Minutes-PC 1970/07/27~ 1 r,~ ~ ~ ~ 1 , .
f ~ ~ R ~ 2 td ` ~ ~~
5 ~ ~
~
I
7 f
~ '
~
r S
Z
K
.;~ ~_., r ~ . . ~
J City
Hall ~
y
.
' - . :'
~ " - ~'Anatieim, '.California -
_ <July :~7, ;970
~
~
4
~ ~', ..: .. '~ ~: .~~
. : .
~ A RIDGULAR !~E'P,7ibl~ ~'~ i~}"?; ~+. , ~~ QZTY P `
' : ~~+~.~..~.~.~,.."'~. LANNIIVQ COl~SSION
~
~
.
AID(3IFLAR ~Tti A re lbr attR~:, ~;;* ` _. ,
r ' ~ '~ '~"~ td~isfieim,Ci~y Plennittg Commission was oelTed` °
~*+ .to order bq u'~~~,,~~ _~~~,~St. st 2
00
'
;
0
olook P~:;, a quorum 'being
' :preseat: -
- P~~ a~~N Herbat
' OOEA~I33IONIDRS ; Fsrano, (}BUer
Ksypiood
•Ao
l _.
,
,
w
and; Sqymour.
~ ~~T 00l~ ~
I33IONIDR3 .:~ATlred.
. ,.. ,;
' ~
'
` PRIDS~NT ` ` , • c . :
Aasistsrit De"velopment~3ervioes Direotor•° - Ronsld ~hompeon
Deputy,0lty Attorneyi:
• ,~~
~~7
r
H'r
: ° OfPios;%IDngi~eere : ' ank Lowry.,. ~,
Zonittg 3upervi'sor JsY;Titue ~
Aeaiatsiit Zoni' ~ ~hsrles Roberta
ng 3upervisor L;~
Msloo].Et,Slaughter ..
Plantting, 0ommi'ssion :3eor.etei~y.;
`
G'~
Ann. Krebe
; PI+~D(3ID OH' ' `
'~ ¢`;
•
~
-
''~~a~ Oommisaionsr (~auer led in the P1e3ga pY Allegienoe to the.Fld .
AP
` .`', B
;
PROVAL Ob' .r:
T~ ~s , yiseioaer (}suer oYPered'-n motir:; .to 'approve the ~inutea• of ".the
...aeting oP Jul
,.>
`13
19 ~
~ ~
q
,
70, .with..,the -Pollowing oorreotion, seoonded
bY,=Oocm~leeloner;H'nrsno`, end:MOTION'~OARR~Di~ _ ~~
,
,
~
~ . _. , .
• „ , ; ;..`;: ; .. ..
Pdge 5249, pe,ragrsph 12, liae 3:' "sub~eot', . dediosted•, '
~ aad impro.ved, ~~.
~~ : ~ Y :', . . . . ~ .~ . . .
.~
,;,~
'~
~~
~R~OLA3SI8'IOATION OONTINUIDD;PUBI~O:~p~~ ALAN30N 1~`AND HAZIDL 1[..LOOD, P.:O. Box
JNO 69 70 50 r.. 2039, Pomons•
OsliP
i ^~~'
,
ortt
a, Owiiera, ; 3Tp~_
: . . 443,~set~;Wsrdlow' Aosd, ,;i,o. 1~ L~V~3~'OR3~ .,INO. ,
~'Hesoh;
De,1lPornis Ag
v~IAt~~ N0. 2171 dea
nt~
r
be
'
?
~?
~~+
,
e
p
o
i
, pr.o er,ty
d
na. :
Portiori:,.A ~
A:~rsoteaigtildrly shaped pe,roel oY lend
;,
~~ oonai'sting oP spproxima;t
~
.
ely 1:7 aorea, hsving n`.irontage`oY epprozi-
depth oY spprosimstely159
3f
~t
~ ~
~
5
eet
snd beirig loosted
oenterline of'3tinaon.Street; and Portion E_ ~ a~imum
approxicistelyV2B0 PeetVaest of the
'oon
i
t h
LL r;
s
e
ing oP;'spprozimstely-l.8'aores, hnving a tzontsg 1 Ylapprox~te1~~137~f
the.south aide;oY Linooln Ave
eetd
'
~ ~~
~
.
on
nue, hsving
snd
.s maximum depth of°spprozimstely 60a Yeet,
beirig loosted approximntely.420 Peet weat ~
of.the oenterliae bP Stinaon 3ireot,
and.being oontiguous to the"aeaterTy boundary of Portion A, nnd Purther de
27~4 Weat Linccln Aven
'as
aoribed
ue. Property preaentlq olaasiPied 0-l, t}IDI~Rj~I, 001~R0IAL
ZOIJ~
,
.
~0UID5TIDD OLASBIFIOATION•
• . A-3 ~ MtJIlPZPLID-FAMIL
-. Y RID3IDENTIAL
, ZONID (PORTION3 A.AND B).
A~QUE3'!~D'VARIANOID:
1 :
`
WAIVIDRS OF: (
)
MII~T~dt1M RIDQUIRIDD SIDID
YARD 3IDT8AO ' '
.
K, AND
(Z) MA7C~IITM BUILDINa F~If3HT:WITHIlt 150 8'~'p OF A. 3IlJaI,~-FAMILY
_ RIDSID~NTIAL"U3Ht
ID ~
~~
, TO
STASLISH~A 50-UNIT APARTA~NT OO~tPLIDX •
(PORTION: A ONLY): ` 'r
Sub~eot petitions were aontinued-from~the'meetings of June 2 snd 2g~ 1970, to allow time
petitioner to aubmi.c.,revi
Por the ` '` ~ sed p~,ans.
_ f
: t
.
- ,:.
Assistsnt Zoning Superyis,or Maloolm'Slsughter eiivised the Qou~isaion thst the patitioner
has requested"s'further Pour=week oontin ,
uaaoe oP aub eot
designing problema. ~ petitiona in order to resolve
Coaimisaioner Ksyovood'oPfered a motion to oontinue,Petitions for Reole.ssiPioation
No: 69-70-50;asid•ye,I•ianoe No. 217Z to the:meetittg
Yor th
' i V.
of August 24
, 1970:to sllow time
e petitioner to submi.t revised plans. Commissioner Fare;no seo~nded tfi
MOTION CARRI~D:
e motion.
- 5257 -
. (
~
-::::
;~
.,
:
- __ .. _. .
~ ~ S ~ ~ ~ _:' ~i; ~
,
_ ,. , ,
s '
~
r
~ i
, , ~
i, . ... ~ . .., ~.' . . :: ~. . ` , `..I .-~ .-~. .. . ~~ . ~.,
;~ ~ `5258 _
.~
' ` MIIJ07.~S; CI'17C PLANNING C0~6ISSION, July 27, .1970
~ -. ,
~ CONDITIONAL•IISE -.POBLIC HE9RING EN'LOE PROPERT~S, INC.; o/o Leonard.Smith Rea1
x -~ ' ~~ ~ ,. . .. . .. ~
: ' P~RMI'P;NO: 1191 Este,te 125=D Soutli:Claudina Street, Anaheim Califorriia, .Owner;
, ' r _
~ LEONARD S~ITH, 125:-D SoutYi;~Claudina Stre,et, Aiiaheim;'Califorr.la,.
' , Agent;~ reqizesting permission tb establish, a DANE-IN`AESTAIIRAN'P
YVITH WANPIRS OF':. -(1) ~INIM[T~ R~QIIIRIDD: NUE~ER •OF. PARI~PiG. SPACES; (2) in~TIARIJM `DISTANCE
BETVVEEN FREID STANDING SIGNS;;AND (3)."~INI~OM SIGN ELEVATION on property.desoribed.as:
An~:irregularly shaped peroel_oY,l~nd looated et the~northeest. oorner of Ball Road :
and;Lemon'=Stree.t:;, ' '. .and-further'desoribed ae 135 YPest'Ball Roed. Property
preeently olssaiYied C-1, G~RAL<OO~RCIAL, ZONE.
Assistant,Zoning Supervisor ~sloolm 3laughter reviewed the looation o~ sub3eot property,
uses established in olose proximity, snd the proposal .to establiak a 375 square foot
drive-thru restsurant:with waivers o~ the minimum required psrking spaoes, distanoe
betaeen Pree-atending signe, end the required aign eleqation; aeid restaurant to serve
a limited~menu to waiting austomers in automobiles,-er-d where rio Yood would be oonsumed
on the`premises.
llr. 3laughter in reviewing,the'evalustion oP the proposal, noted thet one way traffia
Was'.proposed for.both the existing bleaning establiahment and the proposed restaurant;
that the petitioner hed sdvised stsfY it wss proposed'to oreste s lot split for the
tWO uses whiah would leeve the proposed driye-ttiru restsurant with only two parking
spaoes,avsilable; thet in additiori to the 20-foot high bq 117 squere foot free standing
sign proposed at the.oorner of tkiie interseotion, plsris indioated two 6-square foot
signs:hsying menus displsyed,.so that:`oustomera would be able to order upon driving
up, horvever,:thase two'free-atanding aigna would be on1y:10 Peet apart and only 40 feet
Yrom the,large ~free-atanding sign; end thst`,the Qommiseion would have to determine
whether.or not the uae wsa'eppropriate in this'looatiott, and:if so whether the large
Pree-standing sign should hsve e sign psnel:atteohed whioh would indioste "Pood to
Bo o~ "
y, tog~ther aith integrating the sme,ll signs as part of the atruoture, thereby
eliminating the waiyera requested.,
Mr. I,eonsrd 3mith, agent Yor the petitioner, appesred before the 0ommiasion snd noted
that the;:propoaed large'free-standing sign was in oonformenoe with the sigrt ordinanoe;
that although the two menu,signs were teohnioslly aonaldered Pree-standing signs, they
represented on].y.menu signs an integrsl psrt o4 the opernticn whioh,were pleoed over
~ ~lie spesker so that oustomers would`be able to order quiokly; thst two order lines
( would be available es-d the menu sigtt on the west s3de of the area Would be hidden from
viea Yrom the street by a wall; that it wss the petitioner's opiniott that the proposed
operstion would be similar to Pood s~ores having psoksged items, sinoe the food would
alao be psoksged;'that the tWO pe,rki.ng speoea would be all that would be neoessary for
the two employeea, sinoe no spaoe wpuld be availsble r.or would oustomers be permitted
to aonsume the Yood on the premises; and that an agreement hed been submitted to the
City Attorney's offioe in whioh it was stipulsted the mes~ner an whiah this faoility
Wauld be operated as to measures that would be employed to prevent aooumulation of
rubbish and poliaing the premiaea to insure that Yood would not be oonsumed ott the
premises. Furthermore, sinae no Pood would be oonsumed on the premises, there would
be no need Por parking fe,oilities ezoept 4or employees; that two employees would be
on the premises during regular hours and this would inarease to Pour employees during
peak hours. .
The Co~i.ssion inquired as to.the length of time it aould take to oomplete an order
after the order was plaoed, and Whst was the largest volume of vehioles that would
be Waiting to pleoe and reoeive orders.
I~dr. Smith replied thst it avould take two minutes for one order to be handled and the
lengt'h oY time esah ,vehiale waited depended on the volume oP an order, i.e., food for
one.to "%" number oP orders.
The'Commissioa ezpressed considerable oonoern that oars would be staoked up into the
public right-of-way,.thus oreating a treYfia hazard and oonYliot points during peak
traPYia hours due to persons making lePt kiand turns at Harbor Boulevard - approaimately
1~ bloaks awsy.
Mr. Smith replied that the peak hours would not be the seme, since many of the vehiales
aeme from industrial plants after work3.ng hours.
~
;':i
-~
~
`i
`y
~
The 0o~i.asiott Yurther noted that,the petitioner wae proposing to aplit the peroel,
and if eo, hosv_,,pould the,~etitioner ~uetiPy providing onlq two psrking apaoes whioh
would be inautYioient to provida adequata perking for the employees during peak hours.
~
Mr. 3mith replied...thst;theq would hsve permiesion to park on the oleaning eatablishment
property,.ainoe thet establiahment wna required to provide,27 psrking spaoes, while
onlq eight spaoea were used, any number of oexs beyond thet neadad would be ezoess to
eooommodate the overflow Prom the reataursnt; thet i;hey formerly hsd e parking problem
with'tenettta of the apertment oomplez to the north parking on the olesning establishment
property, however; this had been'xesolved eftar disoueaiott wss helcl with the apartment
development maneger; and thst slthough there would be a lot split, the property would
still be under one ownership with the tcvo estsblishments heving separate leases.
Co~i.ssioner Seymour inquired o~.the agent Por the petitioner whether or not he had
investigated or done any reaearuh on ttiis type of reataurant business ss it pertained
to the ssturation:of the market potentiel oP a,pe,rtioular eoonomio geographio area
as to the suoaess of drive thru eating estsblishments.
~ . ... . ' S .. . . . .
Mr• Smith replied that no studq had been ~8de, however, it appeared that these types
of eating estsblishments seem~d to be ad3~eent to eaoh other beoause they oomplimented
eaoh other. li .~~ .
Commissioner Se ~,
ymour noted h~ was more i~~erested ia the saturation point of this type
of Paoility in a pertioular l;i,res, ,~
' ~'~
. . ~ . - - . . . ~y .
i,p ';j
4~,
iC ~
~ ..., . . . . tl'~ . 1f . . , . - .
i
I.
I
~ t.:
i
4
II
_.:.. ....'i :.,-~i'.. . '.:;.:~. -.-;.,.... .~ ....:~ ,,:-,.; ~ •.,°' ' :ic.ii~tv.~, ~~,~''2~"-~! aY's~i:-.t~..`.
M ..1r . :\.~li~ .Kf~::~.
~ ~ ~r ~ .; ~ '
~ .,.__ _. . . _
r _ . . . .. . ..
t ~ - ~ ~ ~ . ~ .~
~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING.CO~IS$ION; July 27,~1970 5260
CONDITIDNAL USE , Mr Smith replied':that he.had no'idea`as to the saturation point, but
:PERMIT:NO: 1191 was :sure the'.leasees had made e.study oP the potential oP the area.
(oontinued) ' -" '.
`' No`one~appeered in;::opposition.
_. ,:.. . ,.;, .
• - ,
~ : TrIDf I~ARINIi WAS ~ OIASIDD. :
Chairmen:Herbst.inquired wkiether or not,the proposed building would eliminate: any of
the.:les-dsoaping;;;sinoe-,the,existing•;oleaning.estsblishment had a;:great deal:.oP land-
soaping, and that the 01ty wes_,enaoursging irioresaing the les~deosping in:all types of
oommeroiel and induetriel e,rees..: '' -
Idr. Roberta reqiewed the oonditlons oP the 0onditional Use Permit whioh grsnted the:
oleaning,:eatablishmentrsnd noted',that there'were'no speoiPio aonditions es.it pertained
to lsndsoeping,`however,it did;.reYer: to de,velopment in eooordsnae with,plens.on_Pile,
end that`the.;;pr,opoaed development would te raquired to`me,intsin a'.10-Poot lattdsoape
aetbsok in sooorde,noe;with the oommeroiel zoriing on ;the property.
Commisaioner.Qauer expreased oonoern that with eo many esting esteblishments in this
area requiring_ingresa end egresa to erid Prom Bsll Roed e,nd.Lemon 3treat a traPfio
~ oonfliot;'oould be orented.
Cheiz~masi`Herbst:wea oY tha oginion thst ataPf should atudy the probleme of'lot splits
whioh oculd affeot the landeoeping.treatment or,iginally approved es well as the perking
requirementa:in`these tqpee of:Paoilities.: r ` '
.Commisaioner:"Seymour.expreseed the ides thdt~~~aaid etudy should be further elaborated to
inolude°..the,number oP diPferent :typ•= of,reb~surante itt this genersl`aree end:dats as to `
;`: the aeturetion point oY these .raetr~-,r ~,ate duii~ to the` number . of aimilnr requeste being made ,
the=0ommiseian•should ba mede Pu11f ewsre,~tiY lsnd uee.probleme whioh oould reault, to-
°gether with'any other'oon£lioting problef~'euoh a.study might revesl:euoh as was doae on
the;;aervioe,atatione. However, the 0omq~leaion wsa not a body ~hat ws•~~d determina'whether
or.riot e man had e right, to.go ,'r~roke, tiilt tliere should be` some,tqpe oP oontrol established
thst would`melce theee uaea more oomps~:lble to the surrounding areee and uses, sinoe.an
empty building:,svae not oonduoive to i,~iproving an nrod, eapaoisllq when the:0lty wes
Yully aware of the over eaturation ~ e given operation in a speolYio srea.
r`.'l.
Cheirmesi Herbet noted thst one o£ '~he ootttrols whioh might be oonaidered wns tba possibil-
ity oP aite dovelopment atdndsrd,~~`~ior minimum aqunre footsge allowsbla for different tqpes
oY sma.ll eateblishments, and ere"sa where;the.aize oY a pnroeL wne too small Por general
aommeraiel usa -.the uses wh~n would be moat nppropriate.
4~~
lGr. Roberta adviaed`the Co~``esion thst etnYY would attempt to prepsre data ea to the
number, type exid loostion/tiP restsuresit uses, sa well ss the minimum size of oommeroial
eatsblishments and requixLmenis far same.
Oommissioner Fe;rsno of
tion, to deny.Petition
uae wse too intense, th
stsaking oY:'vehiolss i~
undeairable tra;f.io d~
petitioner stated tk;:'tid
Was not adequ~.ta~~o-'sl:
without,b~detrimen~
I
'rt~ed:Resolution No. P070-132, and moved for ita passege and adop=
~Por Oonditionsl Use Permit No..1191 on the besis.that tha proposed
''i.it did not provide proper oiroulation, that it would oreate a
~the publio right-of-wsq wsiting to enter tha faoility; that an
~fliat would reault; that perking would be inadequete even tho the
would not oontain an sros for on site esting; and that the site
oa Por full development oP the property with the proposed use
sl to the ed~oining land uses.(See Aesolution Book)
Onl~t 's~:oa].ji. the Poregoing resolution wds pesaed by the following vote:
-- AYES: COE~dISSIONERS: Fareno,f3auer, Kaqwood, Rowland, Seymour, Herbst.
~!:'
f" NOES: CO~ISSIONERSt None.
ABSENTs -COA~SSIONERS: A].Ized.
Commissioner Seymour ofPered a motion, seoonded by Commissioner Gauer, and MOTION
CARR~D to direot the staPf to prepare a study refleoting the number and type of
restaurants, their looation, possible saturation of aress with restaurant uses,
site development stsndards•whioh might be established ss to size,•parldng and lattd-
soaping areas proposed to be lot split and the effeot of said split, traffio oonfliot
areas for these types of uses, and possible solutions.
~
I
i
~
I Y
~
~.
~
i
~
I
~
r
~
oy tine propoaed wall has;verq te11, intenaive'soreen lendeosping;.therefore, the proposed ~~~
'• wall ahould?present no grester viaual;barrier.thsn ~reaently eaiata ~~~
~
~
~' ~dward Noonen one of tha
pp
"g
, petit~.oners, a eared~bePore'~the Oommiesion atatin he ~
~;~
,
was-svailsble to'snswer:que'stiorie, sinoe the'.:petition Yully ateted his'problems. :
,~
b~rthermore;, the sd~oining neighbora who would be aPPeoted',,by the`wsll had sigiied.his ~'~"
etit3on iadioetin the were i
P
B Y`, n Pavor;oY the'~propoaed height inoresse.oP an eaiating' ~,~
-
w811i . ~ " ~ ; ~.:-. . . ,. .
No one sppeerad in~ opposition ~~.~
s;<
: ., , ,
- ~:: ':. ::y ~;:. ~: ~~' :~~ ~. ~
'1e
Tf~ I~AR~; WA3 OL03IDD ~
~
~
Coamiasioner Rowlsnd ofPerad Raeolution No._ PQ70=133 and moved~.fo'r ita;pssaege;`znd ' "~
sdoption to'.grant:Patition for Vnrinnce No~..2188, aub~eot to a oondition:(Sea; Re .:sution
,
x'"i
Book) , : ;
" ` ~
,; . ;,
,
On roll oe11 the Yoregoing resolution~veae paeeed by;the follotiring'vote. .
< ; , ~,r
~~
~~
- ',
~
.
AYE3: COY[I33IOI~IDR3 Fernno; f3suer, Knqwood, Rowlnrid; Seymour; Herbat n ~r
a~
~. ~ ': 1 ~ ~' '~ ~ 4,
0.J,~
NOE3: 0p19~38I01~R3 None. ' _
_
, , , ~~`
~yr
A83~NT: 0010~33IONffiR3: %Allred: :
. ~.;
'`~~,'~'~'p
,
, . .., . C - k
VARIANCE N0. 2189 - PUBLT~ F~ARINa. TF~ OAI6INAL HOU3ID OF PIID3, Dd. MIOFI~L3EN, `
~~~
` 5900-Rodeo,Rond,:Los Angeles, Oslifornin, Owner; requesting waiver ,~~_:
:` of;P~AMITTIDD b'A~~STANDIN(~ SIQN LOOATION on property.flesdribed as: *~
Aa.:irregularly ahaped psroel oY lnnd looated~st the southesat oorner
o~ IDuolid Street ':
.
end Cstalpd;DriWO; hsving approzimste frontsges of 78 Yeet on IDuolid Street snd 290 feet ~~
on Catalps Drive, and Purthar desoribed as 830 North IDuolid 3treet. Property presently ~
zoned ~C 1, GED~RAL COI~RCIAI,, ZOIJ~. :
Assisteat Zoning Supervisor ILsloolm Slsughter edvised the Commission.that the_.petitioner ~
,
..,._.._:
-~as unable to be-preser.t-4or the publio heering and'had submitted a request asking that
sub~eot petition be oontinued to the meeting of Auguet 10, 1970. , ~
,~
i
No one appeat+ed in opposition. , ~ '
:
Coirmissioner Seymour~offered a motion, aeoonded by Oommistiioner I{syaood, and MOTION ~
CARR~D to aontinue oonsideration oP Petition Yor Varianoe'No. 2189 to'the meeting of
'
August 10,.:1970, a
s requested.by the patitioner. {.
V9RIANCB N0. 2190 -.PIIBLIC.I~ARIl3G. AONALD d dIDAN L~BEI~00D, 7 Morada Lane, Santa j.
'
'~ bB a,CaliYornis, Owners; The Metz Company; J'ohn 0: Holter,- I ~:
` riggs Street; Costa Mesa, Cslifornia, Agent requesting WAIVER
~
OI'',P&~3T~,
FliEE-STANDaiG SIQN IACATION T0 ESTABLISH A FAEID-STANDII3G SIGN an property
,..
"
described
as: A reatangularly shaped:parael.oP land hsving a frontage of approzimately
70 Yeet oa the north side of Ball Rosd,-having a`msaimum depth of approzimately 150 feet, j
being lo~ted approzimately 195 feet west oP the oenterline oP Sunk3st Street, and further ~
described as 2429-East Ba11 Road. Property presently alassified C-1, GENERAL CO~~LERCIAL,
Z~ _
_
_ ~
~
~
i -
( .
~, ~.
.,
,,r.'
v h ~
~ ~~~ ~~
t 'i ~:.'S
'
¢~
~
~ {` ~// ~z~ ~
" J+.r.~
A
1
_ ~~
,' .~
~ ~
3
^,~
.. . ~'.~ .. .
~'.' '~, ..~' .":~ '
~ ~ i. d
MINUTEC, CITY PLANNING CO~ISSION, Tuly.27, 1970 5262 = i~~
, : : , , . t,~ 5-~
1 ~~
!;VAR2ANCE NO..>2190 "Assistant Zoning 5upervisor., Malaolm Slaughter reviewed the loaation, '~'~;~
(oontinued) _o~ aub'~eot property; uses establiehed in'alose.proaipni.ty;`and the ' ;~~"~
, proposel to~;ereot a,.!free standiag'sign;whiah would be looated~.;approai ~;,~
~.;mately ~ ioui~ ;feet Prom the `eeaterly property. line , .whereas tfie Sign;,` ` .. ~"
`Ordirie,aoe would raquire tkie sign;'to be loosted,'.within:.en erea~28 Peet Yrom either side ~
;04 the-west or'east;property liries, however,,if.,the sign;were plaoed,two or three feet . ~?~°.
westerly oP':tha proposed~driveway:, it would be,~:more.riearly:in oon£ormesioe
,witti'uode ~~;•-
,
?then':ths.proposed•loostion: ThereYore,.`.the Oommission would~.have.to determine if a
~
~ a; •
hardaliip eaiated to;warrant Ysvorable
.oonaideration :of sub~eot petition. ?~`
'~dr John Kerr, repreaenting Tio Too Marketa, 2588 Newport Boulevard, Coats ~leas,, '~ w;
.~eppesred before the;0ommie.§ion end noted thst~:the..siga.oompany repreaentative
wa§ unabTe ~
.~i
,
•' to be ;'present,, therePore fie aould" e~ttempt to preaent''•the 'sign problem, Yor sub~eot prop-
. ~ t:
erty whioh would reguire;looating the,;eign~witliiri~ttie`drivewaq if':oonetruoted within : ,.~
..:
Oode r.equirementa, kiowever`; if the Oommieeion so•deaired they would be willing to ereot- '"
'`ing the aign.in '„he.;manner``suggested by the:stsfP, riemely;two-three feet'west of the ~:
~f
~ drive,way +:~
. ~ ~ ~~
-. No one' eppea`red" in~ opposition -
~::
' , <. .
.
. . i~
~
. . . .
..
, TFIB1 IiH1ARIN(~ VPA3 OIASH{D ,. 9<~`
' r:
"
;:The,Oommission and ateff disoussed the euggested loostion of the sign and whether or ~
~
'~~~
`not the varianae would be needad;; however, after reviewing the.plana it wes determined 4,~
' the wsiver wo'uld etill be 'neoesserq ..
, v_ GV.q
Commisaloner~Rowlend oPfered Reaolution':No P070-134 e~nd moyed for its passage and
~^
`^ X'
e~uption to;grent Uerisnoe No~ 2190, provided:h'owever; thst the sign ahall-be looated
.,~ -~
`~"~`
two tol three`:;feat weat.,of the.proposed `drive, :end ss stipuleted `to by the repre§entative '` k;.7
`oY~ the,/petitioner, szid aub~eot to; oonditi"one. (3ee._Aesolution Book>.. ~ t~~
~, i~
On roll osll the foregoing`:resolution wea psased by the Yollowing vote:.
; ,~ _ " ~;
`~r
~
:
~
. ,,,., . .
~
`AYBf3 ;` OO~I33IO1~AS: Fsrsno;;(i6uer,:Ksywood, Roale,nd, "Seymour, Herbst. .; ~~'
~
%NOID3 ` 00l~dIS3I0I~R3: None.
, ,
, ,, , ,_. . - `
~
„
~:
,.
~ . ,,•. ,, . :
.:. - . „
: ABSIDNT: ,COE~ISSIONIDRS: ' 'Allred:, , :
., .,
! "~';
RECLA3S~'IOATION - PUBLI4 ,~ARINa. INITIATIDD BY TF~ ANAF~IEQ OITY PLANNINf3 00E~ISSION, ry
`.NO~'70-71=4 `:`- 204 IDest Linooln Averiue, Aneheim, Oslitornia; proposing that.property ; ;
' desoribed ae:' An irregulsrly she~ped area of 23 aoras of land oomprised ~;- '-s
oY eix paroels oP propertq loosted approaimately 400 feet south of
Orangethorpe Avenue snd,oontinuing eaeterlq Yrom.Lakeview Avenue approzimately 1,250 feet, ~
and Yurther,deaoribed as tkie Lskeview=Ls Pslme Mnexation be reolsssiPied from the County ~
oP-0renge:Ml-10;000, LIt3HT ~INDUSTRIAL, DISTRIOT to the Oitq of Anaheim R-A, A(3RICULTURAL, " '
Z01~
..Assistes-t Zoning 3uperyisor Maloolm 8laughter revi~wed the.loaation o3.sub~eot property, ~ -
uses established in'oloae proaimity, snd the:proposal to establiah City of Anaheim zoniag ~- ~°
oa'.the property }rnoam as the Lskeview-Le Pa1me, Avenue.Anne:e,tion upon annexation to the (''
_ CityroY ~Anaheim. _ I'
No one appeared,in.opposition. '
~
Tf~ F1~ARING`>.WA3 . CLOSED:
, I ,
;
~
~ Co~issioner Gauer'oYYered Resolution No. PC70-135 and moved for its passage and adoption,
~
to reaommend.to the City.Counoil that Petition for Reolassifioation No. 70-71-4-be appro.ed .s
unooaditionelly, establishing City of Anaheim zoning for property presently being prooessed (
for annezation to'the City of Anaheim.(See Resolution Hook) `.'
I
Oa roll asll the Yore oitt reaolution we,s
g g pasaed by the Pollowing vote: I
_
AYPSc
COl~ISSIOI~RS: 'Farano, Gauer, Kaqwood, Rowland, Seymour, Herbst.
~
,
NOES: , COI~ISSIONERS: None. i
ABSENPc . C~LiSSIONERS:' Al]:red.
_ ~_. _:_
~,
(Y
I•
~~ ~..:_ . '~ ~ . '! ` j ~[~7~"~.Y."~~+T l 1:'{~'V` ~ C~ C"~dlxJ'~ '~C -^ `~'"~ ~~ t ~ aF~ ~.. 7~ *~ '~ ~
<r v ~;,~ ~~ e .,,. x r.~ R
~
.~~
~ ~~,g ;
<^
~~ 't- ,:~
~ i ~~ ~
M
~}.~ ~~.J ~ . . . ' I
. V
MIIVUTES, `CITy PI,ANNING;COI~EISSION, 7uly 27; 1970 :'
'
~
~ _
,
,: •_ ' , •,
- 5263
;. < < ' ~ ' >
~ REbLASS~'ICATION PUBI,IC F~ARII~iG ~~i2TIAT~D BY ~TI~ID 'ANAH~IM.:Cn+y P
N0. 70 71-5 LA~NNING COE~ISSION
`~ 204.East Linooln,Ave
'
~ ,
nue,:
Anaheim, GeliPornia•" p g
~ , desoribed:as _ An:.irre . ro osi hat.prop t
Bu~,arly?shaped.;srea of 23 soresno~tland oom
- o~ siz pe,roels of~:
ro
ri
e
d
t
~
~
.~ p
p
p
se
r
y looated a
Orengethorpe Avenue and.oontinuing eesterlg Prom~LelceviewrAveriueeB~ 400 Yeet:south of
~n,d further-deaoribed s
roa
~
` ime,tely 1,250 Peet
e the Lslceview La pslme, pp
oP Orange;'M1 10,000 li T +~e~8tio~ be,reolassified.Yrom the;0ounb
~T ~~~STR_AI,?DI3TRICT t
~
ZO
~ A
~
y
NE
. . ,° <
o ~the Cit oP Arieheim M-1, LIG}HT .IlJDUST
' ` ~~
~ a
h
Assiatant'Zoning Supervisor Msloolm`3leugtiter reviewed Yor~.the 0ommission the looatio
of.~'sub~eot property noting-that the pro
d
~
n
pose
tion oP
reoleasifiostion,would establish a resolu- '
intent to zone ;the.property;;theb the property
Induatrisl` Ares
was l
ost
Y
,
;
o
ed within the Northeast
, ,,, ,
,;and tliet it wss in ttie prooesa of being annexed to tfie 01ty oY Anaheim.
~ No,one appeared in
os `
.opp
ition:
Tf~' E~ARIN(3 YYAS 'OL03IDD. ' ;
Oummisaioner 3eymour oPfered Re.solutiori No.,_'.pp70-136 arid moved Por it
tion to reoommend to th
'
a
e Qity Qounoil
psasage snd adop-,
~hst petition Por ReolesaiYioation No. 70-71-5 be
approved, sub~'eot to.aonditiona. {3ee'Aesolutl
o
_
~
~
on:B
ok)
_
#
On roll oell the Pore oin resolution wes
' 8 g paeaed by the Yollowin ~
~
g vota:
~ AYESs OO1~IS3IONIDRS: : Fsrano Ciauer -
. ~ ~ Kaqwood, Rowlasid, 3ey~our, Herbat.
N0~3s
~ .
7
~
COI~I3SIONIDRSd None.; .
,
. , . . . . . '
~
` +9BSENT 001~23SIOI~R3: 'Allred.
. ~~
;
; .
; AREA'~ DIDVIDI+~pA~N'p -: PUBLIO FIIDARIN(i. : IN_TTIATIDD, BY TF~;. ANAF~IM OITY . p
PLAN:NO 106 "` 204 .IDsst Liiiooln Aderi
~~ a~~ISSION
e ' i,~:
r°
u
,
. ,
AOOID33 ANp.yIDHIOULAR OIROULATION~Porltherareatbounded~bq p~~ ~~a'"
Or
esigethor
e'Ave
s
,
``
,
p
nue
between Krsemer.,Boulevard and;the,City Limits
,. apProxime,telq 1,500 feet weaterly oP~Krae
~
~
~
~
....
, ...
. ,. , . .
~
.
mer Boulevard.
~ Zoning 3upervisor.Ohsrles~Roberte revieaed the looation af sub~eot
oY 39;.eorea,:e,nd noted thet th
Prope
t
01
'
~r
e
r
y ahioh oonsists
ty,wna.exploring the desirability oP eztending snd
edoptittg a oiroulstioa route tliru the p
o
t
?
},~
~
otts
ruotion<end .the oommeroisl property~loonted~esaberlqhfrom~h
; to Kraemer ~ Boulevard i
~r
h
en
ertr ~
a
n t
eaideatisl
o
e avbnt no oiroulation wsa proposed tliat:,~-~s+. --.;p-.:~ ~ nt
PZan were adopted.thie. would be the,pattern oP
propert
oi
l
l
os
I
,
y
rou
o
etion f o r t he area; thBt sino@ the
ted i n t he C i tq oP Plsoentie ares zoned induetriel, in the event the
developed tor industrisl purpoaea
ro e
seperstio
t )
,
p
r
n of the industrisl from:the oommeroial and ~ ~'
residential traffio oould be"aooompliahed thru the ares develo P ~
`aoaess to the atreet
Pme
si
t . 1
,
n
plan by prohibiting
ttoe s one Poot holding atrip would be looated ad~eoent to th
street on the aeat'side;thet when the R=3 1
}
~
~. e
issuanoe op e buildin p~e Por development were approved
masoary wsll'slong~the norrthtsidea
f K
th
i6r
e
e
r ,
o
e
ensiagton
foot
Avenue soeas
to inaure
thBte
traYYfa would gain aooess;•:to the reaidentisl streets; thst tbe devel
to provide a stub street at
n
d
a1
~
oper was
.the esaterl te
also
urged
Y. rminus oP Kenaington Ayenue.Por Puture eztett-
sion oP the street thru,the oommeraial:propert
had studied the possibilit
Y~ and that staPf and th
P ex
y o
e trafPio engineer
tendin Kensin ton Avenue eeaterl to
hooever two.problems srose 8 g Y Krsemer Boulevard,
s rather ' ne~e19• 1•) that,the oommeraisl
uttdeairable
ro
e
.
p
.m
perty would be devided in
siner lesving only,8 ama].l portion-northerly of;the nroposed exten-
sion;;and 2)•that at suoh time as'traffio ott Krsemer B
that an oxer
8
l
p
ou
evard had ittoreasedto the extent
83 op the railroad traoks~wes neoessary.than extensiori of this str
be eli.minatad beoause of the need for sIo
t
ee
ea
would
nate ali P ana.approeoh patterns. TherePore,the alter-
gnment indioeted ott Exhibit "A";would eatend the:preaent terminus,of Bensin
Averrue::eeaterly to`a.point,parallel.
with th
t
n
~
l
~
.
g
o
e
Citq of Pleoentie boundaries, thenoe norther-
y a1o.p8.said boundsry to,eait ori to Crowther Avenue.
fere dedioated to the City oP Atteheim alon
~rthermore, if a one foot stri
th
t
e
o
I
g
p
h
en ac
westerly boundary oP the northerly street,
ess Yrom the`industrial propertq would be -
still ereot the wa11 if he~so desired on the
prohibited, and the petitioner oould ~
a
e
sterly-boundary of said street.
,.~ ~ ~,....~ ' .. _
~ w ~y~~~y
s ~~~ w.~a'1.Se~~~ }~~t'~,.~~~~~_.r.`.~ ~~t r~~~k,F~.Y ..~...+. wT}'N7'~' . r~.'Jyt; "'f,r_ ~ ~ ~.. r. . .r r.. . - .. ..... ~- . .
,;, .;-.~ ,.,.. ~ ,.. -- ~ ~~ .~ P ~..+F.:~:+~ac,ri-ti~cr~t:eu:i'<r__~.:~~. ~ fs.a~..;t.i.PNAy°~i ._`..St"7~3F ~~ i ,! c f i'
~t : w
... .^y. .,,. ~> . . , .... . . -
. :. . ,.. .. . . ~.: ....:: .... .... . .'.
~ , ~~ " ~. ~ - . .
t ~ :. ? .1~
;
, ; . .. , .
; : . . . ,, _ . . , _ ;.:; .
, . ,:, : _ _ . :
~ '~INUTES, Cl'PY PLANNIlVG. COE~ISSION;,.July 27, 1970 5264
~REA;DEVELOPld~NP = Mr..Ed.. Kozlosl~'; 120 E1 Cau~no, Beverly Hills, eppeared beYore tHe,
PLAUT'N0. 106 , Coqmiission_and atated that,.he was the.omner oP the oommeroial property
(oontinued) ` in the.study::area, that•he`We,s not opposed': to;dedioation oP property
~ ' '-for street purposes, but .there was~e queation as to.the poasibility of
turning Temple Street iato a high speed street, that.the'oommeroiel property oould aooom--
" modate the proposed street, however the~timing wss a:aonsideratiori in the,lesaes thet were
` under riegotiation;,`and'that it.`would riot be;neoessary to oontinue oonsideration of the
area".developmen~t.plan, in'response to Commissian queations, ainoe their plans:oould be
Parmulated: to eooommodate. tkie. proposed=.street: ."
~r: Roberts'noted that a`satbaok.of.Pive ~eet,:.was sll tbet aes required ed~aoent..to the.
nem,street,"siaoe this was a looel street rather than ari'e,rterial where s 10-toot'setbaok
' wss''required. ...~ ., , `: , , <. - , ,
The Commi'ssion inquired whather.or riot'e,wn1l was propoaed to soreen truoking operationa
" from"the.apartment`development.
` Mr ~ozlosky,replied that,this.might be neoessary, however, the multiple family develop-
mettt would probably.oonstruot tha:wall prior to oommeroisl development.
' Mr '-.Roberts~noted;that the Aneheim Munioipsl Code required that the wall.be built by the
aommeroiel developmenta not bq..the R-3 developer,.however,:in the development of the A-3
property,` the deve,loper;.we,s"required to,provide a'wall aeparating;the induatrial propertq
': located in.the~City of„Plsoaritie Prom the A-3 property, the besio reason for this was to
prohibit'eny•,eooess'from:the industrisT property_thru`Kensington-Avenue and Temple Sireet,
thus;routing':'sll:,industrisl trafPio to`Crowther Avenue through sdoption oP the ares deve~
`:opment plan, and:,tkien further reoommended that!s:6-foot me,sonry wall slso be required
ad3aoent to tHe"st'reet eaiting to CrowtHer Avenue.
` TF~ F~ARIldG~ WAS 4L03ED.
'- A lengthy disoussion wa's~held by the Oommission and etaYP regarding the reoommendstions
of the ~staPY, summerized.`es;Pollowa:
1 Th~t iY'h wall aere:required,it ehould be oonatructed by the induatriel properties,
however.;°sinoe the industriel"properties were not within the City of Ariaheim, this
'oould not be a,`oondition.oP.'use oP the property, unless tfie City oP Pleoentla so
'required it.
2• That it was totally unfsii~ to penalize the oommaroial proper~y oamers by requiring ~
dedioatiott and improvement of streets es well ea proteoting the industrisl and
residential;uses.
: 3• That if the aommeroisl property owners held a one foot strip this oould be sold and
no soaess would be afforded persons to the street.
4• That Where an enorosohment of residen~iel uses was propoaed into s primarily
industrisl area, then the residentiel uae should provide the buffering, hoaever,
this generdl aree had been pro~eoted Por other than industrial uses Por some time,
beoause.the City of Anaheim had amended the boundaries of their industrial area to
- terminate at Orangethorpe Avenue;'therePore, the industrial use in the City oY
Plaaentia should be providing the buffering.
5. That a wall pould be neede~ to seperate outdoor storage, and iP soreening devioes
were required, rsther than ezpeot this to be done by properties in the City of
Plaoentia; the.City oY Anaheim should reoommend that development oP properties in
Anaheim should,provide this sareening.
6• That if a~a11 were needed Por aesthetia purposes, if the City of Anaheim had a one
foot holding,strip which,would separate the two inoompatible vehioular trafPia uses
vhiah the City deemed detrimental, this aould be ths only thing the Oity of Anaheim
oould require;,and any edditional proteation should be provided bq either the resi-
i dential or oo~eraial uses if the industrial uses ware fouttd ob3eotionable.
I 7• That a speoial easement oould be granted aaross the one foot stri to
aonstruation of the.~s11 along the West side oP the p Permit the
proposed street; however, there
~as no need to tie.up an additional one foot strip along the east side of said street
8• That the one Yoot holding strip along the west side of the proposed strip aould be
given in fee and later sold baak to the developer of th9 street, in the event the
industriel property in Plaoentia developed Por other than industriel uses, thus
.. ~ , i - `::.:~, ~!
' ' '~,~~
~ ~ ~ ~ -'~
~~
~
`~.:+ - . . ~ fi
...:: ,;~ .. ~.'. '~ .:~.',', f .,. . ' . . . . i~~~
. _ , ~. ~, ~ ,~~#
,~SIN[TJ.~S, Cl'PY PLANNINC: CQ~IoSION, July 27, 1970 5265 w
• ) ;: ; ; ~
' ; AREA DEIIELOPALEN'P `aPPordi ' : ` ¢~~~
ng said oommeroiel.developer some:measure,oP payment by '~
PLAN NO 106 ;.:allow~ng a.ooess to:the:street::upon.payrment,of..:e; set.fee by the tn~~
-= ; City of Attaheim for'street"dediaation si-d improvement purposes. ~'~
, - ' ' S' i5s
r Cou~issioner`Romldnd oPPered Res'olution-No. PC]0-137, and moved:for its passage;and ~~~^~
~ adoption to•;sdopt and~reoommend;to the:City,Counoilrthe ad.option of A~es;Development. ~
', Plan'-No~ 106, and Yurther~requiring~that a one Yoot hold~ng;,strip;be.~dediosted in Yee'for ~,.c
al OO along`t:theswest si'de oP the;;proposed north south street~end the eztenaion oY the ' `
` eest mest Kensington Avenue, thereby ~prohibiting ari'y:'sooess: from the industri'el~;'.property '~~
: itt the City'•~of Plaoentie`from~having aooess to said.atreets, together witli a 3lnding ~~
. that'iP se,td'induetrial property;.is developed Yor other.then:industriel.purposes that ~~; '
said<one foot holdittg strip be~:reverted baok:to the'donor Por,the:'seme Sl Pee in order ~~,r~
to s11ow the=donor,;to reoover a portion_of the ooats'of.dediosting,and;developing the ~:~<
streeta by-granting,aooess to;ssid atreeta, and.pux.ther provided that atreet trees ~~'
shall':be•planted~:et 40-foot intervals.;iri aooordaaoe'with`Code requiremettts elong both ~'
sides' oP the • proposed streets.`(3ee Reaolution''Book) ,', ;~,
;: ; ~ ,t~
On roll oall`.the foregoing resolution was-pasasd•by'the Yollowing vote: ,-~:
- :: . ,- ~
AX~S ; C0~3SIOI~RS. "'Fsrano, Gauer,' Kaywood, Rowlexid, Seytiour; Herbst. ~ ~~
_ , . ,,
;.. :
' NOP1S: ! COD~lISSIOI~iRS: None. ~~'
,. , _. '
'- y;.r~
ABSENP OO~ISSIOI~RS: Allred '. . r~;~
_ ::: , .:, . . i ~ . ~ ~. ~ '~v
R~PORTS AND ' •IR~M~NO. 1 ` ; , ;. ' = ,~.~
RECO~NDATIONS Conditional Use Permit No 1152(Heinz Oharbroiled Hemburgers),_ A~~,~~
Property;•,looated 200:,Peet north of'the interseotioa of.the.northwest ~~
~oorner.of State,0ollege Boulevard and 8a11"Road - request ~or'a siz ~~
, : month eRtension;, oP time „~ yr~
~ Assistant Zoning 3upervisor,![e,Zoolm 3laughter;preaented s reques^t~:,from tkie prcposed. ' '~~~~
, ; + rr. ~
deveTopers oY an enolosed``reataursnt to.~be looated approzimstely~200;feet'nortki`of f~~
'the north~rest oorneT oP ttYe aenterline~,of Ball~'>Road;snd 3t'ate Qollege Boulevard for ~~$'
;a 6 month ezteasiori^of time to.oomplete oonditiona oP_Resolution No". PC70-6, grnnting ~
~ . . r;
' Conditionsl IIse ;Permit No,. 1152:: . • ` -
~ . '- ' . . . ~ ~ . . fi
Commissioner:,`Aoa~land ofPered s motion, seoorided by 0ommissioner Fereno, nnd MOTION
CARR~D•to grant's.:6-month:extenslon of time to expire Januarq 26, 1971 for the `
'oompletiott of oonditions in Conditional Uae Permit No. 1152• ~'
ITE~ N0. 2 ;~
Cnnd- itional Use Permit No. 1127(Wslt DisnpyProduotiona-Wrnther Hotels) '
Property loasted on the weat.side of West Street, north of Cerritos ~
ISveaue,- request Por a one year e:tension oP time to utilize sub3eot
p?~o~isrty Yor outdoor.banquet Yeoilities.
6ssistant Zoning Supervisor Ele,~oolm Sleughter presented a requeat f,~om the operators
oP Disneylstid.Hotel requesting s one year ex~ension; of time to oontinue the presettt
utilization of the property looated on the West side,of West Street north of Cerritos
Avenue for`outdoor banquet:faoilities (lusus), end noted that sinoe steps,had been ~-~
- taken to reduoe any possibility of noises whioh would disturb residents in the area,
no oomplaints had been reoeived, therefore, the request`for a one yesr eztension of
time'for the oontinued use of the land for outdoor bsnquet faoilities was reoommeaded.
Co~issioner Rowland oYYered a motion, seoonded by Commissioner Seymour and NOTION
09RR~D,:.to grant ts ons year extension.of time to utilize property under Conditional
Use Permit No. 1127 for outdoor banque~ Peoilities.
ITEE~ N0. 3
OQnd- itional Use Permit No. 1155 - Reolassifioat3on No. 66-67-75
Property •1.ooated•'.on tlie north side oP La Palme Avenua approzimately
415 feet trom the oenterline of Euolid:Street - reque§t 3or ezten- M
sion of time to oomplete oonditloas graritiag Conditional IIse Permit
No. 1155 in Resolution No. PC70-12 ~
Assistant:Zoning Supervisor l~e,loolm Slau hter ~
6 presented a request 3rom the proposed
developers=operators'.oY a 120-bed nursiag home and 150-room bed-board-oare home for
the aged requescing e 90-day eatension of time Por the oompletion of oonditions xn ~
Resolutien No. PC70-12 dated February'9, 1970 granting Conditional Use Permit No. 1155, '
~ and that a aondition of approval Was the oompletion of reolassiPioatioa of the property~ _
I
`,`: _,
, ,,. _. .. , ...
~ ~ ~ ~
~
- MIN[TPES, CITY PLANNIlVCr CO~ISSION; July:. 27, 11970 5266
: .. :.: :
REPORTS AND :; ZTE~ N0: 3(oont'd )
,'RECO~NDATIONS , ~., - '
(ootttinued)'. therefore, it•:would-appear appropriate::that the Planning Commission
. ., ,. ,
" ' ' reaommend to~the City'Couxio~l':that said reolassiPioation also`be'
gi~anted an'eztension:of;time.ior the oompletion of~oonditions,:iP -
~' ,; `, ~,Oonditional Use`~ermit::No ,.1155 is approved for e 90-day eatension
_ .
of.time.: ~ .;: . :_
Commi'ssioner`Gauer.oYfered`a motion,~seoonded bq,Commissiotter Farano, and;MOTION.CARA~D
to grant a..90-day eatension oP'time:Por.'the`oompletiori of aonditions of Coaditional
Use;,Pebmit'No:.~1155, and,thst the;City Counoil_be.urged to grant a similar.'eatension.
of.time Yor.the aompletion'of oonditions=approving,ReolessiYioation No. 66-67-55.`'
ITE~ ND' 4
.-
-,Beer~Tasting Teat - Netional Anelysts 2no.'
2233 West Ball_Raed "=,`Brookhurst'Shopping Center,
Request Por approvel to oonduot test during_month of August
Zoning'Supervisor Oharles :.Roberts prasentad to the Oommission s request'from the Nat3.ona1
Arislysts Ino: requeating permission to oonduot a beer tasting.test during the month of
August;,in a veoant store at}the'Brookhurst Shopping Center, and noted that"ABC had been
`:oontao,ted mho-ateted that tHeq-allowed-.taste tests; that this was the Pirst time:in
Orange' County; _ the,t ~`ABC ' classiYied this 'the same . ea a•"40" . oatagory or : Pamily type
~_.lioense wherein persons under 21.were edmi'tted; that ABC would watoh tbis operation
'ver'y.'o,losely;',thet there were,no residenoea within 600 feet'of the faoility; and.that
the request`hed been oleared by the Stete:Bureau oY Health.` .
Msouasion"wes hold.by the`Commission as`to the reQuest summe,rized as follows:
1• If;proposed teat vuss'free ae it pertalned to the tasting it msq be allowed,,however,
there eppeered,to.be inadequste,inYormation on whioh the:Commission oould base its'
~ deoision;..therePore,::bonsidereti,on'of a publio hearing'should be made.
2'Thet no spaoiPied amount oP,beer to be oonsumed had beea indioated, therefore, this
,mas'B matter oY grsve oonoern. '
3. That ainoe no publia hesring wsa oonaidered, ther8'were no oonditions or menner in
which this operation oould be aontrolled, sinoe no ABC lioense`vras required.
4. That witte tasting Yaoilities were availeble at wiaeries, hov/ever, this proposal
did not sppear to i~e,ve the.seme mees-ing and distilleries should be able to develop
their own produot 3n suoh s mesitier thet speoial teats were not neoessary.
Commisstoner Farano ~ffered e motion to adviae the NBtional Analysts Ino., that the
proposed request should be oonaidered at sn advertiaed publio hearing, in order that
proper messurea may be taken to insure this operation will not have a detrimental effeot
on the shopping oenter and ad~oining properties. Commissioner Gauer seoonded the motion.
MOTION CARR~D.
'ITEls N0. 5
ReolassiPioation No. 70-71=3 - Varianoe No. 2185 - Area Development
Plan No. 95 - Howard W. Un]~ey-Harold V.' Tolar, 429 S. Puolid Street.
3thPY:. request Por.olsriPioation oP resolutions pertaining to the
publio dedioa~ad elley -`prohibition of aooess ~o the alley from R-1
properties to the west - 6-Poot me.sonry wall along the north and south.
Zoning Supervisor Chsrles Roberts requested olariYiaation from the Commission regarding
their intent.itt the approval of ReolessiPioation No. 70-71-3, Varianoe No. 2185, and
Area Development Plau No. 95, sinoe it was stafP's understanding that the Commission
intended to require dedioation oP an alley-between-the oommeroial property fronting on
Euolid Street and the R=1 properties to the west; that residential use of the alley
- should be,protiibited, however,.upon reviewing this with the City Attorney's offioe, it
was the attorney's opinion that vehiaular traffio from the R-1 properties oould not be
prohibited on s publia alley; that there was.some disoussion betaeen some of the aom-
`missioners that this elley be a private aooessway, therefore, if it was the Co~oission's
intent that the alley not be a publio dediaeted slleq, then the resolution appraving
the realassiPioation attd area development ple,n would heve to be amended to refleot the
Co~ission's intent; seoondly, ahether or not it was the Commission's inteat to limit
the ~types of uses Por these properties, sinoe only one paroel was under oorisideration
Yor e real estate oPYice; said uses being more oompatible wi.th the residential uses
:-
~ ~ ~
~l~NUTES, CI'PY PLANNING`CO~~dISSION, July 27, 1970 5267
REPORTS AND - I'PE~ N0. 5`(oontinued)
RECO~NDATIONS ,
(oontinued) - ta.the'weat than general oommeroial uaes, and whether or not esoh
reolessiPioation,petition mould have to be 3udged on its o~vn merits
' as:to,spproved uses in,the event owners of these pe;roels determined
~hey would like difPerent uses than would be'aaoeptable to the Planning Co~ission and
City_Couaoil; thirdly',"did.the Commisaion asnt the height of the exiating wall to be
inoreased regardle~ of the`.method employed to 6 Peet, or should s regulation 6-Yoot
wsll be`a"requirement oP the paroels as they request xeolassiPiostion whioh should be
ereated•on the dommeroial properties,`sinae s requirement of the 0-l Zone Was a 6-foot
mssonry wsll to sepsrste the aommeroisl from the"`residential uses.
Disous§ion was held by the Commieaion r9gerding:the pointa requested for olariPiostion,
arid upon its.oonolusion tha Co~isaion determined thst rsther then hsving a publio
dediosted'slley, this oould be e private'eooessasy with sooesa over and thru the ad3oin-
3ng propertiea to be permitted thru the submiesion for spprovsl at~d the reoordation of
mutuaT'eooess agreementa.;to insure edequet9 oiroulstion o~ the proparties at time of
davelopment avithout permitting lndividual eooass to IDualid Street Por eeah parael;and that
~this private 8ooesaway would then ittsure that. no aooess would be granted for vehioular
traPfio from the R-l properties to the west. P1~rthermore, wsa the Qommisaion able to
msxe ohenges and requirementa when theae petitior.a hed been oonaidered previously at a
publio'heering.
Assistsnt Developmant Serviaea Mreotor Ronsld.Thampeon noted Por the Oommission that
sinae:it'wss the Commission's reoommendstion to the Oitq Oounoil ragsrding both the
realsaeifioation and ares development plan, the City Oounoil oould take these reoom-
mandationa under oonsideration at .their;publio hearing, at whioh time anq opposition
to these sddi.tiona or emendmenta oould-be msde by intereated peraona.
Mr. Roberts further noted thet if,the sooeaswsy were proposed.to remaia private snd
still developed.in sooordanoe with the ezhibit oP the dree development plan, soma mearis
of prohibiting:sooesa Yrom the R-l properties would have to be msde.
`Deputy City Attorney'b'rank Lowrq sdviaed the Oommiasion this oould be n oondition of
spprovsl of eaoh realsasi~lodtion oY the individual psroels. :
Commissioner Seymour noted thst it wes not hia intention to require that the oommeroial
properties sdd to the existing R-l properties~mseonry wall.
I~r. Roberts agsin noted that the 0-1 Zone required the 6-Yoot mesonry wall sepsrating
the tWO uses, snd if e wall eziated upon whioh additionel blooka oould be plaoed, pro-
viding the R-l property o~vnera approved of •this, this would be aooeptnble to the Ci~y.
Hoaever, iY the R-1 property ownere do not give their spproval to thia eddition, then
the C-1 property owners would be requirad to develop the 6-foot mssonry wnll on their
property.
Com~i.ssioner Seymour noted that the sppeeranoe oY the wsll would be rather undesirable
in appearsaae ~vith palls developed i.n s hsphszard msaner.
1Lr. Roberts noted this was unlikely, unless oertsin R-1 propertq ownera did not allow
the aonmeroial developer permission to add to their ezisting mesonry vrdll, sinoe most
of the R-1 properties did.not hsve mssonry walls.
Co~issioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC70-138 and moved for its passage and
adoption to reoommend to the City Counoil thst emendments be mede to the Planning
Eo~ission Resolution No. PC70-128 dated Tuly 13, 1970 reoommending approval of
Realassifioation No. 70-71-3 - by deleting the requirement of s dedionted 20-foot
alley along the westerly property line and e 10-foot halY-width publio slley along
the north prop~rtq line, and in lieu thereoP require that a 20-foot private vehioular
acaess~ay slong the westerly property line and a 10-foot wide private aoaessway along
the northerly property line be provided; that said aooessways to be paved in aooord-
anoe vith the requirements oP the Direator o4 Publia lRorks; that mutual easemeat rights
to and over the required privete vehioular eooesswaqs shall be granted to all other
property owners inaluded in Ares Development Plan No. 95, said agreement to be submitted
to and.approved by the City Attorney and then reaorded with the Orange County Reoorder;
and that the 6-foot masonry aell required along the north and south property lines be
deletod, leaving only a 6-foot masonry wall to be oonstruoted along the West property
line. (See Resolution Book)
' ',: ~
~,2''`t 1 y~? e ~ ~ i ~ +- ~ ~ ~~4'i r -" '' 'a c ~.
` .~c 'I r S K ti 2 ~ r . ~.+~ i dc. ~
~~y n t~ 7{.,~ =?~ :3.'~. ~.{t~.C ~.~K;~~"" rt z ~,. ? res% 3 t . . ~~ . _ . , . _ . . .. . . . . .
~}h~ `~~ ~a ~~ ~t~~~~ ~~~~^..~5~~ ~~~~ ~Xt' ~~,~.~...YJ~~a ~` "~~y~','~` t{ ~; ~.f ,, ~ ': a- t ~
. - ~ ~ . . . . ~ ~ ~ . . . . . . ~ ~ .
MINO'!'ES,' Cl'1'Y PLANNIl~ CO~ISSION, Tuly 27, 1970 5268
REPOFtTS AND - ITE6~.N0. 5 ,(oontinued) _
RECO~IDATIONS On roll osll the ~oregoing resolution was passed by the
--(oontinued) following vote:,
AYES: COl~AISSIONERS: Farano,.Gauer, Kagwood, Rowland,
Seymour. Herbst.
NOES: CO~ISSIONERS: None.
~ ABS~NT: COMMISSIOI~RS: Allred.
Cou~i.ssioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC70-139 and moved for its passage and
adoption to reoommend to the'City Counoil thst emendments be made to Planning
Coa~ission Resolution No. PC70-130 dated July 13, 1970 reoommending approval of Area
Development Plan No. 95 - by deleting the requirembnt of a dedioated 20-foot alley
along'the westerly propertq line snd 20-foot alley returns to Euolid Street along the
three (3) returns indioeted 3n ~zhibit "A°; and in lieu thereof, require thst a 20-foot
private vehiaular aaoesawe,y'elong the weaterly_property line, and 20-foot eooesswsy
returns to Euolid Street as set Porth in IDzhibit "A"; that said private aooessaaysshall
be paved in eooordanoe with the requirements of the Direotor oP Publio Works uuon request
or deme,nd of the City oP Anaheim; thet mutusl eooess easement~rights to and over said
e.ooesswsys be granted to ell property r,,pners oovered in Area Development Plan No. 95
upon demes-d by the Oitq; said easement rights to be submitted to and approved by the
Citq Attorneq and then reoorded with the Orsnge County Reoorder; that a 6-foot mascnrq
' wsll be provided slong the weaterlq property line ad~eoent to the 20-foot aooessway;
that aooess rights,`exoept e,t streets and/or slley openings to ~uolid Street be dedioated
tothe City of Ansheim, provided however, that temporarq aooess shall be granted to
individu~l paxoels inoluded in tha ares davelopment plen until suoh time as the City
demands improvement of the private aooeaswsqs, and shall enter into an agreement with
the City to olose the temporerq eooessways that are not in aonformanoe with the looation
of the three (3) permitted aooees returns that were deemed neoessarg by the Development
Servioes Department snd Traffib Engineer, and the providing of landsoaping in that
portion oY the temporery eaoesswey within the front setbaok; said agreement to be reoorded
aith.the Orange. 0ounty Aeoorder prior to issuanoe of a Building Permit on an individual
parael: (See~ReSolution Book) ,
On roll osll the foregoing resolution was pe,ssed by the following vote:
~ AYES: COA~ISSIONIDRS: Fsrano, Gauer, Kaywood, Seymour, Rowlattd, Herbst.
NOES: CO~ISSIONERS: ldane.
ABSENT: COl~ISSIONIDRS: Allred.
ITfl~d N0. 6
General Plan Amendment No. 120
Addition of E~ini-parks to text of the Anaheim General Plan
Commissioner Farsno noted thst the Planning Commiasion at the July 13, 1970 publio
hearing reoommanded to the City Counoil an amendment to the General Plan to innlude
the definition of a l~ini-park end to iaolude Mini-parks in the Communitq Fsailities
Element`- Planning Ares A- Psrks, Reoreation, and Open Spaoe - Ob3eotives and
Polioies; thet an editoriel in e loosl newspaper had osst disparaging remarks regard-
ing the Commission's sokion in said resolution to the efPeot that it Was proposed to
ezplore or pursue the stepa neoeasary to make spplioation to H[TD for possible assist-
anae in the davelopment of these parks, however, the Co~ission - the editorial noted -
did not take time to inquire or determine the facts before prooeeding with involving
the Gity vvi.th HUD.
Committsioner Farano further noted that after reading the ~inutes of the meeting in
detail - whiah Were quite lengthy and oomplete - together with the faat that no one
appeared at an advertised publio hearing, said Minutes indioated the Co~ission had
asked numerous questions regarding the prooedure and aommitment whiah the City vould
be involved in iP steps were taken to request funds from HUD; that he was not desirous
of imolving the City in Federal Pundiag, wherein the Citq would have no oontrol of
their own destiny; that he had agreed with statements made bq Commissioner Gauer that
the City should aoaept funds provided it did riot meen "selling our souls"; that state-
ments made bp Co~i.ssioner Roaland reg~rding the number uP volumes written regarding
,--_ .~,,
~ ~ _ _ ~
~
~MIIJUTES, CITY PI,ANNING CO~SISSION, July'•27..~1970 ' 5269
REPORTS AND ` -` ITEDd NO •6.,(oontinued)
RECO~NDATIONS Federel.iunding steps did not neoesserily mean the City:should eaplore
(aontinued) all.these volumes"for.informstion, however, it was importe,nt to have
` as muoh inPormation as possible to oonsider; thus, if there was any
. Purther information ahtoh the general'publio-had, snd whioh the Commission was not msde
oagitizant of, tkien this'information:should hsve been presented at the publio hearing
rather than plsying !~~Londay morning qusrterbaok" e£ter. the eotion had taken plaoe.
Therefore,:'-sinoey'it would.appear.thst,there wa§ additional informstion whioh the Com-
mis§iori should oonsider, he would move that.°.the hesring on.General'Plan Amendment No. 120
4 be're-opened and seid data.presented et e Purther publio heering, so thet thu Commission.
oould make'a better evaluation of the evidenae in their reaommendations to the City
Counoil. _
~
Disoussion'was held by the Commission regarding the stetements mede by Commissioner
Fareno and his`.motion, summarized as Pollows;
1.. That the oonoern eapressed in the editoriel r~gerding use oY this open spaoe by
devious, disreputable ohe,raoters,was also a oo.aer;n of the Commission and the Parks and
Reoreation, and this wss evidenoed by the remt3val oP-§hrtibbery.growi~g.olose to the
ground in the City's parks, so that no.one oould lurk or hide behind them to orea.te
some type of disturbanoe or atteok people.
Z. That open spaoe was neoesssry not only for parks, but throughout a oitq, that is
near:apartments,'oommeroisl arees, and even near industriel areas, so that people
oould en~oq the Yresh eir, and whers ahildren oould visit theae areas whioh were near
their homes.without the need Yor parental supervision.
'3. :That it wss not the desire of'the P].annirig Commission to engage in prsotioes whereby
the Citq_would be trading its independeaoe as.to the manner in whiah theq governed them-
selves ~ust to obtain funds Prom the Federal Government, who might tell them how and
when to spend theae funds; and that the City should be fully oognizent oP the impliaations
made by the editoriel, sinoe theq were not seers who oould disoern the underlqing Ysots.
4.; That.thb eotion taken bq.the Commisaion in reoommending inolusion of Mini-psrks in
the Generel Plsn tezt was'not germsin with the aoquisition of Federal Punds or snq
other Federal progrnms, sinoe it simply stnted that the Commission epproved inclusion of
this type of park faoility within the Community Faoilities Element - Perks, Raoreation,
and;Open Spaoe - Ob~eotives and Polioies - oP the (3eneral Plan; and thst although dis-
oussion was held by the Co~i.ssion and stsYf as it,pertained to Federal funding, this
aotion by'the Commission in no ~rsq inferred inolusion of obtsining Federal Punds beoause
of this,disaussion.
5. That the Commiasion's primarq,purpose was to determine whether or not speoifio land
uses were sppropriste, and any fundiag Por thesa apaoisl land uses would have to be
handZed by the City Counoil.
Commisaioner Rowland seoonded the motion.
Prior to voting on the motion, 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that the City
Counoil would oonsider this emendment on August 4, 1970, whioh would be prior to any
oonsideration.by.tlie Planning Co~iseion at an arlvertised publio heering, therefore,
er-y raaommendation would have to be based on reoommending to the Gity Counoil that
aotion by their Body be held in abeqanoe until Purther publin hearing oould be held
by the Planning Commission for the introduation oP additional iriYormation whioh might
be brought to the Planning Commieaion's attention.
Commissioners Seymour snd Gauer stated thst they would like more information. Further-
more, sinoe a polioing problem was presented by the editorial, a representative of the
Polioe Department should be present, in order that the Co~ission might be nble to have
the most pertinent information on poliaing problems involved in these tqpes of
faoilities.
Commissioner Farano then stated he would emend his motion to reoommend to the City
Counoil that their oonsideration at publio hearing of General Plan Amendmant No. 120
be continued or referred baok to the Planning Commission, until a~ter the Planning
Co~i.ssion had time to re-advertise said amendment for Yurther information whioh
~d
~
i b'y: 8
,~,'
S - _ _ . . , ~ ' ~ , ..~'~ -1 ~ ~ .. . - . ~ . . .
~ ~~~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~'~' . _' . , i ~' ~. . . . ~: -~. . ' ~ . . . ~. . .. ~ . . . .
1:
f..:.'
~
. . ~ ' .. . . ~ ,' " ':~t'~~.
'.. . . . . ~ ~ ~,. ~ . . .
~__i - •: _l .
~:~
~