Loading...
Minutes-PC 1970/01/12. _,.,x.x~~~... - C^) ~ ~ City Hall Anaheim, California January 12, 1970 A REGULP.R MEETING OF THE ANANEIM CITY PLAAR~ING COMMISSION ~ REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairmar. Rowland at 2:00 o'clock P.rI., a quorum being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Rowland. - COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom. ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Allred. PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Rona2d ThQmpson Assistant City Attorney: John Dawson Office Engineer: Jay Titus Zoning Supervisor: Charles Roberts Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Pat Brawn Assistant Planner: E. John Graichen, Planning Co~nisaion Secretary: An.n Krebs . PLEDGE OF ALI.EGIANCE - Commissioner Camp led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF - Approval of the Minutes of ehe meeting of December 29, 1969, was THE MINUTES deferred to the January 26, 1970~meeting. CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. FRANCISCO DE LA LUZ, ET AL, c/o Eric K. PERMIT N0. 1149 Lewis, 2555 East Chapman Avenue, Suite 500, Fullerton, California, Owners; DONALD R. YURICK, 326 North State College Boulevard, Orange, California, Agent; requesting permisaion to ESTABLISH A MOBILE HOME PARK on property described as: An L-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 11.5 acres, having approximate frontages of 284 feet on the west side of State College Boulevard and 661 feet on the norCh side of Via Buzton Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 1,246 feet from State College Boulevard, and further described as 1531 Vorth State College Boulevard. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the meeting of December 29, 1969, in order to allow time for the staff to resolve problems involved regarding dedication and possible abat-donment of Baxter Street. , Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, existing zoning for both subject and adjoining pruperties, the petitioner's request ~or estab- • lishment of a 100-space mobile home park, and the reason for the two-week continuance which was needed because of problems involved with properties on the west side of Baxter Street in the City of Fullerton. Mr. Brown then reviewed the proposal for the establishment of the mobile home park wherein the petitioner was providing an internal vehicular circulation with 25-foot wide, private drives; that two access points were proposed to State College Boulevard, one to Via Burton Street, and one to Baxter Street; that a Iandscaped area averaging 50 feet in depth was proposed for the State College Boulevard frontage; and that a 6-foot masonry wall was proposed for three of the property lines and a 5-foot high berm was proposed for the Via Burton frontage. Mr. Brown also noted that there were a ninnber of problems still to be resolved,which were discussed at the Interdepartmental Committee meeting, if subject petition were approved, namely: that the petitioner be advised that City policy would not permit the use of gates of any kind at any of the access points in order that easy access could be gained by fire trucks and trash pick-up vehicles; that subject property, being bounded by either develoned or undeveloped industrial property, should have an 8-foot high wall or other buffering device to provide protection for future residents of this facility from noises, lights, dust, hou:s, of operation, etc., inherent with industries - therefore, the berm area along the Via Burten Street frontage could be raised an additional 3 feet, or a 3-foot high masonry wall placed on top of the S-foot high berm proposed, which could accomplish the height needed for fcrther buffering; that in addition to this wall, additional buffering could be provided along the Via Burton Street frontage by lucating one of the 25-foot wide accesaways along the southerly portion of the property ad3acent to this berm; that 4979 i A _'_ ___ ". _._._ . ..... .. . . .. . ." _n' .~'._ _ ~ ~ i i I i ...,.~....m..,o.~.~u,.,,•....-,.. ....-.,.:.~+.~na~..~«-s..ww..ve:..~rw~,tr.~w~s!.. ~crc ~s~ez~^',n~'pa"w-~.ra-tr~*a„+,r-;,:^ys7afi `y'd~-..°-'eC4~' ; ~.n. .... . . .,.: ,. •: ' ~~ ~ ~ .~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Januarp 12, 1970 4980 CONDITIONAL USE - Baxter Street, fully located within the City of Fullerton, had a 40-foot PERMIT N0. 1149 dedicated width -'however, an additional 10 feet would be required fe* (Continued) dedication from subject property in order to meet the minimum standards for the street; tnat improvements of the street would have to be in accordance with City of Anaheim and City of Fullerton engineering standards; that Baxter Street at its northerly terminus was adjacent to thz flood control channel and should be developed with a standard cul-de-sac in order to provide for a turn- around area for vehicles; that when the City of Fullertor recently approved a lot split for the property on the west side of Saxter Street, a condition of approval required that a 50-foot radius cul-de-sac be provided at such time as the easterl~ portion of the street was developed; that the petitioner should be made aware of the fact that the bulk of subject property had been utilized as a dump si.te for a number of years, and as a result of this, structural standards of the Building Code would necessitate soil compaction analysis and the use of depth pilings, etc., for any structures proposed on the property; and that it should be further noted by the Couunission that the plans indicated the recrea- tion building end swimming pool were proposed to be located in the approximate center of the old dump site. Finally, the primary issue before the Commission was the matter of appropriate land use since this entire area has been planned, zoned, and/or developed for industrial uses, and the introduction of residential uses into an indusCrial area could create future conflicts between the two uses - therefore, a definite question as to the desirability of tt~is proposal for residential uses wss before the Commission. Mr. Don Yurick, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that they were fully aware of all the problems presenC::d by the staff; that if the petitioners were forced into retaining the property for industrial uses, they would be unable to develop the property for that purpose because this was a dump site; that the petitioners agreed to the required dedication for Baxter Street and its improvement, and subject petition had been continued because of the possibility of abandonment of Baxter Street northerly of Via Burton Street since it could not extend over the flood control chanrel northerly; and that all conditions of approval recoimnended by staff inet their appro. Mr. Furick then noted that the proposed use was the highest and best use that could be made of subject property since it would be prohibitive to develop the property for industrial purposes based on the past use of the properCy, and that the architect was available to answer any technical questions the Commission might have. Mr. D. A. Ross, 1901 Via Burton, Fullerton, appeared before the Coc~nission in opposition, noting he represented Favorite Foods, Division of the Carnation Company located to the north of the apartments built on the formes Demler property; that they were the applicants for the lot split of the property on the west side of Baxter Street recently approved by the City of Fullerton; that his company was planning 20,000 square feet of additional facilities to their exis ting facilities, and future plans also indicated an additional construction which would extend to Baxter Street; that they were opposed to development of a mobile home park on the basis that this would be an encroachment of residential uses into an industrial area in which industrial development was occurring; that although he was representing a Fullerton enterprise, they would again be subjected to the same problems they now had from the residents of the apartments easterly of Acacia Street wherein they were receiving telephone calls constantly from the residents regarding their industrial activities in which noise from the area and traffic were bothering them; that his company had been established some time before the apartments had been built; that they manufactured cultured dairy products which were shipped from Fullerton to thirty- nine states; that the trucks hauling these products were forty-foot long, refrigerator vans and wheci fully loaded, weighed in excess of 70,000 pounds; that a 6 to 8-foot masonry wall did exist between the Anaheim and Fullerton city limits, which was their south property line, and this wall already had two broken areas which provided access for children to Via Burton Street; that they had a constant vandalism problem, but because of the isolated area and acceas ta Via Burton Street being within the City of Anaheim, it had been almost impossible to get the Fullerton police to investigate because they could not find the property - therefore, if their present plans materialized and development occurred to Baxter SCreet, a similar problem would result from the residecits of the mobile home park; and that in the issuance of their building permit for the pro- posed expansion, no plans were submitted for the future improvement of Baxter Street since they were granted permission to delay this until 50% of the pr~perty on the easc side of Baxter Street was proposed for development - also, the cost for this improvement would be in the vicinity of $30,000 to $50,000. However, if subject petition were approved and residential uses were developed on the east side of Baxter Street, there would be no need for any future street since the flood control char.nel existed to the north, and, furthermore, they might abandon their expansion and ask for a different use for their property. Mr. Jerry Knudtson, representing Br~an Industrial Developers, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated they had been engaged in indusCrial development in Anaheim for the past fifteen years; that their imnediate concern was the two parcels at 1901 an~ 1915 Via Burton Street which they had recently developed with industriaP buildings; that it was ~ ~ ~ ; ; .. -,_,~...~.,R°~-'~."~"`°`""'°"'m"-°°,~'"~r,,....~~.~:.~~--~ ~,>:;~~-~~~,-, - ~ ~ ~ `~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSSON, January 12, 197d 4981 , CONDITIONAL USE - their opinion that residential uses for subject property would '.:e ~ PERMIT N0. 1149 incompatible with existing industrial uses, and the City uf .\nsl:~eim in (Continued) the past had been noted for discouraging or not alZowing the [w•u ases to abut or be in close proximity; that this was one reason the City of Anaheim had been established with some of the finest indu=triai develop- ments; that, hiatarically, when Anaheim had permitted the two uses in one area, considerable problems resulted; that although he had not viewed the plans, he was certain that if sub- ~ ject property were developed with industrial buildings they wouid not require special ,f pilings for support; and th~t if subject petition were approved, then the City of Anaheim s would have destroyed the integrity of the industrial area. ; A showing of haiida indicated five persons present in the Council Chamber in opposition to subject petition. ' The Co~ission Secretary advised Chairman Rowland that eight letters of opposition had I ~ been received, as follows: Lionel-Pacific Company; Northrup Corporation; Avionic i Structures, 1429 North State College Boulevard; Fluidmaster, 1800 Via Burton Street; ~ Don Shaw, Contractor, owner of property at 1910 Via Burton Street (hospital supply company); ' Gem Top of California, 21I8 Via Burton Street; United Parcel Service, 1825 Via Burton ; Street; and Teeco Products, 1440 North Burton Place; whereupon Chairman Rowland asked that + one of the typical letters of opposition from industries be read. 1 The letter from Avionic Structures, 1429 North State Co11Fge Boulevard, was then read. i In rebuttal, Mr. Yurick staxed he was sorry so much opposition was presented, even from the City of Fullerton - however, the ~roposed use, in the petitioner's estimation as well as his own, projected the highest and best use of the property; that to retain the property for industrial purposes would x2eate a hardship on the petitioner; that it was his opinion that a mobile home park would be a compatible use f~r subject property; that 90% of subject property had been a ci'.; dump site; and that he had not gone to the expease of riaking soil borings until he had received tne ~ity of Anaheim's approval or denial of the proposed request. THE HEARING WaS CLOSL~D. Coffinissioner Herbst noted that the Coffinission, in the past, had heard the argument many times that the highest and best tuse of the property was being proposed - however, this highest and best use could be appliefl to ~ny zoning action in the City if, by being the highest and best use, the petitioners wau4d go one step further and determine-what type of use was existing or proposed areund it and whether or not the proposed use wou•ld be degrading or detrimental to the adjoining properties; that since surrounding properties;, were developing and had been projected for andustrial purposes, and since the Commi;ssion and Council in the past had not approved construction of homes or mobile home parks"in the industrial areas, the proposal was inapprogriate; that mabile home residents, through their organization, state they should be given the same environmental amenities single- far..':ly and multiple-family residents had - namely, not being adjacent to an industrial area siace an industrial area and tha uses within generated ur.desirable effects, such as dust, noise, bright lights, hours of operation of equipnent far twenty-four hours a day, heavy truck traffic, and employee traffic; that subject property was a former dump site and had been converted to flat ground, and if subject petition were ap~roved, thereby creating a harmful effect to the adjoining industrial property owners, the City of Anaheim would lose the integrity they had established by prohibiting residential uses in industrial area3; and that industrial areas should also be afforded the same protection from encroachment of residx:ntial uses since the two of them were not compatible. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC70-1 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Conditionai Use Permit No. 1149 on the hasis that residents of mot~:e home parks should be afforded the same protection that single-family and multiple-family residents enjoy, including protection from adverse effects of noise, odors, lights, in- compatible hours of operation, traffic, and other potential consequential effects, and, by the same token, industry should be entitled to the same protection from the encroach- ment from incompatible uses; that allowing the encroachment of a residential use into an industrial area would not be affording industry the same protection given to other uses, and such encroachment could subject established industries to difficult pressures when residents begin to complain about industrial activities that make industries and residen- tial uses incompatible; that past zoning experience has indicated that where resi~ential and industrial uses have been permitted to develop in close proximity, they have been proven to be incompatible because of the conflicting noise, lights, incompatible hours of operation, mixture of the two types of traffic, dust, odors, etc., and that of the many complaints which have be~en received and investigated b;~ the City, the major portion could be attributed to the close proximity of these two uses; that both the Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Anaheim in the past have attempted to maintain the integrity of the industrial areas by denying other requests for residential uses, such ~r T---- .... - ~--- . _.. :. ,.. _ . _ ..._--__ ~ --- ---_.___.. __.._. _ . _ _ . _ ,~ ~ , + ,. ,,~.~.,r-~.m,..,.:,.-~-~.~,..~,-~.,~,.~-.-~-.~~,,.-.~.~,~,~-~,.,,-~,~. ~.,~-..~.' . .;~ ~~.R,.,~,~.~...,}~~~ ,-:~; --~....~~ , .~~... ~ ~,: - ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 12, 1970 , 4982 CONDITIONAL USE - mobile ho~e parks and apartments within areas de~elo~,ed, zonec:, or PERMIT N0, 1149 projected for industrial developmer.t on the General °lan, and b~ so (Continued) doing, have established a reputation with industry of having Excellent ,, industrial areas devoteci primarily to industrial uses; and that what is deemed by property owners to be the h3ghe:sc and best use of proper- ties throughout the City can only be considered favnraF~ly so long as the proposed use does not have a detrimeaCal effect upon the adjoining prope:ties, and the proposed mobile home park would have an adverse effect on the existing indu;:tries which have been established ia the area surrounding subject property since any furcher development of the remaining industrial parcels in this area for industrial purposes would be doubtful if residential uses are introduced into this area. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by tne foliowing vote: AYES; COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. \ NOES; COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: Allred, CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ANN PRENTICE, 1i01 Reseda Street, Anaheim, PERMIT N0, 1146 Californta, Owner; MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, 1101 Valley Mall, E2 Monte, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH AN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION WITHIN 75 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL ZONE on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land located at the southeast corner of - ~- Lincoln Avenue and Sunkist Street, having approximate frontages of 166 feet on Sunkist Street and 168 feet on Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE, ,~ Subject petition was continued from the meeting of December 15, 1969, in order to allow • the petitior_er time to submit revised plans incorporating a"ranch stple" architecture, and for the staff to review the original reclassification request for this property to determine if at that time the requested service station was nroposed. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the reasons for continuance, noting that the peti- tioner had submitted revised plans which indicated a"ranch style" service station; that a review of the original reclassification petition action was made which indicated thaL on the petition form which was submitted with the application, the petitioner had stated they wished rezoning to the C-1 Zone for subject property to establish a future service station; that in the staff's report to the Planning Commission dated January 27, 1969, ~~hen the zoning petition was originally heard by the Commission, it was also stated i.hat Portion A, subject property, of the total parcel was being requested for reciass:Lfication to the C-1 2one for a future service station site; and that subjcct petitioL was necessitated because of the fact that the service station was propose3 to be located within 75 feet of a residential zone, where apartments were now under con- struction to the south, Furthermore, in 1966, C-1 zoning was approved for a service station site at *.he northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Sunkist Street in conjunction with a conditional use permit to establish a service station within 75 feet of residen- tially zoned property, and in 1967, the properties to the north were reclassified to the R-3 Zone - an almost identical situation to that which exists on subject property. Chairman Rowland inquired whether or not anyone was present in opposition, and receiving no response, noted that in the interest of time, were the petitioners in concurrence with the conditions established in the Report to the Co~mnission. Mr. Don Robbins, 11001 Valley Mall, E1 Monte, appeared before the Commission and noted he was the agent for the petitioner, and he had one question which he wished to direct to the staff relative to the lighting being limited to 6 feet in height. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission and the petitioner that due to the fact that the service station facilities were located iimnediately adjacent to resi- dentially zoned property, any parking area located adjacent to this residentially zoned ~ property would require a maximum of 6 feet in height illumination in order to eliminate the possibility of lights shining into the residences to the south and east. The Cammission thett inquired whether or not the petitioner proposed to submit a sign variance for the free-standing sign proposed at the southeast corner of subject property; whereupon Mr. Robbins replied that this would depend upon the time the freeway was __: completed and they were able to evaluate the need for said sign. The Commission further inquired whether it had been the decision of the petitioner's representative that when the freeway was in operation it would be desirable to Lzave a --- - new sign at this location. ~ ~ :i = a . i . . f .i -~ - ~-- i i ' .'he..',:i.~:1lSu'ar^_~.`I°lt~'Tmn-?:.i~.°"E!?F,l~":`p.~"'N['Ep'l?°"%':'A?1~~"'°..Yi~..eT~9~..~T:~~~.~~'wa'~FfCN~~"'."'-al'.^y~'g'"R4itir?p°,'-1U4'~9:Y~19i''7"x;i-~Y47Y ?~:~:.. ~ ~ ~ F~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 12, 1970 4983 ?~ . . . . ~ CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. Robbins replied that not until the freeway was in aperation were `~ PERMIT N0. 1146 they able to determine whecher or not a special test would be aecessary .(Continued) to determine the need for identification, such as a sign. THE HEAR7NG WAS CLOSED. ~ The Coimnissinn then noted that sizce the petitioner had submitted revised plans, all ~ the original plans be coneidered null and void. , Mr. Roberts adviaed the Commission that the petitioner could stipuYa[e that the construc- ~ tion of this service station would be "ranch stqle", which was deemed to be more desir- able adjacent to residential uses. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson advised the Cocmnission that since the Office Engineer had advised him bids for the proposed Orange Freeway adjacent to ~ subject property would be called for during this year and construction completed by ~ 1972, the staff coald then make an inspection to determine if a 70-feot high sig.n would ~ ~ be necessary. z ~,, . Co~nissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC70-2 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1146, subject to development of the property with thE "ranch style" service station as stipulated to by the petitioner and as depicted in the revised plans, and that a finding be made that the Coimnission expressed concern that a possible second free-standing sign as ;ndicated on the plans but not considered as part of this petition was projected; that the Coimnission had advised the petitioner that only one free-standing sign would be permitted on the property, and the height of any sign would be restricted to a maximum of 25 feet due to the proximity of the multiple-family property to the south an~i east, and that any proposal for signing beyond what was permitted by the Sign Ordinance would have to b^ considered under a separate variance petition wherein evidence of a hardship must be submitted. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Herbat, Thom. ABSENT: COi~AfISSI0NER5: Allred. CONDITIONAL USE - CONTIIVIiED PUBLIC HEARING. LOUIS B, MINTER, 9808 Wilshire Boulevard, PERMIT N0. 1147 Beverly Hills, Califorrla, Owner; JAY KINGRY, Pacific OuCdoor Adver- tising Company, 1740 Narva Street, Los Angeles, California, Agent; requesting permi3sion to I:STABLISH A BILLBOARD WHICH EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISPIaY AREA, WITH WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM PERMITTED SIGN HEIGHT, (2) SIGN LOCATION, AND (3) MINIMUM REQUIRED STRUCTURAL SETB'1CK on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 69 feet on the east side of Brookhurst Street and a maxiwum depth of approximaCely 125 feet, being locs~ed approximately I95 feet north of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the December 15, 1969, meeting in ordEr to allow time ~ for the petitioner to submit revised plans for the billboard more in conformance with ~ Code requiraments. ? Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses ; established in close proximity, and the proposal to establish a billboard in excess of i the maximum 300 square feet display area and a sign with a height of 39'~ feet and a ~ display area of 674 square feet and located within 75 feet of a structure to the north, ' originally constructed for residential use. ; Mr. Brown further noted that the revised plans submitted by the petitioner indicated S only relocation of the proposed billboard 10 feet from the ultimate right-of-way of i Brookhurst Street, and this relocation would satisfy the Code requirement for minimum structural setback from a primary street - however, the balance of the plans were as 1 originally submitted; that the overall height was limited to 27 feet on the basis of ~ a residence located 130 feet to the north and east of subject property; that the sign ~ location was 70 feet from a structure originally proposed for residential use but now i being used for a child care niirsery; and that the Co~ission would have to determine y~ if the revision as submitted was substsntial enough to warrant consideration for approval of this request, or whether the height and size of the structure, which remained at its ~'"` original proposal, could 'ne deleterious to the surrounding area and possibly set a precedent for further atructures of this nature throughout the City. ~ ~ ~ '. - - . _.._.. __ - ~_ , ---- --- --- .-- T- _ . ~ ~ ~ _ __ _._. _ _ __ _ _ _ __ ~., _ .._ . . : _ . --- _ _ _ _._ _ _.__ . _ _ _ :..-- _ _ ____--_ -- ---- -- - - ~ -- -- - ----- --- - --_____ __ _ _-- ------ -- ---- -- -- -_ _-- - ---- -- --- . , . ~ ~. , ~ ~. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 12, 1970 49$4 CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. Jay Kingry, agent for the petitioner and representing the Pacific PERMIT N0, 1147 Outdoor Advertising Company, appeared before the Cotmnission and (Continued) presented a letter from the petitioner regarding dedi~ation and noted further that the letter, in no waq, was intended L•o act as a trade deal with the City to approve this billboard; that hr~ had discussed the request with the Engineering Division regarding dedication of the 20 feet for widen- ing of Brookhurst Street; and ttat a letter was submitted signed by the representatives of the nursery school indicating their opposition to the location of a billUoard. Mr. Kingry, in response to Commission questioning, stated that he was fully aware of the Commission's feelings regarding billboards since he had been before them a number of times in the past; that there had been no opposition at the last public hearing, nor were there any at this public hearing; that although subject property did have a cleaning establishment developed on i*, in tt~e event a larger, modern building was determined to be constructed on subject property, the billboard company had received a 30-day option which would terminate the existence of the billboard within 30 days upon request of the petitioner; and that part of the Billboard Ordinance stated that consideration would be given to permitting larger billboards subject to a conditional use permit. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission noted that since their prime consideration of subjECt petition was the appropriateness of land use, any trade which the petitioner might infer could not be considered by the Commission; that the request for dedication by the Engineering Div3s ion was necessitated because the average daily traffic count indicated a need for widening Brookhurst Street, and this, in turn, would add substantially to the value of sub,ject property. The Commission further inquized as to the exact square faotage of the proposed billboard. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that the billboard was proposed to be a double-faced, 674-square foot size, while only 300 square feet was permitted by right, and any additional size would be subject to approval o£ a condi~ional use permit. The Coimniasion then noted that a billboard constructed within Code requirements would be adequate to advertise any type of use, and then inquired what height was permitted. Mr. Roberts replied that because a single-family residential tract was located 130 feet to the north and east of subject property, the height of the billboard was limited to 25 feet, and that the residence now being used for a day care nursery would have pro- hibited the billboard except if approved by the Commission. The Commission then noted that this particular area on Brookhurst Street had been allowed to convert single-family homes into businesses while under the jurisdiction of the Countp with minimal site development standards and now presented one of the most undesirable appearances for the City, and the request for a billboard at the height and size proposed would add further to the deterioration of this area. Mr. Roberts advised that previous Commission denials of requests for similar waivers were bec~~se of the area in which thep were propo~ed to be located. The Coimnission noted that if subject petitian were approved with the height and size of ; the billboard proposed, this could establish an undesirs'ule precedent wherein other a=eas of the City would be even more seriously affected, and that the basic reason for having ~ work sessions with the t~illboard companies was to draft an ordinance that would be fair to them and still maintain the integrity and esthetics of the City, and a billboard developed in accordance with Code requirements could provide all exposure necessary to the public - however, since the location of the sign was 70 feet from a residence now being used for a day care nursery, this might be the only section of the Code which could be considered favorably for waiver. ! Coimaissioner Herbst offered a motion to deny subject petition on the basis of the state- i ments made by the Cou¢ni~sion. After further discussion by the Coc~m~ission and the staff, recommending that said petition could be approved in part for the waiver of the 75-foot distance from a residence^which was presently used for a day care nursery and denial of the size and height, since the last waiver was withdrawn by the petitiuner since he had stipulated to providing the 10- " foot setback from the ultimate right-of-way for Brookhurst Street, Cortunissioner Herbst withdrew his motion. , _.._ -- - " r ~ ~` , . ~ ~ MINUTES, CTTY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 12, 1970 ~ 4985 CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. Kingry, in response to Commission questioning, stated that he PERMIT N0. 1147 could not speak for the petitioner regarding exclianging the uversize (Continued) billboard for dedication; that the size of the billboard was the critical issue since these were painted bulletins which were taken off the freeway, and Code provided that these be permitted to be located at the intersection or within 200 feet of the intersection of two arterials. Office Engineer Jay Titus advised the Commission that the peti~ioner, Mr, b:inter, offered to dedicate the 20 feet for street widening purgoses nok only in exchange for approval of the billboard at its height and size, but that the City provide for a covered drainage and for the City to incur the expense of relocation of the sign which was originally intended to be located at the ultimate right-of-way line. Chais.inan Rowland then noted tl•~at since the Commission was concerned only with land use, any possible consideration of a trade suggested by the petitioner would have to be handled by the City Council. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PCi'0-3 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1147 for the erection of a billboard within 75 feet of a residence on the basis that the intent was met since the residence was being used for other than residential purposes, and denial for the request for waiver of the maximum area of a billboard since adequate signing on the billboard could be accomplished within the Code requirements. Furthermore, a billboard twice the size permitted by Code would estabiish an undesirable precedert for similar requests wherein other areas of the City would be even more seriouslq affected than the area wherein the proposed billboard we3 located; that the height of the sign proposed at 3'~ feet more than permitted by Code and 12~ feet more than permitted when located only 130 feet from a single-family residential tract to the north ar.d east could prove to be deleter- ious to the residential integrity af this area; that the waiver of the required setback of structures in the C-1 Zone was withdrawn since the petitioner stipulated on the plans that the required 10-foot setback from the ultimate width of Brookhurst Street would be maintained; and that representatives of the billboard industry coordinated with the City cf: Anaheim in the drafting of the Billboard Ordinance, agreeing that the requirements ;,I~:i.:.h resulted were equitable to.all concerned - therefore, it would appear the propased billboard designed in cunformance with these standards, less than 300 square feet in area and less than 27 faet in height, would provide adequate advertising exposure on a major arterial street such as Brookhurst Street. Additionally, a sign of the proposed area and height could tend to defeat attempts on the part of the City to upgrade, visually and environmentaliy, this particular area; and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed bp the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. PUBLIC SEARING. VARIANCE N0. 2147 - PRC DEVELOPMENT CORP., 501 North Golden Circle Drive, Suite 100, Santa An~, California, Owner; requesting WAIVER OF THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MAIN BUILDINGS ON A SITE TO ESTABLISH A 258-UNIT, ONE AND TWO-STORY APARTM*'?VT COMPLEX on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 8.9 acres located on the southeast corner of Aladdin Street and Alameda Avenue, having approximate frontages of 604 feet on the east side of Alsddin Street and 640 feet on the south side of Alameda Avenue, and being located approximately 700 feet south of the centerline of Crescent Avenue. Property preser,tly classified R-A, AGRICULTURe1L, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to establish a 258-unit, one and two- story apartment complex; thar subject property had a resolution of intent to R-3 estab- lished in April, 1963 - however, an ordinance had not been read as yet on the property; that subject property had several zoning actions, but all yad been terminated; that the petitioner proposed all two-story units to be located more than 150 feet from the existing R-1 subdivision to the south of subject property; that Alameda Avenue, a local street located along the northerly perimeter of subject property, han been dedicated by previous landowners of this propercy but had not been improved; that plans for this street indicated it stubbing at its easterlp terminus adjacent to the R-A zoned property which had a resolution of intent to M-1, and since it was improbable that Alameda Avenue would ever be extended through the industrial properties east of subject property and on to Muller Drive, the Interdepartmental Committee recoimnended that this street be devel- oped with a modified cul-de-sac at its easterly terminus, said cul-de-sac of.fset to the south; that when property to the east in the M-1 Zone is developed, a cond`tion of approval was dedication of all access rights to Alameda Avenue and construction of a _ , , i :-~,~~~,...~~,.,~,~..,~.>~;,,~~,~:.~~~~~ s~+~~-,~-~~ .: ~~> ~:~.;~-~~~~<;. ~ ~~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 12, 1970 4986 VARIANCE N0. 2147 - 6-#ocrt masonry wall along the soutiierly property line of the M-2 (Continued) property; that a revised plot plan had been submitted - however, it was not determined whether or not che petitioner had complied with all the requirements of the Code in said revised plan; and that the Commission might be concerned with the proposed location of the recreation area for the entire facility since it was located adjacent to the souther'ly boundary of subject property and adjacenc to an R-1 subdivisian, and said arrangement could have a detrimental ef_°ect upon the living environment of the R-1 homeowr.ers. The Co~mnission Secretary noted there were no letters of opposition to subject petition. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitior. Chairman Rowland noted that the requested variance had been granted by the Planning Commission in the past and, therefore, could be considered technical; that the plans had been reviewed by the Planning Commission and were now before them - however, there appeared to be no great concern regarding the staff's finding regarding the recreational facility. The peticioner's agent indicated his presence to answer questions. Co~nissioner Herbst noted that his only comment regarding the pZans on file was the fact that the screening between the recreational areas and the single-family homes could be upgraded somewhat since only two trees were indicatPd on the plar.s. The petitioner's representative indicated that Eucalyptus trees could be planted to provide a buffering area. Commissioner Herbst then noted that Eucalyptus trees did not provide the sound buffering which was his reason for asking for additional screening. Furthermore, since this was projected for tne recreation area around or near the swimming pool, this type tree was undesir.able from the standpoint of maintenance; whereupon the agent noted that Acacia Latifolia could be plareted there, and upon being asked by the Commission what size Acacia Latifolia, he stated these would be specimen size. Mr. Brown advised the Commission that the petitioners had been contacted relative to providing the offset cul-de-sac, and as a result, this might reduce the number of units - therefore, if subject petition were approved, would the Commission require revised plans to be submitted to them, or should this be handled bq the staff. Chairman Rowland noted thaC so long as conditions of approval would indicate the addi- tional requirements over and above that on the plans, if the Flans submitted were sub- stantially in accordance with the recommended conditions, then the staff should approve or disapprove the plans and act accordingly. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. PC70-4 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2147, subject to conditions as outlined in the Report to the Co~mnission, with the addition of a condition that a 6-foot wide planter area with adequate irrigation facilities 'shall be provided adjacent to the 6-foot masonry wall along the southerly boundary of the recreation area of subject property, ssid planter area to be planted with 5-gallon Acacia Latifolia in order to provide an adequate screen between subject property and the single-family properties to the south, as stipulated to by the petitioner, and that said landscape planting shall be 3ubject to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance and to be completed prior to final building and zoning inspections. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSINT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. ~ \` ~,.~ ~;., ~ ~; _ ~" ; --__._.._.~._.~~.,....,a.. ~~ _ ~ _ __ . _ . ., .._ _ ._ .~,~.~»~;.,,?.>_ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 12, 1970 4987 • RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, GERALDINE E, ROTH, ET AL, P. 0. Box R, N0. 69-70-25 Placentia, California, Owners; JEFFREY H, MILLET, 511 South Brookhurst Road, Fullerton, California, Agent; property described as: An VARIANCE N0. 2142 irregularly shaped parcel of land consisting of approximataly 90.2 acres, having approximate frontages of 3,100 feet on La Palma Avenue TENTATIVE MAP OF (future) and 3,7R0 feet on the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railr~ad TRACT N0, 7137 right-of-way, hsving a maximum depth of app;oximate2y 2,200 feet and bein~ located approximately 2,800 feet east of the centerline of Imperial Eighway, Property presently classified COUNTY A1, GENERAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: ESTABLISH A 454-LOT, R-2-5000 SUBDIVISION WITH • WAIVER OF T'~E MINIMUM LOT WIDTH FOR ONE LOT, TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: SC:iMID DEVELOPMENT, INC., 2949 Randolph, Costa Mesa, California. ENGINEER: Millet, King & Associates, 511 South Brookhurst Road, Fullerton, California; proposing subdivision of approximately „ 90 acres of land into 454 R-2-5000 zoned lots. Sub3ect petitior.s and tract were continued from the meeting of December 1, 1909, in order to allow the petitioner time to resolve development and annexation problems. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown advised the Commission that the agent for the petitioner had submitted a letter requesting an additional two weeks' continuance, to the January 26, 1970, meeting since all of the problems connected with this request had not been completely resolved as of this time. Commissioner Camp offered a motion to continue consideration of Petitions for RPClassi- fication No. 69-70-25 and Variance No. 2142 and Tentative Map of Tract No. 7137 to the meeting of January 26, as requested by the petitioner. Commissioner Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, THE MC CARTHY CO., 1094 South Marengo N0. 69-70-15 Avenue, Pasadena, California, Owner; GEORGE SANT_, 1094 South Marengo Avenue, Pasadena, California, Agent; property described as: An VARIANCE N0. 2126 irregularly shaped parcel of land consisting of 20 acres located on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, approximately 450 feet west TE.ITATIVE MAP OF of the centeriine of Mahler Drive and having approximately 900 feet TRACT N0. 4777 of frontage on Santa Ana Canyon Road, said parcel also having approximately 850 feet of frontage on Del Giorgio Road (private). Property presently classified COUNTY OF ORANGE R-1-SOOU and R-1-10,000, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICTS. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF MIN1citTr: LOT WIDTH TO ESTABLISH A 78-LOT, SINGLE-rAMILY SUBDIVISION, TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: Subject tract, consisting of approximately 20 acres of land located southeast of Santa Ana Canyon Road, west of Mohler Drive, is proposed for subdivision into 78 R-1 Zoned lots. Subject petitions and tract were continued from the meetings of September 22, November 17, and December 15, 19b9, to allow time for the petitioner to resolve the numerous problems involved in annexation and development. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, the previous requests for continuances, and the fact that the petitioner's agent had again submitted a letter requesting a ten-weeks' continuance, to the March 23, 1970, Planning Cortrtnission meeting,in order to allow time to resolve these problems. Several persons in the Council Chamber indicated their presence in opposition to subject petitiocts. ' Considerable discussion was heid by the Commission relative to the numerous continuances and L•he fact there had been r.o resolution regarding all the problems imJOlved in develop- ment of subject property - therefore, subject petition should be removed from the agenda ' -- until such time as the petitioner had resolved these problems and was ready to present the complete package Co the Commission, and that the petitioner should be so advised, ;~:... ~ _, -..----- w -- -- ------_ _. ~ ~- - - -- - - __. __. _ ---- _~_._ _~__~ . ..._.___:__ _. _.:. ._-.------_ . _..__,_ ~~_..._ --- --- -- -_ _..__. . . .__ ..._. "• v---_~ ~_ _ -, _ -- --- --_ - ---- - ----- ----- - -- - --- L . ._.. _ _ _.-_ __ ~_ _ 1/ ~ ~ _, . ~ ~~ riINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 12, 1970 ~ 4988 RECLASSIFICATION - and further advised that said petitions would be readvertised and N0, 69-70-15 all adjoining property owners notified in the same ;ianner as ~';~e original petition - however, all costs would be borne by the VARIANCE N0, 2126 petitioner. TENTATIVE MAP OF Considerable discussion was held by the Commission relative to the TRACT N0. 4777 fact that subject petitions had been continued on three previous (Continued) occasions; that numerous people had been present who had taken time off from their work in order to present their views; that perhaps the items should be terminated since the petitioner was unable to pre~ent revised plans after the second public hearing, and aC such time as the plans and problems had been resoived, then a new petition could be requested. Assistant City Attorney John Dawson noted for the Commission that in the past where numerous continuances were requested at the City Council meetings, the Council had removed the it~s from the agenda and they were not considered until such time as the petitioners had indics~ted they were ready for presentation of their petitions - therefore, the peti- tions had ho be readvertised at the expense of the petitioners. Thus, since the Commission was of the opinion that there were sufficient continuancea granted to the petitioner, subject petitions could be removed from the agenda and readvertised at such time as all plans had been presented and all questions had been resolved. Cotmnissioner Gauer offered a motion to remove Petitions for Reclassification No. 69-70-15, Variance No, 2126, and Ten~ative Map of Tract No. 4777 from the agenda for an indefinite period until such time as the petitioner was ready to ~ubmit a complete package to the Co~ission with plans and resolution of all problems relative to development af the property; that the petitioner be advised of said removal; and that the petitianer would also be advised that subject peCitions would be readvertised, the expense of readvertising said petitions being borne by the petitioner. Commissioner Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. REPOR.TS AND• - ITEM N0, 1 RECOMMENDATIONS Proposed standards for Fire Department access and circulation. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown noted for the Commission that the report presented to them under Reports and :ecommeadations were the criteria which would establish adequate Fire Department access and fire-fighting capability to private developments. However, the study was also formulated and applicable to coimnercial and industrial developments, as well; that consideration of these standards should be considered at a public hearing and adopted by resolution which would establish a policy guideline similar to the parking standards which the Commission and Council had adopted in the past. Chairman Rowland noted that said standards could be set for public hearing; :iowever, he would recommend that the staff work with the Fire Department and the Building Division to discuss and iron out differences. Commissioner Farano offered a motion to direat the Commission Secretary to set for public hearing consideration of the proposed standards for Fire Department access and circulation to be heard at public hearing on February 9, 1970. Co~mnissioner Herbst seconded the moCion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1072 - Greyhound Bus Depot - Request for continued use - Property located at the intersection of Haster Street and Manchester Avenue. ~' --- -- Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown noted for the Commission that at the Cortunission's December 15, 1969 meeting, at which time the original request for a one-year extension of time for the uae under subject conditional use permit was recommended for continued use by the staff on the basis that the perking for the facility appeared to be adequate and future dedication for Haster Street, if and when the Engineering Division deemed this was necessary, was :i the distant future. :iowever, the Commission expressed concern nt said meeting regarding the inadequate Lighting at this facili[y, and since there was neither on-site nor off-site lighting in the immediate area of the bus depot, the staff was requestEd to contact the Utilities Department relative to the possibility of installing public lighting in this immediate area. Mr. Brown noted that upon contacting the Electrical Division, their response was chat the full street dedications and improvements were not now ins[alled in this area, and the precise alignment of the right-of-way was also not known - therefore, in view of this information, it would be their recommendation that the Greyhound Bus Depot install on-site flood-lighting to serve Cheir purposes rather than the City installing public ~~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~~ MINUTES, CTTY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 12, 1970 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 2 (Continued) 4989 lighting, and that specifications, layout, and technical assistance to accomplish this would be handled by the Power Sales Division. Mr. Brown noted that in view of the factors delineated be€urehand, that an addicional one-year extension of time be granted, retroactive to NovembEr 4, 1969, again subject to review by the Development Services Department at the end of that time, and further provided that at this time installation of on-site fl.uod-fightirg by the petitioner be made within a t~irty-day period, said lighting to be approved bq the Electrical Division. Coa¢nisaioner Gauer offer~d a motion to grant a one-year excension nf time for the use of subject property for a bus depot as originally approved under Conditional Use Permit No. 1072, subject to the in~tailation of on-site fiood-lighting by the petitioner within thirty dayg of this date, based on the fact that inadequate Iighting wae noted on the bus depot site, and this particular area was somewhat rEmoved from the Coeunercial- Recrestion Area. Commissioner Farano seconded the moCion. MOTION CARR;ED. ~ ~ ITEM N0. 3 Proposed amendments and additions to Title 18, Anaheim Municipal Code, relative to planned residential developments aud number of main structures permitted in a multiple-famiiy zoned parcel. • Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed for the Commi3sion the history of 45 zoning actions dealing with pLanned residential developmen~s and the number of main structures permitted; that of the 26 conditional use pennits to establish multiple-family planned residential developments, 19 were for requested waiver of the number of main buildings on a site; that none of these requested actions were specifically denied by the Planning Commission or City Council because of the number of main residential build- ings on a site; that the staff had contacted 23 cities in Orange County and adjacent counties to determine whether they had any specific restrictions ir. their zoning codes as to the number of permitted main buildings, and only one city, Garden Grove, limited the nw~nber of main structures, and this restriction applied only if the parcel of land were less than 15,000 square feet in area; therefore, the staff recommended that as a result of this study that the Commission set for public hearing Section 18.08, Definition of a planned residential development; Section 18.18, Cor.ditional Uses; Section 18.20, Condition~l Uses; Section 18.24, Canditional Uses; Section 18.28, Permitted buildings, structures, and uses; Sectior. 18.32, Buildings, structures, and uses, either sir.gly or in combination permitCed; and Sectian 18.64, Planned residential developments. Commissioner Farano offered a motion to direct the Commission SecreCary to set for public hearing on February 9, i970, consideration of amendments to Title 18, Anaheim Municipal Code, as set forth in the Report to the Commission relative to planned residential develop~rants and conditional uses in the single-family and multiple-family residential zones, and Section 18.64 to require planned residential developments subject to the p~rovisions of the resolution governing said 3evelopments. Commissioner Camp seconded the motion, MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 4 City of Placentia - Pre-annexation 2oning 70/O1 - Property located at the southeast corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and the southerl} extension of Rose Drive (Tustin Avenue-Linda Vista); proposing pre-annexation zoning from County A1, General Agricultural District to City of Placentia GM, General Manufacturing, and "T", Mobiie Home Overlay, Districts. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown presented to the Planning ^ommission the City of Placentia Pre-annexation Zoning 70/O1 proposal, noting that the area includ~rl in said pre-annexation zoning consisted of approximate3y 29 acres and was located on the east side of Tustin Avenue southerlq of Orangethozpe Aver.ue and the Orange County Flood Control channel; that it was uot a part of the area recently approved b~~ L~1FC0 fur annexation to Placentia; that subject property is located immediatelq adjacQnt to industrially zoned properties lying within the boundarie~ of the City oF Ansheim's Northeast In~ustrial Area; and that both the Anaheim City Planning Co~nission and CiYp Council by long-standing policy and action have attempted to retain the integritv of the Northeast Industrial Area by not allowing the encroachment of residential uses (including mobile home parks) inCo this industrial area. ! ~ `"~ ~ ._ ,:;. .,~ ~ : ~' - ' . = f.: ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 12, 1970 4990 REPORTS AND RECOI~QiENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 4 (Continued) Discuasion was held by the Planning Coumission relative to the propoaed pre-zoning petition, and at the conclusion of this discussion the Planning Commission determined that the industrial zoning portion of the proposal would be consistent with the land , use projections for the Northeast Industrial Area; however, the proposal for the Mobile Home Park Overlay District would negate tt-e Planning Commission and City Council's attempts to discourage residential encroachment into the industrial areas. . jf~. Commissioner Camp offered a motion to recommend ta the City Council that the City of ' Placentia Pre-Annexation Zoning 70/O1 petition be recommended for denial on the basis that the Mobile Home Park Overlay District would not be consistent with Anaheim's r past policy o£ discouraging residential uses in industrial areas. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ..s.i::,. z , ~~::. .~: ... ~~