The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1967/06/05REGULAR MHETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Camp at 2:00 o'clcck P.M., a quorum being presento PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Camp.. ~ , - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer (who entered Council Chamber at 2:10 P.M.), Herbst, Mungall, Rowland. ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: None. • PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Robert Mickelson Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompson Planning Supervisor: Ronald Grudzinsl~i Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts City Attorney: Joe Geisler Office Engineer: Arthur:Daw Associate Planner: Jack Christofferson Associate Planner: Marvin Krieger Assi:stant Planner: Charles Roberts Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Allred led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF - The Minutes of the meeting of ~~1967 were approved with the THE MINUTES following correction on motion by Commissioner Farano, seconded by Commissioner Allred, and MOTION CARRIED: Page 3449, paragraph 13, line 2, should read: °noted that a soffit was part of a ceiling not a roof". Commissioner Gauer entered the Council Chamber at 2:10 P.M. VARIANCE N0. 1882 - PUBLIC HEARING. MRS. OPHELIA BLEDSOE, 200 East Mills Drive, Anaheim, California, Owner; RAYMOND A. NORTON, 1234 Banyan Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting a variance to permit the CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDiTIONAL SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING, WITH WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT AND (2) MINIMUM DISTANCE BEIWEEN BUILDINGS on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at the southeast corner of Mills Drive and Claudina Street, and having frontages of approximetely 58 feet on Mills Drive and approximately 140 feet on Claudina Street, the easterly property line of subject property being approximaiely 91 feet east of the centerline of Claudina Street, and further described as 200 East Mills Drive. Property presently classified R-2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed subject petition, the location of subject property, the uses established in close proximity, and the Report to the Commission. The agent for the petitioner. indicated his presence to answer questionse h7rs. Helen Sprinkle, 205 Mills Drive, appeared before the Commission in opposition and urged'the Commission to consider the request for A:two=story building in a one-story area; that she preferred similar structure to others in the area which were one-story, two-bedroom; that since North Street was closed as a through street, e considerable traffic hazard existed for this small street; that on,such a small lot two homes, one being two-story, was not the highest and best use for the property; that she was opposed~to any additional apartment development for the area, and to construct a new structure ad,jacent to a relatively old structure would also 'be undesirable; that a parking problem exis~ed in the area already, and to project additional automobiles would increase the traffic hazard; that the landscaped center median of Mills Drive made the area a desirable residential area; however, she was opposed to two-st'ory construction because of an invasion of privacy. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion was held by the Commission, the Commission noting that the proposed request ~ was a reasonable land use for the area; that the waiver of the one-story height limitation ~- would be of interest to the property to the south rather than that to the north; that 3457 ' . - ~ : ~ . ~ ;~ ;~INUTES; CITY`PLANNING COMMISSION9 June 5, 1967 :3458 VARIANCE NOa 1882 - two-story construction was permissible by right.on.the north side `'(Continued) of Mills Drive; furthermore; two-story, single-family residences could be built.on.the R-1 properties - theiefore this two-story, one-family:residence would be a compatible useo - ' Commissioner Rowland offered .esolution Noo PC67-116 and moved for its passage and adoption;' seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant'Petition for~Variance Noe 1882, subject to conditionso,'(See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Campa. NOES: rAMMISSIONERS: Nonee ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. VARIANCE N0. 1883 - PUBLIC [-IHARING. LINCOLN PLAZA DEVEIAPMENT COMPANY, 615 South Flower Street, Los Angeles, Celifornia, Owner; ROBERT BRINDLE, 221 South Euclid Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requestinq a variance+to permit EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING SIGN, WITH WAIVER OF MAXIMUM SIGN AREA on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at the northwest corner of Euclid Street and Broadway and having frontages of approximately 460 feet on Euclid Street and approxi- mately 610 feet on Broadway, and further described as 235 South Euclid Streeto Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Mr. Robert Brindle, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission'and stated that although they were now aware of the existing problem, it had not been considered at the time'the request for a sign for the bank and market was submitted, and the-problem'of . providing recognition for the other shops in the center would be accomplished if subject petition were approved; that roof signs were being controlled by their company, and this was rather unusual since many market tenants sequired signs above the parapet; th'at indi- vidual signs were integrated within the developed buildings, and although an additional free-stending sign could be constructed, they did not wish to construct a sign which might interfere with the development of the property to .the north; that the requested sign ~aiiance ' was only 56 square feet,in excess of that:permitted-by Code and would extend below;the,~exist- ing sign which:would be visible to oncoming_treffic;:and that the proposed'eetback'for those buildings to the north would be approximately even or further.westerly to the bank setback< Mr. Brindle, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the Sign Urdinance was'in effect at the time the existing sign was erected; however, they did not sealize the success ' of the shopping center when the first signs were constructed, and it was necessary'now`to give reco9nition to the smaller shops established in the center; that the directory sign be- ~ placed below the existing sign could be seen from a distance of approximately 200 feet which was adequate to alert customers of the ,~ocation of the small shops;and that although he realized an additional free-standing sign could be constructed because of the depth of ! the property, it was not in the best interest of the center to have too many free-standing ~ signs. . j Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson stated that there must be a distance of 300 feet between each'sign, and since subject property was a part of the commercial property northerly, an additional sign.could be constructed along the Euclid Street frontage, as well as a free- standing sign along the Broadway frontagee No one appeared in~opposition to subject petition. THE HEARINGIWAS CLOSED. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to requiring that the owner stipulate to iede'signing the existing sign to comply with the 350-square foot sign in the event the 'propos.ed sign was not satisfactory,and an additionel free-standing sign would be requestedo Deputy City Attoiney'.Furman Roberts~advised the Commission that it would be dependent upon the findings the Commission made in their resolution as to whether granting the variance at thi's time might not'b'e desiiable or effective, and an additional free-standiny sign would be necessary, then the sign now being epproved would have to be reduced to'meet Code requirements; although this is not a condition, it would put the property owners and pro- spective lessees on guard that additional signing might not be looked at with favorable consideration in the event of a lot split of the property, and as a finding of fact in the resolution this would.be a matter of public record in the event an additional 350-square foot sign was requested because of.the inadequacy of the proposed signo VARIANCE N0. 1883 - Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No~ PC67-117 and moved for its (Continued) passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1883, with the finding that the petitioner stipulated to reconstructing the sign as being approved to meet Code requirements in the event said signing was unsuc,ae~sful and an additional request for a free-standing sign was submitted to the Building Department since there was always the possibility of requested waivers from the Sign Code, and that the proposed addition to the existing sign would not be detrimental to the areae (.iee Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungail~ Rowland, Campo NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo VARIANCE N0. 1884 - PUBLIC }IEARING. ROBERT JOHNSON, 837 Nordica Lane, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting a variance to permit the CONSTRUCTION OF A 6-FOOT MASONRY WALL WITHIN THE REQUIRED SILE YARD SETB~~:K OF A REVERSED CORNER I.OT on property~described as: An irregularly shaped parcel uz land located at the southwest corner of Viking Avenue and Nordica Lane and having frontages of aoproximately 83 feet on Viking Avenue and approximately 82 feet on Nordica Lane, and further described as 837 Nordica Laneo Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONEo Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed subject petition, the location of subject property and uses established in close proximity, together with the Report to the Commission. Mro Robert Johnson, the petitioner, inquired as to the type of problem the Traffic Depart- ment feun~d regarding construction of the proposed wall since the wall was necessary t~ provi3e sid~ yard privacy which was normal to a corner lote The Comr.:;r,t:s;, .~,,h•s ~ed Mre Johnson that the Traffic Engineer had indicat-~: i: problem would exist~ No one appeared in opposition Lo subject petition. TI~ HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC67-11E and moved £or its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Variance Noo 1884, subject ~~.o condi- tionso (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Campo NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo RBSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo Commissioner Rowland left the Council Cl~amber at 2:30 PoMo VARIANCE N0. 1887 - PUBLIC HEARING. RICHARD HEFFNER AND HEFFNER MEDICAL GROUP, 935 South Gilbert Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; DAN L~ ROWLAND, 1000 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting a variar.ce to ` '~' permit the EXPANSION OF A MEDICAL FACILITY, WITH WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM BUILDING ~LTBACK '~ '~` AND (2) MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES on property described as: An irregularly shaped ~~`a paresl of land having a frontage of approximately 154 feet on the west side of Gilbert Street and having a maximum depth of approximately 300 feet, the southerly property line "~ ~ being located approximately 200 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road, and further ~::-. :, s , ~ described as 935 South Gilbert Street. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. ~.~~,_: . r~;: ' Associate Plan~er Jack Chtistofferson reviewed subject petition, the location of subject ~ property, and the uses established in close proximity, together with the Report to•the ;:_:;_-:_' Commission. l~re Richard Heffner, the petitioner, appeared befor~a the Commission and stated that it was prcposed to enlarge the existing flower shop in the front and convert it into medical use, ~ ~'! squaring off the front of the building which necessitated the request for a variance; that . ;~.' the medical building to the north had a similar setback as the single-family homes were set ~ bac~ - theref.ore any dedication would be difficult to make in order to provide for later ~ i . + ', , ~ ,. ... '~ ,, __ ,: ~ t ^. ~ n ., a ~ ~~ . wWe~~~~ ~ . ~~. .. - , ~ ~~ .+ , ~ ~. "-yr~.;: 1 ~ ~'; ~ d- ~ ': ~. ~ : . . J { ~. ,:~ . . '. a. . . . i .. .- .~ . . ~ . . . . . ' . . . . . . ~ ~ . . ~ 1 . . ., . ~i ia ~ ~: ~ . ~ - . ~ ~ l ' MINUIESy CITY PLANNING COMMIS~iC,'~, June 5, 1967 3460 ~.,r, .. `" VARIANCE NOe 188Z - wide~ing of Gilbert Street; that they were prc~osing to enlarge their (Continued) clinic and office facilities - however the number of employes or 4 physician increase would be minimal, and additional rooms were neces- ~^' ~ sary for installation of equipment for treatment; furthermore, detailed ' ' graphs had been provided by the architect which were self-explanatory, indicating there ~ would be no necessity to provide for parking as required under normal physician offices; ~-~<=' and that.since the clinic would be o en from 8:00 AeMa to 10:00 P,Ma, the number of employees- ~;,\:;:; •; P - doctors would be spread over the ent:'re fourteen hourso Furthermore, there were apartments 'X`:~~.' on the-north side of the street,whereas the Report to the Commission indicated there were :i;;:`:. ~~._,.,;,, single-family homeso .,, : Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that Bruce Street, east and west, F,:'~^r,'.~~~ was developed for apartments, but the north-south portion was developed for single-family i`~ ~; usee s-. '3_; ; In response to Commission questioning, Dro Heffner stated that if the Commission so desired, ~~ they would provide for heavier landscaping along the cul-de-sac portion of Bruce Street to :i the rear of the property - however, they had been attempting to do this for some time and it ~ had been difficult to keep the plants alive; and that 61 parking stalls were proposed, and ' this was the existing parking lot to the rear of the structure which was established some ~' time agoo Mre Thompson further inquired whether any additional physicians would be plani,ed for the ~, ,:` building, whereupon Dre Heffner stated there was a possibility of one or two, but this .fi; would be only as a result of a study made of the areao ,4;::< r ~! Commissioner Herbst noted there always seemed to be a shortage of parking spaces in medical ,~:.~-:'>%: centers and inquired why the petitioner was not providing for the spaces as required by Codeo ~rt ~' ~ Dre,I~effner stated that a~hysician made his hospital calls during the morning hours and a ~ saw patients between the hours of 2:00 and 5:00 P,M, in normal physician office facilities; ~. ,~ however, the proposed development would have the physicians and patients arriving over a ;~;;,.;~;;;?,;~ .:x,.:,,...;: ~pan of fourteen hours, thus eliminating any possibility of overcrowding of parkingo Commissioner Herbst further noted this might be acceptable at the present time, but there was the possibility the physicians would operate under regular hours, and then a shortage of parking space would occure Dra He£fner noted that even if there was a change in tenants,because of the design of the buildinq there would not be an increase of individual doctors and it would notbe suitable physicians` offices per seo Also, the maximum incr.ease of employees would be tive, and the space proposed was to allow present employees to have more work room; furthermore, the total number af employees would 27 - however, +,hese would be coming in overlapping shifts and not all at the same timeo Dro Heffner, in response to additional Commission questioning, noted that he had sttempted - to acquire additional property; however, he had obtained all that was availabie, and Mre Ryan was proposing to develop something else.(Ryan's property ad,jacent to subject property), and he felt the parking proposed was adequate for a clinic type use, and if °; the Gommission desired landscaping along the cul-de-sac of Bruce Street, he would develop :; ita ~ . ~~.. The Commission, however, noted that the six-foot masonry wall was not necessary to be ~ constructed since a three-foot wall already existed - however the planting of a minimum af eight feet should be adequate to block the appearance of the parking areae i;~ No one appeared in opposition to subject petition, t:. _ . ;.' ,' ~=: ::~'x."~: THE F~kRING WAS CIASED, Commissi.nner. Farano offered Resolution Noe PC67-119 and moved for its passage ~s•.:: ~:option, seconded..by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Variance Noe 1887 with •. ~ding that:.the.proposed addition would provide for more room for working purooses ot . ~~>,~loyees and that employee parki~g would be spread over a fourteen~hour period rather t;~ r.;~ncentrat- ing during the 8:00 A,M. to 5:00 P.Me hours9 and subject to the additional cono ~~n of heavy screen Iandscaping of a minimum of eight feet ad,jacent to the three-foot wall abuLCing the cul-de-sac of Bruce Street along the we:;t property line. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Camp. NOES: COMMI.SSIONERSi Herbste ABSENT: CONL171SSIONERS: Rowlando ~~ ` ,~; ~~~'!~~,~ ^r., . ~~, ~. t~ , 5` ~-+ ... : , ;, . .' . ; . . ,: e . ~ . . - ~:_„ , _ jK ` P . . .~., ~ ~ ' l( _ ~ ~ ' .. . , ~ . ~~' ' . MINUTES; CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 5, 1967 3461 VARIANCE N0~ 1887 - Commissioner Herbst stated that he voted "no" beceuse there were (Continued) inadeouate parking provisions being made for the facility, and a - ~ shortage could occur if•the facility changed to regular professional offides rather than a clinic type facilitye ~xt;~` Commissioner Rowland returned to the Council Chamber at 2:53 PeM. ;g., ~; Commissioner Farano Ieft the Council Chamber at 2:53 PeMe ~ ,..~.:,.- , • z.~-- `~~,~"~~~ CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS, Po Oo Box ti ; t .' ~y;i ,.....-g, PERMTT NOe 943 2304, Terminal Annex, Los Angeles, California, Owner; GLOBAL VAN LINES, ~~'~~ '" INCORPORATED, Noa.l Global Way, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting w...:; `; .~permission .to'ESTABI:ISH A PARKING FACILITY on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land bounded on the south by Katella Way, on the east by ~ Manchester Avenue, and on the north and west by Katella Avenuea Property presently classi- ~~;;,., _ fied R-A9 AGRICULTURAL, ZONEo ;_; ~-` ,~ Mro John Sabosen~ Vice President in Charge of Operations of Global Van Lines, appeared before the Commission and indicated he was available to answer questionso y . .. . ~ ~ Mre S3bosen, in response to CommissYon.questioning, stated the company had acquired subject #;F_,,.:,,_,`~ property on a month=to-month basis,from the Division of Highways; that the Division of ~' ~; Highways had previously stoxed their.'trailere, trucks, e.tco, on.that property9 and the ~, Global Van Lines Company had •,oiled'and graded the property since acquiring it and have S a~ kept the trailers in a neat appearance; that the reason for using the property was in order yf, u; to have quick access to the equipment; that the storage of equipment in the winter months ~~ u averaged betwee:~ 195 and 250 trailers, and the maximum during the summer months approxi- ,~';!,,,`.,`~ mately 20 ±railers; that the use of the main headquarters was for check-in and obtaining orders to proceed to a specific destination; that the screening fence as suggested by the ~~ ~~~ Staff in the Report to the Commission would be rather expensive unless a firm lease of 7 seven to eight years was obtained from the Department of Highways - howevex, this was ;~+;~:`:;_;:~! impossible since they were renting on a month-to-month basis; and that one employee was t~~ ~;' responsible for parking and,checking the trailers on a daily basise ~ ~ ry' . ~ q'~ The Commission noted that the maintenance of the property as it existed while being used ~ ' by Global Van Lines was much neater in appearance than when the State stored their vehicles <i on the property; that the City was unabie to require the State to maintain their property; and that the proposed use wouid be similar to that of the previous State useo %~ ~`-;:~~ No one appeared in opposition to subject petitnon, ~ -'l ;I TNE HEARING WAS CLOSED~ ;:1 Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC67-120 and moved for its passage and adoption9 'i seconded by Commissioner Rowland,to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 943 unconditionallya (See Resolution Book) + ',~: On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ?"r ~ -~~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Campa = "~lr; NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano,e CONDITIONAL USE - PUHLIC HEARING. FRANCIS L. RICKER, 2459 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, PERMIT NO, 944_ California, Owner; requesting permission to MAIP7TAIN 7 MOBILE HOME TRAII.ERS IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING MOTEL on property described as: An irre9ularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 150 feet on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard and having a maximum depth of approximately 460 feet, the northeriy boundary of.`.subject property bein,g approximately 780 feet south of the centerline of Katella,Avenuey:and further described ~as 1914 South Anaheim Boulevardo Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Commissioner Farano returned to the Council Chamber at 3:00 P,Ma ~:j -~ t' ;; Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed subject petition, the location of subject pr.oeerty and uses established in close proximity, as well as noting that in the Report to *.'`I the Commission the expansion of the existing motel and the establishment of trailer ':f3t;-:';,` facilities wereapproved under Orange County Use Variance No~ 1825, in February 1955; that the petitioner was using seven trailer spaces instead of the four approved, and subject i `'j petition was to legalize these additional three spaceso ~. ,`' . _. _ • ' . ~_ --- ^r. y ~ ` _ ~ ' ~ y~~'~: ~,. . , . . . , ~.. , . _.. , _ ~_. a ~ . ..,. :'!. ~~.;'. ~` ~ N .'~T y.. `Y 1 1~ . .. ~~ ~~ ~~~:~. MINUTES,.CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 5, 1967 3462 CONDITIONAL USE - Mro Francis Ricker, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and PERMIT NOe 944 noted he was unaware that his property had been reclassified to the (Continued) M-1 Zone at the time it was annexed into the Cityo - Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts noted that he l~ad contacted the County of Orange regarding subject property's records, which indicated that at the time the applica.tion was made for the motel, the request for four trailer spaces was indicated; that this was granted with the trailer spaces indicated placed ad~acent to the railroad tracks - however, upon visiting the property, the trailers were not located adjacent to the railroad track right-of-way as depicted on the plot plan; and that these trailers were located in various parts of the motel propertyo It wa~ also noted that problems ezisted because of the manner in which these additional trailers were connected, and approval was necessary from the Building Department before they could be usede ~ Mre Ricker then stated that it was his understanding that in 1955 he had asked to build ~ additional units and add trailer spaces; however, there were already four trailer spaces ~ on the property, and it was his assumption that the additional four were approved at that ~°" time; that he had been advised that the piping to the trailers was illegal althou9h 'these ;-~.:', ~, •;.', ~; were inspected by the County - however, upon contact by the Building Department he had - been advised th,t the trailer inspector had not actually inspected the piping - therefore ' he had illegal underground piping as well as being in violation of the Zoning Ordinance ~4 regarding,the number of trailers on the propertyo Furthermore,'for the past 13 years he ~ t; had been attempting to assist welfare cases foi churches and clubs to provide temporary :r;~; . .: '~ housing for.new people entering the City, arid in the majority of the cases he received tI ~ '' very little money, if any, for occupancy of these trailers, and that it was, his intent 3`:;,:;:,`:~r to comply with Code requirements for the three remaining trailers, as wel'_ as having the :;. :., ~.w,; "'`'' use of these trailers legalizedo i ' ~ ~, ~ s~ No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono k~. . Y1 THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompsor, advised the Commission that the four trailers originally appxoved under the County have been brought up to Code recently, and if subject petition is approved, this would legalize the other three trailers already on the property; however, they would be required to meet Code as far as the Building Department was concerneda Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that Condition,Nose 1 and 2 were required in accordanoe with the Circulation Element of the General Plan, and if the Commission required this dedication it would mean the petitioner would have to request encroachment into the publi.c right-of-way of the existing motela The Commission then inquired of Mro Ricker whether or not he would comply with Condition Nose 1 and 4-., whereupon Mr. Ricker stated this would be almost impossible because oi the present location of the motel'itself, and until such time as Anaheim Boulevard was actually widened, he did not:feel he ~ould afford the loss of income from these unitso Ti~e Commission inquired of the Staff what other properties along the east side of Anaheim Boulevard had dedicated for street widening purposes, and it was then determined that Keesee Tanks was the only one that had dedicated for street widening purposes, all others having developed without this dedicationo • Mra Daw.suggested to the ~ommission that a two-week continuance be granted so that the Engineering Department could complete a study of the properties along Anaheim Boulevard to determi.ne what dedication was necessary and whether this would ever~be-widenedo Commissioner Allred then explained to the petitioner that the possibility of dedication and improvement actually taking place would be anywhere from 10 to 20 years, whereupon Mro Ricker stated he,could not comply with Condition Noso 1 or 40 Mre Ra1ph Alexander, 1814 South Anaheim Boulevard, owner of the motel northerly of subject property,,,advised the Commission that these trailers had existed for some time and upon annexation into the City the petitioner had never realized the additional trailers were not included; furthermore, if dedication..were required, this would go directly through subject property's buildings as..well as his own, and that he felt th~ petitioner should be given permission to continue the present use until such time as the property willkie more intensely redeveloped, or when Orangewood Avenue was widened for an overpass of the 5anta Ana Freewayo Mro Thompson advised the Commission~.that if the Commission decided to waive the requirements of Condition Noso 1 and 4 regarding dedication and sidewalks and driveways, a finding would be necessary in the resolution. ~. l ~C::. _:~%' ' ,,'>H s g ~'~"".~;5~~"~t ~1:." + .;'~~5 r~,,"' F ~_~, '`' 7,~ °.~ "~'{"TS~' ~p r~':.;C'~ ~ -~ xi `'~. 1-~ : - ~k~ L i^' r ~. . . ~ ' ~ ' . . . .. .. . .. '~ .. ~ ~ . . . ~ ~ . -_ , NINUTES9 CITY-PLANNING COMMISSION, June 59 1967 3463 CONDITIONAL USE •- Commissioner Allred offered Resolution Noo PC67-121 and moved for its PERMIT NOa 944 passage and adoption, seconded by Commissior.er Mungall, to grant (ContiFlUed) Petition for Cond'itional Use Permit No, 944, subject to payment of street light and street tree fees, trash storage areas, fire hydrants, $25000 per trailer space, development in conrormance with the Uniform Building Code nf the City of Anaheim, and the finding thet the requested use was only legalizing. an existing situation and not an expansion of an existing use; and the fact that dedication as required by the City would create a hardship on the property owner because the Tight=of-way line would cut through a portion of the existing motelo (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Campo NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonea ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nor,ee CONDITTONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING< PRINCE OF PEACE LUTHERAN CHURCH, 1421 f'~est Ball Road9 PERMIT NOe.947 Anaheim, California, Owner; MARTIN KREIDT, 600 Marjan &treet, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A DAY SCHOOL IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING CHURCH AND SUNDAY SCHOOL9 WITH WAIVER OF M.4XIMUM PERMITTED SIGN AREA on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 260 feet on the north side of Ball Road and having a maximum depth of approximately 618 feet, the westerly property line of subject property being approximately 140 feet east of the centerline of Hampstead Street9 and further des- cribed as 1421 West Ball Roado Property presently classified R-A9 AGRICULTURAL, ZONEo Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed subject petition, the location of the property, the uses established in close proximity, as well as the Report to the Commissiono Martin Kreidt,.agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that the present enrollment of the school was 102, and it was estimated to increase the enrollment by 10 students; that the proposed expansion was not for expansion of enrollment - only to make the existing students more comfortable by provi.'ing better facili~ties, as well as expanding _the Sunday School facilitieso , Mre Kreidt also noted that the multi-purpose building would be the third phase of develop- ment9 and it wes hoped the Commission would approve this along with the second phase of development9 and that it was i~oped to have a membership of approximately 500 people in the churcho No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo Discussion was held by the C'ommission relative to the propused slgn, it being determined that because the R-A Zone permitted only 20 square feet and did not provide for signing of churches and school faciiities, the waiver was a technicality and should be grantedo Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No, PC67-122 and moved for its passage an~ adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noe 947, subject to.conditions and the finding that the requested sign waiver was a technicality due to the fact that the R-A Zone permitted schools and churches but did not provide for signing of the property; therefore, this was a technicality and should be grantedo {See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Fararo, Gauer, Rerbst, Munga119 Rowland9 Campo NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSE" COMMISSIONERS: Noneo - RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING, INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East NOa 66-67-77_ Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing that property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land located at the northeast cornez of Romneya Drive and Maplewood Street and having frontages of approximately 440 feet on Romneya Drive and approximately 220 feet on Maplewood Street be reclassified.from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONEa Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviev~ed subject petition, the location of subject property and uses established in close pr~ximity, noting that as a result of a recent request for a house move-on and demolition of the existing structure on one of these lots, ;.~,,:; ~ ;;; 1 ~ ._... ,W - t~. _ , ~. :~.:. ;~~ '~;._. ~ ::,h R f'~,y¢., ~rKc. i~~,~3i ''Y ~,v'~ .~~.f ~ -.. tre"J" rt ~ ,. x j f y _ . . ~ ' ' ~~'!}. "~ . . . . ~ . . . ~ . ~ MINUTES9. CITY PLANN3NG COMNIISSION9 June 5 ~ , 1967 RECLASSIFICATION - it was the opinion of the Staff that all of the 3464 N0; 66~6~~7~ 2,_ considered non-conforming would be more a (Continued; Properties which were therefore the rezoning would faciiitate anyrfutureeadditions,lstruc- turai chanqes, or private redevelopment of the property, No one appeared to represent the property owners, No one appeared in opposition to subject petition, THE HEARING WAS CLOSED, Office Ergineer A:thur Daw advised the Commission that Condition Nose amended to include Maplewood Street~ 3 and 4 should be Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No~ PC67-1 seconded by Comm•'ssioner Farano 23 and moved for its passa sification Noo 66-6?-72 be a ' to recommend to the City Council that PetitionaforaReclasn~ ~ Street to Condition Nos, Pp1O~ed, subject tc conditions and the addition of Maplewood 3 and 40 (See Resolution Book) On ro?1 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES; COMMIgSIONERc;: .411red Farano Gauer Herbst Mun alI NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonea ~ ' s AB5EP:T: COMNjISSIONERS: Noneo ' 9 ~ R~Wland, Camp, ' P~~LASS,IFICATIQN - PUBLIC N0~ 66~6~~,.6~ NEARING. BARBqR,q Wp(~ES, 1215 South Empire Streetq Anaheim9 _._,..._ California, and ROBERT HqRKE Owners; ~,gpgir ~ 2440 Normandie Place9 Anaheim, California, CONDTTIONAL USE DIL CORPORATION, ATTENTION: RON GREEK pERMIT NO_ qqg Street, Los Angeles, California, Agent; irregularl property describedSasth A~ower y shaped parcel of Iand located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and East Street and having frontages of a and further described4asf1103~and11109nEastnLincolnaAvenuee Pro ert pproximatel 135 feet onpEast1Street, R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMIiY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE~ P y presently cla;sified REQUESTED CL4SSIFICATION: C-1, GENERqL COMMERCIALS ZONE. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: PERMIT EXPANSION AND REDEVELOPMENT OF AN EXISTING SERVICE STA2'ION WITHIN 75 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL ZONE, Associate ?lanner Jack Ch.istofferson reviewed subject property and the uses established in close petition, the location of subject proximity, as well a~ the Report to the Cormnissiono The aoent for the petitionersindicated his presence to answer questionso No one appeared in opposition to subject petitionso iN.~ NEARING WAS- CIOSED„ It was noted by the Commission that the existing service station site would now fied to its most a w~uld astablish thepsizelofethenservicetstationumore in conformancenwithrserviY b° thelwest sites as approved witt,in the City, ce station Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noa PC67-124 and moved for its seconded by ~o~jssioner Allred siFication No, 66~67-67 be a ' to recommend to the City Council that PetitionaforaReclasn~ On roll c~12 the fore oin resolutionswaseCassedCbnditionsa (See Resolution Book) g 9 P AYES: COM~,9IgSI0NERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbste following vote: NOES: CONMISSIONERS: Noneo ~ Mungall, Rowland ABSENT: OpANNISSIONERS: None. , Camp, Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution Noo PC67-125 and moved for its seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to subject to conditions and the amendment to Condition No, passage and adoption, grant Petiition for Conditional Use Permi.t Noo 945 in accordance with the Site Development Standards of the C- 5 to include dense •ndscaping ?ines and an additional condition that lighting of tlie service stati away from the residential uses est~ablis; 1 Zone along the west property On i~~.; caii the foregoing resolution y~ a0 ihe westo ~~ shall be directed (See Resolution Book1 AYES: COh71v;'jSIONL•RS: Allred, Farano ~ sed by the following vot rJOES: GUhIMISSIONERS: Noneo ' s Herbst, Mungall, Rowl ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo - ~ ~. ~ F ~ ~ y ~9:~`'~7t`y~.~~~`;°'~y"'~~'~?"~~.,~' i 4~~,~2 ~om~~~ x ~ ~ceFF*~f+r t~-'~,~gH. ~,~'! ~' , '~~ ~~ .n„ ~ ~ ,~ y7r°"~ ~dr~"'~ `~°`,~ i~: k r ~ ~~ ~ ~` .~ , MZNUTES,•CITY PLANNING COMA4ISSION, June 5, 1967 ~' 3465 1 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC I-]EpRING. CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTSy 2622 Ames NOe 66-67-71- Circle, Anaheim, California, Owner; Jo W. MCMICHAEL, 454 "A" Valencia ' Drive, Fullerton,.California, Agent; property described as: A rectangu- VARIANCE.NOa..1885 larly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 318 feet ~ ~`f on the south side of South Street and having a maximum depth of approxi- ~ ;~:.;~- TENTATIVE MAP OF inately 630 feet, the westerl;F boundary of subject property being approxi- ~ TRACT N0.,.6412 ,. mately 350 feet east of the centerline of State College Boulevardo property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTUNAL, ZONEo REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE~ ~ ~~ REQUESTED VARIA~'~E: PFRMIT A 24-LOT SUBDIVISION, WITH WAZVERS OF (L) MINIMUM LOT WIDTFISAND (2) MINIMUM LOT AREASe TENTATIVE TRACT: DEVEIAPER: J. Wo MCMICHAEL, 454 "A" West Valencia Drive, Fullerton, California, ENGINEER: Anacal Engineering Company, a 222 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Californiaa Subject tract, located on the south side of South St+reet, east of State College Boulevard and containing approximately 4084 acres, is proposed ' for subdivision into 24 R-1 Zoned.lotso ~ Associate Planner Jack Christofferson:reviewed subject petitions and tract, the location of subject property, the uses established in close proximity, and the Report to the Commissiono Mro Calvin Queyrel, representirg the engineer of the proposed development, appeared before the Commission.and noted that Mre McMichael, the developer, was also the developer of the tract ~;. East and South Streets which was developed with single-family homes in the $35,000 price range; that now he wanted to develop subject property in a lower price range; that a hardship existed on the property in the fact that 6,000-square foot lots•were developed 12 years ago'to the north and south of subject property, and the property to the west was being developed for commercial uses - however, he doubted whether the properties fronting along StatA College Boulevard would be developed for single-family use since the trend of develoome~:~ •vas commercial northerly of the property; that because of the unusual depth of the property, it was proposed to develop with 50-foot wide lots approximately. 129 feet deep, and the square footage would be comparable to that of the tracts developed in close proximity; and that if the Commission desired they would provide access to property to the west for circulation,.but at the Interdepartmental Meeting he thought it was agreed to have the street ~cul-de•-aac as proposeda Commissioner Herbst expressed the opinion that the oniy hardship he could see was the fact that 12 years ago the City permitted 6,000-square foot lots and now 7,200-square foot lots were required, and it was his opinion that subject property should be developed accordingly since it was proven several years ago that there was inadequate recreation area on the 6,000-square.foot lot; that the only thing that had to be done was to eliminate one lot from both sides of the street in order to accomplish this 7,200 square feeta Mra Queyrel also noted that they had attempted to purchase the property to the east, but the asking price w3s too high to develop for single-family residential use, and that the property to the west was priced for commercial usesa F ;~ No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions. ~ ~ ~: ~-'~'_;'.4~ TN.E HEARING WAS CIASED. 9~i ~ :~ ~~, ,~ Discussion was held by the Commissien relative to what constituted a variance, and whether ,~ ; the petitioner had an undue hardsh.~~ due~ to the fact that 6,000-square foot lots had been ''~ developed to.the north and southe ~ ti ~ ~ Commissioner Mungall offered Resoluti~n Voe PC67-126 and moved for its passage and adoption, ~~ seconded by Cummissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi- 3 a; fication Noo 66-67-71 be a ,;~ pproved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) ~~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was ~ passed by the following vote: 5~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Campo ~ ~~ _ NOES: CAMMISSIONERS: Noneo , ~ = ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ~ :~ 1 Commissioner tdungall offered Resolution Noo PC67-127 and moved for its passage and adoption, +a seconded by Commissioner Farano, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1885 on the basis that ~~~; to deny said petition would be den in the ri hts ~ + subject to conditionse (SeP Resolution Book)9 granted property ir. close proximity, and ~ .s 1 ,i ~ flV~f ~ ~ ~4 '~ y1,U ~ K t ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~ $~,t.~ J`~ ~n '~t 5 ~ : , ~, ' .: '; Y^ ~ ' ,.~,~~ ...t - ' i r 40, ~w' 1F ~ y( f ~ i i . y, i~ j~ L_+? . _ 1 . .., M~ . . . , ~ . . . . . . . , ~ _ . . "i . ~ ~ ' .. . . . . ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 5, 1967 ~ 3466 RECLAS8IFICATION - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: NOo 66-67-7i - AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred9 Farano, Gauer, Herbsty- Mungall, VARIANCE NOD 1885 Rowland, Campo , NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo TENTATIVE MAP OF ABSENT: COMMZSSIONERS: Noneo TR,4CT NO a . 641.2 ~ (Continued). Commissioner Allred offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract Noe 6412, subject to the following conditions: lo That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract Noo 6412 is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification Noe 66-67-71 and Variance Noa I885o 2o That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submi.tted in tentative form for approvalo 3e That the vehicular access rights, except at street and~or alley openings, to South Street shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheimo Commissioner. Mungall seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDe VARIANCE NOe 1886 - PUBLIC HEARING. ALBERT KEVORKIAN, 11621 Heathcliff Drive, Santa Ana, California, Ovuner; DANIEL COHEN, P.Oo Box 1845, Santa Ana, California, Agent; requesting permission to SPLIT A PARCEL OF LAND INTO FOUR PARCELS, WITH WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM LOT WIDTHS, (2) MINIMUM LOT AREA, AND (3) MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcei of land (app.roximately 106 feet by 329 feet) located at the west end of and abutting Julianna Street, the southerly boundary of subject property being approximately 340 feet north of the centerline of La Palma Avenueo Property presently classified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE, ~~ Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed subject petition, the location of subject property and:the-uses established in close proximity, previous zoning actions, and th'e Report to:the Commissiono Mro Daniel Coheny agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that the existing parcel had access to the cul-de-sac of Julianna Street; that under a previous petition the petitioner attempted to obtain a variance - however considerable opposition was presented by property owners due to the fact that the petitioner planned two-st^ry construction, although subject property was zoned R-3; that now they were proposing to ~~bdivide the northeriy portion into two R-1 iots and move on two single-family homes; that it was planned to develop the alley to the north of these two single-family lots to a width of 20 feet,, and Julianna Street would also be improved; that the division of the northerly property would be comparable to single-family subdivision lots in the area; that there was no definite plan of development for the property to the south; that he was in negotiation to have access rights to the property from the southerly cul-de-sac street; and that the drainage easement might be abated if the alley and street were put ine The Commission expressed concern relative to the fact that no plans of development were presented for the southerly property although a request was made to subdivide it into two substandard width lots, and at the time of development of the Qrogerty it would be very difficult to develop and more variancesmight be reouestede Mro Cohen stated that wtien.development di.d occur or if new owners had the property,they would have better ideas on development and may want to develop the parcel as onea The Commission further felt that subject petition should be approved only for the northerly division of the lots for placement of the single-family homes; however, the southerly portion should be retained as one parcel in order that less difficulty would be presented and fewer variances.would be reguired if no lot split was approveda Mr. Cohen;noted that the prospective owners were planning to put R-i homes there9 and loans would be granted on separate parcels - however loans with'the Savings & Loan Associations were very difficult to obtain for R-3 unless developed with fourplexes, and because of the legality of the description of the property, the legal subdivision was necessary at this time in order to obtain these loanse • Considerable discussion was then held by the Cortunission, the petitioner's agent and the Staff relative to the method of dividing the southerly portione ~ _ . :::~.' - .. -.~.r.`,.y_ •~:i• a •>+s. Y. ^f~ ::;` . . . ~ ~l ~ ~ . . . ~ ~ ~ . .. MINU1'ES, CITY PLANNING COMI~ISSION, June 5, 1967 • 3467 VAPIANCE N0, 1886.•= Mrso Dorothy Parsons, 700 West Julianna Street, appeared before the (Continued) Commission and inguired whether or not the petitioner`s request for relocation of two homes on the northerly p*operty would also include the alley to the xeare The Commission replied in the affirmative: that the alley would be improved to the rear of subject property along the northerly boundary lineo Further discussion was held regarding the drainage ditch along the westerly boundary of subject property, it being noted that any home placed on the property would have to be set back at least five feet from the property lineo THE HEARING WAS CIASEDe Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that subject petition could be approved in part9 permitting subdivision of the northe:•ly parcel i.nto two lots and holding any subdivision of the southerly parcel until development plans were submittedo Commassioner Rowland offered Resolution Noe PC67-128 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Variance Noo 1886 in part, approving subdivision of the parcel northerly of the extension of Julianna Street, and denial of the subdivision of the southerly parcel on the basis that development plans were not submitted, and no plans of deveiopment were contemplated, subject to conditionsa (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, F3rano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Campo NOES: CAMMISSIONERS: Nonea ABSENI': C~MMlSSIONERS: Noneo GENERAL PLpN - PUBLIC HEARING~ INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East AMENDMENT NOe 94 Lincoin Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing an amendment to the Circulation Elemer.+. Highway Rights-of-Way of the General Plan-Table of Exceptions to establish Convention Way between West Street and Harbor Boulevard as a primary hiqhway with 110-foot width, said General P1an Amendment known as Noe 940 Associate Planner Marvin Krieger reviewed General Plan Amendment Noa 94 as follows: "FINDINGS: la Subject street is located south of Katella Avenue at the southern er.tremity of the Convention Center property and northerly of Orangewood Street, presently running from West Street on the west to Harbor Boulevard on the east< 2o Convention Way is at present designated as a standard secondary arterial stseet, with a half-width of 45 feet on the Circulation Element Highway Rights-of-Waye 3o The street will provide circulation for the Convention Center itself, plus some 40 acres to lts south within the Commercial Recreation Area~ 4e In order to assist in the control of vehicular traffic anci enhance the Convention Center landscaping, a raised median is being incorporated in the design of said street, making a half-width of 55 feet necessary instead of the presently designated 45 feete 5o The estabiishment on the General Plan of the width of subject street will assist property owners fronting on said street to properly plan for the development of their propertyo RECOMMENDATION: Approval of General P1an Amendment No. 94, retaining Convention Way between West Stree't and Harbor Boulevard as a secondary arterial street, 6ut iisting it on the Table of Exceptions and the Circulation Elemer,t Highway Rights-of-Way as having a half-width of 55 feeto" No one appeared in opposition to subject General Plan Amendment. THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo V± ,.. _.. ;,:,, - ~5,, _ ;. , s w - " `~`r , , . , ~ . ~:~~.+.:; ~`T~ .rt t~ -4 .?.wL 'v`$v~t'~`.Y ;: r". ~ ,. `E ; ~l e a ~I ` ~t r / _ '~I _ ~ •' . .. ~.~. . ' . ~ ~ . . ~ ~r MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMtSSION, June 5, 1967 3468 GENERAL PLAN - Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC67-129 and moved for its AMENDMENT N0. 94 passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Farano, to recommend to (Continued) the City Council that General Plan Amendment No. 94 be approved, estab- lishing Convention Way between West Street and Harbor Boulevard as a seconaary arterial street on the Table of Exceptions of the Circulation Element, Highway Rights-of-Way as having a haif-width of 55 feet. (See Resoiution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foliowing vote: AYES: OOMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Campe NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. RECESS - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion co recess the meeting for ten minutes. Commissioner Farano seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting recessed at 4:15 P.M. RECONVENE - Chairman Camp reconvened the meetin9 at 4:32 P.M., all Commissioners except Commissioner Herbst being present. REPORTS AND - IIEM N0. 1 RECOMMEt4DATI0NS Conditional Use Permit No. 791 - Establish.a private recreationalfacility- (Talceta, et.al-Robert Martin) - 2535 West-Lincoln Avenue. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson presented supplemental plans for Conditional Use Permit No. 791, requesting installation of a"Superslide" as being a facility complimentary to the existing recreational facility; that the petitioner was proposing to provide 72 parking spaces on a parc=l 76 feet wide adjacent to subject property, immediately easterly - however, said parcel was not originally considered in Conditional Use Permit No. 791; and that if the Commission considered the proposed:request to permit installation of the "Super- slide", a recorded document stipulating the reservation of the property to the east for parking purposes should be filed with the Building and Planning Departments prior to the issuance of a building permit. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC67-133 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Farano, to amend:Resolution No. 1877, Series 1965-E6, dated December 20, 1965, Finding No. l, to include as part of the recreational facility a"Super- slide" on the basis that the development was substantially in accordance with the original conditional use, and subject to landscaping of the new parking area in accordance with the C-1 Site Development Standards, together with the recordation of a document stipulating to the reservation of the property to the east for parking purposes, said document to be approved as to form by the City Attorney and filed with the Building and Planning Departments prior to the issuance of the building permit. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. ITEM N0. 2 Review of Orange County Tentative Parcel Maps within the Anaheim Planning Area. Associate Planner Marvin Krieger reviewed for the Commission their action on February 27, 1967 and the City Council's action on March 7, 1967 relative to a request to the Orange County Planning Commission to submit all minor subdivisions (parcel maps) in addition to other subdivisions within the potential area of the city's expansion to the City of Anaheim for consideration and comment; that said parcel maps were now being received for review and comment; that both the Anaheim and Hill and Canyon General Plans indicate the desired densi- ties and plans of future development for adjacent County areas; that the City had a complete set of approved street standarde including hillside street standards; that the Santa Ana Canyon Access Point Study has been jointly approved by the City of Anaheim, the County of Orange and the State Division of Highways, said approved study along with the Hill and Canyon General Plan provided for the development of adequate vehicular circulation within the Santa Ana Canyon Area; and that parcel maps within the City had been su~cessfully handled administratively for the past several years. Mr. Krieger also noted that if these parcel maps showed any decided variances from the Plan, they would normally be taken before the Interdepartmental Committee for Public Safety and General Welfare for comments and recommendations to the Commission and City Council _. ~..:~~~F ^1 A~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ . r ~~~ ~~ _ .. . ,. . , , . , 4~-""~,,` i :'r ~ { l~.,a 'a`'~t~; j . ~ xx . s a~... Y - i-: 1-a,rf 4~ F t at.; ~ r~. ~r t ~~i ~ ` .. , . ,' . ~ . . . . . . . ~:_.:_._.__.:.__. ' . :-:.. _.;_."_' ~_. ___.__'_' _'_.._ _. ~... ~ '. ~~. i 'i: _ ~.,' ' O . • ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 5, 1967 3469 REPORTS AND RE~MMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 2 (Continued) for further action, and'that the Staff recommended that Orange County tentative parcel map reviews be,handled as an administrative matter by the Development Services Department in conjunction with the Engineering llivision of Public Works. Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that consideration be given to directing the Development Services Department,in conjunction with the Engineer- ing Division of Public Works, to process as an administrative matter all Orange Cou~,ty µ~ ~,~, tentative parcel maps submitted~for review and comment. Commissioner Farano seconded the ' ~ motion. MOI'ION CARRIED, ~r ~' ITEM N0. 3 ~ Conditional Use Permit No. 356 (Hodge) - Establish a ~ `~ g7-unit motel on property on the south side of Lincoln " ~~ Avenue; approximately 675 feet east of the centerline :t=- ;z of Dale Avenue - 2748 West Lincoln Avenue. ~- ,;, :: ; Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that a request had been received ,, i from the agent of Mr. Gordon Hodge requesting that Conditional Use Permit No. 356 be ; ` terminated on the basis that development of this 97-unit motel had been abandoned, and ~,,:::,;~ that the Subdivision Improvement Bond No. 93-53-97, therefore, be released. ~~,' .. ~: Mra Thompson further reviewed the number of extensi,ons af time requested foricompletion of Gonditional Use Permit No. 356, and the fact that Reclassification No. 66-67-30, to establish a..94-unit motel and coffee shop in the C-1, General Commercial, Zone had been recommend'ed for appro'val by the Planning Commis'sion in Resolution No. PC66-116. Commissioner Allred offere.d Resolution No. PC67-135 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to terminate all proceedings on Conditional Use Permit No. 356. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoi•ng resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: OOMMISSIONERS: Herbst. ITEM N0. 4 Reclassification No. 63-64-62(5) - Approval of plans for fi30 South Webster Street. ~Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed the development plans submitted by the developer for property at 830 South Webster Street, noting that although the City Council had estab].ished a coverage of 18 dwelling units per net residential acre, subject plans were developed with an lE-unit apartment, or coverage of 26 units per net residential acre. The history of the other development plans approved for properties along Webster Street was also reviewed as depicted on the Report to the Commission, together with the fact that the Staff recommended in view of the fact that the applicant had been well aware of the governing resolution, thatapproval of these plans would, therefore, seem to discrimi- nate against other property owners who have been held to the required 18 dwelling units per net residential acre, and plans should not be approved. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the developer of the property had been advised that Reports and Racommendations would be considered at the evening session and he had intended to appear and present his views. Chairman Camp then stated that further considerata.on by the Commission should be continued until.the evening session. (See page 3479) ITEM N0. 5 Orange.County Use Variance No. UV-6857 Santa Ana Valley Irrigation Company - Requesting an amendment to permit the elimination of the require- ment fur dedication and improvement of Batavia Street in connection with the continued use of a hea,ry equipmront stdrage and maintenance yard in the M1 Light Industrial District. Y,`~ Associate Planner Jack Christofferson presentsd~Urange County Use Variance No. UV-5867 to the Commission, noting that subject property would be within the jurisdiction of the Gra: :~.~-~T _. - --- . 'T~sF„ r., .. . . .. . . . ... . . . - . . .. _. . : . .. . . . ,-., . f~j_'. w k F+N.~. ....~y y~[ { . ~ r t ~ r" .~ a +~ 14 '~ty ~Y ~. Y~1~ ;'F' ~. 1' -~ . r ,~~' ~ a9 r t .:: %' t ~ 4 x Y ~r_~~a . _~ _~___.~. .~__...._ ' .. _~.~ . ~._ . ~_. .__ __.~. , . ~ . ~ - ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~' . . ~ . . `~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNZNG COMMISSIOPi, June 5, 1967 • `39~0 REPORTS,AND . RECQtrVuIENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 9 (Continued) Cii+~ of Orange in the event of annexation; that the stoxage and maintenance y~xd n~d been in ex4.~tence for a number of years; and that the Traffic Department wa~ o~f~•zh~~ 'opinion tha:t any problem involved in the widening of Batavia Fcr~et ahou3d 6e a c!>n:s~d^ra- tion of the City of 0~^ungee Cotranissioner Allred offered a motion to receive ~rr3 file Orange Cour,ty Ur,e \'a;:5;.arsce Noa UV-5d67> Commissiorner Rowland seconded the motion, MOTICIN CARRIEDa 7TEM N0~ 6 ~.ity of Stanton•~Variance Noo V-67-11 - To permit the c~ar~strUCtion of a two-story, 58-unit apartmert c?evela~ne^~t :ri;,h w~ivers of setback from the R-1 propert+;, ;building ~he;.nht to setback ratio, and density requirement.s - Property loco+.ed on the east side of Magnolfa Avenue, approximatel~,+ ~85 :~eet north of Katella Av~nuee Associate Planner Ja:~ic Christofferson reviewed the F~2posed variar.~~e af tb,e City of Stant~n, noting that~~uaivers were requested t~~ permit constructio~ of a two-story structure 34 feet from the R-1 property instead of tize 5G•-foot requiremesit; construction 33 feet from the rear yard instead of the required 50 feet; and the squ-3re footage of the unit frr~:n 2,000 feet to 1,96;; square feet; and that subject pro;,er'cy located on the east sidQ of Magnolia Avenue, approximately 285 feet north of Katel.la Avenue was approxi- mately 2,50~ feet south of the City of Anaheim citj+ limits, and the property was zoned R-3e Commissioner t~~.:r,gali~offered a motion to receive and file City af. Stanton Varia~yce No. V-67-l1e Com,missianer llllred seconded the motione MOTION CARkIEDo ADJOURNMENT FOR DINNER - Commissioner Mu~gail offered a motion to ~djourn for•dinnera Commissioner Allred seconded the rnotione ,MG;.ION sARcTED. The meeting adjcurned at 4:45 P.M. ~~N~~ Chairman Camp r~~:;t•~:.~ned the mee'.ing afi 7:05 P,M., all Commissioners 's,e:l.~y present except Comn;.issioner He.xbst. RECLASSIFIGATION - P~BLIC HEARING. MARION V.'GOQDYEAR, 736 North East Street, Anaheim, N0. 66-67-?0 ~alifornia, Owner; FRANK ~AY, 1856 West 17th Street, Santa.Ana, California, Agent; property described as: A rectangularly shaped CONDiTiO~~AL USE parcel of land iiaving a frontage of approxi;nateiy 75 feet on the east r,~RMIT ~W . 946 side of East Street and a depth of approximaiely 271 feet, the north- west corner of this parcei aeir,.g approzimately 405 feet south of the centerline of La Palma Avenue,and further described as 736 North East Streete Property presently clas~=ified R-1, ONE-FAM,LI:Y RESIDEM'IAL, ZONE. REQUE~TED CLASSIFICATIOI~: C-0~ eGMMERCIAL.OFFICE, ZONE. REQUcSTED CONDITiONAL USE: PEF2MIT TI-IE OFFICE U9E OF A~RESIilENTIAL J~.P~.~JTURE IN TFiE C-0, COMnw:~.''iAL OFFICE, ZONE~ As~ociate Planner Jack Gn:isto.ferson aeviewed the location of snbject property, the petition and ttie uses es~tablished in close pr8ximity,-together'with the Repart to the'Cominissicno Mr~. Chr'_•toffersan also noted that General Plan Amendmen~ N:,e 9Q wc~~ld have to !?e considered in conjunctinn w;th sucject petition as ad~pted by the City Council; however, this was still pe,nding befc~re the Ci.ty Council. Mre grank Gay, ~ger.t for the petitioner, appeared before t}ie Commission and stated he was avail~b? to aaswer questions. ' The Commiss3on inquired whether or not he intended ta res~de in th_= yuest house, if he intended tu convert the large structure in the fronc, and the type of business office proposed fc~..r subject property. Mra Gay, in response to Commissi.on questioni,ng, stated tiat it was not necessary to use the guest house for living purposes -•t.hat it could be used .;~~ a storage space; that the only conversion proposed would be interior; and that a speci~l. bookke=ping service was being provided - therefore the need for a small directional sign was al1 that was necessary. ~ ~ .t7' . _., ~, - -...`~ `~J ~ : : , ~ . , ~ MI+N'Wa~S, CI.T'1 I~LANNING COMMISSION, June 5, 1967 3471 ?sCLASSIFICA7I0N°- Assistant Development Services Director Robert Mickelson inquired NOa 66-67-70 wl~ether.~or not he intended to hire people #or this bookkeeping service, whgteupon Mr. Gay stated that piesently there were three girls and two;, CONDITIONAL•USE aiore would be hired using,office equipment end a`filing systemo PERMIT NO. 446 (Contiyi~ed), N.lrr Alickelson neted that the reason he questioned the petitioner's agent . was becaus~ he wished to establish that this couTd not be establisfied. undF~r a'home occupation permit. Zc~ning Supervisor Ronpld Thompson advi~^d the Commission that it was the intention of ~the ~ p~~titioner's agent to fill in the swi~ +'ig pool in the rear and redevelop the property for ~ x+Arking in the rear. No u:?e appe~red in opposition to subject petitiohsa ?.t?E HEAR~NG WAS CIAS::D: The ~.ommission inquired of Ci.ty At~:orney Joe Geisler whether or not this permit could be allowed without reclas'sificaiib: ,since it seemed to be an interim use. Mra Geisier st~:ed that the usP could not be Pstablisheci in the R-1 Zone since it was a C-1 use. Furthar discussion was h'eld by the Commission relative to ~eneral Plan Amendment No. 90, which h.ad been rECammended ~to the City Council, projecting the deep lots alon9 the east side of East Street between tNilhelmina Street on the south and La Palma Avenue on the north for medium density use, and the proposed use would be contrary to the recommendations made by the Commissior:; therefore the Cnmmission should not act on this petition until the Council had received the Commission's rec:ommendation on the Front-On Study, and that if aation were taken by ;.i1e Commission on this date, and the Cc.:unission acted in accordance with their :.commendatic•ns on the General Plan, cubject petition ~rould have to be denied. aAr..Thompson.advised the ~ortimission that General P1an Amendment No. 90 had been before the City Council on Wednesday;~.May 31 and had bee.n continued until the me•eting of August 2 for the.purpose of allowing the Commission time.to complete the Front-0n Study'with their, report and'recommendations. ' ~ The Commission.further noted that the medium.density residential development for the property had met wl~th the,,approval of ihe property owners in the area, and the proposed use was contrary to the original appr~val. Commissionez Mungall offered a motioii to re-open the hear~ng and.continue'P.etitions f~~ Reclassification ~lo. 66-67-70 and Condikional Use Permit P!o. y46 to the meeting of P.ugust 14, 1967, in order to a11ow time to receive the reactio;: of thc~ C.ity Council regarding General Plan Amendment :lo. 40. Commissioner Allred s~oonded the not~en. MOTION CAEtRI~D. RECLASSIfICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. GENO`N~FA HURLEY, 1703 West Crone Avenue, Anaheim, N0. 66-67-56 Califcsrnia, Owner; property described as: A rectant~ularly sha~ped . parcel of land located „t the nprthwest corner of Crone Avenu:: and VARIANCE N0. 188$ Euclid Street and having fro,nta~es o~ approximately 53 feet on Crone Avenue and approximately lI2 feet on Euclid Street, the wester~y Qroperty .line of subjett prrperty being approximately 116 fee.t w~st of the cen~erline of Euclid Street, and further describec as i'~J~ i~esc Crcne Avenue. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY 3cSIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: LIMITED COMMERCIAL USE OF r. RESIDFNTIAL STRUCTURE, WITH WAIVERS OF (1) PARKING REQUIREMEA;Ta, (2) REQUIRED FRONT 'LANDSCAPING, AND (3) SIGN REQUIREMEN?S. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed subject pe:ition, the loGation of subject property, and uses established in close proximity, as well as the Report to ~nP-Commission, emphasizing the fact that the petitioner now pro~oses to convert the entire structure for commercial uses; however, Section 18.40.050 of the Anaheim Muncipal Code provi~ies for limited commercial uses of residential structures, and that the Traffic Engineer~wss con- cerned that if subject petition were approved, any ingress or egress to Euclid Street in close proximity to a signalized intersection would create a serious traffic hazard and impair the efficiancy o~ this signalized intersection a~id was strongly opposed ~o any access onto Euclid Street - therefore if no access was permitted, this w~uld eliminate a -- .,, , .~. •... , ~.,_ .. ~_. . ._ -- < „ _~ . . t:,'; ~ ` i ; , ~. ~ „ .. _ , . - v ..;~` ro- ~;fn yS'tr~ ./ r r ~_ :1 ~wir :ir M„'(~''~ ~ ~'W~,+,'~r : 7`P'c'~ "~;'q.`''ry~'~'[~ la.'F~~,w.7"'..f'` y.t ~ ~~2T t i %'~:k Y't'~(~~ ~ ~ ~ i .. - 1 ~ ~ ' _ ~', . . . .-_..__._._'-"-- _ ..c'',.~ -C . ..._"__-'. ~ , ~~• ~ + r ~ ~~ ~~ . . . . . . . (~ , ~ . . . .. .. . . . • ' . - ~ ~ . ... . . . . . . . . . ` . . . ~ ~ ~. ~~' .. MINUTES, CITY PLANNIN3 COMMISSION, June 5, 1967 ~ ' 3472 RECLASSIFICATIOPI - p„~king in the rear yard, reducing the number of Parking spaces required; N0. 66-67-66 and that if j '~ G1 Zonin were • 9 granted, this would permit a 25-foot high, ~ 240-square foot ig ''~""; s n to be erected on subject property which could be VARIANCE N0..1888 detrimental to the residential' uses established to the west and ~outhwest, (Continued) as well as to the east. • Mrs. Genowefa Hurley, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that because of refinancin 9 Problem , '' s regarding subject property it was difficult to i utilize sub'ect ] property or rent subj+;ct property as a residential ~ ~ use; that the financial , firm stated that the residence could never be considered for residential it " J~j ` purposes beccause was in the center of commercial ases; that because of the ambulances leaving the int section of Eu - lid ' ~~ 't er c a~d,Al omar Streets, a}~roximately 800 feet to the north, it was difficult to get any rest due to the fact she w k d A or e nights, and these ambulances were going by all day lony; that it was aii.ficult to plan for the futu i ' re s nce she was unable t'o sell her property; that her home and.the three lots immedia±Qly to the w t h es of t were all that remained e tract originally developed around Euclid Street which had not been c co er i ~ onv mmerc ted to al uses; and that it was necessary to have access to Euclid Street because of a traffic problem at the si naliz d i g e ntersection of Crone Avenue an~ Euclid Street. MTS• Royston 717 South A1 the reyuest ~or C-1 uses ~ Stieet, appeared before the Commission in oppositibn to the proposed for subject property, and inquired whether the uses pro- proposed under the C-1 Zone could not also be re ui d d q re un er the C-0 Zone, since C-0 uses have been established in the area which were m ore compatible to the residential uses adjacent to the C-O uses; that stie realized that th ~ use because of e property was no longer residential in the traffic along Euclid Street, but th t h a s e was still opposed to any C-1 uses, because the heavier uses permitted in that zone were not compatible with the resi- dential uses. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised Mrs. RoyGton that the C-0 Zone required 20,d00 square feet or a n area development plan, and the C-1 Zone request was advertised because the petitioner requested it; however th , ere was no need for any additional retail Establisnmen~cs on Euclid Street; whereupon Mrs. Ro sto tat b y n s ed that subject property could e developed with~ a~: one-story office building for business'a d n professional usesa TH.E IiEARING WAS CLOSEb.. . ~ Discussion was held by the Commission'and the staff relative to the types of uses ~ in the C-1 Zone and the limited ted a h ~ u es of t e C-0 Zone as well as the fact that 'if.tfierCil zoning were approved, the.structure could b ! e rem~ved and any uses of that zone could be developed on the property. The Commission was further concerned with the statment made by the Cii:y Traffic Enginee,r relative to the extreme hazard which vuould result if access were granted to Euclid Street, because the intersection of Crone Ayenue and Euclid Street was signalized, and that if no access were permitted the petitioner would be considerably short of the required number of parking spaces.together with the fact that signing tivould be incompatible with the residential uses to the west and east, as well as developing a completely asphalted front yard> Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC67-130, and moved for its passage ar.d adootion, seconded by Cormnissioner Gauer to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassifi- cation No. 66-67-66 be disappioved on the basis that a severe traffic hazard would be created if access were permitted to Euclid Street, due to the short distance between the proposed driveway and the signalized intersection; that four cars would be required tu back out onto Euclid Street, creating further hazaids; that if access to Euclid Street were prohibited six parking stalls would be unusaAle, thereby reducing the parking provisions to well below Code minimums; that the Site Development Standards of the C-1 Zone requires a side yard set- back area to be landscaped; howeve;, the petitioner propos2s parking in the side yard as weil as the rear yard and the front yard; and that if the C-1 Zoning were approved a 25-foot high illuminated sign,approximately 340 square feet,could be erected which would be detri- mental to the residential area to the west and east.(See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resoluti.on was passed by the following vote: A~S~ COMMISSIONL.R3: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT-: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. ~..:~.. . :.;=.`"~ ~ , ~ -~ ;;,•,.~.-~ ~,: ` + . 'i yy n"~.~sw' ~~?. , x .. « ~ ~ „ ,' - - .. .. . . .... ._. . ..._,. . _ .. . . ,. . + . . ~,.. ... . . .,. .. ... , , . . . . . ~ . .. . . . _ ~4 _ .. ' ~~, j~ ~. .~ ..~.• .... ~ i. . . • .. . . . . • . . ..~ ~ ~ MIIJI3TES, CITY PLANNIN(} COMMISSION, June 5, 1967 3473 RECL6SSIFICATION = Cocr,~issionar Allred oPPered Resolution No. PC67-131, and moved.for N0: 66-67-66 .its passage and adoption, seaonded.by Aommissioner Mungall, to deny Eetition Por Varianae No. 1888, on the besis that the raquested waiversare VARIANCE N0. 1888 not neaesse,ry to allow the petitioner to en~oy use of the property (Continued) • because properties in alose proaimity would be denied a privilege that wes being aYforded the petitioner; that a severe traffic hazard would be oreated.'if aoaess were peTmitted to Eualid Street, and if said access to Euolid Street aere prohibited the waiver oP the parki.ng requirements would be Purther inareased by siz parking stalls reduoing the requirements for parking to well below minimum, and iP develop- mettt were to ooour as plot plans indioated, this would result in a situation aontrary to the intent of.dovelopment oY residentiel converions to commeroiel uses, sinoe the home would be surrounded.with aonorete and asphalt, virtuelly no landscaping, and inadequate parking arrangement.(See Resoluti~n Book). ;:::': ';~ On r~ll call, the Poregoing resolution.was passed by the followi ng vote: 1 . ,'i;,, AYFS: COMlA.ISSIOI~RS; ;~tlred, Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. ~ NOES: COAlE[.iSSIONERS: None. ~, ~ ~~~, . . ~ ,a ABSENT: GCe~ISSIONERS: .~ Herb~t. . GIIV~RAI+ PI,AN - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIqTED BY Tf~ Cl'PY PLANNING CObLl~ISS:CON, 204 East AMf~NDl~Nr N0. 91 Linooln Avenue, Anaheim, CaliPornia to aonsider an amendment to the General Plan in the genaral~area of Ball Road on ~;he south, East Street on the aest, Vermont Avenue.on the north, and State College Boulevard on the east., encompassing land uses in said area. Assistant Planner Charles:Roberts presented General Plan Amendment No. 91, as follows: "The purpose of Gene.ral,Plan Amendment No. 91 is to ezemine the.area northerly of Ball Road in the vic'snity of Stata College Boulevard to determine whether the aharc~.oter of the area has ohanged to anp appraaiable degree sinoe the General~Plan was adopted. This eaamination will be speoiPioelly oonoerned with the questioa oP ahether low-medium or medium density residential land uses~ere appropriate f~~ a portion of the studq area at this time. The Planning Cou~ission may wish to evalu,ate the s3tuation aad either reaffirm the ezisting land use polioy Por this arsa, or amend ii in aaoordanoe with the approaoh that will most alosely represent the desired development oY the Citq. "FINDINGS• '1• The broed area oP oonoern in the proposed amendmant is that ar~3a bounded by Vermont Avenue, East Street, Ball Road, and State College Boulevard. 2. The speaifia aonsidoration in this oase is to determine whether a portion of the presently designated low-density residential are~ is now appropriete for low-medi,3m or medium density residentisl uses. 3. The General Plan presently rePleots the Yollowing land uses Por the study area: a) A aommunity park in tha northeastern seotor; b) An elementary s~hool ad,jacent to the park site; a) A~unior high sohool in the northWestern seotor; d) General Industriel in the southern.seator; e) Neighborhood aommeroial ot the intersE~otion of Ball Road and State College 3oulevard; and Y) Low density residentiel for the remainder of the area. 4. General Plan pro3eations ad~aoent to the study area oonsist of: a) West and south: General Industrial; b)-North and east: Primarily low density residentiel with,the eaoeption.oP neighborhood oommeraial and low-medium density_ residential symbols northea§terl'y o4 the interseotion of Ball Road and State College Boulevard. 5.. The study area oontains a total of 170.38 sares. The various usss presently eaisting inolude: a) The 17.2 aore nommunity park with eapension proposed for 9.5 additional aores; b) The elementary snhool ad~aoent to the park oaaupies 4.98 acres; a) The proposed 3unior high sohool site at the southeast oorner of Vermont Avenue and East Street oovers 18.1 aares; d) Tsvo single family residential i subdivisions are developed on 33.01 aores; e) One industrisl Pirm has developed ~ 2.02 eares; and f) The remaining area is primarily undeveloped. y.: .. -- . - . . - .. .r'"~'~~;"'q~''l. Y~ .~T ~+.. ' . ""`.Jm~ . ~ ~ ~ ,- ~?F 1 an-rE°"t ~ ty:. '~1~ r t";~g / 1 x~ ~ + . a~ ` x ~a,'~'r7 , J ...~.'_ _'_ ' _.... . ~ ~.°4', ~ ~ • . . . . ~ - . .. ~ . ~ ~^.~ . ~ _ 1 . t ~ ~ T ~ 'i, t l ~ ~ • ' • I I1 . . . .. . . ., .. . . ~J . ( ~;s ;;,, :ti', 3474 GE2~RE~L PLAN - 6. The land uses sui~rounding the study area inalude: a) North: Low Ak~END~~NT I~O. 91 density,'single Yemily residential area; b),YVest: Light industrial Continued) uses; d) South: Light industrisl uses and beasnt land; d) East: Low densi*y, single PamiTq and low medium density, multiple Pamily residential uses, a aommeroial shopping aenter, and a small emount of vaoant land. MLNUICES, CITY PLANNING CO~ISSION, June 5, 1967 7. Ia studying this proposed amendment it was neoessary to attempt to arrive at _ logioal reasons why higher density residentiel developments might be appropriate Por the area. The most logiaal conolusion would seem to be that with higt.ar density residential uses located as olose to an industriel area as this proposal would allow, a greater ttumber of'the labor forae aould be concentrated closer to their ~obs. 8. YVhen questioning vehether a multiple femily i,rend has been established in this general area, it would seem thst thereis no suoh indicetion unless, however, the Planning Commission oonstrues the low-medium density on the east side of State ~ College Boulevard to be a trend. If the consensus is that a'~rerid~ has been established, the point must be•considered es to whether the multigle femily influenae should eatend aaross State College Boulevard. 9. As mentioned previously; all the study area that is not designated for'industrial use is either presently de'veloped or pro,jeoteil f.or low density residentiel use. If low-medium.or medium density residentiel is approved in this area, a multiple family environment aill be'inter3eoted into a predominantly single femily area. Past requests for multiple family zoning in the East Anaheim area have met with strong opposition from the homeoavners in thet area. 'ALTERNATIVES : Tvvo situations have been studied as possible alternatives to ahat is presently refleated ~ oa the General P1an. In both elternatives, one basia assw:ption has been made. The 1j assumption is that the City still desires to retain the same approaimate amount of land for.;industry ia this area as is refleated on the Gener.sl Plan. The reason for this _ assumption is that the industriel dasignation within the study area i.s part oY the "southeast - i.ndustrial area", and it has been.assiimed thst it is the City's desire to retain th~~ ;';°~y "southeast industrial area" tor industrisl uses. . fihe ePYeot that this ass~ptioa has had upon the ezhibits Yor both alternatives is that either the low-medium.or medium density symbol would•not pro~eat into t~a industrial symbol, but would replace a portion of the low density symbol. A. Ezhibit "A" rafleots loa-medium density residentiel slong the west side of State College Boulevard,.between the ao~unity park and the industrial designation to the south. This type o4 proposal aould permit multiple Pamily dwellings to a mazimum oY 18 units per net res.ida~~tial sore. '!."'~'!>i~' B. Ezhibit "B" rePleots medium density residential 3n the seme location desoribed r.,;~ in Ezhibit "A". A mazimum of 36 dwelling units per net residential aare would x°::~_:'~ be permitted if this ezhibit represents the land use policy oP the City for r . ~ this loaatioa. t ~, • i~ ~ F; "11dPLI0ATI0NS ON ELE{~NTB OF Tf~ GIIVERAL PLAN ~. ~~ } t In tha event that the Planning Co~ission fee13 that either of the exhibits represents t~ n:j the desired lattd use policy for this area, the inoreased burden upon eduoational and +~ ; reoreational fsailities would either be non-existen•L or negligible. ~, F. ., y~«~~ i "tiONCIdT$ION: , ~ ,. ~~f '~ Atter oonsidering the information applioable to the situation at hand it a ,~ 'A, , ppears that ~+~••--• there has not been a substantial ohan to the charaoter of the stud area that would ~t}, a 8~' y , , Warrant amending the statement of lhnd use poliay by.introduaing multiple family -~'--!~ developmeat into the area: ' ~t'~~~.n'~.'J~ , . . . ~ ~ A:Lthough there is no indioation of a trend toward multiple fami.ly uses, the Planning -,;;;,,,*~~ Co~ission may ~ish to determine whether higher density residentisl uses are more ~`;: appropriate Yor the area than the presently.projeated low density uses. In msking this determination, tha Co~ission should aonsider tWO very important poi.nts: ~~; ~ ;.,:: -% ;`~ :a !,>~ .; ~ _, ~';,; ~•+ _ "t nv. 1 ~ ~ ~a ' ~ ~ . ~ .~,.,.. .., .`~~, ~. ~~. ,.`.~ ., .,.~. ,. . , . , . ... .. . . 'Ks`•JNS7we e.~h'Yk a, i^ 6 ~ ;sS":'4 .+~c.Hr ,+m '-ya.. 2 r~~ ' ` 2nt!' ~~. '~~..~~~. C~~ ~ r ~c~" Y ~ t r,•. a i t ,:i ~ .. . ~ . . . ~ 3u ~r ; _ _. .... ._...._ . _.-"_"'.._"" "~_' ~ . . ..... : .. ...~ .. . ~ ~, ,..,+:~ . '_..~~1 :~ ~'INC,'PES, CITY pI,ANN2~ COI~ISSION, June 5, 1967 3475 ~' ~~ - 1• Is it the desire of the City to retain the integrity of the ~h~ IvO. 91 "southeast industrial area"? The positiott of the City thus (Gontinued) Yar has been to pro,jeat the future needn Yur 3ndustriel aoreage, and then make provision Yor the preserxr~tion oY this needed land. 2• T: it is the City's desire to retain the southeast area Yor industry, the Commission should oonsider what affeats in amettdment to the industrisl land use symbol me,y have. 2f low-medium or '~:edium density residential is aonsidered appropriate, attd is introduoed into this area, the end result may be that there mould be further enaroeohment of residentiel uses into the industrial area and the City's industriel land oould be depleted." 1~'g- Ann Madison, representing the petitioners, the engineer, and the developer, appeared be£ore the Commission and stated that in her opinion the area had ohanged drematiaallg sinoe the General Plan was adepted in 1963, and higher density should be granted in order to provide wider type of housing whioh is in demand as was eapressed by the Advaaoed Mortgage Corporation in their reoent quarterly report. This survey indioated a demand Por housing in Orange Coutttp, the highest in the U. S. as compared with 16 other areas; that employment figures in the Couttty were due Por the biggest gains-more than any other area in the oountry; and that General Plan Amendment No. 91 should be approved to establish this higher density. Considersble disoussion was then held by the Commission relative to the Yaat that in the Commission's opinion no land use ahange had taken plaoe in the area to warrant oonsidera- tion oY a general plan amendment pro,jeating higher densities for the area sinoe it was their 4pin3,on that the single story multiple fam9,ly development surrounding the commeroial development on the northeast side of State College Boulevard only acted as a buffer ~etween the commeroial development and the single Yemily development to the north and east and did not set a preaedent for simi7.ar high densi`ty use of vaaant land in the study area. Hovever, further study oould be given to the low density abutting the industrial uses to provide some type oP buYfering from the undesirable noises and dust emanating from the industrial u:res; Purthermore, the establiehment oP higher density~WOUld not aot as a buPYer. ~ HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. p~67-132, and moved for its adoption, seoonded by Commissioner Allred to reaommend to the City CounoilSthat General plan Amettdment No. 91 be disapproved on the basis that no land use change had taken plaae to aarrant aonsideration oP exfiibits prepared by the staff ahiah did not present an acoeptable alterne,tive to the established General Plan. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~~5~ C~11~I~CSSIOI~RS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. ~~: COI~d.ISS201~RS: None. AFs3EN'?': COE~lLtSSIONERS: Herbst. Chairme,n Camp stated that it Wss his opinion that further study should be made of the a,rea beoause of the miature of industrial and residential uses, in order that aoma type of a buPfer strip could be developed. RECLASS~'TCATION - PUBLIC HEARIlJCC}, HENR]C WAGNER. AND SOUTFIEASTERN QALIFpRN7'A ASSOCIATION 1Q0. 66-6?-68 pF SEV~H ~Y A~,rISTS~ 9~5 South State College Bouleverd, Ana,heim, Californie. C. MICHAEL, INCORPORATED~ 8501 Bolsa Avenue, Midmay City, Oalifornis; requesting that property desaribed as: Portion No. l: An irregularly she,ped paroel of land oontaining approaimately 7.4 acres looated htron-""-and west oY a paroel at the northweat oorner oP State Co]:lege Boulevard and Ba11 Road and havinR fro~tages oi anproximately 477 ~eet on Ball Road and a,pproximately 150 feet on State College Boulevard, the northerly property line being approxim8tely 353 feet north of the centerline of Ball F.oad. ?orti= ?: ~ irregularly shaped parcel of land containing approximately 37.6 aores and having a frontage on the west side of State College Boulevard of approximately 1,964 feet and a mazimum depth of approximately 1,229 feet, the northerly property line being approsima~ely 2,317 feet n.orth of the centerline of Ball Road be reolassified from the R-A, AGRIGii~LURAL ZONE to the M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE on Portion No, 1, and R-2, ML'L,TTpLE F`~T-'~ ~ESmENTIAL, ZONE on Portion No. 2. - _ .-.._.. _..._ ~.i., dr..~r~ "'1..... t`~. .. I ~~. ~ ~ ~~ _. . .. .. . ,. . . . , . . . .. . ., ~. .. _ ... . . ...~:a~ c 'Fy?:C-~ .dY~' t'1~: ;~.:~. :f.t,. ~~ ~ c c ; ~ .. r ,a.•, - ~ : ~ ': r ~ ..•,~;, -: ~.~?(~~ ~...! . \1 . -` MIN'u''!'ES, CI'i'!% PLANN.~~N("x C0~6ISSION, Sune 5, 1967 3476 REC~ASSIFICATION - Assoaiate Planner Taak Christoffersan, reviewed sub3eot petition, N0. 66-67-68 locatio~ oP sub~eot property, uses established in close proximity, (Coatinued) and the Report t~ the Commission. M:~s. Ann Madison, representing the petitioners, the engineer, and the developer, appeared before the Gommission,aad stated that the Portior_ No. 2 was designated for R-2, and would be ideal for residential uses because of the proximity of schools, pexks, churches, and the Yreeway; that this inorease in density would not overcrowd the school and park Yacilities; that +he R-2 Zone permitted 18 dwelling units per net residential aare, however, they were proposing only 6 units per acre; this Would enable the developer to provide a medium cost home to meet the needs of the average working man who is the forgotten man in the home industrg which has been oatering to junior executives and exeautives; that more property tases, sales tax, gasoline tax, eta. would be generated iP this development for residentiel use was approved, and would supply housing for the working man close to his employment; that State College Boulevard would be widened which would improve the area; that the southeast industrial area needed the proposed development for survival; that the 40-acre paroel to the east might be put on the market and annexed into the City if subject petition were approved; that in order to retain the industrirsl environment along Ball Road a portion of subject propertq was being proposed.Yor M-1 use; that the M-1 Zone site development standa^ds required a speoific setbao~ from any residential use; that the developer and the engineer of the proposed development were available to answer any teahnical questions; and that any aontinuanoe would work a hardship on the developer beoause of a tentative 30-day aommi.tcsnt. ~_;:<-;;"`~Tll A letter £rom E. Fi. Sargent Company, immediately adjeaent to subject property, opposing '~' "~ residential uses in alose proximity, was read to the Commission. ~~`5'`''"~' THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ r .~' y~„Y ,~ The Commission inquired of the staff what the squere footage of the lots on the east side ~ of State College Boulevard were. k~ ' r--°A Zoning Supervisor Ronal~~ Thompson advised the Commission that the R-1 lots on the east side ~, .. ...._ , of State College Boulevard were 7200 square Yeet F.nd on the northwest side where Turin ` Avenue stubbed :i.nto subject property a number of the lots were 6000 square feet. ~ y Com.9i.ssioaer Gauer expressed the desire to maintain lots in this area between 6000 and `~ 7200 aquare Yeet. `.~ < ~'•~,'~:i j'„, ;;y Commissioner Rowland noted that +.hs General Plan, as currently amended, projeots a popu- 3ation for the nomnunity of 250,000 people; that most of the City's capital improvements planning £or publio utilities, edur,ational and park requireiments was based on this figure, 'r.'.~' and if this was not the feelina cP the City, then the General Plan should be am3nded to K refloct ang change; that no Pvidenoe had been submitted to tiie Co~ission regarding this ~ ;' ahange other than the desire or hope that some type of dev~3lopment would occur, however, t.,.,.,£ no need was proven; that the Gar.era,1 Plo,n in th~s =,;x: ~iuular area should now be ccnsidered ~ 's~ at its present low density; that ~,h~ Commi.ssion would not consider any ahange until defin- ~~}_ ;r':~ itive studies were made whioh woul i.nclioate that the General Plan should be ar.ything ot'..Zer 4,'_: ,:i than depicted; that no community ob,,:~.otives, goals, values have been changed up to this Fti 'u time that indicate the City `s low !i•~Fr.,~i ~y provision in the Anaheim Municipsl Code are c; aot what the communi.ty is interestecl in as oommunity standards and values; that the fact ~,~i the ao~*m+~n~ty did not have a£ull r~t~gej of real estate values is quite simple in the fact ~1,~, that the City would never again h~sv~e r~3a1 inexpensive properties; that the City must pro- vide faailities for manu!'aaturir.g e~nc? aorimeraial enterprises:which the City was capable ~ ;; of supplying these demands; that th~3 City hes set standards which are best for the ~ t x. ~~,ti F oom~*~+~*+~ty; that the R-2 5000 Zone request is poor and an impossible vehicle to obtain, «;;•:;y sinae it is speoificaliy designed to relieve the density in established R-3 properties ~~ y' not Yrom R-A to R-2 and then R-2 5000 as is being requested by the petitioner; that until ~,a ~t the City reaches maaimum develogment of the undeveloped properties in the community between `~,=`~'' now attd 50 ears Prom now the estsblished values as de icted on the General Plan mi ht ~,,,., ~;~:~. Y , p' g ahange, but this has not bee;+, evidenced in the past four years sinae the General Plan ~. e,;::~>:; ~ was adopted. Commissioner Gauer inquirsd why medium or high density was proposed betmeen two low density subdivisions, sinae the existing General Plan did not re£leat this, and until further evidence was submi.tted this low density designation should remain. Mrs. Me,dison, in response to Commissioner Gauer's question, stated it was her opinion that the area nad changed since 1963, wi.th an increase in~volume and speedo£ traffic on St~s College Boulevard, subjeat property was more suitable for higher density than low density and the ~ s'~'rt( SuR~'~e~'"~{~i2b 'tff '3~'d~Nj 'n ~ u {, i _~ ~r1~^'~ ~`.f'9F`~.k'R.;4a 4, ; r < '-»n.c.4t' ^^q'°4~ .. ~ r~ .: ^ ; .. ,. ~. 1 ~_.._ _..'_"_ ~. _.._"` _'_"" ""'_ ' O t,~ . ~ ~~ ~~ . ~. B~u'!'ES, CITY PL~ANNING COM~ISSION, June 5, 1967 3477 RECiASSIFICATION - reeson that the R-2 5000 Zone was requested was beoause it was muoh more ?G0. 66-67-68 aompetible with the established single family subdivision to the north- (Gontinued) west; that the petitioners £elt they should be allowed the R-2 5000 sinae they were proposing to develop a higher quelitg home than those existir_g immediately to the north and west, however, M-1 should be retained along Ball Road. ~ ~ Co~issioner Farano noted thst the number of R-3 developments on the east side of State b - ~i~ ~ ~'>; _:• :. College Bonlevard were minimal as oompared to the R-1 development, and that one could not t,,: `:•::;~; transpose a£ew lots now developed for R-3 as setting a precedent when oompared with the ~`' kind of acreage whioh the Commission was now aonsidering. ~ 7; Mrs. Madison further stated that the majority of the lots on the west ~ide of State Gollege ;~< - ~ ~ Boulevard were 6000 square feet; that eoonomics did plsy a,part in this project since the ; property has been vacant for a long time; that anq developer of subject property will have ,~:;.., ,~" work something out besides com 1 in wi.th the strict interpretation.of the 7200 square foot P Y~ B , ~~ lot required in the R-1 Zone; that the large landowners in that area would not dispose of ;?: °F their properties for R-1 use; that aoreage aost was too high, sinoe the developer must ~ realize a profit, and he must construat a house that the average worker oould afYord to buy; ~,: .~~ that the large landowners wanted $30,000 per eare which amounted to approximately $9500 for +~ '~ ~ each R-1 lot, and with this lot cost it would be necessary to construci~ a$40,000 home, hi h ' . w o the average worker oould not afford to buy; and that some consideration should be ~i given to the average worker. Ftzrthermore, many people preferred a smaller lot, although ~ ~,T : they did not want aondominium-type development. s~ ~' Gommissioner Gauer noted that the R-2 5000 Zone was established by the City as an alternative '~ ,; ti ~, ; to developing properties approved f~or ~t-3 Zoning, however, he felt this zoning was a sub- ~ terfuge to zoning requirements for single family homes; and that the developer who had started ,~ ~ < ~' this type of development has oompleted some of the homes, whiah were not considered less ~ ~ ~~ ~} expensive even though they were buiiding them on 5000 square foot lots. ~ ~~ V~ Gommissioner Rowland further noted that the Commission wes ooncerned with the relative ~ ~t f ~ density in relationship to the General Plan; that since 1963 the Commission had considered j t?±.=. :."' ~ over 90 amendments, many of whiah had been adopted, therefore, this was not indiaative that ~ ~ ;` the City did nut recognize dramatia changes in the City; and the General Plan was not static- ~ h ~ owever, whenever any signifiaant changes had taken place in the community and had been ; ~i demonstrated that the chanve would continue, the General Plan then would refleati this. ~ I ~~ P.fter considerable discussion by the Commission and the sta£f regarding the possibility of ~ ;=i ~` requiring that a study be me,de to determine what type of bu£fering should be provided ,:~,, between .residential uses ~.:zd industrial uses, the staff indioated that beaause of previous speaial studies which ~ne staff had undertaken, any further study for buffering would take a considerable time - more than the petitioners or the developer wanted. Commissioner Farano offered a motion to reoommend to the City Council that Petition £or Reclassifioation No. 66-67-68 be approved Por Portion No. 1(~G-1), and denied for Portior L . No. 2 `,:: :: : ~ ~ A£ter further disoussion by the Gommissian as to whether or not the petitioner snould , : submit revised plans indioating some type of buffering between tha residentiel and industrial r;;.;;._ ;<" use, Commissioner Farano withdrew his motion. Zhe engineer and developer of subjeot property iridicated they aould have nevised plans beYore the Commission within two weeks; hoviever, the StafY advised the Gommission that they had a polioy that revised plans must be submitted to the Interdepar$mental Committee for Publia Safety and~General YPelYare for,review and reoommendations before being oonsidered by the Commission, arid that these p7.ans must be in the department no later than Friday. The agent for;.the petitioner,after further.disoussion with those she represented,asked that the Commi.ssiott,aontinue Reolassifioation No. 66-67-G8..to the meeting of June 19, 1967. I`? Co~issioner.Farano offered s motion to reopen .the'hearing and oontinue Petition for RealassiPiaation No. 66-67-68 to.the..meeting,oP:June 19, 1967 to be saheduled for the aYternoon meeting in order to allow the'developer-engineer time to submit revised plans indioating e method of buPYering the residential uses from the industriel uses. Commissioner Allred seaottded the motion. 'MOTION CARRIED. ~ ' . i, ' ~ ~ ; ~ . ., . `... . , ~ J, ~ ~ - MINUIES, CIFY PL4NNING COMMISSION, June 5, 1967 k `~./ 3478 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. SC~UTHEASI'ERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF SEVENTH DAY N0.,66-67-69 ADVENTISTS AND HENiiY WAGNER, 975 South State College Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Cwners; C. MICHAEL, INCORPORATED, 8501 Bolsa Avenue, I'ENTATIVE MAF OF Midway City, California, Agent; requesting that property described as: TRACT NOe 6409 Portion Noe 1: An irregularly shaped parcel, of land containing approxi- matel>/ 7e4 acres located north and west of a parcel at the nort'hwest corner of State Coilege Boulevard and Ball Road and having frontages of approximately 477 feet on Ball Road and approximately 1~0 feet on State College Boulevard, the northerly property line being approx3mately 953 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road; Portion No. 2: An irregularly shaped parce2 of land containing approximately 37e6 acres and havin9 a frontage on the west side of State College Boulevard of approximately 1,964 feet and a maximum dept•h of approximately 1,229 feet, the northerly property line being approximately 2,317 feet north of the centerline of Ball i~oad be reclassified from tt~e .R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE for Portion Noo 1, and R-2. 5000, ONE-F1~MILY ZONE for Porti~n No. 2. Subject trac~t, lacated north ~nd west of the northwest corner of State College Boulevard and Ball Roed and containing apgroximately 45 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 6 M-1 Zoned lots and 230 R-2 5000 Zoned lots. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed subject petition, the location of subject property, land uses ~stablished in close proximity covered by the General Plan Amendment Noe 91, and previous action for a portion of subject property by the Planning Commission and City Council. Mrs, Ann Madison, representing the petitionersand developer, appeared before the Commission and stated that since Petition for Reclassification No. 66-67-68 had been continued, she requested that subject petition also be continued until June 19, 1967, and that all the previous statements made under Reclassification,No. 66-67-68 applied to subject petitiono Considerable discussion was then held by the Commission relative to the establishment of some type of buffer between the industrial portion and the residential portion, and at its conclusion, Commissioner Rowland stated that it was not the Commission's position to design concept plans, and any buffering plans should be submitted by the petitionere A letter from E. H. Sargent 8 Company expressing concern and opposition to the proposed Reclassification Nos. 66-67-68 and 66-67-69 was read to the Commission. Mr. Rusty Roquet, 948 South Peregrine Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated it was his opinion that concessions other than the property owner's desire for a set pribe for his property should be considered in long-range plans for undeveloped property since the proposed development would be a drastic deviation from good planning, and the City should not allow property owners to realize their gains by circumventing recognized, established Code requirements as well as the General Plane THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. After considerable discussion relative to the possibility of studying changes of uses for Portion Noo 2, to determine whether this should be a higher density on the General Plan, the type of buffering ~hat should be required, or whether the General Plan should be retained, together with the fact that only one industrial development had occurred on the north side of Ball Road between East Street on the west and State College Boulevard on the east, since not only was the City to consider the implications of residential uses abutting industrial uses, the same type of consideration should be given to developed, industrial uses adjacent to residential uses. Assistant Development Services Director Robert Mickelson noted that if svbject petitions were continued, any studying the Staff would have to do would be dependent upon what the Commission recommended their intent was, and its completion was dependent upon the depth of any studies since the Staff had many other studies and projects under consideration at the present time which could not be completed within two weeks, possibly not even four weeks. Chairman Camp noted that the Commission should study this in order to find some solution which might be workable. Commissioner Rowland again expressed the feeling that it was not up to the Commission to design alternati~e methods since this should be a problem far anyone who was desixous of developing his property, ana subject petitions should be continued until such time as the developer could resolve some of the buffering problems; therefore, any General Plan Amendment consideration should be considered only after subject petition wa~s thoroughly analyzed. ~:~ ~~ ', :;~ j .r"~ ~-"Q':`. _~__~ '~, ~'~.5'~~. ' ,~+~s~-''"~'tr~`` ~~'•`'Y 1 A ar / d~~.- ~i~'-.n.un r.~ryr,~-~'fr~„C'n51~g'nu,"'o. ;°y"Y4`"~ { .'.;3YCyfrJS~. ^v.m, r` 3wfp r ~.zs w6- c ~"":~ ~~ ~NI 1 7 . . . "'~:,,,.,~~`~~, ~ 4',- k /~y~ ~ . ~./ . . .. . . . -~.~.~.-•^__..,._,_ _ y ~ MINUTES, CITY p •~ ~ LANNIIVG CpMN~ISSION, June 5, 1967 RECLASSIFICATION - ~' N0, 66-67-69 City Attorney Joe Geisler advised the ~ 347g _~~1_ hp~herhe Commission's plan for revision~~ission pendent 1'ENTATIVE 9 densit that it was de TRqCp N~ ~P ~F Plan Amendment WasWeen the R-1 and M_ 9arding bufferir ~ ~"""=-64~ _ 3n order, 1 to ascertain whether af a slightly.' 7~. , (Continued) lNr, Mickelson further advised ~eneral necessary if an additiona that a minimum o Commi 1 General Plan AmendmentW~ Weeks would be ~ offered a motion to and TentativeFMran~ Was considered, for the ~p °f Tract No, ~ontinue Petition for :-a developeT_en ln 6409 to the meetin Reclassification No, the industrial a 9 eer to submit 9 of June 19 66-67_69 :~, CARRIED, ~d Tesidential ~ revised plans which showed1ad~9 ln order to allow ~:~ seso Commissioner Alired secon equate bufferin time ded the motion, g between REPORTS qND ~TION RECOMMENDATIONS ITE" M N~p, 4(Continued) _a (Continued) "-'----- Reclassification No, 63-64~62(5) ;fi Associate Planner Jack ~`, iteclassification No, ~hristofferson a ~ required 63-64- 9ein reviewed for the Co development Wit 62~ in which Conditi ~lssion ~ when plans for h 18 dWellin °~ No~ 10 0{ the past action on ' sented to the Commisspo~nt for Lot No,ug~ttWOer net residential~acre~n °{ Tn `'~, °Per net residential ' the lots northerl tent No~ 64R-200 y indicated Y of sub• °r buildin site; that `"~' i°9 ~f the a acre or 18 dWelling units on the ~ect prapert '°` forementioned buildin site"• buildin YtWere pre- ~'fi; further reco resolution Was ' that since the Co 9 site rather ';;;K; mmended to the Cit somewhat confusin ~lssion recognized the wordn ., ing units residentia Y ~OUncil 9, they approved said ~;, that the ~ptr net 1 acre that Condition No, 10 be amended Plans ,,* the Plannin Y ~ouncil in Resolution~Nohereby deletin to read ' but L~ 9 Commission on 65R-465 amended1ConditioncNot~ ° 18 dwell- have June ~~ r buildin ~~. coveraeVelop~d or had develo ment2' 1965; that subsequent to I~ as 9 site , '"~' these 9e' that the.petitioner was wells apProved which said a recommended by ``~`'l Plans would aware Aliedendment other parcels _-~ ment ~ therefore have com with s~ plans which have ~ Seem to discriminateea9overnin the amende~ :~ the Staff, on the basiseen limited to 7.g 9 resolution, and a gainst other PProvai of ~~r-,' ment plans, °{ the foregoin dWelling units er net residentialW cre• develup- g findings,recortunended disapproval of ° and that ~E . '~ ~'~~ Ron Martin g• the deveiop_ . en ineer for the ,t;~ the petitioner was aware Petitioner, a ) ,.j dwelling units that the Cit PAeared before the Co j originai ~ per net residential a~ieCouncil had amended ~lssion and noted that ~ Pproval and buildin ° hoWever their resolution to reoei.re 18 .iaa financing because 9°~ Webster y a Problem existed b +i?~~ 1~9 to maximize thef the 80,~K financing usualleet; no other develo eYond zoni~ Ament wes 5 since the more than Profits for the Y 9ranted for four lexes• Y `'? 17 units were Petitioner p 9rantc~ an ~RF3~6'~'62~5))on which deve]oped on the ~ but 80,~ financin ' that he was not try- be obtained if financin prOPerty, such as was 9 Was °btainable only if coverage Was i~ 9 had been approved; that financi~ posed on 9 obtain at toda ~ units or pr~ Lot ~o, a~d Planned Y S tlghtened mone less, but this was considerabla ~~ basis could ta build one-stor Y market; that the Y more difficult to be a blend in of the three d Y ~onstruction with theesame~architectureired to be successfull evelo ments• the center these Y develo p ~ that it was his So that Aarcel people can finance and' the % coverage increase belief that if this would y developmento must be Webster Street were Chairman provided by the City so that Camp noted that unaler the the petitioner was requestin Present covera lot was develo 9 18 units• 9e only 15 units would be with i ped ~o acc.ess to yyebster~wo ld b pO~ ~• Martin noted ~9ress from the nort e asked since circulation W permitted, and would be 13_15 h and hen the interior units of one- yg~onstructionsouth and y for ould be stor the ~iensit Provided Assistant Deve? the center planned to °Pment Services Parcel develop these a Director Robert Mickelson inquired whether s individual lots, Mr. Martin noted the developer since the that the first two develo eQ woan cortunitment was based o~~ the north and P lth the oth that south) would be individuall er two as a requirement.; however Mr, i~ickelson single unit. . the interior Y developed noted if lot could be problem; however al~l the lots w developed because thee difficult ere combined a Y would be encounterednwithlthe State Mathere would be no easements, and if ~enter parcel would have the lots could be these easements were not ~O access P Act if individually sold off later a filed to the parking facilities except as nd then the Prior to the issuance of Commissioner Rowland in Center parcel would have no a buildin - stated that if a 9uired how 9 Permit, recorded this would access. document were submitteaern the Commgssion• ' to the Cit ' Whereupon ~., Mickelson Y which would insure that the ; '.' h7".f,"' ~~3`v 5~xy~'~n ~~x`.~'fc 5~~~,'~~ m ~~i,9"p.? . 1"? ~ ~ ?r '"`p~'~^.^ {'(. ~N'M .. a r~m^ . ati i ~ .~ ~ r'~ -{ <~'aw, { ~., 1 , ~ ~ r, ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ }, MINUTES, CIIY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 5, 1967 3479 {E~;:. ,, - RECLASSTFICATION - City Attorney Jo~a Geis,ler advised the Commission that it was dependent ~ N0. f~ -67- 9 r uppn the Commissian"s Qlan for revision regarding buffering of a slightly. +'',~"'.'~ higher den~.ity be~tween the R-1 and M-i to ascertain whether a General ~:{;~.,: . TENTATIVE MAP OF Pian Amend.men~ was 9.n ordera r`i;4.``-~, ` TRACT N~. 6409 , (Contin~ued) Mr, M,i.ckelson fu,.rther advised that a minimum of two weeks would be x;~~. ~+~_"' necerasary Sf an additional General PLan Amendment was considereda y Commissiorr~r Fa~rano of.fered a motion to continue Petition for Recl.assificatior. Noo 66-67-69 ?-,;~ ;,- and Tentat~iv~ A"3p of T'ract Noa 6409 to the meeting of June 19, i967, in order to allow time ~• for the deve3,oper-er~gineer to submit revised plans which showed adequate buffering between S ., ~::~_; ~.; - the industrial and sesidential uses~ Commissioner Alired seconded the motione MOTION CARRIEDo ~r `i'; : ~, ~ ,. . 1 ~ .r,; , ;.:;; ~' ry~ 'i~• <: - ' r ;::. REPORTS AND ITEM N0. 4(Continued) RECOMMENDATIONS Reclassification Noo 63-64-62(5) (Continued) Associate Planner Jack Christofferson again reviewed for the Commission the past action on Reclassification No. 63-64-62, in which Condition Noo 10 of Resolution of Tntent Noe 64R-200 required development with 18 dwelling units per net residential acre or buildin4 site; that when plans for development for Lot No. 9, two lots northerly of subject property,were pre- sented to the Commission, they indicated 18 dwelling units on the building site rather than "per net residential acre or buildina site"; that since the Commission recognized the word- ing of the aforementioned resolution was somewhat confusing, they approved said plans, but further recommended to the City Council that Condition Noa 10 be amended to read "18 dwell- ing units per net residential acre", thereby deleting all reference to "or building site"; that the City Council in Resolution Noa 65R-465 amended Condition No. 10 as recommended by the Planning Commission on June 22, 1965; that subsequent to said amendment other parcels have developed or had development plans approved which have complied with the amended coverage; that the petitioner was well aware of the 9overning resolution, and approval of these plans would, therefore, seem to discriminate against other property owners' develop- ment plans which have been limited to 18 dwelling units per net residential acre; and that the Staff, on the basis of the foregoing findings,recommended disapproval of the develop- ment plansa Mr.e Ron Martin, engineer for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that the petitioner was aware that the City Council had amended their resolution to require 18 dwelling units per net residential acre; however, a problem existed beyond zoning since the oxiginai approval and building on Webster Street; no other development was granted any financing because of the Bd,~K financing usually granted for fourplexes; that he was not try- ing to maximize the profits for the petitioner, but 80~ financing was obtainable only if more than 17 units were developed on the property, such as was proposed on Lot Noe 9 (R63•-64-62(5))on which financing had been approved; that financing on a 70;b basis could be obtained if coverage was i7 units or less, but this was considerably more difficult to obtain at today's tightened money market; that the petitioner had acquired the center parcel and planned to build one-story construction with the same architecture so that this would be a blend in of the three developments; that it was his belief that if Webster Street were to be successfully developed, the % covera9e increase must be provided by the City so that these people can finance any developmento „ '~ Chairman Camp noted that under the present coverage only 15 units would be permitted, and ~ ; ~' ~ the petitioner was requesting 18 units; 'whereupon Mr. Martin noted that when the interior ' ` lot was developed no access to Webster would be asked since circulation would be provided ~+ ~ ~ ' with ingress from the north and egress to the south and the density for the center parcel ~ would be 13-15 units of one-story constructione ~ ~ Assistant Development Services Director Robert Mickelson inquired whether the developer I >: ~ planned to develop these as individual lots. i ~ i Mr. Martin noted that the first two (to the north and south) would be individually developed '~' since the loan commitment was based on that requirement; however, the interior lot could be ~,, _ developed with the other two as a single unita ' x~ ~ Mra Mickelson noted if all the lots were combined as one building site, there would be no problem; however, some difficulty would be encountered with the State Map Act if individually developed because the center parcel would have no access to the parking facilities except as _-' easements, and if these easements were not filed prior to the issuance of a building permit, *~ the lots could be sold off later and then the center parcel would have no access. !,.4;c.;r , ,,~~ Commissioner Rowland inquired how this would concern the Commission; whereupon Mro Mickelson stated that if a recorded document were submitted to the City which would insure that the :::~ ~' ' :. +. - - w, ~': R ~?~ ~.;, s 1Z , p n,- a :_.c • . ~ v. ' ___..-_ ~ ~:) ~ f~ , MINU'FES, CITY ?LANNING COMMISSION, June 5, 1967 3480 - REPORTS AND RECONIMENDATIONS ITEM N0. 4 (Continued) center parcel had access to their parking areas through ingress-egress of the two outer parcels, then this easement would go with any sale of the land at a later date and should be a requirement of the City; and that if separate ioans were issued for each parcel - with~second and third trust deeds - the property could go through foreclosure with any number of:changes in ownership; however, if the easement document was filed with the County Recorder, the center parcel would neaer be denied access to the parking facilities, thus a combination of the parcels would be the same as a PRDa However, if'developed as individual'parcel no easements wouid be required. '"1~ ~~a`!~ Mro Martin noted that they would record a document for access to the center parcel if the ;~ Commission so desireda ~, Commissioner Allred offered a motion to approve development plans for Reclassification ~, No. 63-64-62(5) which proposed 18 dwelling units per building site, on the basis that the ~ second lot to the north would be developed similar to the proposed development plans, and ,: ~, '° that the developer indicated that the center parcel would also be developed when obtained, :_'; .~ thus making this a unified developmento Commissioner Mungall seconded the motiona Considerable discussion was then .held by thp Staff and the Commission as to whether or not a new resolution should be passed because the plans did deviate from the density permitted when the City Council amended Condition No. 10 in Resolution Noe 65R-465a City Attorney Joseph Geisler advised the Commission that the Commission could pass a resolution finding and determining that since by resolution the Commission did recommend a change deleting reference to "building site" in Resolution No. 64R-200, but with the basic authority to deviate therefrom for special circumstances, approval of the development could be made if the development were a deviation which is logical and proper under the circumstances. However, he was certain that under the first resolution it was the in:ent of the City Council that it.be 18 units per net residential acre or building site, beca~se in the discussion by the City Council it was pointed out all these lots could be developed with 18 units per building site; however, some of the larger units should be controlled requiring 18 units per net residential acre, and that perhaps this was the original intent of the City Council. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution Noa PC67-134 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to approve development plans submitted for Reclassifica- tion No. 63-64-62(5) which proposed 18 dwelling units per building site,on the basis that the deviation was logical and proper because of px~oposed and approved development plans which would ultimately be a unified three-lot apartment complex, subject to the recorda- tion of a document approved by the City Attorney establishing easement rights acrass the northerly and southerly properties, in order to assure ingress and egress for the center parcel, if developed as a unified development. (See Resolution Book) On xoli call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland, Campa NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbsto ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Mungall of.fered a motion to adjourn the meetinge Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 8:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ANN KREBS, Secretary r Anaheim City Planning Commission e, .T~ .~ ~. > ;.~.1 i,=~ ;;; :r -~~;-~t ;:; ..i:-~ ~+ -' ~ - .~ ~ : . ~ . ,. . .: ..c ., +t. .. . .. ,. ~. ., . . , . . . , . . . . .... .. . .. . . . . ., . I w. , _ , ,;, L :. , ~". ,,:: .. . . , ~.,~,~ ~ . ~ ._ ,_~ ~ ~ tL ' ` ' ~ 0 7 }~ k f .~y~ 4 ~4 ~ i v . t ~ _~ ~, ~ F t f It , ' h ~ ~ k 'i.'r~a . ~ ph k~ ~ z 1 ~T1q~ 1~} .. j 1 ' i ~ "~ Y t ~: 't i . : t ti ` 4 ~ ~ ' ) , ~ ~ ' - ! f . . ~ ~~~t hY y f t~ ' ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ R r d ~ ~~ h 3 ~ t S,~ 1 1 1 F.~ ~ ~ l t ~. 1~ ~f~G ' . .~ ~ ! ~~ . ~ N f ~ r d .~;~ x . ~ ~ r ~'t.> i+ i:.. ~ 1 ~ ~ ~' E ~ ~~ ~ Y. Z !' i . . t I{ r i d ~r,k ~Tc4 .t ~ ~ ~ j Y ~ i:; ix.~y 4 1. ^~ T r,., . ,+.~}, _ t , ~ 4 t ~ T q~ ) { 9~ M YJ '~ Y ~ ~. . y - y~~ * ,F ~ ` t ' ~~ ~ ~ t , t i ' 4 ~ c 1,S ~ ~'. . . . ~ '~ ~ . < . . -. -.. ~. - . ~-r r ~r T i k , ` ~ ~ ~.i; >) ~ ' r ~~ _ ~ : ~: - ~. ~ ~ . ~ 1 , . . .~' ~ ~ . ~.: .. , ~~: ~ ~ . ~ : i ' ,.: ': I . F .~i ... '. .- ~,',.' • .'. ' . ~ . S . - ~ . . . ' . ~ . . ;. 1 f ~ .. . . . . . . '~ . t ~ t . • .. ~ ' ,i . .~V'~ ~ ~ C t ' ~ i i ~ ~ F .. . . - . .~ , ~ - . .. . ... . .. .. ~ , .. I ~ ~~ ~ h ~ ; - _ * .tx F : ~, , `; , J 4 ~~' h r . ~I ~-• { ~ ~~~ ..~ ~J~ . .... . . . .. , ~~,. . .~~ . ~'- ~ . ~ . . . `). ~ #..a . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ . . ' . ~ .. . . ~ ~'~~: . ~ . __ ~ .. . ~ . . . . ~~ .. ~ ~~ .. .. ~ . . . .