°.I~up (Continued) subject to the following conditions: 1, That should this subdivision be developed as more tlzan one subdivision~ each suudivision thereof shall Ue submitted in tentative form for approvale 2, That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities, 3a That drainage of Tract Noe 5019 shall be disposed o£ in a manner that is satisfactory to the City Engineer, ~, 4a ThaE Lot "A"p as indicated on the tentative mapp at the easterly terminus of Gretta Lane shall not be provided, Se That abandonment of tl~e easterly 5 feet of Blue Gum Street slt...:. be completed prior to a~proval of a final map for TracC No, 5019 by the City Councile 6, That all street intersections shall have 25-foot radius property line returns, CONDITIONAL U5E - PUBLIC HEARINGe ORANGE COlNTY WATER DISTRICTo 1629 ldest l7th Street~ PERMIT NOe 1143 Santa Ana~ Califtvrnia~ Owner; RUSSELL S, CLEARY~ 1181 Flaminian Way~ Santa Anao California~ Agent; requesting permission to HAVE ON-SALE BEER on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 67 acreso having a frontage of approximately 935 feet on the north side of Pitralosna Avenueo having a maximum depth of approximately 20370 feet~ and being located appzoximately G60 feet east of the centerline of Miller Streetp and further described as 3451 East .firaloma Avenue, Property presently classified R-A~ AGRICULiURAL, ZONEa Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat llrown reviecaed the location of subject property and uses established in close proximityD noting that the property was known as Anaheim Lalce and was the former Crill Basin wherain water was stored; that a resolution of intent to if-1 was existing on the property; that the petitioner caas proposing tp provide on-sale beer in the concession stand constructed for the use of the fishing patrons at the facility; and that the requested use would appear to be a valid accessory use to the primary use since most such recreational facilities normally had a concession for the sale of beer aloag with soft drinkso sandwiches~ etc, Chairman Rowland inquired whether or not recommendations had been received from the Parks and Recreation Commission since that Commission and the Parks and Recreation Department were instrumental ia "putting together" this fishing facility~ and it was important that a letter of :omment be made ~art of the file~ if no letter had~ as yet~ been receivedo ~ti `i: r; e ~'~ ~:_~ Commissioner Herbst commented that it was his understanding that the fishing facility was originally intended and planned to be a"father and son" ~ype oi ~ctivity; tiahereupon Ciiairman Rowland concurred with this as b~ing the origina]. consideration for the facility. Comments were further made regarding the activity and the fact that the fishing facility had been successful without the requested use; that the majority of pictures presented in the newapapers indicated the presence of many cUildren; tliat if beer were permitted to be sold in con3unction ~aith this fishing facility~ cahen the lake was drained once a year~ tUe County would Ue faced with cleaning more than the normal debris four.d in a settling basin~ I and many beer cans would be found at the Uotto~ of the lake, Chairman Rowland then noted that the Parks and Recreation Commission met the third Thursday ' of each montho and that comments could be received in sufficieut time to Ue considered by ~ th~ City Council in the event subject petition were appealede i ~ TAE HEARING WAS CLOS~D, ' Assistant City Attorney John Dawsor noted for the Commission that it was his understanding ~ that when this cooperative contrac ~etween the City~ County~ and Parks and Recreation Department was developedo os~~saie ~ er was contemplated, ;. Chairman Rowland noted that although it might have been contemplated~ this was never ' considered by t~ie Parks and Recreation Cammiasione Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No, PC69-259 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noa 1148 on che basis that tl~e petitioner had not submitted evidence that there was a need for the proposed use; that a large portion of the patrans of the facility are under the age allowable For the consumpti~n of alcoholic i, ~ ~F,~ . - ~. ~~,. i .~ (~I .. .. ~. ~...i .. ~ . . . ,. - C . t"f ~, 1 i~t!1KY uq"t~i~?Z;i~lf ~f~,~Al~ rb'~y)Y2 S~~ ~,~y+~y~,~~ C ] .A Y~ r L~1..:~;~'rfA+~'r ~-; ~"yl~ "L'7i ~y ~'/~5 ~ ,F'i yMF;'f ,' '"~ v . ~ T]W' ~ r~ ~t.l_, r}; s' ' ~ ~ a ~ ; c ~ a ,: r, r ~.; .G r,,'~- ~ Cyf , ! 4 ~ ~ ' ~ ~ f ~ u~ ~~ . . . . 1 . y~ '~ ~F ' ~ r I•fINUTES~ CIT PLANNIVG C024*tISSION, December 29~ 1969 `'~4963 ~, .:~;~ i > , CONDITIONAL USE - beverages - therefore~ the use was unnecessa:y; that the existing PERi4IT NO 1148 ,,;?, '~~ ~ o opezation had been quite successful witho~.t on-sale beer~ and said x' '~ ~ir sales would not be in the best interest of the underage patrons, th ~; ':,.~„} at t!ie granting oE the ~onditional use permit would Ue dEtrimental to the peace ~ health safet o o y and general welf f ~ '~ Fr ,~ ` `~ ~ are o the citizens of the City of elnaheim; and the maintenance and cleanliness of the water of the Crill Basin (Anahei L k '~~ `~ + , m a e) was essential ta the haalth of tt:e citi2ens of the City of Anaheim~ and introduction of e t ~+~ ~ mp y beers cans that adult patror.s would discard in tlie lake could create water pollution, (See Resolution Bcok) '"` 'r~ e~ T On roll call the foregoing reaolution ti~as passed by the follosaing vote; ~ '~ '' ~.~ ~ AYES: COi~SISSIONERSe Allred~ Campo Gauer, lIerbscp Thom Rowland ~i~d ~ ~. ~?' , o NOESa COI~AiTSSIONERS; None~ f~ . ;;;= ~~'x AIISENT~ C02•L~IZSSIO.YERSs Farano, ;;~;;~ ~ _ ,;~, ,~ c~~ ~ ~ CONDITIONAI. USE - PUBLZC iiF,ARING. FRANCISCO DE LA LUZ, E. AL~ c/o Eric K, Lewis PERMIT N0 1149 ~ ~ a . 2555 Easc Chapman Avenue, Suite 500~ Fullerton~ California Owners; ~ t ~ a DO~ALD R, YURICK~ 326 North State College Boulevard~ Orange ~ p California~ Agent; requesting permissior. to ~STABLISH A I10BILE HOI~IE PARK on property described as: An L-sha ed ar l f l ~ !~ :i~ p p ce o and consisti~g of approx3mately 11.5 aczeso having approximate frontages of 284 feet~on tue west side f S , y., ° ' o tate College Boulevard and 661 feeC on the north side of Via Burton Street liavin a m i 3 j , ; ~ g ax mum epth of agproximately 1e246 feet from State College lioulevardt and fezther desczibed as 1531 North St t C I ~ .~ ~ri a e ollege IIoulevard, Pronerty presently classified ?•f-lo LIGHT INDUSTRIAI.e ZONE~ ' ~: w Assistant 2oning Superviscr Pac Brown zeviewed the location of sub3ect ro t ~`~ 7, p er established in close roximit P yo uses P yp and the proposal to establish a 100-space mobile home park i n the M-1 Z ; '~? ~ ~ . onefl noting that sub~ect property had been zoned !•i-1 since 1955; and ~hat aC the Interdepartmental Committee meetin of D ~ ~ '~,y g ecember 18; it was determined that a continuance of the petition was in o:der so that certain problems Y ~~ , ~ assotiated with ;;axter Streeta wi~ica runs along tne we~tern boundary of suUject pro ert ~ ~~ p yo could be resolveda and the pe[itioner had been advised of this recommendation and submitted a lett lzis ;,~,,:;.;~;~~ z er stating concurrence with the continuance, w.~ ~I 'x r# ~ m ChaiYman Rowland noted for interested persons present in the Couttcil Chamber that s request for cont3nuance es eci ll h, ,~ B p a y recommended by the staffp was senerally honored~ and the Commission would consider r ontinuatio f ~ ~~ . n o subject petition until the January 12, 1970 meeting~ schedu].ed as ti~e f3rst it em on ttie agenda, , { 3 t The Commission Sec*etary noted that lettezs of opposition had been received from industries as follaws: Fluidmaste f +! r on Via Burton~ Gem Top of California on Via IIurton~ Donald SUaw, Genexal Contractorg United Parcel Service Vi ~ ~': on a Burton; and Teeco Products, Inc. on North IIurton Place, ; ti ~ ~~ < Comsaissioner Thom offered a motion to continue consideration of Petition for Conditional Use Permit *io 1149 to tl ~' . ~e meeting of Januaiy 12~ 1970~ and scheduled as tl~e first icem on the agenda as requested by the staff and acceded b ~ - . ::,,..; 7 to y the petitioner, Coramiasioner Camp seconded the motion, ifOTION CARRIED. ' ~ i CONDITIONAI, USE - PUBLIC IiEARING, ~LIZABETIi LANCAST~R, c/o Cherokee ~fobile Gardens, PER.~fIT N0, 1150 235 South IIeach Boulevard A e ; , naheimo California, Owner; LIGGETT LANCASTERc c/o Cherokee ?fobile Gardenst 235 Soutl~ Beach Boule d 7 var o Anatteim~ Calffornia~ Agent; requesting permission to E:{PA~JD AN EXISTING T40BILE liOrfE PARK o ~ '~ ,~ I n property descriUed as: An irre ularl slia ed having a fronta e of a ~ Y p parcel of land 8 pproximately 280 feet on the ~ F " tvest side oi Bead1 IIoulevard, having a inaximum deptli of approximately 3Q0 feete and Ueing located ` approximately 1,000 feet north of tlie centerline of Orange Avenue~ and further described as 235 S P 1 ~ outh Beach i3oulevard~ roperty presently classified R-A~ AC?ZICULTURAL, ZONE. ~ ~t~~ ~' 5 ' ~.r K ~ : Asaistant Zoning Supervisor Pat llrown revie~•~ed the location of sub ect established in ciase proximit• and the j property~ uses ~'a pro os l t , x ~ , p a o ~.r>r.~ease the size of the mobile home park by adding 21 spaces on subject property~ and that recreati f ci .~ ~, a on and guest parking lities for tliis proposed addit?on woul~l be provided by tlie existing park~ Turti~ermora a b-foot nasonry wall almost com let l ~` ~ ~, ~ p e y enclosed sub~ect proparty except for the access road leading to the existing paric to tl~e westp 3G to 35-foot wide inCerior been desi ned t d wl;:,,~.~,+' g s e an reets had a 20-footo lan~scaped setbaclc area was proposed to be provided alon the Beaciz Houlecard fronta e _ ^=C g g , , ' ~' ,akc . :Ir, Liggett Lancasce~• a ent for tlie etition4 e ir~d_cated liis resc~~ce ~-~~~ to answer any questioaa,s ~ ° i P *~ilability . :.~ ':' i -- - ~~~ m t ; -- j ~ ~~ „r~~ ~ k`t "Y -~ ~~~,-~~ ~~ . . . . .~. ~ . .- . .. . . ~ . . . . . , , , , Q~ ~ r~ PfINUT~S, CITY PLANNING COrL+1ISSI0N~ December 29~ 1969 ' Uy 964 CO~DITIONAi, USE ~ No one appeared in opposition to subject petiti~x:, PERM?T Nre 1150 (Contittu~ THE HEARING IJAS CLOSED, Zoning 5upervisor Charles Roberts reviewed Condition No, G in which the requirement of accommodations for all trailers and not restricting the mobile home park to "California approved trailers" on~y be noted by the petitioner since tl~is had been a xequirement of the Commission in the pasta i•Ir; Liggett Lancaster then stipulated tl~ey would comply with this condition, Commiseioner Camp ottered Resalutfon No, PC69-260 and moved for its passage and adoption Co grant Petition for Conditional Uae Permit No, 1150p sub3ect to conditions, (See Resolution Book) On ro21 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote; AYESa CO~iMISSIONERS: A3lredo Camp~ Gauero Herbsto 3homp Rowland, NOES: COMt•1I3SIOAJERS: Noneo AIiSENTe COrLiISSIONERSe Farano, RECESS - Commissionez Thom moved for a ten-minuce recess, Commissioner Camp seconded tlie motion, I•fOTION CARRIED, The meeting recessed at 3:55 P,:•I, RECONVENE e Chaixman Rowland reconvened the meeting at 4e05 P,^f,o all Commisaioners except Farano being presenta VA.a,~ N~~~m2144 - PUBLIG HEARING, i, t•i, RANNOWp 1:25 South Euclid Street, Anaheima Califurniap Owner; HERAtAN MARGULIEUX~ 1525 South Euclid 5treetp THE R-A ZONE TO ALLOW AaCOiIl~RCIALfPRODUCE~,BAfARKETronupropertyAd ecribedEasiTTADrectangu- lari: shaped parcel of land cansisting of approximately 14,48 acres located on the south- west corner of Euclid Street and Cerritoa Avenueo having approximate frontages of 65~ feet on Euclid Street and 955 feEt on Cerriros Avenueo and furtiier described as 1525 South Euclid Street, Property presently c2assified R-A~ AGRICULTURALp 20NE, Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location oi subject property~ uses estab- lished in close pror.imityo the exisr.ing zoning~ and presented slides of the produce stand before and after the alleged reconstruction, and then reviewed brief•ly tha history of the amendment to the Anaheim Kunicipal Code - R-:~ Zone relative to ~ermitted useso noting that the petitionero in February; 1963, had applied for a variance to permit ~igning in accord- ance with existing signs - howevero the Commission had approved this petition in parto granting unly one sign of a maximum of 20 square feet instead of the four signs xequested by the petitioner, and it was determined by the Commiasion that the lowest portion of the sign need not be 8 feet above the ground but could be located on the ground due to the fact that there were no sidewalks in the areap and the sign location would not create any hazards to the pedestrian public, However~ the petitioner appealed the action of the Planning Commiss:onB and in rtarch~ 1968o the City Council approved Variance No, 1949 to establish the four signs on the property as requested by the petitioner; that tiie produce stand in question had been in existence for approximately fifteen yearsp according to tlie curzent operator, anu the use was originally established prior to annexatian of this area into the City; that since tl~e property was zoned agricultural in the Countyp the R-A Zone was applied to the property and the agricultura2 use ~aas permitted to continue; that although the initial activity conducted at this stand was K;~Q sale of produce grown on the premise~' the use had changed over the years and a consi~:;xabie amount of the produce noca sold on the premises was imported from other suppliers anr! wc.Q not grown on the premiseso that during the laCter part of 19GSD it Uecame apparent to Lotn the Planning Commission and City Council that several produce stands located in the City were no longer engaged in che sale oi products grown on the premises but were, in facto full blown commercial produce markets merchandising a wide zange of agricu2tural produce not grown on tlie premises in competition with ]esicimate food markets that wer~ required to locate in commercial zones and develop in accordance witli the site development standards of those zones - consequently, these produce markers were deriving the same benefits as commercial stores wittiout lsaving to develop in accordance with the standards, `':~ 'r ~ -.a ''~e I ~ I Thereforep Mr, Roberts continued~ on February 11~ 1969p tlie City Council adopted Ordinance No, 2634 o~hich amended Section 18,16,030(4) of the Anaheim .Isni.cipal Coder pezmitting incidental sale of agricultural produce grown on tlie prsmises only in tlie R-A Zon~., and tl~is a~readment still pe~nit~Ed the farmer to sell the ~;roduce he grew cn itis property~ ss was or.iginally intended, and as a result of this amendment~ tl~e groduce stand on Euclid Street became a noncon=orming use and would be allowed to operate as scch fox a periud of ' P i .... ) . . !'^`'t =~`!C, I ~, '. ~::'~,8f l „A 'F':~ f ii 'viF TI~ ^1 ~ ' :'~: '~ ! \I } ~ 'N ~ \ ~ V j IfINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Decembex 29a 1969 4965 i VARIANC~ N0, 2144 - three yearso expiring in February~ 1972;, or sucli time as the City J~ (Continued) Council might granto before the use would have to be abated, ..; ~~ ,,. ~rs :ira Roberts noted that the petitioner had recently completed a "~"' substantial structural modification to the produce stand - thezeforeo the use no longer enjoyed its previous nonconforming status but was now an illegal use; thereforep in order '" for Mr. t•fargulieux to continue his produce activity it was necessazy to have a variance 3., % application approved to permit the produce marlcet as a legalo pe1'maz;pr~z use on the prop~n y, •"`r4~h~:~; ~ir, Roberts further noted that Tlra Diargulieux, the operator of the produce st:kd. obtained a building permit to re-roof the existing structure in the Building Department~ and tha ~, J Buildiag L`epartment representative asked if he fully understood the .fact that a re-roofing :~ permit only :.~as b~ing issued and no other construction could ba made on Lhe property and ~~~r~ received an affirmative response, However~ on Novembet 50 1969~ the Zoning Division was ;~ 'U notified by the Building Division that the old produce stand had been completely demolisaed ~:,; ;,Y;; and a new, 1800-square foot structurc liad been erected in ita place witliout oenefit of y~:~..,;,~9 permits or inspections~ and this aew structure consisted of an 1800-square foot~ con~rete ~s- ~~~ slab~ plywood sidin~ and roof and a new walk-in refrigerator boxe A"stop work order" was ~'., ;; issued by the Building Division~ and after Mr~ :~fargulieux appeared in the Zoning Division ':: requesting advice as to how to rectify his violationp tUe 2oning and Building Divisions of ~ ,`, the Development Services Department and the City Attorney°s Office representatives inspected the site on November 6, to determine what would liave to be doneo and advised 2•ir, :fargulieux ` that he could remain open until a deCern;i.nation had been made, As a result of this inspec- t; ; tion by the various City representatives„ it wae determined there were a nwn6er of viola- ~ S, tions of the Building~ Electrical~ Plumbing~ and liealth Codes of the City of Anaheim in ,L; addition to the Zoning Ordinance violation of the expansion of a nonconfoLming uae, It ~- was further noted that no permits had been iss~ed by the Building Division for otlier than " the re-roofing~ nor were any inspections made during the course o£ construction as was ~ no nnal when construction of this magnitude took place, +';~: ~; Thie staff £urther noted that as to the zoning violationp if the old produce stand had ~,;;~ remainede tiie petitioner could have operated his nonconforming use until February of 1972; ;J howevero because of the major changes nota apparent~ this now became an illegal use~ and +,. the petitioner no longer enjoyed his previous nonconforming statusa .~ 1 ~{ '`~ At the conclusion of the discussions t•Ire Roberts noted~ Tira Mar~ulieux had advised them i ~ V;i he had S1,500 worth of produce in tl~e stand which would spoil if he were not allowed to ~ A` remain open over the wa.eker.d; consequently~ the "order to comply" issued to Air, rtargulieux ' _j was extended to midnight~ No;rember 9p J.969o to allow time Co dispose of tl~e balance of the merohandiseo and lie was to remain closed until appropriate action was taken to establisl~ the produce stand as a lesalo permanent use, ,:+ t•ir~ Robertsp in reviewing Council action~ noted that the City Council on ,7ovember 12~ 1969~ had granted ?•fr. 2~fargulieux permission to continue Ciie use until a decision on the variance ~~ application *o legalize the existing market and establish it as a permanent use had been 'ti. made~ and that tlze Council furtiier required that Mr, :dargulieux make certain corrections and/or modifications to the structure in order to eliminate any immediate hazards to tiie safety and well-being of the puUlic patronizing the place of business - tltArefore~ the primary issue before the Commission was the matter of determining the appropriate land use for the property and should such a commercial use be permitted without having to comply with the various site development standards imposed on other commercial developments , _ located throughout the City; furthermoreo if the use were permitted to continue~ shouln it 4 be on a permanent basis or should a time limitation be established for such a use at this ~,,,," locatione Ilr, Herman tdarguliewtp 1525 South Euclid Street~ agent for the petitionero appeared before the Commission and noted that at the time he had made application to the Building Division for a re-roofing ~rmit which was granted wl~en Che old roof had been removed~ the entire produce stand collapsedD and all they had attempted to do was reconstruct said produce stand to accommodate the customers, However~ he had been advi.sed after the produce stand was almost completely rebuilt that he was in violation of t!:e Buil3ing Code, Furthermore~ since the Council had permitted l~im to remain open subject to reconstruction in accordance with sound bui133ng requirements which liad been appraved by Mr, King of the Building Divisiono he was of Lhe opinion he had met all the requirements - furthermoreo he had also received approval from the Health Department as to his operatione The Carnmission then inquired what type of produce was grown on tl~e 14 acres; vhereupon Mr, Marqulieux replied that squash was grown immediately behind the produce stand; that cabbage was grown on the Cer.ritos Avenue side~ and cauliflower was grown to the far t~est of the property, ~ ~~ ',:I ,,-, ~;~~ Mr, Margulieux reiterated the Eact that Aira Kin~ i~ad indicaCed tlie stand notir met the Code requirements, ~'~,,,,' .~, ~`'~ ~' - ~ -- - - - ~ ~.. ~. uir _ , ~ '~~'~,}. ~ ~ _~~ , ~' ~+~;e,+r ~~ ~~°c r rn~ ~ x ~ ~ ,vJ; ~5:ti~ ~+'~r , -- a,',. : F (~ ~ ~~ ` MINUTES~ ClTY PLANNING COt~iISSIONo Deaember 29e 1969 4966 ~ VARIANCE N0,_ 2144 -:ir, Roberts advised the Commission tiiat at the time the violation (Continued) of the various Bnildingo Electrical~ Plumbing~ Health and Zoning Codes was considered by the City Council~ the ~ouncil had permitted ,,r,, : Mr, Margulieux to continue operating his staud provided that all hazardous conditions which might affect the public be improvedo aud a structural engineer +,,' was employed by Mr, .fargulieuxo who gave him instructions as to the locatian of proper supports for the structure and depth to be placed under the roof which had to be met to {~ comply with Code, Howevero this was the only portion of the buildin~ which ,ire King had advised Mr, Margulieux had met the Building Department°s specifications - that all oti3er violations were stili in effect - therefore~ the only remedial action taken by Mro Margulieux was to comp3y with the requirement of tiie Ci;:y Council that tIie structure be improved so that it would not be hazardous to the general puUlico w r'.~y Chaixman Rowland noted that the Commission°s basic consideration on sub ect t! j petition was one of land use and th~ violations of the Building~ Plumbingp Electricalo and Health Codes ~,, was a matter which would have to be decided by another body9 and, thereforeo the Commission ~` ~oould decide on the proper land usee ' ~ A showing of hands indicated seven persons present in opposition to subject petition~ ,~~, Mrs~ Jack Da2eso 1727 llest Cris Streeto appeared before the Commission in opposition and preaented a petition signed by 49 persons residing in close proximity to sub~ect property and noted that their opposition was based on the fact that this was an improper use of the R-A zoned propertyo and strongly urged the Commission to deny tlie variance on ti~e basis that as individuals and as a group those opposed had the right to request that the City see ` thaC all tl~e laws are equally enforced; that the property owners in this area who had `' remodeled or built additions had been required to have building permits and conform with the buildingB healthe and eafe[y lawso and that continued disturbances were emanating from ; subject property - noise from delivery trucks delivering produce at odd hours, early • morning daily trash truck pick-upsp increased traffic, an electric generator running - ` =' which now was not in operation - the construction of the new structure duzing late evening hourso the unsightly structurep trash boxeso and other refuse piled in the back of the structure and along the tences~ dust from improper maintenance of the parking areaQ danger- ~a ous traffic conuitions caused by chaot~.c parking~ as well as unsafe entering and exiting9 s ii unsafe for pedestrians~ primarily the sclr~ol studenty who walked on that side of the atreet, and increased fly activity in warmer weather. Furthermore~ it was evident this was not a seasonaTy hom~-gro~,m fruit snd vegetable stand but was a full-fledged commercial operation jr and Che opera::or should conform to all safety 1aws; that it was an unfair use of a competi- tiveo free enterprise aystem wherein the petitioner could operate against all other markets ~ and not comply with City requirements and zoning laws; and that tl3e ar~uments which were ~ utilizQd when the City enacted Ordinance No, 2634 establishing that only produce grown on ';~ the premises could be sold on the property was designed to protect the ~ agafast increased use of existin property owners g properties adjacent to them~ and the ordinance should be ;~ eaforced as set forth by the Ci~y Council. 2~fr, Frank Clayton~ 1516 South Euclid Street~ appeared before ttie Commission in opposition and noted he was one of the owners of the C-1 property immediately to tlie east of subject property; that if subject petitioa were approved permitting the commercial operation in the it-A Zonee then t:~e Commission should require that the petitioner comply with all tiie site developrent standards of the C-1 Zone; and Chat if the petitioner :~ere a1loGed to go ahead saithout complying with tl~ese standards~ which in his estimation were extremely important, then this same privilege siiould be granted him for his property _ even though dedication had been made~ there were still a number of improvements aeeded before his property met the site development s[andards, Furthermore~ to grant subjecC petition without requiring that the property and use be brought up to minimum standaYds would be ~ranting the peti- tioner a privilege not enjoyed by other agricultural properties throughout the City, Dir, Ben Lujan, 1709 West Cris Avenue~ appeared before the Commiasion in opposition and stated his rear yard was immediately adjacent to the barn and fruit stand under considera- tion; that Uis primary complaint was the unsanitary and cluttered appearance which could be seen from l~is rear yard; that there was considerable dust and noise from the projecz, and pictures z~hich he had taken of the operation indicated the piling of debris against his property line; that a so-cal2ed outdoor bathroom facility was in full view~ just a few feet from his property 2s well as his neiglibor°s property; that liis family had been unablc to en3oy their rear yard for the usual outdoor eating because of tlie flies coming from sub~ect property as well as the noise and dust; that children of the customers who were playing t}iere sahile their parents purchased the produce were very destructiveo throwing items into his yard and injuring his children; that he had advised the operator of the produce stand the walk-in refrigerator was dangerous~ not only to his children Uut to many chil3ren in the neighborliood who could be seriously or fatally affected if they gained entrance to tlie walk-in refrigeraLOr; that he i~ad made a number of attempts to urge tlze owner and operator of ti~is produce stand to clean up the property and :~ave some type of a fence erected so that he and his family ~~ould not be suUjected to viewing tl~e unsi~:iCli- ness of liis ~roperty• Clxat 1 1 d ~ ~ ,«.~~ ;~ I ~ :T ~~i ;~ ,.;~ 9 , ie ia held further discussions c~ith tlrs, Rannow regarding tiie 3• 9 _ ~ ~ ,. ', ~~ . ~ n - - . _ -_- ----- ~! ~... _ t , . ---- . . {~:.. .an... ~ ... :... . .) . ~.~ . _,. . :. . . .., . . . _ . . r„ .: ~ ~ . i . ~. ~. . _ .. . . ~. ~ ' , _ ~~. ... ~ . ~+C. ~`~ n_~„ ~ y..M ~ i d ~ `a-':S l 1~ ~ ' 3INUT ~ . ES~ CITY PLANNING CO.~d1ISSI0No December 290 1969 `~4967 + VARIA.vCE ?70, 2144 - (Continued) fenceo but she gave I~im no indication tiiat tt~e situation would be remedied and only stated that she would talk with the operator; that he currently had a chainlink fence on his properCyo and even .--x, . ~ petitioner s property if he put up a 6-foot masonry wallo the for several da s at a ti large trucks parked on the ~ up and the lights from y me and the manner in which crates were piled evening operation could not be hidden; and th t h {~ ..=;;''`;'.:. sliould be subjected .to home< all tltese offenses when one considered a e did neC fcel he tlie price l~e paid for h~s Mr, Aiargulieuxp in rebuttaTo stated that the lot on which the produce stand'was located was nowhere.near rfr, Lu~an's property line; tiiat to his knowledgc they had not piled debris against his fenc2 - l~owever~ if anything on the property was offensive to him, he would be glad to correct these problems aince lie had never "backed off" when people asked tliat lie improve the property. Furthermorep if the Commission requested,he wou2d blacktop the area where the velticles parked and provide fencing - however~ this would be done only if the Commission required it as a condition of approval~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst noted from personal inspection~ picturea presented by tl~e staff? and the Reporl to the Commission it would appear the petitioner had violated many of the City of Anaheim's ordinances as to land use~ building code violations~ etc,; thEreforeo it was obvious the Commission had no alternative but to deny subject petition since if tl~e agent for the petitioner was desirous of continuing his operation~ the property sl~ould be re- classified to the C-1 Zone and comply with all the site development standards of said zone, However, if the agent had continued within the confines of the Anaheim Municipal Code~ subject petition would not have been necessary~, but upon v3ewing the property at the Commission°s morning field inspe~tiono it would appear all the produce sold at this stand was grown off the premiseso which was in direct violation of Code requirementsA and th~t since this produce stand had been converted into a permanent commercial operation~ tlie C-1 site development standards would have to be enforced as .they pertained to parking. screet widening, improvementso elimination of outdoor storage~ dust~ lighting~ etc, Coir,~nissioner Gauer noted that the agent for the petitioner had 3~een before the Commission several times in tlie past~ and each time the Commissian informed him he would have to conform with Code requirements; hosaever~ from past apgearances. the agenCjoperator of the produce stand was un~rilling to comply~ and where formerly this zaas a nonconforming use~ by reconstruction of tne stanc~ Che petitioner had now created an illegal use, Cammissioner Herbst again noted that the structure he liad seen was a nonconforming structure of a permanent nature; that lighting with cords outside was hazardous; that toilet facilities were outdoors~ which was in violation of the Ilealth Code; and all af theae thinga were prohibited t~ everyone else in the City except on a temporary basis, Assistant City Attorney :ohn Dawson advised the Commission tliat the petitioner liad a non- conforc~ing use in the temporary stand; however, when the use was expanded by the complete reconstruction of tl~e stand+ it became an illegal use and could not be treated in tlie same manner. Mre Robertss in response to Commission questioning~ stated tliat he was under the impression that the new structure was larser than the old structure; whereupon t•[r~ Piargulieux advanced to the podium and adviaed the Comniseion that tlie structure was 14 feet smaller than the original one, P!r> Dawson further advised the Commission that if it was their desire to deny subject petition~ the petitioner could appeal to the CiCy Council~ and his right to operate the produce stand would be in effect during this appeal period; depending upon what the City Council decided~ Che petitioaer would have ample time for winding up his business, *Ir. Dawson furttier advised the Commission that in tl~eir deliberation consideration of economics and hardship could not be consideted by the Commission, However~ if the Commis•- sion determined that subgec= petition should be approvedD then all the requirements of the site development standards of the commercial zone~ including dedication, should be made a part os the approval~ ~- Commissioner Camp noted that as a matter of record and as a findin~ according to the documentation submitted by the Development Services Department, at the present time the ; ~ structure now in existence~ which was reconstructed~ had fifteen different violations of the Uniform Building C~de* four of the Uniform Plumbing Coda, two of the Electrical Code~ five of tiie Sanitary Codeo and was also in violatioi: as to land use since he was operat~ng and selling produce not grown on the premises, ' *;. ~; Commissioner Thom noted that the operator had been at this location for the last fifte~.~ ' years; that altiiougli this was formerly a nonconformins usee it had now turned into an ;;: I - - - ._.__ ~ ~ ,:. .~ . . . - ,~ a 1; . :; -. ~,~3.~,~ s. . .~. .~ ~ ':. .c ~ ~ ay..'y~7"fS,~'l~.J~v ~_~"F~'.S °"'~y.'r~p~,a/'LG1"Y1..3'~.'"r i . '`~ .3"~a k 4Tf*'d y, r ~~ ~ 0. a^a- tN ~ 4 A f2_S"`~»i ~'~ @Sf ~''` rit , C, .,. ~ '.;~, 'i'~* ~ . i. ~ ~ f . . . _~ ~ ~ E ~ ~l ~ ~ ~ ~ MLNUT S~ CITY PLANNING C02IIfISSIONo December 29Q 1969 4968 4 z VARIANCE ::0, 2144 - illegal use due to the fact that the petitioner had reconstructed (Continued) h n ~ ,K t e e tire stand, and it was his inherent right to file the variance ~`• to be considered for approvalp and the City Council requested that ~ tliis be maintained or brought up to the Uniform Building Code - hawever~ the Commission could not go alon with th i l ~ g e v o ations as set fortho even thougl~ the produce stand had been tliere for the past fifteen ears ~ ~ ~ y , .Y Commissioner Allred noted that the new facility had Ueen increased considerably; therefore, it became an illegal use , xE , . ,;~ Commissioner lierbst offered Resolution No, PC69-261 and moved for its passage anc' adoption to deny Petition for Varia ' ,°i~ j nce No, 2144 on the basis that the petitioner had violated numerous City of Anaheim ordinancea relating to land i i' ' ~ " use~ IIu lding~ Plumbing~ Electricalo and Health Codes in the reconstruction o£ the market structure; that an operation such a ;, ~ ~ ~ s that presently existing on subject property should be located in the commercia.l zone and should b ~ w ~~ e subject to all the commercial site development standarda as they pertained to parking~ street improvements signs lightin and l ~ , o o g~ sa es and storage in an enclosed build- ing; that approval af subject petition could establish a precedent wherein all C d o es and Ordinances of ti~e City of Anaheim could be by-passed and negated; that there ! = ~:<; were no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the int d d ~ ~ en e use that did not apply generally to the property or class of use in tlie same vicinity; and tl~at the ' ~~ requested variance was not necessar Eor the Y preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property ri ht ossess d b i ,~ g p e y other properties in the same vicinity and zone and denied to the property in question, (See Resolution Book) f ! ` ~; On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ ~t ~; i ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERSY Allredo Campo Gauerp Herbst, Thom~ Rowland, ; ~ ..;~'. NOESY COMMISSION~RS: None, E ' ~ ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: Farano, ! ti; ~ ~ ~~' VARIANCE N0, 2145 - PUSLIC HEARING, C.Ii,R, ~ o INC,, c/o Walter Chaffee, P, 0. Box 112~ ~5.,,.:;,,s Fullertono California~ Owner; VERI~ TRIDER AND EUGENE BRIESEMEISTER~ ~' ~~ 215 North Anaheim Boulevard~ Anaheim, California, A~ent; requesting ~ ,:} permission to ESTABLISIi A FREE-STANDING SIGN IdITH WAIVERS OF 1) HEIGFiT .~ FR0~1 A RESIDENTZAL STRUGTURE~ AN~ (3) DISTANCE FROM AN EXISTING ROOF SIGNCon p~ropert~y ~ ti ;;~ , described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land located at the northeast corner of ' 'I : Lemon Street and Anaheim IIoulevardo consisting of approximately la3 acres~ and ha~ing ` ~ approximate Erontages of 368 feet on Anaheim Boulevard and 95 feet on I.emon Street~ and 7 ~ Eurther described as 1044 North Anaheim Boulevard, Pro ert GENERAL C0.1-'~RCIAL~ ZONE, P y presently classified G2p ; ~ M { ~ F~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat lirown reviewed the location of sub ect ~ ,b ~ ~ established in close proxiraity~ and the proposal to erect a 35-foot high,~310tsquareSfoot ~ ~. free-standing sign on subject property near the intersection of Anaheim Boulevard and • Lemon §treet and approximately 70 feet south of the north property line; that due to the ~ ; fact khat an occupied residential structure was located within 250 feet from the proposed ~ ~{ . location of this sign on the west side of Lemon Street~ the waiver of the l~eight was . necessary; tliat the sign would also be located within 275 feet of an existins roof sign ~ located on top of one of the small structures located on sub~ect property; that another j~. roof sig~e existed within 80 feet of the requested sign - however, this was proposed to be ~ removed~ and two sma21 fzee-standing signs~ one ou the Lemon Street frontage and one on the Anaheim Doulevard frontage~ were also proposed to be removed if subject petition were , .'~ avProved, A:re Brown noted that a fence approximately 8 feet high existed across the major portion of the rear of subject propertyp and attached to tl~e top of this fence were three separate signs running tUe entire length of the fence~ providing approximately 900 to 1~000 square feet of display area~ and in a similar situat;ion several years ago the Commission, in denying the request of McPeek Plymouth Company at the southeast corner of Anat~eim Boulevard and Ball Roado noted that the sign constituted a free-standing sign with an area three to four times that permitted by Codeo and the request before the Commission was similar in naturee ~v rfr, Brown also noted that due to the fact that this residential structure was located witliin = 300 feet of tlie proposed signp although the remaining uses in this area were commercial or ,I '. industrial in nature~ tiie 25-foot l~eight restriction would be necessary~ and~ thereforee the Commission would have to determine whether tliere was 3ustification for the proposed height waiver; that the Commission would also have to determine the ~ustification of the ~.~ request of minimum distance between the proposed free-standing sign and the existing roof R, sign~ as well as tUe free-standing signs attached to the fence to the rear of the property ~ aince Code permitted a minimum of 300 feet between free-standing and .roof signs, and the petitioner was proposing 275 feet; and that Uased on previous action taken on a similar '_i - ,i ; , ... ~ _ ~ s , ~ ~ ~ - W~~~. . T,. w n-~~: ~ - . . . . . . S .. , ~. _ ~ . ~ ^v r M r .' dzf , Hr a ~ ~ "F'r ...a~~ ~^ Z#"•~ .`, ij ~ . t , ~. .n ~ K~~ . a *, i `l,~ , < <~ r ~ .~ " . . :. •~ wM1 ~~ ~~`" . '.. • _ 'T ) '~ ~ h .i~ ~~ ~..~.oe~ ....~,~ r .,~ ~~ ~ ~ ' ~~~ ~ ~ • + ' MIi~IUTES~ CITY PLANNING COIIIIISSIONq December 240 1969 4969 ~ ~ ~i y~ VARIANCE NOe 2145 - sign on wallsp the Commission may wish to consider requ~ria~ ~'ne ;~ (Continued) elimination of these three free-atanding signs attachad r.o•r,h~ f.ence :=w and requase that all other signing on the property be hzough~ tiicn :;;;~H conformance with the Sign Ordinance if subject petitio~t o~~,~c ,s~provede Mr. iugene Briesemeister~ agent . for the petitioner~ appearg 1 be£or.~ the C(%,~~„jCi;~{~ ~d ~? note~d that prior to requesting aubject petition tl~ey had condu;.ted ball_cyo~,t r~,Es .o deter- mine the exact is,;.,ight necessary for the ~.r~srer ident3.Lication of subjre;;t p~r~~perty; tY.at '; ' the request €ur. the pole sign was to pr~;r;ida i:ais identificatioa foz~ tt~a Rtr.tomobile agency - y , ~+ e su though a xesidence was within 300 fe~~,. all pzoperties in this, gei:.e:~~7. area were ' either commerci.al or 3ndustrial in character; that they planned to leave *_iae roof siEn at >~ ita preaent loeat3on; that the signs which were attachad to t:he fence h,ave been there for '~ some timeo and he had diacussed t~3s ~rith the general manager oE the op~erz~eion~ who '+~r~ expressed rht desire to retziZ tiiese si s• that th~e ~~ present owner of r°ne property had j ,`'~ taken o.r:: *_tn: operatior, frum a rasn who had been in Chis ope.ration ~c~x 31 years an~! since ' then :.ad exp~zieu.cpd a considerable loss in business; that th~fe was :s hardship based on economics =;~he::~fazep they were attempting ta eliminate •chrs 2oss of bei.siness by getting proper id~~.tit_;ctian; that many s.ructu•ces in this area blocked off vlsibility of subje:ct ; ptoperty due to i?ie fact that 9naheim Boulevard angled at 90 degrees 2;o meet Lemon Strn.et; ! thaC the p~o,crsed hEi~ht would be visiblE from all directions and a q~sarter of tl~e signa. ° now ~n the psvpert~ aould be xemoved; that t.he petitioner had 9z~rnt c.onsiderable money i n ~ . cleaning up the nroperty; that every attempt hE.~ 'i~een made C,,~ try to remain within the confines of the Sign Ordinance -'however, the laeight and lo4dCion oi this frae-standing sign was necassary; and that in order to give aa ides ~f ~he loss in volume of business ~ it had reduced to less t:~an one-;.aird of the quantity set up by Lhe automobile dealership far th::~ n~mber of vehicles co be sold. - ^;, No ona appeared in opposition to subject petition, THE HEARING tiJAS CLGSED, I Discussion wa~ lield by the Commission regarling the requF;st to maintain ~iie signs on the fence~ it being tlatermined tliat to ~rant this would be f;ranting ,^.•he petiti~~ner a privilegF• not afforded othsr automobile agerac~es thr.oughout the City, Commissioner Herbst offered Resolutian Na, P.C6.S-262 and mov~d ~or iis passage and adoptior to grant Petitioix for Variance No, 2:;~i5 f.or the heigl~t: and :acati!:r. ~~f ttie proposed Free- standing sign anfl requiring the elim',.n.~}~s;1 of alI feiace stgns on.-, the uasis that the Commissionp in tne past~ tiad denied :iza~tl:ar fence signs detr+.rmining they were large, fre.e- standing s~gns~ and that waiver of tkie Sign Ordinance was L•ased on the fact tliat proper~ ties in this general vicinity enjoyed the same ri~Iits ay the petitioner was asking for~ and sub~ect to conditions, (See Resulutto±: 13ook) On t,;:1 call ciie foregoing reso~ution was passed by the following vote: AYE^.: COit,SI5SI0NERS; Allred~ Camp~ Gauer; HerUst~ Tho~a~ Rowland, iv0.E5: COrL~fISSIONE?t5; None, 1~I3;iENT~ CGDff•fISSIONERS: Taranoo VARIANCE NOe 2146 - PUBLTC IiE1RINGa .fAD~~ INC,~ 55i1 East Zincoln Avenue~ Cypress~ Californiao Ownef•~ FEDERAL SIG^I ~ SIGNAL CORP, ~ 303.6 Soutl~ Oak Street~ Santa e1~~ao Cal~furnia, Ager~t; requesting permisat.on to wtiIVE THE PfAXI14UM SIGN HEIGHT 41i'!'FiIN 3,r'J FEET OF RESIDEHTIAL US~'S on ~,roperty devcribed as: An irregula;ly sha~ed par~el oi land haviug.a frontage of appruximately 178 £eet on the north $ise oE Ball Road, t~aving a: maxi..mum depth o,~ approximately 250 feeto and being lacated approximatel~ 470 feer east of the centerline of IIeaciz 13oulevard~ and fu.t.Yer described .as 2951 West Sall Road, ?roperty presently elassi;iied C-1~ GENERAL CO;~fERCIAL~ 20NE, As:t.;~tant 2oniu~ Supervisor Pat Brown reL•iewed the location oi subject property, uses established in cLose proximityo and e~~i:fting zoning on the property~ noting that .the petitir~ner was proposing to erect a 57-foot high~ free-standing si~n in rxunt of ti~e Sumitomo Bank lucated on suUjecc property; that the p~;oposed sign would ax,tend up tiirough tbe overh3ng canopy zoofline of ti~e bank structur,e hut wouI.d be supported by its own po3. ; xatiier than by ehe roof of the .;truuture icaelf; !.,i~a;. as a result of R-3 zoned property laca.ted within 140 feet to the north an1 R-1 psoperty J.~cated wii!~in 2$9 feet to the e.ast, the iseighC o£ this proposed si.gn w~uld Ue Ii,aited to 25 feet by :.ode; tiiat the display area per face•would be approximately 334 square feet; ~;iiat the propused free-standing sign was inc~oded to replace an, existing i25-square foot~ 31-foot liigii rooi sign presently loeated on the roof of the Uan;c struature; .iiat :~u ~•cistin~, iut~grated, siiop+inE center free-standin& ~ipn iaas located on C e IIall Road frontage in front of tiie small shopping center just eas; cf tlie bt~n~c proPzr~/ - howeverp this ::•lgn was located on a separate parcel of land from subject property~ ever. thougii ~hesa two signs wou:d be only 4:~r~~--_'-i"~NPF.*l~'~ . r.~f~~.~ - ~~ ~~- '= µ ' ~.~ ,r,"'ml''~ .. _ . . ~ ~ . '~F r`,+~. '~ 2';~~ 'w3Y ~' t~ }:~. W~~~ r ur" ,~'~~ ~,,;: ~ i._ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PyANNZNG COiL~~SSION, December 29 196 9 V ° 49 70 ~IARIANCE N0, 2146 - 128 feet apart; that tl~e applicants had,indicated tl~e primary (Gontinued) reason for requesting a liei ht a S ppraximately 32 feet in excess of that permitted Uy Code was to provide more complete exposure not only to 13a11.Road but also to Beach Boulevard for the bank facility; and tliat in Julyp 1466, the Planning Commission approved a 42-foot high roof sign ~.ocated on the shopping center at the southeast cort~er of Ball Road and ]3eaci3 Boulevard. even though this sign was also r~str3,cted by Code tb a maximum of 25 feet in. height as a result of, res3dential properties located within 300 feet~ and the existing roof siign was or.+.sently sligiitly over 31 feet in height would also Iiave been restricted to a?5-f~~ot height by Codeo but it was erected prior to the adoption of the Sign Ordinance, Th~reforeo the primary question before the Commission was wl~ether or not the proposed height of 57 fernt was a reasona; request and what effects such a hei~lit would liave on residential uses to t:he north and ea• ~ven though a business hardship had been indicated by the peti- tioners~ it was doubr,ful this was a sufficient justification for the heiglit requested, ~~u, Merrill Scotto representing the Fedaral Sign 5 Signal Corporation, agent for the p~titiuner~ appeared before [he Com,~ission and noted that in tl~e slides presented by the staff t;e +~~~ un~able to locate the exiating roof sign; that the proposed sign tivas a re- placement of.' the a:;±sting sign wliich had no exposure to Beach Boulevard, a hea~ily traveled street~ and was ~;ieib):e only from Ball Road, said sign having a very minimal exposure, Commissianer Gau:= inter,jected that he had been on l~each Boulevard a number of times and w~:•~ always able ~a see the e:sisting si~n siace it was larger than otlser signs in the area~ except for the incegrated sliopping center sign. blr, Scott furth.er noted that with existing trees and power lines~ tlie existinb Si•aTl was not yisible~ and because of poor esposure to tlie general gublic, it }~ad been detrimental to the success of the banking business at tlris locations Thereforeo there must ltave been sume reason wny additional customers were unaUle to identify the location of the bank, Plr, Scott aiso noted that the bank had a 25-year lease on the building; that the proposed sign wouli l~ave interior lighting display with a slata-colored background and only the 'etters and border illuminated; that a temperature and time unit wo~lld be placed below ,.:ne illuminated,sign; and tiiat the sign would r.ot be visibi~ Uy the apartment residents to tlie nortla uf sub~ect property, No one appeared in opposition to suUject petiti.on~ THE FIEARING WAS CLOSED, Diacca.s9i5n was held by thE Commission relative to the propo~ed request, noting tliat ttie peticioner did have a hard~hip and a valid reason for requeSCing a changr: in the signing of their property because ~f poor exposure; that this was a comn:on proU].em :~rith banks wherein they iiad to erect their signs up to GO ~ee~ in height in order to oUtain exposure and identification; that the existing Uank a~as ,c-:d asset to the cominunity a:.,i~ therefore~ should be granted some relief from their. hardsli.+,~„ Commissio:.~-.r Herbsr, e::press~u concern that ti~e proposed sign would be 26 feet liigher tl::z the existing one, an,: this would have a harmful effect on al? .,f the residential usas~ as well as setting a precedent Eor similar zequests wherein signs were pxoposed in close proximity to rasidences; that the argument presented was tiie same c~icne as iiad been aonsidered befc>e by tha Commis~ion~ namely~ tnat when busineas was not booming, then additional signing and increase in height was deemed the most logical tt;ing t~ ~10 _ therefore~ the Comraission would have to determine how high was high as; it pertained to the signing of vaiious businesses, kurtl~ermoreo the existing sign was :me eisac was poor.,ly done in the first p.lace, Cammis~ioner Thom notec;i~is opposition was not to bank signs as much as other signs which ware much mo*e flamboyant, After continued discu3sion relative to [he heighC of the sign proposed and that which should be approved~ the Commi3sion finalZy determined tliat a 50-foot maximum height would be more sign affering exposure torbotlzneastcand~westrBa115Roadctrafficya d anylaeachalloul_face traffic, evard Commiasioner Thom offered ResoZution ;7c, PCG9-2G3 and moved for its passs~e and a.doption to deny the requese of Petition for Var3ance ,Io, 2146 for a 57-foot 1~+. that signing with a 50-foot high sign was adequate~ a«d then recommended that saidilpetition be approved fcr a maximum hei~ht of 50 fi~et, subJect• to COAtI~ClOtlgo (See 3esalution 13ook) On roll call the fore~oi.n~ resolution wrss passed by tiie fallowing vote: AYES; COI•QtISSIOyERS: Allredp Camp, Gauer, Herbsto Tlioin< NQESt CO:II~fISSIONERS: Ro~aland, ABSENT; CQ24MISSIONERS: Farano, ,.. , ~~,~ ~ -,°------- - ..: , . ,. , , • ~ ..~` „_. ,:, _ >: ,, ~ . . _ . ~` . c~ ~~ c ~ TIINUTES~ CITY PLANNIVG COMFIISSION~ Decemb~r 290 1969 4971 VARZANCE N0, 2146 - Commissioner Fowlando in voting no~ stated that..a similar request (Continued) by a bank at the southeast corner of State College Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue had been considered by the Commission and denied on the basis that the Commission was not interested in economics and fiscal policies of a request but ia *.he proof of hardsliip and land-use, RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC IiEARING. KWIKSETp DIVISION OF EPfHART CORP.~, 516 East Santa Ana N0. 69-70-32 Street, Anaheim~ California' Owner; requesting:tUat property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately side of South Street~3located~betweengOlive~andgOransepStreets,eandlhavOngeatmaximum depth of approximately 150 feet, be reclsssified from the R-3, TIULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTZAL~ ZOtJE to the M-1~ LIGFiT INDUSTRIAL~ ZONE, ~: ~ Assistant Zonins Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location o: subject pro~erty~ uses ~` ~ established in cloae proximitye and the zoning action which classified subject property ~,, '- to tlee R-3 Zone~ noting that the balance of the 20-acre parcel had.been owned by ti~e ~ Y Kwikset Corporation for a number of years, and it was their intent to develop the total ~ r parcel for industrial purposes in phases over the next several years - however, they had K assumed that the sautherly 150-foot portion already was zoned industrial~ and not until -: they had submitted a plan of development for this portion of property were they a~aare of ~ this; that the Anaheim General Plan-1969 indicated tl~e entire area northerly of South ,; Street lying between Olive Street on the west and the Atchison~ Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad A~~, right-of-way and Santa Ana Street and lJater Street as being appropriate for industrial , ;~~ uses - therefore the requested zoning would appear ru be a 1 ppropriate, ~ The petitioner indicated his pr~:sence and availabiii;.y to answer questions, ~ A letter of o ~ pposition from Mrs, Eileen *faass, 516 East South Street~ was read to ttie ~ w Commission, indicating her opposition to further encroachment of industrial uses into the ri residential properties to the soutl~ and creating further noise and danger to the school ~ ~ cliildren since an elementary scliool had been constructed for some time on the soutl~ side , ;~ of South Street, Commissioner Gauer noted that a number of years ago when i~e was Superintendent of Scliools in deference to Mrs ` Maass nd h '~ , , a ot er people present in the Council Chamber~ at tlie xime the school purchased the property the entire parcel w R ~ as -A and a very large public hearing was held in the Fremcnt School~ at which time the residents of th ~ e area wUo went to tl~e IIroadway School expressed their opiaions; that the property where the existing elementary school was now located on So th S ~~ u treet was purchased in 1948 at $2,500 per acre, and the ~ prope:ty cn the opposite side of the street was purchased after the school went in~ and the reason the property was zoned R-3 was to prevent further :i-1 e n s xpa uses sion of industrial outherly of South Street; that the school was dedicated in 1951 the R-3 and i ~ ~ zon at the time ng was established on the propn_rty~ the then owner o: Qwiksete ~fr~ adolph ~ Schoeppee was fully aware f h o t e zoning which had taken place on subject pro ert ~ P Y• , ~ D!r< Roy Bolt~ President of Kwikset Corporati.on~ appeared before the Commission and noted tiiat they had made a very detail d i ` e nquiry into thi~ situation because up until a few weeks ago it was assumed tliat the property liad 'rI-1 zonin th } g; at ie liad becone a memUer of tiie organization in 1957, and wtien they merged caith the Emh C art orporation subject property was ; leased as ~i-1 property and acted as the potential expansion of their the ti complex - liowever~ at ! me the property was purchased no plans of development raere available; that the ~ 150-foot cvide stri would h p c an~e the complexion of the entire 20-acre parcel if residential uses were permitted to develop since additional setback b s and uffering would have to be provided~ reducing consid'erably any expansion thoughts the c '~ ompany might have; that the type of industrial uses they pianned for the South Street frontage would b insulated ~ e completely so that noises would not be harmful to the residential groperty on the south side of South Street if th I e required 25-foot setback were f~:lly landscapedo which would be a distance of approximately 100 feet between th e residential structure and the indusCrial structure; that little additional traffic would be add d e to South Street than already ' existed since most of tl~e traffic emanated from businesses to th t ~ e east of the railroad racks; and that if sub~ect petition were denied~ it would split the iiidustri l d a property from normal evelopment and possibly not be developed at all. Commissioner Gauer noted tha~ ;r, Schoeppe had come to elnalieim in 1942 with the Qwikset 1 Corporation and the reas h , on e was emphasizing this fact was because of the many phone ' calls he had received from t:ie r p operty owners on the south side of South Street who were fully aware of the fact that he not only was o h I n t e Plannizg Commission but was also the purchasing agent for the school district; that he did not feel ttiere would be tou difficult a problem if this occurredo provided~ however,~ that the buildin scapin setb w k g g ac ere provided, and adequate land- i -.:a~.~'.~..~'*~'~" ~ ~ - ~ ~- . ~. . .. . ,. .... ` ~. ., . _ . '~},y, ~, ;~ .. . _ . . . . _. _ .. ~.,: .. ._ ., . .,.,: .. . . .~.<: .. . . ,... . ,,... . ., •'- `~-d" ~ ~~ ' . . .. ,.. i :.. . . .. , : ~,::.,- . . z. .~ ~ rf y ~~ ~~~ {~ i~'~~ .~.~ ~~ . ~' ^~# ~l S F~` ~~S. ~::•s1Y PLANNI.IG CO.~¢fISSION, Decemba~'2'9~ 196g ~`~ ~~ ~ 4972 ,,>; RECLASSIFICATION - The Commission then inquired as to the type of Lrucking service ~ ~,~`r ; NOe 69~70-32 and number of trucks that would be using Soutl~ Street to enter `~ ~~ sub3ect property if the request for hi-1 zoning were approved. ~~ i•ir. Bolt replied that truck service would be very minor, and litt:.e ~ ,~ would be affecting the eouth side of Soutli Street; tliat tank trucks taould bring suppl_ies ,r~ , in aPpr~ximately once every three monthse ~s ~ i Commissioner Gauer noted that if the property owners on the souta side of South Street ~~~4~ •. were assured tliere would be adequate buEfering and that the development wou13 aot degrade ~ ~ Ch~ street~ thare would aot be as much o ' pgositian, . 3; ~i TIiE IiEARING WAS CLOSEDo :` ~~ . ,,.~.,7~ ~~ Commissioner :Allred off~red Resolution No~ PCG9-2G4 and moved for its passage and adoption s ;'k; to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Iteclassification No. 69-70-32 be y ~ approved~ subjcct to cnnditions~ aad the finding that a more exceptable buffer between ; residential and industrial uses was the widtli of a street and to recommend denial of =~ suUject petition requiring development with multiple-family residential uses which would i establish an incompatible situation where~n ad~oinins industrial uses would create noises, ~' odotss hours of operationo lights~ etc, which would be detrimental to the residents, ;,.. . ,-. (See Resolutioa Book) , ~., ; On roll call t;ie foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~, ~ AYES: WAPiISSIONERS; r111-ed~ Camp~ Herbst~ Thom~ Rowland, NOES: C0.~4ffSSI0NERS: Gauer, ? ..,.,:r;l~ 9BSENT; COTIl`fISSIOVERS; Parano, .-.!:~ Commissiouer Gauero in voting nop stated that since l~e was involved in the origiaal zoning, '~ as well as being purchasing agent for the school property on the south side of South Street~ a vote of "aye" would be contrary to the original reasons for establishing the R-3 Zone. REPO1tTS AND - ITEw I•f Np. 1 RECOI~fENDATIONS Orange, r,;cunty Use Variance No. 6358 (Dr, I•tax Gatov) - Property locat.ed on the south side of Lincoln Avenue~ approximately 810 feet west of Brookhurst Street - Request to waive required setback on Lincoln Avenue; erect a free-standing, double-faced sign extending intc the public right-of-way on Lincoln Avenue; :utd to expand an existing 232wnit apartment development with 32 additional units. {' Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown ~ presented tu the Planning Commission Orange County ~ Use Variance Noa 6358,~~aoting the location ~f the property, existing zoning being the Caunty "Local Business Aistrict~ the requested waiver of th? required front setback from the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, the request to pezmit a double-faced~ free-standing sign which would extend inta the public right-of-way of Lincoln Avenue~ and the numerous waivers whiclt ivould be applicable if the development were based on the City of Anaheim site development standards of the multiple-family residential zone~ namely: 1~ Land area per dwellin unit 2, Off-street ,narking (required`48qsiaces1200 sq. ft.; proposed 1075 sq, ft,) 3. Tlinimum dwe2lin unit size P . Pro~osed 44 spaces) 8 (required 700 sq. ft~; proposed 384 sq, ft. - sin~le aud , 57G sq. ft, - one bedroom) ` 4, 2linimum yard deptL (required 20 and 38 Et.; proposed 8 and 24 ft.) ' 5. 24inimum turning radius of veIiicular accessway (required 25 ft~; proposed 24 ft,) 6, ~iinimum front setUack alon~; Lincoln Avenue (required 35 feet• 7~ Maximum size of a sign advertisin~ a~artments for rent ~ Proposed 25 feet) proposed 100 sq~ ft,) (permitted 20 sq, ft.; 8e *t~.;-i.mlmt building height (permiited 2 sCOries; proposed 3 stories) 9, Trash areas (none ar.e shown on the plans) 10, ~faximum number of main structures (permitted 2 buildings; prc~posed 3 buildings) Pir~ Brown further noted that tl~e Anaheim Gcneral Plan-19G9 projects this area as being appropria[e for futura commercial use; tltat developmenC on bo2h sides of Lincoln Avenue in this general area has been cor,mnercial in character; that the zoning wnuld be inappro ri- i' ate since the City of Anaheiu~ would require multiple-family residential zoning rathcr than commercial zoning; and that due to the many variances from the City of Anal~eim site ' development standards~ it would a ? ppear that the property was being overdeveloped, There- fere~ the staff was recomraending that t:ie Planning Commisaion recommend denial of subject request to the Orange County Planning Commission. Commissioner A1?red eEfered a motion to recotr~uend to the City Council that tlie Orange County Planning Commission be urgec~ to deny Orange rounty Use Variance vo, G358 on the w.,~,~-+~~ F rt t.~f"~'_~z~t ~:,~~~ ~L'~,M 4~~~`3~'~~'yY,~Y ," ~ti.' E lt ; `Y2'~.^ F+ ,z,.. s ~~ ~$71.'~ ~ '~'~ . . . . ~ ' ~ . _'_.'.... ~._.._~ .__ qJ~u ~ ~z ~,/ J (_~ '~ TnNUTES ~ CIi'Y PLAPNIVG COiL'fISSION o December 29 v 1969 ~ 4973 ~<~. BEPORTS AND RECOhlMENDATIONS - ITEM N0, 1 (Continued) basis that the surrounding properties have been developed for commercial purposes; that all properties developing along Lincoln Avenue irs the City of anaheim have been required to maintain the 3'•~f~~t-ouilding or structural aetback; that the numerous variances from the site development standards of the City of Anaheim's multiple-family residenCial ~ zones would indicate the petitioner ~aas overdeveloping the property; aud that a free- ~fi standing~ douUle-faced sign way proposed whicIt far exceeded the area of that permitted ?-`;fi to advertise apartments in the City, Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. :~fOTION '~~r CAREtIED, ;._,,~_,~y :~~ ' , ~; ITE:~p~ 2 '' ~ f ~ m Orange County Use Variance vo. 6363 (Pacific Outdoor Advertisi ~; ~~ ~ ~ ng Co,) - Property located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue a i ~ y; pprox caately 1~270 feet west of the centerline of Brookhurst Street; proposing to erect d bl 4 a ou e-faced billboard in the County 100-C1-10~000 "Local Business" District 44 feet~ G inches hi h ' ° g (maximum structural height ~.err;.'~tted by the County in said ~ . ~: district is 35 feet), Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat IIrown presented Orange County Use Variance No. 63G3 to tlie Planning Commission, noting the lacation of s b u ~ect pzoperty~ the request to erect a billboard almost 10 feet higher than permitted by tl~e County ordina nces, ltaving a display area of approximately 667 sq~a.re feet and being located 86 f eet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenueo whereas tt~e reqeired County structural setback along Lincoln Avenue would be 146 feete " ''~; ' ~ ~y :~Ir. Brown then reviewed the variances of the proposed billboard from that perwitted ~y the City of Anaheim Billboard Ordinan # na , ceo namely: the location af the billboard is further than 2~0 feet from the intersection of two higl~ways (1~270 feet pro ased) dis l h j ~ - t ,~ p p ; t e maximum ay area permitted would be 300 square feet (proposed 667 square feet); maximum structural height of 27 fe t i " , ~j e permitted within 300 feet of residential structurea (pro osed 44 feet~ 6 inches); and waiver of the 35-foot structural setback f ! ~ rom the ultimate right- of-way along Lincoln Avenue (proposed 20 feet), ~ , ~~ ~~' ..~~ Pir, Bro~~~n further noted that based on the fact- t;iat the City of Anahe3m's 13illboard Ordinance had been written ith t ~ t1 ~ w he aid and a billboard industry, and siuce tlie aforementioned r rw ~ s n ~ t 1 ; , p oposal ou2~.l zequire a condi .ional us~ and waivers From r.he Anaheim Zoning Code since the proposal was far in excess ofPtheit permitted maximiuns as C d t t ~;~ o isplay area., structural iieight~ locatiov, etc,~ the staff was recommending subject petition be recommended for denial to the Orar;ge County Planni Commission ~ ~ . ng ~ ~ ~. ~ Commissioner Camp offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange County Planning Ccmmission be urged to deny Orange Count U s ; ~ ~ y se Variance No. 6363 on the basis that the billboard was proposed ~vithin 20 feet of the u~ timate ri ht- f A ~~ , ~ . g o -way along Linc~lri venue~ whereas other developments had been required to comply with tl~e 35-foot setback that the billboard was not l ~ , ' ; ocated within 200 feet of the intersection of two highways; tli~t the proposed height was approximately 18 feet hi h i ~ ~ o er than permitted; that the City of Anaheim l3illboard Ordinance had been written with the aid and a tives of tiie billboard i d P a e j z n ustry; therefore~ no evidence of hardship had been proven that the lacation~ size, and height of the billboard ~ ~ ~~ was necessary to en3oy a substantlal right not en~oyed by adjoinin 8 Properties. Comnissioner Thom seconded th CARRIED ~ , e motione i•IOTION ~ I i a ' ITEM N0, 3 ~ ~ } ~ ~I Oran3e County Use Variance No. 6364 (Gialenes Truck S Equipment Co.) Property located at tlie south s c ~ 3 : ~ }~ Jr~ 4 ea t orner ~f Kraemer Boulevard and Frontera Street in an abandoned sand and gravel pit and asphalt plant - P i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ropo~ ng to estaolish a truck storage yard, manufacturing facilities to manufacture t b ~ 3 ~ ~ ruck eds, and a sanitary landfill opetation~ ~ ; ~ ; ~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Drown presented to the Planning Commission Orange County Use Variance Noa 6364, notin~ the location of the P 3 f ~ E ~~ prop rty~ uses established in close proximity, the proposal to operate a truck storage yard and truck bed manufacturing operation~ under a contract witl h ~ ~ i t e Orange County Flood Control District, to assist in the maintenance of the Santa Ana riverbed; that th ~~; { ~~, e manufacturins of the truck beds-would be from old xailroad tank cars ~•~hicii would carr~ large rocks, and said beds ver~+ short use due t ld l h e f wou o t iav a e Ioads and materials which tliey e~ould carr~; that the ner proposes a 6-foot chainlink fence along the frontages of tlie property with landscaping . ~~ r~"}' , i , _,:c~~ ~ ----- ---- -- _ _ _ ~ ~ t.n ~ ~ PfINVtES ~ CITY PLANNiNG C02~QiISSION ~ December 29 0 1969 REPOItTS at1D REC02~, ~CNDATIDN3 - ITE:f N0, 3 (Continued) ' f t YY T^ ~ Z,'F: iF bW4 ~ i ~~i: f~l l J ~ry ~. 4974 l _ of oleanders planted four feet apart adjacent to said fenca~ whereas the Analieim I4uaicipal Code would require the construction of a 6-foot high masonry tvall to enclose all outdoor uses; and that tl~e Anaheim Genezal Plan-19G9 has specified tiiis area from west of Kraemer Boulevard to Jefferson Street between the Ftiverside Erseway aad the Santa dna River as a regional park site. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that if subject petition was recommended for approvalp that consideration be given to requiriag not only the 6-foot high chainlink fence proposed in lieu of the 6-foot high masonry wa21 required by the City of Anaheim's site development standards of the M-1 Zone~ but also that landscaping of sufficient height and depth be planted to the rear of the cliainlink fence to shiald the vehicle storage and manufacturins operatinn from view from Kraemer Boulevard and Frontera Streeto similar to that required at tlie trash transfer station located at Katella Avenu~ and Douglas Road; and that a time limitation of three years be established for the proposed uae, subject to review at the end of said per~od tJ determine if an additional period of time should be granted. Coimnissioner Thom offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange County Planning Commission be urged to consider the following recommendations in the event Orange County Use Variance No. 6364 is approved: 1. That a 6-foot high chainlink fence be installed along Kraemer Boulevard and Frontera Street. 2. That landscaping of sufficie.nt height and depth be planted tu the iear of the 6-foot ::hainlink fence to shield the vehicle storage and manufacturing operation from view irom Kraemer Boulevard and Frontera Street; said landscaping to be similar to that required by the County for the trash transfer station located at Katella Avenue and Douglas Road. 3. That a time limitation of three years be granted for the proposed use, subject to review at the end of said time to determine if an additional period of time shall be granted. Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 4- CONDITION.4L USE PERMIT N0, 1142 (Taormina-Babajian, Owners; Transerv, Agent) - Request for amendment to conditions approving sucject petition, amending conditions o£ Resolution No. PC69-229 granting subject petition - Property located at the northwest corner of Blue Gum Street and Coronado Street. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed for the Commission the request of Transerv Company asking for relief from the conditions imposed in the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 1142, Resolution No. PC69-229, on November 17, 1969, said trucking £acility being 7ocated at the northwest corner of Blue Gum and Coronado Streets. Mr. Roberts noted that in the initial application the petitioner requested permission to expand the 4xisting trucking facility by incorporating an additional four acres into the ultimate }ievelopment plans for the total facility along with tlzN request for waiver of;the 6-foot masonry wall enclosing outdoor uses; that the Cormnission granted the petitioner's request in part, requiring that the masonry wall requirement along the west and north property lines not be required - however, metal slats in a chainlink fence be provided instead; that the Commission further;required that said masonry wall be installed immediately along the Coronado Street frontage, as well ar~ any property used along the B1ue Gum.Street frontage; that the petitioner had now indicated it was his desire to improve the property in keeping with the high quality standards established by the City - however, he had no i~mnediate plans for development of the southerly portion of the`property and was,of the opinion that the saasonry wall,and street improvement requirements along Coronado Street could create a difficult financial burden in view of the fact'that.he had no idea at this time as to the-n~imber`or location of"driveways or wall openings that would be needed - consequently, in an effort to reduce the financial effects of the requirements, the petitioner:was requesting that the area to be consider- ed for the conditional use permit be'reduced to cover the northerly portion of the psoperty.which was already developed, plus an additional 150 feet of frontage along Blue G;:;ttn Street, leaving.an approximate 2 acres of undeveloped land separating the property from Coronado`Street. Furthermore, the,petitioner had stated it was his intent to pr~~vide all street improvements along B1ue Gum Street to Coronado Street; that he would pave and. fence the additional 150-foot wide'area and construct the masonry wall ` '~ ~i • ~ !. ~:; MINUTES, CI~ PLANNING COMMISSION, Decanber~, 1969 ~ 4975 REPORTS AND RECOMIiENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 4 (Continued) as req,aired along Blue Gum Street, then in the future, as it became necessary to expand, he would initiate a separate action on the property abutting to the south; that in addition to seeking relief from the masonry wall and street improvement requirements for Coronado Street, the petitioner was also proposing to provide a landscape screen consisting of trees and shrubs along the north and west property lines in lieu of the slats required in the chainlink fence, and after the ataff had discussed the matter of adequate landscape screening with tne Parkway Mainteeance Division, the Parkway Mainten- ance Superintendent had ir.dicated that a combination of Acacia Latifolia on 10-foot ceaters and Canary Island Pines on 30-foot centezs Txould provide an excellent screen much higher than the chainlink fence - furthermore, ~e indicated that a mini•~um 6-foot wide planter area with adequate irrigatfon facilitie~ ~,ould be necesssry to accommodate these pl8rtg, Mr. Roberts, in explaining the reason for the proposed landscaping, advised the Commission that the Parkway Maintenance Superintendent had indicated the Acacia plants would provide a permaaent effect on a closer ground level while the Canary Island Pines would take care of the higher level screening; that this screening would not be the same as that now in effect at the trash transfer station on Katella Avenue since it wasr•Che Superintendent's feeling that as the shrubbery on Katella Avenue grew higher, there would be an open area along the lower portion where existing screening now was available - therefore, the proposal just presented to the Comnission offered a much better screening. Mr. Roberts then noted for the Commission that since there were a number of people present at the public hearing before the Commission on November 17, 1969, on Conditional Use Permit No. 1142, the staff had sent letters to all the adjacent property owners advising them that the Planning Commission would consider the amendments requested today, and this would allow these people to again present their reactions to tt;e requested amendments. Mr. Roberts, in conclusion, noted that if the Planning Commission gave favorable considera- tion to the requested amendments, it would be possible to grant temporary relief from the conditions without amending the boundary of the area under consideration, and discussions with the City Attorney's Office revealed that if the Planning Commission so desired, temporary relief could be granted from the masonry wall along Coronado Street and in lieu thereof, accept a bond to insure construction of the wall at such time as the remainder of the property developed. This bond could aiso include the wall requirement around the service stat3on, and the same would hold true Eor the street improvements along ~oronado Street. Furthermore, if the Planning Cocmnission gave favorabl~ consideration to`allowing screen landscaping along the north-and west property lines in lieu of. the metal-slatted chainlink fence, the recoimnends:ions made by the Parkway Maintenance Superintendent would appear to be appropriate, and this included the 6-foot wide planter area along the north and west boundaries, adequate irrigatio~ facilities, the planting of 5-gallon Acacia Latifolia at 10-foot centers with 15-gallon Canary Island Pines planted between the l~cacia shrubs on 30-foot centers, and this landscaping could be subject to the approval of the Parkway Maintenance Superintendent. Mr. Richard Ray, representing the Tratiserv Corporation, indicated hia presence to answer any questions the Commission might have. Discussion was then held by the Commission, summarized as follows: 1. The petitioner should have requested the•petition to cover only that porEaon in which he intended to develop at this time, thereby eliminating the protlem~'how facing the Commission. 2. That although one of the Co~issioners had required the chainlink fence with slats, if the balance of the Coimnissioners were in favor of landscaping as proposed by the Parkway Maintenance Superintendent; Lhen perhaps this would be a better method of shielding this rather large truck operation which was proposed to have in addition to thi~ parking of trucks a maintenance yard which meant various vehicle parts being scattered around the ground while the vehicles were being serviced. 3. That the large truck operation, at its best, was not the most compatible type of use in the 3ndusErial srea-if sufficient screening were provided, then perhaps this would be a mor~~aecepta'b:e use. 4. That the masonry wall required for the Coronado Street frontage could be waived on a temporary basis,- however, if this were done, then a chainlink fence with a 6-foot'pient~_r area similar ta that proposed for the west and north should also be required. The Commission then inquired of the petitioner's agenf, if he intended to provide the slatted fence. I ;; ; . , .. ::~ ~ ,,: ~ _:_.. i: ~ ~ i i ~'t ~ ... p~$., ~n. ~: ~ r s ~r. F ~,. , ~F~''~ ~k.•- . ., ~. . ~ ~5- . a r ~'~~t2 ~ ~.9'' ~ AW. "!~ .,,A s ~!; ~ .i t ~,a T. eX"f .~,kJr,..,: f ~ ;~ fi v tl: { F .x .... , . .. . ~ . :;..pn _ r::, - ..._. . ~ ~ ~n ~d :^ r.•, 'e _ ~~ x . . ,. . . .. .. . , ~ ~ ~ ` ~" a ~ ~ ~ . . ~ ~`'. 7 * k'~ ~ . . . . ' ~ ~ 11_~ 1 ,~ ''; MINUTES, CITY P.LANNING COMMISSION, December 29. 1969 i,o~c . :Y REPORTS AND ° r RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 4(Continued) T ~ ~ '`'~ ~ Mr. Ray replied that if the Commission requested this, the fence would be installed - i. '^"" ~' "~~ however, it was his feeling tha.t landscaping would be more desirable since it would grow 5 ~4 higher than 6 feet and could provide a better screening davice. ~~' Mr. Ray further noted that when they had first proposed expansion, the plans were some- ~ ~ ~. what up in the air - however, they were planning their resources to develop the entire ~ g ~ 10 acres and took the undeveloped 10 acres 3ecause they had an opportunity to have an ~; opCion to purchase the land. Since then, however, the other partner, Mr. Wood, took I ~ ~.. on another endeavor, and it was up to him to buy him out - thus it might be feasible ~;.~ that he could not develop this southerly 5 acres. `.;•`it;~ ~~ Commissioner Herbst then noted that,as he understood the request, the petitioner proposed ~ ~ ~ that in lieu of the required 6-foot masonry wall along the south property line, he was ;;~ reducing the area from t~he original 9 acres to approximately 7'~ acres, with the fence ~. ~; proposed approximately 200 feet north of Coronado Street and landscaping along the north ~ and west. However, he was concerned about what was proposed for the service station ~~ . ,, site. . ,, _` 1 Mr. Ray replied that this would be held in abeyance for the present. ~~ Mr. Roberts noted for the Co~nission that the service station was indicated on the plans, ~; and it was not necessary to delete this from the request if the Commission decided to ' t amend the conditions, such as a chainlink fence in lieu of the masonry wall along the ~ southerly boundary - therefore, if the service station were developed, the Commission '~ ~ ti~ could require that the plans of development_ be submitted to the Commission for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. ;~i ~z . ;-,`~ Mr. Karl Sator, Texor. Products, 2780 Coronado Street, appeared before the Commission and ~".`:'~~ noted his electronic lant was located across the street, on the south side of Coronado ~ zi~ Street; that the petitioner was now usin all of the 8 property and parking on the southerly s.~,x,`<~~' S acres, especially on the weekends when the trucks would sit there for the whole weekend; ~z~~" that he had aved 150 feet of this southerl 5 acres and as to the fence the ~^ p Y . , petitioner ~'.~ was constTUCting it with small posts of aoproximately 1~ inches in diameter which, in his estimation, could not support much of a fence. Fut•thermore, the entire area had ~~~ deteriorated. ~ z~~ Mr. Max,Leinfelder, 24322 Santa Cksira Street, Dana Point, owner of the warehouse across the street from subject property.on the east side of Blue Gum Street, appeared before ~``~-~ the Commission and notad that as far as he was concerned, the condition of subject ti~~ property had not changed - that it was still as it was before - and inquired whether or ~# ~~~ not the petitioner was proposing to have the trucks drive over the dirt on the street ! ,~_~t;~ or would he be xequired to construct the curbs and gutters on Blue Gum Street_ ~ fi~.° Mr. Roberts advised the Co~ission and Mr. Leinfelder that the petitioner had proposed ~` to make full im rovements on Blue Gum Street. ~'.=~'~~ p ~ The Coaaaission then ir,quired whether or not this was a reo~s±rement when they ap~roved '~ ~ the conditiona] use , p t y ~~;~~. permit• whereu on Mr. Roberts r,z'+lf e~l that not onl were dec7ication and ~`v-~ improvement for Blue Gum Street required, but also fo:- ".aroasuo Street, wicn the require- p,~y. ment of a bond to be posted to insure the completion o!;~aid improvement. r>~v ~ ~~~ Mr. Ray also advised the Commission that he had requests~i one of the getitioners, _ Mr. Taormina, to tear down the house, aad then he plann~°si Co improve Blue Gum Street ~,.` all the way to Coronado Street. Furthermore, he was ff_nr;in;g this area southerly for [j.((~ sr approximately 100 f~eet.. NPS ~ , . . . . . ~ . .. ... . . ~ - , . • . . n`~`~'~ Mr. Robefts advised the Commission that after the curbs and gut:ers were in, which would be a requirement of Mr. Ray, t'~en the City would ~ave the oalance of the street; ~=?ti however, the masonry wall would be constructed in the required setback for Blue Gum ~r- Street. ~~ Mcs. Edward G. Hill, 2755 Cor,onado Stre~k, appeared b~_fore the Commission and stated `"'": that as a woman she found the ro osal of landsca in p P p g, which Mr. Ray had suggested, ~ much more ap~peaSing than the'require~? chainlink fence with metal slats since a'6-foot ~~~ fence did not provide'the adequate amount of screening for these large trucks, and if ~~ the landscaping:were planted i~ediately, then it could get a good start during the ~ ti- wiater rains. `:'~~ - y~~ ~~ ~,_ -~.. ~~ ~ ~s " ~. ~. ..s,,: s,^~`~.' -~~.. _ ~va+t ~; ; ~ar MINUTES, C11'Y PLANNING COMMISSION, December~'9, 1969 ~ ~+977 REPORTS AND RECOPQiENDATI0N5 - ITEM N0. 4 (Continued) The Coa~ission then expressed concern regarding the amount of area which was to be fenced which had not been blacktopped. Mr. Roberts then noted that the petitioner proposed full street improvements for the~ entire lengeh of the 10-acre parcel along Blue Gum Street nor.th of Coronado; that he had already asked for 100 feet in addition to the original S acres; that he was proposing a masonry wall in the required setback along the Blue Gum Street frontage from the northerly property line to the south where the property had been asphalted; and that he was proposing a chainlink fence with landscape screening extending southerly. Mrs. Pete Fletcher, 1193 Blue Gum Street, appeared before the Cort~ission and noted that although landscaping was desirable, the requirement of tne Anaheim Municipal Code was to install a 6-foot masonry wall which they were required to do. Mr. Roberts noted that the difference between the Fletcher property and subject property was the fact that the Fletcher property was used in its entirety - whereas.the petitioner proposed to use only a portion of the property to a boundary approximately 200 feet north of Coronado Street. ? Chairman Rowland further noted that perhaps some of these trucks were beiag parked on the area not proposed to ba used; however, this was a necessity since he could not pave ~ the area and pa~k the trutks on the paved area immediately - thus he was temporarily R;;;,;';,~ parking the tr~..cks on another portion not proposed to be develope8 until the paved area ~.`;`:;';';~ was ready. Mr. Roberts, in response to further questioning by Mra. FPetcher, stated that there was a SO-£oot building sEtback and a 10-foot landscaping requirement along Blue Gum Street, and parking was permitted in the rear 40 feet of this setback.on the Fletcher property; whereas Mr. Ray was being required to provide more than the Fletcher development in that future use of Coronado Street would also be required - therefore, this was the reason for asking for the 6-foot masonry wall. ~ Commissioner Herbst• affered Resolution No. PC69-265 and moved for its passage and adop- ~ tian to amend specific conditions of Resolution No. PC69-2~9 which granted Conditional Use Permit Nor 1142 on November 17, 2969, amending Condition Nos. 2, 9,and l0; adding Condition Nos. 11, 12, 13, and 14; and retaining the original Condition Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7; and 8. Amendment to Condition No. 2 would require that in addition Co the original requirement of engineering requirements for Blue Gum Street and Coronado Street, together with bonding foz same, the box~d further be provided to insure the installation of the improvements along Coronado Street at such time as the southerly portion of the property was developed. That Condition No. 9 require that at such time as the service station proposed for the nurthwest corncr of Blue Gum Street and Coronado Street was planned to be developed, development plans shall be presented to the Planning Co~mnission for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit; that the service station shall be developed in accordance with the adopted Service Station Minimum Site Development Standards, and that any new structures in addition to the service station shall conform to the City Council Metal Policy prior to final building and zoning inspections. That Condition No. 10 be amended to provfde that a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed along Lhe Blue Gum Street froatage to the rear of the required setback for the full distance of the property proposed for development at this time, said wall to be con- structed within aixtp days from date hereof, and'that i~ any additiona~l property were deveioped southerly along Blue Gum Street, said 6-foot masonry wall would be required to be exCended souGherl~::as requir~d by the P1annYng~o~nission. (11) ThaG,a bohd in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim skould be posted to iasure the construction o£ a 6-foot masonry wall.along the Coronado Street irontage at such time as the remainder of the property was developed,said bond to:be filed with the Oity within:sixty days from date hereof.(127fhat a minimum 6-foot wide planter area with adequate irrigation facilities be provided for the full distance of the north end west property lines, said planter area to be planted with 5-gallon Acacia Latifolia on 10-foot centers and 15-gallon Canary Island Pines planted- between the Acacia shrubs on 30-foot c~enters; furthermore, that said landscaping was subject to the approval of the Parkway Maintenance Superintendent' and should be planted within sixty days from dSte hereof and be permanently maintained.(13) That a 6-foot chainlink fence shall be constructed along:t!:e full distance of the soutY~erly boundary of the area proposed for iumiediate de•:elopment located approximately 200 feet north of Coronado Street within sixty days fr~m date hereof. (I4) That a 6-foot wide planter area with adequate irrigation facilities be provided adjacent to said chain- link fence along the southerly boundary, and said p~.anter area shall be planted with 5-gallon Acacia Latifolia pianted on 10-foot cente•cs and 15-gallon Canary Island Pines planted between the Acacia shrubs on 30-foot centers. Furthermore, that said landscape planting shall be subjecr. to zhe approval of Pa•.kwa} Maintenance and shall be planted within sixty,days from date hereof. (See Resolu~tion Book) ~ f ; d'~YS~ i:.3~" ~ ~..;~~. r'~'S- rF ~ 4m ~•,.'2.~y~'`~.f ~°`L~ f~~ .~'"r W~~ --~',.~F'3f,d~la`;~' i]~, ^4Y~~a- z ..: ~~"' t~~ ".'"y~ ~`f f..~ i: ~n fz r r..`I4P..+ ?.'r,`;J~ €'_~_§: ~ r~ ~~~,~, . ~` ~ , ~;tx t n ~S . c! MINUTES,~TY PLANNING COMMZSSION, Decembe'7r'29, 1969 , ~ 4978 REPORTS AND RECONtMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 4 (Continuedj On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Herbst, Thom, xowland. NOES: COI~ffKISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. ABSTAIN: COAAfISSIONERS: Gauer. ' ITEM N0. 5 Proposed standards for Fire Department ~ access and circulation. Chairman Rowland requested that this item be continued to the meeting of January 12, 1970, in order that the ~offinission might study the reco~endations in detail, at which time the agenda would be lighter to allow the Co~ission more time for discussion at the.meeting. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Herbst ~ offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Thom seconded t1~e motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 6:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~~'~ ~_'~" ~ ANN KREBS, S~cretary Anaheim City Planning Comm~ssion