Minutes-PC 1967/06/19g ?t ~iYr...; ~T^' ~ ,,y:. ~c•- ...~~r m,~ # ; ~ r a
.i
~ ~
~
J
3
~ ~ ~ .
City Hall
Anaheim, California
June 19, 1967
A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR INEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to
order by Chairman Camp at 2:00 o'clock P.M., a quorum being present.
PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Camp. •
- COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauef,;Herbst (who entered~Cou~cil Chamber
at 2:10 P.M.), Mungall, Rowland.
ABSENT - CAMMISSIONERS: F.arano.
PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Robert Mickel~an
Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompson
Planning Supervisor: Ronald Grudzinski
Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts
City Attorney: Joe Geisler
Office Engineer: Arthur Daw
Associate Planner: Jack Christofferson
Associate Planner: Marvin Krieger
Assistant Planner: Charles Roberts
Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Rowland led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
APPROVAL OF - The Minutes of the meeting of June 5, 1967 were approved as submitted
THE MINUTES on motion by Commissioner Rowland, seconded by Commissioner Gauer,
and MOTION CARRIED.
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. GAR-L0, INCORPORATED, 921 West Beverly
N0. 66-67-3 Boulevard, Montebello, California; H. N. BERGER, 4333 East Liveoak
Avenue, Arcadia, California; AND FAIRFIELD HOMES, INCORPORATED,
CONDITIONAL USE 4333 East Liveoak Avenue, Arcadia, California, Owners; MAURICE KERNS,
PERMIT N0. 861 245 South Spalding Drive, Beverly Hills, California, Agent; property
described as: Portion No. 1- An irregularly shaped parcel of land
VARIANCE N0. 1808 located at the southeast corner of Loara Street and Broadway and having
frontages of approximately 141 feet on Loara Street and approximately
208 feet on Broadway; and Portion No. 2- An irregularly shaped parcel
of land lying so»th and east of Portion No. 1 and ha~~ing frontages of
approximately 495 feet on Loara Street and approxirrNit~aly 860 feet on
Broadway. Praperty presently classified R-A, AGRICULI'URAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: PORTION N0. 1- C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE; AND
• PORTION N0. 2- R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: PORTION N0. 2- PERMIT A CHILD CARE NURSERY.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: PORTION N0. 2- WAIVERS OF ~1) MAXIMUM BUILDING (-IEIGHT9
(2) MAXIMUM DISTANCE FROM A DWELLING UNI1' TO A DEDICATED
STREET, (3) MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES, AND (4)
MAXIMUM DISTANCE FROM A DWELLING UNIT TO A GARAGE.
Subject petitions were continued from the meetings of July 18, August 15, and December 19,
1966, to allow the petitioner time to prepare revis~d plans.
Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed past action on subject petitions, noting the
petitions had been continued from the meetings of July 18, August 15, and December 19, 1966,
and that no revised plans had been submitted; however, a letter had been received from the
agent for the petitioner indicating they would be unable to proceed with the project and
requested termination of all three petitions.
Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to terminate Petitions for Reclassification No. 66-67-3,
Conditional Use Permit No. 861, and Variance No. 1808 a= requasted by the petitioner, due to
the fact that he would be unable to proceed with the project. Commissioner Allred seconded
tF,e mofion. MO?ION CARRIED.
3481
~
~ ~
MINUIES, CITy PLANNING COMMISSION, June 19 1967
-.~:~
~
' 3482 r ;
VARIANCE N0. 1879 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, FLORENCE TAYLOR, 942 Emerald 3ay
Laguna
B ~
,
each, California, Owner; CHARLES TAYLOR, 942 Emerald Bay, Laguna
Beach, California, Agent
'r
ti
;
eques
ng WAIVERS TO PERMIT A SMALL COMMERCIAL
CENTER, AS FOLLOWS: (1) MpXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT WII'HIN 150 FEET
OF A S3NGLE-FAMILY 20NE AND''.
(2) REQUIRED 6-FOOT MASONRY WALL on property described as: An irregulerly shaped pe
land locat
cel
d
f
t
r
e
a
o
.
the ;~outhwest corner of La Palme Avenue and Citron Street and having`frontages'
of>approximately 230 feet on L
P
l
~~
a
a
ma Avenue and approximately 80 feet on Citron Street
Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMN,ERCIAL, ZONE. -
Sub3ect petition was continued from the meeting of May 22, 1967, to allow time for the peti- ~
tioner to submit revised
lans in a
rd
p
cco
ance with suggestions made by the Commissiono
Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed subject petition, the location of subject
property and uses establi
h
d i
~
e
n close proximity, further noti.ng that the revised plans
submitted by the petitioner generally incor
,
porated the changes suggested by the Commission '
at the previous hearing, and that the setback adjacent to th ~
e west property line had been
increased to 20 feet.
Commissioner Herbst entered the Council Chamber at 2:10 P.M.
Mr. Charles Taylor, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that
the prospective tenant of the market had
"
1
agreed to the
on end" development of the market
rather than the 60-foot frontage. Furthermore
in res
o
t ~
.,
,
p
nse
o Commission questioning,
Mr. Taylor noted that he did not anticipate any problem in trash dis
o
th
l
t
k
p
sa
a
e mar
the rear of
et, and if necessary, an additional trash facility could be placed on the east side
of the property; however
if th
C
,
e
ommission desired having all trash storage areas to the .
rear, a few parking spaces would have to b i
e removed for maneuverability of the trash trucks.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. '
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC67-136 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Mun
~ll
t s
~~
g
,
o grant Pe~,ition for Variance No. 187,9,'subject to
conditions, on the basis that the requested w
i
~,
~
a
ver of the 6-foot masonry wall along t'he
west property line is justified-although the property is zoned R-0, th }
e uses established
are a water well, pumps, and water storage by the City, and a chainlink fence already vres
in existence; that th
~
e requested waiver of the 2-for-1 setback along the south property
line was justified on the basis that a grade differ
ti
l
i a
~
en
a
ex
sted, and the developer had
stipulated to screen landscaping along the south property line to shi
ld
e
the residential
uses from the proposed commercial uses. (See Resolution Book)
~
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: ~COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Faranoo
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUSLIC HEARING. HENRY WAGNER AND SOl3THEAS'IERN CALIFORNIA
N0. 66-67-68 _ ASSOCIATION OF SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISTS, 975 South State College Bouleyard,
Anaheim, California, C. MICHAEL, INCORPORATED, 8501 Bolsa Avenue, '
Midway City, California; reyuesting that property descriUed as: Portion y`
No. 1- An 3rregularly shaped parcel of land co,~taining approximately 7.4 acres loceted north
and west af a parcel at the northwest corner of State College Boulevard and Ball Road and
having frontages of approximately 477 feet on Ball Road and approximately 150 feet on State'
College Boulevard, the northerly property line being approximately 353 feet north of the
centerline of Ball Road; and Portion No. 2- An irregularly shaped parcel cf land containing
approximately 37.6 acres and having a frontage on the west side of State ~ollege Boulevard
of approximately 1,96A feet and a maximum depth of approximately 1,2~9 feet,>the-northerly
prnperty line being aWproximately 2,317 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road be reclassi-
fied from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE on_Portion Noe ~ and
R-2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE on Porti_ o_ ^ No, 2, •
Subject petition was continued from the meeting of June 5, 1967, to allow time for the
petitioners to revise plans which provide for separation of the industrial and residential
uses.
I
Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed sub'ect ~
property and uses established in close ~ petition, the location of subject (
noting that the agent for the Proximity, together with the Report to the Commission,
petition be continued to allowptimeiforrreadvertisingetoadevelop aeportion9ofhsubsectect
with R-1 lots, 6,000 square feet in size, and a buffer group of lots for R-3 zoning toProperty
separate the R-1 from the M-1 zoning; however, no plans had been submitted to delineate
~
~ : -W- { q" ."~ ~ mc.~r ~~ S ' c {:
~
~
~
3483
;~
MINUTES•, CIIY PLANNING C^v'n~:!y~~~nN, June 14. 1967
RECLASSIFICATION - these portions of R-1, R-3 and M-1.
N0. 66-67-68
(Continued) Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to continue Petition for Reclassi-
fication No. 66-67-68 to the meeting of July 17, 1967, to allow time
for the petitioners to submit a revised tentative tract indicating the
R-1, 6,000-square foot lots, the filing of a variance to permit the 6,000 square feet, and
th= provision of an R-3 buffer zone between the M-1 and the R-le Commissioner Mungall
seconded the motione MOTION CARRIEDe
RECLASSIFIGATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. HENRY 4YAGNER AND SOUI'HEASTERN CALIFORNIA
N0. 66-67-69 ASSOCIATION UF SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISTS, 975 South State College~Boulevard,
Anaheim, California,,Owners; C. MICHAEL, INCORPORATED, 8.501 Bolsa Avenue,
TENTATIVE MAP OF Midway City, California, Agent; requesting that property described as:
TRACT N0. 6409 Portion No. 1- An irregularly shaped parcel of land containing approxi-
mately 7,4 acres located north and west of a parcel at the northwest
corner of State College Boulevard and Ball Road and having frontages of
approximately 477 feet on Ball Road and approximately 150 feet on State College Boulevard,
the northerly property line being approximately 353 feet north of the centerline of Ball
Road; and Portion No. 2- An irregularly shaped parcel of land containing approximately
37.6 acres and having a frontage on the west side of State Colle9e Boulevaxd of approximately
1,964 feet and a maximum depth of approximately 1,229 feet, the northerly property line being
approximately 2,317 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road be reclassified from the R-A,
AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE for Portion No. 1 and R-2 5000, ONE-
FAMILY ZONE for Portion Noo 2.
Subject petition and tentative tract were continued from the meeting of June 5, 1967, to
allow time for the submission of revised plans as indicated by the Commissiona
Associate Planner Jack Christofferson advised the Commission that a letter had been received
from the agent for the petitioners requesting termination of Reclassification No.•66-67-69
and continuance of Tentative Map of Tract No. 6409 to be heard in conjunction with Reclassi-
fication No. 66-67-68, at which time a revised plan, together with a variance to allow R-1,
6,000 square feet could be considered by the Commission.
A petition signed by 47 property owners was read to the Commission in opposition to the R-2
5000 One-Family Zone proposed.
THE HEARING WAS CIASED.
Commissioner M~ngall offered a motion to terminate Petition for Reclassification No. 66-67-69
as requested by the petitioner. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. NIO.TION CARRIED.
Commissioner Allred offered a motion to continue Tentative Map of Tract No. 6409 to be heard
in conjunction with Reclassification No. 66-67-68 at the meeting of July 17, 1967. Commis-
sioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. ANAI-~IM TRANSPORTATION CENTER, 1571 West Katella
PERMIT N0. 9d9 Avenue, Suite C, Anaheim, California, Lessee; RAMBERG d IAWREY,
2127 North Main Street, Santa Ana, California, Agent; requesting
permission to ESTABLISH A TRANSPORTATION CENTER WITH RELATED OFFICES
IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PROPOSED RESTAURANT WITH ON-SALE LIQUOR on property described as:
An irregularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 300 feet on the
south side of Katella Avenue and having a maximum depth of approximately 500 feet, the
westerly boundary of subject property being approximately 660 feet east of the centerline
of West Street. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed subject petition, the location of subject
property and uses established in close proximity; the Report to the Commission was also
reviewed in complete detail, noting the many traffic problems involved in ingress to and
egress from subject property to Katella Avenue.
Mr. John Martino, architect, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before
the Commission and noted they had met with representatives of the City for the past several
months regarding subject property; however, since the Report to the Commission had just
been received and all its implications had not been fully digested by the arch'itect, a
continuance was requested in order to review these problems with the Staff and submit
revised plans.
The Commission inquired whether or not the plans had been discussed with the Traffic
Engineer, whereupon Mr. Martino stated there were no objections expressed several months
ago when this was presented to the various departments of the City.
a'S: ~ .~~~Y~y'm.,-ti _ -r . ..y f r
~!
Y
{
r,~. -
i' >
~,;;`' '
~
~ f 'C ~ ~ ~W . .
~~
MINUfES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 19, 1967
~
3484
CANDITIONAL USE - The Commission further advised the agent for the petitioner that any
PERMIT N0. 949 drastic revisions of the plan must be submitted by Ju~;z 23, 1967, in
(Continued) order that they could be reviewed by the Interdepartmental Conunittee.
' Mr. Martino noted that the two-week continuance would be adequate
since he felt there was a misunderstanding regarding the development.
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue Petition for Conditional Use Permit No.
949 to the meeting of July 6, 1967, in order to allow time for the submission of revised
plans and to meet with the various departments of the City to resolve flow of traffic and
parkfng problems. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
~
i
y~ ~
F"'`'^b' CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. PETER GIOVANNONI AND FIARIENE SANDERSFELD, c~o
Gr ~~ PERMIT N0. 950 MacMahon, Nelson @ Tilson, 1695 West Crescent Avenue, Suite 560,
~ Anaheim, California, Owners; ROBERT W. MACMAHON, c~o MacMahon,
Nelson 8 Tilson, 1695 West Crescent Avenue, Suite 560, Anaheim,
y California, Agent; requesting permission for ON-SALE BEER AND WINE IN CONJUNCTION WITH
~- A PROPOSED RESTAURANT on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land
~ ; located at the southeast corner of Knott and Orange Avenues and having frontages of
'~'~ approximately 293 feet on Knott Avenue and a
~ Pro ert pproximately 213 feet on Orange Avenue.
p y presently classified C=1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed subject petition, the location of subject
' ~."~ property and uses established in close proximity, and then reviewed the past action on
t V~ subject property, noting that :Conditional' Use Permit No:' 306,. requesting peimis~ioni: ~; ~
~ ~ to establish a restaurant, cocktail lounge and service station on subject property, was
~ ~, granted in 1962 - however, was never consummated; that Conditional Use Permit No. 518 was
~,. .,,,{~*• granted in 1963 to establish a walk-up restaurant on the corner of subject property; and
~ '`^ that Conditional Use Permit Nos.604 and 707 were denied in 1964 and 1965 to permit the
:~ establishment of a restaurant with on-sale beer - however, the kitchen facilities in both
~ ~~ of the establishments proposed under these conditional use permits were minimal. It was
~s ''~ also noted that the property could support a standard retail store within the present
~w~ ~fi.~ parking provisions; however, a restaurant required additional parking - therefore, the
~~ ~k ~~ necessity for waiveruof six parking ..spaces was being requestedo
~C ~ {
~ h~~ Mro Robert MacMahon, the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted
~~~ the major difference between subject petition and the previous petitions denied by the
~ Commission was the fact that the 400-square foot kitchen and storage facility was being
~ T'.~ proposed; that the
proposed operator of the restaurant was present in the Council Chamber
~~ to answer any questions; that the proposed restaurant would be a full dinner type service,
~ and the serving of beer and wine was incidental to the serving of food; furthermore, the
~~ store was located in the corner of a shopping area which was almost completely fiidden from
`~ ~i the street; and that the addition of 400 square feet for kitchen facilities in the rear
,.;~ eliminated some the parking of the shopping center.
•,, ~
Y Mr. MacMahon also noted that the shopping center had excess parking facilities and was
i not comparable to a regional sho
pping center; therefore it aenerated a lower traffic use.
J The Commission noted there was no separation between the
proposed bar and restaurant and
~~ inquired whether this would be screened in conformance with the policy of the Planning
t~ Commission.
` .,:
°~ Mr. MacMahon stated that a divider could be placed; however, he was not desirous of having
u a permanent ceiling to floor separationg if the Commission desired to have this divider
~~ placed in the proposed restaurant.
; £~
.; No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
r F~
~''~ THE HEARING WAS CIASED.
r :,
„~ .
;`n+t 4 Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution Noe PC67-137 and moved for its passage and adoption,
1,,,,~~p~ seconded by Commissioner Allred to
~ grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 950,
` K;~; subject to conditions, and the requirement that a decorative separation be placed between
~,~ the bar and dining facility a minimum of 6 feet in height,to separate the two uses as stipu-
r,,~4 lated by the petitionera (See Resolution Book)
_ ,; ~~
t On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
L ~;
~~
Y, AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst,.Mungall; Rowland, Camp.
_..,~,,.,; NOES: COMMIS$IONERS: None.
~,.;~; ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano.
~
t
~r
Y,... ,. ~... ..~„~.... } , _ ~'.. ~ . .. .. . . ~ .. ...
~ b}+.~j~ ~ ~,,~~~y "" ~'M'~'S._'S`'.~d~~' 'T`~~i ~ ~~? { N ~'i',~YS~l~ "'c rt,y: {yr+..~
!
,5, ~,.~ ,,. ~x~ ~.."x.r ~ ~<,~
~
~../
r ~ ;: :'•' y "C'^„
-4~
; l~
~ ~
MMISSION June 19, 1967 3485
MINUTES~ CI'IY PLANNING ~0 ~
CONDITI4NAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. KENNETH HOLT, 1557 West MablP Street, Anaheim,
PERMIT N0. 951 California, Owner; requesting permission to EXPAND AN EXISTING
PRIVATE SCHOOL AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 6-FOOT FENCE IN THE REQUIRED
FRONT YARD on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of
land having a frontage of approximately 145 feet on the west side of Walnut Street and having
a maximum depth of approximately 150 feet,tHe northerly property line of subject property
being approximately 90 feet south of the extended centerline of Hazelwood Street, and further
described as 555 South Walnut Street. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL,
ZONE.
Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed subject petition, the location of sub]ect
property and uses established in close proximity, further noting that when plans were sub-
mitted to the Commission for the addition of the school, the Commission had determined the
size was too 9reat to approve under the original conditional use permit and directed that
the petitioner submit a new conditional use permit, and under the proposed expansion there
would be an increase of approximately 55 ~'cudents and 6 teachers; adding this to the exist-
ing number of students of 46 would make 1J1 students and 10 teachers - however, the plans
indicated parking for only 9 persons; therefore the waiver of parking would be necessaryo
Furthermore, the petitioner was proposing to construct a 6-foot redwood fence around the
periphery of the property including a portion of the front yard setback,.approicimately-5
feet from said property line,to enclose the front lawn:for a play area, and the plans.
did not indicate any means of providing for the drop-off of children by parents and the
buses.
Mr, Kenneth Holt, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that four
additional classrooms and restroom were proposed along the north property line, which would
reduce the play area in the rear; therefore it was proposed to supplement the play area by
enclosing the front yard, and parking and unioading problems which have occurred in the past
would be resolved under the new plan.
Mr. Holt, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the proposed 6-foot redwood
fence was to carry out the existing theme since a redwood fence already existed along the
west and nor.th property lines; that he was aware that type of fence would require more
maintenance - however, if the Commission did not feel a redwood fence was appropriate for
the front yard, they could construct a chainlink fence with shrubbery as was erected at
the Betey Ross School immediately to the north of subject property.
Mrs. J. Ra Williams, 601 South Walnut Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition
and presented a petition signed by 15 property owners and a letter in opposition to the
proposed expansion of the private school, noting that she lived directly to the south of
the school, and when tHe school was first built, Dr. Roberts,who formerly owned the property,
had met with them and had not'indicated that the school would be for handicapped children;
that her kitchen, patio and living room abutted the pi,y area - however, when Dre Roberts
had presented the plans of the school, the play area had been proposed for the property along
the Betsy Ross School; that debris, bottles and balls were constantly being picked up from
their patio area, and the children climbed on the fence and block wall and presented quite a
problem to her-because of their handicapped condition, there was always a possibility they
would fall into her area; that a:traffic problem existed because the buses parked in the
front of the building on the street to unload the children, and many times the mothers of
the children would use her driveway to unload and pick up the children; that because the
school did not provide for parking for the instructors, the street cleaner had never been
able to clean the street because the cars are parked there at all times; that she was unable
to leave her driveway at 3:15 P.M. because of the heavy traffic of parents picking up their
children, as Well as the children from the Betsy Ross School; that the proposed expansion
would greatly increase the problems just presented by her; that in the event they attempted
to sell their home, it would be difficult because of all the noises the school presented,
since the noise would be unbearable for a person who would have to stay home all day long;
that the Commission should consider the possibility of overloading the faciiity sin~e 100
children on a 145 by 150-foot parcel would be overcrowded because the play area would be
greatly reduced; and that many more people would be present in opposition if it were not
for the fact that a neighbor had passed away and a number of persons who oppose the petition
had.attended the funeral.
Chairman Camp then reviewed the plans with the opposition; however, Mrs. Williame further
contended that the expansion, plus the fact that a 6-foot wall was proposed in the front
yard, would add to the traffic hazards existing aiong the st:eet.
Commissioner Gauer noted that a 6-foot wall in the front yard would give more patio room
for private families, and this was one method of suggesting conversion of homes fronting
on heavily traveled streets to reduce the noise and dirt.
Mrs. Richard Democh, 605 South Walnut Street, appeared in opposition and stated her real
concern was the similarity of hours of operation, since many.•of the parehts•b~'the children
_~ '~~
-. ~,-.,~
,
~ '
c w. e -~"'.r. ~,~T r~ -~r ~~` -,~, . r.--r ro ;, , r, a
~
~
MINUfES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 19, 1967 3486
CONDITIONAL USE - of the Kenwood School picked them up at approximately the same time
PERMIT N0. 951 as the Betsy Ross School was letting out, and the children going to
(Continued) Betsy Ross School had bicycles which added to the traffic hazard;
that at the time the school was originally proposed, if the property
owners in the area had been aware this was a mentally retarded school,
there would have been considerable opposition, but a statement was made that it was similar
to the Betsy Ross School, and she questioned the desirability of having mentally retarded
children adjacent to the public school.
Mr. Russell Heller, 620 South Walnut Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition
and stated they were opposed to the expansion since this would greatly increase the traffic,
and a traffic hazard already existed approaching the crosswalk from the public school and
playground area - it was difficult to see the children using the crosswalk because of the
number of cars parked in front of the existing private school; that instead of expanding
the school, they should be required to provide an off-street loading and unloading facility
in the form of a circular drive, and consideration should be given to the safety of both
the private school and the public school; that the existing wooden structure was rather
old and presently had 75 children, and he couldn't imagine it being perm3.tted for many more
without creating some problem in both parking and play facilities; that the neighbors were
just as concerned abo~at the handicapped children as other children, and if the proposed
expansion were permitted, this would reduce the playground area for these handicapped
children as well as increase the traffic problem on an already busy street, since this
was the only street available to service the area between Manchester Avenue and Katella
Avenue.
A letter of opposition from 0. and I. Rickertsen, 616 South Walnut Street, was read to the
Com;~ission which indicated the traffic hazard because of parked cars in front of the school;
the lovi trees in the parkway which made it difficult to see children entering the crosswalk;
the possibility that the old, wooden-frame structure would be a fire hazard to the retarded
children because it would be more difficult to get them out in the event of a fire; and
that the petitioner should be required to construct a circular drive on his property to
take care of the unloading of the children in safety.
Mr. Holt, in rebuttal, stated there were only 47 students, not 75; that at the time they
were granted the permit for the school, the Fire Department approved the building, and fire
drills were held on a regular basis, which met the Fire Department's requirements; that the
Kenwood School was not built as an extension of the Fairmont Private School; that the problem
of loading and unloading in front was recognized, as well as the fact that the school hours
were the.same as the public school; that the existing slat-type fence was in need of repair
because of the children from the public school damaging it; that the proposed fence would be
constructed at the same setback as that at the Betsy Ross School; that a crossing guard was
on duty when the children were let out of school, and the "no parking" area separated for
some distance the private school from the crossing area; that if subject petition were
approved, the sand box would be relocated since it was proposed to have the driveway and
parking area at the present location of the play area; and that in his estimation, the
children at the school had considerably more supervision than any public school playground
area, and the children were educable students and no problem children were at this school.
The Commission inquired whether or not the State required a given amount of outdoor play
area per student, whereupon Mr. Holt stated that he did not know what the requirement was;
however, the school fell under the jurisdiction of the Superintendent of Schools, and they
practiced a staggered recess program at Kenwood School rather than letting all the children
out at one time, and lunch period might also be staggered. Furthermore, he was not aware
that Dr. Roberts had indicated where the play area would be located, and when the previous
petition was approved, the play area was proposed in the general rear section of the lot.
Mrs. Williams then stated she would inquire of Mrs. Roberts whether or not Dr. Robert. had
indicated this was a part of Fairmont School, and that the play area would be adjacent to
the Betsy Ross School.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
btr. Christofferson then presented a slide which showed an alternative to a masonry wall, ;
as indicated in the Bank of America parking lot.
Discuesion was held by the Commission and it was their opinion that to project an additional
55 students for the area would com~~etely overload a small parcel of land; that trips had
been made on Walnut Street during the time the classes were let out, and there were a con-
siderable number of children on the street; and that calculations indicated that if 100
students were projected for subject property, this would mean a maximum of 200 square feet
per student for parking, play, and classroom area altogether.
~
,y=~a~ ..;r~ '~.g*Z. ^
~< ,.
~
V
:'-~:~';"
4:c.::='~ :'~.
.? .. i
~~:;;,.
~'!
MINUL'ES~ CITY PLANNIISi CQMMISSION, June 19, 1967
3487
:~. S~
~
"'__." .. i31~P
, .`
~
,.
GONDITIONAL USE - Cornmissioner Herbst offefied Resolution No. PC67-138 and moved for its
PERMIT N0. 951 passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to deny Petition
(Continued for Conditional Use Permit. No. 951, on the basis that the size of the
property was inadequate to provide for proper use of the property for
children since only 200 square fe~t was px•oposed for each student,
including parking, classroom and play area; that the propcse~.i use would increase traffic
hazards for the adjoini.ng public school. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resoluti~~n was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano.
VARIANCE N0. i889 - PUBLIC HEARING. aTTO REICHERT, 637 South Hacienda Street, Anaheim,
;' California, Owner; PYRAMID CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, 10091 Flanner Avenue,
~?`' Garden ~rove, California, Agent; requesting permission to EXPAND AN
EXISTING RESIDENCE, WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK on property described as:
, 1, A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 60 feet on the
west side of Hacienda Street and having a maximum depth of approximately 101 feet, the
'~ northerly boundary of sub,ject property being approximately 265 feet south of the center-
~ line of Random Drive, and further described as 637 South Hacienda Street. Pro~erty presently
!„-
~.,, classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
Y ' Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed sub ect
~ j petition, the location of subject
property and the uses established in close proximity.
~ ~ Mr. Harold Akerl.ow, re resentin the a ent for the
P 9 9 petitioner, appeared before the Co-•mission
~ ,{ and stated that the new addition was so designed as to assure the privacy of the adjoining
r. ;; neighbors; no windows were proposed for the north and west sides of the two-story addition,
-~ and the windows would be directed toward the street.
d ;'i
~~`"? Mrs. Robert Schell, 636 Broadview, appeared before the Commission in o
r ~: Pposition and stated
that the lots were entirely too small for two-story construction; that only 22 feet existed
~ ;~ from her home to the fence; that although the petitioner had a pool in the rear yard, they
~ 1~ were never noisy - however this might change if a two-story rumpus room were permitted, and
i~;~ the noise would increase; that the view through her livingroom windows which were from the
" :'~ floor to the ceiling would face•.this:'tivo-story construction;'and that granting•subject -
_ petition would set a precedent for similar requests of the other small lots in the area.
1 Mrs. Edward Ross, 632 Broadview, appeared before the Commission in opposition and noted
~~ that they also had a pool, and the sun rarely reached the pool area in the afternoon, and
~. ~! never during the wirter; that although the petitioner states no windows were going to be
'~. constructed adjacent to the west and north, if a new owner purchased the property, these
•;: windows would be encroaching onto the privacy of the single-family homes in the area~.
Mr. Akerlow, in rebuttal, stated that the expansion of the home could be done within the
requirements of the Code; however, for compatibili:y with the adjoining properties and
~ subject property, the proposed plan was-developed, and two-story construction was permitted
in the R-1 Zone.
:~
~'; THE HEARING WAS CIASED.
_ Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC67-134 and moved for its passage and adoption,
~~ seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1889, subject to condi-
7_,, tions, on the basis that the petitioner proposed construction with no windows overlooking
the properties to the west and north; that the petitioner was proposing only a 30-inch
encroachment into the required rear yard; anc that two-story construction could be accom-
~; plished if said 30 inches were deleted from the plans. (See Resolution Book)
~ t: On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
~ ~ ~;
~ ~~: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: CAMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano.
. . r.
~`~~
~ r; r
J
~tl 5: G .1 ~Y yT + 4 ~s 4
~
t t n I Z!. .Pl~
+1 F
-~/ J
:( a~` r ~
'.
~~..~
^ •
~ ' •~ U
.~ ~ \
~ ~
.
I_ MINUIES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 19, 1967 3488
GENERAL PLAN - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY TI-lE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East
- AMENDb1ENT N0. 95 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, to review and reanalyze the
land use policy for the westerly portion of the area bounded by
Euclid Street on the west, Orangewood Avenue on the north, Ninth
Street on the east, and the Anaheim city boundary on the south
to determine whether there has been a substantial change in the
'~ character of the area since the General Plan was adopted.
Assistant Planner Charles Roberts reviewed General Plan Amendment No. 95, as follows:
"7he purpose of General Plan Amendment Noe 95 has been to review and reanalyze the
statement of land use policy for the westerly portion of the area bounded by Euclid
Street, Orangewood Avenue, Ninth Street and the Anaheim city boundary to determine
whether there have been substantial changes in the character of the area since the
General Plan was adopted.
The major question considered throughout this review has been "Are low-medium
or medium density residential land uses now appropriate for a portion of the
study area7"
In considering the proposed General Plan Amendment, the Planning Commission
may wish to either reaffirm the existing land use objectives for this area
or amend the policy statement to reflect the most appropriate land use develop-
ment.
FINDINGS:
(1) The General Plan presently designates low density residential land uses
for the study area and most of the adjacent acreage, the majority of
which is in the City of Garden Grove.
(2) Land uses existing within the study area consist primarily of low density
residential subdivisions and single-family homes on large R-A parcels.
Excep~ions to these uses include:
a. Two small multiple-family developments approximately in the middle
of the study area;
b. An automobile service station at the southeast corner of Orangewood
Avenue and Euclid Street; and
c. Approximately 13.5 acres of undeveloped land to the east and south
of the service station.
(3) Land uses surrounding the study area consist primarily of low density
single-family subdivisions with a junior high school at the northwest
corner of Orangewood Avenue and Euclid Street. A commercial shopping
center has been approved at the northeast corner of Orangewood Avenue
and Euclid Street and the service station on that si.te has already been
constructed, but no further development of the shopping center has occurred.
(4) In April 1966, a request for commercial zoning at the northeast corner
of Orangewood Avenue and Euclid Street prompted a General Plan Amendment
study for that general area. The General Plan alternative that was
presented to the Planning Commission reflected commercial professional
office uses for the area. The Planning Commission approved the alternative,
but when the City Council considered the item, that body expressed the
feeling that the existing symbology adequately represented the desired -
land use character for the area. The City Council disapproved the
proposed amendment.
(5) Although there are two very small multiple-family developments within the
study area, there is no apparent indication of a trend toward higher
density residential uses.
ALTERNATIVES:
When considering the question of whether higher density residential land uses
are now appropriate for a portion of the study area, attention should be given
to two possible alternatives.
~:
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLpNNING ~p1,yHIgSION, June 19, 1967
GENERAL pLpN qMENDMENT N0, 95 (Continued)
t ,Y^r k
}
~
_._. ___,.._.:\
~
3489
A• Exhibit "A" depicts medium density residential for the western portion of
the study area. If this alternative reflects the desired development
for the area, a maximum of 36 dwelling units would be permitted on each
net residen~tial acre.
B. Exhibit "B" depicts low-medium densit~r residential for the same area
described in Exhibit "A"', q maximum of 18 dwelling units per net
residential acre would be permitted by this alternative.
TMPLICATIONS ON ELEMENTS OF THE GENER,4L PLAN:
~~
~'"~; In the event that the Planning Commission deter.mines that the area would now
Y~.
~ q,, be more appropriate for multiple-family resiclential densities, the demand
~~ ^ upon educational facilities in the area would decrease, and parkland needs
~ would increase by .2g to .75 of an acre.
;,
,';7 CONCLUSION:
E'
~ With the absence of a definite indication of a trend toward multiple-family
'` densities ar a demand for more concentrated housing, it would seem that the
` ' General Plan presently reflects the most a
, ppropriate land uses for the area."
a Stanley Bell, 2123 Della Lane, appeared before the Commission and inquired why considera-
x,,~~, tion was being given to the land use chan e since development in the area to the north,
f" ~, south east and west was 9
~ ,;. ' primarily single-family residential in character with the excep-
i y,~
tion of a service station at the southeast corner of Euclid Stxeet:and Orangewood.Avenue.
~~,~ Mr. Roberts explained that a General Plan Amendment consideration was necessary whenever
~ ; a reclassification:petition was presented to the Commission, which was the next item.ot~
'"~ the agenda, and the 2oning Ordinance only acted as a tool to im 1
p ement the General Plan;
~, ~ therefore, the Commission must review the area and determine in their own opiaion whether
~~ }wj i the area has changed sufficiently to warrant an amendment to the General Plan.
i~~~ '~ ~ The Commission further noted that the General Plan Amendment
~` 1~ 3ust a consideration of the chan e of s mbolo was'not.a.zoning change -
p
.~ ~I Plan was not a precise plan of development, and no zoningnwasltolbe~consideredGatethis
~ ~,,_ time.
r ,~ Mr: Roberts further noted that the exhibits''s mbolo
~,z~ however,,this is reflected to show a general location and a
Y 9y was confined to 10 to 13 acres;
~~~ land uses of the City, general description of the
~ ~;
, ~~ THE HEARING WpS CIASED.
<~
~~ Discussion was held by the Commission, it being noted that other t
at the southeast corner of Euclid Street and Orangewood_Av~nue, nohotherslandcusesahadntaken
, ~
place to warrant consideration of multiple-family development for the area under consideration.
~` Commissioner Mungall offerect Resolution No. PC67-140 and moved for its
No. 95 be disa , passage and adoption,
~ seconded by Commissioner Gau~r, to recommend to the City Council that General Plan pmendment
~,~, pproved on tne ~asis that no land use change had taken place to warrant
~ consideration for heavie_• density uses of the; ro ert in the
'~ (See Resolution Bookj p P Y
£: general location indicated.
3
r-.R On roll call the fore oin resolution was
9 g passed by the following vote:
t~' AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowla
~,~;~.,"~~; NOES: ~MMISSIONERS: None. ~ nd, Camp.
'~ ~r, AHSENT: COA~MISSIONERS: Farano.
~^`¢ w ~" . yP~ ~rr-" . *S ~"~,- "J ! lsr. x..: k.~°~°,~,,,~ rjwr ~'; ~ x 1`~ "t
v ~7j~
~o-a, ~ -.~ ~ . . _....._.
Jy " I~ ..) . ~ ~.
~ f ~l
~
~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CONN7ISSION, June 19, 1967 3490
a.-ra
~r RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. JOHN A. EAKIN, 2100 $outh Euclid Street, Anaheim,
~,,,,.,,. N0. 66-67-73 California, Owner; WILLIAM KRUEGER, 14482 Beach Boulevard, Suite W,
~~`` Westminster, California, Agent; requesting that property described
~"' TENTATIVE MAP OF. as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land containin a
{' TRACT N0. 6392 9 pproximately
~:,;~:, 8.5 acres located south and east of the southeast corner of Euclid
~'~ Street and Orangewood Avenue and havin fronta es of a
~, 9 9 pproximately
~x,s~_,; 457 feet on Orangewood Avenue and approximately 465 feet on Euclid
? Street, the easterly property line being approximately 660 feet east
~-;':_:' of the centerline of Euclid Street, be reclassified from the R-A,
~:~T.,~:.:..,_
k`~~~ AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-3, MULTIPLc-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE,
'?'- - to establish a multiple-family residential tract.
~ ~~'~~~
TENTAZ'IVE.TRACT: DEVEIAPER: WILLIAM J. KRUEGHR, 14482::.Beach Boulevard, Suite W,
;~' '~' Westminster, California. ENGINEER: Raab and Boyer Enoineering
~~ Company, 14482 Beach Boulevard, Suite T, Westminster, California.
'~`~° Subject tract, located east and south of the southeast corner of
.~ Orangewood Avenue and Euclid Street, containing approximately 8.77
~~ acres, is proposed for subdivision into 25 R-3 Zoned lots.
h ,`; Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed subject petitions, the uses established
_ in close proximity, and the location of subject property. The Report to the Commission
relative to land use evaluetion was reviewed, noting that the proposed reclassification
,:~; posed some extremely critical land use implications if subject petitionswere approved;
~ that any development for single-family use of the adjoining 4.7Z-acre parcel would be
--`~ unlikely even though Fostoria Street stubbed into the property.under the expectation that
~ ' the pioperty would be developed for single-family residential homes as depicted on the
'. ~~ General Plan; that single-family residential development had been encouraged in the area,
~ , and the owners of the properties in that area based their purchases in reliance in part
~~,y. _~~ upon the integrity of the low density designation as indicated on the General Plan; that
~ past action of the City Council indicated that service stations did not necessaril•y destroy
:.. 'k the single-family residential integrity of an area - therefore it would appear service
~ '` stations would not serve as a valid reason for ."buffer zoning" the R-1 homes to the east,
~`,Y,.$ and this was based on the fact that when commercial zoning was approved on the northeast
~ corner of Orangewood Avenue and Euclid Street, a General Plan Amendment had been proposed
~, ; indicating commercial-professional land use for the east side of Euclid Street, and this
, t, was denied by the City Council with the statement that the existing low density residential
~,: symbology was still appropriate for the area.
~~
k Mr. Harry Knisely, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission
' and stated that since the Commission had recommended denial of General Plan Amendment No. 95,
it was assumed that any statements he made regarding subject petition would be superfluous.
~ Mr. Don Eyer, 2080 Lida Lane, appeared before the Commission in opposition, noting that
~;' Orangewood Avenue was residential on the north; that these homes were valued in excess of
~ 540,000, making this a desirable location for residential uses; that multiple-family develop-
!: ment, would increase the amount of traffic in the area, whereas the service station that was
approved and developed did not create the same amount of traffic as would multiple-family
~, development; that residents:of the area had opposed the shopping center - however it was
~ granted by the City, but a shopping center had certain hours of operation and usually was
_;.-,.~~ closed during the late evening hours, whereas apartments would have a flow of traffic on a
:'~ 24-hour basis; and that he had checked the amount of traffic; in R-3 developments, noting
~ that within a quarter of a mile area of R-3 development he t~ad counted 76 cars, and within
e,;~ an eighth of a mile, 43 cars - this was indicative of the amount of heavy traffic which
~• would be injected into this single-family residential area.
c -~ c:
.j~
. Mrs. William Elliott, 2142 Della Lane, appeared in opposition, stating she was an owner of
two apartment houses on Hampstead and Hampton; that it was impossible to.force the tenants
;,:~,.~.<<;~ to park in the garages even though they were provided; that the children were very destruc-
r tive in the apartment houses she owned; and that in her opinion, the area in which it was
~ { proposed would be detrimental to the high quality homes ranging in price from $40,000 to
,;,~:~;.,t $75,000.
~",.
;
Mrs. Robert Aler,ander, 1658 Ord Way, appeared in opposition, stating that the area was well
established with high quality homes, and the trensient character of many apartment develop-
ments brou~ht in children into the school which created considerable problems; furthermore,
she did not.want a continuation of the parking problem the City of Garden Grove had-relative
to cars and trucks from apartment developments parking in the residential area.
Mrs.William A. Grant, 671 Ord Way, appeared in opposition, stating he felt the approval of
apartments in the area would be detrimental to the integrity of the single-family residen-
tial uses established, and when she purchased her home, she was informed the Mormon Church
was proposing to bui.ld a church on a portion of the 4.77-acre parcel adjoinin9 her property,
and that she was of the opinion that a higher use could be projected for the property, other ~
than apartments. }.
:d'`; .
_. i . , ~ .. ~ ..
y.> . a ~ : ~~
.,`~ • r
~
~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNIN;'a ~OMMISSION, June 19, 1967
V •
3A91
RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Knisely, in rebuttal, noted that Mr. Eyer resided several blocks
N0. 66-67-73 away from subject property; that there was always an increase in
traffic along major arterial streets, such as Orangewood Avenue and
TENTATIVE.~~' G~ ~Uclid Street, and when Orangewood Avenue was widened and extended
TRACT NO,~~_,;~~~ .~};,xy,,~ the freeway, this increase in traffic would be further noted;
(Contire~~3~ ~~~•i: it seemed incongruous that someone would say a service station-
~~z ~~ri~g area would not have as high traffic as apar~ment development;
~i:~~-: !'~al~iple-family development could be high quality, just as single-
family ho,~r~i« ~~~ wf~.'ald nat be considered a."dirty word"; that at r,ne time when the influx
of populati~.i~. ~;:~.~o intense into the City, many apartment buildings were constructed in a
"jerry-built" style - however, thi;„ has changed considerably, and ~the proposed developer of
the apartments was considered one of the best qualified, having received a number of awards
for his construction; that no waivers were being requested - therefore they would comply
with Code requirements; that'the property to the south was owned by the Mormom Church and
they already had received permission to construct a church; that a petition had been filed
indicating 20 persons were in favor of the proposed development, and these persons would
be basically affected by t!~e multiple-family development; that he had lived in Pasadena
during the past year, and one of the finest residential streets in Pasadena was Orange
Grove Avenue which had homes valued up to 51.5 million, and apartments were developed
across the street from these very expensive homes; and further noted that the majority of
the people expressin9 opposition were not contiguous to the subject property - therefore
he felt 4heir opposition was not warranted.
Mr. Bell again appeared before the Commission and noted he was one of the people who owned
property contiguous to subject property, and that properties contiguous to subject property
and to the north on Orangewood Avenue and to the west on Euclid Street were all de~veloped
for single-family residential i;~x. and if subject petition were approved, this would be
contrary to the Commission's ac,.on taken on the General Plan Amendment.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC67-141 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Aeclas-
sification No. 66-67-73 be disapproved on the basis that no land use change had taken place
to warrant projection of multiple-family r~esidential uses in an area•primarily developed far
sin9le-family residential use; that subjec!t property was developable:for single-family resi-
dential subdivision development; and approval of subject petition would set a precedent for
all undeveloped'parcels in close proximity. (See Resolution Book.) .
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: GOMMISSIONERS: Farano.
Commissioner Allred offered a motion to deny Tentative f~ap of Tract No. 6392. Commissioner
Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Commissioner Rowland left the Council Chamber at 3:55 P.M.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. G; BARTON 1-~ULER, 220 West Cypress Street, Anaheim,
N0. 66-67-75 California, Owner; CARL E. NELSON, 1000 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim,
California, Agent; property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel
VARIANCE N0. 1890 of land containing approximately 2.32 acres, located on the north side
of La Palma Avenue and having a frontage of approximately 428 feet and a
depth of approximately 240 feet, the easterly property line being approxi-
mately 845 feet east of the centerline of Euclid Street. Property presently classified
R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
P.EQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-0, CAMMERCIAL OFFICE, ZONE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MEDICAL OFFICE FACILITY, WITH
WAIVERS OF (1) OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS, (2) BUILDING
HEIGHT AND SETBACK, A;~D (3) REQUIRED NUMBER OF REFUSE STORAGE
AREAS.
c ~._, ~~
_ ~~
`~, ~;t
_:y
Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed subject petitions, the location of subject
property and uses established in close proximity; the various waivers requested and the
detailed parking studied submitted by the petitioner as set forth in the Report to the
Commission were also reviewed, as well as the fact that the Staff had included the penthouse
`~ , ~ki".r ~ ; z~'f'~"~.4',a ~an..'~'w,F+A~. .F.; '3~ °s%. .,N,,,,.s~r'./"'t~ ;~ { ,'. ari ~.;: ,, i ,~
~
t~~
t ^ ~: ,u~ ~3
~~
~
'~v~~ ~
~ _.'. -
~
:, . \ , ~'I
r
~
v I : . ~
~,:~
a~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
June 19
1967
V.:' ,
,
3492
~'
``~
RECLASSIFICATION - in computing the height of the building which had increased the height
N0 Z
Y
~
` . 66-67-75 of the structure erroneously - however, there still was a technical
~' waiver of the height from the R-A parcels. '~
VARIANCE N0. 1890 a
~~ •
r
°
' ' (Continued) Dre Kenneth Heuler, 906 West Pioneer Drive~, one of the petitioners, r
~
~ appeared before the Commission and noted that• the principal problem
' ,
~~~'
`~' revolved around the waivers of the computation of parking and the
trash storage areas - however
the stud
made o
i
i ;
~ ,
y
n a s
m
lar t
ype of structure in the City
of Orange indicated the number of trash storage areas and parking proposed would be adequate
'^
,~
`~a'` - ,
and that the basic reason why one-story medical office services gelae~ated more parking than
multi-story medical office buildin
s was du
t ~~'
J
~T ~
~ g
e
o the nature of the types of services offered
and the variable hours each physician maintained '~•~
?'~;t:;
_.
~ ~ . .
'
~ Dr, Heuler also noted that the plan inadvertentl omitted th,e
Y ?~ landscaping in the parking
x area; however this would be provided in accordance with Code requirements.
~ Mrs. Barbara Faurot, 1137 North Crown Street, appeared in opposition and presented a petition
signed b
62
ersons
~,
r y
p
opposed to waivers of the required parking and trash storage areas,
noting that the parking stud
on th
di
`' ;: y
e me
cal center in Orange was based on the fact that not
all~ttie suites were rented and it had not met it
f
ll
'~
~ s
u
ad'acent to sub'ect potential; that the property owners
J ] property felt that all the parking by nurses and other office help would
be along the residential tract to the north and east, and no logical explanation was made as
t
th
~ o
e reason for waiver of the trash storage areas.
~ ; Mrs. J. W. Hockensmith, 1409 West La Palma Avenue, appeared in opposition to waiver of the
~ `; parking requirements, noting that although adjoining commercial uses were required to provide T,J
~ ~ adequate parking, due to di:ficulty in reaching the parking areas, the people parked on the
~ <I streets, and many times guests to her home~were unable to park in front or near her home,
~ ,~' especially when large funerals were in progress at the mortuary.
5,~ ,~
~
4 „ Mrs. Harold Abrahamson, 1419 West La Palma Avenue, appeared in opposition, noting that she
,~ was also opposed to waiver of the parking, and that the adjoining commercial uses had a
~,~ j: difficult time in gaining access to their parking lots which could become a hazard in the
~ event of a fire.
~~ ,5 Mr..Richard Holland, 1414 Glen Drive a ~
, ppeared in opposition, noting that G1en Drive dead- ~
~~ ~ ended into a portion of subject property and inquired whether or not Glen Drive would be
'~fi,~ ~, extended through subject property to accommodate the medical facility; thaL he was opposed
~ .r to the extension of Glen Drive since it wculd permit commercial u~es to h~ve direct access ~
f,~ through the residential development to the eas+.; and that he also was opposed to the requested
„ www~~~~~ waiver to reduce parking requirements by one-half.
~Y ]]
~~
x~ Discussion was held by the Commission regarding the parkin stud
~~ and then suggested that the g Y presented by the petitioner,
petitioner review this parking study with the neighbors opposing
the waiver of the parking requirements.
; The Commission further noted that the Staff contact other cities having multi-storied medical
, d office buildings to determine whether or not parking for these differed from one-story
development.
~ ;;
' ~ Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to continue Petitions for Reclassification No. 66-67-75
~ and Variance No. 1890 to the meetin9 of July 6, 1967, to allow time for the petitioner to
'~ review the parking study plan with the opposition, and further, for the Staff to further
+4 ; study the multi-story parking requirements as they pertained to other.,cities having similar
~ ; types of buildings. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East
N0. 66-6a-74 Linco3.n Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposing to classify property
described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land containing approxi-
mately 1.74 acres and having frontages of approximately 320 feet on the
east side of the north-south portion of Orchard Drive and approximately 265 feet on the north
side of'the east-west portion of Orchard Drive, known as the Esperanza School Annexation,
from the A1 (County zoning) to tne R-A, AGRICULI'URAL, ZONE in order to establish subject
property in its most appropriate classification.
Commissioner Rowland entered the Council Chamber at 4:25 P.M.
Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed subject petition, noting that the most
appropriate zoning was proposed for the property known as the Esperanza School Annexation
which was finalized May 5, 1967..
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THE HEARING WAS CIASED.
wr~'~t J ~~~` ` , r. f ; ~ ae7~`eec. 4 ~ ~7-r z^` x ti Mr'M`~+k?g,~ ~-S l ~l~N~* ~;; ~K~ ~ ~ ,w~'p 7 P~e' ~ ~ ~'• .~
A~ i+~ 4~'
. ~ . . . . . ~ . . . '_- ~\ _~'~
. . . ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~.~ 4~
MINUTES,.CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 19, 1967 3493 "~
RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Gauer left ttie Council Chamber at 4:27 P.M. ~
N0. 66-67-74 ;~
(Continued) Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC67-142 and moved for its "k'
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recommend ~,
to the City Council that Petition for Reclassifica~ion No. 66-67-74 '~'
-be approved unconditionally. (See Resolution Book) ~
~~
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: `'~y~
. ~ ~ ~ . ~ , ~ . :~ t,
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. i,
NOES: COMMISSIONERSe None.~ y;~
ABSENT:~ COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer. ~r
REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1
RECOMMENDATIONS Consideration of the Victor Gruen Associates Report on the
Center City Redevelopment Plan - and recommendations.
Planning Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski reviewed for the Commission the background and results
of the work session held by the Commission on May 15, 1967, regarding the Center City
Redevelopment Plan, as depicted in the memo to the Commission dated June 19, 1967, which
indicated that the Commission had two basic questions: 1) Why should the City redevelop?
2) Is the Center City Plan economically feasible?
Updated figures were also reviewed by Mr. Grudzinski, as requested by the Commission,
illustrating with charts the decrease in taxable retail sales for the Central Business
District, the Anaheim Shopping Center, Discount Houses and remaining city-wide retail
commercial operatione; property sales in the northeast quadrant; comparative costs for
the northeast quadrant; and assessed values for 1967 which included 117 parcels within
the Core Area.
The Commission discussed at length the following summarized topics with the Staff:
la Length of time and amount of return it would take for the City to realize
a profitable return through taxes to cover the expenditures of the open spaces
which were:proposed in the Plan.
2. Present rate of deterioration of the Core Area.
3. Whether or not the 99.4~ of the taxpayers were willing to support redevelop-
ment of the Core Area, since this would be subsidizing private property.
4. Taxation for capital improvements attached to the Plan.
5o Social problem attached to the deterioration of the Core Area, and its
potential increase if the "Plan" were not adopted, together with the cost
for remedying these social problemso
6. If the City initiated the "Plan", it would be necessary to have massive
economic aid to subsidize, through public or private funds; otherwise it
would never become a reality.
7. A detailed study should be made to determine the exact method for accomplish-
ing the goals of the "Plan".
8. Adoption of the "Plan" would commit the City to capital improvement funds
for the Core Area.
9. All studies made to date have not indicated what the clear cost vs. benefit
would bee
10. Deterioration and problems other cities have had in urban renewal plans,
and the requirements now being made by the Federal Government which indicate
the need for loan in grant or funding.
11. The fact that the homes and apertment~buildings proposed to be removed in
the northeast quadrant did not conform with the Federal Government require-
ment (proof) that they were unfit for human habitation, since they were
still livable, although some might not be as well maintained as others.
12. Possibility that the location and construction of a new City Hall might
serve as a catalyst for Core Area redevelopment.
7. . ~ - ~ ~ ~ . . .
~ „ . ~ . .. . ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Jun~ 19, 1967
REPORTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM NOe 1 (Continued)
~-~~ :: . ,~r t w./i;~ t,::x
s
.~
3494
13. Feasibility and success of the "Plan" if no Federal funds were proposed.
14. Consideration of the suggestions made by the Staff, which were pertinent
to the welfare of the City as a whole, whether or not the "Plan" was adopted.
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to recommend to the Redevelopment Agency (City Council)
that the Center City Redevelopment Plan be recognized as a sound physical plan and a useful
tool and guide for future development. However, due to the present indicated lack of =
economic feasibility the Agency may wish to consider the following points before deciding
a course of action:
1. That consideration should be given to the social problems which may exist,
and the potential increase in social problems if the City allows the center
city area to continue deterioration, since the cost of remedying these social
problems (increase in crime, etc.) could far exceed expending money for
redevelopment of the area under consideration.
2a That if the City proposes to initiate the "Plan", the Commission feels that
massive economic assistance to subsidize this, either i:hrough public or
private funds, would be necessary to implement and carry out the "Plan";
otherwise, it will never become a reality, since private individual redevel-
opment could never be accomplished through;private financing on a piecemeal
basis when considering the continually increasing property values of the
resideiitial segments of center city,
3. That until existing vacant properties throughout the remainder of the city
were absorbed by development to a point which would affect city-wide, and
particularly center city property values, it was questionable how attractive
private redevelopment of downtown ;, ,:.:erties would be.
4. That if the City adopts the "Plan" as a policy, the City will be committing
themselves not•only to normal c:pital improvements for this area, but in
addition, capital improvements 7ecessary as a catalyst to generate redevelop-
ment of this areae
5. That regardless of the fact that the redevelopment program may be or may not
be adopted, the following should be considered necessary, and should be •
incorporated into the Anaheim General Plan, since the Commission feels these
segments are related to the City as a whole:
a. West Street interchange with the Santa Ana Freeway;
b. West Street realignment between Ball Road and the Santa Ana Freeway;
c. Improvement of the Lincoln Avenue interchange with the Santa Ana Freeway;
d. Other normal capital improvement which will keep public facilities in
line with the present and projected demands of the center city; and
e. Enforcement of building codes, etco, to improve the physical nature of
the Core Area.
Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIEDo
ITEM I40. 2
Circulation Element of the General Plan
Associate Planner Marvin Krifger presented Exhibits "A" and "B" pertaining to the Highway
Rights-of-Way Circulation Element of the General Plan and the List of Exceptions, noting
that the base maps were completely new and included the area covered by the Hill and Canyon
General Plan; with the exception of the addition of special symbology designating hillside
arterial streets, the maps were merely en updated version of the Planniny Commission and
City Council actions amending the Circulation Elements of the Anaheim and Hill and Canyon
General Plans; and that it was the intent of the Development Services Department to update
them every three monthso
Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that Exhibits "A"
and "B", incorporating the Circulation Element, Arterial Streets and Highways and Exhibit
"B", Circulai:ion Element,.Highway Rights-of-Way, and Exhibit "C", List of Exceptions to
the Highway Rights-of-Way Map 'shall be.adopted on the basis that the Commission and City
Council by resolution had amended the Circulation Element, and the three exhibits reflected
these changes. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
• ``~
~ ~ (,,~
MINUTES, CIIY...PLANNING COMMISSION, June 19, 1967 3495
REPORTS AND - ITEM NOe 3
RECOMMENDATIONS Orange County Tentative Map of T'ract No. 64'L2 - Subject tract,
- located in tha triangular area bounded by Imperial Highway,
Buena Vista Avenue, and Lakeview Street in the Yorba Linda area,
having County Zoning of A-P., R-1 and 100 EA-15000, containing
approximately 18 acres, is proposed for subdi.vision into 61
single-family lots exceeding 7200 square feet.
Associate Planner.Jack Christofferson reviewed Orenge County Tentative Map of Tract
Noe 6422, noting that subject property was located in the triengular area bounded by
Zmperial Highway, Buena Vista Avenue, and Lakeview $treet in the Yorba Linda area; that
the existing County Zoning was A-R, R-1 and 100 EA-15000, containing approximately 18
acres, and was proposed £or subdivision into 61 single-family residential zoned lots;
however, the propoaed lots showed less than 70-foot frontages,'although they exceeded
the minimum 7200 square feet; that the proposed streets and cul-de-sacs were less than
the City of Anaheim standard dimensions, but were in conformance with the Orange County
hillside standards; and that the Staff recommendation was that because of the terrain
features in the area, the.proposed tract was adequately designed, and therefore approval '
would be recommended. ~
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange
County Planning Commission be urged to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 6422 on the
basis that the terrain features in this area indicated the tract was adequately designed,
although it did con£orm to the minimum lot fxon.tage;or,street;widths.andieul-de-sacs.
Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM N0. 4
Conditional Use Permit No. 927 - Consolidated Rock Pit. .
~~
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson presented data submitted to the Development Services
Departr~ent.from the City Eng!;_eer regarding the recommended amendments to Resolution
No. PC67-55, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 927, further noting that the City Council ,~+,'~
at their~public hearin9 continued consideration of subject petition for a rep,ort from the~ "
Engineering Division, as well as honoring a request of the ~~titioner for continuance in ` 1;~
order to meet with the Orange County Water District relative to negotiations foi future ;~
use of the property.
t,;~
<- ~;
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC67-143 and moved for its passage and adoption, ';~
seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to amend Resolution No. PC67-55, Condition No. 15, to '
require a 3-foot horizontal to 1-foot vertical slope ratio and a 110-foot setback from the
Metropolitan Water District line along the west property line, and a 1~-foot horizontal to ``"
1-foot vertical slope ratio on the north and east property lines, provided, however, that ~
said slopes shall begin 50 feet from the north property line and 50 feet from the westerly
edge of the right-of-way line of Richfield Road. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: CAMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer.
ITEM NOo 5
Conditional Use Permit No. 791 - Establish a private
recreational facility (Taketa, et a1-Robert Martin)
2535 West Lincoln Avenue - Request for clari~ication
as to the Commission's resolution.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson presented a plan for the proposed "Superslide" at the
recreational facility on West Lincoln Avenue, noting that there was a desired location
for the Superslide and an ultimate location; furthermore, landscaping required in the
parking area for the original recreational facility had never been provided, and the Staff
was desirous of knowing whether the Commission had intended to incorporate requiring land-
scaping in accordance with thP C-1 Site Development Standards for both the old and new
parking areas. '
The Commission again reviewed the plans and indicated that the location of the slide along
the Lincoln Avenue frontage was the one approved by the Commission's action, and that land-
scaping should be in accordance with the Site Development Standards of the C-1 Zone for
both the old and new parking areas.
~'n°x ~'~.`'~ `"~y'~ t~Y 1~,~i~`y~."F ~~~`~T.0`F E ~{' .e~-.~ ~' :v t~ i 3 !R r ~ ~ 9 . t w'~' e
1 y ~ ~ ~ ~ S t : I `~~ t ~ ` S~• T n
~.. ~ .~~:1 ~.,
.. ~~^ f~'.'~" ~~~~ ~~ ~ . . . . ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . _ '~_" "'_'~- _ _' si
O ~ ~ v ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING.COMMISSION, June 15, 1967 3496
ADJOURNMENT FOR DINNER - Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to adjourn for dinner.
Commissionex Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~
The meeting adjourned at 5:50 P.M. ~
" RECONVENE - Chair pro tem Herbst reconvened the meeting at 7:28 P.M.,
Commissioners Camp and Farano being absent.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald 'Lhompson advised the Commission that in conjunction with General
Plan'Amendment No. 96, the agent for the petitioner had requested a continuance of Condi-
, tional Use Permit No. 948 due to illness in the family, and the Commission may wish to
consider continuance of General Plan Amendment No. 96 to the meeting of July 6, 1967, to
~ be heard concurrently with Conditional Use Permit No. 948.
After discussion by the Commission, it was determined that because of the number of persons
present to hear both Items 13 and 14, e'vidence and the General Plan Amendment should be
presented.
~ GENERAL PLAN - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED EY T[-IE CITY PLANNING CAMMISSION, 204 East
AMENDMENT N0. 96 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, to consider art amendment to the
Anaheim General Plan in the general area bounded by South Street on
the north, Ball Road on the south, State College Boulevard on the west,
and Sunkist Street on the east.
Assistant Planner Charles Roberts presented General Plan Amendment No. 96 as follows:
I "The purpose of General Plan Amendment No. 96 is to examine the area between South
~i Street, Ball Road, State Colle9e Boulevard and Sunkist Street, and to determine
, whether the character of this area has changed to any appreciable degree since the
General Plan was adopted. This examination is primarily concerned with the question
of whether low-medium or medium density residential land uses are appropriate for a
portion of the study area at this time.
The following information has been prepared to aid the Planning Commission in evaluat-
ing the.present status of the Study Area. On the basis of the evaluation, the Planning
Coinmiesion may wish to either (1) reaffirm the existing land use policy for this area;
or (2) adopt an amendment to the General Plan which will guide future development in
this portion of the City.
SUMMARY:
Based upon evaluations made in this study relative to the land use objectives for the
"East Anaheim" area, existing development trends, the expressed desire of homeowners
in the area to retain a low density, single-family environment, and past actions by
both the Planning Commission and City Council on requests for multiple-family densi-
ties in this area, there is no indication that a change in the low density residential
land use policy is warranted at this time.
FINDINGS:
1. The study area as delineated in this repo:t is a part of the greater area commonly
referred to as "East Anaheim". The "East Anaheim" area has been designated on the
General Plan as an area predominantly low density residential in character, and
the majority of the development that has already taken place in that part of the
city falls within ~he low density framework. There are, of course, other designa-
tions within the area representing necessary land uses complementary to the resi-
dential community; namzlye schools, parks, and necessary commercial facilities.
2. Public and "quasi" public land use designations within the study area as outlined
above,include: a) one neighborhood park; b) two elementary schools; c) a junior •
high school; d) a senior high school; and e) a neighborhood shopping center.
After excluding th•~se designations, it will be noted that the majority of the
remaining area is projected fo•r low density residential land uses, consistent
with the overall l~~d use policy for "East Anaheim". The one exception to the
low~density projec~tion is the low-medium density residential designation north-
easterly of the in,tersection of Ball Road and State College Boulevard.
3. General Plan desigi~ations for the acreage abutting the study area include: a) north
and east - low density residential; b) south - general industrial; and c) west -
low density residential with some general industrial.
Rg Y y''T~` ri~~, ~ tY' r ~ i~"~` ~', t r;. f 4 {.,n" 7~i r V1
~ I
~ . ~
. .. ~ ~ . 7'~ .
MINUTES, CITY PLANNIN3 COMMISSION, June 19, 1967 3497
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 96 (Continued)
4. Land uses presently existing within the study area include: a) South Junior High
School on the south side of South Street; b) a church at the southwest corner of
South and Sunkist Streets; c) an elementary school adjacent to the junior high
school; d) Katella High School on the south side of Wagner Avenue; e) an elementary
school adjacent to the high school; f) a neighborhood shopping center at the north-
east corner of Ball Road and State Col]ege Boulevard; g) a multiple-family develop-
ment to the north and east of the shopping center; and h) the remaining area is
either developed in single-family subdivisions or is undeveloped agricultural acreage.
5. Land uses adjacent to the study area include: a) north - a service station, single-
family subdivisions, and a church; b) east - single-family subdivisions, a church,
and vacant agricultural land; c) south - a service station, fire station, and un-
developed agricultural land; and d) west - Hoysen Park, single-family subdivisions,
a service station, a small shopping center, and vacant land.
6. During the time since the General Plan was adopted, there have been a number of
requests for higher density residential zoning on parcels within the study area.
Each request was met with strong opposition not only from homeowners within the
area, but from the Planning Commission and City Council as well. In each case,
the point was emphasized that this portion of Anaheim has been reserved as a
single-family area, and the requests for higher residential densities were not
in keeping with this policyo The following list summarizes the final action taken
on each of the above-mentioned requests: ~~
Reclassification Location Action
I' 62-63-99 (RA to R-3) Southwest corner of South and Sunkist Denied 5-14-63
Streets
i 63-64-115 (RA to R-3) South side of South Street, west of Denied 5-11-64
' South Junior High School
~ 64-65-18 (RA to R-2) South side of South Street, west of Denied 10-27-64
~ South Junior High School •
66-67-35 .(RA to R-3) South side of South Street, east of Denied 12-20-66
State College Boulevard ~
An interpretation of the action taken on each of the above requests added to the ~
i ~character of the development that has taken place within the area to date would
' seem to lead to the conclusion that the General Plan presently outlines the desired
land use policy for this part of the "East Anaheim" area.
ALTERNATIVES:
Six exhibits have been prepared as possible alternatives to what is presently reflected
on the General Plan. Each of these alternatives considers three aspects: (1) the
existing policies of low density development; (2) possible low-medium development; and
(3) possible medium density development. The assumption has been made that a change in
policy regarding the vacant properties to the north of Wagner Avenue could affect all
the vacant properties in the area of State College Boulevard and Wagner Avenue.
Exhibit A proposes low-medium density covering an area of approximately 30 acres north
of Wagner Avenue and east of State College Boulevard. This type of proposal
would permit multiple-family dwellings to a maximum of 18 units per net
residential acre.
Exhibit B proposes medium density residential in the same location described in
Exhibit A, A maximum of 36 dwelling units per net residential acre would
be permitted in this case.
Exhibit C proposes low-medium density residential for the aiea described in Exhibits
A and B, plus approximately 10 additional acres located at the northeast
corner of State College Boulevard and Wagner Avenue. The additional acreage
has been included under the assumption that if multiple-family densities are
deemed appropriate for the site included in Exhibits A and B, then this same
land use density would probably be appropriate for the additional parcel
shown under Exhibit C. This type of proposal would permit multiple-family
• dwellings to a maximum of 18 units per net residential acre.
Y.~ ~s ~,,~ " r~~~Y~~`'. ~~'trn +~ ~,~f=~~~+~`+~~-0"eGri~, ^;~~ ,~~a -~~tt ~nNs'~qq~y,~~s-~ +;" ~~r~~^^~ii 7ic 'q j `.:.~...3~ ."'.x c-~~
~P . ~~` r `' ~.. z
. V ~
~ .
3498
MINUTES, CITY PLANNIAIG COMMISSION,June 19, 1967
GENERAL PLAN AMHNDMENT N0. 96 (Continued)
Exhibit_D proposes meod13fi awellingrunitsnperlnetrreside tialracreswouhd be permitted
A maximum
by Code.
Exhibit E• takes intoan er1Avenue nearltheeintersection of StatetCollegehBoulevardh
sides of W 9
It includes the SiOeacresclocatednaththe southeastlcorner ofcWagneraAvenue
of approximately
and State Colleseto~almaximum of118tunitsfper~netaresident almacreultiple-
family dwelling
Exh_ibit F reflects med~u~m.deAsmaximumlofn36adwelling un tslpertnet residentialnacre .
Exhibit E ab Code.
would be permitted by
IMPLICATIONS ON ELEMENTS OF THE GENERAL PLAN: ~
Statements made under ecal tablee(TableWl)9on~filehindtheSDevelopment ServicescDepartment •
drawn from the statisti
office:
SCHOOLc ~~n~facilBties as arresultpof~thelincreasededensities proposedased burden
on edu
ppRK LpNpS: Projections indicate it would be necessary to acquire up to an additional
3.5 acres of park lands if densities are increased.
CIRCU~ LATI~Nssiblehatheeseparation~ofemultipleyfamilye ndtsinglenfamilyttrafficej
where P
If multiple-family land uses were approved north of Wagner Avenue and east of State
College Boulevard, Vermont and Oshkosh Avenueshl~hltraffio count whichnaccompaniesir
present locations. Because of the relatively 9
multiple-family land uses, the somewhat limited access to most of the property under
consideration, and the location of subject properties adjacent to Katella High School,
heavy traffic congestion along Wagner Avenue could be expected during certain periods
of the day.
Under Exhibit F of Table 1, projections indicate that approximately 1360 multiple-family
dwellin9 units could be constructad Toximately 135600cvehicle5tripe per day would ben
trips per day per dwellin9 unit, pp
introduced familthlandruses)~mpDirect access tohStatetCollege Boulevardawouldebe undesire
for single Y the multiple-family land use.
able because of the traffic volumes generated by
CONC~I~N °
Consideration of the facts relative to the development of property within the study area
indicates there is little evidence to substantiate amending present land use policies to
include multiple-family land uses.
In the evenasthresentlylreflected onSthenGeneral1Pla ,~consideration shouldebe givennto
use policy P
the actual physical development of the remaining vacant parcels in the "East Anaheim
the number of streets within
area. The need for this consideration is evidenced by
developed subdivisions that "stub" into large vacant parcels.
In 1962 the Plannin9 Commission and City Council considered Area Development Plan Noarea.
which provided a feasible circulation pattern for the vacant lands within the stu y
covering the properi:y at the northeast
p portion of ADP No. 45 (alternate P1an No. 2,
corner of Baen developedStbut there9are~stillra,numberdoftlarge vacant parcelscant land
has since be and adopt
The Planning Commission may wish to direct the Staff to update ADP No. 45,
design criteria including possible street patterns, vehicular and pedestrian accessways
to e~headiscouragementroftresidentiallfront onhdevelopment~alongpthecarterialehighwaysern-
ing
The ADP would then serve as a helpful tool for the future development of the area.'
n r.? t r ~/ rr ~~ n ~+, ; ^I ~ j e
h:~ "
~
V
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 19, 1967
GENERAL PLAI3 AMENDMENT N0. 96 (Continued)
~
3499 ~ .
Mro Herman Lentz, 930 South State College Boulevard, appeared before the Commission, noting
that he had two parcels immediately east of State College Boulevard and south of Wagner
Street and requesting claxification on the proposed amendment since he was not aware of a
request for multiple-family residential development being considered by the City.
Mr. Roberts then noted that the General Plan projected a maximum of 7 units per net residen-
tial acre for the property under consideratio,n in the General Plan Amendment, and the sub-
sequent petition for a trailer park proposed a higher density; therefore, it was necessary
to consider any possible implications if the Commission considered the trailer park favorably
since said trailer park had ahigher density than the General Plan indicated, and the policy
of the Anaheim Gene:al Plan stated that low=medium density indicated a maximum of 18 units
and medium density indicated a maximum of 36 units per net residential acre.
Mr. Lentz then stated he had been around the City for a number of years and was not aware
of the General Plan implications; that his understanding was the~mobile home park projected
8~- units per acre, and this would be less than the 18 units - however, he was still very
vague on the General Plan implicatione.
The Commission then attempted to explain that these were alternatives to consider if the
request for a trailer park was granted.
Mr. Lentz then noted that a master plan had been adopted for that general area when a
single-family subdivision went in north of Wagner Avenue; that this plan showed the flow
of traffic with through streets from north to south between Wagner Avenue and South Street,
as well as streets having access to the school and park; that st~bject property had two streets
stubbing into it - however, later development of the vacant parcels made them a self-contained
subdivision and the master plan was never followed; therefore, he could see no reason for
consideration of a General Plan Amendment for the proposed trailer park since this master
plan had never been consulted in subsequent developments.
Mr. Lentz then inquired what were the plans~for the intersection of State College Boulevard
and Wagner Avenue; that with removal of the trees, many of the property owners in the area
opposed,; stating that the removal of the trees had reduced the value of thei.r properties -
however, if they were desirous of having trees, this could be done by planting their own
trees on their properties; and that since they had never requested any zone change for their
properties, he could not understand why the General Plan Amendment was considered for their
properties.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the density of the proposed
trailer park was 11.5 units per net residential acre; furthermore, the plan to which
Mr. Lentz referred was an Area Development Plan No. 45, which indicated the feasible street
patterns for all the properties in the area - many of them have not actually developed in
accordance with this plan, but they have developed with a street pattern which was acceptable
to the City. Furthermore, the trailer park would not fit in with the Tow_density category
because of this 11.5 units per net residential acre, which fell within the low-medium category
and was the zoning action to be considered by the Commission following the General Plan
Amendment; therefore, if the trailer park was considered favorably, this would establish a
trend or precedent for higher density in the area, and this was basically the reason for the
General Plan Amendment - to determine what the effect would be on the undeveloped parcels,
and this, then, would be evidence the Commission would have to consider since the implica-
tions of the proposed trailer park projected higher than the low density as depicted on the
General Plan.
Mr. Ralph Ramesdell, 2016 Mauerhan Place, appeared before the Commission and noted that when
he and his neighbor's had purchased their homes the Anaheim General Plan was presented to them, '
which inc;icated all the proposed locations of schools, shopping centers, and parks, together
with the fact that the adjoining property was projected for low density residential develop- ,
ment, and the property values were reasonably priced - thus, if any change to the General Plan
was considered, this could affect the values of all properties in that area considerably.
Considerable discussion was t'~en held by the Commission relative to consideration of the
General Plan, and the fact that the agent for the petitioner had requested continuance of
Conditional Use Permit No. 948 for a trailer park. ,
Commissioner Rowland then stated that since previous requests for cantinuances had been
honored by the Commission, whether or not they were considered in conjunction with the
General Plan, the Commission was bound to honor this request since the agent for the peti-
tioner had a very legitimate reason for requesting continuance, and actions taken on the
General Plan Amendment should be deferred until all evidence was submitted by the agent for ~
the petitioner. ~
{~. a r _ ~'-e
~~ti:~'. . . ..
- ~
'~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNiING CAMMISSION, June 19, 1967
GENERAL PLAN AMEN~MENT N0. 96 (Continued)
Mr. Robert Irino, 2430 Oshkosh Avenue, appeared in opposition and stated that although a
request for continuance had.been filed with the Commission, the owners of the property
were present in the Council Chamber, and since so much opposition was present also, the
Commission should consider the pei:ition.
Mr. Thompson advised the Commission and the opposition that the owners of the trailer park
were not present in.the Council Chamber; however, owners of..properties.urider:consideration
of,the'General Plan were present in the Council Chamber.
Mr. Ralph Biester, 2240 Olmstead Way, appeared in opposition and stated it had been a huye
project to get all the people interested in the area to attend the Commission meeting, many
having to make arrangements for babysitters in order to be present, and it was'his opinion
• this was one way of wearing down the public so that a heavier use might be approved, but
in fairness to all of the property owners in the area, the Commission should make some
decision this evening.
Chairman pro tem Herbst advised the opposition that it was only fair to hear both the pros
and cons on the proposed trailer park, and if the Commission considered only one side, this
would be unfair to the petitioner who had filed the petition and had paid his money for
consideration.
.i .
~~~ ~
~ ~'
Commissioner Gauer noted that since the Commission had initiated the General Plan Amendment,
and no further requests had been asked for continuance of said amendment, he was desirous of
having a ruling from Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts relative to continuance or considera-
tion.
Mr. Roberts stated that the Commission was not obligated to continue the General:Plan Amend-
ment; however, the Commission might wish to consider continuance since the General Plan
Amendment was so closely related to the zoning action.
Mr. Joseph Smedley, 2109 East South Street, appeared before the Commission and inquired
what would happen to South Street if the General Plan Amendment was adopted, and how would
it affect the vacant parcels along South Street - would these properties remain in their
Tow density designation, since no mention had been made of South Str.eet.
Commissioner Rowland advised the opposition that the General Plan Amendment as presented to
the Commission indicated that anything happening in this General Plan Amendment would also
affect South Street.
Mr. Smedley further noted that any increase in density along South Street would greatly +
increase the traffic problem which already existed, and if any change was considered favor- !
ably, he would be firmly opposed to any approval of the General Plan Amendment.
Mr. Thompson further noted for the opposition to the trailer park that said trailer park
could be built if the density were reduced to a maximum of 7 units per net residential acre,
without any consideration of the General Plan Amendment.
Further discussion was held between the Commission and the opposition relative to the
continuance.
Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to continue General Plan Amendment No. 96 and Petition
for Conditional Use Permit No: 948 (as ~requested By'.the. agent.'for the. petitiorier.).rto:.the ~
meeting of July 6, 1967, to be scheduled for the evening meeting. Commissioner Gauer seconded:
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 6
RECAMMENDATIONS Abandonment of Rio Vista Street from Wagner Avenue southerly. :
(Continued) '
Associate Planner Marvin Krieger noted that a request had been received by the City Council ~
relative to the abandonment of Rio Vista Street southerly of Wagner Avenue, and all data ~
presented:at.the;previous Commission meeting was.reviewed in the Report to the Commission.
Mrs. Ann Madison, representing Mr. Henry Basse, appeared before the Commission and noted
that the request for abandonment had been filed with the City Engineer November 11, 1966,
and that at the time the matter was considered at the mee~ing of May 22, it had been post-
poned to allow time for the Commissioners to inspect the property. ;
~
~ ~:.
~ ~ _,,\
~
3500
~
- ~.~_
4 , _ `/.. (~.
MINU?ES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 19, 1967 3501
REPORTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 6 (Continued)
Commissioner Rowland noted that the requested abandonment was primarily an economic
consideretion; however, at the time of the adoption of the General Plan~ the extension
of Rio Vista Street to Ball Road was deemed necessary to provide adequate circulation.
of.the east Anaheim area. Further, it appeared obvious that the ultimate extension of
Rio Vista Street to Ba11 Road would occur at such time as the area was completely developed
and the nortkirsouth circulation was needed.- He also stated he felt if.the City considered
: endangering this circulation necessity, it would be very shortsighted, and that since no
evidence had been submitted to warrant consideration of an amendment to the General Plan,
it was his opinion that the Commission should recommend to the City Council that the
dedicated right-of-way be preserved for the ultimate extension of Rio Vista Street southerly
to Ball Road.
Commissioner Gauer noted that subject property had been dedicated for a number of years
prior to ownership by Mr. Basse, and it was his opinion that the request for abandonment
should be disallowed in order that adequate north-south circulation be provided to the
proposed regional park.
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the request
for the abandonment of the existing 60 feet of right-of-way for Rio Vista Street southerly
of Wagner Avenue be disallowed on the basis that it was necessary to provide a north=south
artery connecting Ball Road with the homes east of the.proposed Orange Freeway as well as
to provide access to the proposed regional park. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Mungall
offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Allred
seconded the motion. MOTIUN CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 8:20 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
~/y~ ~~ ~~tc~
ANN KREBS, Secretaiy
Anaheim Gity Planning Commission
~