Loading...
Minutes-PC 1970/03/23{ i ~ i ~ • ~ .~ City Hall Anaheim, California March 23, 1970 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIMG COMMISSION ~ .+~x ~ ~ REGULAR MEETING - 9 regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Rowland at 2:00 o'clock P.M., a quorum being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Rowland. - COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Seymour, Thom. ABSENf - COMMISSIONERS; Allred. PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Ronald Thompson Deputy City Attorney; Frank Lowry OfEice Engineer: Jay Titus Zoning Supervisor: Charles Roberts Assistant Zonir.g Supervisor: Pat Brown Planning Coaunission Secretary; Ann Krebs PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Cortunissioner Thom led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF - The Minutes of the meeting of March 9, 1970, were approved a:• THE MINUTES submitted on motion by Commissioner Th om, seconded by Cortunissioner Gauer, and MOTIOP CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. LEWIS R. AND NDITH E. SCHMID, 1401 N0. 69-7L~-5 Smokewood Drive, Santa Ana, California, Owners; GEORGE L. ARGYROS, ARNEL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 17411 IrvinE Baulevard, Suite D, Tustin, Cal3forn±a, Agent; requesting that property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 225 feet on the west side of State College Boulevard and an approximate depth of 150 feet, aubject property being approximately 350 feet nor[h of the cen~erline of Ball Road, be reclassified from the R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZO1VE to the C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, 20NE. Subject petition was continued from che meetinge of July 28, September 22, and December 29, 1969, to allow Cime for the petitioner to conau~nna[e acquisition of additional property and for the preparation of plana, as well as an opinion from the City qttorney relative to approving g reclaseification petition aubject to development in accordance with precise plane. Asaistant 2oning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of a~ibject property, uaea establiahed in cloae proximity, the proposed zoning, and reasona for continuances of subject petition for aeveral meetings, and then noted that the petitionecs had requested approval of subject petition contingent upon aubmiaeion and approval of plana of develop- ~nt by the Planning Co~isaion and City Council prtor to the reading of the ordinance retlassifying the property aince the ma,jor tenant contemplated for this property had withdrawn from the aite - therefore, no conc~ept plans were available. Mr. George Argyros, agens iar the petitioner, indicated hia preaence to answer questions. Chairman ~towland noted that the Commission had been spprised by the Engineering Division that a problem existed in thet the State Division af Highways would not approve reloca- tion of the street to the northerly boundary of subject property, said information having been addresaed in a letter to tne developers o£ the R-3 property to the west of subject property. Office Engineer Jay T±.tus then przsented a copy of the letter to the agent for his perusal. Deputy City Attomey Frani: Lowry adai~sed the Co~ission that since no action had been taken on subject property, the Coum~ission could contin~e consideration of aubject petition for a period of up to one year in order that theae problems could be resolved to the satisfaction of the ~ity, tl~.e State, and the developers. The Cortmiission noted that they were mo&t interested in allowing sufficient time to the petitioners in order to reaolve these ypsoblems presented by zhe State, as well as 5066 - '"'TQ,, _ .. . _.. __. ~ /~ i i ~.~_. ___._.._.._._..a.,..;,~.~ ..............s....,..R.~...~,~...~,,.~~.;..~..~,.,- -,....~,~,.>R..~,,.,, ...,..~a,--~,--.r,,.~.,~--~.,.~,..-~;n-.<,..r-,~~.~, .,: ~_l ~~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANTIING COMMISSIOIr', March 23. i970 506i RECLASSIFICATION - securing a major tenan:, in order that the Commission might have N0, 69-70-5 concept plans for reciEw, and tt~t wuen ~Feae prohlems were resolved, the petitioners could request the petitioz to be scheduled on the agenda. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission :hat a date uncertain in the continuance of this tqpe wouid necessita~e readverr.i~iag aubject petition at the expense of the petitioner at such time as the de~ve'loper was re~d;; co pruceed with continued considerati~n of subj~ct petition. ~ Cocmnissioner Herbst offered a motion to cu;:tir,ue Petition for Re.:lassification No. 69-70-5 for a period up to one year in order that tne petitioner might rESOlve the streetaccess problems presented by the State Department of Highws}s and to secure a major tei~ant in order that a concept plan of development could be presented to the Commissior., a:d that at such time as the petitfoner was ready for the Commission to con3ider the pe~iti.on and be rescheduled on a fui:ure agenda, the pet;tion.shouid be readvertised at the ex_per.se of the petitioner so thac proper legal notification might be made and scheduling could be accomplished in a legalimnner. Cemmissioner Ti;om seconded ths motfon. MOTION CARRIED. VARIANCE N0. 2161 - CONTINL`ED PUBLIC HEARING. LUSK CORPORATION, P. 0. Box 1217, WhiCtier, California, Owner; requesting WAIVER OF REQUIREMENT THAT RESIDENTIAL TENTA'fIVE MAP OF STRUCTL-RES REAR ON ARTERI~L HIGHWAYS on property descr3b.ed as: An TRACT N0. 5674, irregular2y shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2~. ac.*es, REVISION N0. 3 located at tF:e northwest corner u.f Nohl Ran~h Road and Royal Oak Road., havir.g approximate fron_ages of 940 feet on the north side of Nohl Ranch Road and i00 feet an the west side of Royal Oak Road. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. TEA'TATIVE TRAC'•_' REQUEST: DEVELOPER: LUSK CORPORATION, P. 0. Box 1217, Whittier, Caiifornia. ENGINEER: Hopen, Hedlund & Dacby, Inc., 3030 West Main Street, Alhambra, California. ~roperty lucated at [he narthweat corner of Nohl Ranch Road end Royal Oak Road, consists of approximateiy 22 acres of land, and is propose~ for sub- division into 52 R-H-L0,000 zoned lo[s. Subject petition and tract were continued from the meeting of March 9, 1970, in order to allow the petitioner time to resolve certain engineering and site de~;elopment problems connected with this proposal. Assis[ant Zoning Supervisor Pnt Brown reviewed the location of aub,ject property, uses eatablished in close proximity, and the proposal to subdivide subject property into 52 R-H-10,000 lots; [ha[ the peti[ioner had requeated aa ad~di[ional two weeks in order to allow time for the staff to evaluate the new tenCative Uract map. Zoning Supervisor Charlea Raberta advised the Cou~isaipn that the petitioner had aubmitted a revised tentative tract map - however, this had been received too Late for coneideration by the Interdepartmental Cou~it,:ee for Public Safety~and General Welfare. Commisaioner Gauer offered a motion to continue considera[ion of Petition for Variance No. 2161 and Tentative Map of Trac[ No. 5674, Reviaion No. 3, to the meeting of April 6, 1970, in order that the s:aff might evaluate the new tract map submitted. Commissioner Seymour aeconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. VARIANCE N0. 2160 - CONTI?NED PUBLIC HFARING. PAUL J. AND RUTH E. KNAAK, 1751 S.E. Skyline Drive, Santa Ana, California, Owners; BIG BRAKE, INC., P. 0. Box 1790, Newport Beach, California, Agent; requesting WAIVERS OF (1) PERMITTED USES IN THE C-1 ZONE, (2) MA}CIMUM *IUMgER OF FREE-STANDING AND ROOF SIGNS LOCATED WITHIN 300 FEET OF Oh'E ANOTHER, (3) MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN, ANll (4) MAXIMUM AGGREGATE SIGN DISPLAY AREA, TO ESTAHLISH A BRAKE SERVICING SHOP on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 100 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 150 feet and being located approximately 190 feet east of the centerl3ne of Br~okhurst Street, and furth~r described as 21i0 West Lincoln avenue. Property presently classified C-1, GENER6L CQMMERCIAL, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the meecing of March 9, 1970, at the request of the petitioner. *+ Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed Che location of subject property, uses .~c ° established in close proximity, and the proposal to establish a brake service shop in , the C-1 Zone, having one access point to Lincoln Avenue, noting that parking would comply ': with Code requirements; that a 35-foot high, 144-aquare foot display area, free-standing ,t ~ ; _~ -~ ~~~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 23, 1970 5068 VARIANCE N0. 216~J - sign was proposed for the centEr of subject property; that in addition (Continued) two roaf signs which would projec± approximately 3'~ feet above the roof line were proposed, making the aggregate area of all three signs approximately 214 square feet, whereas Code would permit a maximum height of only 28 feet because of residen~ial uses within 326 feet of the sign; and that because the width of the property was only 100 £eet, tne 200-square foot display area was permitted. Mr, Brown further noted that the proposed signing would not appear to be warranted or appropriate to the area; however, by lowering the two proposed roof s3gns by the 3'~-foot projection above the roof line, ti:en these wouid become wall signs ar.d permitted by Code, which, in turn, would eliminate waivers "b" and "d", and by reducing the hei.ght of the proposed free-standing sign by 7 feet, ::ince 23 feet sepazeted tha ground level from the display area, this waiver would not be necessary. Furthermore, a similar use had teet~ approved in ,;uly, 1968, located 700 feet east of subject p:oper~q - therefore, the Commission would have to determine whether or not an additinnal sim:lar use would be appropriate and uhether the waivers requested were essential. Chairman Rowland noted that there might be some misunderatanding as to the roof sigr~; _ aince the Commissien had reviewed the plans it was the consensua of opinion of the majority of the Coimniasion that these were wsll signs - therefore, waivers "b" ar.d "d" could be eliminated from conaideration by the Commission in evidence presented as it pertained to the permitted uses in the C-1 Zone and the height of a free-standing sign. The petitioner was not present, nor was his repreaentative. Mr. Charles Wells, Pageant Realty Company, 2020 West Lincoln Avenue, appeared before the Commiesion and noted he was in favor of the proposed development of subject property, and that this would be an asaet to th~e ahopping area. No one appeared in oppoaition to aubject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED, The Commission discusaed the two waivers requested which the Commisaion would coneider, ' namely, the uae and the height of the proposed free-atanding aign. i :, =~' Cormnisaior.er Herbat offered Resolution No. PC70-45 and moved for ite paesage and adoption ' to grant Petition for Variance No. 2160 in part, granting the use on the baeie that aimilar uees had been establiahed in cloae proximity; that the roof aigne we*e, in reality, wall aigne - therefore, waivere "b" and "d" were deleted; end that waiver of the height limitation was to be denied on Che baeis [hat aigning within Code requiremente would be adequate; and subject to conditiona. (See Resolution Book~ Prior to voting, the Commiseion continued diacueaion with Commiesioner Farano being of the opinion that the petitioner should be preeent to anewer Co~mniaeion queetione; ~.±~~C the Code wwe very epecific ae to the definitian of well and roof eigns; and that the petitioner ehould be required to give epecific ehowinge and evidence that the waivere were neceaeary for a substantial property right,~rhich from hie point of obeervation had not been proven - therefore, the petitioner had created his own hardehip by the design of hia building aince theee roof eigne were definite roof aigna fr~m his having viewed other aitee of operation by the proposed operator of the brake aervice. Chairman Rowland etated that from hie point of observakion, arcl:iteceurally apeaking, theae propoaed roof eigne could be conaidered part of a parapet; that although this was not level with the roof, it could atill be conaidered a parapet; and that if the :oamiisaion determined that these were roof aigns rather then wall eigne, then he would concur that a hardship muet be demona:rated to waive this portion of the Code. ::uwever, this question as to roof and wall aig«e had been preaented to the Commiasion before, and the portionsof the Code being requested for waiver were not too cor.=luaive and were somewhat ambiguous, but he pereonally felt these were wall aigns as parC of the design elemenL. Zoning Supervieor Charlea Roberte noted there seemed to be eome confusion as to the plans aubmitted and whether or not the aigne were a aeparate addition to the building aince they would project some diatance from the wall, and if it were the intent of the Commiasion to center these wall eigne, then the atructure ahould be d~aigned as a perapet. Chairman Rowland noted these ahould not extend from the wall. mose than 16 inchea if these were construed as wall signa. * Mr. Roberts then inquired whether or not in the motion made by Commisaioner Herbat was he ,+kc deairoue of making a finding that the use wsa appropriate becauae of aimilar uaea in this . ,_ area, _ :.'~'~ - - ---~,_,. . .. 4 r ^ ~ ~'~ i~ z ~ `~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 23, 1970 5069 VARIANCE N0. 2160 - Commissioner Herbst r.oted that a service station and auto suppiy (Continued) compar.y, as well as a hardware store and similar operations in this geaeral area,were already located - therefore, tt~e use proposed was appropriate to the area. On roll call the foregoing resoiuCion was passed by the foi3awing vote: i AYES: COMMISSIONBRS: Gauer, herbst, Seymour, Thom, Rowland. ~ NOES; COMMISSIONER5: Farano.. ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. , ~l' RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARTNG. HA2EL R. EPKENS, 3151 Terauimar Drive, Anaheim, ; N0, 69-70-37 Califorr.ia, Owner; ANDREW'S BURGERS, GL'ST KIOUSIS AND JAMES A. DORLIS, ~ 3464 West Orar.ge Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agents; proper:p CONDITIONAL USE described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at the PERMIT N0, 1259 southwest corner of Lincmin Avenue and Gilbert Street, having approxi- mate frontages of 100 feet on Lincaln Avenue and 86 feet on Gilbert Street, and further described as 103 South Gilbert Street. Property presentiy ciassified R-1, ONF-F.AAiILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESPED CLASSYFICATION: C-1, GENEAAL COMMERCIAL, 20NE. ~ REQUESTED COND'ITiQDTAL USE: ESTABLISH A TAKE-OUT RESTAURA;7T WITH AN OUTDOOR PATIO ARF:A, Assistant 2oning Super~isor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses eatabliahed in ciaae p~oximit}r, previous zoning action, and the proposal to establish a walk-up, take~out restaurant with outdoor patio area on eubject property; that the total area of the atructure was 750 squar~ feet including the patio and was prupoaed to be loca:ed only 12 feet frcm the property line, ~hereas Council policy had 'eeen maintained with a 35-:oot structural aetback along Lincoln Avenue; that acceas was proposed both from Lincoln Avenue and Gi~.bert Street; that adequate parking was proposed - however, because of the use and the tact t;nat it abutted R-I developed tz operty to the south and west, the Commiasion might wish to conai3er requiring treea on 20-foot centera immediatelp adjacent to the exiat3ng walls; and that although commercial uae of sub,jecc property might be appropriate because of ita location at Lhe intersection of two arterials, the use as a walk-up reataurant was too intense a use and undeairable adjacent to aingle-family homes due to the traffic, odors, noiae, lighta, and houra of operation, ae well ae the uneightly appearance of developments of thia nature. Mr. J. E. Pruett, 249 East Lincoln Avenue, repreaenting the petitioner as real estate agent, appeared befc~re the Commiseion and noted that since the laet time a requeet was made to eatabliah a emall grocery etore on aubjsct property in 1960, many proepective purchasera of eubjest property had made inquiries of the potential uee for subject property but had been diecouraged by the Planning Department etaff ae being too amall for commercial uaea due to Che fact that a 35-foot structural setback wae required on Lincoln Avenue; that the Commieaion was fully aware no changes had occurred in the area - yet there wae no way the petitioner could realize her inveetment in thie propnrty, even though the County Aasessor wae taxing the property and the City of Anaheim ye~irly preaented a weed abatement bill; that if the 35-foot ~etback were a requirement, then the homEa to the west all ensroached on thia requirement aince maeonry walle were at the property line, and these would remain for a number of yeare; that the setback requirement would deprive the petitioner the right to uae the property to ita highest an9 beat use; that a business would not be aucc~eseful if undeairable od.ora emanated from it; and Lhat lights could be control!ed as a conditicn of approval, to which the petitioner-agent would atipulate. The ~~~iesion noted thet as had happened in many other inatancer where property abutted an arterial atreet or streeta, a parcel was held out in the develi~pment of a reaidential tra~t - rherefore, the hardehip was created in the beginning of th~~ development of ttie property, and coIInaercial estebliahments on che north eide of Lincoll~ Avenue wnu.ld not be complemented by the proposed use. Mr, Don McIntosh, 109 South Gilberc Street, appeared betore the Cosmnie:aion in opposition and presente2 a petition sign~d by 25 pereona, all in opnosition, star,ing ~hat the pro- posed uee and z~ning of aubject property would be contrary to the adopted General Plan for thls srea aince it wa~ fully developed for aingle-family use except for aubiect propert~; that thv use would create an undesirable nuisance to the adjoining re,aidents, setting up a potential traffic hazard; that it was an unneceseary coimaercial use in the area; that the lot was too small for the propoaed uae; and that the setback requirement for Lincoln Avenue had been eatablished at 35 feet, while the petitioner was propoaing a aetback of only 12 f.eet. Mr. McIntoah, in reaponRe to Commieaion questioning as to the moat appropriate use for the property, atated he had given little thought to thia - that although he recognized ~ _. ~ ~ ~ ;MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMTSSION, March 23, 1970 50?0 RECLASSIFICATION - this was difficult ~o develap, perhaps some smail type o£fice use N0. 69-70-37 would be more desirable from the s:andpoint of elimination of traEfic hazards and a less intense use which would be more compatible than a C~NDITIONAL USE restaurant with the undesirable effects this could have on the resi- PERMIT N0. 1159 dents. of the area. (Continued) Mr. Don Ralston, 138 South Gilbert Street, appeared before the Commission and stated he would agree with the agent for ti:e petitioner that this property was not a desirable appearing property for the area - however, all the residents were quite concerned about development of this property because of its appearance, and he would suggest a less intense use of the property which would be mare in harmony ~with the area than a take-out, walk-up restaurant which would increase the traffic on Gilbert Street, a primarily residential street on which residents had been successful in reducing t'he speed limit to 25 ~iles per. hour in order that children would not be suhjecced to fast traffic, and the traffic was extremely difficult and heavy during the afternoon and evening hours; that Savanna High Schooi was located to the north of Lincoln Avenue, and students from the school could use this proposed facility as a hang-out, which would add to the traffic hazard and undesirability for a residential environmen*_ for other school children; and that as a suggestion, perhaps subjecr property could be developed with a small insurance agency which did not create the type of traffic the proposed use would create and would be a less intense commercial use. Mr. Pruett, in rebuttal, stated that because of the negative response by the Planning Department staff as to the praper uses for subject property, the property had not been developed - however, this still left a very unattractive, vacant parcel, and at the same time deprived the petitioner the uae of her property. A letter of opposition was read to the Commission which reiterated the oppoaition presented at a previous zor.ing action on subject property. THE HEARING WAS CLOSEll. Chairman Rowland noted that the aize and shape of the parcel were such that the petitioner had demonatrated a hardahip would exist in developing aubject property within Code require- ments; however, to grant the zoning and uae could also create additional problema which could not be resolved. The Commisaion noted that the northeast corner of this intersection had been developed with a very attractive reataurant, moCel, and apartment complexea; however, the proposed uee would not be an asaet to thie development, and other uaea permitted by the C-1 2one in addition to the proposed uee would be equally as harmful to the residentiai environ- ment long established around subject property. However, the Commercial-Office 2one would be a lese intense zone. Zoning Supervieor Charles Roberte adviaed the Commiseion that the C-0 2one would require 20,000 equare feet of land, whereas aubject property wae only 8,700 equare feet, and a variance from the C-0 2one would have to be approved, The Commiasion further noted that granting the propoaed requeet would relieve the peti- tioner of a hardahip; however, it would create coneiderably more hardahip for the adjoin- ing property ownere because of the uae, even though none of the Commiseion felt aubject property would be desirable for reaidential uae. Commisaioner Herbat offered Reaolution No, PC70-46 and moved for ita passage and adoption to recammend to the City Council that Petition for Reclaeaification No. 69-70-37 be dis- approved on the basis that the propoaed reclaseification would adversely affect the residential integrity eatabliehed for the paet fourteen yeara in thia general area; that the propoaed reclassification of aubject property wae not neceasary or desirable for the orderly and proper development of the cou~unity; that the Planning Commission recognized that aubject property was a problem parcel in terma of the type of use which would be approQriate for the aite - however, to grant C-1 zoning, a zone which would allow a variety of commercial uses, would impoae a hardahip on the reaider.*ial nei.ghbors in close proximity; and that aubject property would be more appropriately developed with a lesa intenae use, perhapa a small profesaional office which would then minimize any adverse effects general commercial usea would have upon the reaidential area. (See Reaolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution ~ea paesed by the following vote: ~ AIES: COMMISSI~::ERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Seymour, Thom, Rowland. ~ ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. +~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. ~ ~h // ~ ~ --~ >> MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 23, 1970 5071 RECLASSIFICATION - Co~issioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC70-47 and moved for its N0. 69-70-:!' passage and adoption to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit ~ No. 1159 on the basis that the reclassification proceedings for C-1 CONDITIONAL USE zaning had been recommended for disapproval, and the requested use PERMIT N0. 1159 would not be permitted or appropriate in the existing zone; tliat the i (Continued) proposed use would adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the i growth and development of the area; that the size and shape of the pa=cel were not adequate to allow for the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area since it was not proposed to conform to the required 35-foot setback along Lincoln Avenue. (See Resolution Book) I On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foliowing vote: ~ AYES: COMMISSIUNERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Seymour, Thom, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. RECLASSIFICATIOiV - PUBLIC HEARING. DOUGLAS NORTON, 1217 South NuL~~ood Street, Anaheim, N0. 69-70-45 California, Owner; propertq•described as: A rectangularly shaped ~ parcel of land located at the southwest corner of Ball Road and CONDITIONAL USE Nutwood Street, having approximate frontages of 168 feet on Ball Road PERMIT N0, 1158 and 197 feet on Nutwood Street. Property presently classified .°,QA, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-i, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A nRIVE-IN AND WALK-UP RESTAURANT. Aasietant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses establiahed in close proximiky, and the proposal tc eatablish a drive-through, walk-up restaurant on Portion A, together with small convenience atorea on Portion B. It was noted by Mr. Brown that the Anaheim General Plan projected multiple-family reai- dential uses for properties in this general area. Furthermore, the Traffic Engineer had adviaed that a maximua: 30-foot wide accesa drive would be desirable; therefore, the 35- foot drive could be reduced from the eaet side of the acceea drive to relocate the drive further west from the Ball Road-Nutwood Street intersection. Mr. William Phelpe, deaigner of the propoaed development, appeared before the Commiasion to represent the petitioner and indicated the petitioner wae preeent in the Council Chamber to anewer queations; that the aurrounding properties had developed with a mixture of uaee, namely, churchea, achools, aingle-family homee, multiple-family reeidential uses, and commercial uses to the northeast and immediately to the weet; that the petitioner also owned the aingle-family residential property to the south on the R-A parcel; that subject parcel thua wauld lend iteelf more for cosmnercial ueee than reaidential ueee; that the walk-~rp reataurant wae the type which had been eucceeeful throughout Southern California and Orange County in particular; and that becauee the petitionnr wae aleo reaiding immediately to the south of subject property, it wae hie desire to have the Co~isaion take cognizance of thia fact, together with the fact that the atmoephere of the area had changed with apartments approved end being developed eoutherly of eub~ect property, ae well as a wedding chapel on the C-1 property immediately to the keat. Mr. Rusaell Wendell, 1773 Burchee Street, Gardena, appeared before the Commisaion representing ihe buil.dera of the proposed walk-up reataurant, noting he was vice president of the Pup n Taco Company; that thia would be their 37th operation; that it was company owned and operated and not a franchiee; that the reco~nendation of the width of the drive to Ball Road be reduced would be complied with; that they were willing to diacusa deaign principles with the staff; and that the nearest facility which the Co~isaion could view was at Olive Street and Lincoln Avenue, which had been in operation for several yeara and was quite successful, ' Mr. Roy Moore, 1916 West Ball Road, appeared before the Commiasion in oppoaition, stating a restaurant uf this type would noC be desirable from the atandpoint of their wedding • chapel facilities due to the noiae it would create, cauaing posaible dieruption of their facilities now under construction aince it would be a meeting place for teenagers; that ~ the type of food producta eold would create an unsightlinesa of trash because the paper cartone would be discarded on the atreets and lawna of the varioua facilitiea in this ` area; that a traffic problem would also be created, adding to the problem for amall school children going to and from school; that the investmente in this area of churches, ~~ schools, wedding chapel, aingle-family homea, etc., with a lesa deairable eating facility ,,tx would be affected; and thaC they were not opposed to Che amall ehopping center ao long as it did not create a nuisance ar.d traffic problema. ~ _,~ ~ ~~ ~ ----- - _-- -- ---~-. -- ---------.._..___. ___.____..---_~___--.---___.._~_______. _ _. . .__..~. _ ( ~:_~ :~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 23, 1970 ~ 5072 , . ~ RECLASSIFICATION - Mrs. Betty Marquardt, 1665 South Nutwood Street, appeared before the N0. 69-70-45 Commission in opposition and noted that with past Commission and . Council action it was made quite clear at all public hearings that CONDITIONAL USE this area was appropriate for apartment development, and the proposed PERMIT N0. 1158 use would be contrary to the statements made; that she was very (Continued) concerned with the type of facilitq and its effect on the small children going to and from school, both to Key Elementary and the private parochial school,since their onlp means of access to the achool to the west would be past this ia~ersection, and customers leaving this proposed ~ facility, primarily 3oung people, would leave the facility at excessive speeds, creating a high potential traffic hazard; that this would be a potentiai meeting place for drug ~.: ;~~ pushers and purchasers such as collected at the Tic Toc Market cn the northeast corner r of this intersection; and that places such as this could be the meeting place for vandals who would be destroying property, such as had occurred at the Modjeska Park southerly of .~. subject property, wherein the danage and repair cost would be assessed to the property owners in the area and not to the business which might establish there. Mrs. Robert Eckes, 1867 Castle Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition, noting that the use would be adding more undesirable businesses which never seemed to be too successful; that there were several in this general area ai Orange'and Broadway, '` at Brookhurst and Broadway, ar.d on Euclid Street, and if co~mnercial uses were considered favorably, a small family restaurant should be proposed rather than the walk-up type which was undesirable from the standpoint of safety for the children; and that since the City Council and the Planning Commission determined multiple-family residential uses were appropriate, she saw no reason to break down the area further by permitting this type of facility. Mr. David Maddox, 111 North Western Avenue, appeared before the Commission, noting he was the owner-developer of the apartment complex to the south os subject property, and he was in favor of any project wherein the full width of the street and improvements, including sidewalks, was made aince there presently was no place for children to walk. A letter from the pastor of the Grace Miseionary Baptiat Church was read by the Commiaeion Secretary in which it expresaed oppoaition to a drive-in or walk-up reataurant for subject property because of possible police problems and development of a hang-out for young people; however, he would suggest that a family type restaurant - walk-in type - would be an asaet to the area. In rebuttal, Mr. Wendell atated that they were deairoue of operating a aucceaeful buaineas, and noiaes, odors, lighta, end traffic conflicts would noC be conducive to a aucceseful busineas -therefore, they would make every attempt to minimize these probleme; that they also were opposed to young people loitering or eatabliahing a meeting place for them eince theae young people did not provide the type of income which was neceseary; that a check with the Police Department would aubetantiate the fact that their operation was one of the better onea run in Orange County; that their managera were trained to operate a clean estebliehment„ and that a 20-year lease on subject property would mean their operation ~ould be there a long time; and that where any problem of loitering occurred, they had worked with the P~lice Department to reaolve thie problem. Mr. Phelpa, in reaponse to Commieaion questioning, etated thei the two lote to the eouth of aubject property were developed with eingle-family homes, and there wae no plan for any other use for at least tY.e lot immediately to the south of subject property. Mr. Douglae Norton, the petitioner, appeared before the Commisaion and atated he had lived at thia addreas for the past fourteen yeara; that he intended to combine aubjecC and his own Qroperty for one large project but had been unaucceaeful in obtaining any interest in so large a parcel for residential purposea because of the number of churches, schools, and even induatry; and then in reaponae to Commission queationing, etated tha*_ subject property and the property on which he zeaided totaled approximately 61,000 aquare feet and would not attract large developers but only a amall apartment builder if a heavier coverage were permitted - however, there would be conaiderable competition from the development now under construction to the south becauae of his asking price for the property; and that he had pur- chased subject property in 1955. THE HEARIN~ WAS CLOSED. Discuasion was held by the Commiasion on the poaeibility of combining aubject property ; with the two R-A parcela to the south for further continuance of the multiple-family , ; residential development ae depicted on the General Plan; the inappropriatenesa of the propoaed use in cloae proximity to the churches, achools, and residential usea which had * been eatablished for some time, especially with a walk-up restaurant as proposed. at~ ~ _,. \ . ^ , I ~~_) ~ '~ ) MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 23, 1970 5073 RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Herbst offered Resolu~ion No. PC70-48 and moved far its N0, 69-70-45 passage and adoption to recoimnend to the City Council that Petition ' for Reclassification No. 69-70-45 be disapproved on the basis that - '~ CONDITIONAL USE the coimnercial use proposed for subject property would be incompatible i PERMIT N0. 1158 with existing uses in the area; furthermore, the General Plan projected (Continued) this general area for mediiam density residential uses, which would ~ appear to be more compatible with the school-church characteristics of the area. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: m ~3 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Seymour, Thom. ,~ ' ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC70-49 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1158 on the basis that the reclassifica- - tion was recommended for disapproval - therefore, the use proposed would not be permitted in the existing zone; tnat the proposed use would adversely affect the adjoining land uses and growth and development of the area; and that it would be detrimental to the ~ peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the area due to noises, odors, hours of operation, cype of traffic it would cr.eate, and hazards for the many children attending school in the area, together with the lighting which would affect the single-family homes in close proximity. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES; COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Seya~our, Thom, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIG:VERS; Allred. VARIANCE N0. 2163 - PUBLIC HEARING, IARRY GOi.D, 8875 Kateila Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; requeating WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK AND (2) MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK TO ESTABLISH AN EXISTING ADDITION AS A ~ LEGAL, CONFORMING USE on property described as: A rectangularly ~ shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 70 feet on the east side of "~ Cambria Street, the southerly boundary being approximately 265 feet north of the center- ~ line of Rainbow Avenue. Property preaently claseified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIbENTIAL, ZONE. Aasiatant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of aubject property, uaea eatabliahed in cloae proximity, and the reason for requeeting the varience - that the former owner had constructed additions to the property illegally, without benefit of City permits or zoning approval, and theae additions created a 7-foot, 4-inch front property line aetback, whereas Code would require a 15-foot setback on the curve portion of a cul-de-eac, and a 7-foot, 1-inch rear property line aetback, whereae Code would require a 10-foot setback; and that said additiona would require approval by the City prior to iseuance of a building permit to complete the additione which had baen etarted. Furthermore, an analyais of aerial mape of thia immediate area indicated eeveral rear yarda with lesa than the required 10-foot etructural setback - therefore, said setback would be deemed granting a privilege enjoyed by other property ownera. Mr. Larry Gold, the petitioner, appeared before the Cormniasion and noted they had acquired the property through forecloaure and were unaware the atructures were not approved by the City since they were started approximately four yeara ago by the original owner, wherein the additions made created a U-type atructure rather than the L-type adjoining property owners had; and that he had a petition eigned by a number of property ownera on both sides and to the rear along Cambria Place, requeating approval of subject petition. ~ No one appeared in oppoaition to aubject petition. THE HEARING WAS ~LOSED. Commieaioner Farano o£fered Reaolution No. PC70-50 and moved for ita passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2163, aubject to conditions. (See Reaolution Book) ; On roll call the feragoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Aerbat, Seymour, Thom, Rowland. , NOES; COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. .~x ~ -_ .---~ ~._ __...~..,_.,-. .. - 1~ _ ` .,~. ^ ~ ) ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 23, 1970 5074 ~ VARIANCE N0. 2164 - PUBLIC HEARING. CHRYSLER REALTY CORP., 500 South Main Street, Orange, ~ California, Owner; PAUL GIAKAS, 1120 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, ~ California, Agent; requesting WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM NUMBER Or FREE- STANDING SIGNS, (2) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN FREE-ST~4NDING SIGNS, (3) MAXIMUM SIGN HEIGHT, (4) MAXIMUM PERMITTED AGGREGATE DISPLAY AREA, AND (5) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN A ROOF SIGN AND A FREE-STANDING SIGN, TO PERMIT ONE ROOF AND TH'.tEE FREE-STANDING SIGNS on property described as: Ar irregularly shap,ed parcel of land located at the southeast corner of i Anaheim Boulevard and Clifton Avenue, having approximate frontages of 430 feet on Anaheim ~ Boulevard and 270 ieet on Clifton Avenue, and further described as 1120 South Anaheim Boulevard. Property presently clas;nified G 2, GENERAL COMt~1ERCIAL, AND C-3, HEAVY COMMER- u~ ~ CIAL, ZONES. •~ Assistan.t Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of sub~ect pronerty, uses ~;~ estabiished in close proximity, previous signing on subject property, and the proposal to ,~ erect an additional 44~-foot high, 332-square foot, free-standing sign on subject property in the same location as the existing 60-foot high sign, with the latter sign being re- ;~ located at the intersection of Clifton Avenue an~i Anaheim Boulevard; that a 36-square foot, free-standing sign (C) would be located approximately 138 feet suuth of an existing sign similar in size (to be removed) near the in[ersection of Anaheim Boulevard and _~ Clifton Avenue; and that the 60-square foot roof sign was located on the used car sales office in the southerly portion of the property. Mr. Brown, in evaluating the requast, noted that the new 44'~-foot sign was propuse~ to be lccated within 300 feet of residentially zoned property, while the existing sign was located a similar distance whir.h would restrict the height of these signs to 25 feet rather than the existing 60 feet and the proposed 44~ feet; that Sign A would be located only 138 ~aet from Sign C, and the new sign would be 163 feet from the roof sign, with Sign C being 195 feet from said roof sign, *aherees Code required a minimum of 300 feet between all signs; and that given the 300-foot frontage of subject property (this includes Signs C, D, and E) this would permit the ~aximum of 351~ square feet, whereas 428 aquare feet was proposed. Mr. Brown then noted that there appeared to be no apparent valid reason for the requeat submitted wherein three free-standing signs and one roof sign were proposed within 300 feet, particularly since two of the signa were far in excesa of that permitted by Code, although the exiating free-atanding sign - now a nonconforming aign - was approved prior to the adoption of the Sign Ordinance; and that approvai of theae aigns would compound an already undeairable and untenable aigning situation - therefore, the Cormnisaion would have to determine whether or not there was justification for the requested waivers. Zoning Supervieor Charles Roberta advised the Commisaion that plane were eubmitted to the Building Department for plan check and a building permit which indicated that Sign E, the roof aign, wae being deleted from the plans - therefore, thie waiver could be with- drawn by the petitioner. Mr. Paul Giakas, agent for the petitioner, appeared befora the Commieeion and noted that the new aign was proposed to advertise the emblem of the Chrysler Corporation eimilar to that of the Plymouth facility further aouth, and the exieting eign would ba raLocaCed - however, he would request withdrawal of the roof sign waiver (E). The Commisaion then noted that if Sign B were integrated with the exiating aign, then only the two free-etanding aign s would have to be conaidered. Mr. Giakas advised the Commiasion that the a£gn would have eubdued lighting which would not shine into the reaidential windowa, and the 25-foot height limitation on Clifton would render that aign uaeleas because of the height af the Rimpau Building which would block the aign; and that the Chrysler Corporation was deairous of having thia identifica- tion brand sign on all car dealer propertiea - however, he was reluctant to remove the exiating free-standing sign since this identified the product he sold. Furthermore, in reaponse to Commiasion queationing, Mr. Giakas noted the Chrysler Corporation did have amall identification signa, but these would be hidden from view becauae of the height of the building to the narth. Mr. Roberta, in response to questioning by the petitioner as to the distance between signa and residential uaes, atated that the distance of 300 feet was measured from the aign to the zone boundary affecting ita height, and that the residential uaes affected were immediately to the east, a distance of only 270 feet. The Co~isaion then inquired whether or not it was possible to combine the three free- standing aigns still propoaed. ,t~ -~ Mr. R. E. Poe, representing the QRS Corporation, appeared before the Commission and ~` stated there were two lota on which the building was located in the center, and one sign was for the identification of the uaed cars, which would be more than 300 feet from the ~I d ~h . i -- ---..._..___.__._.~_._.....~.._.. _.__.~.___._._=_____ _ I ~ ~. ~ ~, ~ ~ ~) ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 23, 1970 5075 , I VARIANCE N0. 2164 - residential uses, and if these were separate lots, then two sE•parate (Continued) free-standing signs would be permitted. ' Commissioner Gauer noted that the Sign Ordinance had been written after numerous meetings and public hearings, at which time the representatives of the sign companies were present, i and the ordinance met with their approval - however, now i: appeared the requests for ' waiver from the Sign Ordinance were mad~ primarily by the sign company people. ; j ;4r. Roberts, in responae to Commission questioning, stated that the development plans ~ in~izated the sign was 295 feet from residentiaZ uses, whereas staff calculations indicated 270 feet, and that the request, even if statements made by the petitioner and ~~„~, ~:;~ representative that signs were more than 300 feet away, would not be conforniing signs since if the distance to the R-3 were 320 feet, this would permit only a 27-foot high sign, whereas the eatisting sign was 60 feet and the proposed sign was 44'~ feet. ~ Mr. Browr:, in reaponse to Commisaion queationing, noted that the existing PScPeek sign was also 44'~ feet - however, the height limitation did not apply to this siRn since there were no residential uses in close proximity. .. • No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. ~ ;. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commiasion inquired as to the manner in which both free-standing signs existing and propoaed could be placed on the property and still be within Code. Mr. Roberta replied that both could be placed on the property 300 feet apart, but would ~ have to remain at the 25-foot height becauae of the residential uaea to the east, and =,~ one free-standing aign would have to be eliminated if the Code were to be met. l Co~isaioner Farano offered lteaolution No. PC70-51 and moved for ita passage and adopti.on i to grant Petition for Variance No. 2164 in part, granting waiver "la" on the basis that ? aince the petitioner had withdrewn the requeat for the roof aign, the maximum aggregate sign area would be exceeded by only 18 square feet, thus it met the intent of the Sign Ordinance; that waivera "lb", "lc", and "ld" were denied on the basis that the exiating signa provided adequate exposure and identification for the buaineas located on aubject ~ property and no evidence was aubmitted which proved a hardehip would reault if aubject petitioR were not approved, and that the petitioner withdrew waiver "le"; and eubject ' to conditiona. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing reaolution wae passed by the following vote: AYES: COl~AtISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbet, Seymour, Thom, Rowland, NOES; COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: Allred. RECESS - Commiesioner Thom moved for a ten-minute receee. Commiesioner Farano seconded the motior.. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting receased at 3:50 P.M. REC(3A1NENE - Chairman Rowland reconvened the meeting at 4:00 P.M.., all Commieaionera being present with the exception of Commisaioner Allred. ;~ RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. GRACE I. STRAIN, 220 North Olive Street, Anaheim, ~~ N0, 69-70-47 California, Owner; WILLIAM WATTS, PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH I;' COMPANY, 525 "B" Street, Room 1311, San Diego, California, Agent; I; requeating that property described as; A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located 108 feet south of the centerline of Cypress Street, having a frontage of approximately 45 feet on the east aide of Clementine Street, having a maximum depth of - approximately 154 feet, and further deecribed as 218 North Clemeatine Street, be reclassi- fied from the R-3, MULTIpLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE to the C-2, GENERAL COlIl~fERCIAL, ZONE. Asaistant Zoning Supervieor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uaes ; establiehed in cloee proximity, and the proposal to reclassif the Zone in order to provide for additional parking apaces for the PacificpTelephonehCompany , located to the eouth and eeat; that eaid additional parking was necesaitated by a propoaed expanaion of the main structure, and as part of thie expansion an exieting 30-foot wide * alley along the southern perimeter of subject property would be eliminated. Furthermore, .~e plana aubmitted with the application indicated that a 25-foot wide alley was proposed to be developed on the northeru portion of subject property so ae to give additional through acceae from the parking areae located to the east and proposed to the south of said alley. -_ ..w-~,r_ f _r..~w..~. , • ~ - _,. ~ . _ // ~ ~ - .... . .. _ . .._.. . ' . . .... _ ..~_....._.~ .~.~....~____ I~ ....~..~.e.. ~~....~.~~..- ~ ~ \~ \ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COPIIiISSION, March 23, 1970 5•376 RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. James Webb, Manager of Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company, N0. 69-70-47 Anaheim, appeared before the Commission and noted this was a portion (Continued) of their expansion in order to provide for services due to the growth - of the city and county; that ali long distance telephone calls in Orange County ~tere emanating from this building, and that any further questions the Commission might have would be answered by Mr. William Watts, Pacific Telephone Compa~zy engineer. ~ Mr. William Watts, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Co~ission and noted they concurred with the reco~ended conditions with the exception of the height limitation for lighting in which a 6-foot maximum was proposed for downlighting, whereas they had - discussed this with the ataff, and it was felt that because of the hours of operation with many women leaving in the late hours, adequate lighting should be provtded and they requested that this height be amended to 30 feet - however, they would accede to directing ~ the lighting away from the residential uses. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. ? THE HEARING WAS CLOSED, ~ The Commission discussed the question of providing access for properties to the north since the petitioner was proposing a private alley. Office Engineer Jay Titus advised the Coam~ission that since the Pacific Telephone Company had requested abandonment of the existing alley, and the City propoaed dedication of the alley indicated on their plans, which would replace the original dedicated alley, it was determined that circulation would have to be provided for thoae properties northerly of subject property and the proposed alley wherein numerous patrons visited the dentista and physicians in theae buildings. Furthermore, the petitioner had offered to provide the private alley easement to these adjacent property owners, and it wae a requeat of the Engineering Division that this easement agreement be recorded in order that legal access could be obtained for circulation for these propertiea to the north. Furthermore, a private alley would have to be maintained by the petitioner, whereas a public alley was generally under the jurisdiction of the City'of Anaheim. Mr. Titua further noted that the abandonment request by the Telephone Company for the ;- existing public alley would be made at a public hearing, and adequate notice would be -';;~ given to adjoining property owners wherein this information could be elucidated at that ,~ time. Furthermore, the Engineering Diviaion was attempting to protect the righta of circulation for all properties in this area by requeating a public alley. ;~ Mr. Titus, in reaponae to Commisaion queationing, noted that the 25-foot alley would interaect an exiating 30-foot alley and would provide accees from one etreet to another, ;~ providing accesa to angle parking ad,jacent to the alley. a i,;' Mr. Brown noted there was one other conaideration which the Comm3esion might wiah to make- ~ that in addition to the mutuel easement, the provieion of a 6-foot masonry wall which ~ normally would be required adjacent to the R-3 property. A call had been received from the property owner adjacent to the alley who had indicated ahe was deeirous of having °~ thia wall erected; however, if the alley were dedicated to the City of Anaheim, then the ~~ telephone company would not be responaible for its maintenance, and the wall would not 1, be required. Commisaioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC70-52 and moved for its passage and adoption to reco~end to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 69-70-47 be approved, subject to conditiona, amending Condition No. 4 to require a 30-foot maximum height and the additional conditions of a 6-foot masonry wall conatructed along the north property line and that a perpetual easement agreement for mutual access by properties located to the north of the proposed private alley be aubmitted to and approved by the City Attorney a Office and recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder. (See Resolution Book) ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ AYES: COMPiISSIONERS: Farano, Herbst, Seymour, Thom, Rowland. ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ` aBSENT: COrIIfISSIONERS: Allred. ~ ABSTAIN: CO1~AfISSIONERS; Gauer. * .kc ~ _. ` _ I ' i i ..~ ' . ) ) MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 23, 1970 5077 VARIANCE N0. 2169 - PUBLIC HEARING, KEN GEORGE DOI, 313 Ramona Court, Anaheim, California, Owner; JB~AfIE MC ADAMS, 9721 Myst,+.~ Lane, Anaheim, California, Ager.t; requesting WAIVER OF PERMITTED <;.~•~. ~`?~>S TO ESTABLISH A MOTORCYCLE SALES AND SERVICE FACILITY WITH OUTDOOR DISPLAY !;'~• ~''~~':xY=; ;~~'j,~;S An property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at N.r, s~-~r~+ur.~r. ~orner of Lincoln Avenue and Laxore Street and having approximate frontP;:~n sc '2~:; ~...p~ nn Lincoln Avenue and 175 feet on Laxore Street. Property presently c:.~ ~.~~,y; ~' _:., a, ~gNEgAL COI~AiERCIAL, ZONE. Assistant Zonin~t Supervisor pat Brown reviewed tAr ~~ n+:~~„y, ;:f subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the request to est~blish :. motorcycle sales and service facility which was permitted only in the C-3 Zone in the C-1 2one, and to permit outdoor display of motorcycles, also not permitted in the C-1 Zone. 'V' Mr. Brown further noted that the exiating structure was formerly the Burger Chef building r, constructed in December, 1967 - however, the restaurant was closed a short time thereafter "` and h~d been vacant since• ihat the . petitioner proposed to utilize the existing parking and to have indoor display in the old dining area and outdoor display on the raised concrete walk which extended from the front of the building to the sidewalk; that plant- ing areas required by the C-1 Zone were provided when the building was constzucted - _'~ however, due to the vacancy of the exiating building, the Landscaped areas had fallen into disrepair, and the applicant should be required to bring theae landscaped areas up ' to Code requirements and maintain them if the proposed request were approved. % ;, Mr. Brown, in reviewing the evaluation of the request, noted that commercial uses in this area, other than the go-cart opera[ion on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, across the street from subject property, were light in nature, and the propose3 use was a heavy cormnercial use normally locato• in the vicinity of Anaheim Boul~ ~,i•3 where more appropriate zoning and compatible ~~:. .; existed; and that the Planning .;ommission would wish to conaider the requeat in lig:,c of theae factors and possible noise conflicts with ;~ the multiple-family development located south and southeast of subject property, ! .,~ Mr. Jimmie McAdama, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commisaion and reviewed the proposed requeat, noting that motorcyclists were no longer coneidered the undesirable ~ alement purchasing them aince many bikea were purchased by persona who eualified in the higher income bracket; that a better muffler aystem had been acquired :or their bikea '~~ and had been approved by the Department of Motor Vehiclea; that becauee of this new ~': muffler syetem there would be leas and lesa maintenance call-backa; that no more than ;'~ two or three bikea would be in the service department at one time; that moat Were not -~ driven to the facility but would be brought to the repair facility in trailers and ;i removed in the aeme manner; that the owner was presently changing the marketing technique { by gearing the sales to the family-type cuatomer; that thie facility would not be a hang- out for cuetomera and young people; that houra of operation would be from 11:00 A,M. to ' 7:00 P.M., and no bright lighte were anticipated, nor would thie area be turned into a ;, teating ground in the parking erea; that the presenC dealerahip wae at 721 North Anaheim ;; Boulev.ard; and that they would accept any reasonable conditione that would protect the ;j adjoining property ownere. Mr. McAdems, in responee to Commiseion questioning regarding the noiee of cuetomars trying out the motorcyclee, etated that if the Com~niesion we're of the opinion these noiaea would be too intense, an additional muffler would be provided to reduce the noise; that cuetomera, of course, did try out the vehiclea but preferred to take them out on a small tour - however, not in a reeidential atreet for theae tryoute; and that the loud muffler type facility was only for use in dirt tracks and up and down h111 usage, and noise was controlled by an adapter muffler for tryout cyclea. The Commisaion noted chat at thie particular location there was a natural tryaut track in the R-3 residential facilitiea to the so~lth which could be turned into a regular Riveraide Raceway where people were desirous of trying out their motorcycles. Mr. McAdams etated that a ealeaman or himaelf would have to go along with the prospective purchaser on another bike, and he, in turn, would diacourage any rider from using this facility aince he was not deDirous of becoming a public nuisance, and that he would stipu- late to the houre of operation from 11:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. - however, the sales office was sometimee open until 8:00 P.M., but the parts and service facility was cloaed at 5:00 P.M. ;~ Mr. Gary Graham, representing Burger Chef o: Los Angeles, appeared before the Coamdssion and noted the muffler mentioned by Mr. McAdama wae an expansion cha~ber only for bikes in dirt tracke and wae not allowed on public streeta; that the automobile traffic genera[ed by thia facility would not be any more than the traffic permitted in any C-1 Zone, and ~" any conditione the Co~iseion felt were neceasary ta protect the adjoining property owners ~ ~ would be met; that laadacaping would be retained and the building would be repaired. , ~k ~ _,. ~ ~ ~~ MTNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 23, 1970 5078 ! VARIANCE N0. 2169 - Mrs. Vernon Kin 131 Laxore Street a j 8, , ppeared before the Commission ; (Continued) and stated she had some questions which had to be answered prior to giving her opposition. However, since the petitioner had answered most of them, she wished to state that the apartment development was a natural place for a raceway and had been a considerable problem, even though the i police had made attempts to remedy it - therefore, she requested that every consideration ~ be given to prohibiting tryouts of these motorcycle bikes in the residential area. 2~0 letters of opposition were read to the Commission by the Planning Couanission Secretary. . ~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission discussed the proposal, noting that not only was the apartment development an ideal place for a raceway, but so was the flood control channel; that North Anaheim Boulevard had also been turned into a raceway, although the zoning t!~ere was more appropriate than in the area now proposed, which was surrounded by residential uses; that there was a possibility the operator could control some of the noises, but many people would be trying out these motorcycles and create a considerr5le problem for the residential uses in this area because of the noises, and it would be detrimental to the residents - therefore, a more compatible use permitted in the C-1 Zone should be ' considered for subject property. Co~nnissioner Thom offered Resolution No. PC70-53 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2169 on the basis that the use proposed was too intense for the surrounding area given the fact that the properties to the south were developed with reaidential uses, and noises emanating from the proposed uae would be deleterious to the residential environment; that there were no exceptional or extraordinary circum- stancea or conditions applicable to thi~ property involved or to the intended use of the property that did not apply generally to the property and class of use in the same vicinity and zone; and that the requeated variance was not necessary for the preservation and enjayment of a aubatantial right posaeased by other property in the same vicinity and zone and denied to subiect property. (See Resolution Book) :~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~; AYES: COI4SISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Seymour, Thom, Rowland. ;'r ~10ES: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. - ` ABSENT: COI~IISSIONERS: Allred. ~i R~PURT~ AND - ITEM N0. 1 RE•CO1~AfENDATIONS Coneideration of eetablishing a policy regarding Category 'L' (mentally ill? patienta. Aaeiatent Zoning Supervieor Pat Brown reviewed for the Commieaion the appearanca of Mr. W. R: Cameron, Regional Chief, Licenaing and Certification, California Depertment of Public Health, at the Commiesion's February 23, 1970 work eeeaion~ and tha centinuance of a policy by Che Commieaion on eaid facilitiee at the Commiesion's afternoon public hearing for a period of four w~eks, until additional information wae available. 'i Mr. Brown noted that an Anaheim planning etaff inember had met with Mr. John Traband, Executive Director of the Compreh~nsive Health Planning Association of Orange County, i a new organization with a voluntary membership financed by public and private funds, • ; working within the framework of the public health program of the State of California j Department of Public Health, said organization being the final review body for approval •~ of all typea of public health facilitiea, including hospitals, convalescent homea, rest ;~ homes, etc. in Orange County, and whose prime function ultimately would be to determine i~ in any given community or area what the needa and requiremente for all types of facili- ~~ ties would be; that due to the large financial gaine which could be expected from many of theae facilitiea, there could be a tendency to overdevelop in many areas of the Stete, thereby creating a ahortage of trained personnel, with the consequent reault of ^ ~ below-standard care of patienta or gueats. However, because of the fact that this was a newly organized association, atatiatical data for any community in Orange County was still being procesaed; for instance, data for the City of Anaheim would not become .~ available until Auguat or September, 1970. Therefore, since data was not available, ~ Mr•. Traband concurred with the statement made by Mr. Cameron to the Commission that p utilizing an exiating facility (reat home, convalescent home, hospital) for Category F% 'L' patienta could establish a precedent wherein not only aenile, aged people would be permitted but many other categories, such as patienta with paychotic problems of varied ' ` degrees could be permitted. However, he further felt that it would be extremely diffi- ~~ cult to limit Category 'L' facilit~ea to ape~ific mental illnesses once the use was ,~c `~ permitted - thia would automatically germit all types of patients within that category preacribed by State law, and since approval by this aseociation was necessary prior to ~~ obtaining a State license, their reco~nendationa could have an important bearing on any 11;;~ ~ + ---~c: ;:~- . +- . _~__ . ~ ~F ~ . ~__~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY ?LANNING COMMISSION, March 23, 1970 5079 REPCRTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0, 1 (Continued) ' consideration by the Planning Commission or City Council on any such request. The Commission, therefore, had three possible alternatives, Mr. Brown noted, namely, (1) a carte blanche approach wherein any request for a Category 'L' facility would auto- matically be approved as long as an existing, approved conditional use permit for a convalescent home or rest home existed; (2) require that such a use be included as part of a new conditional use permit application, if so desired by the applicant, and that fac.:ilities previously approved under a conditional use permit, which desire this ' type of use, be required to file a new conditional use permit; or (3) that no Category ~~' L uses be permitted either ~Ln existing or newly proposed convalescent home, rest home, hospital, etc., until the Comprehensive Health Planning Association of Orange County had sufficient statistical data to assess accurately the appropriateness of such a facility at a proposed location. Therefore, it would appear that at this stage i Alternate 3 would be the most appropriate course of action, particularly in light of the fact that Mr. Traband had indicated there was no extreme urgency at this time to '`j provide such facilities for this cate or of g y patients, other than the financial urgency of the developers of such projects, and that it would be advisable for the prrbent to wait until accurate information were available as to the need within the community in '` ~ order to avoid overdevelopment, understaffing, and inappropriate locations of such ' facilities. Discussion was held by the Commission on the data presented and the three alternatives presented by the staff, and upon its conclusion the Commission determined that Alternate 3 was the most appropriate and should be adopted. Zoning Supervisor Charlea Roberts inquired whether or not this [ype of use should be included in a new conditional use permit request in the event a petitioner requested it as part of a convalescene home or rest home. The Commisaion noted that aince only four to five months remained for the etudy to be completed, any approval of this type should be held in abeyance. Mr. Brown noted that if there were any questions the Commisaion might have, the Orange ' County Comprehensive Health Planning Association would be very glad to assist the ~ Commiesion in making a decision on any requeats between the present date and the date '~ the report would be completed. Commieaioner Gaiier :,ffered a moeion to eatabliah a policy whereby no ne~t Category 'L' uaea would be permitted either in existing or newly proposed convaleacent homea, reat homea or hoepitals until the Compreheneive Health Planning Asaociation of Orange County completed their atatiatical data by conaultanta to accurately aseess the appropriateneas of such a facility at a proposed location. Commieeioner Thom seconded the motion. !,~ MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0, 2 City of Garden Grove Site Plan No. S.P.A. 106-70 - Proposal to establish a 111-unit, two-etory apartment complex on the eaet side of Euclid Street, approximately 1,350 feet south of the centerline of Orangewood Avenue, abutting the City of Anaheim city limits. Assiatant 2oning Supervieor Pet Browas presented City of Garden Grove Site Plan S.P.A, 106-70 to the Planning Commiesion, noting the location of eubject property, ita proximity to the boundaries of the City of Anaheim, uses establiahed in close proximity, and the propoeal to erect a two-story, 111-unit apartment development with subterranean parking. Mr. Brown also indicated that eubject development would lie within 150 feet of R-1 zoned propertiea within the City of Anaheim to the north and northeast, said propertiea having be~n developed with fairly expensive homes, and that the City of Anaheim had atrongly adhered to single-atory conatruction of any apartments propoaed and approved which were planned within 150 feet of aingle-family homes, '~ M scusaion wae held by the Commiasion on the proposed two-atory apartment complex in ' close proxlmity to the City of Anaheim boundariea wherein fairly expenaive homea were deve3oped, and the fact that Anaheim adhered rather vigorously to maintaining single- , story cona'truction of apartments within 150 feet of single-family homes, ~ Commisaioner Farano offered a motion to reco~nend to the City Council that the Garden .kt Grove Planning Commiseion be urged to deny Site Plan No. S,P,A. 106-70, on the basis that the proposed development would have a deleterioua effect on the aingle-family j- reaidences developed within the City of Anaheim, and that the eite development etandards \ _ : ---y-~~, ;~. ' - ~..r._.. 1~ ~h r ~~ ~ 1 ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 23, 1970 5080 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 2 (Continued) - ', of the City of Anaheim R-3 Zone restricted the structural height of apartment development i to one-story in height when within 150 feet of a single-famify zone. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0, 3 Variance No. 1790 (Edward Corwin - D. J. Cahoon, DuBois & Paschall) - Request for extension of time for continued use of property located on the west side of Orange Avenue between Adele and Cypress Streets and zoned M-1, Light Industrial, Zone. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown presented to the Planning Commission a request from the lessee of subject: property for a three-year er.ter.sion of time, to expire April 25, 1973, for the-continued use of property located on the west side of Orange Avenue between Adele and Cypress 5[reeta adjacent to the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad tracks; that original apprcval of sub,ject petition was for a period of three years, and a one- ~` year extension of time was granted to expire April 25, 1970, provided that thz existing chainlink fence be repaired and improved with slats to screen the use, and that land- szaping be provided adjacent to the fence along Cypress and Adele Streets. Furthermore, the staff upon insper.ting subject property recounnended that the three-year extension of time be granted subject to continued maintenance of the required landscaped areas. Co~issioner Thom offered a motion to grant a three-year extension of time for the uae of property approved under Variance No. 1790 for storage of old and ~trecked automobiles, said time to expire April 25, 1973. Commissioner Herbat seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ` ITEM N0. 4 •~i Orange County Use Variance No. 6244 (Welters & Son, Inc.) ~~ Proposal to have sale of mobile homes ir a newly developing ;~ mobile home park located on the eaet eiife of Douglae Street, r i~ approximately 1,050 feet north of Katella Avenue - Property presently undergoing annexation to the City of Anaheim. _i Aesiatant 2oning Supervieor Pat Brown preaented Orange County Uee Variance No. 6244 to the Planning Co~nieaion, noting the location of eubject property - it being a portion of the Douglas-Katella Annexation recently approved by LAFCO - the requeat to permit the sale of mobile homes in a~,obile home park being developed, and which wae approved by the County of Orange July 9, 1969; and that the petitioner propoeed to eell mobile homee within the mobile home park on a first eale baeis only, and one of the mobile homee would be used for salee and epace rentel. Mr. Brown noted that on March 17, 1970, the City Council held eecond reading of Ordinance No. 2789 amending Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code to permit the eale of mobile homes in newly developing mobile home parka; eaid sales would be required to ceaee when all spacea within the park were filled, and were limited to a two-year period from the time the park opened; furthermore, eaid ordinan~e made epecial proviaione for the resale of mobile homes by tei_::nts in the park. Mr, Brown then noted that aince the requeat under Orange County Uae Variance No. 6244 qualified under the requirementa of Ordinance No. 2789, and aince the property would in all likelihood be within the boundaries of the City of Anaheim very ahortly, the Planning Commisaion might kiah to recommend that approval of this request be contingent upon the use being in full conformance with the requirementa of the City of Anaheim Ordinance No. 2789, and that a copy of th.at ordinance be forwarded along with the recommendation to the Orange County Planning Commisaion. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to recoaunend to the City Council that the Orange Counky Planning Commission be urged to require full conformance with the recjuirements of the City of Anaheim Ordinance No. 2789, if Orange County Uae Variance No. 6244 ia approved, based upon the fact that said property was part of the Douglas-Katella Annexation now undergoing annexation proceedinga to the City of Anaheim, and that a copy of eaid ordinance be forwarded with the recormnendation. Commiseioner Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~ _~. ' i . I ~ (_-~ ~' ~~ ~; MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COt1t1I55I0N, March 23, 1970 5081 ! ADJOURPAiENT - There b~.ing no further businass to discuss, Co~issioner Herbst offered a motion to adjourn ~the meeting. Commissioner Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CAR.RIED. The meeting adjourned at 4:35 P.M. i Respectfully submitted, j / ~ ANN KREBS, Sec etary ~ Anaheim City Planning Coimniasion ~ 1 \ J I w ! ~ i '___ ._'_"_"_' ' _. _...__. . . ', , .rc::r'I'.H,~f' _ . I~ . _ _ . .. . .. . .,__ ' . ... • . __ '_"__... .,_ , ~ . .. _ . .. _ _. ~ _. . ..~._ . ._.. . ~ . , T~ . < 1.::l.Lv .~,, , - "§ . ~t . _~.{~..' - - t ~ . . ~ - d ` ._,~